Scared of what labour will do

CurlewKate
I've lost you

Really? My first post was simply correcting PandoraSox's assumption that Louise Haigh's conviction was spent when she entered Parliament. You are reading too much into my reply to Alexandra2001 - perhaps I should have posted 'obviously' instead. Although regarding ethics (since you've raised it), I wonder if voters were aware of Haigh's unspent conviction in the run up to the 2015 general election?

@Kittygolightlyy "
"I don’t know about you but I’ve never committed Fraud"

Well, I've certainly several times walked out of a railway station without paying if there's nobody in the ticket office. And I haven't done this-but I know loads of people who have added something to their insurance claim if their car was stolen or their house burgled. It's quite common behaviour.

@Clavinova "I should think so otherwise the repercussions would have been more serious"

I've lost you. So she was qualified to be an MP. Qualified to be a Minister. But resigned when it looked as if her past might embarrass the government. And somehow this goes to showing the Labour Party as weak on ethics?

Unfortunately I think we are stuck with the current prime minister but I wouldn't bet against having two more chancellors before the next election.

I think we can be pretty certain we won’t have three PMs and four chancellors before the next election.

I should think so otherwise the repercussions would have been more serious.

People with unspent convictions can stand for Parliament, so long as the sentence was less than 1 year.

TBH thats a charge that can be thrown at many MPs whatever the party...

But not one that can thrown at Starmer, Reeves, Cooper or Lammy, who are doing the top jobs in any govt...

So top marks for trying to paint Labour into something they are not....

Her conviction wasn't spent when she entered Parliament;

she pleaded guilty to making a false report to police at magistrates' court six months before becoming an MP in the 2015 election

...and she is gone, rightly so, whats the point you re trying to make?

Should people with criminal convictions never be allowed to enter Parliament, even when the conviction is spent?

‘Her conviction sheet sets out for the first time however that she admitted to having lied about the theft in the first place in order to get a newer phone, and that the investigation and replacement phone cost Aviva £1,249. She was discharged for 12 months and paid £100 in fines, £85 to the Crown Prosecution Service and £15 as a victim surcharge.

The sheet says: “You dishonestly made a false representation, namely that your work-issued mobile phone had been stolen, intending to cause loss to Aviva insurance by falsely reporting the loss of your phone, causing them to issue you with a new iPhone 5 instead of a replacement BlackBerry phone as well as conducting an investigation into that loss.”’ The guardian

I don’t know about you but I’ve never committed Fraud.

Incidentally. @Katypp, it's customary to acknowledge extensive quotation from outside sources.

Of course it's a big deal that our Chancellor is a liar.
She sold us all, and businesses a lie! Her whole shtick was that she was an economist with a decades experience at the BofE. That was her sales pitch. She was going round the country telling lies.
Not only did she lie about her time at the BofE, she lied about her more recent position and job title at HBOS, and the reason she had been unemployed for approx 12 months before becoming an MP.
This really matters, same with Reynolds.

I don’t for a moment believe that any MN Labour supporter would regard Tory CV lying as inconsequential.

(By ‘Labour supporter’ I mean those who post sympathetically about this government, not people who actually voted Labour: a surprising number of pro-Labour posters deny that they’re ‘supporters’ or ‘fans’ and claim to vote for some other party.)

FWIW, I suspect part of this problem for Labour comes from many Labour politicians having done little or no work outside unions, think tanks, NGOs or local authorities. They find the need to ‘acquire’ other skills and qualifications once they have many constituents to appeal to and greater exposure of their work experience.

@Kittygolightlyy "Louise Haigh Criminal conviction.. where will it end.. Andrew Gwynn nasty about his own constituents.. where will it end"

Louise Haigh had a spent conviction which she told Starmer about. The key word is "spent". But she resigned promptly when it began (wrongly) to look embarrassing. Sod rehabilitation of offenders, eh?

Andrew Gwynn- properly and rightly sacked.

Louise Haigh Criminal conviction.. where will it end.. Andrew Gwynn nasty about his own constituents.. where will it end

‘Labour set itself a very high bar on ethics in government

In the years running up to the 2024 general election, Starmer and his party focused strongly on ethics in government, criticising many Conservative ministers for apparent ethical failings and promising to establish a new ethics and integrity commission. Since taking office, Labour’s track record has been mixed. The prime minister did eventually publish a new ministerial code that made important steps towards strengthening how ministers are held to account for their actions, but the ethics commission has yet to emerge.

In November the prime minister suffered his first ministerial resignation, when transport secretary Louise Haigh stepped down following revelations about a (spent) criminal conviction, which Starmer knew of when he appointed her to the shadow cabinet.

Following 'freebie-gate', it is beginning to look as if this government does not fully understand how ministers’ actions look to its external critics.

Having been so quick to loudly criticise the last government for its perceived failings on ethics and integrity, Starmer and his team need to show that they truly understand the importance of meeting the standards that they promised to uphold once in office. ‘

@Katypp "RR has stated many times she was at the BoE for the best part of a decade. But to point out she was only there six years is apparently nitpicking (because, Labour)

No. Because nitpicking.

@Katypp "No doubt you will point out that the Tories would not have been expelled, but if Labour hadn't expelled theirs, that would be OK too In other words, there is a contingent on here that will justify everything Labour do because they are Labour"

Well, address your comments to them. I am not one of them. I think it was seriously daft to lie on a CV. But in the scheme it's not a big deal. Which is what I meant by barrel scraping.

I think your post perfectly illustrates the double standards on here.
RR has stated many times she was at the BoE for the best part of a decade. But to point out she was only there six years is apparently nitpicking (because, Labour).
Would you extend the same largesse to this from eg Jeremy Hunt? We'll never know.
Would you say that Tory politicians who have misbehaved should be forgotten because they were expelled quickly? We'll never know.
No doubt you will point out that the Tories would not have been expelled, but if Labour hadn't expelled theirs, that would be OK too
In other words, there is a contingent on here that will justify everything Labour do because they are Labour.
Obviously We'll never know if the Tories would have been praised for taking WFP away from most pensioners or loading businesses with enough costs to close them, but I think we can take an educated guess
And at the end of the day, when there are absolutely no justifications to use, you can always fall back on the two MN favourites: Bias in the media and The Tories Were Worse.

Alexandra2001
This country needs some stability, not the constant merry go round of ministers we have seen in the last few years

I wonder how many of Starmer's ministers will last a full year in office.

Agreed.. and don’t forget Tulip Siddiq.
Optically corrupt Labour minister in charge of corruption.

Couldn’t make it up. Oh yes.. you could. 🤢

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/tulip-siddiq-resignation

It's not six years - it's really only four and a half years if she spent nearly a year studying at the LSE during that time.

To be honest-if "lying on her CV" amounts to calling 6 years "the best part of a decade" I think I can live with that!

But it does illustrate the nitpickery that's going on. Which does rather suggest the barrel is being scraped....

Yes a bit of a porky isn't it?

But again, does it matter...

This country needs some stability, not the constant merry go round of ministers we have seen in the lats few years.