And another thing…

Yes Tom it was all below the belt and not what we expect from you. It is not about adultary its about trust. I will stand by the decision that SW Norfolk makes.I would vote to reject her because of the loss of trust.

I don’t defend adulterers, but the media is very selective in who it exposes. For example, everyone in the US press knew that Jack Kennedy was at it like a rabbit, but it never came out into the open.As I said, it is selective.

There are quite a few very famous people who are gay but pretend to be straight. Everyone knows who they are, but nobody it saying because it suits them. (Max Clifford spends at least half of his time on clients who DON’T want publicity)

There are plenty of stories waiting to go if the protagonists upset news editors of the red tops.

So this is not about morality, it is about protecting the elite. The moral of the story is make sure you keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer.

While I probably would not not vote for someone that was adulterous, it does bring into focus the rest of the person’s character. I would look closer at the person in question and if their morality was shocking from my perspective, then I would have to reconsider the vote.

While I wouldn’t bar anyone from standing, I feel the electorate should be able to view the candidate’s life in order to understand and consider what type of person they will be in power.

Surely the issue is not whether people commit adultery but whether they get caught committing adultery.

See CJA 2008 clauses 63 and 64.

Surely the issue here is the lies and the level of deceit required to undertake a successful adulterous relationship for any length of time.

Is it possible that any such person could ever be seen as sufficiently trustworthy and reliable as we have a right to expect from our leaders and representatives.

BTW, would you have written the same letter if it had been Bush or Reagan rather than Clinton?

I originally read the title as “In defence of auditors” and was going to post a hate-fuelled, vitriol-filled comment, but then realised my mistake.

Shouldn’t voters know about the past peccadilos of the candidates?

It does go to character and may affect how people choose to vote.

If a candidate was found to have stolen money or beaten up someone, that also goes to how voters see them.

The constituancy party should choose who they think is most likely to win in their area. Imposition by the central party (conservative, labour or others) isn’t democratic and we would all, I guess, like our parties to be democratic.

The central party may vet candidates, to ensure that they aren’t fifth columnists or the like, but after that local parties should choose.

After all, without the local parties there isn’t much of a party left to control centrally.

What vows did Liz Truss break then?

As I understand it, she was a single lady at the time, the man in question was the married one who had made vows of forsaking all others? She hadn’t.

Why is he not facing de-selection?

Oi! My post was edited! It’s a conspiracy! Tom must be a Bildergurgel.

Read the Seven Protocols of Wisdom.

Wicked me.

It is about the wishes of those selecting their candidate choosing what they wish to know, and the candidate deciding what to tell them, if relevant knowledge is not in the public domain.

If it is then a competent and benign Central Office should advise the Local Tory Party, via the Chairman (as is the Tory practice) of any ‘off camera activity’ which may cause embarrassment.

Evict Pickles, Vote Quietzapple!

I am intrigued that you ‘recently came across a letter I wrote to The Herald in October 1998 in defence of Presdient Clinton.’

Do you hide bits of the Herald about the house or did you just forget to post it?

Omigawd . . .

Will those who promote open ******* be providing evidence Online?

…………..

“I don’t condone it, personally.”

You should condemn it. Why do MPs find it so hard to stand up against immorality?

Now let’s hope she loses.

http://election.pressassociation.com/Constituencies/general.php

425 NORFOLK SOUTH WEST
26.99% boundary change
2005 notional: C maj 6,817 (15.00%) – Turnout 45,444 (62.05%)
C 20,435 (44.97%); Lab 13,618 (29.97%); LD 8,719 (19.19%); UKIP 2,166 (4.77%); Others 506 (1.11%)

Chameleon, who thinks she is His, may think this is His seat?

“Liz Truss has secured her nomination as candidate”

And considering all the fuss over it, the end result wasn’t even close.

If we are going to get all sanctimonious over the sexual pecadilloes of our MPs, then the HOC will suddenly become very empty..

And I suppose those who are so sanctimonious will stop buying CDs of top selling artists, or watching EastEnders.. or Coronation Street..

The point about Clinton was he did it in office hours, in the office, with a subordinate, then lied.

I realise governance or how to run anything is not the metier of politicians (vide 12 years of NuCommunist Labour “government”), and probity is for others not them, and people are mere steps upon which to tread to achieve high ambition, but a politician accusing other politicians for politicking is really quite funny.

@Stewart Cowan
“You should condemn it. Why do MPs find it so hard to stand up against immorality?”

Because their version of morality does not align with mine and mine doesn’t align with yours. As there is no objective morality how can they stand up against immorality?

What they should stand up for is principles and evidence. Leave morality to people’s consciences and only step in where there is an actual harm being caused.

As Liz Truss wasn’t married she is not an adultress, leave her alone.

Why it is different:

The role of POTUS is also the Head of State. It goes beyond normal politics and a higher degree of dignity is surely expected.

Clinton had an affair with an INTERN, he did it whilst in OFFICE, he did it in THE OVAL OFFICE, and then he tried to DECEIVE about it.

Funny how the investigation makes a laughing stock of the country yet the President taking a BJ from an intern during work hours is completely OK.

A pretty crummy letter and even relevant to the present topic.

Sorry for the Sun-like capitalisation above.

Can’t figure out how to italicize.

@Stewart Cowan

“…Why do MPs find it so hard to stand up against immorality?…”

Rhetorical, of course!

Roger
To Italicise

“then ” above being a separator for my explanation only…

@Madasafish,

Sanctimonious, moi?

I actually don’t consider infidelity as merely a peccadillo. It’s wicked; selfishness of the highest order and betrayal without equal.

Clearly, if a man or woman cannot honour their marriage, or someone else’s, then why is it reasonable to expect them to be loyal to their constituents and the country?

Maybe that’s what’s really wrong with Parliament: while the parties play around with all-Lithuanian-lesbian-vegetarian-pagan shortlists, they forget the most important things: like principles.

BTW, I stopped ‘buying CDs of top selling artists, or watching EastEnders.. or Coronation Street’ years ago.

@Paul,

So, you’re a fan of moral relativism? That’s where everyone does what seems right in their own eyes and society ends up more savage than civilised.

“What they should stand up for is principles and evidence. Leave morality to people’s consciences and only step in where there is an actual harm being caused.”

Morals bad; principles good. Spoken like a true humanist: totally illogical!

“As Liz Truss wasn’t married she is not an adultress, leave her alone.”

She stole another woman’s husband.

Principles, you say…?

Thanks Madasafish.

Now how do you do it?

@Stewart, “She stole another woman’s husband.”

lol! You make it sound like the man, (who was the one who broke his marriage vows), was blameless.

I’m sure that wasn’t your intention.

I wouldn’t be so sure, if I were you.

What a bizarre comparison between stealing money or beating someone up and adultery. Stealing money and beating someone up are both crimes. I would not expect a political party to exact punishment for such behaviour through the selection process. It should be dealt with by the police and the courts.

Adultery on the other hand is not a crime. If people think it should be then campaign for that (and see how far you get).

Re Clinton – yes he lied. Why did he lie? Because he knew all the self righteous brigade would get medieval on his ass if he admitted it.

If such individuals could only evolve beyond the medieval period then there would be no need to lie as personal relationships would remain just that and would not be a matter for complete strangers to pass judgement on.

@Simon,

No, that wasn’t my intention. He also behaved like a total git.

@Indy,

I’d much rather have a wife who stole from me than cheated on me.

People like you who consider it “medieval” to honour marriage vows really need to mix more with normal folk.

Tom, I’m disappointed in that remark. I thought you knew me better than that.

Indy,

so in your world it is fine to lie because people are not progressive enough to react the way you want to the truth?

Nice work. So if there is potential outrage for an action, one should not avoid the action, one should just call them self-righteous and then lie without come back.

Yeah, those stupid proles with their stupid morals. They don’t deserve truth.

@Stewart Cowan

“…People like you who consider it “medieval” to honour marriage vows really need to mix more with normal folk…”

So you’re against divorce?

No reason why not, of course, just interested in the train of logic.

@Stewart Cowan
“Morals bad; principles good”
redistribution of wealth is a principle (sometimes coming from morality); free education; universal healthcare; progressive taxation; reduced carbon output; reduced public debt; increased EU integration; reduction in the nuclear detterrent; reduction in teenage pregnancies; reduction in drug-related crime etc.
These are all PRINCIPLES, things MPs and parties can stand on and campaign for or against. They are ideas that we can discuss, value and disagree on. They may have a moral component, but they are not morals. if you want someone in charge to judge you morally go see a priest.

And yes, Miss Truss did nothing wrong. At no point did she make any kind of promise about her future behaviour to the MP in question or his wife so I fail to see that engaging in a consensual act constitutes doing anything wrong. The man certainly did something wrong (broke a promise) but I hope you’re not suggesting we legislate love and start criminalising adultery by any party? Or are you?

Please no disclosures about your sex life Tom. Your picture at the top of the page is enough to make me belch, I fear any revelations of intimacy could tip me into a vomit situation.

My Best Man and oldest friend, there, folks!

No Roger I don’t think it is fine to lie. But neither do I think it is fine to condemn someone for something that is none of your damn business.

Do you know Bill or Hillary Clinton?

Do you know Liz Truss or the bloke she slept with – or his wife?

If you do, fair enough, it is natural enough that you will have an opinion though I think it unwise to share it on a blog.

If you don’t, then you are just a small step away from being the kind of person who cries when someone on a soap opera dies.

@Liberanos,

“So you’re against divorce?”

Promises are meant to be kept. Seems many people don’t have the moral strength to hang in there these days when the going gets tough.

@Paul,

Do you hate the idea of ‘morals’ because of the spiritual implications?

“And yes, Miss Truss did nothing wrong…The man certainly did something wrong (broke a promise).”

Obviously we disagree on the woman’s culpability. By the same standard then, are accessories to murder innocent? Or the getaway driver in a bank heist?

“…I hope you’re not suggesting we legislate love and start criminalising adultery by any party? Or are you?”

I have seen those who commit adultery get their reward. Like getting kicked out the family home and not allowed to see their children.

You know Tom the only thing that has cheered me up recently is that I can write and spell better than The Prime Minister. Who would have thought it.

Yes, Johnny – congratulations on having both eyes and decent eyesight. Must make you very proud.

‘I recently came across a letter I wrote to The Herald in October 1998 in defence of Presdient Clinton.’

Not surprising that we disagree on this. My opinion is that Clinton campaigned as a family man, with the full support of a loving, and loved, wife and daughter. That was revealed to be a cynical facade, and it damaged the the office.

Yet this is how the system works.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1228710/How-David-Cameron-mashed-Turnip-Taliban.html

Not very nice, eh Precious?

Chameleon is NOT following any sort of moral point here, it is ALL PR:

He needs more women on his slate of candidates, especially potential ministers
He has to wave the iron glove pour encourager les autres and for the media

I recall that Caro Spelman, who exploited her children by claiming her Nanny was a clerical assistant as a parliamentary expense is one of his closer advisors.

While these local tories, of various views re Liz Truss’ history we may be sure, should most likely have swallowed their pride, the role of Tory HQ in the matter is a scandal.

I wonder what Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell who preach localism might have to say? Not very local is it?

@Quietzapple, Didn’t Tony Blair do the same thing with his all-women short-lists?

Stewart – why should “MPs stand up against immorality”? Who are you to define what is immoral and what isn’t?

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe that adultery is immoral, and I’d be pretty horrified if my MP started lecturing me on the subject.

Immorality is such a subjective issue that I suggest it’s best for politicians to leave well alone.

Ah ha, so I need to know a politician before judging them? Maybe a few beers with Hillary and then I can comment? How well do I need to know Bill Clinton before saying what he did was wrong? Best man at his wedding? Casual acquaintance? Hand shake at an event?

I am not American, if I were a US voter, how is what the serving President does with an intern in the Oval Office ‘none of my damn business’ let alone lying under oath. I think we have differing views as to the role of Head of State.

I don’t know how this makes me the sort to cry at soap operas, I guess whatever nonsensical connections your mind wishes to make you will express.

@Stewart Cowan
“Do you hate the idea of ‘morals’ because of the spiritual implications?”

Hate the idea of morals? Far from it, I have a set of morals I have come to through reason, empathy and fairness. I would like to share my morality with others and convince them that I am correct. What I won’t do is force others to agree, force them to comply using the law as a tool for imposing MY morality onto everyone else.
Where did you get yours from? And can you stand to see others have different morals?

“Obviously we disagree on the woman’s culpability. By the same standard then, are accessories to murder innocent? Or the getaway driver in a bank heist?”

Bad analogies. The woman did nothing we consider illegal. There was no breach of contract on her part. The correct analogy is if I agree to sell you an item but Ms. Truss comes along and offers me a better deal and I sell it to her. You and I have a problem, I have wronged you but Ms Truss is not culpable.

Also, while you’re showing how moral you are, answer me this: Is it still her fault if she didn’t know he was married? What if he lied and said he and his wife were separated? Why does she have a duty of care to the wife or any family they may have?

@Simon:

Don’t recall him intervening in a situation like this, no.

I do recall all women shortlists, true.

Cameron is scared of what would be said about those in the Tories.

No Roger you don’t need to know a politcian before judging them. Politicians are public property. They are paid for by the public to take decisions on our behalf and we have every right to hold them to account for that. That’s why we have elections. Duh.

Who they shag is another matter. If you really think that it is important that politicians do not commit adultery or fornication you had better invest in some night vision goggles and become a full time stalker – or how else will you ever be sure that your MP is faithful to his or her partner? They might not be famous enough for the press to stalk them for you.

I believe that Ms Truss was herself married at the time of the affair with Mark Field.