Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Chancellor David Gauke becomes 3/1 favourite for next Cab

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited March 28 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Chancellor David Gauke becomes 3/1 favourite for next Cabinet after the High Court blocks the release of the black cab rapist

The big political betting development this afternoon have been a rush of money going on Lord Chancellor, David Gauke for next cabinet exit following a decision earlier by the High Court to block the release of the black cab rapist, John Worboys.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Ken Clarke's backing him, then so am I, even if if costs me £610
  • Plus I'm looking long term, I backed him at silly odds just before Christmas to be Theresa May's successor.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    I broadly agree with Mr. Smithson's sentiments, although with odds long enough (such as 51) I think exceptions might be made.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429
    Both losing bets, TSE....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,033
    *a rush of money* *Cough 60-1 ;)

    I'd agree with Mike's final paragraph right now though, 3-1 is not an attractive price to bet at as it now stands.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429
    Most annoying playing of this market was Chris Huhne hanging on, to get pipped to the winning post when he was so clearly banged to rights.... Grrrrr...
  • Both losing bets, TSE....

    That's what people said about my thread on Sir Michael Fallon as Theresa's successor at 100/1 Jeremy Hunt as successor to Theresa May at 100/1
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    Mr. Mark, annoying is when two winning bets both failed because Haas managed to screw up a second pit stop after they buggered up the first.

    These things happen, but it's still irksome.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,645
    Seems the High Court has made the right decision but presumably we also have to see what the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decide if Warboys Appeals.

    The Parole board faced criticism after another case this week so Hardwick also probably had to go.

    http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2018-03-09/men-accused-of-killing-vietnamese-woman-are-convicted-murderers-jury-told/

    Whether Gauke goes or not depends on the legal advice he was given
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263
    edited March 28

    Most annoying playing of this market was Chris Huhne hanging on, to get pipped to the winning post when he was so clearly banged to rights.... Grrrrr...

    I won three times on that market, I knew the CPS would take their time, Liam Fox being outed as a national security risk was a great bonus.

    I love Chris Huhne, without him I wouldn't have become guest editor of PB.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,799
    Not sure I understand the logic of sacking him... doesn’t TM have enough enemies as it is?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,670
    Titter.....

    It’s very easy to conclude that someone is doomed only to see them hang on. Mrs May herself is a great example of this.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429

    Most annoying playing of this market was Chris Huhne hanging on, to get pipped to the winning post when he was so clearly banged to rights.... Grrrrr...

    I won three times on that market, I knew the CPS would take their time, Liam Fox being outed as a national security risk was a great bonus.

    I love Chris Huhne, without him I wouldn't have become guest editor of PB.
    Rich as Creases is still my favourite pb.com pun, about his expenses claim for a trouser press....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    Mr. Mark, and like Croesus, he was undone by hubris.

    Although, unlike Croesus, he believed in handing monetary policy over to foreigners. [I think Croesus, as ruler of Lydia, created the first coined currency].
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,695
    Why should he have to resign? Or be sacked? He took legal advice. That advice turned out to be wrong. The High Court has ruled. Now the Parole Board will have to consider the implications of the ruling for their function.

    Ministers resigning simply because the courts have taken a different view of the law to government lawyers seems to me unnecessary, in the absence of some other fault.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,145

    Ken Clarke's backing him, then so am I, even if if costs me £610

    Lay the bet ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,145

    Mr. Mark, annoying is when two winning bets both failed because Haas managed to screw up a second pit stop after they buggered up the first.

    These things happen, but it's still irksome.

    You could back them to beat Red Bull in Bahrain ?
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,772
    Hardwick letter:

    "I had no role in the decision of the panel in the case"

    Translation: I chaired the meeting in such a way that I got the decision I wanted without having to use my casting vote.

    "I will not pass the buck to those who work under me"

    Translation: I am blaming those who work under me but have been sacked by my boss.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,670
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429
    Cyclefree said:

    Why should he have to resign? Or be sacked? He took legal advice. That advice turned out to be wrong. The High Court has ruled. Now the Parole Board will have to consider the implications of the ruling for their function.

    Ministers resigning simply because the courts have taken a different view of the law to government lawyers seems to me unnecessary, in the absence of some other fault.

    Following advice of lawyers should be adequate arse-coverage in life.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    Mr. B, I'd be astounded if that happened. The Haas was over a second a lap slower in qualifying. We have a league of three at the front, and then the rest.

    That said, perfect timing of a safety car could give track position, and the Haas might be good enough to keep a Red Bull behind it (McLaren was in Australia).
  • TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,145
    Nigelb said:

    Ken Clarke's backing him, then so am I, even if if costs me £610

    Lay the bet ?
    No Betfair exchange market
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,670
    Dom Cummings points out The Guardian uses the same 'harvesting data' techniques they are (erroneously) claiming Vote Leave did:

    https://dominiccummings.com/2018/03/28/on-the-referendum-24d-walter-mitty-cambridge-analytica-facebook-and-the-guardian-observer/
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429

    Dom Cummings points out The Guardian uses the same 'harvesting data' techniques they are (erroneously) claiming Vote Leave did:

    https://dominiccummings.com/2018/03/28/on-the-referendum-24d-walter-mitty-cambridge-analytica-facebook-and-the-guardian-observer/

    That is viciously kicking The Guardian! Wonder if they will go quiet now?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,670

    TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429

    TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    I don’t think he has HAD to take anything down. He chose to - and said why at the time.

    Cummings looks like he is really enjoying himself now. He is exposing some remarkable hypocrisy by his accusers.
  • TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?
    If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.
  • TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    I don’t think he has HAD to take anything down. He chose to - and said why at the time.

    Cummings looks like he is really enjoying himself now. He is exposing some remarkable hypocrisy by his accusers.
    Well I had heard communication from m'learned friends caused him to amend his blog entry.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,145

    Mr. B, I'd be astounded if that happened. The Haas was over a second a lap slower in qualifying. We have a league of three at the front, and then the rest.

    That said, perfect timing of a safety car could give track position, and the Haas might be good enough to keep a Red Bull behind it (McLaren was in Australia).

    No, you're probably right - last year's Red Bulls were close enough (in qualifying) to the Ferraris. If Haas get track position then they ought easily to keep the Red Bulls at bay.
  • On topic it is just wrong that the Lord Chancellor isn't a Lord.

    We're talking about one of the Great Officers of State, a role that goes back to the 7th Century.

    It's not a Johnny Come Lately role like Lord Privy Seal.

    This is the fault of Tony Blair and his constitutional vandalism.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,798

    TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    I don’t think he has HAD to take anything down. He chose to - and said why at the time.

    Cummings looks like he is really enjoying himself now. He is exposing some remarkable hypocrisy by his accusers.
    If the aim of his accusers is to discredit the 2016 referendum, he is doing their bidding. He's fallen into the "£350m a week" trap where refuting it only makes it worse.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,670
    edited March 28

    TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?
    If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.
    If you think accusing a former partner of something based on personal advice given and expecting the relationship to remain a secret you've led a very sheltered life.
  • TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    I don’t think he has HAD to take anything down. He chose to - and said why at the time.

    Cummings looks like he is really enjoying himself now. He is exposing some remarkable hypocrisy by his accusers.
    If the aim of his accusers is to discredit the 2016 referendum, he is doing their bidding. He's fallen into the "£350m a week" trap where refuting it only makes it worse.
    I hope Dom Cummings spends more time talking about the three years he spent living in Russia.

    He's a Russophile, perhaps he can explain the mindset of Vladimir Putin.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,138
    I’m glad I’m not Dominic Cummings’ lawyer. He’s making a lot of claims and giving a lot of information. I suspect he will come to regret at least some of the things that he has written. One observation in his long blog stands out for me as most unwise.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,670

    TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    I don’t think he has HAD to take anything down. He chose to - and said why at the time.

    Cummings looks like he is really enjoying himself now. He is exposing some remarkable hypocrisy by his accusers.
    If you follow the Guardian or the New York Times, or any major news network, you are likely to have noticed that a company called Cambridge Analytica have been in the headlines a lot.

    The basic story as reported is as follows:

    A shady UK data analytics company, with the help of a 24 year old tech genius developed an innovative technique to ‘hack’ facebook and steal 50 million user profiles. Then they used this data to help the Trump and Brexit campaigns psychologically manipulate voters through targeted ads. The result was Vote Leave ‘won’ the UK’s Brexit referendum and Trump was elected president in the US.

    Unfortunately, almost everything in the above summary is false or misleading.


    https://god-knows-what.com/2018/03/27/why-almost-everything-reported-about-the-cambridge-analytica-facebook-hacking-controversy-is-wrong/
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429

    TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    I don’t think he has HAD to take anything down. He chose to - and said why at the time.

    Cummings looks like he is really enjoying himself now. He is exposing some remarkable hypocrisy by his accusers.
    Well I had heard communication from m'learned friends caused him to amend his blog entry.
    Read his blog. It is a fascinating read - by a man very comfortable of his ground.
  • TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?
    If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.
    If you think accusing a former partner of something based on personal advice given and expecting the relationship to remain a secret you've led a very protected life.
    Nah.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,798

    TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    I don’t think he has HAD to take anything down. He chose to - and said why at the time.

    Cummings looks like he is really enjoying himself now. He is exposing some remarkable hypocrisy by his accusers.
    If the aim of his accusers is to discredit the 2016 referendum, he is doing their bidding. He's fallen into the "£350m a week" trap where refuting it only makes it worse.
    I hope Dom Cummings spends more time talking about the three years he spent living in Russia.

    He's a Russophile, perhaps he can explain the mindset of Vladimir Putin.
    He claims in his blog that while he was living in Russia he met with women involved in FSB honeytraps who regaled him with full details. Spot the Walter Mitty...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    Mr. Eagles, I agree with you on the Lord Chancellor business. Blair was a short-sighted oaf.
  • TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    I don’t think he has HAD to take anything down. He chose to - and said why at the time.

    Cummings looks like he is really enjoying himself now. He is exposing some remarkable hypocrisy by his accusers.
    If the aim of his accusers is to discredit the 2016 referendum, he is doing their bidding. He's fallen into the "£350m a week" trap where refuting it only makes it worse.
    I hope Dom Cummings spends more time talking about the three years he spent living in Russia.

    He's a Russophile, perhaps he can explain the mindset of Vladimir Putin.
    He claims in his blog that while he was living in Russia he met with women involved in FSB honeytraps who regaled him with full details. Spot the Walter Mitty...
    He's watched Red Sparrow.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,193

    On topic it is just wrong that the Lord Chancellor isn't a Lord.

    We're talking about one of the Great Officers of State, a role that goes back to the 7th Century.

    It's not a Johnny Come Lately role like Lord Privy Seal.

    This is the fault of Tony Blair and his constitutional vandalism.

    Blair tried to abolish the Lord Chancellor because he couldn't abide the fact that there was a cabinet post that ranked higher than his in the order of precedence.
  • The really funny thing about Red Sparrow.

    Hardly any of the Russians were played by a Russian, and the main American character was played by an Aussie.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,758

    TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    I don’t think he has HAD to take anything down. He chose to - and said why at the time.

    Cummings looks like he is really enjoying himself now. He is exposing some remarkable hypocrisy by his accusers.
    If the aim of his accusers is to discredit the 2016 referendum, he is doing their bidding. He's fallen into the "£350m a week" trap where refuting it only makes it worse.
    I hope Dom Cummings spends more time talking about the three years he spent living in Russia.

    He's a Russophile, perhaps he can explain the mindset of Vladimir Putin.
    Perhaps he needs to be careful of eating out in small provincial cities too...
  • On topic it is just wrong that the Lord Chancellor isn't a Lord.

    We're talking about one of the Great Officers of State, a role that goes back to the 7th Century.

    It's not a Johnny Come Lately role like Lord Privy Seal.

    This is the fault of Tony Blair and his constitutional vandalism.

    Blair tried to abolish the Lord Chancellor because he couldn't abide the fact that there was a cabinet post that ranked higher than his in the order of precedence.
    OMG, that might be Blair's worst crime, bigger than Iraq and having Brown as Chancellor for a decade.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429

    TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    I don’t think he has HAD to take anything down. He chose to - and said why at the time.

    Cummings looks like he is really enjoying himself now. He is exposing some remarkable hypocrisy by his accusers.
    If the aim of his accusers is to discredit the 2016 referendum, he is doing their bidding. He's fallen into the "£350m a week" trap where refuting it only makes it worse.
    All I’m seeing is the people who underestimated him in the Referendum doubling down on their mistake....
  • Mind you, someone needs to explain to me why the Queen is always called The Duke of Normandy, and not the Duchess of Normandy.

    Is this some bizarre joke by The Collaborator Channel Islands?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,670

    The really funny thing about Red Sparrow.

    Hardly any of the Russians were played by a Russian, and the main American character was played by an Aussie.

    Top drawer British talent in the main....
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,238

    Mind you, someone needs to explain to me why the Queen is always called The Duke of Normandy, and not the Duchess of Normandy.

    Is this some bizarre joke by The Collaborator Channel Islands?

    Because she has the body of a weak, feeble woman; but the heart and stomach of a king, and of a King of England too. She is also Duke of Lancaster.
  • The really funny thing about Red Sparrow.

    Hardly any of the Russians were played by a Russian, and the main American character was played by an Aussie.

    Top drawer British talent in the main....
    I was embarrassed to say I didn't spot Joely Richardson until I saw the end credits.
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    Mind you, someone needs to explain to me why the Queen is always called The Duke of Normandy, and not the Duchess of Normandy.

    Is this some bizarre joke by The Collaborator Channel Islands?

    Because she has the body of a weak, feeble woman; but the heart and stomach of a king, and of a King of England too. She is also Duke of Lancaster.
    Well the Lancastrians are weird.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429
    Looking forward to that Guardian expose...
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,238

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Mind you, someone needs to explain to me why the Queen is always called The Duke of Normandy, and not the Duchess of Normandy.

    Is this some bizarre joke by The Collaborator Channel Islands?

    Because she has the body of a weak, feeble woman; but the heart and stomach of a king, and of a King of England too. She is also Duke of Lancaster.
    Well the Lancastrians are weird.
    I'll take the Duke of Lancaster over the Duke of York any day.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,670

    Mind you, someone needs to explain to me why the Queen is always called The Duke of Normandy, and not the Duchess of Normandy.

    Why don't you start nearer to home and ask the Lancastrians about the 'Duke of Lancaster'?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    Mr. Eagles, isn't that because French inheritance couldn't pass through a female line? That's why they denied the legitimacy of Edward III's claim to the French throne. [Well, the official reason, anyway].

    Not sure why the Duke of Lancaster title should be likewise, though.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626
    edited March 28
    Mike is probably right, and personally I don't think his decision was worthy of resigning because, (coincidentally given the tests the judges had to apply) his decision was reasonable at the time, even if one thinks he should have taken the risk and challenged the parole board decision against the advice he had received.

    However, having gotten on much earlier than 3/1, if not as early as some, I cannot help but hope a little that he goes.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626
    AndyJS said:
    Another dull by-election, alas.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,182
    Mike ....

    You definitely missed your exit ....

    From the thread heading .... :smiley:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,445
    edited March 28
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Mind you, someone needs to explain to me why the Queen is always called The Duke of Normandy, and not the Duchess of Normandy.

    Is this some bizarre joke by The Collaborator Channel Islands?

    Because she has the body of a weak, feeble woman; but the heart and stomach of a king, and of a King of England too. She is also Duke of Lancaster.
    Well the Lancastrians are weird.
    I'll take the Duke of Lancaster over the Duke of York any day.
    Unfortunately for him, the Duke of Lancaster was comprehensively unable to take the Duke of York on pretty much any day, with the dazzling exception of the Battle of Wakefield.

    Pretty much every other major battle in the Wars of the Roses - First St Albans, Northampton, Towton, Barnet and Tewkesbury - the Lancastrians got their arses handed to them.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,445
    edited March 28

    Mr. Eagles, isn't that because French inheritance couldn't pass through a female line? That's why they denied the legitimacy of Edward III's claim to the French throne. [Well, the official reason, anyway].

    Not sure why the Duke of Lancaster title should be likewise, though.

    I thought it was the other way around - they invented that rule to both (1) deny Edward III as the only grandson of Philip IV the throne and (2) to exclude Philip's other ostensible grandchild, the Queen of Navarre, about whose legitimacy there were very real doubts after her mother was caught in flagrante delicto with one of her husband's servants.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    Mr. Doethur, that's entirely possible.

    Anyway, on the note of French dubiousness I must be off.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626
    edited March 28
    Well now, there's a world first you don't want attached to your name:

    Man has 'world's worst' super-gonorrhea

    Public Health England says it is the first time the infection cannot be cured with first choice antibiotics


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43571120

    Bad news all around though, being so resistant.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,300
    @ShippersUnbound: Who can this Milne? I mean, who can this mean?
  • kle4 said:

    Well now, there's a world first you don't want attached to your name:

    Man has 'world's worst' super-gonorrhea

    Public Health England says it is the first time the infection cannot be cured with first choice antibiotics


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43571120

    Bad news all around though, being so resistant.

    A man in the UK has caught the world's "worst-ever" case of super-gonorrhoea.

    He had a regular partner in the UK, but picked up the superbug after a sexual encounter with a woman in south-east Asia.


    It's not SeanT is it?
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,125
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?

    I don't see why a political party should put the country to the expense of a Bye Election if it isn't necessary constitutionally. Or if they do, shouldn't they pay the cost of the whole Bye Election? (It would at least be a good chance that the other parties weren't allowed to get away with overspend.)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,445
    kle4 said:

    Well now, there's a world first you don't want attached to your name

    Don't worry, it will soon drop off.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626
    Scott_P said:
    The fact that some Corbynsceptic Labour MPs are criticising him does not mean there is no problem. It is a serious one because it sends a terrible signal to the world outside Labour.

    Corbyn doesn’t have to sell his soul to address it. John McDonnell, his closest political ally, has shown a much surer touch in handling sensitive issues


    Pretty sensible stuff. As for Corbyn planning to apologise but his statement amended, well, it is still his statement after all. And this sort of report will just make his base even more confused. Do they continue to say it is nonsense when not only has he said there is a problem, but he wanted to apologise earlier?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,513
    Gauke may have misjudged but I’m struggling to see why it’s a resignation offence.

    This seems to be trial by pitchfork to me.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626
    AnneJGP said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?

    I don't see why a political party should put the country to the expense of a Bye Election if it isn't necessary constitutionally. Or if they do, shouldn't they pay the cost of the whole Bye Election? (It would at least be a good chance that the other parties weren't allowed to get away with overspend.)

    I'm certainly no expert, but I would have thought in the absence of a constitutional rule which says they can or cannot double job, parties are perfectly entitled to decide what is and is not acceptable from those who stand under their banner, and that seems fairly reasonable to me. So the question is is such a rule necessary? I don't know, but if there isn't one but Labour want to make a point about committing full time to a role, or not even standing for one while in the other role, I'm not personally outraged.

    People have caused by-elections just to make a point, I think it's not really for the law to decide which ones are justified and which not, and therefore who else should pay for it. Ultimately an MP cannot be fired, so if Jarvis or any other Labour MP wants to refuse to stand down from parliament, no one can force them to. If that scuppers his chance at actually standing as mayor, it remains an internal matter for the party and no one elses' concern really.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626
    I swear he often seems to have a different position than the others, though eventually they come around.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,149

    TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?
    If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.
    If you think accusing a former partner of something based on personal advice given and expecting the relationship to remain a secret you've led a very protected life.
    Nah.
    His central defence is he was providing advice to his partner. You can't make that defence without stating the nature of the relationship.

    Do you think the right to privacy should prevent an accused party from mounting a defence? If so, then I am troubled that you are a lawyer.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,125
    kle4 said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?

    I don't see why a political party should put the country to the expense of a Bye Election if it isn't necessary constitutionally. Or if they do, shouldn't they pay the cost of the whole Bye Election? (It would at least be a good chance that the other parties weren't allowed to get away with overspend.)

    I'm certainly no expert, but I would have thought in the absence of a constitutional rule which says they can or cannot double job, parties are perfectly entitled to decide what is and is not acceptable from those who stand under their banner, and that seems fairly reasonable to me. So the question is is such a rule necessary? I don't know, but if there isn't one but Labour want to make a point about committing full time to a role, or not even standing for one while in the other role, I'm not personally outraged.

    People have caused by-elections just to make a point, I think it's not really for the law to decide which ones are justified and which not, and therefore who else should pay for it. Ultimately an MP cannot be fired, so if Jarvis or any other Labour MP wants to refuse to stand down from parliament, no one can force them to. If that scuppers his chance at actually standing as mayor, it remains an internal matter for the party and no one elses' concern really.
    That's true. Thank you, some interesting observations.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429
    Comments below the line are twigging finally that Corbyn is Brexit’s Bezzy Mate. Not happy!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,149
    ydoethur said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Mind you, someone needs to explain to me why the Queen is always called The Duke of Normandy, and not the Duchess of Normandy.

    Is this some bizarre joke by The Collaborator Channel Islands?

    Because she has the body of a weak, feeble woman; but the heart and stomach of a king, and of a King of England too. She is also Duke of Lancaster.
    Well the Lancastrians are weird.
    I'll take the Duke of Lancaster over the Duke of York any day.
    Unfortunately for him, the Duke of Lancaster was comprehensively unable to take the Duke of York on pretty much any day, with the dazzling exception of the Battle of Wakefield.

    Pretty much every other major battle in the Wars of the Roses - First St Albans, Northampton, Towton, Barnet and Tewkesbury - the Lancastrians got their arses handed to them.
    They still won, though...

    Bosworth was the only one that mattered in the end.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,451
    Cummings sound like he is enjoying himself. And certainly not behaving like a man with anything to hide.
  • Charles said:

    TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?
    If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.
    If you think accusing a former partner of something based on personal advice given and expecting the relationship to remain a secret you've led a very protected life.
    Nah.
    His central defence is he was providing advice to his partner. You can't make that defence without stating the nature of the relationship.

    Do you think the right to privacy should prevent an accused party from mounting a defence? If so, then I am troubled that you are a lawyer.
    He knew that his ex partner had relatives in Pakistan where such news can be life ending news.

    There's ways of rebutting it without outing him.

    'We were very good friends, and I'm sorry his recollection is wrong, I expected better from someone who I considered a very close friend'
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,542
    kle4 said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?

    I don't see why a political party should put the country to the expense of a Bye Election if it isn't necessary constitutionally. Or if they do, shouldn't they pay the cost of the whole Bye Election? (It would at least be a good chance that the other parties weren't allowed to get away with overspend.)

    I'm certainly no expert, but I would have thought in the absence of a constitutional rule which says they can or cannot double job, parties are perfectly entitled to decide what is and is not acceptable from those who stand under their banner, and that seems fairly reasonable to me. So the question is is such a rule necessary? I don't know, but if there isn't one but Labour want to make a point about committing full time to a role, or not even standing for one while in the other role, I'm not personally outraged.

    People have caused by-elections just to make a point, I think it's not really for the law to decide which ones are justified and which not, and therefore who else should pay for it. Ultimately an MP cannot be fired, so if Jarvis or any other Labour MP wants to refuse to stand down from parliament, no one can force them to. If that scuppers his chance at actually standing as mayor, it remains an internal matter for the party and no one elses' concern really.
    There are a number of MPs who also retain their council seats - at least for a period. There are many, many councillors who hold seats at Parish, Borough and County level at the same time.

    It is surely up to the voters to decide whether the level of commitment being offered is acceptable by their representatives.

    Jarvis seems a diligent sort of chap - I think he can handle a dual role for a while. Labour's manoeuvres on this are clearly an attempt to dislodge a potential threat rather than any desire for constitutional clarity.

    If Labour mess this up, as they appear to be doing. Jarvis could end up as a rallying point in the Commons.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429

    Charles said:

    TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?
    If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.
    If you think accusing a former partner of something based on personal advice given and expecting the relationship to remain a secret you've led a very protected life.
    Nah.
    His central defence is he was providing advice to his partner. You can't make that defence without stating the nature of the relationship.

    Do you think the right to privacy should prevent an accused party from mounting a defence? If so, then I am troubled that you are a lawyer.
    He knew that his ex partner had relatives in Pakistan where such news can be life ending news.

    There's ways of rebutting it without outing him.

    'We were very good friends, and I'm sorry his recollection is wrong, I expected better from someone who I considered a very close friend'
    If it was that big an issue, why get photographed at a Pride event at 10 Downing Street?
  • If it was that big an issue, why get photographed at a Pride event at 10 Downing Street?

    Lots of people attend Pride events who aren't gay.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,451

    Charles said:

    TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?
    If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.
    If you think accusing a former partner of something based on personal advice given and expecting the relationship to remain a secret you've led a very protected life.
    Nah.
    His central defence is he was providing advice to his partner. You can't make that defence without stating the nature of the relationship.

    Do you think the right to privacy should prevent an accused party from mounting a defence? If so, then I am troubled that you are a lawyer.
    He knew that his ex partner had relatives in Pakistan where such news can be life ending news.

    There's ways of rebutting it without outing him.

    'We were very good friends, and I'm sorry his recollection is wrong, I expected better from someone who I considered a very close friend'
    Surely the big issue is that you are smearing Pakistan by suggesting it is a place of exceptional homophobic intolerance and full of thugs incapable of controlling their actions. One could suggest your slur is racist and probably islamophobic.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,758

    kle4 said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?

    I don't see why a political party should put the country to the expense of a Bye Election if it isn't necessary constitutionally. Or if they do, shouldn't they pay the cost of the whole Bye Election? (It would at least be a good chance that the other parties weren't allowed to get away with overspend.)

    I'm certainly no expert, but I would have thought in the absence of a constitutional rule which says they can or cannot double job, parties are perfectly entitled to decide what is and is not acceptable from those who stand under their banner, and that seems fairly reasonable to me. So the question is is such a rule necessary? I don't know, but if there isn't one but Labour want to make a point about committing full time to a role, or not even standing for one while in the other role, I'm not personally outraged.

    People have caused by-elections just to make a point, I think it's not really for the law to decide which ones are justified and which not, and therefore who else should pay for it. Ultimately an MP cannot be fired, so if Jarvis or any other Labour MP wants to refuse to stand down from parliament, no one can force them to. If that scuppers his chance at actually standing as mayor, it remains an internal matter for the party and no one elses' concern really.
    There are a number of MPs who also retain their council seats - at least for a period. There are many, many councillors who hold seats at Parish, Borough and County level at the same time.

    It is surely up to the voters to decide whether the level of commitment being offered is acceptable by their representatives.

    Jarvis seems a diligent sort of chap - I think he can handle a dual role for a while. Labour's manoeuvres on this are clearly an attempt to dislodge a potential threat rather than any desire for constitutional clarity.

    If Labour mess this up, as they appear to be doing. Jarvis could end up as a rallying point in the Commons.
    I am on the other side of this. If the new Mayors are to mean anything other than a sinecure, then they should be full time. If Jarvis wants to leave the Commons to do it, like Burnham or Khan, or Leicesters own Peter Soulsby have done, then he should. I don't think this is a new rule.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263
    edited March 28
    TGOHF said:


    Surely the big issue is that you are smearing Pakistan by suggesting it is a place of exceptional homophobic intolerance and full of thugs incapable of controlling their actions. One could suggest your slur is racist and probably islamophobic.

    It's not as bad as Russia when it comes to homophobia, or Bermuda, or Northern Ireland.

    I'm not sure Pakistan has ever had a 'Save Pakistan from Sodomy' campaign.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,542
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?

    I don't see why a political party should put the country to the expense of a Bye Election if it isn't necessary constitutionally. Or if they do, shouldn't they pay the cost of the whole Bye Election? (It would at least be a good chance that the other parties weren't allowed to get away with overspend.)



    People have caused by-elections just to make a point, I think it's not really for the law to decide which ones are justified and which not, and therefore who else should pay for it. Ultimately an MP cannot be fired, so if Jarvis or any other Labour MP wants to refuse to stand down from parliament, no one can force them to. If that scuppers his chance at actually standing as mayor, it remains an internal matter for the party and no one elses' concern really.
    There are a number of MPs who also retain their council seats - at least for a period. There are many, many councillors who hold seats at Parish, Borough and County level at the same time.

    It is surely up to the voters to decide whether the level of commitment being offered is acceptable by their representatives.

    Jarvis seems a diligent sort of chap - I think he can handle a dual role for a while. Labour's manoeuvres on this are clearly an attempt to dislodge a potential threat rather than any desire for constitutional clarity.

    If Labour mess this up, as they appear to be doing. Jarvis could end up as a rallying point in the Commons.
    I am on the other side of this. If the new Mayors are to mean anything other than a sinecure, then they should be full time. If Jarvis wants to leave the Commons to do it, like Burnham or Khan, or Leicesters own Peter Soulsby have done, then he should. I don't think this is a new rule.
    I think it comes down to individual choice. Labour threatening one of their own MPs over this is sending the wrong message entirely.

    Changing the rules part way through the process is just not democratic.

    Jarvis stood making his intentions very clear. He was duly selected. Then the rules were changed. No wonder people are narked.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,149

    Charles said:

    TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?
    If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.
    If you think accusing a former partner of something based on personal advice given and expecting the relationship to remain a secret you've led a very protected life.
    Nah.
    His central defence is he was providing advice to his partner. You can't make that defence without stating the nature of the relationship.

    Do you think the right to privacy should prevent an accused party from mounting a defence? If so, then I am troubled that you are a lawyer.
    He knew that his ex partner had relatives in Pakistan where such news can be life ending news.

    There's ways of rebutting it without outing him.

    'We were very good friends, and I'm sorry his recollection is wrong, I expected better from someone who I considered a very close friend'
    Very close friend =/= partner when it comes to advice.

    The man has a right to conduct a defence as he sees fit and without constraint.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626

    kle4 said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?

    I don't see why a political party should put the country to the expense of a Bye Election if it isn't necessary constitutionally. Or if they do, shouldn't they pay the cost of the whole Bye Election? (It would at least be a good chance that the other parties weren't allowed to get away with overspend.)

    I'm certainly no expert, but I would have thought in the absence of a constitutional rule which says they can or cannot double job, parties are perfectly entitled to decide what is and is not acceptable from those who stand under their banner, and that seems fairly reasonable to me. So the question is is such a rule necessary? I don't know, but if there isn't one but Labour want to make a point about committing full time to a role, or not even standing for one while in the other role, I'm not personally outraged.

    People have caused by-elections just to make a point, I think it's not really for the law to decide which ones are justified and which not, and therefore who else should pay for it. Ultimately an MP cannot be fired, so if Jarvis or any other Labour MP wants to refuse to stand down from parliament, no one can force them to. If that scuppers his chance at actually standing as mayor, it remains an internal matter for the party and no one elses' concern really.
    There are a number of MPs who also retain their council seats - at least for a period. There are many, many councillors who hold seats at Parish, Borough and County level at the same time.

    It is surely up to the voters to decide whether the level of commitment being offered is acceptable by their representatives.

    Jarvis seems a diligent sort of chap - I think he can handle a dual role for a while. Labour's manoeuvres on this are clearly an attempt to dislodge a potential threat rather than any desire for constitutional clarity.

    If Labour mess this up, as they appear to be doing. Jarvis could end up as a rallying point in the Commons.
    Im not opposed to people doing both, I just think parties can set their own rules on it. However, changing those rules part way through is just not cricket.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,758

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?

    I don't see why a political party should put the country to the expense of a Bye Election if it isn't necessary constitutionally. Or if they do, shouldn't they pay the cost of the whole Bye Election? (It would at least be a good chance that the other parties weren't allowed to get away with overspend.)



    People have caused by-elections just to make a point, I think it's not really for the law to decide which ones are justified and which not, and therefore who else should pay for it. Ultimately an MP cannot be fired, so if Jarvis or any other Labour MP wants to refuse to stand down from parliament, no one can force them to. If that scuppers his chance at actually standing as mayor, it remains an internal matter for the party and no one elses' concern really.
    There are a number of MPs who also retain their council seats - at least for a period. There are many, many councillors who hold seats at Parish, Borough and County level at the same time.

    It is surely up to the voters to decide whether the level of commitment being offered is acceptable by their representatives.

    Jarvis seems a diligent sort of chap - I think he can handle a dual role for a while. Labour's manoeuvres on this are clearly an attempt to dislodge a potential threat rather than any desire for constitutional clarity.

    If Labour mess this up, as they appear to be doing. Jarvis could end up as a rallying point in the Commons.
    I am on the other side of this. If the new Mayors are to mean anything other than a sinecure, then they should be full time. If Jarvis wants to leave the Commons to do it, like Burnham or Khan, or Leicesters own Peter Soulsby have done, then he should. I don't think this is a new rule.
    I think it comes down to individual choice. Labour threatening one of their own MPs over this is sending the wrong message entirely.

    Changing the rules part way through the process is just not democratic.

    Jarvis stood making his intentions very clear. He was duly selected. Then the rules were changed. No wonder people are narked.
    Like I said, Burnham, Khan, Soulsby and a number of others all resigned as MPs so as to become Mayors. Seems sensible to me.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,273
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    I've read the comments on the previous thread & am interested in the MP/Mayoral predicament of Dan Jarvis. Can anyone explain to me why individual parties should decide their own rules on this, rather than having one constitutional set of rules regardless of party?

    I don't see why a political party should put the country to the expense of a Bye Election if it isn't necessary constitutionally. Or if they do, shouldn't they pay the cost of the whole Bye Election? (It would at least be a good chance that the other parties weren't allowed to get away with overspend.)

    I'm certainly no expert, but I would have thought in the absence of a constitutional rule which says they can or cannot double job, parties are perfectly entitled to decide what is and is not acceptable from those who stand under their banner, and that seems fairly reasonable to me. So the question is is such a rule necessary? I don't know, but if there isn't one but Labour want to make a point about committing full time to a role, or not even standing for one while in the other role, I'm not personally outraged.

    People have caused by-elections just to make a point, I think it's not really for the law to decide which ones are justified and which not, and therefore who else should pay for it. Ultimately an MP cannot be fired, so if Jarvis or any other Labour MP wants to refuse to stand down from parliament, no one can force them to. If that scuppers his chance at actually standing as mayor, it remains an internal matter for the party and no one elses' concern really.
    There are a number of MPs who also retain their council seats - at least for a period. There are many, many councillors who hold seats at Parish, Borough and County level at the same time.

    It is surely up to the voters to decide whether the level of commitment being offered is acceptable by their representatives.

    Jarvis seems a diligent sort of chap - I think he can handle a dual role for a while. Labour's manoeuvres on this are clearly an attempt to dislodge a potential threat rather than any desire for constitutional clarity.

    If Labour mess this up, as they appear to be doing. Jarvis could end up as a rallying point in the Commons.
    Im not opposed to people doing both, I just think parties can set their own rules on it. However, changing those rules part way through is just not cricket.
    Or, as the case may be, is cricket.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,138
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    TGOHF said:
    So how long this time before he has to take something down because M'learned friends have sent him a letter/email?
    Then put it back up again after they amplify the 'outing' many times over with personal statements and direct links to the PM?
    If you think outing someone without their consent is acceptable then there's no hope for you.
    If you think accusing a former partner of something based on personal advice given and expecting the relationship to remain a secret you've led a very protected life.
    Nah.
    His central defence is he was providing advice to his partner. You can't make that defence without stating the nature of the relationship.

    Do you think the right to privacy should prevent an accused party from mounting a defence? If so, then I am troubled that you are a lawyer.
    He knew that his ex partner had relatives in Pakistan where such news can be life ending news.

    There's ways of rebutting it without outing him.

    'We were very good friends, and I'm sorry his recollection is wrong, I expected better from someone who I considered a very close friend'
    Very close friend =/= partner when it comes to advice.

    The man has a right to conduct a defence as he sees fit and without constraint.
    Whistleblowers are ordinarily protected from victimisation. Stephen Parkinson was not entitled to out someone in response to whistleblowing (he could of course make a fuller explanation privately to his employer). He should be sacked.

    However, the Prime Minister has a well-documented track record of tolerating juniors being abusive to others. Her acceptance of such appalling behaviour speaks volumes about her.
This discussion has been closed.