If only it was Jon Stewart. His and John Oliver takedown of the expenses scandal many years ago was fantastic (and not allowed to be broadcast in the UK). I’m hopeful Oliver will cover it when Last Week Tonight returns and apparently they can show Parliament business in comedy shows now. I had no idea.
Hang on. You've got anti-Semetic Labour Party activists taking Jewish people hostage in America, demanding the release of anti-Semetic terrorists imprisoned for attempting to kill American troops, and not a peep. But Boris has a party, and you're all over it. Partygate is just another distraction from Labour anti-Semitism.
20th Feb. Neither did I - it was a clip on HIGNFY? Oliver's use of Gilbert Gottfried over this was inspired satire....
Tory whip, Mark Spencer, accuses Tory MP Nusrat Ghani in a tweet of making a defamatory accusation about him, even though she doesn't name him in The Times article. In the article she alleges 'a whip" forced her out of her ministerial job because she is a Muslim: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...s-a-minister-because-i-was-a-muslim-p38lmvlvg He then deletes the tweet only to repost it when he realises a screenshot of the original tweet was being widely shared: Is it possible to defame yourself?
It must be spreading. That complete Brexit/religious/LGBT+ lunatic Steve Baker was on R4's "Political Thinking" last night and managed the remarkable feat of contradicting himself IN A SINGLE SENTENCE on multiple occasions. I imagine he's able to defame himself if he's ever given the opportunity to expound his philosophy (sic.) in print.
So. The guy comes out and says "it was me", and "I didn't say what she accused me of saying", and the left find him guilty of taking respinsibility, and defending himself. You can't win with lefties, but at least in the real world you are allowed to state your own case, after having been accused of something you believe you did not do (she may not have named him, but if he is the only whip implicated...) without being criticised for doing so. The worst the above seems to accuse him of is that he chose to incriminate himself, by taking responsibility for the situation she described, and that he deleted and then reposted a tweet that said nothing vontentious, nor accused anyone else of anything else. The logic is non existent and the accusation, deleted tweet, is convolted to an extent only possible with people who take twitter interactions (as opposed to the information within them) seriously.
Dominic Raab refuses to confirm full publication of Sue Gray partygate report Deputy PM (AKA Secretary of State for Justice Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain) promises ‘full transparency’ but says it is for Boris Johnson to decide how much detail is released to the public
I think it would be suicidal for Johnson to redact any part of this report. In any case I am not sure what content could be considered unsuitable for publication - it is not dealing with matters of national security.....
Her complaint should be taken seriously, but this statement is simply a futile description of how she did the wrong thing to deal with the problem, received appropriate (in line with legislation) advice to undertake the official procedure, but thought she was so important that she deserved executive action. If I was her Union rep, I would have given her the same advice as Boris, because it would have given her protections that she seems to foolishly and belligerently have rejected. There is no circumstance where an MP should expect the Prime Minister to take executive action on their behalf in an issue that involves contradictory stories from other parties. If a PM had done so, they would rightfully get lambasted for it; Johnson’s only possible recourse was to refer her to official procedures. I am sure that the successful executives and company owners on here will be well aware of that, as they would be affected by legislation in exactly the same way. Particularly if they were seen to be taking a side based on an employee’s skin colour, race or religion. That would get them into whole heaps of poo.
You are or were an employer. Perhaps you could explain to everyone why he was exactly right to do so, and that he was protecting her rights as a member of the party and an employee of Parliament. The last thing she needs is to be seen as or accused of attempting to unduly influence the PM in a matter he is prohibited from becoming involved. Her statement undermines her complaint and could be used to show that she had no interest in proper procedure, which would leave anyone in judgement of her case wondering why: 1, she attempted to avoid properly proving her claims, and; 2, she wished to get the PM on her side, and, from the words of her statement, expected him to do so. She is right to call out such rotten behaviour, but she must do so fairly, and be prepared to prove her case.
Do you really think that statement did anything but detract from her situation? Perhaps simple uneducated types will be impressed that she went to a man and was rejected, but thankfully the UK public in general have enough intelligence to see that she has in fact confessed to attempting to influence the PM and avoid proving her case, and worse, that she didn’t feel she had to prove it. Corbyn Schmorbin. “But I couldn’t think of a good reason” more likely.
Better late than never. Johnson orders a Cabinet Office inquiry into the Nusrat Ghani allegations: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60108377 I think it was pretty obvious to anyone that a Conservative party inquiry was not appropriate as it was during government business and is not, therefore, an internal party matter. If the allegations prove to be true, inappropriate behaviour could extend to civil servants who may not be Conservative party members, as Nusrat makes clear in her statement.
But either she’s lying or the Chief Whip is. Tough predicament for any government/PM. Either way, it looks terrible on the the culture he’s cultivated.
Once again, you speak good sense. Though personally I suspect most will see such things as down to sadly flawed individuals. Either way, these things did not begin or end with Boris. I wouldn't blame Labour's horrendous problems with anti-Semitism and racism on Starmer or even Corbyn.
Not necessarily. What she is alleging is "a government whip told her Muslimness was raised as an issue". Mark Spencer could argue that he was just passing on the view of the civil servants within her department. That they were the ones "uncomfortable" with her gender and religion. Of course, if this reason was the primary reason (or even considered as a valid reason) for her to lose her ministerial job then that reflects very badly on the PM and whips office. And it is difficult to see why an inquiry wasn't ordered at the time if there were allegations of such a culture within government. This is why a government inquiry is required now. It goes beyond simple party politics.
A cabinet Office inquiry to establish whether someone said something or not? Talk about a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Does it occur go anyone that guilt or innocence could have been identified some time ago, and considerably less expensively, if she had taken advice? Sorry! It's not about justice, It's about bashing Boris.
I think we all suspect he is lying....I'm just playing devils advocate. The situation at the moment is that he is denying saying something that he's not been accused of saying! Ghani has been careful not to name names. What if Spencer is referring to a different conversation where he informed her she was being sacked but did not make the alleged islamophobic statements? Perhaps it was someone else from the whips office who told her that her religion was considered when she was sacked? He can honestly deny ever saying the words that Ghani is alleging because perhaps he didn't. But it doesn't mean someone else from the whips office, which is all Ghani is alleging, didn't say those things.
What is the point of enquiries on the Government if the Prime Minister chooses who does the enquiries?
All those What Ifs. And yes, you have a point about the possibility of mistaken identity. But the blame for that comes from the ambiguity of an accusation being made but no attempt being made to prove it. So here's another. What if she had taken this down an official route and got it sorted out before it blew up to this? The issue has become whether or not Boris did wrong, when, in reality, it is a far more serious and worrying issue, whether or not an MP suffered prejudice due to her religion within Government. A boss does not incriminate them self as not trusting a person when they point them to official procedures, they are merely doing their job. But it's not about the more serious issue for the left, it is about Boris, who advised her, quite correctly, to use official channels, rather than embroil the PM into a case he is not permitted by legislation, Parliamentary or Party rules to become directly involved in. A Cabinet inquiry is something you may expect when a level of proof has been established indicating that something has occurred and needs investigation. That, here, is not yet the case. The up shot of which is that the inquiry, quite ridiculously, will now have to discover whether it needs to carry out an inquiry as to her treatment, before it actually gets to carry out an inquiry. Quite absurd, but an important political victory for the Boris Bashers, whilst the more important issues are left to stew. I believe it may even be possible that the first step of the inquiry may even be to invoke the procedure Boris recommended in the first place.
That is a good point. You also have to ask the question why is it right to have an inquiry now when Johnson denied one two years ago? Was he wrong then or is he wrong now? These kind of inquiries should be independent. It is not an internal party issue and it is not a simple organisational HR issue. MPs are not employees, they represent, and answer to, their constituents. If there is allegations of a culture of prejudice within government based of gender, religion, race or any other "ism" then it should be thoroughly investigated. Imo that should have happened when the original allegations were made. Anyone playing party politics, on either side, with this is very much missing the point.
Sue Gray has apparently interviewed the Met Police, who were on duty at No10, about the parties. If she can gather enough evidence from the Met Police then the Met Police will act on the basis of that evidence. It really is becoming farcical now.
Basically the police are contributing to an inquiry about illegality they didn't stop despite witnessing, to establish whether the prime minister attended a party he has already said he was present at, so Tory MPs can make their minds up about something they've already decided on. Where’s the farce in that?
I suppose the argument is that Johnson could have taken it on himself and not told her to tell someone else. I’m not sure there’s any rule that stops him from doing that. Sure, she could have gone herself but it’s clear, if we take her at face value, that she was concerned about how people viewed her and if the chief whip is involved and the allegations from multiple people are that they are far from nice people, then I can understand her reasons for not pushing it. Unquestionably there’s a sense of opportunism about her timing but that doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t say it now. There appears to be some sort of metaphorical shield from the whips at the moment and you might find others feel strong enough to come out and say what they, maybe, felt scared about saying previously.
The PM surely has to take responsibility for the actions of his Whips? And you might imagine that those Whips have a tendency to run their actions by the PM. Therefore it’s under his watch and disinterest in it is highly suspect, suggests he had little problem with it or the reasons for it.
Yep, hence maybe why he didn’t take it on. Plausible deniability as well I’m sure. Although surely that cup is running dry.
Seems to me that a key issue is whether making a complaint via the Conservative Party 'internal' complaints mechanism was appropriate for an issue that may well have involved non-party members....eg, civil servants within her department. In that context, the advice given to her was flawed and her decision not to follow it is understandable.
Parliamentary and Party rules, a requirement of legislation, will not permit a complaint about an MP, whether it is a Whip, a Minister or a Back Bencher, to by pass a stipulated procedure, with the possible exception of there being a threat to national security involved. I am not accusing her of anything, and I think that SidneyHorn made a very valid point that no one actually knows what the exact accusations she is making are. They may be, and quite possibly are, totally valid. But it may also be something a little birdie put in her ear in order to upset the apple cart. That we don’t know anything as this becomes a thing, occurs because she chose not to undertake the procedure that would have investigated and then made judgement upon her evidence and the evidence of those she accuses. The reason for her timing is moot and insignificant, because, in reality, Boris did not reject her claims, but referred her to the proper procedure, as he is obliged to do. This has provided his detractors with a cheep, dim witted political victory of zero value, other than to make themselves look petty and frankly even further out of touch. What is the issue here? That an MP was possibly prejudiced because of her Religion. A disgusting and repellant thought. What are the left desperately trying to draw people’s attention to? The fact that Boris did what he was obliged to do. It beggars belief. No doubt it will be described as another white wash when this is pointed out.
