Monday, 5 September 2016

Keith Vaz MP

To me the issue surrrounding Keith Vaz is simple. Has he broken the law or the rules of Parliament? There has been no suggestion that he has. The newspapers who set up grubby little sting operations to expose people who have contravened nothing apart from a rather Victorian set of moral values fail their readers. I am sure the papers are well aware of plenty of politicians who are up to no good, who if they chose to they could do us all a favour and expose, removing serious crooks from public life.

I suspect Vaz has been marked out for payback due to some of the investigations of his committee. Whether or not his nocturnal habits are to your taste or not is irrelevant. We don't require politicians to state their preferred form of sexual encounter on the ballot paper or in their manifesto. Long may this stay the case.


Nicholas said...

Vaz chairs the Home Affairs Select Committee - and the Committee has reported recently about the legality of Poppers. If he is a user of Poppers, he should have declared an interest during the course of the debates.

Rog T said...

I disagree. If he had a vested interest in manufacturing poppers then yes. We don't expect MP's who like bacon sarnies to declare an interest when legislation is drawn up to govern pig farms or supermarkets that provide it. Parliament should reflect the population. An interest generally is taken to mean a financial stake.

Nicholas said...

Sorry to disagree - the ham sandwich analogy does not hold good.

And it is not only the use of narcotics that is in issue - it is also that the Home Affairs Committee is engaged in an enquiry into sex workers and prostitution.

Keith Vaz chairs the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee. The fact that he is (allegedly) a user of narcotics and sex workers compromises any report that the Committee produces on these topics - irrespective of the fact that he has done nothing illegal. As a member of parliament and as the chair of an important parliamentary committee, he needs to meet standards of utmost moral probity if his views are to carry authority. Would you take seriously a report into (say) the banking crisis if it was produced by a notorious currency speculator (however legal his (or her) speculative activities might be)?