PM should sack Siddiq over corruption claims, Badenoch says

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1887708/angela-rayner-police-investigation-boris-johnson

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.