Politics Today

[DB9]

Tory MP Julian Knight has had the Tory Whip removed after a complaint was made to the Met Police. The details of the complaint has not been made public yet.

 

[Hermann]

Meanwhile another Conservative MP who is on bail for sexual offences has still not been named and still has the whip, although is banned from attending Parliament. I struggle with the logic sometime.

FYI whilst he's not been named officially, everyone knows who he is, but I don't want to get exeweb in trouble by posting it.

 

[tavyred]

Meanwhile another Conservative MP who is on bail for sexual offences has still not been named and still has the whip, although is banned from attending Parliament. I struggle with the logic sometime.

FYI whilst he's not been named officially, everyone knows who he is, but I don't want to get exeweb in trouble by posting it.

There’s another one? I’d assumed this latest chap was the one there’s been all this chatter about recently.
A Labour MP was also suspended from the party yesterday, just to flag up that alleged wrongdoing in Westminster has no colours.

 

[DB9]

There’s another one? I’d assumed this latest chap was the one there’s been all this chatter about recently.
A Labour MP was also suspended from the party yesterday, just to flag up that alleged wrongdoing in Westminster has no colours.

Seems like you get to Westminster and any morals go out the window and you think the rules don't apply to you.

 

[Hermann]

There’s another one? I’d assumed this latest chap was the one there’s been all this chatter about recently.
A Labour MP was also suspended from the party yesterday, just to flag up that alleged wrongdoing in Westminster has no colours.

Yes, it's an odd one. Said MP has been claiming expenses, accepting holidays as donations, and attending events in the constituency as if nothing has happened. They just don't attend parliament. I can't think of any reason why they've not been named when others are, so given all this I'd initially assumed it was spurious internet chat. However, their attendance record shows they haven't been in parliament since the end of April, which would fit with the timing of the original announcement:

Tory MP accused of rape released on bail

Tory chief whip Chris Heaton-Harris urged the unnamed MP in his 50s to stay away from Parliament.

www.standard.co.uk

 

[angelic upstart]

Yes, it's an odd one. Said MP has been claiming expenses, accepting holidays as donations, and attending events in the constituency as if nothing has happened. They just don't attend parliament. I can't think of any reason why they've not been named when others are, so given all this I'd initially assumed it was spurious internet chat. However, their attendance record shows they haven't been in parliament since the end of April, which would fit with the timing of the original announcement:

Tory MP accused of rape released on bail

Tory chief whip Chris Heaton-Harris urged the unnamed MP in his 50s to stay away from Parliament.

www.standard.co.uk

How does one discover an mp's attendance record?

 

[DB9]

How does one discover an mp's attendance record?

It's probably out the on some Westminster website I'd thought.

 

[Hermann]

How does one discover an mp's attendance record?

Apologies, I was a bit misleading on this. It's not the attendance record, but the voting record. They don't publish their attendance (I wonder why), but votes can be found on https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/ amongst other places. It records ballots they could have voted in, but were absent for. Whilst theoretically the MP in question could have attended Parliament but never voted, it seems unlikely.

 

[Alistair20000]

As Tavy has so eloquently pointed out, you can't buck the Labour market. And you, a believer in the free market I'm sure, must recognise that?

I was much cheered a few years ago when Dominic Sandbrook, viewed by many as a right of centre popular historian, observed that Scargillite "free collective bargaining" was essentially Thatcherite in nature - you use your power (collective rather than individual in this case) to get what you can.

While Sandbrook might have a point Thatcherism embraced a free market and healthy competition. A free market does not operate in the public sector which is also financed by taxation rather than market forces.

 

[Grecian2K]

While Sandbrook might have a point Thatcherism embraced a free market and healthy competition. A free market does not operate in the public sector which is also financed by taxation rather than market forces.

I would be to slightly differ Al.

The fundamental problem though is that the inevitable ultimate goal of most "free market" operators is to evolve toward (ideally) a monopoly situation or (alternatively) a convenient "cartel" with so called competitors.

For the former one only has to look at the water industry for example where, although different operators exist most customers are geographically tied to a monopolist provider. One could also point to the rail industry where, in large parts of the country, more or less the same applies.

For the latter I would offer the likes of energy, communications and even, perhaps, the big supermarket chains. Although ostensibly in competition they still largely coalesce where matters of mutual interest (and profit) arise.

And to police this we have a largely ineffective Monopoly and Mergers commission and, even worse, a set of useless so-called "regulators" who seem to be clearly in hock to the providers rather than the customers.

State monopolies are not necessary the total answer, but at least we, the grate unwashed, do have the opportunity every few years to vote the current "board of directors" out. Unlike the privatised sector where the only ones who have a real say are the (often offshore or foreign government) investors.