ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Guest 3925- Registered: 28 Nov 2020
- Posts: 541
I would imagine unlikely to vote against her party even if the majority of voters wanted her to as she probably hopes she'll be given a safe seat next election.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,931
I look at this on the conservative front
With so many different things going on locally and nationally will she still get support ?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1416- Registered: 20 Nov 2014
- Posts: 77
Wholly agree with Cllr Oliver, "perverse in the extreme" is a rather appropriate way
to describe the actions of an MP that is elected to represent the interests of a constituency that derives a large amount of income from tourism and relies on pleasure activities on both sea and beaches. It’s no wonder when it comes to Environmental damage on land, she remains totally silent.
Yet again, is anyone really surprised at Mrs Elphicke's vote? Certainly not me, nor most people I know.
As someone else eloquently put it on another local forum, as an MP for Dover district Natalie Elphicke is as useful as a chocolate ashtray
A clear conscience is the sure sign of a bad memory.
Captain Haddock
- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,100
Natalie is absolutely correct. The original amendment was ill written and not thought through.
See here:-
https://www.robertcourts.co.uk/news/explainer-lords-amendments-environment-bill-re-storm-overflows
Usual grandstanding from local Councillor who knows little on the subject and understands even less.
Full Fact:-
https://fullfact.org/environment/murky-claims-about-sewage-bill-fact-checked/Reginald Barrington and Paul Watkins like this
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
It's not like you to conflate two issues as a means of deflection, is it? And your acolytes will happily jump to agreement. The original amendment was badly written but, as one of your references shows, has been amended in a form in a way that hardly changes the substantive point of the Lords' concerns.
The point of this thread is of local representation. Even the government is unable to disguise a performance that is unacceptably woeful.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-and-sewerage-companies-in-england-environmental-performance-report-2020/southern-water-epa-data-report-2020
We could argue the rights and wrongs of water privatisation until we are blue in the teeth. The sad fact is that far less has been done to make good the sewerage infrastucture than could have been under a different model based upon public well being. Even conservative estimates are that £57bn have gone into the hands of shareholders.
As for the lamentable Southen Water - don't you think it's a little like flytipping? If you pay for an outside company to dispose of your crap only to find they had dumped it somewhere which the public has an expectation to be left unsullied, you'd have a right to feel aggrieved, wouldn't you?
Natalie is mere lobby fodder.
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Just to add emphasis to the point, I doubt that anyone will be surprised to hear that our spineless representative failed to join the diminishing ranks of MPs in Johnson's party with a conscience last night. I mean, of course, the attempt to pervert parliamentary justice by changing the rules at the last minute.
Just as she supported the now disgraced SPAD Cummings, she is quite happy to stick 2 fingers up to the electorate if it furthers her political aspirations.
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
The kind of Conservative I wish to distance myself from.The sooner they lose their massive marjority the better.
Button
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,057
I'm not sure I know what all the fuss is about - isn't it the case that the Conservatives simply know each other and have a more convivial, fraternal spirit?
The front-page comment that "now we know the lengths to which a venal political class will go to protect its own. A decade after Britain seethed with rage over revelations of their greed, MPs have once again conspired to demean our democracy - hinting at a moral bankruptcy" simply shows that the socialist press (the Daily Mail) is jealous of an entrepreneur well worth £100k of anyone's money. Though not perhaps mine.
ray hutstone likes this
(Not my real name.)
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,879
Nothing surprises me about the way politicians behave , the majority follow their party dictate be it the official whip or behind the scenes pressure and our useless MP is a prime example.
There should be no such punishment as suspension from Parliament unless it is for a maximum 48hrs as that virtually denies constituents of their active MP. Any punishment should be in a more effective financial way or if the wrong doing is bad enough to merit suspension then just kick them out and go for a by-election.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,879
I wonder if he resigned voluntarily or was he pushed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59167783-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Moors- Registered: 3 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,299
What an absolute mess. Shocking judgment from Government and (most) Conservative MPs.
ray hutstone likes this
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Do you really believe he would have resigned of his own accord?
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Neil Moors wrote:What an absolute mess. Shocking judgment from Government and (most) Conservative MPs.
Including our own precious whicker woman, foisted upon us by the local party leadership. Thanks a lot, chaps.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
time for a vote of no confidence
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,100
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
Thanks, John Crace. Summed things up perfectly again. And a lot funnier than a telegraph cartoon.
It was a shit job, but someone had to do it. And it was just Kwasi Kwarteng’s bad luck that he drew the short straw of having to defend the government’s latest sleaze-bath on the morning media round. After all, it was a foregone conclusion that any hopes the business secretary might have had of getting a word in edgeways about climate change would be blown out of the water by Boris Johnson’s extraordinary decision to enforce a three-line whip on Conservative MPs to get Owen Paterson off the hook.
Some ministers take these punishment beatings in good grace. As part of the job, even. Not Kwarteng. He was sullen, grumpy and dismissive right from the start of his interview with Nick Robinson on Radio 4’s Today programme, claiming the government had been thinking of changing the rules on appeal for the past 11 and a half years. So why had they waited until the vote on Paterson’s suspension to debate it in the Commons? Kwasi tried to ignore the question.
So what would you like instead, given that you’ve had so long to consider it? Robinson asked. “Er …,” Kwarteng dithered, hoping something intelligent would come to him. Some hope. A cross-party committee of MPs, he said eventually. But that’s precisely the system that’s already in place.
It was now dawning on Robinson that he was talking to a halfwit. Yes, said Kwarteng. Only this time they wanted a cross-party committee with a majority of Tory MPs who could be relied on to exonerate any Conservatives found guilty of multiple counts of paid advocacy. A committee that would make allowances for MPs who were genuinely too stupid to understand the rules. Or why businesses might choose to bung them an extra £100,000 for their services. Paterson hadn’t been paid for his intellect. He had been paid for his stupidity.
“We’re showing very high standards in government,” Kwarteng insisted. Oh really, said Robinson. Then how do you account for the prime minister’s refusal to sack Dominic Cummings for his Barnard Castle safari? Or a former housing minister’s decision – later deemed unlawful – to award a planning permission to the Tory donor “Dirty Des” that saved him £45m? Or Priti Patel being found in breach of the ministerial code for bullying? Kwasi mumbled something about climate change.
Robinson tried to make things easier for the business minister. Could he list even one thing Boris Johnson had done to deliver higher integrity and probity in public life? “Brexit,” Kwarteng replied. You couldn’t fault his mindless loyalty. Even if you could his intelligence. There was a long pause – dead air, as everyone paused to remember the lies that had been told to deliver Brexit. Not to mention the illegal prorogation of parliament and the signing of the Northern Ireland protocol in bad faith.
This wasn’t the end of Kwarteng’s discomfort because moments later he was being asked pretty much the same questions by Kay Burley on Sky. Only by now Kwasi was seriously unravelling. Kwasi unplugged. So he doubled down. The commissioner for standards would have to resign, he said. Concrete boots and tossed in the sea. It was outrageous for her to have dared to find a Tory MP guilty of anything. Kwarteng fell silent once more. At least the prime minister would send him a congratulatory text for saying out loud what he was privately thinking.
Or perhaps not. The first sign of a change in tone came during business questions in the Commons after the shadow leader of the house, Thangam Debbonaire, had recapped the previous day’s proceedings. The government was guilty of corruption for trying to change the rules on MPs’ conduct retrospectively and Labour would play no role in the sham committee the Tories were planning to establish to replace the one that had served the Commons perfectly well for years.
In reply, Jacob Rees-Mogg, who had possibly been listening to Lord Evans, the chair of the committee for standards in public life, also giving the Tories both barrels at an event hosted by the Institute for Government, announced a partial climbdown. Though as with everything Rees-Mogg does, it was done without shame, without apology and with utter condescension. A primetime advert for the government’s levelling up agenda.
The whole thing had been a complete misunderstanding by the opposition parties, Rees-Mogg said. The government had thought it blindingly obvious that there was no connection between the Paterson vote and the same one to change the rules on MPs’ behaviour. But Labour had been so stupid that it had managed to conflate the two. So to eliminate confusion, he was not going to proceed with the new rigged committee but was going to try to think of a way to achieve cross-party consensus that didn’t embarrass the government. Chris Bryant drily observed it was a bit late for that but, if it helped, his committee could write a second report by next Tuesday. Though its findings would be the same.
Within an hour this partial U-turn had become a full handbrake turn, with the government announcing there would be a second – unwhipped – vote on Paterson. But the damage had been done. Boris Johnson’s Conservatives were now established as the party of sleaze. They had tried to pull a fast one and had been caught red-handed. That they had now been forced into acting properly was neither here nor there.
One sometimes wonders what it will take for the penny to drop for Tory ministers and MPs. Was Paterson really too stupid not to realise that Boris would dump him if the shit looked like hitting the fan? Boris didn’t even have the courtesy to tell him he was no longer backing him. Owen found out from a journalist when he was in the supermarket. He then did the most gracious and sensible thing he had ever done as a Tory MP. He resigned. Johnson didn’t care one way or the other. Other people only existed as extensions of his narcissism.
Did Kwarteng not wonder if he had been shafted and made to look untrustworthy for no good reason? Did the Tories who had voted with the government not realise their credibility had been trashed for good? That they had made it clear they had no principles that couldn’t be bought off?
The past 24 hours had been peak Boris. Ur Boris. He had done what he always does. There isn’t a friend, wife, family member or colleague whom Bertie Booster doesn’t betray in the end. Or even in the beginning.
Guest 4218 and TheThinWhiteDuke like this
Button- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,057
Neil Moors wrote:What an absolute mess. Shocking judgment from Government and (most) Conservative MPs.
https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/1124#noes(Not my real name.)
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
A good few Tories there whose careers will stagnate under Laughing Boy's reign of power.
Button- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,057
According to Wiki, "Taking the Chiltern Hundreds" refers to the legal fiction used to resign from the House of Commons. Since Members of Parliament are not permitted to resign, they are instead appointed to an "office of profit under the Crown", which requires MPs to vacate their seats. The ancient office of Crown Steward and Bailiff for the Chiltern Hundreds, having been reduced to a mere sinecure by the 17th century, was first used by John Pitt in 1751 to vacate his seat in the House of Commons.
1751, eh! How about updating it to Constable of Barnard Castle? Just a thought.
BTW, why is making a theoretical profit from HMQ incompatible with being an MP, whereas making a whopping big profit from industry OK?
ray hutstone likes this
(Not my real name.)
