I say this because there being no appeals system is supposed to be the reason the Tories have taken this action, rather than trying to stop a suspension. But this is casting doubt on their actions for to most people it looks as though they are supporting sleaze whether they are or not.
This reason would have been more believed if they had acted so when the person in question was not a Conservative MP, so I can see why people are convinced it is not the real reason. So, which view is correct, well can it ever be proved, but by doing so, it again gives rise to query a Conservative action, when there have been so many recently.
It is commendable to show support to your colleagues, but it is even more commendable to show support to those who are not your colleagues.
So, if the body who looks at misconduct is changed and changed immediately, as there has to been somebody looking at conduct, and the same result occurs will Boris and some of his MPs then accept the results, I some how do not believe so, especially when the new body is being mooted to have a majority of Conservative MPs. This does not look as being ideal, but as we can see not all Conservative MPs agree with the Governments decision and this has to be looked at as being encouraging.
Sleaze is never acceptable as it give more support to the public to believe all MPs are guilty of sleaze and therefore considerable mistrust of the UK ruling body.
In some ways this can be seen in the actions of Prince Andrew and his actions of not being open to contact the US Judicial authorities and this is showing a great disrespect for his Mother, Queen Elizabeth II, in her age, her position and gives an impression that he only carers about himself and that he feels he has privilege above all others, just in the same way as this ruling Government.
All in this respect are certainly guilty of arrogance and abuse of power, assumed or not.
If ExxonMobil’s top executive is appointed to run the State Department, he will be running an agency his company has repeatedly lobbied in recent years.
Under Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, who is expected to be nominated Donald Trump’s secretary of state, the oil colossus has directly lobbied the State Department on everything from sanctions against Russia and Iran to climate policy to the Trans-Pacific partnership and other controversial trade deals. An IBT review of federal records shows Exxon has been listed as lobbying the State Department on 20 separate government disclosure forms since the beginning of the Obama administration in 2009. The forms list a combined $43 million worth of total Exxon spending on lobbying, though not all of that was spent specifically lobbying the department that Tillerson would run.
Tillerson has mocked investments in renewable energy and has downplayed the effects of…
The understandably affronted proprietor of the Times no doubt approves the article in today’s edition (and quoted in the Independent) asserting that in January Tony Blair is expected to launch an institute based near Whitehall which will help to make the country change its mind about leaving the EU. One of two names being considered is the ‘Tony Blair Institute for Global Change’.
It is alleged that, to this end, he has held ‘information-gathering’ talks with Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US president-elect Donald Trump, former chancellor George Osborne and other senior ministers and officials.
Publication of 27 letters after 10-year legal battle shows heir to the throne petitioning ministers on subjects from the Iraq war to alternative therapies
A cache of secret memos between Prince Charles and senior government ministers has been released after a 10-year legal battle, offering the clearest picture yet of the breadth and depth of the heir to the throne’s lobbying at the highest level of politics.
The 27 memos, sent in 2004 and 2005 and released only after the Guardian won its long freedom of information fight with the government, show the Prince of Wales making direct and persistent policy demands to the then prime minister Tony Blair and several key figures in his Labour government.
In a single letter in February 2005, he urged a badger cull to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis – damning its opponents as “intellectually dishonest”; lobbied for his preferred person to be appointed to crack down on the mistreatment of farmers by supermarkets; proposed his own aide to brief Downing Street on the design of new hospitals; and urged Blair to tackle a European Union directive limiting the use of herbal alternative medicines use in the UK.
David Cameron’s last government attempted to veto the release. In 2012 the then attorney general, Dominic Grieve, warned they “would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because, if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king”.
But following the release of the “black spider” memos – so-called because of the prince’s scrawled handwriting – there were questions on Wednesday about whether it was worth the money to try to keep secret details of his lobbying, some of which reflects Charles’s very narrow personal interests.
For example, in October 2004 he told the environment minister Elliot Morley he hoped “illegal fishing of the Patagonian toothfish will be high up on your list of priorities because until that trade is stopped, there is little hope for the poor old albatross”.
But they also cover more controversial subjects. In one memo, Charles explicitly lobbied Tony Blair when he was prime minister to replace Lynx military helicopters.
Charles complained that delays in their replacement was “one more example where our Armed forces are being asked to do an extremely challenging job (particularly in Iraq) without the necessary resources”. Blair responded that replacement would be a priority for spending.
He directly urged the health secretary, John Reid, to accelerate redevelopment at a hospital site in Sunderland in which his own architecture charity was involved, warning bluntly that “chickens will come home to roost” in Reid’s government department if action was not taken.
The letters revealed not only that ministers often responded actively to his suggestions but they appeared to hold his interventions in high regard.
Blair replied to him in one letter: “I always value and look forward to your views – but perhaps particularly on agricultural topics.”
The memos also reveal how dogged Charles can be in demanding actions from ministers as it emerged that his engagement with key political players has not abated. Since the beginning of 2010, the prince held 87 meetings with ministers, opposition party leaders and top government officials, new figures release by the campaign group Republic showed. This year he has held meetings with, among others, David Cameron, the Scottish National party leader, Nicola Sturgeon, the education secretary, Nicky Morgan, and Alistair Carmichael, then Scotland secretary.
But this is likely to be the only glimpse the British public gets of Charles’ correspondence with ministers. Since the original Guardian request to see the letters the government has tightened up the Freedom of Information Act to provide an “absolute exemption” on all requests relating to the Queen and the heir to the throne.
Paul Flynn, a Labour MP and member of the political and constitutional reform committee, said the letters lifted the lid on the activity of the “the lobbyist supreme in the land”.
“They show he is putting forward a whole variety of views – including many bad science views and others that should have no more weight than the man down the pub,” he said. “We can see his views were given a seriousness and priority they did not deserve.”
Prince Charles was said to be “disappointed” the principle of confidentiality had not been maintained, and his spokeswoman said publication “can only inhibit his ability to express the concerns and suggestions which have been put to him in the course of his travels and meetings”.
But aides argue the letters do not show the prince engaging in matters of party political contention, implying they do not breach the principle of political neutrality.
“The letters published by the government show the Prince of Wales expressing concern about issues that he has raised in public,” his spokeswoman said. “In all these cases, the Prince of Wales is raising issues of public concern, and trying to find practical ways to address the issues.”
But the Guardian’s editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, said: “We fought this case because we believed – and the most senior judges in the country agreed – that the royal family should operate to the same degrees of transparency as anyone else trying to make their influence felt in public life. The attorney general, in trying to block the letters, said their contents could ‘seriously damage’ perceptions of the prince’s political neutrality.
“Whatever the rights and wrongs of that assessment, it is shocking that the government wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money trying to prevent their publication. Now, after 10 years, we are pleased to be able to share the contents of his correspondence and let people draw their own conclusions.”
Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, which campaigns for an elected head of state, said: “These letters are only a small indication of widespread lobbying that’s been going on for years. We now need full disclosure and an assessment of his impact on government policy.”
Maurice Frankel, director of the UK Campaign for Freedom of Information, said: “The release of the Charles memos represents a major victory for the freedom of information process, showing that ministers cannot block disclosure simply because they don’t like the result.”
Michael Meacher, a former Labour environment secretary who received private letters from Charles about policy, called for a new system of transparency around his correspondence with ministers when he becomes king to “remove public suspicion from the process”.
“A brief statement would be made when the king has written to a minister and the subject would be obvious,” he said. “At least we would know he has been giving his opinions and, some would say, lobbying ministers.”