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)