Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[takno]

So her great scandal is that she interviewed for her next job whilst still being employed?

The biggest scandal is that the Tories have clearly managed to shovel another frothing sycophant into a significant ethics post in the civil service, to add to the existing travesty that is Simon Case.

 

[nw1]

The biggest scandal is that the Tories have clearly managed to shovel another frothing sycophant into a significant ethics post in the civil service, to add to the existing travesty that is Simon Case.

While I am not religious, the biblical piece about the speck in your opponent's eye versus the plank in your own comes to mind regarding the Sue Gray thing.

To me the Tories are the clear leaders in unethical behaviour right now, and some Tory supporters would do well to understand that.

 

[duncanp]

While I am not religious, the biblical piece about the speck in your opponent's eye versus the plank in your own comes to mind regarding the Sue Gray thing.

To me the Tories are the clear leaders in unethical behaviour right now, and some Tory supporters would do well to understand that.

The biblical piece about "...let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." comes to my mind.

It isn't exactly inspiring to know that Labour are slightly less unethical than the Conservatives (remember "Beergate"?)

And the SNP aren't much better either.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The biblical piece about "...let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." comes to my mind.

It isn't exactly inspiring to know that Labour are slightly less unethical than the Conservatives (remember "Beergate"?)

And the SNP aren't much better either.

The reality is none of them are any good and that is the sad state our politics has got to which is why it needs to completely reinvent itself with PR. This would drive out of politics all the the loudmouths who only in it for their own self gratification and i include Starmer and Sturgeon in that pack. Politics would be boring and run by people interested in genuine change whereby a broad consensus has to be achieved that would broadly track the middle ground. Yes Private Eye et al wouldn't have much to sell anymore but it should be about the needs of ALL the citizens anyhow.

Aint going to happen of curse as Starmer is as power struck as Sunak is and they will achieve nothing of worth if they do manage to get in.

 

[najaB]

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I am in no way trying to excuse Sue Gray's actions given they do indeed seem to have broken the rules, but is there not form for parties led by people who have no experience of government to appoint someone who does to guide them, as Labour are doing?

Yes, there is. This really is a non-issue, other than slightly questionable timing.

It isn't exactly inspiring to know that Labour are slightly less unethical than the Conservatives (remember "Beergate"?)

Which was another non-issue. No rules or laws were broken, despite the Tory-supporting press trying to make out that they were.

 

[MikeWM]

Parliamentary sovereignty lies at the very heart of the British Constitution, and has done since the reign of James II.

And the sovereignty of the Parliament stems from the people giving it power by electing representatives to it on a regular basis, and expecting those representatives to be able to exercise the powers the people temporarily cede to those representatives.

At one time Parliament had the powers to imprison or fine individuals found to be in contempt of the institution, but unfortunately imo these powers were allowed to lapse.

It can imprison non-members (and arguably still can) for contempt. I'm not aware it ever being able to imprison its own members - and if it did have that power, it is a very good thing indeed that it no longer does, because it shouldn't take a lot of effort to see how that power could be very dangerously misused.

(Obviously there is the case of Charles Bradlaugh in 1880 - but it is debateable whether he was seen as a member at that point, as the whole problem revolved around his wishing to take his seat without taking the Oath. And anyway that whole affair was pretty disgraceful and doesn't exactly show Parliament at its best).

--

That has been his decision. Your point was that his constituents will have been deprived of an MP for an extended period, my point is that, because of his swift action, it will be a little over a month. (I am not sure that was what was intended).

No, indeed. I made that point in my original post on the subject

Ironically - though I'm sure this isn't the reason he's done it! - Johnson has arguably shown a greater respect for democracy by resigning his seat, thus ensuring his constituents will (sooner) continue to have representation in parliament.

 

[Busaholic]

And the sovereignty of the Parliament stems from the people giving it power by electing representatives to it on a regular basis, and expecting those representatives to be able to exercise the powers the people temporarily cede to those representatives.



It can imprison non-members (and arguably still can) for contempt. I'm not aware it ever being able to imprison its own members - and if it did have that power, it is a very good thing indeed that it no longer does, because it shouldn't take a lot of effort to see how that power could be very dangerously misused.

(Obviously there is the case of Charles Bradlaugh in 1880 - but it is debateable whether he was seen as a member at that point, as the whole problem revolved around his wishing to take his seat without taking the Oath. And anyway that whole affair was pretty disgraceful and doesn't exactly show Parliament at its best).

--



No, indeed. I made that point in my original post on the subject

Ironically - though I'm sure this isn't the reason he's done it! - Johnson has arguably shown a greater respect for democracy by resigning his seat, thus ensuring his constituents will (sooner) continue to have representation in parliament.

'Sir' Jacob Rees-Mogg may present himself as an expert on the British Constitution and the media toadies never challenge his self-assessment, presumably on the basis that an Old Etonian son of a Times editor who appears to still inhabit the Edwardian age must know his stuff, but he either doesn't or, more likely. chooses to misrepresent it for his own ends. Parliament last fined someone in 1666 and imprisoned another in 1890. Perhaps Nadine Dorries will present herself as a suitable prospective case in view of her total contempt for the voters in her constituency by announcing her standing down then refusing to go through with it.

 

[MikeWM]

'Sir' Jacob Rees-Mogg may present himself as an expert on the British Constitution and the media toadies never challenge his self-assessment, presumably on the basis that an Old Etonian son of a Times editor who appears to still inhabit the Edwardian age must know his stuff, but he either doesn't or, more likely. chooses to misrepresent it for his own ends.

? Who mentioned Rees-Mogg in this context?

Are you referring say to this report of 2021? A quick google implies Rees-Mogg gave evidence to this committee in relation to this report.

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/5742/documents/56932/default/

11. The Houses’ inherent powers to punish non-Members for contempt by fine or imprisonment are untested in recent times; the House of Commons last imposed a fine in 1666, last used its power to imprison in 1880, and last summoned a non-Member to the Bar of the House in 1957 (see Annex 2 for background on the historic use of sanctions). Various select committees - notably in 1967, 1977, 1999 and 2013 - have touched upon the need to review and bring clarity to the exercise of Parliament’s penal powers.

It seems the committee itself seems unsure as to whether the Commons has the power to imprison based on that paragraph. Though the whole report refers to 'non-members' throughout (which given the reference to imprisonment in 1880, would imply that the committee thought Bradlaugh was a non-member when imprisoned).

Perhaps Nadine Dorries will present herself as a suitable prospective case in view of her total contempt for the voters in her constituency by announcing her standing down then refusing to go through with it.

The contempt would be if she refused to perform her duties as a representative until such time as she actually applies for Northstead/Chiltern Hundreds. Perhaps we'll find that out tomorrow, if she chooses to participate in the debate on the report on Johnson.

 

[brad465]

This week the Bank of England meet again for another interest rate decision, with another 0.25% increase most likely as things stand. However what's more alarming I think is that there is talk of some form of support/bailout for mortgage payers. The Treasury and Government are denying it and rightly criticising the danger it brings, but I can see them caving into it, simply because it would be far from the first time it's happened for something. While I'm more socialist at heart than capitalist, I absolutely loathe this bailout culture that has developed since 2008 in which every failure of capitalism is bailed out by socialism, in what I'd describe as giving life support to an otherwise dead system. What we need is more radical system reform (like what FDR did in the 30s), not short term interventions like what we've been seeing, but then this comes as no surprise as not only are our politicians somewhat inept, they are not capable of thinking beyond the next week/election.

 

[jon0844]

They're going to do whatever they can to bribe the electorate ahead of the next general election. Using our money, obviously.

 

[Yew]

They're going to do whatever they can to bribe the electorate ahead of the next general election. Using our money, obviously.

It does seem like the Government is keen to inflate this housing bubble even more rapidly, rather than finding ways to gently deflate it.

 

[duncanp]

The government should twist the arms of the banks so that they only put their mortgage rates up by the amount of the increase in the base rate.

At the moment, if the Bank of England increases base rates by 0.25%, the banks seem to put their mortgage rates up by more than 0.25%, and their savings rates up by less than 0.25%.

Kerching!! An increase in profits.

 

[ainsworth74]

But nothing Johnson did, whether deliberate or not, got in the way of Parliament being able to do its business. He didn't cause disorder or take the mace or anything like that.

I'll leave it to second paragraph of the summary the Privileges Committee report to deal with that:

This inquiry goes to the very heart of our democracy. Misleading the House is not a technical issue, but a matter of great importance. Our democracy is based on people electing Members of Parliament not just to enable a government to be formed and supported but to scrutinise legislation and hold the Executive to account for its actions. Our democracy depends on MPs being able to trust that what Ministers tell them in the House of Commons is the truth. If Ministers cannot be trusted to tell the truth, the House cannot do its job and the confidence of the public in our democracy is undermined. When a Minister makes an honest mistake and then corrects it, that is democracy working as it should.

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/40412/documents/197199/default/

Ministers lying to the House fundamentally prevents it from being able to do its business which is to scrutinise the Government. I'm actually a little surprised that you don't appear to value that considering comments you've made previously about things being nodded through during the Covid period!

 

[Yew]

The government should twist the arms of the banks so that they only put their mortgage rates up by the amount of the increase in the base rate.

At the moment, if the Bank of England increases base rates by 0.25%, the banks seem to put their mortgage rates up by more than 0.25%, and their savings rates up by less than 0.25%.

Kerching!! An increase in profits.

I thought competition in the private sector was supposed to ensure the best deal for the consumer?

 

[jon0844]

I thought competition in the private sector was supposed to ensure the best deal for the consumer?

Image: Are you serious meme, from Spiderman movie.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The government should twist the arms of the banks so that they only put their mortgage rates up by the amount of the increase in the base rate.

At the moment, if the Bank of England increases base rates by 0.25%, the banks seem to put their mortgage rates up by more than 0.25%, and their savings rates up by less than 0.25%.

Kerching!! An increase in profits.

Would they? If, as you claim, the banks took advantage of every rate change to increase the difference between the interest rates they typically charge and the interest rates they typically pay, then that would cause the difference to be vastly greater today than it was - say - 10 or 20 years ago. Is there any evidence that that's the case?

(There is though a complicating factor that the rate banks pay on savings accounts is usually a few % below the base rate. But when the base rate dropped to very low levels, keeping the savings rate below the base rate would have been impossible because that would have lead to negative interest rates: So in practice, the rates paid on most savings accounts just dropped to about zero and stayed there, thereby becoming almost equal to the base rate. It's plausible that now the base rates are going up again, banks would quite legitimately be taking advantage to reopen the historic difference between the base rates and savings accounts rates).

 

[johncrossley]

Subsiding mortgages is a slap in the face for those who were prudent and didn't over extend themselves.

 

[nw1]

This week the Bank of England meet again for another interest rate decision, with another 0.25% increase most likely as things stand. However what's more alarming I think is that there is talk of some form of support/bailout for mortgage payers. The Treasury and Government are denying it and rightly criticising the danger it brings, but I can see them caving into it, simply because it would be far from the first time it's happened for something. While I'm more socialist at heart than capitalist, I absolutely loathe this bailout culture that has developed since 2008 in which every failure of capitalism is bailed out by socialism, in what I'd describe as giving life support to an otherwise dead system. What we need is more radical system reform (like what FDR did in the 30s), not short term interventions like what we've been seeing, but then this comes as no surprise as not only are our politicians somewhat inept, they are not capable of thinking beyond the next week/election.

Why do the Bank of England want to increase interest rates in any case? That seems incredibly moronic to me and completely inappropriate for the current situation.

Will mean that those with enough money will amass still more, and those who are struggling will struggle more.

 

[najaB]

Why do the Bank of England want to increase interest rates in any case? That seems incredibly moronic to me and completely inappropriate for the current situation.

Apparently they want to shrink the economy to combat inflation. Jeremy Hunt also says that he's comfortable with tipping us into recession to combat inflation.

 

[jon0844]

Will mean that those with enough money will amass still more, and those who are struggling will struggle more.

You answered your own question if seems.

 

[edwin_m]

Apparently they want to shrink the economy to combat inflation. Jeremy Hunt also says that he's comfortable with tipping us into recession to combat inflation.

This may be a good response to "traditional" inflation caused by the economy overheating, but perhaps not for "stagflation" caused by external factors.

 

[MikeWM]

Ministers lying to the House fundamentally prevents it from being able to do its business which is to scrutinise the Government. I'm actually a little surprised that you don't appear to value that considering comments you've made previously about things being nodded through during the Covid period!

It clearly isn't ideal, but I view statements made at PMQs about the minute details of conduct of civil servants with respect to (often unclear and confusing) government guidance as being highly tangential to the scrutiny powers of Parliament. There's bigger (and more important) lies uttered at PMQs every single week - it is the specific focus on this fairly minor lie that I find wildly disproportionate. If this were the only problem between the executive and the legislature then fair enough, but it should be very apparent that there are currently significantly larger issues to be concerned about.

Now if this was a government minister misleading the house about the purpose or scope of legislation, or where/how public money is being spent (track and trace? PPE?), or telling the house one thing while apparently instructing civil servants to do another ('there are no plans to introduce covid passports'), or telling the house something apparently false that quite possibly cost thousands of lives ('we've done a study on vitamin D and it has no effect on covid outcomes') - they seem like things that may well be worth spending time investigating.

One other thing - all this palaver about Johnson will just make politicians even less likely than before to give a straight yes/no answer to a question, as if he'd avoided the direct answer, he wouldn't have been in trouble for the answer he gave. Is that really what we want?

 

[duncanp]

Apparently they want to shrink the economy to combat inflation. Jeremy Hunt also says that he's comfortable with tipping us into recession to combat inflation.

Higher inflation will increase the prices of goods and services, which will have a disproportionate effect on those on lower incomes.

I can remember when UK inflation hit 23% in the mid 1970s, and the government of the day was forced to ask the IMF for a bailout. You really don't want a return to that situation again.

 

[najaB]

There's bigger (and more important) lies uttered at PMQs every single week - it is the specific focus on this fairly minor lie that I find wildly disproportionate.

That's almost the point. In the grand scheme of things it was a relatively minor lie. If he had, at the first instance said "On reflection, I can see that there were breaches of the regulations and the people involved have been subject to internal disciplinary measures." then the whole thing would have gone away. The problem is that he was given numerous opportunities to correct the record, yet insisted on doubling, tripling, quadrupling,... down on it - and that is what turned it into something deserving of rebuke by the House.

And, given that he demonstrated a pathological aversion to telling the truth about this minor issue, how could anyone trust him to tell the truth about anything else?

 

[SteveM70]

And, given that he demonstrated a pathological aversion to telling the truth about this minor issue, how could anyone trust him to tell the truth about anything else?

Well.

One could have asked that at any stage in his previous career, but yes you’re right re parliament.

 

[JamesT]

This may be a good response to "traditional" inflation caused by the economy overheating, but perhaps not for "stagflation" caused by external factors.

Which is why the focus on the most recent figures was on "core inflation", which attempts to strip out some of the more volatile elements to give the underlying picture.

The other facet is the strength of the pound. The EU and the US have been raising their interest rates, sometimes by larger jumps than us. Higher interest rates attracts investment which strengthens the currency and makes imports cheaper. If the BoE wasn't raising our rates then presumably the opposite would occur which would be making things worse.

 

[MikeWM]

And, given that he demonstrated a pathological aversion to telling the truth about this minor issue, how could anyone trust him to tell the truth about anything else?

But that's the problem with all politicans nowadays - it is that some are just more showy and blatant about it. Peter Oborne has done some excellent work recently showing that Sunak lies just as much as Johnson. And anyone who voted for Kier Starmer as Labour leader in 2020 on the basis of his '10 pledges' will know that Starmer wouldn't know the truth if you hit him over the head with it. We do have a serious problem here, it needs addressing, but I don't think what has happened here will help.

 

[duncanp]

But that's the problem with all politicans nowadays - it is that some are just more showy and blatant about it. Peter Oborne has done some excellent work recently showing that Sunak lies just as much as Johnson. And anyone who voted for Kier Starmer as Labour leader in 2020 on the basis of his '10 pledges' will know that Starmer wouldn't know the truth if you hit him over the head with it. We do have a serious problem here, it needs addressing, but I don't think what has happened here will help.

On problem is that if politicians tell the truth, it won't necessarily be appreciated, either by other politicians or the voters as this exchange from Yes Minister illustrates:-

Jim Hacker : ".so you want me to tell parliament it's their fault that the civil service is so big?..."

Sir Humphrey Appleby : "..it's the truth.."

Jim Hacker : "..I don't want the truth. I want something I can tell parliament.."

Incidentally the English word parliament derives from the French word parlement.

But if you split the word parlement into two you get parle and ment which come from the verbs parler (to talk) and mentir (to tell lies)

Some people would view that as rather prophetic.

 

[nw1]

Apparently they want to shrink the economy to combat inflation. Jeremy Hunt also says that he's comfortable with tipping us into recession to combat inflation.

How nice.

There must be other ways of combatting inflation in the current situation than forcibly making us poorer and tipping the economy into recession due, presumably, to no-one spending any money on non-essential goods. But I suppose they involve tight regulation of the energy industry (which to me seems to be the root cause of all the other price rises) and that is I am sure completely politically unacceptable to the likes of Streynsham.

If that's really their plan I fear a return of the early 80s and all the fallout that resulted from Thatcher's initial period in office.

 

[johncrossley]

The general public should have budgeted for interest rates reverting to historic norms. Current rates are *still* well below those in the late 90s.