Sigh

It's not like private sector supremos haven't fucked up and then walked off with massive payoffs or anything.

Anyway, agree on the original premise that he really should resign. Guy's got some serious brass neck.

It's good that he's actually resigned. Yes, I know that according to the constitutional theory we elect a person and not a party, but I've always felt it's the public's right to decide if they want their MP to remain representing them after switching sides.

Hey, fab to see you mate. How are things?

I daresay we've done this to death over the years ( ) but here's my take on it anyway. It's impossible for me to conceive of a greater failure than this one, at least based on what I know, namely 1400 kids abused over 10 years or so (enough to fill five classrooms chock full of different kids for each of those 10 consecutive years, simply unimaginable). It just seems utterly inconceivable given all the feedback of information that apparently occurred and the number of public servants involved?

By way of random comparison and off the top of my head, that geezer who'd been at Tesco, man and boy, was very publicly given "The Spanish Elbow" just because they weren't making as big profits as they'd have liked?

To my mind, there can't honestly be any serious suggestion that, in general terms, the private and public sectors are just as performance-driven, just as hire-and-fire as each other. That just seems absurd to me.

How many people were prosecuted, fired, or even just carpeted over the N.Staffs scandal, which IIRC had hundreds if not thousands of patients dying of thirst/lack of even the most basic care, with them all blaming each other? None at all? AFAIK it only came to the public's eye at all due to the persistent efforts of whistle-blower(s).

This guy is still in his job. Does anyone honestly think that'd still be the case were we talking about a similar, catastrophic-scale failure, over many years and the very job he was supposed to be doing, if we were talking about a private company? His arse surely wouldn't touch the floor?

What about all those police whose prime responsibility it was to protect these kids? I remind you again, this is the job they're paid to do and the duty is theirs to perform above all other considerations? How many of them do we think will face gross negligence, dereliction of duty charges and/or major disciplinary etc. over this, either rank and file or officers?

My guess is that bog all will happen, same as for N.Staffs as I understand it (to date). It would appear, at least to my eyes, that this is "how they roll" as it were...

As I understand it he left that job ages ago and is now a Police Commissioner, a role he got voted into. It's simply the case that there is nobody who even can sack him.

Also you didn't comment much about all the recent private care home scandals and episodes of abuse and neglect there. Doesn't fit with your narrative I guess.

That doesn't sound like a particularly great argument in favour of the supposed parity of accountability between public and private sectors, Mark.

It isn't, what I'm saying is that it's not an argument against it either. Unless you are saying that in private sector someone would automatically be sacked from whatever job they are in now if it emerged that they were hopeless in their old one.

It's not remotely comparable. His new role is one he got voted into and there is constitutionally nobody who can sack him, it was clearly designed that way so that Police Commissioners could operate free from political interference and were accountable only to the people who voted them in. Obviously he should step down but the mechanism to fire him simply isn't in place. There is no board of directors who can get together and agree what should happen.

A better analogy might be what happened following Baby P scandal, when plenty of people got sacked as may well yet happen in Rotherham.

Yeah and look what happened there - successful unfair dismissal tribunal(s) and payouts...

Only in Shoesmith's case and then really only because they went about getting rid of her the wrong way as can happen in either the public or private sector.

I note you didn't comment on my private care home response. Surely this was a valid, fair point to make on my part? Come on, credit where it's due etc.

There are countless examples of directors of companies running their enterprises in ways that are actually criminal and then walking away from their limited liabilities and starting again with a new name. Or of executives caught carrying out some sort of misdeed or other only to be given massive payoffs as the most expedient way to get them out the door. And people do get sacked from the public sector *all the time* for poor conduct etc. So no, I absolutely don't buy your assertion that private sector automatically equals personal accountability.

No. He is a British national. You cannot make people stateless. The UK can imprison him, but that is about it, what with us being civilized and all.

Under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (as amended), an order to deprive a person of their British citizenship can be made if the Home Secretary is satisfied that:

 it would be conducive to the public good to deprive the person of their British citizenship status and to do so would not render them stateless; or

 the person obtained their citizenship status through naturalisation, and it would be conducive to the public good to deprive them of their status because they have engaged,in conduct “seriously prejudicial” to the UK’s vital interests, and the Home Secretary has reasonable grounds to believe that they could acquire another nationality;

 the person acquired their citizenship status through naturalisation or registration, and it was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact.

Considering he was born in Welling, I would expect he has solely British citizenship, so to withdraw it would leave him stateless, which is not permitted as per your quote.

Potentially so, but I can see why you can't have someone who's not permitted residency in any country. Unless it's Tom Hanks.

Potentially so...? Crikey, that's one high bar you've got there, man. Begrudgingly have to agree with you though; the civilised "we" can't just leave people stateless, however odious and malign to us all they might be.

Only 45% of them

A UKIP MP then. I was inevitable I guess. So sick of seeing all these right wing fuck faces all over the media these days, whether it's UKIP or the fucking Tories promising that it's safe for racists to vote for them because they are some despicable cunts too just like UKIP. Just make it all stop.

Margate isn't quite the story here either. A somewhat unique constituency, with a sitting MP resigning his seat to give rise to a by election. On that point, Kudos to UKIP where it is due - they didn't need to do this, but it does mean that the gamble that they took here gives them significantly more credibility for winning in an open contest, rather than switching the seat.

The bigger story is the Heywood seat, where a sitting Labour MP died (the official opposition, in a safe seat, in a by election 9 months before a General election). Any historical statistics say that should have been an increased majority (Sympathy, dissatisfaction with government) and it went to a recount. If this was 12 months ago as opposed to today, I don't think Milliband would have survived that.

Fuck that. They are winning votes by appealing to simpletons with horrible views. The main two parties should not be pandering to that bullshit and shame on the Tories for doing so.

They don't have a lot of choice, UKIP are winning seats and they at least need to look at why that is happening, you don't get a seat in parliament from the votes of simpletons with horrible views alone!

I think it's a somewhat unique situation. I'm not saying UKIP won't win more seats but Carswell was immensely popular with his constituents. There's a very large extent to which they have gone along with him rather than UKIP as such. Right from the outset he was a shoe-in.

It's not going to stop though, Mark. In fact, the Right is building up a massive head of steam, seems to me.

I can't vote for that.

You're not in the least concerned about UKIP splitting the right-wing vote and letting Labour claim seats they wouldn't otherwise have won, then? That happened a number of time in the US with the Tea Party, and to my mind the parallels are clear. I imagine there's a few Tory MPs this morning wondering if opposing AV was the smartest move they could have made.

Margate isn't quite the story here either. A somewhat unique constituency, with a sitting MP resigning his seat to give rise to a by election. On that point, Kudos to UKIP where it is due - they didn't need to do this, but it does mean that the gamble that they took here gives them significantly more credibility for winning in an open contest, rather than switching the seat.

The bigger story is the Heywood seat, where a sitting Labour MP died (the official opposition, in a safe seat, in a by election 9 months before a General election). Any historical statistics say that should have been an increased majority (Sympathy, dissatisfaction with government) and it went to a recount. If this was 12 months ago as opposed to today, I don't think Milliband would have survived that.