The Conservative Party

Perhaps most telling is that they haven't built up a personal vote for doing a good job as local MP.

Because none of them were interested in doing that - for these fuckers the old style MP who was known around the constituency and mingled with his voters whilst dealing with issues that affect them is an anathema - they were in it for themselves - for money - for self aggrandisement and for a post politics media profile. The voters were just a tool for getting there.
 
New Privileges Committee report released today.
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/40679/documents/198237/default/
Mogg, Dorries, Fabricant, Patel, Jenkyns, Goldsmith, Jenkinson, Clarke-Smith, Lord Cruddas and Lord Greenhalgh all named as people trying to interfere with the work of the committee, and therefore being in contempt of Parliament.

knighted by Johnson
attempted peerage by Johnson
knighted by Johnson
psychopath
Nutjob made minister by Johnson
given peerage by Johnson, made minister attending cabinet by Johnson, Garden Bridge supporter
actually seems quite sane in this company
likely 1-term MP for Bassetlaw, 'interesting' views on many things, nutjob
given peerage by Johnson when rejected by HOLAC
appointed to multiple jobs by Johnson

Lovely bunch.
 
New Privileges Committee report released today.
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/40679/documents/198237/default/
Mogg, Dorries, Fabricant, Patel, Jenkyns, Goldsmith, Jenkinson, Clarke-Smith, Lord Cruddas and Lord Greenhalgh all named as people trying to interfere with the work of the committee, and therefore being in contempt of Parliament.
They were criticised - the report didn’t find them to have been in contempt of Parliament. They didn’t make any such judgments.
 
They were criticised - the report didn’t find them to have been in contempt of Parliament. They didn’t make any such judgments.
Feel free to argue semantics all you want but if you read paragraphs 4 & 5 of the report where contempt of parliament is clearly defined, it’s clearly implicit within that report that those names were considered to have been in contempt of parliament.
 
Feel free to argue semantics all you want but if you read paragraphs 4 & 5 of the report where contempt of parliament is clearly defined, it’s clearly implicit within that report that those names were considered to have been in contempt of parliament.
I’m not sure being in contempt of Parliament is something to be criticised for.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top