The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

Getting retired seems to be the down-low on the, erm, grapevine?

[Lord Kangana]

Shame. He's not afraid to speak his mind. Theres precious few of them left in Parliament.

[Prufrock]

Indeed. On my 'Tories I like' list. It's not a long list.

[Hoboh]

Indeed. On my 'Tories I like' list. It's not a long list.

Bet it's longer than Tony Benn

[thebish]

I agree that Fox is (comparatively speaking) a tolerable tory...

but - the more I hear about this, the less happy I am...

Werrity has defence-related business interests (allegedly) - and Fox has (allegedly) been paying him and claiming expenses to do so and set up meetings for him with defense industry executives...

not my normal tipple - but today's Torygraph has a reasonable amount of detailed accusation in place of the hitherto vague stuff...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... ritty.html

at the very least it sounds like he has been monumentally stupid...

I have mixed feelings - because there IS a phalanx of frothing lunatic tories who want rid of Fox - and that kind of puts me on his side...

[William the White]

I agree that Fox is (comparatively speaking) a tolerable tory...

Who claimed that? People were talking about Ken Clarke, who, clearly, has been misplaced in the tory party for years.

[Lord Kangana]

Fox reminds me of that dodgy arms deal that Margaret fixed for Mark.

[thebish]

I agree that Fox is (comparatively speaking) a tolerable tory...

Who claimed that? People were talking about Ken Clarke, who, clearly, has been misplaced in the tory party for years.

I'm easily confused! (as for Ken - I'd kind of LIKE to like him - but his third world cigarette-peddling activities have always kind of put me off...)

[CAPSLOCK]

Does Liam bat for Yorkshire?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I agree that Fox is (comparatively speaking) a tolerable tory...

but - the more I hear about this, the less happy I am...

Werrity has defence-related business interests (allegedly) - and Fox has (allegedly) been paying him and claiming expenses to do so and set up meetings for him with defense industry executives...

not my normal tipple - but today's Torygraph has a reasonable amount of detailed accusation in place of the hitherto vague stuff...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... ritty.html

at the very least it sounds like he has been monumentally stupid...

I have mixed feelings - because there IS a phalanx of frothing lunatic tories who want rid of Fox - and that kind of puts me on his side...

I'm not 100% sure I understand what the fuss is about - I may be being thick, but what is the 'detailed accusation' I am supposed to read in that link?

The only suggestion of Werrity's profiting from the relationship is this £690 as an adviser when the guy was still in his twenties - fine, let's work out what that was for, then what else?

As for the other meetings, the article itself says:

"The encounters took place at high-level meetings of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think-tank that brings together politicians, diplomats, military chiefs and executives."

So, precisely the sort of thing at which people from across the world of defence meet each other, then?

[thebish]

What I meant was - there is now enough detail about Werrity playing the role of advisor (how can the sec. of state for defence allow someone he doesn't employ to represent him/pass themselves off as his advisor with encouragement?) and seemingly having access in and out of the MOD - coupled with well-documented business interests with Fox (Werritty ran health consultancy firm when Fox was shadow Health Secretary - and then ran a defence consultancy when as Fox was Defence Secretary) and the dodgy expenses malarky from Fox on Werrity's behalf - plus the bogus charity "Atlantic Bridge" association they had - which when coupled with the persistent allegations that Fox and Werrity are an "item" (hence - the threat of blackmail) - and (perhaps more crucially) the fact that Fox is perceived as a bloke who won't "play ball" with MOD staff - and so is unpopular in his own department..

the idea of total innocence is not given much credibility when other businessmen (Harvey Boulter) comes forward to tell us that Werrity pleaded with them not to ever mention that they had met together with Fox in Dubai.

more smoke than fire, maybe, but some fire - and enough to mean that Cameron could quite easily conclude that the "ministerial code" has been breached - which is not simply about "conduct" per se - but also about appearances...

Ministers "must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests".

[Lord Kangana]

Does Liam bat for Yorkshire?

So they say.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

What I meant was - there is now enough detail about Werrity playing the role of advisor (how can the sec. of state for defence allow someone he doesn't employ to represent him/pass themselves off as his advisor with encouragement?) and seemingly having access in and out of the MOD - coupled with well-documented business interests with Fox (Werritty ran health consultancy firm when Fox was shadow Health Secretary - and then ran a defence consultancy when as Fox was Defence Secretary) and the dodgy expenses malarky from Fox on Werrity's behalf - plus the bogus charity "Atlantic Bridge" association they had - which when coupled with the persistent allegations that Fox and Werrity are an "item" (hence - the threat of blackmail) - and (perhaps more crucially) the fact that Fox is perceived as a bloke who won't "play ball" with MOD staff - and so is unpopular in his own department..

the idea of total innocence is not given much credibility when other businessmen (Harvey Boulter) comes forward to tell us that Werrity pleaded with them not to ever mention that they had met together with Fox in Dubai.

more smoke than fire, maybe, but some fire - and enough to mean that Cameron could quite easily conclude that the "ministerial code" has been breached - which is not simply about "conduct" per se - but also about appearances...

Ministers "must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests".

I've been busy and haven't followed the story at all.

When you said that link finally had the sort of detailed accusations that had been lacking, I thought "Oh good, here's my chance to catch up with the story behind the headlines I've seen."

I was just disappointed, that's all, and regard most of what you have written above as being supplementary to that Telegraph piece!

[Worthy4England]

Without trying to be too partisan about this, I'm sure "helping your mates" is something lots of politicians probably do - mates being loosely associated with "people who might help me in the future or might have helped me in the past."

The reason conflict of interest is in the code, is to try and prevent the possibility of it occurring. Attempting to attend meetings with a Government (Sri Lanka) organised by your mate who used to live in your flat, is probably a step too far.

I think Mr Fox has to bite the bullet on this one and resign. There doesn't have to be a provable conflict of interest, there only has to be the appearance of one. It's not a legal test, it's a moral one.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It's not a legal test, it's a moral one.

What does that even mean?

And meetings with the Sri Lankan government, FFS - is it any wonder that in MOD terms this wasn't treated as being the most high-level and sensitive meeting going?

If Werrity has wrongly held himself out to be an adviser to Fox, is that Fox's wrongdoing or Werrity's?

[Worthy4England]

It's not a legal test, it's a moral one.

What does that even mean?

And meetings with the Sri Lankan government, FFS - is it any wonder that in MOD terms this wasn't treated as being the most high-level and sensitive meeting going?

If Werrity has wrongly held himself out to be an adviser to Fox, is that Fox's wrongdoing or Werrity's?

What it means is, if a Minister has left himself open to the accusation of a conflict of interest (apparent or otherwise), then that is surely a breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. It's not about a full forensic investigation, it should be a judgement based on whether a Minister should be attending meetings organized by an ex(?)-flatmate that happened to be his best man, whether they're formally arranged or ad hoc. Surely attending meetings in a private capacity (rather in his capacity as Defence Secretary) with his best buddy ("Defence Consultant") and other people in the defence industry, he leaves himself open to the conflict of interest accusation (be it right or wrong). He's already said that he allowed his distinctions between his personal loyalties and his professional responsibilities to be blurred. Chance meetings with defence business people and your best mate in Dubai? Do me a fecking favour. If it doesn't stink of cronyism, it comes very close.

The point is, as a Minister of the Government, he should be whiter than white. There's enough blurring of the edges here by his own admission. Any decent person would accept that and resign.

It has nothing particularly to do with what Werrity did (unless there was something illegal there - which is a different matter). It has everything to do with what Fox did.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

What it means is, if a Minister has left himself open to the accusation of a conflict of interest (apparent or otherwise), then that is surely a breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

Ok, but what has this got to do with 'morality'?

You seem to me to be saying the exact opposite, which is that even if what he's done is morally neutral, it just isn't done.

[Worthy4England]

What it means is, if a Minister has left himself open to the accusation of a conflict of interest (apparent or otherwise), then that is surely a breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

Ok, but what has this got to do with 'morality'?

You seem to me to be saying the exact opposite, which is that even if what he's done is morally neutral, it just isn't done.

You don't think that conflict of interest is morally wrong? Using your elected position to the potential advantage of a mate? An advantage that people who aren't your mate, wouldn't get?

If there is no advantage to his mate, then he's potentially given the appearance that their could be, and for that level of stupidity, would you want him as a Minister looking after the defence of the realm? Probably not...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

You don't think that conflict of interest is morally wrong? Using your elected position to the potential advantage of a mate? An advantage that people who aren't your mate, wouldn't get?

If there is no advantage to his mate, then he's potentially given the appearance that their could be, and for that level of stupidity, would you want him as a Minister looking after the defence of the realm? Probably not...

No, I don't think an 'apparent' conflict of interest is 'morally' wrong.

Now, there might be good reasons why it is against the rules, but let's not get carried away and say it's a question of morality, without any evidence of acting against the public interest.

Anyway, this is in danger of becoming a fairly sterile discussion... and the stupity question is a separate one.

[thebish]

Anyway, this is in danger of becoming a fairly sterile discussion...

ooh goody! would you like me and Tango to join in - give you a few pointers...