How Many More Fibbers Are In The Cabinet?

Wyllow’s incorrect contribution 🤣🤣🤣🤣
then it means what Mollygo asked, which was should all MP's disclose all spent convictions? Or some? which ones?

Not me who said that.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

This?

🤣🤣🤣🤣

FriedGreenTomatoes2

This?

😂😂😂😂😂

This?

As things stand MP's do not have to disclose spent convictions.

Except of course the guidelines are that you can't be an MP with a prison sentence of 12 months plus.

It might be good idea for MP's to have to pass DB checks as they are working with people.

As far as I can see the only body that could change the rules is the Electoral Commission and it would need a completely different change in role and policy to start to say for example "no MP with any fraud conviction can ever take office" (or for any other offence - DUI? .) I tend to think the degree of an offence rather than an absolute ban.

This is really enjoyable.

What Casdon decided that I meant is now being quoted as what I said.

Her words
Casdon
^So in your opinion, if I understand you correctly Mollygo, no MP should ever be appointed as a minister if they have a previous spent conviction, whatever it is for?
My words
Only if that’s how you read it.
I didn’t say that.

Her words
but then it means what Mollygo asked, which was should all MP's disclose all spent convictions.

Where did I ask that?

Casdon suggested @13.00 that maybe rules should be different for MPs

Not my idea.

I said
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.
Casdon asked
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?

I responded
I don’t have an answer either, but IMO fraud and government should be one and any other crime that questions the honour, credibility or truthfulness of the people in charge of the country.

Maybe you agree with what Casdon incorrectly accuses me of saying, but those reflect her ideas, not mine. I didn’t say them.
The crimes I do think might bar people taking office are those I outlined above.

You are at liberty to think those crimes are compatible with governing the country, but I don’t.

Galaxy

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 no longer comment on political threads, but will say that it was the JD debacle that made me leave the LP. I stayed with them despite the trans nonsense, but that was the final straw. I am watching Majority with interest.

Freya5

Wyllow3

That would bring up interesting issues, remember Suella Braverman and Speeding offences?

"Suella Braverman: what are the allegations over her speeding fine?
This article is more than 1 year old
Home secretary allegedly asked civil servants for help after being caught speeding. Did she breach the ministerial code?"

www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/21/suella-braverman-what-are-allegations-speeding-fine-explainer

The article actually discusses far more than the one offence, its asks questions about the ministerial code, but about offences committed whilst in office, not spent convictions.

Typical, that was discussed at the time. Braverman is not the issue here, Haigh is. Why all the excuses for her, she pleaded guilty. Funny her pleading guilty got her off. Usually get three years in jail.

Because the the offence was judged to be so trivial of course

No political shenanigans, Haigh was employed by Aviva at the time

If you read upthread you'll see why I included the article on Braverman, two fold - not to try and say "ner ner you did it too"

but to throw light on the question of issues arising when the law is broken - or has been on the past.

Also what several posters have raised already, which is what are the actual codes relating to non violent and non custodial spent convictions, and who should declare what to whom.

If you read upthread there are very few guidelines re MP's and spent convictions, its not clear that Haigh broke any,

It seems to be more a question of ethics than law

On the basis of ethics I think she should have declared it because I like transparency and it feels proper to me.

but then it means what Mollygo asked, which was should all MP's disclose all spent convictions? Or some? which ones? Should MP's be subject to DB checks?

Oreo

Very sensible advice.

We should accept that all MPs might cock up and just treat them all equally and accordingly.

MayBee70

It was appalling the way that P&O treated their workers. They deserved the criticism ( especially as the electorate have such short memories when it comes to some things…but not others).But am I right in thinking that Labour are bringing in legislation to prevent companies doing that in the future?

I believe it is some of the new workers rights legislation

Wyllow3

That would bring up interesting issues, remember Suella Braverman and Speeding offences?

"Suella Braverman: what are the allegations over her speeding fine?
This article is more than 1 year old
Home secretary allegedly asked civil servants for help after being caught speeding. Did she breach the ministerial code?"

www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/21/suella-braverman-what-are-allegations-speeding-fine-explainer

The article actually discusses far more than the one offence, its asks questions about the ministerial code, but about offences committed whilst in office, not spent convictions.

Typical, that was discussed at the time. Braverman is not the issue here, Haigh is. Why all the excuses for her, she pleaded guilty. Funny her pleading guilty got her off. Usually get three years in jail.

It was appalling the way that P&O treated their workers. They deserved the criticism ( especially as the electorate have such short memories when it comes to some things…but not others).But am I right in thinking that Labour are bringing in legislation to prevent companies doing that in the future?

MaizieD

Upset P & O?

They turned up at the conference (or whatever they called it). I don't see P & O being particularly upset if there is some profit in prospect. They knew that Starmer wasn't critical of what they did.

P and O directors said they were upset by the language used about them.Fortunately business heads got the better of emotional heads but MPs and Ministers have to be more diplomatic than Haigh was prepared to be and even if said when in Opposition it still counts as Lammy may yet find out with Donald Trump.

Wyllow3

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...

Exactly.
Labour supporters, just like Conservative supporters have to realise that their chosen political parties and MPs will both make mistakes and do bad or unwise things.When they do, don’t be tempted to try and airbrush them out just accept it.

Upset P & O?

They turned up at the conference (or whatever they called it). I don't see P & O being particularly upset if there is some profit in prospect. They knew that Starmer wasn't critical of what they did.

Was she pushed or did she fall? Not exactly "On Script" with the Labour Government. Gave the train-drivers their 15%; upset P&O; wanting more from the Treasury for her Department,
It sounds as though she was falling before the push of current scandal with the "lost" mobiles.

Casdon

So in your opinion, if I understand you correctly Mollygo, no MP should ever be appointed as a minister if they have a previous spent conviction, whatever it is for?

Only if that’s how you read it. I didn’t say that.

That would bring up interesting issues, remember Suella Braverman and Speeding offences?

"Suella Braverman: what are the allegations over her speeding fine?
This article is more than 1 year old
Home secretary allegedly asked civil servants for help after being caught speeding. Did she breach the ministerial code?"

www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/21/suella-braverman-what-are-allegations-speeding-fine-explainer

The article actually discusses far more than the one offence, its asks questions about the ministerial code, but about offences committed whilst in office, not spent convictions.

So in your opinion, if I understand you correctly Mollygo, no MP should ever be appointed as a minister if they have a previous spent conviction, whatever it is for?

Excuses!

"There were enough questions about credibility and truthfulness under BJ which were certainly reasons for not appointing him again, no matter how many years had elapsed"

Yes, but this was all the court of public opinion, or actual criminal offences whilst in power not MP rules!

It seems to me its the court of public opinion or internal Party guidelines in question here and we can't know the latter without more information.

^ 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.^

I don’t have an answer either, but IMO fraud and government should be one and any other crime that questions the honour, credibility or truthfulness of the people in charge of the country.
The wisdom of her appointment, was particularly strange when you consider KS’s previous job and the intense public interest in all matters of the government ministers.

There were enough questions about credibility and truthfulness under BJ which were certainly reasons for not appointing him again, no matter how many years had elapsed.
I can’t do the Oh well hers was only a small thing compared with . . . It should be either always wrong, or never wrong.

I cant actually find any guidelines on disclosing spent convictions for MP's except the prison sentence disqualification.

Casdon

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?

That is indeed the relevant question Casdon.

Electoral Commission guidelines are very vague indeed unless an MP/prospective MP has "served time", is bankrupt, or has attacked another candidate. (See. "disqualifications" under the Electoral Commission website).