The Politics Thread

[TANGODANCER]

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...

The reason I don't join in political discussuions is very simple: From the forming of the Magna Carta (which was more about wealthy land barons protecting their own properties, rights and interests than those of Joe peasant anyway) hundreds of years have passed in which various factions pop up every four years or so to tell us they've found the best way to do it all and run the country for the benefit of all. With all that practise and lessons learned,they still haven't managed it yet as far as I can see. Drop me an e-mail if it ever happens. For now, I'll abstain, thanks.

[Lord Kangana]

On the note of maorality and fault, might I point out that Werrity has been an "advisor" to Fox through the guise of various Limited companies for some time, each one started at the same time as, and relevant to, whichever department (government or shadow) that Fox was in. Its been going on for a while, its not a one off.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

On the note of maorality and fault, might I point out that Werrity has been an "advisor" to Fox through the guise of various Limited companies for some time, each one started at the same time as, and relevant to, whichever department (government or shadow) that Fox was in. Its been going on for a while, its not a one off.

Bish has already quoted two examples of this above. Do you have any more?

And what points of 'morality and fault' do you want to raise?

[Lord Kangana]

I'm not raising an issue of morality, merely questioning your response to Worthy was that it was treating it as an isolated incident. Not only was it not just one occassion, within one narrow field, but a pattern. If, for example, he was an expert in the arms industry, despite their friendship one could see perhaps why it had been done. Even multiple times.

That he has been "employed" (and I use the term loosely) by Fox to "advise" on a whole manner of issues indicates its just jobs for the boys. In that sense, to sugest that its anymore Werritty's fault than Fox's is to suggest that Fox has no control who he employs, or indeed, who he passes information to about what his particular role at any given moment is.

I'll reiterate, if it had been a one off, or simply confined to one field of "expertise", it could be just brushed off.

[Worthy4England]

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.

I didn't ask whether an apparent conflict of interest is morally wrong, I asked whether a conflict of interest was. And pointed out that in this instance, if there wasn't a conflict of interest, then there's at least some cronyism going on. Either way it's a level of stupidity that should call into question his fitness to serve in office. Is he that stupid?

He's already admitted meeting Boulter in Dubai (Boulter being a Defence Contractor) without any MoD officials present was wrong. He's recanted on his first statement (I think to the House) that this was a chance meeting. Within Defence circles, given that Contracts are highly sought after and usually of extremely high value, holding such a meeting, planned and in private is against the public interest, unless you offer all the other defence contractors in the same commercial space the same access to the Minister, so they can put their point of view too. What other evidence are you looking for?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm not raising an issue of morality,

Ok - perhaps you'll excuse my being confused by this:

On the note of maorality and fault,

That he has been "employed" (and I use the term loosely) by Fox to "advise" on a whole manner of issues indicates its just jobs for the boys. In that sense, to sugest that its anymore Werritty's fault than Fox's is to suggest that Fox has no control who he employs, or indeed, who he passes information to about what his particular role at any given moment is.

I'll reiterate, if it had been a one off, or simply confined to one field of "expertise", it could be just brushed off.

Well yes, I'm interested in how loosely you use the term "employed" too - in what sense, as one of the boys or otherwise, has he been given a job, apart from that £700 when he was in his twenties? Have I missed something?

[thebish]

Well yes, I'm interested in how loosely you use the term "employed" too - in what sense, as one of the boys or otherwise, has he been given a job, apart from that £700 when he was in his twenties? Have I missed something?

probably... in his commons statement today, Fox said he had him a total of £5,800 for "research"...

[Lord Kangana]

You answered a post by worthy about morality. I was merely responding to it. That is different to raising it.

As for his employment, each company he operated were shadows of the job that Fox himself was undertaking at the time (in or out of government). I'd be interested to see whether the tax authorities get involved at a later date (it will largely depend on how many enemies he's picked up in government) to try to see whether his activites constituted independence of thought, action and procedure, or were at the behest of Fox. Which it really looks like they were.

[Worthy4England]

On the note of maorality

I never accused them of being in cahoots with the Chinese. Not ever.

[Lord Kangana]

Wait and see. VVITK.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I didn't ask whether an apparent conflict of interest is morally wrong, I asked whether a conflict of interest was. And pointed out that in this instance, if there wasn't a conflict of interest, then there's at least some cronyism going on. Either way it's a level of stupidity that should call into question his fitness to serve in office. Is he that stupid?

He's already admitted meeting Boulter in Dubai (Boulter being a Defence Contractor) without any MoD officials present was wrong. He's recanted on his first statement (I think to the House) that this was a chance meeting. Within Defence circles, given that Contracts are highly sought after and usually of extremely high value, holding such a meeting, planned and in private is against the public interest, unless you offer all the other defence contractors in the same commercial space the same access to the Minister, so they can put their point of view too. What other evidence are you looking for?

Ok. It's not a particularly exciting point I was making. I'm just saying that sometimes we have rules against things that aren't 'immoral' as such. For instance, possession of drugs is a strict liability offence, which is to say that you don't have to prove intention to possess to prove the offence. Possessing drugs accidentally isn't immoral, but, on balance, everything just works better if things are that way. That's a bit how I feel about the Ministerial Code need to be seen to be whiter than white - it makes sense, but it's too much to say it's a question of morality.

As you were.

[William the White]

I didn't ask whether an apparent conflict of interest is morally wrong, I asked whether a conflict of interest was. And pointed out that in this instance, if there wasn't a conflict of interest, then there's at least some cronyism going on. Either way it's a level of stupidity that should call into question his fitness to serve in office. Is he that stupid?

He's already admitted meeting Boulter in Dubai (Boulter being a Defence Contractor) without any MoD officials present was wrong. He's recanted on his first statement (I think to the House) that this was a chance meeting. Within Defence circles, given that Contracts are highly sought after and usually of extremely high value, holding such a meeting, planned and in private is against the public interest, unless you offer all the other defence contractors in the same commercial space the same access to the Minister, so they can put their point of view too. What other evidence are you looking for?

Ok. It's not a particularly exciting point I was making. I'm just saying that sometimes we have rules against things that aren't 'immoral' as such. For instance, possession of drugs is a strict liability offence, which is to say that you don't have to prove intention to possess to prove the offence. Possessing drugs accidentally isn't immoral, but, on balance, everything just works better if things are that way. That's a bit how I feel about the Ministerial Code need to be seen to be whiter than white - it makes sense, but it's too much to say it's a question of morality.

As you were.

So... you were actually discussing a philosophical point about the nature of morality, rather than trying to defend a Tory minister in trouble?

[Lord Kangana]

I think mummy's made the point a few times that he is unsure, perhaps uncomfortable, with discussions of morality being brought in to points of law. Thats what I understood anyway.

[William the White]

I think mummy's made the point a few times that he is unsure, perhaps uncomfortable, with discussions of morality being brought in to points of law. Thats what I understood anyway.

In which case, I withdraw my unworthy cynicism...

So, mummy, do you think the law should have any kind of moral basis or will the simply utilitarian do?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I think mummy's made the point a few times that he is unsure, perhaps uncomfortable, with discussions of morality being brought in to points of law. Thats what I understood anyway.

In which case, I withdraw my unworthy cynicism...

So, mummy, do you think the law should have any kind of moral basis or will the simply utilitarian do?

It's a question for brighter people than me (or at least those with more time on their hands).

My humble observation is that talk of morality is often bandied about as an empty rhetorical flourish without taking the thinking on.

[William the White]

I think mummy's made the point a few times that he is unsure, perhaps uncomfortable, with discussions of morality being brought in to points of law. Thats what I understood anyway.

In which case, I withdraw my unworthy cynicism...

So, mummy, do you think the law should have any kind of moral basis or will the simply utilitarian do?

It's a question for brighter people than me (or at least those with more time on their hands).

My humble observation is that talk of morality is often bandied about as an empty rhetorical flourish without taking the thinking on.

Which don't include me as I try to respond to the chaos threatened by withdrawal of government funding from all but a few subjects...

However, your point about rhetorical flourish is certainly well made...

Do you feel yourself entirely innocent in this regard, or do you simply do 'thinking'?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

However, your point about rhetorical flourish is certainly well made...

Do you feel yourself entirely innocent in this regard, or do you simply do 'thinking'?

Oh goodness no, we're all guilty of it to some extent. The purging of intellectual laziness has to be a collective effort.

Michael Portillo, somebody I admire, as you know, laid out his objections to the 50% tax rate along the following lines:

"For government to help itself to half of what somebody earns is immoral."

I just think it's an unhelpful way of saying 'very bad idea'.

[William the White]

However, your point about rhetorical flourish is certainly well made...

Do you feel yourself entirely innocent in this regard, or do you simply do 'thinking'?

Oh goodness no, we're all guilty of it to some extent. The purging of intellectual laziness has to be a collective effort.

Michael Portillo, somebody I admire, as you know, laid out his objections to the 50% tax rate along the following lines:

"For government to help itself to half of what somebody earns is immoral."

I just think it's an unhelpful way of saying 'very bad idea'.

I too plead guilty... My degree is History with a Philosophy minor... For most of the time I felt Philosophy was a 'very bad idea'...

This was, of course, an unworthy thought... But it's certainly true that an expert in Ethics would be very happy to take Portillo's assertation as the starting point for an enquiry... That he would soon leave...

[Hoboh]

I think mummy's made the point a few times that he is unsure, perhaps uncomfortable, with discussions of morality being brought in to points of law. Thats what I understood anyway.

In which case, I withdraw my unworthy cynicism...

So, mummy, do you think the law should have any kind of moral basis or will the simply utilitarian do?

It's a question for brighter people than me (or at least those with more time on their hands).

My humble observation is that talk of morality is often bandied about as an empty rhetorical flourish without taking the thinking on.

We'll stick to the latter then

[Worthy4England]

I think mummy's made the point a few times that he is unsure, perhaps uncomfortable, with discussions of morality being brought in to points of law. Thats what I understood anyway.

In which case, I withdraw my unworthy cynicism...

So, mummy, do you think the law should have any kind of moral basis or will the simply utilitarian do?

The point I was making was yes, check if any laws have been broken, but to some extent it's irrelevant, if the Minister, whilst breaking no laws has been helping his mate out, which by dint of him not helping all defence contractors out to the same level would effectively be morally wrong and abusing the position of his elected office...

Thought through and without flourish.