Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on January 12, 2025, 09:37:37 AM
-
I think it would make sense for Siddiq to stand down. The call from Badenoch is quite slimy with its use of the oxymoron 'personal friend'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0qwz0zvggdo
-
I think it would make sense for Siddiq to stand down. The call from Badenoch is quite slimy with its use of the oxymoron 'personal friend'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0qwz0zvggdo
What has she actually done wrong?
-
What has she actually done wrong?
I don't think she necessarily has. That's why I'm suggesting she stands down rather than is sacked. I think while the investigation is ongoing it works as a distraction from her doing the job.
-
I don't think she necessarily has.
So why does she need to stand down?
That's why I'm suggesting she stands down rather than is sacked. I think while the investigation is ongoing it works as a distraction from her doing the job.
Bollocks. If there are no accusations against her, she absolutely should not stand down. That's ridiculous.
-
So why does she need to stand down?
Bollocks. If there are no accusations against her, she absolutely should not stand down. That's ridiculous.
She's being investigated at her own decision. While that is ongoing it would be good politics to stand down.
-
She's being investigated at her own decision. While that is ongoing it would be good politics to stand down.
Unless there is n allegation of wrong doing, I disagree. You want to punish her for trying to be open and transparent.
-
Unless there is n allegation of wrong doing, I disagree. You want to punish her for trying to be open and transparent.
I agree - why on earth should she resign? At the moment there is no indication that she has done anything wrong, and as I understand it the investigation is simply a fact finding one, rather than an investigation into alleged wrong doing. Should the current investigation determine that there are allegations then they would be the subject of a further investigation, but the time for resigning would, to my mind, only be if (a big if) the first investigation determines that a second investigation into (at present hypothetical) allegations is needed, and that second investigation determines that there has been wrong-doing.
-
Unless there is n allegation of wrong doing, I disagree. You want to punish her for trying to be open and transparent.
I'm not 'punishing' her since I'm not sacking her or suggesting she should be sacked. I'm pointing out that it would be good politics that while she is under investigation that she isn't minister for corruption. If you are holding yourself out as better than the previous lot, then what things look like are important
-
I'm not 'punishing' her since I'm not sacking her or suggesting she should be sacked. I'm pointing out that it would be good politics that while she is under investigation that she isn't minister for corruption. If you are holding yourself out as better than the previous lot, then what things look like are important
Of course it is if she has to step down - if that happens, she would have had a ministerial job, and then she doesn't. In what way is that not 'punishing her'.
And what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty - and in this case there aren't actually any allegations. If this happened in any other employment context I cannot see why she would be suspended from her role while the investigation, let alone be expected to resign or be sacked.
The 'previous lot' are hypocritical in the extreme - they had two PMs who received criminal convictions for crimes they committed as part of their jobs - and they were the ones who put in place the laws which they themselves received criminal convictions for. In one case the PM eventually resigned, but not specifically for this, in the other the person was selected PM despite that criminal conviction for what they did at work.
-
Of course it is if she has to step down - if that happens, she would have had a ministerial job, and then she doesn't. In what way is that not 'punishing her'.
And what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty - and in this case there aren't actually any allegations. If this happened in any other employment context I cannot see why she would be suspended from her role while the investigation, let alone be expected to resign or be sacked.
The 'previous lot' are hypocritical in the extreme - they had two PMs who received criminal convictions for crimes they committed as part of their jobs - and they were the ones who put in place the laws which they themselves received criminal convictions for. In one case the PM eventually resigned, but not specifically for this, in the other the person was selected PM despite that criminal conviction for what they did at work.
and again if you want to hold yourself out as better than the previous pot, you do it better.
-
and again if you want to hold yourself out as better than the previous pot, you do it better.
You would have a point had Siddiq received a criminal conviction for something she did at work as part of her government role and where she, herself, was responsible for the legislation that she fell foul of ... but she hasn't.
-
You would have a point had Siddiq received a criminal conviction for something she did at work as part of her government role and where she, herself, was responsible for the legislation that she fell foul of ... but she hasn't.
No, this is all about perception and politics. If you have your minister for corruption being investigated for alleged corruption, they've become the story. You don't just go, oh we're not as bad as the last lot because you will just look the same as the last lot and appear to be making excuses.
-
No, this is all about perception and politics. If you have your minister for corruption being investigated for alleged corruption ...
But she isn't being investigated for alleged corruption as there are no allegations that are being investigated.
I think what is needed is more transparency, open-ness and robust process. Seems that is exactly what we are seeing right now, as even though there are no allegations she has referred herself to the authorities to allow them to conduct a fact-finding investigation and were that to indicate that there are allegations to answer (there aren't at the moment) they would presumably conduct an investigation into those allegations at some point in the future.
That seems to be exactly what we are looking for - transparency and open-ness. I don't think forcing ministers to resign simply because they are the subject of media and/or opposition campaigns is what we should expect in our parliament and government. We don't have trial by media (or rather we shouldn't) and the opposition don't decide who serves as ministers (or at least they shouldn't).
-
But she isn't being investigated for alleged corruption as there are no allegations that are being investigated.
I think what is needed is more transparency, open-ness and robust process. Seems that is exactly what we are seeing right now, as even though there are no allegations she has referred herself to the authorities to allow them to conduct a fact-finding investigation and were that to indicate that there are allegations to answer (there aren't at the moment) they would presumably conduct an investigation into those allegations at some point in the future.
That seems to be exactly what we are looking for - transparency and open-ness. I don't think forcing ministers to resign simply because they are the subject of media and/or opposition campaigns is what we should expect in our parliament and government. We don't have trial by media (or rather we shouldn't) and the opposition don't decide who serves as ministers (or at least they shouldn't).
I think your hair splitting on the nature of the investigation but O don't think it matters
Honesty and transparency means it would be better for the govt if she removed herself as a subject of the story. It's not about trial be media, as it's not about guilt at this stage.
. It's about good politics.
-
I think your hair splitting on the nature of the investigation but O don't think it matters
I think understanding the nature of the investigation is very important - particularly when people such as you are implying that there are allegations being investigated. There aren't. It is possible there might be in the future, but currently there aren't.
You are doing the equivalent of presuming that someone who is subject to questions from the police has been charged with an offence - or perhaps not caring that there is a critical distinction.
-
I think understanding the nature of the investigation is very important - particularly when people such as you are implying that there are allegations being investigated. There aren't. It is possible there might be in the future, but currently there aren't.
You are doing the equivalent of presuming that someone who is subject to questions from the police has been charged with an offence - or perhaps not caring that there is a critical distinction.
No, I don't think that it is a critical distinction in terms of the politics, and I think you're being naive in thinking it is.
-
Honesty and transparency means it would be better for the govt if she removed herself as a subject of the story. It's not about trial be media, as it's not about guilt at this stage.
Complete non-sense - honesty and transparency is about allowing a process to run to its completion and being fully cooperative with that process. Seems to me that is exactly what she has done, given that she, herself, referred herself to the authorities.
Honesty and transparency is not about jumping to conclusions when a process is still ongoing. Still less is it about expecting an individual to lose their job (whether because you consider they should resign or be sacked) in advance of the process determining if there is any case to answer.
-
Complete non-sense - honesty and transparency is about allowing a process to run to its completion and being fully cooperative with that process. Seems to me that is exactly what she has done, given that she, herself, referred herself to the authorities.
Honesty and transparency is not about jumping to conclusions when a process is still ongoing. Still less is it about expecting an individual to lose their job (whether because you consider they should resign or be sacked) in advance of the process determining if there is any case to answer.
It's not about jumping to conclusions. It's about how things look politically.
-
No, I don't think that it is a critical distinction in terms of the politics, and I think you're being naive in thinking it is.
Yes it is, as is the case in many similar employment processes, which typically start with a fact-finding investigation, whose outcome will be to determine whether there are actually credible allegations. Only then is there a process to determine whether the individual is actually guilty (or otherwise) of those allegations.
To act as judge and jury (or acquiesce to the media/oppostion to do so) in advance of even a determination that there are even credible allegations is neither good justice nor good politics as it makes every senior politician a complete hostage to fortune.
The media recently reported accusations of Badenoch ‘bullying and traumatising’ staff - guess you must think she's got to resign now if you are being consistent.
-
It's not about jumping to conclusions. It's about how things look politically.
Outside of the westminster bubble I doubt very much that this is cutting through one iota. And I think the public are sick and tired of politicians not resigning/being sacked when they should (i.e. have done something wrong), but also just as sick and tired of the endless demands for people to be sacked/resign simply for political point-scoring reasons.
-
I'm not 'punishing' her since I'm not sacking her or suggesting she should be sacked.
I said "you want to punish her...." You want her to step down. I think, from her perspective, falling on her sword is pretty much the same as Keir Starmer stabbing her with his. And yes, being forced to resign is a punishment, so please stop splitting hairs.
I'm pointing out that it would be good politics that while she is under investigation that she isn't minister for corruption. If you are holding yourself out as better than the previous lot, then what things look like are important
But there is no allegation of wrong doing.
-
I said "you want to punish her...." You want her to step down. I think, from her perspective, falling on her sword is pretty much the same as Keir Starmer stabbing her with his. And yes, being forced to resign is a punishment, so please stop splitting hairs.But there is no allegation of wrong doing.
Absolutely - why should someone resign (or be sacked) when there is no indication that they have done anything wrong. That's the kind of politics that, in my opinion, the public are thoroughly sick and tired of. If a politician has done something wrong, sure they should go, but if not (or until the process is complete to determine this) then why should they resign.
This seems to be a race to the bottom - effectively someone should resign if a political opponent (or frankly anyone) makes an accusation. In which case, bye, bye Badenoch - she should resign over the accusations of bullying!
-
Well, she's gone
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyk2e7x42zo
-
Well, she's gone
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyk2e7x42zo
Hounded out by NS and his demands for perfection :-)
-
Hounded out by NS and his demands for perfection :-)
Except, of course, I didn't demand perfection, rather pointed out that it would have been good politics for her to resign because otherwise she became the story. Had she done so, and Starmer made the right noises about her being brought back when her name was cleared as he was sure it would be, Labour could have controlled the story, and looked good. Instead they've been forced into it so it both looks weak and more suspicious.
-
Except, of course, I didn't demand perfection, rather pointed out that it would have been good politics for her to resign because otherwise she became the story. Had she done so, and Starmer made the right noises about her being brought back when her name was cleared as he was sure it would be, Labour could have controlled the story, and looked good. Instead they've been forced into it so it both looks weak and more suspicious.
Regardless of the approach and outcome opponents and the media will make political capital.
Had she resigned immediately (or Starmer sacked her immediately) the opposition and the media would have run on the basis of 'no smoke without fire, clearly indicates wrong-doing'. Indeed even now (despite being cleared of any ministerial breach) there is clear mischief making.
We really have to move beyond this towards a more sensible grown-up approach. If there are accusations then the appropriate authorities should investigate. If they find there is wrongdoing then action should be taken (resignation/sacking). If not then the person should continue in their role.
The current approach doesn't support openness and transparency - quite the reverse as if you are open and transparent (as she was - it was her would reported herself to the authorities) then you still get hounded out. So there is no incentive to be open and transparent - rather the incentive is to obstructive and hide stuff as 'not allowing anything to come out' is the best way to keep your job rather than allowing it to come out, which results in resignation even if you haven't been found to have done anything wrong.
-
Regardless of the approach and outcome opponents and the media will make political capital.
Had she resigned immediately (or Starmer sacked her immediately) the opposition and the media would have run on the basis of 'no smoke without fire, clearly indicates wrong-doing'. Indeed even now (despite being cleared of any ministerial breach) there is clear mischief making.
We really have to move beyond this towards a more sensible grown-up approach. If there are accusations then the appropriate authorities should investigate. If they find there is wrongdoing then action should be taken (resignation/sacking). If not then the person should continue in their role.
The current approach doesn't support openness and transparency - quite the reverse as if you are open and transparent (as she was - it was her would reported herself to the authorities) then you still get hounded out. So there is no incentive to be open and transparent - rather the incentive is to obstructive and hide stuff as 'not allowing anything to come out' is the best way to keep your job rather than allowing it to come out, which results in resignation even if you haven't been found to have done anything wrong.
And Labour in opposition contributed to that. Though it isn't recent - see Caesar's wife.
-
And Labour in opposition contributed to that. Though it isn't recent - see Caesar's wife.
Yup - that's right - they are all the same - yawn.
My recollection was of Labour calling for resignations when the PM or chancellor received a criminal convictions (Boris, Sunak), or when ministers were found to have broken the ministerial code (e.g. Braverman) or MP found guilty of serious breaches of the parliamentary code leading to suspension as an MP (e.g. Pincher for sexual misconduct). And for their calls being rebuffed by the previous government.
Compare that to Siddiq who reported herself to the authorities who investigated and found no wrongdoing.
But, hey ho, according to NS they are all the same :o
-
Yup - that's right - they are all the same - yawn.
My recollection was of Labour calling for resignations when the PM or chancellor received a criminal convictions (Boris, Sunak), or when ministers were found to have broken the ministerial code (e.g. Braverman) or MP found guilty of serious breaches of the parliamentary code leading to suspension as an MP (e.g. Pincher for sexual misconduct). And for their calls being rebuffed by the previous government.
Compare that to Siddiq who reported herself to the authorities who investigated and found no wrongdoing.
But, hey ho, according to NS they are all the same :o
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1887708/angela-rayner-police-investigation-boris-johnson
-
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1887708/angela-rayner-police-investigation-boris-johnson
Which is an article suggesting that Rayner should resign, so hardly backs up your point.
And on Boris - he was investigated by the police, he was found guilty of breaching his own legislation in his workplace while performing his duties as PM. He received a criminal conviction for breaking the law - he did not resign (well he did not resign due to this).
Meanwhile Siddiq resigns while a non criminal investigation found she had done nothing wrong.
Yup, they're all the same NS :o
-
Which is an article suggesting that Rayner should resign, so hardly backs up your point.
And on Boris - he was investigated by the police, he was found guilty of breaching his own legislation in his workplace while performing his duties as PM. He received a criminal conviction for breaking the law - he did not resign (well he did not resign due to this).
Meanwhile Siddiq resigns while a non criminal investigation found she had done nothing wrong.
Yup, they're all the same NS :o
Rayner called for his resignation because he was being investigated not when he received the conviction as the article covers so your recollection was wrong.
-
Rayner called for his resignation because he was being investigated not when he received the conviction as the article covers so your recollection was wrong.
The article isn't contemporaneous, but from last year and the editorial line is clearly trying to create an equivalence between Rayner and Boris' misdemeanours and to suggest Rayner to be a hypocrite.
But there really is no equivalence - on the one hand there was a criminal investigation into alleged criminal offences that occurred at no10, sanctioned by Boris in his capacity as PM, linked to legislation he, himself as PM, had brought in. And they were found to be true and Boris received a criminal conviction. In the other case the allegations had absolutely nothing to do with Rayner's public role as deputy leader of Labour ... and of course the investigation found there was no case to answer.
Oh, and Rayner said she would resign if she was found to have broken the law (she wasn't), Boris did break the law but refused to resign.
But hey, ho the PM gaining a criminal conviction for breaking the laws that he, himself brought in and an opposition MP who, following an investigation, was found to have no case to answer. Yup, absolutely the same - they are all the same, says NS so it must be true.
-
The article isn't contemporaneous, but from last year and the editorial line is clearly trying to create an equivalence between Rayner and Boris' misdemeanours and to suggest Rayner to be a hypocrite.
But there really is no equivalence - on the one hand there was a criminal investigation into alleged criminal offences that occurred at no10, sanctioned by Boris in his capacity as PM, linked to legislation he, himself as PM, had brought in. And they were found to be true and Boris received a criminal conviction. In the other case the allegations had absolutely nothing to do with Rayner's public role as deputy leader of Labour ... and of course the investigation found there was no case to answer.
But hey, ho the PM gaining a criminal conviction for breaking the laws that he, himself brought in and an opposition MP who, following an investigation, was found to have no case to answer. Yup, absolutely the same - they are all the same, says NS so it must be true.
You said Labour only called for resignations after the convictions. The article shows your recollection was wrong.
-
You said Labour only called for resignations after the convictions.
No I didn't - stop lying NS.
What I said was:
"My recollection was of Labour calling for resignations when the PM or chancellor received a criminal convictions (Boris, Sunak), or when ministers were found to have broken the ministerial code (e.g. Braverman) or MP found guilty of serious breaches of the parliamentary code leading to suspension as an MP (e.g. Pincher for sexual misconduct). And for their calls being rebuffed by the previous government."
I never used the word only. And my recollections on those matters are spot on. Are you denying those things that I recollect happened? Are you somehow suggesting an equivalence between these matters (from my accurate recollection) and Siddiq (found to have done nothing wrong) and Rayner (also found to have done nothing wrong).
-
Except, of course, I didn't demand perfection
Did you see the smiley at the end?
rather pointed out that it would have been good politics for her to resign because otherwise she became the story. Had she done so, and Starmer made the right noises about her being brought back when her name was cleared as he was sure it would be, Labour could have controlled the story, and looked good. Instead they've been forced into it so it both looks weak and more suspicious.
No it's bad politics. Now every government minister is a target for accusations, baseless or not.
-
Did you see the smiley at the end?
No it's bad politics. Now every government minister is a target for accusations, baseless or not.
You seem incredibly naive if you think this started that. The point about politics is that if you come in claiming to be not corrupt you need to be seen to approach it that way. It is a case of Caesar's wife as I mentioned to Prof D. Making the mistake that they did has lead to it looking worse.