Simon Hughes and the so-called "Gagging Law"

I've just read the response Simon Hughes sent me to an e-mail I sent disagreeing with the "Gagging Law".

Has anybody else had the same dubious privilege? I suppose now that he is in a government position it's to be expected, to an extent, that he'd toe the Coalition line – but when he says that the new Law does not "at any point control what anyone can say" and instead "is only about restricting what people can spend" he is missing the point by miles.

He goes on about how he believes those who use the term "gagging bill" are unfair and misleading, and that this Law was never intended to restrict freedom of speech.

I think that now there is precedent for the restriction of spending that could be construed as a restriction – by proxy – of freedom of speech; if you can't afford to speak up because you've already spent the amount you're 'allowed' to spend on speaking up against something else, how is that not restricting free speech?

The more I hear about this and other subjects from Simon Hughes, the more uncomfortable I get about having voted for him in the past – and the more certain I get that I won't be doing it again.

Does anyone else have views?

msm81175 wrote:

The more I hear about this and other subjects from Simon Hughes, the more uncomfortable I get about having voted for him in the past – and the more certain I get that I won't be doing it again.

Yes, likewise and for much the same reasons.

Hughes could have used his initial non-inclusion in the ministerial ranks to build a distinctive platform on civil liberties and economic inclusion that acted as a check on the coalition's more wilfully cavalier actions. But no, he toed the line remorselessly and has thus been rewarded.

(Can anyone calculate the convenient uplift to his parliamentary pension that the new post will bring him?)

That said, the most telling act of all came in a free vote: he of all people couldn't bring himself to vote for equal marriage.

After thirty years he's now way past his sellout-by date. Time to get rid.

Boroman I disagree that Hughes is now well past his "sellout-by-date", he has been selling out his supporters for years and continues to do so.

His "best before" date was in the last century.

His pension will be a minimum of £54000 pa based on the 1/40th per year of £68k(MP's annual salary) times the 32 years he willl have served as an MP by 2015 added to this will be his ministerial uplift which re-evaluates his salary sa an average salary over his life as an MP, I cannot tell what that will be.

I do think we need to watch this space for the dishing out of titles-Lordships (another big money earner) and all the job offers that are probably being lined up at this very moment because being at the heart of government makes ex-ministers very attractive to the big finance houses and other corporations who get the ear of future governments this way. They wont worry about gagging laws or Lobbying bills, they will get direct access.

Bunhouse, I fail to see what Simon's pension has to do with this thread. It doesn't matter what you think of him and his politics, he was voted into office and has earned his money by working tirelessly representing the borough on many other matters. I'm sure many people are disappointed by some of his decisions lately, but you can't deny him his pension.

Karen please re-read boromans post

Karen please tell me how my post was trying to deny him his pension.

Sorry. Please delete the word Bunhouse at the start of my comment. And please ignore the last sentence.

No one can deny Hughes (soon to turn 63) his pension. But equally undeniable is that - as an election approaches that he's likelier than before to lose - taking a coalition job gives it a handy boost.

As for "working tirelessly", all I seem to see on these forums is people noting a lack of response from him or his office to individual or local issues they've tried to raise.

(I'm not a zealot for any party: just think it's become apparent his time is up.)

Boroman wrote:

...As for "working tirelessly", all I seem to see on these forums is people noting a lack of response from him or his office to individual or local issues they've tried to raise....

We're probably not approaching him properly.

From the Guardian, 14th February:
"Nick Clegg used an official government mansion to host the family charity of Sudhir and Bhanu Choudhrie, the Liberal Democrat donors who were arrested this week in connection with allegations of bribery, the Guardian can reveal.

...

Both Choudhries have denied any wrongdoing and are co-operating with the SFO's inquiries. They were granted bail without conditions after being questioned for several hours.

One senior Lib Dem has also received a large donation from Sudhir Choudhrie, who is known as "Bunny" among his friends. Justice minister Simon Hughes received a £60,000 donation in November after a request for the cash, according to the businessman's spokesman."

nb I'm not suggesting that the donation was a bribe - as the article says, the Choudries have denied any wrongdoing and are innocent until proven guilty - but the money must have come in useful for Mr Hughes.

Boroman wrote:

As for "working tirelessly", all I seem to see on these forums is people noting a lack of response from him or his office to individual or local issues they've tried to raise.
(I'm not a zealot for any party: just think it's become apparent his time is up.)

Just a couple of hours after you made this post, Simon Hughes braved gale force winds to attend at a silent protest held by Draper House residents.

We wanted to raise awareness of the two years behind scaffolds we have had to endure.

James Hatts was there too and even took pictures: I'm sure he can confirm this SE1 event.

(I too am not a zealot for any party, and am politically unaffiliated).