Author Topic: Guto Bebb MP  (Read 31062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kowalski

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
Re: Guto Bebb MP
« Reply #15 on: August 26, 2012, 11:49:56 am »
Don't moan about him, you lot voted for him

Offline SDQ

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 990
Re: Guto Bebb MP
« Reply #16 on: August 26, 2012, 11:51:34 am »
Don't moan about him, you lot voted for him


I can assure you, I didn't!
Valar Morghulis


Offline Yorkie

  • Member
  • Posts: 5255
Re: Guto Bebb MP
« Reply #17 on: August 26, 2012, 04:15:24 pm »
Neither did I, but he still sends me all the same bumf.   I get a great feeling of satisfaction as I delete it without so much as a glance at the contents.
 ZXZ
Wise men have something to say.
Fools have to say something.
Cicero

Offline Kowalski

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
Re: Guto Bebb MP
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2012, 10:31:53 pm »
It's not a surprise that Bebb is full of hot air. Look at his profile on the Tory website.

http://www.conservatives.com/People/Members_of_Parliament/Bebb_Guto.aspx

The last two paragraphs are as follows;

Quote
"Guto has a wealth of hands-on experience in relation to the challenges facing small businesses in a rural and peripheral economy.  He has, over the past fifteen years been involved with small businesses on a daily basis whilst also responsible for some of the most innovative and creative projects to have been funded by European Structural Funds here in Wales

The over-dependence of the economy of Wales, and north west Wales in particular, on the public sector is a cause of concern and alarm and Guto's involvement in politics is, to an extent, driven by the need to change the public sector dependency culture that stifles enterprise and acts as a barrier to enterprise here in Wales."

So he's outspoken about the "need to end Public Sector dependency" but he's proud of the valuable experience he gained from bodies that were dependent on funding from the Public Sector.

This is almost as bad as Darren Millar claiming that he stands up for publically funded services that are under threat when those services are only under threat because of the ideological approach of his party.

Never trust a Tory.

Offline Yorkie

  • Member
  • Posts: 5255
Re: Guto Bebb MP
« Reply #19 on: August 27, 2012, 08:18:40 am »
Me thinks that this particular thread is becoming the Hyde Park Corner for Mr Bebb!   Maybe it should be renamed Bebb's Blusters!     WWW
Wise men have something to say.
Fools have to say something.
Cicero

Offline richardbroomhall

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
Re: Guto Bebb MP
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2013, 05:48:22 am »
Mr Bebb can't half go on a bit! Oh well, that's MPs for you!

Offline Yorkie

  • Member
  • Posts: 5255
Re: Guto Bebb MP
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2013, 10:39:38 am »
Mr Bebb can't half go on a bit! Oh well, that's MPs for you!

'Tis but ONE YEAR out of date. 
His pencil must have run out of lead.   Or he must have realised that the  readers of  the $3towns$ are much too intelligent to pay any attention to his ramblings!   ZXZ
Wise men have something to say.
Fools have to say something.
Cicero

Offline DaveR

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13712
Re: Guto Bebb MP
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2013, 03:18:44 pm »
If we add in his salary of £66,396, that gives us a juicy £120,091 received from the taxpayers...and he still can't even be bothered to live in the Constituency he supposedly serves.  &shake& No joking, I've seen more of neighbouring MP David Jones in Llandudno than Guto Bebb.

ABERCONWY MP Guto Bebb claimed more than £53,695 in expenses during the last year, more than any other North Wales member of the Commons.

The Conservative MP also charged for the third biggest food and drinks bill in the UK at £664.80, although he had trimmed a substantial 17% off last year’s claim of over £801.


http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/mps-expenses-guto-bebb-claims-5744302


Offline Quiggs

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 497
Re: Guto Bebb MP
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2013, 03:51:28 pm »
Seems like he maybe trying to catch up to Eric Pickles,   WWW
Dictum Meum Pactum

Offline Yorkie

  • Member
  • Posts: 5255
Re: Guto Bebb MP
« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2013, 07:34:31 pm »
Seems like he maybe trying to catch up to Eric Pickles,   WWW

The only pounds he's losing are ours!    :D
Wise men have something to say.
Fools have to say something.
Cicero

Offline Fester

  • Ad Free Member.
  • *
  • Posts: 6660
  • El Baldito
Re: Guto Bebb MP
« Reply #25 on: August 19, 2013, 10:21:24 pm »
Politicians? ........ don't get me started on politicians.  $angry$
Fester...
- Semper in Excretum, Sole Profundum Variat -

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8949
Re: Guto Bebb MP
« Reply #26 on: August 30, 2013, 04:16:17 pm »
From Guto Bebb:

"
The Vote on Syria.

 First,  my honest reaction to the past week - what an unholy mess.
 
When the chemical attack on Syrian civilians occurred it was clear that the Prime Minister and the Government were intent on taking action since the breach of international law was pretty clear for all to see.  Some on the extreme left and within the so called 'anti war movement' questioned whether the Syrian regime was behind such an attack but it is very difficult to conclude otherwise from the limited information available.  However, that word limited is important and I will come back to it.
 
The political problem facing the Prime Minister was that he was faced with a significant number of Conservative MPs (including myself) who were adamant that, despite our unwritten constitution allowing the Prime Minister to use the Royal Prerogative to order military action, the experience of Iraq when the Labour Party dragged the country into a terrible war on false information demanded that Parliament be recalled to debate any such military intervention.
 
It was pleasing to see the Prime Minister adhere to this demand.
 
As party managers started to call Conservative MPs in a rather haphazard manner it must have become apparent to the leadership that despite the atrocities in Syria there was a huge unwillingness to act in haste within the ranks of the Conservative Party in Parliament and, more importantly, in the country at large.  However with the Liberal leadership supportive and the Labour leader advocating limited action the Prime Minister felt secure even though the response within his own backbenches was lukewarm,  to say the least.
 
All of this changed when Labour announced a change of heart on Wednesday and the motion which would have asked for a vote to authorise military action was significantly re-drawn.  Such was the confusion that only late on Wednesday evening did the revised motion arrive via e-mail for the attention of Conservative MPs.  This revised motion went a very long way towards dealing with many of our concerns such as legality of the action being proposed, the timing, the views of the UN inspectors in relation to the actual attack and even, crucially, a commitment to a further vote prior to any action.
 
Such was the nature of the changed motion that many commentators felt that there was now little or no real justification for the recall of Parliament.  As the Times journalist Ann Treneman stated;
 
"The original idea had been to ask for a vote on military action against Syria's use of chemical weapons.  In the end two motions were debated, one Government, one Labour, that did not seem different other than the call for a strong humanitarian response."
 
The text of the two motions are as follows;
 
 
 
Government Motion
 
That this House:
Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;
Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;
Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons;
Notes the failure of the United Nations Security Council over the last two years to take united action in response to the Syrian crisis;
Notes that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime under customary law and a crime against humanity, and that the principle of humanitarian intervention provides a sound legal basis for taking action;
Notes the wide international support for such a response, including the statement from the Arab League on 27 August which calls on the international community, represented in the United Nations Security Council, to “overcome internal disagreements and take action against those who committed this crime, for which the Syrian regime is responsible”;
Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action;
Therefore welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus, and, whilst noting that the team’s mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame, agrees that the United Nations Secretary General should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the team’s initial mission;
Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken, and notes that before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place; and
Notes that this Resolution relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in Syria with wider objectives.
 
 
Labour Motion
Line 1, leave out from ‘House’ to end and add
‘expresses its revulsion at the killing of hundreds of civilians in Ghutah, Syria on 21 August 2013; believes that this was a moral outrage; recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons; makes clear that the use of chemical weapons is a grave breach of international law; agrees with the UN Secretary General that the UN weapons inspectors must be able to report to the UN Security Council and that the Security Council must live up to its responsibilities to protect civilians; supports steps to provide humanitarian protection to the people of Syria but will only support military action involving UK forces if and when the following conditions have been met that:
(a) the UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, are given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings, and confirmation by them that chemical weapons have been used in Syria;
(b) compelling evidence is produced that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons;
(c) the UN Security Council has considered and voted on this matter in the light of the reports of the weapons inspectors and the evidence submitted;
(d) there is a clear legal basis in international law for taking collective military action to protect the Syrian people on humanitarian grounds;
(e) such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region, and must therefore be legal, proportionate, time-limited and have precise and achievable objectives designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria; and
(f) the Prime Minister reports further to the House on the achievement of these conditions so that the House can vote on UK participation in such action, and that any such vote should relate solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria.’.
 
Whilst I agreed with much of the government motion, especially the need to provide increased humanitarian support, I still wanted confirmation from the Prime Minister in his speech that the commitment to a further vote before any action was a guarantee that the Government under no circumstances would act militarily prior to a second specific vote as promised by the motion. Despite my need for clarity I was, nevertheless, surprised at the response of the Labour Party.  In view of the demands made by the leader of the Labour Party prior to the motion being published, I fully anticipated Labour support for the new motion.  The fact that this support was not forthcoming and we ended up with two motions which were almost identical was unexpected.  As Dan Hodges, a Labour Party member, wrote in the Daily Telegraph;
 
“These facts are indisputable. Ed Miliband said that if he was to back the Government, David Cameron would have to publish the legal advice upon which the case for war rested. David Cameron agreed, and did so.
Ed Miliband then said a solid case needed to be presented demonstrating the Assad regime’s culpability for the chemical attacks. David Cameron agreed, and published the JIC analysis which concluded “there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility”.
Ed Miliband then said the Government would have to exhaust the UN route before any recourse to military action. David Cameron agreed, and confirmed he would be submitting a motion to the P5 to that effect.
Ed Miliband said he would need to await the UN weapons inspectors report. David Cameron agreed.
Finally, and crucially, Ed Miliband said there would have to be not one, but two House of Commons votes before military action could be authorised. Once again David Cameron agreed.
And then, having sought – and received – all these assurances from the Prime Minister, Ed Miliband went ahead and voted against the Government anyway”
 
Thus I walked into the Chamber surprised at the fact that the opposition were playing party politics on an issue of such importance whilst also thoroughly annoyed at the way in which the Government had managed to create such a crisis of its own making.  A self inflicted crisis which had led us to a point where we were debating a motion which would simply called for the House of Commons to again debate the issue of military action at a future stage when a specific military aim could be articulated.  In all honesty, as the two motions provided above show, the only real difference between the Government motion and the Labour Party motion was the commitment in the Government motion to provide significant humanitarian support.
 
The Prime Minister was not at his best in the Chamber.  I suspect that he was arguing a different case to the one that he had intended but at least he had a detailed knowledge of his brief and argued with passion why, in due course, the option of military action should remain open.
 
The response of the leader of the opposition was awful.  His main contribution was talk of a "sequential road map" which apparently pleased the Plaid MP Elfyn Llwyd but Elfyn must be a very poor barrister to argue (as he did with me on Radio Cymru on Friday morning) that there was a significant difference between the motion presented by the Prime Minister and the motion presented by Labour which Plaid also supported.  Indeed, it should be noted that there was only one resignation yesterday and that was of a Labour front bench spokesman who did not want any possibility of military action under any circumstance.  The Labour motion did not preclude such action.
The rather poor standard of debate reflected the fact that this was a debate in effect about the need for a possible future debate.  No military action could be authorised if the Government motion passed, it would need a further vote in Parliament.  As Sam Coates from The Times said;
 
"The atmosphere in the Chamber is flat; it's the prequel and not the real debate"
 
Flat or not the one thing I had not heard from the PM was an assurance that if the motion passed he would not use the Royal Prerogative to support military intervention prior to a second vote being undertaken.  In private meetings with him this assurance was provided in full and as such I resolved to support what was, in effect, a policy of keeping options open until the UN process had been completed.
 
The Labour motion was roundly defeated but by a majority of 13 so was the Government motion.  This was, in truth, an awful result.  Yes, there were loud cheers from opposition benches and smiles on the faces of some Conservative members who opposed the Government not because they care about Syria but because they despise the Prime Minister.  But the result is that the UK now has no policy, no position and no influence.  Even if the UN now calls for action on the basis of clear evidence of responsibility for atrocities being laid at the door of the Syrian regime we as a country can do nothing.  This result is now a defeat for even the option of the United Kingdom being involved in a co-ordinated international response and not just a defeat for the option of a go it alone policy for the UK, the US and France.
 
The blame for what is a political failure must to a very large extent fall on the Government who failed to adequately consider the views of their backbenchers.  The party managers either provided duff information to the Prime Minister and his team or the information provided was ignored.  Nevertheless the Prime Minister, the Government and in my view UK Foreign Policy is much diminished as a result.  It is a poor reflection on the Downing Street operation that it came to this.
 
Despite the headlines neither did the Labour Party gain much in the long term.  Ed Milliband performed, between Monday and Wednesday a U-turn of epic proportions.  Undoubtedly the inadequate preparatory work of the Government allowed the Labour Party the luxury of a communal therapy session to atone for their sins in relation to their support for the Iraq War but in the long term I suspect that a political leader who uses an international issue of this importance in order to gain a short term party political advantage will not appeal to the majority of the general public.  I would argue that the Prime Minister, his deputy and the Labour leader are all diminished by their failures over the past week.
 
 
As for Parliament?  Many would claim that it is strengthened and there is little doubt that it is now very difficult to envisage of any circumstances in which a Government could embark upon military action without the support of Parliament.  However, the standard of debate and the fact that for far too many the issue of military action, the use of chemical weapons in Syria and a vicious civil war was of secondary importance.  For many the motivation for their votes last night was party political advantage or a personal animosity to the Prime Minister.  Is a Parliament that votes on such a basis, on an issue of this magnitude, enhanced?
 
Finally for myself I feel depressed and annoyed despite some real successes as a result of efforts late in the day to influence the Government.  What do I mean by this?  Well first of all I feel that my support for the letter from Conservative backbenchers demanding a Parliamentary vote in relation to any intervention in Syria was a success.  A recall was granted and despite the failure of the Government to adequately plan for such a recall it was undoubtedly a good thing that such a recall was granted.  Secondly, as with numerous colleagues, we made a case for the Government to slow down the process.  A recall aimed at securing the support of Parliament for a military intervention became a recall to debate the merits of a further vote on a more specific intervention if and when the UN process had been completed in a satisfactory manner.  Finally, despite the knee-jerk reaction of many who felt that the vote was a vote about supporting military action or not (that was not the case) I voted on the merits of the motion which at least had the advantage of providing a semblance of coherence to our foreign policy position.
 
That we are now in limbo should not, in my view, be a cause for celebration.
 
"
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8949
Re: Guto Bebb MP
« Reply #27 on: August 30, 2013, 04:17:45 pm »
A great pity that we are represented by an individual of such disingenuous perceptions and incompetent rhetoric.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline Ian48

  • Member
  • Posts: 122
Re: Guto Bebb MP
« Reply #28 on: August 30, 2013, 04:25:42 pm »
On the contrary, I think it's interesting and gives us a bit of an insight into how things work at Westminster behind the scenes.  At least we are represented by somebody who is prepared to criticise Cameron, the Government and the Opposition.  I got rather tired of Betty Williams' sycophantic ramblings when she was the MP (and judging by her Twitter feed, Mary Wimbury, the Labour candidate for the next election is no different).  I cannot stand politicians who aren't prepared to say that their party or leader is wrong when they are.

Offline Yorkie

  • Member
  • Posts: 5255
Re: Guto Bebb MP
« Reply #29 on: August 30, 2013, 04:42:24 pm »
The problem is that the Party Leaders, irrespective of colour, cannot accept the fact that they sometimes may be wrong.   I bet Cameron is still crying over his defeat last night. 

We don't want, or need, to join forces with O'Barmy again, in trying to sort out another country's internal problems.  Tell O'Barmy to get John Wayne and his Merry Men on the case!
 :rage:
Wise men have something to say.
Fools have to say something.
Cicero