tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post5097664540301372194..comments2024-03-25T12:55:40.911+00:00Comments on Caron's Musings: Should we pay for Alex Salmond's stupidity?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04988201531739344840noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-62647649511081663162009-07-15T18:29:46.895+01:002009-07-15T18:29:46.895+01:00The opposition can win on occasion in the House of...The opposition can win on occasion in the House of Commons, but not often enough purely because of the way it's elected. On this idea it had no chance. Especially when the only coalition they Nationalists could build was with a few maverick Tories. Spending the best part of 15 grand on a legal opinion was not what I would have chosen to do until I had a wide ranging coalition both inside and outside parliament backing the idea.<br /><br />I do feel a sense of frustration that Blair essentially got away with it. I mean, who would make him a peace envoy? And now he's running for EU President? And the UK Government is backing him? Well, not in my name, to coin a phrase. <br /><br />I still say the best way to get better quality government and respect of Parliament is to reform the way you elect that Parliament.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04988201531739344840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-87681613322710400632009-07-15T15:32:46.484+01:002009-07-15T15:32:46.484+01:00Caron if your logic is that there is no point doin...Caron if your logic is that there is no point doing anything which requires majority support in the HoC then all opposition MPs may as well just go home and play with their moats, as the Government has an inbuilt majority.<br /><br />If your point is that this was a ‘nationalist publicity stunt’ as you call it, rather than a serious attempt to impeach Blair then you are half right and half wrong. You are right that it had no chance of succeeding because Labour MPs would have been committing political suicide of they had supported it. You are wrong however in thinking it was simply a nationalist publicity stunt. Any act which draws together diverse parties such as Alex Salmond, Boris Johnston and General Sir Michael Rose is rather more than a nationalist stunt (it is not a nationalist anything in fact).<br /><br />At the very least it means there is a record that not every member of the House of Commons and not every member of the military went along with the lies. A footnote to the whole episode no doubt but at least there is a footnote. It is ironic that a nationalist leader is condemned for doing what he could to uphold the integrity of the British Parliament in the face of Blair’s outrageous behaviour but there is nothing as strange as politics after all.Indyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04383904151475839441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-71945774282663683152009-07-15T13:13:14.375+01:002009-07-15T13:13:14.375+01:00Wardog, have amended to emphasise Salmond himself ...Wardog, have amended to emphasise Salmond himself claimed only a proportion of the total amount.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04988201531739344840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-27519698067451417692009-07-15T13:12:10.535+01:002009-07-15T13:12:10.535+01:00The whole point of back-benchers and "opposi...The whole point of back-benchers and "opposition parties" is to hold the government to account. I can think of no more appropriate use of expenses than this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-92081461231299379692009-07-15T13:08:13.438+01:002009-07-15T13:08:13.438+01:00Indy, Jim, Wardog, Anonymous,
I'm not saying ...Indy, Jim, Wardog, Anonymous,<br /><br />I'm not saying that they shouldn't have looked into impeaching Tony Blair and it's clear that a case could have been made. The simple fact is, though, that a key part of the procedure is obtaining a majority in the House of Commons which would never have happened.<br /><br />I also think it's too simplistic to blame the whole thing on one person - Brown signed the cheques to pay for it, most of the rest of the Cabinet signed up for it.<br /><br />I don't see why they paid out for an expensive legal opinion when it was clear from the outset that the case would never actually go anywhere.<br /><br />Having said that, it's not the worst use of public money we've seen in the last few months.<br /><br />I suspect John Lyons will not uphold the complaint and I don't necessarily have a problem with that.<br /><br />My main point, though, is that a fairly elected House of Commons would have put a stop to the whole notion of invading Iraq and maybe it's something that the SNP would like to talk more about and campaign for.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04988201531739344840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-51465314499623777072009-07-15T12:34:36.517+01:002009-07-15T12:34:36.517+01:00Bit of an own goal there Caron.
You may be under ...Bit of an own goal there Caron.<br /><br />You may be under the impression that only Alex Salmond was involved in bringing forward the motion to impeach Tony Blair but you are quite wrong.<br /><br />The cross-party grop of MPs who worked on it included Lib Dems as well as Tory grandees like Douglas Hogg, who drafted the motion, and Boris Johnston.Indyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04383904151475839441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-44449110944332616742009-07-15T11:56:30.526+01:002009-07-15T11:56:30.526+01:00We're paying for Tony Blair's stupidity, a...We're paying for Tony Blair's stupidity, and it's costing us a lot more than any amount of money Alex Salmond could ever claim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-6344127741566629382009-07-15T11:03:56.422+01:002009-07-15T11:03:56.422+01:00Caron,
You've got the wrong figures, the som...Caron, <br /><br />You've got the wrong figures, the some being claimed is £790, Salmond's share of the legal costs that were split between other campaigners, including a number of Conservative, Liberal & Plaid MP's.<br /><br />The impeachment motion was supported by a wide range of epople at the time, including a number of MP's, a couple of Liberals and others including George Galloway, , the Green party, and a host of celebrities.<br /><br />A valid question might be why the Liberal democrats didn't support the impeachment. You will recall that Ming was enthralled with Blair and has a visceral hatred of Alec Salmond. Poor old bugger.<br /><br />Tam Dalyell, then Labour Party MP for Linlithgow said:<br /><br />“I was sent the document. I read it very carefully. It's easy just to dismiss it and say the whole thing is preposterous. But as a document I think it requires refutation in some detail. What they have produced is a perfectly serious document that makes a coherent case. But if I and other Labour MPs endorsed it, there would be a terrible row about treachery. One would be labelled as a traitor and have to defend oneself. I don't mind being called a traitor, but I don't think it would help much."<br /><br />“I have been quite open in saying I want the Prime Minister to go because of Iraq. I made a speech during the debate on the Butler Report last month in which I said he should resign. Downing Street is trying to close down the impeachment attempt by dismissing it as a joke.”<br /><br />Treating it as a 'joke' or 'politically motivated by one single MP is what George Foulkes is trying to do.<br /><br />I think MacNumpoty is right to ask, what value are we getting from George Foulkes £120,000 of FoI requests?<br /><br />Is he abusing the FoI system to political ends?<br />Are his requests creating an unreasonable situation which is delaying other requests for information. <br /><br />Any Government has limited resources, I can't help thinking that Lord Foulkes is abusing those resources in the labour parties interests.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-64392165490763546332009-07-15T09:51:43.944+01:002009-07-15T09:51:43.944+01:00I've read some of your link on the impeachment...I've read some of your link on the impeachment and disagree entirely with you. <br /><br />You seem to think that a quick glance at the legalities is enough. If that were the case, nothing would ever be uncovered. <br /><br />The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach_Blair_campaign" rel="nofollow">Wiki pages </a> (I know, I know! It's hardly the best point of reference, but it does provide some evidence in terms of quotes, links and MPS positions on the matter) on the campaign to impeach Blair suggests that a pretty serious document was released as a result of the legal advice. Labour took the position of attempting to dismiss the action as a 'stunt', rather than meeting the document straight on, whilst several serious MPs thought that the case had merit.<br /><br />Some parties may have decided actually that it was too big a can of worms to open, but I certainly believe it was a worthwhile exercise and even if it didn't go ahead in this case, the fact that the preliminaries were instigated might cause some future leader with Blair-like tendencies to think twice about their legacies.<br /><br />£14k well spent and actually very little in the grand scheme of the moat cleaning, duck island, home flipping extravaganza.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00797359279671022904noreply@blogger.com