Thoughts on a scandal
It is essential that all politicians of all parties should act with the highest standards of integrity and probity, and be seen to do so.
Sadly there have been some people in all political parties who have failed to do so and each party has a responsibility to do something about it, espeically with regard to their own members.
It is unacceptable that the impression has been created that MPs can get away with things which would result in anyone else gong to jail. Of course five MPs (all Labour) actually have gone to prison over fraudulent expenses claims. So should anyone else, of whatever party, who commits a crime for which someone who is not a politician would have been jailed.
Given the need to avoid creating the impression that the political class thnks it is above the rules, I thought it was right that Maria Miller resigned, and I am pleased that she is giving her pay-off to charity.
However, I have a question for those journalists and Labour politicians who are accusing David Cameron of an error of judgement in not throwing her to the wolves at the first sign of trouble.
Were you also one of those who criticised him for not immediately sacking Andrew Mitchell when he was accused of calling police oficers "plebs" ?
Or were you one of those who subsequently criticised David Cameron for accepting Mitchell's resignation?
That would be after Michael Crick demonstrated that the only published account of what happened at the Downing Street gates critical of Andrew Mitchell which is consistent with the evidence in the public domain is what Mitchell himself admitted to and apologised for, and also that some police officers - one of whom has subsequently been convicted of this offence and given a prison sentence for it, another dismissed for gross misconduct - had lied in an attempt to discredit Mitchell.
Sometimes there is smoke without fire, and even when the right decision is that one of your colleagues should go it is not necessary a mistake to take some time to think about whether sacking them is the right thing to do, or a miscarriage of justice, before taking the decision.
I was most amused by a piece in the Telegraph by Dan Hodges, titled "Labour's response to Maria Miller's resignation is an embarrassing incoherent shambles" in which he points out that
"According to Labour it is a disgrace an Asian man now has responsibility for equalities issues. And it is a disgrace the Conservative minister for women now answers to a man, even though she always has, and even though Labour’s women’s minister answers to a man, and always has.
It’s a disgrace there aren’t any mothers in the cabinet. And it’s also a disgrace that a mother has been promoted to attend the cabinet as women’s minister, because she didn’t vote for gay marriage.
And the person who’s been sent out to say all this is Labour’s shadow women’s minister, who also isn’t a mother, and has said categorically she doesn’t want to be a mother.
And Labour has the front to say David Cameron has made a mess of the Maria Miller affair."
You can read Dan's full article here.
Sadly there have been some people in all political parties who have failed to do so and each party has a responsibility to do something about it, espeically with regard to their own members.
It is unacceptable that the impression has been created that MPs can get away with things which would result in anyone else gong to jail. Of course five MPs (all Labour) actually have gone to prison over fraudulent expenses claims. So should anyone else, of whatever party, who commits a crime for which someone who is not a politician would have been jailed.
Given the need to avoid creating the impression that the political class thnks it is above the rules, I thought it was right that Maria Miller resigned, and I am pleased that she is giving her pay-off to charity.
However, I have a question for those journalists and Labour politicians who are accusing David Cameron of an error of judgement in not throwing her to the wolves at the first sign of trouble.
Were you also one of those who criticised him for not immediately sacking Andrew Mitchell when he was accused of calling police oficers "plebs" ?
Or were you one of those who subsequently criticised David Cameron for accepting Mitchell's resignation?
That would be after Michael Crick demonstrated that the only published account of what happened at the Downing Street gates critical of Andrew Mitchell which is consistent with the evidence in the public domain is what Mitchell himself admitted to and apologised for, and also that some police officers - one of whom has subsequently been convicted of this offence and given a prison sentence for it, another dismissed for gross misconduct - had lied in an attempt to discredit Mitchell.
Sometimes there is smoke without fire, and even when the right decision is that one of your colleagues should go it is not necessary a mistake to take some time to think about whether sacking them is the right thing to do, or a miscarriage of justice, before taking the decision.
I was most amused by a piece in the Telegraph by Dan Hodges, titled "Labour's response to Maria Miller's resignation is an embarrassing incoherent shambles" in which he points out that
"According to Labour it is a disgrace an Asian man now has responsibility for equalities issues. And it is a disgrace the Conservative minister for women now answers to a man, even though she always has, and even though Labour’s women’s minister answers to a man, and always has.
It’s a disgrace there aren’t any mothers in the cabinet. And it’s also a disgrace that a mother has been promoted to attend the cabinet as women’s minister, because she didn’t vote for gay marriage.
And the person who’s been sent out to say all this is Labour’s shadow women’s minister, who also isn’t a mother, and has said categorically she doesn’t want to be a mother.
And Labour has the front to say David Cameron has made a mess of the Maria Miller affair."
You can read Dan's full article here.
Comments