News0 min ago
Party Politics
72 Answers
Can't help but think we'd be better served by people with integrity and intelligence. Not a Part-political point but Tony Blair and Michael Howard, William Hague and John Smith could out-perform these pygmies in an instant.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Paigntonian. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Finally, just as a political point: Blair was popular within his own Party, his own Party held a pretty significant majority, and unsurprisingly these two factors meant that his own Party supported him on this matter (except Corbyn and a few others, who spoke out against the decision to go to War). Under all those circumstances, it's extremely difficult to hold such leaders to account -- they're just too protected, politically.
It seems to my mind preferable to be in a situation where the (former) leader of a Party that holds a majority in Parliament is not, for that very reason, protected from investigations into their conduct. To describe it as regrettable that Blair's potentially having knowingly misled Parliament wasn't investigated is an understatement. But, again, what does this make your point? That we should follow that example, and never investigate Prime Ministers for lying to the House, no matter over how small the matter is? Clearly not. We should surely hold our leaders to the highest standards of conduct. Blair got away with one. The lesson there is surely *never* to take potentially having lied to the House lightly.
It seems to my mind preferable to be in a situation where the (former) leader of a Party that holds a majority in Parliament is not, for that very reason, protected from investigations into their conduct. To describe it as regrettable that Blair's potentially having knowingly misled Parliament wasn't investigated is an understatement. But, again, what does this make your point? That we should follow that example, and never investigate Prime Ministers for lying to the House, no matter over how small the matter is? Clearly not. We should surely hold our leaders to the highest standards of conduct. Blair got away with one. The lesson there is surely *never* to take potentially having lied to the House lightly.
Perhaps you should tell me what should be commanding my attention -- I personally think it's been quite useful for me to have dug into the circumstances surrounding the decision to go to War in Iraq more thoroughly than I have in a while.
But as for today, what matters is Johnson's conduct now, not Blair's conduct *then*, nor the conduct of Parliament *then*. It's too late to fix that mistake; we can only ensure never to repeat it, and to send a clear message that knowingly misleading Parliament will never be tolerated. Whether Johnson *knowingly* misled Parliament, then, is a relevant question that deserves an investigation and an answer.
But as for today, what matters is Johnson's conduct now, not Blair's conduct *then*, nor the conduct of Parliament *then*. It's too late to fix that mistake; we can only ensure never to repeat it, and to send a clear message that knowingly misleading Parliament will never be tolerated. Whether Johnson *knowingly* misled Parliament, then, is a relevant question that deserves an investigation and an answer.
I don't think I'll ever be considered anything over than a pleb, either, Naomi!
I clearly agree with davebro that lying about a War in which thousands died, when the effect of that lie was precisely to send the UK to War in which said thousands died, is orders of magnitude worse than lying over parties held in lockdown. Still, they are both lies; the distinction lies only in the consequences, not in the original offence.
I clearly agree with davebro that lying about a War in which thousands died, when the effect of that lie was precisely to send the UK to War in which said thousands died, is orders of magnitude worse than lying over parties held in lockdown. Still, they are both lies; the distinction lies only in the consequences, not in the original offence.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|