It's funny you should take that approach, Hrolf, as you could as easily look at it from the other angle. Would there be a clamour to change the rules from a Tory majority parliament if the person in the stocks was a senior Labour MP?

I have not read this whole thread so we may be in agreement on this notwithstanding our differing political colour. But this case seems as clear cut as it is possible to be in politics. There were rules that everyone knew about. They were not just broken by this guy but the breach was flagrant and he profited considerably. Face the music.

The rules may well be bad and require reform. However, there are rather a lot of bad laws about. That is why the law is considered to be always there - we are just in a permanent struggle to find it. Thus, these rules were probably a knee-jerk to cash-for-questions or something and, as with most rushed, politically expedient, knee-jerk laws they are generally made on the hoof and are fundamentally flawed.

Therefore, natural justice does, indeed, dictate a requirement to be properly heard and to have a right of appeal. If these rules are bad they need to be made good. To find themselves.

However, natural justice also provides that rules cannot be applied retrospectively. That principle is sacrosanct. Good government does not allow the executive to alter the rules to help their friends.

The rules need to be amended to bring them into line with natural justice and that requires time and care. When the new law is made, everyone will know what they are, and people will be judged in accordance with those new rules if they commit the breach while they are in place. It's black and white to me. Unarguable.

The one perplexing thing about this is the "why"? Not why he did what he did as that is obvious £££. But why the Tories have risen to put the whole party's head on the block? They are having to come on broadcast media to defend the obviously indefensible and have dragged down the reputation of their government. They are also bringing in his wife's suicide and conflating the two issues which is something of a new low.

But there was no need. Their majority is huge and the opposition fractious and of little threat. Have him take his 30 days; that takes us up to the party season; by the New Year the story will be forgotten chip wrap. No-one will care. It would not have impacted at all on the one element they really care about - maintenance of power.

People might care now.

Very odd.

Just wow

Yet another climb down

If only there was a credible opposition. The recent past has proven how essential it is to have a balance of power.

It has also proven that a small number of extremely self centred people can take over from the generally well intentioned mass of MPs. Something needs to change.

My only reaction to this subject is to laugh at Labour hypocrisy.

I'm not going to judge this man for his ethics but all I will say is that rules is rules for most of us but if you are an MP then there appears to be a flexible approach to enforcing them. It's the kind of political hypocrisy that we should all have got used to by now.
Politics is a dirty business.

Fell on his sword . . .

[Link]