Skip to main content

Suspend the Standards Board not Ken Livingstone

The Standards Board (or strictly the Adjudication Panel for England) showed the reason why they need to be abolished when they threw london's regional government into a mess for a month.

The Standards Board fails to deal with the increasing corruption in public life, whilst undermining local government.

The system has clearly brought itself into disrepute and should be scrapped.


TonyF said…
So you don't think you and other politicians behaviour should not be monitored by a watchdog?

Do you think Livingstone should have got off insulting a Jewish person by calling them a member of the SS and then refusing to apologise?
TonyF said…
That should say 'So you think', before you correct my diction
Joe Otten said…
So, tonyf, you think quangocrats should have hire and fire power over politicians, who have done nothing illegal, just been a bit of an idiot?

I think the voters should have that power. Being a bit of an idiot is an occupational hazard.
john said…
The primary accountability of politicians should be to the voters.

I accept that legal intervention is needed to deal with corruption and the traditional approach which disqualified councillors imprisoned for 3 months or more seemed to work well.

The SBE and APE actually act to undermine democracy.
TonyF said…
So you both basically agree that it's OK to make such defamatory remarks and get away with it because you're a politician.
john said…
MPs could make those remarks with impunity before the law as could anyone else. It appears that only Councillors are likely to have any sanction.

It would be different if the comments were not made to the person's face or made to other people, however.
TonyF said…
The primary accountability of politicians should be to the voters.

So I take you're in favour of abolishing the unelected House of Lords?
PoliticalHack said…
What Ken Livingstone said isn't actually important. The issue that concerns me - like John H - is that an unelected committee have the power to throw somebody out of their elected position.

That gives me far greater cause for concern than insulting remarks made by a drunken politician. Those remarks are properly dealt with through the normal political process.

Let the voters decide Ken's punishment at the next election.
john said…
I am in favour of a House of Lords that is primarily elected. I don't mind some elements that represent interests other than geographical constituencies.
Bob Piper said…
PoliticalHack, was Ken 'drunk'? As far as I know his statement said he was deliberately rude to an obnoxious journalist working for an odious newspaper, and on that basis an apology would be hypocritical. I haven't heard him confess to being drunk. Having said that, if the public want to elect obnoxious people who get pissed from time to time, that's up to them (as I keep telling my voters).
john said…
I did hear the recording he sounded "a bit merry" or "hogwhimperingly drunk"

Whether he was or not, however, does not matter.

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).

Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: