Post by Patrick Torsney on May 18, 2011 12:09:30 GMT
Yes, he's in serious bother, Twitter is on fire with it. I'm not so sure it will delay much but it will be that much easier to bring the legal aid battle into the public eye when everyone can drag him into it at every opportunity - look what he said about rape, look what he's now doing to legal aid kind of thing
Who would they get to replace him? Not sure whether it would make much difference one way or the other. You are right though Patrick when you combine today's controversy with the destruction of legal aid it will certainly damage his supposed image as a more liberal type of Tory-the Tory right hate him as well so they may be looking to try to get him out also.
Post by Patrick Torsney on May 18, 2011 12:31:37 GMT
I doubt they will get rid of him over anything he said today
If anything, I reckon they would leave it until after ALL the changes then, if he went, he could take the whole big black cloud with him and King Cam could emerge unsullied by any of it (anyone got a bucket?)
I don't reckon it will change anything much, but opportunistically one could argue that the wholesale attack on civil legal aid while leaving criminal representation untouched, together with all the sentencing reforms amounts to a clear policy of being soft on crims generally. Anyone know any influential Tory party members who might be willing to argue that for our benefit?
there's also a competency point-as stated on an earlier post today on article in Guardian-LAG have calculated that a cut to social welfare law would acutally increase costs to other departments by 584 % of the cut-imagine the effect on him and Djanogly if that can be more widely publicised.
Post by Richard Wilkinson on May 18, 2011 13:40:12 GMT
LAG have calculated that a cut to social welfare law would actually increase costs to other departments by 584 % of the cut-imagine the effect on him and Djanogly if that can be more widely publicised.
I think thats a point Cit Ad raised a lot early on and is in their consultation response having worked out their own figures. JD more recently has simply said he didn't accept the figures- presumably he will say the same about these- though at some point it would be useful to get into a detailed discussion as to what parts he doesn't accept and why
He was always a scatman talking, rug cutting, jazz dancing, loaffered walking, booze swigging, cherroot puffing, hot air producing, baffoon, now he's just an odious baffoon, but reports of his demise have been made before. Its not only Scoody dooody rooody Ken who's incompetant there quite a few more in that ducal cabinet like old treasure that should have beenb put on a car boot years ago. Or the one that got away Mr Laws that bit of intelligence missing from a lack lustre Government. Remember he allegedly claimed expenses for renting rooms from someone who turned out to be his partner and claimed the reason for the, cough, indiscretion was to keep private details of his sexuality. I'll like to try that one at a Benefit fraud trial when some one has not declared a partner. Oh sorry they are benefit scroungers and you are???????? Oh yes an inialiable right to govern. My jacksy.