UKC

Are we about to see a second election in Orkney.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Jim C 24 May 2015
Irrespective of your political views, should the voters in Orkney now be given the opportunity to now either endorse Alistair Carmichael as their MP, or reject him for lying, now he has admitted to doing so?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/23/alistair-carmichael-liberal...
 aln 24 May 2015
In reply to Jim C:

lying,

Just doing his job.

 summo 24 May 2015
In reply to Jim C:

Who told the lie though? It's politicians words against each other... The truth will be in the middle. Sturgeon / Snp would have jumped into a coalition with anyone for a sniff of power. Just like the libdems did.
2
Jim C 24 May 2015
In reply to summo:
You have missed the point Summo.
It is not anything about the truth or not of the content of the document that was leaked , rather that he admitted lying that he knew about it.

"On 5 April, Carmichael flatly denied having had any role in the leak. He told Channel 4 News:-
“I’ve told you the first I became aware of this, and this is already on the public record, was when I received a phone call on Friday afternoon from a journalist making me aware of it.”

Not true.
Post edited at 16:09
Jim C 24 May 2015
In reply to aln:

> lying,

> Just doing his job.

What is his 'job' Aln.
Dirty tricks?
It is not about that.( I'm sure we will see some of those from all parties)

"The dirty trick was bad enough – but his blatant attempt to cover it up until after the election is 10 times worse.”
 aln 24 May 2015
In reply to Jim C:

> What is his 'job' Aln.

My name's aln

I wasn't defending him or trying to be clever. Being cynical I suppose.
1
 rogerwebb 24 May 2015
In reply to Jim C:

If the standards commissioner finds against him then yes.

It would set a precedent that would be worth following.

Having said that I find calls for him to resign from people who deceived the country over whether or not they had received legal advice about Scotland's EU status somewhat hypocritical.

It's a bad time to decide to join the liberals.......
1
 skog 24 May 2015
In reply to rogerwebb:

> It's a bad time to decide to join the liberals.......

Maybe. Even if I wasn't otherwise affiliated, I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole if Farron becomes leader.

However, for those so inclined, I can see that now might be a good time to join in and help define what the party will be in the years to come - and the recent injection of new members might add some energy and enthusiasm.

Also, barring outright collapse, 2020 appears to offer an opportunity for them to increase their seats by an impressive multiple...
 rogerwebb 24 May 2015
In reply to skog:

(diverging from thread) What is the issue with Farron? I ask because I think you have pretty good judgement.

(I'm not committed yet)
 rogerwebb 24 May 2015
In reply to skog:

I see what you mean.

August West 24 May 2015
In reply to skog:

Hmmm. This man represents me in Parliament...
Jim C 24 May 2015
In reply to rogerwebb:

> If the standards commissioner finds against him then yes.
Agreed, but it is hard to argue against a confession, the commissioner, really has no judgement to make, on guilt, only punishment, or sanctions.

> It would set a precedent that would be worth following.
Indeed, we need something after Zac Goldsmith's MP recall bill was defeated ( funny that )

> Having said that I find calls for him to resign from people who deceived the country over whether or not they had received legal advice about Scotland's EU status somewhat hypocritical.
Two wrongs does not make a right, so If MP's ( of any party) lie about the opposition party in the lead up to an election , then the constituents should have the opportunity to at least another vote to reaffirm that members position as their MP.
(or depending on the lie , they should just resign, and not stand again)

The decision here is ,not IS he guilty, but the level of the punishment , ( and certainly not whether there should be any punishment)

Personally, if it was a choice , would just rather he got his money, and he was kicked out , and prevented from standing for office.
That might send a cross party message from the standards commissioner.

( it will be interesting what that view is, as that will be a guide of whether the commissioner has similar standards to the general public, or if they are judging MPs by their own low standards)

Jim C 24 May 2015
In reply to August West:

> Hmmm. This man represents me in Parliament...

You don't have a prayer then of being properly represented.
 summo 24 May 2015
In reply to Jim C:

> You don't have a prayer then of being properly represented.

Indeed, no chip buttie selfie for the constituents. Define properly represented?
Jim C 24 May 2015
In reply to summo:

Define properly represented?

It was just a joke on 'prayer' (and politicians that are religious .)
 rogerwebb 24 May 2015
In reply to Jim C:


> Two wrongs does not make a right,

I quite agree, that is the point I was making.

so If MP's ( of any party) lie about the opposition party in the lead up to an election , then the constituents should have the opportunity to at least another vote to reaffirm that members position as their MP.

I think the issue is whether the lie was about what he knew about the leak or the original smear, either is unacceptable.

The latter would seem worth a lot greater penalty and in those circumstances I don't think he should be allowed to stand again if recalled.

The penalty for the former would depend upon the commissioners investigation and any mitigation she uncovers (although its hard to see what that might be).

I suspect it may fizzle out which will be the worst outcome.



 Sealwife 24 May 2015
In reply to August West:
He also represents (?) me in parliament. Well, he used to, until he got a sniff of power. Latterly he has represented himself, his party and the Tory party, in that order. His constituents, nah, not any more.

I want a by-election.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/05/my-friend-alistair-carmicha... is an interesting read.

Post edited at 23:51
 summo 25 May 2015
In reply to Sealwife:

is that the same craig murray who's a bit of conspiracy theorist wacko?
 rogerwebb 25 May 2015
In reply to Sealwife:

>

And utterly bizarre.

Yes it's a resignation matter, but;

' The real lesson of the sad story of this period in Alistair’s life is that the UK is evil, corrupt and corrupting, and that the UK state needs swiftly to be broken up'

Is absurd.


 winhill 25 May 2015
In reply to summo:

> is that the same craig murray who's a bit of conspiracy theorist wacko?

the same.
 winhill 25 May 2015
In reply to Jim C:

> Irrespective of your political views, should the voters in Orkney now be given the opportunity to now either endorse Alistair Carmichael as their MP, or reject him for lying, now he has admitted to doing so?

I seem to remember Salmond got caught lying before the referendum about EU support for independence, so there must be an element of glass houses here.

If he'd made up the memo then he'd have to go. The public interest defence seems to have failed, but would it have been successful if the french had confirmed the veracity of the story? In which case, since they had no way of knowing for sure, the public interest defence would still stand, perhaps.

I would have thought the plan was for the minder to take the fall (as Carmichael sort of implied) but when faced with official questioning Carmichael bottled it and took the blame or the minder refused to play ball and quickly dobbed him in.

The LibDems don't think it is worth disciplinary measures but they probably are just hoping that this will avoid a more serious sanction.

It's a bit meh though.

1
Jim C 29 May 2015
In reply to winhill:


> The LibDems don't think it is worth disciplinary measures but they probably are just hoping that this will avoid a more serious sanction.

It looks bad when your own constituents are willing to pay £40K to get rid of you!

"A PETITION is expected to be lodged at the Court of Session in Edinburgh today in a bid to overturn the election result in Alistair Carmichael’s Orkney and Shetland constituency."

Apparently they feel that he got voted in whilst he knowingly falsely representing the oppositions position, and then lying about it by denying knowledge of it (until AFTER the election) thus likely obtaining additional votes ,that would not have come his way, if he had admitted lying BEFORE the election.

The pressure is building for him to resign or be removed, , and re run the election.

http://www.thenational.scot/politics/crowdfundraisers-will-lodge-petition-t...
 rogerwebb 29 May 2015
In reply to Jim C:

'The People Versus Carmichael, a non-political group in Orkney'.

Non political? That is a bit ridiculous.

Can't see the legal challenge succeeding as the memo was not comment upon the character of any of the other candidates in his constituency.

He is thoroughly in the wrong though


Jim C 30 May 2015
In reply to rogerwebb:



> Can't see the legal challenge succeeding as the memo was not comment upon the character of any of the other candidates in his constituency.

Somehow you seem to be deliberately missing the point .
It NOT at all about the memo, it was about the LIE.

He kept that quiet until,after the election, the argument is, with only 800 of a majority would the fact that the electorate had known the truth of this and known he lied, as he has admitted, would he still have won a majority?

It would seem to be fair if he agreed to run again, and get the endorsement of the electorate, which IS now in doubt.

 The New NickB 30 May 2015
In reply to Jim C:

> Two wrongs does not make a right, so If MP's ( of any party) lie about the opposition party in the lead up to an election , then the constituents should have the opportunity to at least another vote to reaffirm that members position as their MP.

Every MP in Parliament told lies during the campaign, small and sometimes very large, sometimes repeating the lies of others without even knowing it. The PM told some absolute whoppers.

This isn't just me being cynical, it's a statement about human nature and "truth".
 RomTheBear 30 May 2015
In reply to The New NickB:
> Every MP in Parliament told lies during the campaign, small and sometimes very large, sometimes repeating the lies of others without even knowing it. The PM told some absolute whoppers.

> This isn't just me being cynical, it's a statement about human nature and "truth".

All politicians are making clever misleading claims, that includes pretty much everything that comes out of the PM's mouth, but in the case of Carmichael it was nothing but a good old blunt lie.
Post edited at 10:36
 rogerwebb 30 May 2015
In reply to Jim C:

> Somehow you seem to be deliberately missing the point .

> It NOT at all about the memo, it was about the LIE.

>

No I'm not missing the point.

The legal challenge is about whether the law has been contravened.
To contravene the law he needs to have told a lie about a candidate in the election he in which he is taking part.
Given the above it is hard to see the legal challenge succeeding.

That does not mean I think that what he did was defencible, it is an observation on the law.

Morally (and politically) it is about the lie and I quite agree, as I think I have made clear, he is in the wrong and my view is that if he knew the memo was untrue and then lied about it he should resign.

If the memo was leaked and he didn't know that it was untrue then lying about his knowledge was wrong, whether or not that is a resigning depends upon any mitigation there might be, though, as I have said before it is hard to see what that mitigation might be.
 The New NickB 30 May 2015
In reply to RomTheBear:

> All politicians are making clever misleading claims, that includes pretty much everything that comes out of the PM's mouth, but in the case of Carmichael it was nothing but a good old blunt lie.

I know, it was a more general comment about human beings and honesty!
Jim C 30 May 2015
In reply to rogerwebb:



> The legal challenge is about whether the law has been contravened.
> To contravene the law he needs to have told a lie about a candidate in the election he in which he is taking part.
> Given the above it is hard to see the legal challenge succeeding.

Carmichael was a candidate, the lie was about him , so he told a lie about himself , and HE was taking part in the election.

Sounds to me that we have ticked all the legal boxes, so I expect the challenge to succeed .




 rogerwebb 30 May 2015
In reply to Jim C:

well we'll agree to disagree but I will be extremely surprised if any court can stretch;


'106 False statements as to candidates.
.
(1) A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
.
(a) before or during an election,
.
(b) for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,
.
makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true. '

To include Mr Carmichael's conduct
 RomTheBear 30 May 2015
In reply to rogerwebb:
> well we'll agree to disagree but I will be extremely surprised if any court can stretch;

> '106 False statements as to candidates.

> .

> (1) A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—

> .

> (a) before or during an election,

> .

> (b) for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,

> .

> makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true. '

> To include Mr Carmichael's conduct

It doesn't look like a stretch though, he did make a false statement about his own conduct (that he wasn't involved in the leak) for the purpose of affecting his return as a candidate, and he couldn't have believed a false statement about himself to be true.
Post edited at 21:13
 rogerwebb 31 May 2015
In reply to RomTheBear:

We shall see, unless he does the decent thing and just resigns.



Jim C 31 May 2015
In reply to rogerwebb:

It is interesting in itself to see now if a MP really can be held to account under the current rules.
If not, it may well be that the rules thereafter should be changed, as most fair minded people ( reading here and in the national papers) seem to agree that what he did was wrong and IS a resigning matter. ( if he does resign , whether he stands again is up to him)

Where candidates ( like Carmichael) don't have the moral fibre to do the 'right thing' , then the rules really should be in place cover what he did, so that such people can be removed from office by the constituents .

If that then leads to a change in the law, and he remains in office , then so be it, but he risks then , that any such legal case without precedent , could be forever known in legal terms as :- The people of Orkney versus Carmichael. ( win or lose)

Who would ever want to have that as a political legacy, such things stay in the legal text books for centuries.

 rogerwebb 31 May 2015
In reply to Jim C:

I fear that the answer maybe that he can't be held to account under the current rules. Ironic in that his party has been quite keen on that kind of thing.

It is odd that outside the election process it seems there would be no chance of effective recourse at all, but then many politicians of all parties would be in trouble if there were.
Jim C 31 May 2015
In reply to rogerwebb:

> I fear that the answer maybe that he can't be held to account under the current rules. Ironic in that his party has been quite keen on that kind of thing.

I think the LIb Dems made a mistake taking NO internal party disciplinary action at all!
If they had done something, no matter how 'token' , they could have still pointed that, and said he 'had been punished' , end of, but to do nothing will just aggravate the voters even more, as they are therefore saying their Lib Dem MP's can lie with impunity.

I think that is another bit of bad judgement that will come back to bite them.

 off-duty 31 May 2015
In reply to Jim C:

The lib dems did say this would have caused him to lose his cabinet position.
I'm not sure what censure they can give him in a party of 8?
 rogerwebb 31 May 2015
In reply to Jim C:

> > I think that is another bit of bad judgement that will come back to bite them.

Yes, there's nothing like keeping on digging when you're stuck in a hole.

Jim C 01 Jun 2015
In reply to rogerwebb:

> Yes, there's nothing like keeping on digging when you're stuck in a hole.

And then they dig deeper, and alienate every other politician of all other parties , in defence of their own.

(Our life boat is sinking , let's sink all the others too, and we can all drown together,)
"Politicians tell "brazen lies", senior Lib Dem Sir Malcolm Bruce has claimed as he defended the actions of ex-Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32881672

You can just picture Andrew Marr interviewing a politician, and after listening to their answer, then asking bluntly :-
" Was that a brazen lie?"
And it WILL be a legitimate question following Malcolm Bruce's statement.
Jim C 01 Jun 2015
In reply to off-duty:

> The lib dems did say this would have caused him to lose his cabinet position.
Easy to say when he did not have one!
Based on him holding on just now, I can't help thinking he would also have tried to hold on to a cabinet position, had he still had one.

> I'm not sure what censure they can give him in a party of 8?
I did say , not even a 'token' censure.
It was just bad politics to do nothing.
They should have at least given him the equivalent of a wrap on the knuckles, and spun it into something bigger.
( to make them look like they knew it was it a bad thing to do. )

The 'LD ' party is fast going to mean the 'Lost Deposit ' party on this showing.


 off-duty 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Jim C:

> Easy to say when he did not have one!

> Based on him holding on just now, I can't help thinking he would also have tried to hold on to a cabinet position, had he still had one.

There is a difference between resigning as a cabinet minister and resigning as an MP.
Given that he has given up the 17k he was entitled to for losing this position, the continued howling for a human sacrifice seems to have a note of vindictiveness now.
Its equally plausible that had things been different, those now pursuing him would not have been satisfied with "just" the loss of his cabinet position.

1
 skog 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Jim C:

The thing is, if he stepped down with honour, there's a pretty good chance the Lib Dems would re-take the seat with a fresh candidate.

As it stands, they're building up bad feeling, and there's a fair chance Carmichael will eventually have to go anyway. And if he stays on, he'll be very weak, largely lacking in credibility and unable to effectively criticise others.

However,

off duty:
> the continued howling for a human sacrifice seems to have a note of vindictiveness now

I'm afraid I agree with this. If his -constituents- feel they want rid of him, or want to test him with a by-election, fair enough.

I don't really like the larger witch-hunt that seems to be happening, though. He was foolish and dishonest, but he has already paid a significant price for it, financially and in reputation.

And I'm pretty sure that, when his poorly-considered stunt blew up, it drove people -to- the SNP rather than away.
 rogerwebb 01 Jun 2015
In reply to skog:

>
>
> I don't really like the larger witch-hunt that seems to be happening, though. He was foolish and dishonest, but he has already paid a significant price for it, financially and in reputation.

>

It is curious how some scandals take off and trend towards a witch hunt and others don't.

If Alistair Carmichael lied to cover an intentional false statement designed to smear an opponent then he should resign, if he lied in a hurried reaction to discovering that what he thought was true looked like a smear then let's see the whole circumstances which I assume will be contained in the commissioners report

It is hard however to see how the worst interpretation of his actions is qualitatively worse than, to use a recent example, lying about whether you have legal advice and then going to court in an attempt to conceal that lie.

The double standard grates as much as the alleged offence.
(alleged as in whether it's the first or the second case)



1
In reply to off-duty:

> Given that he has given up the 17k he was entitled to for losing this position, the continued howling for a human sacrifice seems to have a note of vindictiveness now.

He hasn't given up anything. He's got another 5 years of MP's pay and allowances which is worth far more than £17K.

There are two unethical acts: the original leak and lying about it. Maybe resigning from cabinet would have been enough for the original leak - although if a civil servant had done the same thing they'd have been fired and/or prosecuted if the memo was secret. Then there is lying about not knowing about it in the run up to the election: he must have seen the official enquiry interviewing everyone and known it would come out eventually that he was behind it so all he was doing was cynically betting it wouldn't come out until after he was elected and it would be too late for his constituents to do anything about it. If he stays in parliament he is benefiting from that lie.

Having said that I don't think the SNP should expend any energy trying to get rid of him. 56 out of 58 MPs is plenty and there's nothing to be gained by using legal means to try and get 57 out of 58. I think he'll get suspended by the parliamentary standards people and the SNP should just let that mechanism take its course.



 off-duty 01 Jun 2015
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> He hasn't given up anything. He's got another 5 years of MP's pay and allowances which is worth far more than £17K.

He's given up the 17k which he was due to receive as a result of losing his cabinet position - regardless of how that loss happened.
 skog 01 Jun 2015
In reply to rogerwebb:

> It is hard however to see how the worst interpretation of his actions is qualitatively worse than, to use a recent example, lying about whether you have legal advice and then going to court in an attempt to conceal that lie.

Hmm.

Whilst both were lies, one was a smear against an individual and the other wasn't. Dishonest personal attacks are worse than simple lies, I think.

In addition to this, the strength of the reaction is at least partly due to the popularity (to some extent even idolisation) of NS.

But, yes, there are double standards involved amongst those who criticise one but not the other.
In reply to off-duty:

> He's given up the 17k which he was due to receive as a result of losing his cabinet position - regardless of how that loss happened.

Being an MP for 5 years is worth at least £500K achieved by lying to conceal his first misdeed until after the election. Not taking £17K and pretending that makes everything fine is a cheap smokescreen.
 off-duty 01 Jun 2015
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Regardless of what you think he is now receiving (and is entitled to receive as the elected MP) the fact remains that you claimed he had not given up anything.
He has. He has given up 17k.

I appreciate you want to play politics of envy but by my calculations it's giving up a "bonus" of over 20% of his salary, which doesn't seem to be small potatoes.
In reply to off-duty:

> Regardless of what you think he is now receiving (and is entitled to receive as the elected MP) the fact remains that you claimed he had not given up anything.

> He has. He has given up 17k.

He's not. He was sitting there a couple of weeks before the election with all the information in front of him: he knew he'd authorised the leak, he knew he'd get caught by the enquiry but not until after the election and he thought it through and cynically decided to lie and let it play out, very likely renouncing the £17K was a pre-planned part of the strategy.

Spending £17K as a token to protect the much larger sum of money involved in another 5 years of well paid employment isn't a concession, its an investment decision.

 off-duty 01 Jun 2015
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

There is a lot of supposition and hypotheticals in your post.
The fact is that he has given up 17k to which he was entitled.

Had he been as Machiavellian as you believe - then he was in fact prepared to sacrifice his ministerial salary - I think that's double his MP's salary - as part of his "scheme".
 summo 01 Jun 2015
In reply to Jim C:

It's a good job that everything else claimed in this election and the independence referendum was based on proven fact, on both sides. Otherwise there would be lots of pots and kettles here.
 Erik B 01 Jun 2015
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh: the SNP arent expending any energy trying to get rid of him, some of his constituents are campaigning for re-election. The Orkney and Shetland people will decide if they forgive him or not. What interests me is where else this manufactured smear leads, who in the coalition government was involved and signed it off? the lie is an additional and serious issue. But the leak being the most serious to me, involving an attempt to smear the First minister and involving another state (France), with the sole intention of influencing the electorate during a critical period in the election campaign.

people need to grasp the concept that the SNP are not leaders of the new Scottish political awakening, the SNP, for the time being, are being used as a vehicle. I keep harping on about this, but the original grassroots Yes movement is a bottom up movement (i.e. there is no leadership).

Confusing the two entities (SNP and Yes movement) as being one entity is the fatal mistake that Labour (and Libdems) have made in Scotland. Until the other parties understand what the Yes movement is all about they will never recover.







Jim C 02 Jun 2015
In reply to summo:

> It's a good job that everything else claimed in this election and the independence referendum was based on proven fact, on both sides. Otherwise there would be lots of pots and kettles here.

I have said before, if anyone else has lied, ( in any party) get the evidence , report it to the police, the standards authority or whatever , or start a campaign yourself.
If they are all liars and cheats , then let's have a bonfire and clear them all out.

For now, Carmichael is the one that has admitted his lie, and his involvement in the leak, so let's deal with him, and then we can look at your list of names, and the evidence against them.

Carmichael has admitted his guilt , and now has a three pronged attack.
A probe into his leak
A criminal accusation being investigated by the police
His own constituents taking him to court .
http://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/1322141-orkney-and-shetland-mp-alistai...


Jim C 05 Jun 2015
In reply to Jim C:

Listen to this, and see if you think that Carmichael is perhaps not alone in his knowledge of the leaked document, before it was leaked.

I still think Carmichael should go, but this man should be asked to answer this question again and again until he gives a truthful answer .

At the moment he seems to be avoiding confirming that he was aware of the leaked document.

If your bullshit detector does not go berserk at this, it needs major calibration

youtube.com/watch?v=tcJWcjwYMfc&

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...