Watching the commons, so will miss Salmond as well. Can't multitask so have to choose one to watch.
Had a quick read of the thread from when I left it. Anyone care to update me on any interesting points that came up in Clegg's evidence. It will be much appreciated.
Strange that he should write to him today. If it would have influenced the parliamentary vote and the Lib Dems decision to abstain why didn't he do this earlier? It's beginning to look as if Sir Alex is being treated like a useful idiot.
Strange that he should write to him today. If it would have influenced the parliamentary vote and the Lib Dems decision to abstain why didn't he do this earlier? It's beginning to look as if Sir Alex is being treated like a useful idiot.
Maybe Alex Allen missed the decision announced on the media 20 mins after Hunt left the witness box at Leveson almost two weeks ago?
Hunt looking like a startled rabbit in a very tetchy HofC!!
Hunt was quite flustered and got his words badly mixed up when he wanted to suggest that Labour were OK with Labour Ministers breaking the Code but not Conservative Ministers...........but he said it the wrong way round
Labour saying it's inconceivable to say that a Minister didn't know what their Spads were up to. And yet Gordon Brown at Leveson was adamant he didn't know anything about the misdeeds his Spads got up to.
Labour saying it's inconceivable to say that a Minister didn't know what their Spads were up to. And yet Gordon Brown at Leveson was adamant he didn't know anything about the misdeeds his Spads got up to.
You have a point and what his spads were accused of was disgusting. There is a difference here though and that is that the spad of the Minister who was supposed to be overseeing a multi billion pound deal in a quasi judicial way made contact with one side in the deal not once or twice but five hundred times How could Hunt not have known that was going on?
You have a point and what his spads were accused of was disgusting. There is a difference here though and that is that the spad of the Minister who was supposed to be overseeing a multi billion pound deal in a quasi judicial way made contact with one side in the deal not once or twice but five hundred times How could Hunt not have known that was going on?
Yes...there is a difference here. Jeremy Hunt's SpAd was a rank amateur who was totally out of his depth as regards process whereas Gordon Brown's SpAds were spreading disgusting lies about the private lives of fellow and opposition MPs.
You have a point and what his spads were accused of was disgusting. There is a difference here though and that is that the spad of Minister who was supposed to be overseeing a multi billion pound deal in a quasi judicial way made contact with one side in the deal not once or twice but five hundred times How could Hunt not have known that was going on?
You are quite right to point out the different circumstances between Brown & Hunt. I personally can't believe that both Brown or Hunt were not aware of what their Spads were up to. That's why I think Hunt should accept responsibility and resign. And I thought Brown should have done the same over McBride. ie resigned. That's why the Labour accusations come across as hypocritical to me.
Yes...there is a difference here. Jeremy Hunt's SpAd was a rank amateur who was totally out of his depth as regards process whereas Gordon Brown's SpAds were spreading disgusting lies about the private lives of fellow and opposition MPs.
That still makes Jeremy Hunt responsible. He appointed him. He said that he worked closer to him than any other minister and spad. How didn't he know that his special advisor who you think was a rank amateur was involved in all this illicit contact and was basically making their conduct open to an expensive appeal by those opposed to the bid?
That still makes Jeremy hunt responsible. He appointed him. He said that he worked closer to him than any other spad. How didn't he know that his special advisor who you think was a rank amateur was involved in all this illicit contact and was basically making their conduct open to an expensive appeal by those opposed to the bid?
The trouble is that 13 years of New Labour in government set a precedent....no Labour politician ever took responsibility and resigned.
The trouble is that 13 years of New Labour in government set a precedent....no Labour politician ever took responsibility and resigned.
Leaving that aside. Hunt and his spad were dealing not with something purely political but a multi billion pound deal with far reaching consequences. The problem is, as you have conceded this was dealt with in a highly incompetent way. If a minister is dealing in something in a quasi judicial way he has to not only put his prejudices aside he has to be seen to be acting in a way that is not prejudicial to one side. Had those opposed to this bid taken the decision to appeal and all the texts and emails come to light it is hard to see how they could have lost their case. That is just one reason why Hunt should have known what was going on.
Comments
Missed Clegg - had some business to conduct.
Watching the commons, so will miss Salmond as well. Can't multitask so have to choose one to watch.
Had a quick read of the thread from when I left it. Anyone care to update me on any interesting points that came up in Clegg's evidence. It will be much appreciated.
Harmon talking in the commons now.
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/sir-alex-allan/
Strange that he should write to him today. If it would have influenced the parliamentary vote and the Lib Dems decision to abstain why didn't he do this earlier? It's beginning to look as if Sir Alex is being treated like a useful idiot.
Maybe Alex Allen missed the decision announced on the media 20 mins after Hunt left the witness box at Leveson almost two weeks ago?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9434000/9434799.stm
What a bunch of children.
Hunt was quite flustered and got his words badly mixed up when he wanted to suggest that Labour were OK with Labour Ministers breaking the Code but not Conservative Ministers...........but he said it the wrong way round
the debate in the house is going to be predictable if fiery and the result of the vote is already known in advance...............
You have a point and what his spads were accused of was disgusting. There is a difference here though and that is that the spad of the Minister who was supposed to be overseeing a multi billion pound deal in a quasi judicial way made contact with one side in the deal not once or twice but five hundred times How could Hunt not have known that was going on?
Yes...there is a difference here. Jeremy Hunt's SpAd was a rank amateur who was totally out of his depth as regards process whereas Gordon Brown's SpAds were spreading disgusting lies about the private lives of fellow and opposition MPs.
You are quite right to point out the different circumstances between Brown & Hunt. I personally can't believe that both Brown or Hunt were not aware of what their Spads were up to. That's why I think Hunt should accept responsibility and resign. And I thought Brown should have done the same over McBride. ie resigned. That's why the Labour accusations come across as hypocritical to me.
Leveson's reference to the "English Parliament" and Salmond's response was hilarious.
I must say that I hadn't thought about how any of Levson's decisions would impact the Scottish legal system.
Shocked that the Observer got into Salmond's bank account and were going to make much of a purchase by him from a toy shop.:D
That still makes Jeremy Hunt responsible. He appointed him. He said that he worked closer to him than any other minister and spad. How didn't he know that his special advisor who you think was a rank amateur was involved in all this illicit contact and was basically making their conduct open to an expensive appeal by those opposed to the bid?
The trouble is that 13 years of New Labour in government set a precedent....no Labour politician ever took responsibility and resigned.
Robin Cook, Mandelson, Beverly Hughes, Peter Hain??
Leaving that aside. Hunt and his spad were dealing not with something purely political but a multi billion pound deal with far reaching consequences. The problem is, as you have conceded this was dealt with in a highly incompetent way. If a minister is dealing in something in a quasi judicial way he has to not only put his prejudices aside he has to be seen to be acting in a way that is not prejudicial to one side. Had those opposed to this bid taken the decision to appeal and all the texts and emails come to light it is hard to see how they could have lost their case. That is just one reason why Hunt should have known what was going on.