Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Take your pick, it was either wilful of absolutely incompetent.

Whose 'version' is this, ally. Do you think you could provide a link so we can all judge of its reliability?

If two MPs can have read the NAO report which was published 13 days before they asked their questions why hadn't the Minister, whose job it is to be fully aware of and conversant with the detail of official reports on their departments, read it and mastered its contents? Very simple question. Very hard to whitewash I think.

GillT there is another version which has been put forward all day. This is that there is more to come out and that she did not have the information before making her speech in Parliament. Hence she has not then deliberately mislead Parliament, as it seems the Speaker agrees. She has apologised and corrected, that is the end of it. Unless something else comes to the fore.

If she as granny activist says is found to be incompetent, or deliberately changed the information then that is another matter. But right now, that is not considered to be the case.

I'm really not sure what 'facts' we're meant to be waiting for.

This was a very important report and the two MPs, who both asked her questions about the same point, actually had read the report. So it's not as though it wasn't available for McVey to have read. It had been signed off by her department thirteen days before she told her lies on 21st June. She should have had it off by heart...

Not only did she lie to both of them about its contents, she also managed to repeat the lie, with different wording, in her 'apology'. I posted the clips earlier, you can all see them.

This is indefensible.

Thank you to those of you who have replied to my earlier question.

ga there’s really no point in asking that question - the supporters of the Government on GN do not believe that any Tory minister can be either incompetent nor deliberately mislead parliament. They are never prepared to criticise the Government and are now refusing to take the NAO letter as evidence of her appalling behaviour.

grannyactivist. Thank you for summing up so succinctly. She is either a liar or an incompetent. Both make her unfit for ministerial office.

Yes, mostly I realise that doesn’t fit with your hang em high mentality, but nevertheless, it’s the better course.

ga I have already said that she may well be incompetent, and in fact I think there is more of that around ( in all political parties) than we would hope for.
If it was deliberate then that should be obvious, when looked into fully not trial by fora though!

Wow! Who would have thought it lemongrove?

No mostly I don’t condone anything.
I tend to let those who know all the actual facts ( nobody on a forum!) decide what has happened, and then apply whatever punishment is appropriate.

So you too lemongrove condone a Government Minister misleading Parliament when it was quite clear that she was either totally incompetent or deliberately lying.
Lack of honesty and integrity don’t matter in Government anymore?

Can those people who believe that Esther McVey has not deliberately misled parliament agree that she is then incompetent? And, if not, how do they explain her complete misunderstanding of the situation as put to her on several occasions by the NAO?
This is a genuine question and I would appreciate the chance to understand what people's thoughts are on the matter.

grannyactivist, I agree on both points you make, however that is not the point I am making. If you check out the thread.

I must say I become uneasy though, when posters who don’t have all the facts ( and none of us do ) call for resignations.
If she has done wrong and it is a resigning matter, then that is what will happen.If not, then she won’t.As the Speaker has accepted the apology on behalf of The House, it looks unlikely that she will be forced to resign.If she chooses to resign then that’s different.
Yes, thank you mostly I have read the whole thread.

Maw I really can't see this any other way than I've said. To be so incompetent as to misunderstand and misrepresent the crux of this matter that is costing lives is to me extremely worrying; every bit as much as if there was blatant lying. I work with people whose lives are so affected by this particular matter that my sympathies are all with them and they deserve so much better than this government minister can deliver.

Lemongrove you have put plainly the point that I have clearly not been able to get over. It seems that Esther McVey is the latest target being used to 'prove' a fallacious argument, about the Government.

My opinion exactly ga only you put it so much better!

If Esther McVey didn’t read the NAO report properly then she is grossly incompetent or negligent and she should resign. People in this country are literally dying due to the failures of the UC roll-out and we should have confidence that government ministers are doing their job proficiently.
If, on the other hand, Esther McVey did read the report properly then she knowingly misled parliament and she should resign.

MaizieD definitely not optional, And it is Tunbridge Wells (Tonbridge, also in Kent, another place altogether. )
Always fascinated by idiomatic usage and phrases such as “the man on the Clapham omnibus” I wondered if you and Jura2 aa well (as a linguist) would be interested in the origin of the phrase.

The phrase Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells is a generic name used in the United Kingdom for a person, usually with strongly conservative political views, who writes letters to newspapers or the BBC in a tone of moral outrage

It is not a "string 'em up" mentality to feel that a minister who completely altered the content and tone of a report when responding to questions re UC is not fit to continue in her position.

What I think is appalling is that some people are representing this as political manoeuvring and an unfair attack on McVey. It certainly is not. The seriousness of what she did should have met with a very serious response.

Have you actually read the thread lemongrove?

Hahaha * lemon* I note you follow that when it’s something Labour related.

It’s always better not to jump in too early before all the facts are fully known ( however that seems to be the done thing on Gransnet....shoot first and ask questions afterwards.)?
There are parliamentary protocols when MP’s are deemed to have done something wrong, and in this case, as The Speaker has accepted her apology, it seems that is that.
For those who dislike this particular government, I can see this would be a disappointment, no hanging today!

Gosh the Speaker is always right - who knew? I guess if this government announced a policy of the murder of first borns then Ally would post that is was good news for second borns?