How Many More Fibbers Are In The Cabinet?

There is no evidence yet, that’s why I said I suspect rather than I know Grantanow?

Casdon

I suspect all the MPs had been told when parliament reformed in July that they needed to register directly their previous convictions, and as she failed to do so, a consistent approach was the only option available to him. Whatever people think about Starmer, he seems to be playing a straight bat on misdemeanours.

You may 'suspect' it but where is your evidence?

Mollygo

^There doesn’t seem any logic in spent convictions being classed as spent if they haunt peoples careers for the rest of their lives. Maybe the rules should be different for MPs compared with the rest of the population?^
There are some careers and some crimes that, spent or not, are incompatible with each other. Sexual crimes and working with children, for example or fraud and government or the police force, you could probably add to the list.
We aren’t in the US, when you can elect a felon to be in charge.

The question is, is politics one of those professions mollygo, and what level and type of misdemeanour or conviction would count as barring people from taking office? Genuine question, I don’t pretend to have an answer. One example where it is grey might be, drunk and disorderly conviction aged 18?

There doesn’t seem any logic in spent convictions being classed as spent if they haunt peoples careers for the rest of their lives. Maybe the rules should be different for MPs compared with the rest of the population?
There are some careers and some crimes that, spent or not, are incompatible with each other. Sexual crimes and working with children, for example or fraud and government or the police force, you could probably add to the list.
We aren’t in the US, when you can elect a felon to be in charge.

Maybe the rules should be different for MPs compared with the rest of the population? (*Casdon*)

And thats the issue here. Public (or should I say press) perception. Nothing legally or formally wrong with the appointment, its all in the perception of it.

I’ve been thinking about your post NotSpaghetti, and I think you’re right, there is no easy way, is there? There doesn’t seem any logic in spent convictions being classed as spent if they haunt peoples careers for the rest of their lives. Maybe the rules should be different for MPs compared with the rest of the population?

MaizieD
He knew the rules and he knew about the conviction. So why did he appoint her?

He also knew it was likely to come up again when she was given a cabinet post.

MaizieD

LizzieDrip

I agree with your posts Casdon and Maybee.

If Louise Haigh hasn’t followed parliamentary rules to the letter KS won’t let it go - particularly from a member of the cabinet.

And, as you say Maybee, he’s dammed if he does and damned if he doesn’t. I expect that now🤷‍♀️

He knew the rules and he knew about the conviction. So why did he appoint her?

I can think of two scenarios, either she broke the rules by not reporting it formally, or there is more that we don’t know about the detail of what she did yet, which came to Starmer’s attention later that hadn’t been part of her original discussion with him, as LizzieDrip heard.

LizzieDrip

I agree with your posts Casdon and Maybee.

If Louise Haigh hasn’t followed parliamentary rules to the letter KS won’t let it go - particularly from a member of the cabinet.

And, as you say Maybee, he’s dammed if he does and damned if he doesn’t. I expect that now🤷‍♀️

He knew the rules and he knew about the conviction. So why did he appoint her?

Sack the pair of them, , they were quick enough to judge others, you don't trust a liar, is it too much too ask for a government to have integrity and trust.

One minute he’s accused of being weak, the next he’s accused of being ruthless.

Well, he is ruthless, MayBee.

I agree with your posts Casdon and Maybee.

If Louise Haigh hasn’t followed parliamentary rules to the letter KS won’t let it go - particularly from a member of the cabinet.

And, as you say Maybee, he’s dammed if he does and damned if he doesn’t. I expect that now🤷‍♀️

Great idea, Casdon why not have a list of spent convictions.... but a second thought is maybe not because they are actually "spent".
It's a tough one really.

Years ago I worked with ex-offenders and I was always very aware that even if they were model citizens their crimes would sit on their records and could prevent them doing things they might well be good at.

Some had truly grown and developed or had committed crimes because of drug addiction "needs" ("white collar" fraud or shoplifting for example) and now were clean and maintaining this through regular meetings etc.

I would be wary of someone who had actually been convicted of abuse though. It's so hard to get a conviction I know that I'd be forever wary.
Not very generous of me, I know.

LizzieDrip if it came down to it and we closely examined the pasts of all our MP's I daresay a great deal would come out.

In terms of who we, as GN posters support politically, hitting out at the opposition as a whole in one shape or form via individual MP's there is always the dangers of glass houses and throwing stones...

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Indeed Galaxy.

This comes to mind:
Maya Angelou said, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. People know themselves much better than you do".

I truly love Maya Angelou! A very inspiring, brave and forthright lady.

I agree we are all getting to know Starmer, I’m feeling whatever he does or speaks, he’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t, bit like most of his cabinet.

For me, the jury’s still out and I live in hope.

Unlike some I do remember the last 14 years of the outgoing govt.

MaizieD

^I don't personally see political shenanigans behind no 10's advice to resign (ie was she too left wing or whatever): her performance as Transport Secretary was more than adequate. -but she should have declared it-^

I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but I have found Starmer so absolutely baffling for quite a long time. A human rights lawyer, justly famed for the McDonalds libel case. What has happened over the years?

I know that all is not sweetness and light in any political party but I hadn't expected so much brutality in Labour leadership.

I'm getting the feeling that this McSweeney guy is another Dominic Cummings...

But Maizie, the media storm had she not stepped down?

As Casdon suggests...

We are putting Starmer in a no win situation, if she had kept on then it would have been "Starmer ignores"..corruption in cabinet, blah blah

Grantanow yes I would have liked her to stay but she remains an MP.

Now she has stepped down its "brutal Starmer". And yes goodness knows he had to be tough when he was dealing with anti-semitism, which we can hardly condone.

Just listened to an interesting perspective on LBC, from a former head of comms to Cameron. His take on it (I’m paraphrasing):

There’s more to the Louise Haigh issue that No 10 knows but the press doesn’t (yet).

Therefore she’s been asked to resign now, rather than KS / Labour MPs spending a week defending her, only for KS to have to sack her anyway.

He gave an example of something similar under Cameron and, of course, we all remember Tory MPs under BJ defending all sorts of crap stuff - only to have to change their stories when more detail came out. Not a good look!

I suppose in fairness we are only just ‘getting to know’ Starmer.

Indeed Galaxy.

This comes to mind:
Maya Angelou said, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. People know themselves much better than you do".

Casdon

I suspect all the MPs had been told when parliament reformed in July that they needed to register directly their previous convictions, and as she failed to do so, a consistent approach was the only option available to him. Whatever people think about Starmer, he seems to be playing a straight bat on misdemeanours.

Precisely. Seems to me that many people would have criticised him no matter how he dealt with the situation. One minute he’s accused of being weak, the next he’s accused of being ruthless.

Or McSwinney if not Swinney. Gets confusing.

I suspect all the MPs had been told when parliament reformed in July that they needed to register directly their previous convictions, and as she failed to do so, a consistent approach was the only option available to him. Whatever people think about Starmer, he seems to be playing a straight bat on misdemeanours.

It is his authoritarian approach that has flawed me. And the left did try to tell us. I think it is a reminder never to ignore/excuse things that go against your own moral code, the Jamie Driscoll debacle for example made me deeply uncomfortable at the time.

I'm disappointed Starmer did not require her to remain in post. It was a spent conviction with an absolute discharge. Starmer needs to get some more backbone.

I don't personally see political shenanigans behind no 10's advice to resign (ie was she too left wing or whatever): her performance as Transport Secretary was more than adequate. -but she should have declared it-

I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but I have found Starmer so absolutely baffling for quite a long time. A human rights lawyer, justly famed for the McDonalds libel case. What has happened over the years?

I know that all is not sweetness and light in any political party but I hadn't expected so much brutality in Labour leadership.

I'm getting the feeling that this McSweeney guy is another Dominic Cummings...