Galloway suspended from the party

[Marilyn Manson]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3003825.stm

I can't stand the man for his politics, but I'm still not completely convinced as to whether this whole thing is true or not. Something at the back of my mind makes me fear it is. No doubt the truth will out fairly shortly now the legal, media and political machines are completely geared up to investigating it to it's conclusion.

[ChubbyChecker]

I don't know if the accusations that the Daily Telegraph made are true. I don't really care either way to be honest. He should be kicked out of Labour for what he said though.

Clare Short too for that matter. Maybe not kick her out of Labour but the Cabinet at least. If you're going to have the balls to say something against the war in Iraq as a Cabinet minister at least have the balls to resign like Robin Cook did.

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Something at the back of my mind makes me fear it is.

Well the Telegraph has put quite a lot of backing behind it's allegations for it to be completely without foundation.

Then again, this was a purely political move and the investigation is likely to be criticised by either side for bias or procedural impropriety, meaning the truth may not out.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
Clare Short too for that matter. Maybe not kick her out of Labour but the Cabinet at least. If you're going to have the balls to say something against the war in Iraq as a Cabinet minister at least have the balls to resign like Robin Cook did.

Technically, Short was under a compulsion to resign anyway, due to collective cabinet responsiblity - if you feel you have to publicly disagree with cabinet policy, then you resign.

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Technically, Short was under a compulsion to resign anyway, due to collective cabinet responsiblity - if you feel you have to publicly disagree with cabinet policy, then you resign.

Don't pretend ministerial responsibility is anything other than a long running joke between ministers.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Black Dog
Well the Telegraph has put quite a lot of backing behind it's allegations for it to be completely without foundation.

Quite. I am reminded of The Guardian and Aitken.

Originally posted by Black Dog
Then again, this was a purely political move and the investigation is likely to be criticised by either side for bias or procedural impropriety, meaning the truth may not out.

Well, there will be multiple 'investigations', both private and public, so in the end, one version of the facts will likely predominate - most probably the truth.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Black Dog
Don't pretend ministerial responsibility is anything other than a long running joke between ministers.

It has to be pretty serious before they consider resigning - which is why Short hasn't gone for the plunge - but they do. And if the PM has any sense, they will sack them if they don't resign, if it's a fairly serious issue. John Major didn't have any sense. Or at least, it took him about 6 months to several years for him to come to it, in just about all cases.

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Well, there will be multiple 'investigations', both private and public, so in the end, one version of the facts will likely predominate - most probably the truth.

I would hope so. Then again I imagine the pressure heaped upon the Parliamentary Standards Watchdog will be enormous - it always worries me when a story gets this much exposure since it could mean a rushed and tainted verdict from the places that really matter; seeing as Parliament is meant to be a self-regulatory body.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Black Dog
I would hope so. Then again I imagine the pressure heaped upon the Parliamentary Standards Watchdog will be enormous - it always worries me when a story gets this much exposure since it could mean a rushed and tainted verdict from the places that really matter; seeing as Parliament is meant to be a self-regulatory body.

I suspect the courts will be eventually the most 'fair' and competent arena for solving the issue.

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
It has to be pretty serious before they consider resigning - which is why Short hasn't gone for the plunge - but they do. And if the PM has any sense, they will sack them if they don't resign

They never resign and when they do it's rarely for policy failures or something important like principle.

I would say the history of ministerial responsibility is so sketchy that there in no basis for resignation or sacking. Merely a collection of whims.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Black Dog
I would say the history of ministerial responsibility is so sketchy that there in no basis for resignation or sacking. Merely a collection of whims.

Much like The British Constitution as a whole. This is why we need a written one.

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Much like The British Constitution as a whole. This is why we need a written one.

God no.

What a ridiculous conclusion.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally posted by Black Dog
They never resign and when they do it's rarely for policy failures or something important like principle.

I would say the history of ministerial responsibility is so sketchy that there in no basis for resignation or sacking. Merely a collection of whims.

Why did Robin Cook resign?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Black Dog
God no.

What a ridiculous conclusion.

In what sense 'ridiculous'?

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
Why did Robin Cook resign?

Exception that doesn't prove the rule.

[Jammers]

If only we still had the death penalty for treason. Theres nothing like a public hanging on Tower Green to rally the nations spirits.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
Why did Robin Cook resign?

Officially: Collective Responsiblity regarding the war.

Unofficially: Something of a culmination of the bad relationship, most likely principally on policy terms, that had built up between him and Blair ever since Blair demoted him.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Black Dog
Exception that doesn't prove the rule.

Are you prepared to go so far in this as to say that we don't actually have cabinet government anymore?

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
In what sense 'ridiculous'?

In the sense that a rigid, inflexible, immediately outdated piece of paper that resolves nothing other than the most broad of principles is a 'bad thing'.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally posted by Black Dog
Exception that doesn't prove the rule.

Fair enough.
I think though that ministers often hold themselves accountable. Didn't Steven Byers resign, or was he kicked out in the end? Anyway, yeah, he did hang on a bit (a lot) longer than he should have.

I don't think it's up to Ministers to sack themselves though, it's not like anybody else does it in any other job. And that's what being a Minister is really, a job.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Officially: Collective Responsiblity regarding the war.

Unofficially: Something of a culmination of the bad relationship, most likely principally on policy terms, that had built up between him and Blair ever since Blair demoted him.

I read an article in the Economist a few weeks ago that was trying to prove that all the people opposing Blair in the whole Iraq thing (remember that anyone?) were people that Blair has wronged at one point or another. So basically they were doing it to get back at him. Which I suppose you can prove.

It's just that when ministers resign out of principle (eg Robin Cook) people often look for ulterior motives, which I don't like.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Black Dog
In the sense that a rigid, inflexible,

Rigid? I would believe that under the present constitution, if we simply codified it, safeguards would have to be put in place to ensure that the government simply couldn't alter it at it's whim.

Originally posted by Black Dog
immediately outdated piece of paper

Like any piece of legislation, ever, then.

Lets not have any laws at all!

Originally posted by Black Dog
that resolves nothing other than the most broad of principles is a 'bad thing'.

It resolves several important things: what our government should do, what it can do, and how it should go about them.

None of those questions have ever seriously been answered in British history, really.

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Are you prepared to go so far in this as to say that we don't actually have cabinet government anymore?

I would say that increasingly decisions are taken by the Prime Minister in consultation with small groups of cabinet ministers outside of the Cabinet meeting itself.


The strength of the convention of cabinet government depends solely upon the approach taken by the Prime Minister. In recent years that approach has been less than enthusiastic.

[BesigedB]

Originally posted by Black Dog
Well the Telegraph has put quite a lot of backing behind it's allegations for it to be completely without foundation.

Then again, this was a purely political move and the investigation is likely to be criticised by either side for bias or procedural impropriety, meaning the truth may not out.

what he said

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
I read an article in the Economist a few weeks ago that was trying to prove that all the people opposing Blair in the whole Iraq thing (remember that anyone?) were people that Blair has wronged at one point or another.

It would seem that being 'wronged' is a matter of opinion, and I doubt that those people that had allegedly been 'wronged' would claim they had been.

I seriously doubt, in any case, that everybody opposing Blair on the war was doing it out of a feeling of spite. Lordy no.

I am rather startled by your apparent ability to take whatever The Economist says as gospel. So be it.

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
So basically they were doing it to get back at him.

Doing what?

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
Fair enough.
I think though that ministers often hold themselves accountable. Didn't Steven Byers resign, or was he kicked out in the end? Anyway, yeah, he did hang on a bit (a lot) longer than he should have.

We have now had twenty-one Transport Ministers in thirty years. Stephen Byers was in the job for less than a year. His record in that year was admittedly unimpressive and his decision not to sack Jo Moore was foolish on a policy level, but he was not responsible for a significant policy failure over a period of time you could hold him truly accountable for. His statement was that he had become an embarrassment to the government.

It's hardly a shining example of ministerial responsibility, more a policy decision to step down. Estelle Morris is a better example. But it is still true that ministerial responsibility is a joke - take the constant leakings to the press of cabinet divisions - it's a farce.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
It would seem that being 'wronged' is a matter of opinion, and I doubt that those people that had allegedly been 'wronged' would claim they had been.

I seriously doubt, in any case, that everybody opposing Blair on the war was doing it out of a feeling of spite. Lordy no.

I am rather startled by your apparent ability to take whatever The Economist says as gospel. So be it.

I didn't say that I agreed with what the article said, or that anybody else should, just that the article claims that the link can be made between the anti-war Labour ministers and the fact that Blair has wronged them at one point or another.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Doing what?

Being anti war, for example voting against sending troops in to Iraq.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Black Dog
I would say that increasingly decisions are taken by the Prime Minister in consultation with small groups of cabinet ministers outside of the Cabinet meeting itself.

The strength of the convention of cabinet government depends solely upon the approach taken by the Prime Minister. In recent years that approach has been less than enthusiastic.

I'd agree, generally, but the PM cannot solely ride rough shod over everybody, because eventually, they bite back, as Thatcher's downfall demonstrated. The PM has to really take into consideration the real views of their inner circle, at the very least, if they are to ultimately survive, even if that falls short of cabinet government by some considerable margin.

Not that I agree with any destruction of cabinet government, though. It is immensley superior to a dictatorship of The PM. And not just because the two principal menaces to cabinet government during the post-war years during their tenures have met sticky ends because of their rejection of it.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
I didn't say that I agreed with what the article said, or that anybody else should, just that the article claims that the link can be made between the anti-war Labour ministers and the fact that Blair has wronged them at one point or another.

The link can be made, but I seriously doubt that it's anything as simplistic as 'Blair proved Short and Cook wrong, so now they're having a paddy.' I don't think anything in life is that simplistic, come to think about it.

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Rigid? I would believe that under the present constitution, if we simply codified it, safeguards would have to be put in place to ensure that the government simply couldn't alter it at it's whim.

Take the classic example of the handguns law in America. Entrenched in the constitution, that is almost impossible to remove and yet was clearly referring to a different era and the need for self-defence. I would describe that as unduly rigid. The flexibility of the current British system is it's greatest achievement.

Like any piece of legislation, ever, then.

Lets not have any laws at all!

Now I would say you're just being silly. So I will. But I will also refer to the example above to show what I really mean.

It resolves several important things: what our government should do, what it can do, and how it should go about them.


I quite disagree, British history has set out what government can and cannot do. The current problem is ensuring Parliament has the capability to provide the checks and balances necessary. It is increasingly failing to provide such measures to hold the government to account and therein lies the problem.

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
I'd agree, generally, but the PM cannot solely ride rough shod over everybody, because eventually, they bite back, as Thatcher's downfall demonstrated.

Indeed. But ironically Thatcher was one of the last believers in cabinet government. This is despite the fact that she is credited with the rise of a Presidential-style role for the Prime Minister.

[ChubbyChecker]

I think constitutions are pretty unnecessary. They can either be so flexible that they're useless or so stringent that they're a hindrance.

Never mind, we'll soon have a European consitution to follow anyway.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Black Dog
Take the classic example of the handguns law in America. Entrenched in the constitution, that is almost impossible to remove and yet was clearly referring to a different era and the need for self-defence. I would describe that as unduly rigid. The flexibility of the current British system is it's greatest achievement.

But a hell of a lot of people in America want handguns to be 'free', which would seem an obvious point. So saying 'The American Constitution is crap because handguns are legal' when a lot of the population like them that way seems a wee bit arrogant.

It would depend whether you thought patrician government, or at the very least, good leadership, was a good thing. I'd be tempted to say it was and go along with your point.

Originally posted by Black Dog
Now I would say you're just being silly. So I will. But I will also refer to the example above to show what I really mean.

Refer above.

Originally posted by Black Dog
I quite disagree, British history has set out what government can and cannot do.

Only on a very informal basis. I don't like that, really. It leads - has lead - to all sorts of dodgy practises, and plenty of crises.

I worry about what will happen when Charles becomes Monarch as much as I do about any Blair or Thatcher coming to power.

Originally posted by Black Dog
The current problem is ensuring Parliament has the capability to provide the checks and balances necessary. It is increasingly failing to provide such measures to hold the government to account and therein lies the problem.

And what remedy do you have in mind to that?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Black Dog
Indeed. But ironically Thatcher was one of the last believers in cabinet government.

Really?

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
And what remedy do you have in mind to that?

I quite like the suggestion of a career-system of committees. Since back-benchers are criminally under-used, a network of committees with a party-wide basis rather than the relatively small number we currently have could be advantageous to both scrutiny and creating a career structure for MPs.

[queball]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Lets not have any laws at all!

Laws get changed and reformed. The Health and Safety Act is a good example I know of.

It resolves several important things: what our government should do, what it can do, and how it should go about them.

None of those questions have ever seriously been answered in British history, really.

Maybe because there aren't any clear answers? What would you say the answers are? I'm sure they'd get it wrong.

What it should do is whatever the party in charge wants, really. What it can do and how is limited by whether anyone will listen. The basis for nationality is in the hearts and minds of the voting population and the whims of politicans, not in a piece of paper. What purpose would a constitution serve that a party manifesto wouldn't?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Black Dog
I quite like the suggestion of a career-system of committees. Since back-benchers are criminally under-used, a network of committees with a party-wide basis rather than the relatively small number we currently have could be advantageous to both scrutiny and creating a career structure for MPs.

I like that as well. It's a good idea.

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Really?

Yes.

Perhaps not the classic cabinet government in that she was often forceful in gaining support for her measures and progressively filled it with more supportive members at the expense of the 'wets', but certainly she believed that she required the backing of her cabinet before continuing with a policy line.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Black Dog
Perhaps not the classic cabinet government in that she was often forceful in gaining support for her measures and progressively filled it with more supportive members at the expense of the 'wets', but certainly she believed that she required the backing of her cabinet before continuing with a policy line.

Hmmmm.

[Marilyn Manson]

Y'know, I always thought that it was because she treated Howe like a small piece of monkey **** and began listening more to Alan Walters rather than Lawson over economic policy, etc, combined with the fact that near the end she was almost making policy by herself that pissed everyone off.

I am hardly reminded of the phrase 'cabinet government' in all of this.

[Marilyn Manson]

I am also reliably informed that the decision to join The ERM was almost taken as 'something good to announce at confrence', and was largely confirmed whilst she was getting changed, and simultaneously in discussion about finalising it.

[Vaio]

The subtle hints Galloway mentioned about it all being a big jewish conspiracy in his speech yesterday amused me. Does he really think that the real rulers of the planet can take the time out from selling us out to those little grey wankers from Zeta Reticuli and from taking over both Hollywood and the US Goverment to go and hide some evidence in Iraq that incriminates him ?

Vaio

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Vaio
The subtle hints Galloway mentioned about it all being a big jewish conspiracy in his speech yesterday amused me. Does he really think that the real rulers of the planet can take the time out from selling us out to those little grey wankers from Zeta Reticuli and from taking over both Hollywood and the US Goverment to go and hide some evidence in Iraq that incriminates him ?

Vaio

If any government felt they needed to incriminate him, over anything, then they would be a government with too much time on their hands and I would demand an investigation.

Talk about overstating the importance of yourself!

The man is the biggest egotist this side of The Cape Verde Islands.

[Chrism]

I'd have to say that the Telegraph has put far too much emphasis on this story for it to be some concoction by them, lest they be utterly humiliated if the truth outed. If it is false (and I wouldn't put anything past Galloway), it's most likely the work of either the govt. or security services (who I doubt care enough about him to start incriminating an idiot that no one with more than 2 brain cells to rub together really takes seriously) or more likely someone with a grudge against him, and due to his immense arrogance I wouldn't be surprised to find a substantial amount of people fitting the bill.

We'll have to wait and see...

[Dante Hicks]

Albeit in less hyped circumstances, during the Miners Strike the Daily Mirror (and World In Action) alleged that Arthur Scargill borrowed money (to buy his house) from Colonel Gadaffi. This allegation was repeated ad nausea by other agencies.

The story was later found to be entirely without merit, yet no apology was ever issued.

[Vaio]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Albeit in less hyped circumstances, during the Miners Strike the Daily Mirror (and World In Action) alleged that Arthur Scargill borrowed money (to buy his house) from Colonel Gadaffi. This allegation was repeated ad nausea by other agencies.

The story was later found to be entirely without merit, yet no apology was ever issued.

I believe that the Miners Union paid his mortgage. I cannot give my source but will say 'Hello Uncle Frank'

Vaio

[Judge]

Galloway could rot where he stands for all I care, anyone who can stand and blatantly wish harm to the British Military should be condemend as a traitor and hung for it.

(And yes, before anyone comments Hanging is still on the statute books for convicted Traitors.)

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Judge
Galloway could rot where he stands for all I care, anyone who can stand and blatantly wish harm to the British Military should be condemend as a traitor and hung for it.

Hold on, how are the people who advocate "not sending soldiers to war to be shot at" harming them more than those who wish to send them?

[Judge]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Hold on, how are the people who advocate "not sending soldiers to war to be shot at" harming them more than those who wish to send them?

Clearly when our service personel are asked (ordered) into a war situation they deserve 100% support from the Politicians who sent them. For Galloway to stand publicly and condemn them, and hope that Iraq win the war is disgusting.

The very people who elected him, will have son's daughter's, spouse's going into a situation where they could die, that at least demands he keeps his big fat gob shut.

And as Galloway is probably your MP, I hope you take that into account when next you vote?

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Judge
For Galloway to stand publicly and condemn them, and hope that Iraq win the war is disgusting.

when did he actually do that?