Why did Baroness Warsi resign?

 

It is curious that Baroness Warsi left her resignation until the very day when the UK’s policy of working with the UN, Egypt and the USA to secure a ceasefire and peace talks over Gaza  finally appears to have achieved something. It is also curious that she delayed resigning over seeking stronger language and a tougher policy until the PM had backed the UN’s condemnation of the attack on the school, had warned Israel not to use disproportionate force and had started a review of arms sales.

The background to her resignation is clearer if you read her whole letter of resignation. It is a letter about her friends and relationships in government, as much as it is about the horrors of Gaza. She is as critical of Mr Cameron’s recent reshuffle, as she is of his words on Gaza.

The letter says  “In many ways the absence of the experience and expertise of colleagues like Ken Clarke and Dominic Grieve has over the last few weeks become very apparent”. She praises Mr Hague and says ” He dismantled  foreign  policy making by  sofa government and restored decision making and dignity to the Foreign Office. There is however great unease across the Foreign Office, amongst both Ministers and senior officials, in the way recent decisions are being made”.

In other words, the Baroness seems to say she does not like the new tone of foreign policy based on a clearer view of the UK’s interests and on Mr Hammond’s excellent proposal that it should be a British office, explaining the UK to the rest of the world and pursuing British interests, more than a foreign office explaining the ways of abroad and especially the EU to us.

I disagree strongly with these criticisms of Mr Cameron’s reshuffle. I did not think Ken Clarke was making our EU policy, but many outside government thought he was so his departure clarifies that. I do think we need as a Foreign Secretary someone prepared to say we have to leave the EU if no satisfactory new relationship is forthcoming, something Mr Hague never ventured. I do think we need to sort out the question of the UK’s relationship to the European courts, where Mr Grieve was a faithful adviser who seemed  fatalistically to accept their power.

Baroness Warsi has muddled her resignation by its timing over Gaza. More importantly, by criticising a good shift in the way government works and thinks on the mighty issue of Europe, she has put herself at odds with many Conservatives on an issue that detracts from her stance and focus on the Middle East.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

54 Comments

  1. ian
    Posted August 5, 2014 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    That cost you a lot of votes, it could finish your party if she walks a cross the floor of the house. I can not see her packing in the job over the EU. My great uncle walk a cross floor of the house and how”s the stock market. WAR is in the air no need for a election if that”s the case. The chess game go on as usual as the killing ramps up. All down to your government and the good old usa and their mates the israelis. Russa trying to save the people of east ukraine at the un today will any one take notice of their appeal.

  2. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted August 5, 2014 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    JR: “Why did Baroness Warsi resign?”
    More to the point, why was she given a life peerage in 2007 at the age of 36 and then appointed to the cabinet by Cameron in 2010?
    P.S. I know she is a female Muslim and failed to win the Dewsbury seat for your party in 2005 – none of which justifies her elevation in my opinion.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 7:04 am | Permalink

      Yes, she has resigned as a minister but not as an unelected legislator-for-life, and personally I strongly object to her having a vote on all the laws I have to obey.

      I ask myself why she should have been granted that extraordinary privilege and I can find no good reason. Meanwhile, having appointed this apparently pro-EU young woman to the Lords for no reason other than because he wanted her in his government to serve as a token female Muslim Cameron flatly refuses to consider appointing any life peers of the UKIP persuasion.

      This is a rotten system not fit for the modern age where we are supposed to be a democracy.

      Moreover it is worth pointing out that it was the refusal of the Tory MPs to contemplate any change to that rotten system which gave the LibDems the pretext to block the proposed changes to the constituencies for the Commons and has left the Tory party still facing a strong bias against their party to the benefit of Labour, and if as I expect the Tories once again fail to win an overall majority at the next general election that will be one of the two greatest reasons why, the other being the mass desertion of voters from the LibDems with most of them migrating to Labour.

      Both of those factors are massively valuable to Labour in its contest with the Tories, the bias in the constituencies being worth about 7% to them and the greater consolidation of the leftish anti-Tory vote on Labour worth even more, and compared to that the net effect of UKIP on the outcome of the next election will actually be rather minor now that UKIP has been gaining its new support at the expense of Labour to about the same extent as it has been pulling voters away from Tories.

      Even if UKIP were to completely disappear from the political scene the net benefit to the Tories vis-à-vis Labour would not exceed 2%, whereas at present they are effectively 10% behind Labour and the gap has not been closing fast enough to make it seem likely that they could win next May.

      All of this is clear to anyone who cares to look at the opinion poll charts here:

      http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls.html

      with a seeing eye.

      Note in particular how the 3% downwards fluctuation in the support for UKIP over the past month has not been accompanied by a 3% rise in support for the Tories, as some of them might still fondly expect, but instead both they and Labour have gained about equally and so the Labour lead is unchanged.

      Reply UKIP take more from Conservatives than from Labour. Among recent polls the one with UKIP down to 9% shows Conservatives in the lead. The one with UKIP on 19% shows the biggest Labour lead. The volatility of the UKIP vote in recent polls makes them difficult to interpret.

      • sjb
        Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:45 am | Permalink

        In relation to the GE, recent events may also have harmed the Conservative Party’s chances.[1] Although Labour, as usual, missed an opportunity. Still, both parties have to consider the financing of their GE campaigns.
        [1] see By voting intention… graphic http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/05/sympathy-palestinians-more-common-britain-france-a/

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:49 am | Permalink

        In a way I’m quite happy for Tories to delude themselves that UKIP is the great obstacle they must overcome if they are to win the next election. As support for UKIP continues to trend upwards, as it still is, they will come under more and more pressure to say and do whatever they suppose may win back “their” voters from UKIP, and as UKIP supporters can easily point out the many glaring contradictions with what they have said and done in the past that further undermines their credibility and strengthens the case for voters to switch to supporting a more honest party.

        However my instinct is to always stick to the facts, and those charts are one part of the evidence that for the past two years or so UKIP has been hurting Labour about as much as it has been hurting the Tories. As I have said above, the 3% downwards fluctuation in support for UKIP over the past month has not boosted the Tories by 3% but instead only by about half that, and as Labour has been boosted by about the same amount the Tories are no closer to winning the next election with UKIP on 14% than they were with UKIP on 17%.

        The definitive evidence we lack is the opinion poll where those who say that they now support UKIP are not asked the usual question about how they voted back in May 2010 – the usual answer to that question is that UKIP has apparently taken about as much support from the LibDems as from Labour, which nobody seems to think is a bit strange, with the two in total nearly matching the support they have taken from the Tories – but instead the UKIP supporters are directly asked a question on these lines:

        “If at the next general election there was no UKIP candidate standing in the constituency where you live, how would you vote, if at all?”

        I’m pretty sure that it would be found that denied the opportunity to vote for UKIP many of its present supporters would not vote at all, or they would vote for independent or minor party candidates, while some others would revert to Labour and to the LibDems as well as to the Tories; and so the net benefit for the Tories in their contest with Labour would be only a small fraction of the total support for UKIP, maybe 2% at most not the 14% or 17% that some Tories still arrogantly assume.

        Reply The polling shows that many more UKIP voters this year voted Conservative before than voted Labour. There is no evidence that UKIP’s vote is rising, as your own poll of polls shows. It is well below its peak in May at the European elections.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted August 6, 2014 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

          We’ve had this sort of discussion before about the sterling exchange rate, and whether a short term fluctuation indicates a break in the established trend or it is indeed just a short term fluctuation. When I look at the overall chart for UKIP support I don’t yet see a break in the upwards trend, maybe a significant break in that trend will become more apparent in the coming months but it has not yet done so. And nor do I see the recorded 3% downwards fluctuation in support for UKIP over the past month producing any significant net benefit for the Tory party in its contest with Labour. I admit that these are only straws in the wind, but there are more and more of them as time passes.

      • ian wragg
        Posted August 6, 2014 at 9:35 am | Permalink

        John, you are behind the curve. Lord Ashcrofts latest poll puts UKIP on 18% and rising. In the waiting room yesterday I read in the “I” newspaper that in Ashfield where I live, Gloria de whatsit is at risk as local polls show UKIP are polling in the 30% s due to the large influx of immigrant labour.
        I can see this in many constituencies. Maybe not enough votes to win but enough to deny the incumbent of whichever party to lose.
        Interesting times. Only about 37 weeks to go.

        Reply UKIP is on anywhere between 9% and 19% according to recent polls, so they are not much of a guide at the moment.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 9:16 am | Permalink

      Indeed that fault lies in making the appointment. Clearly Cameron was looking for a northern, female, muslim who claimed to be a Tory and the choice was rather limited.

      Perhaps next time he will promote on ability and suitability, but I suspect not given his lefty, BBC think genes. Has he found a lefty, EUphile, big government, green crap woman for the BBC trustee head yet? So he can repeat the error of Patten.

  3. Ted Monbiot
    Posted August 5, 2014 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

    I may be wrong, but I think she had strong ambitions to be the next Foreign Secretary and was very unhappy when she was passed over by the promotion of others.
    I think her stated reason for leaving is a red herring.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 9:17 am | Permalink

      I suspect you are right.

  4. Feodor
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 12:10 am | Permalink

    I think you are right in arguing other factors have underpinned–or at least significantly influenced–Baroness Warsi’s decision. The timing, as you note, is particularly peculiar. It leads me to suspect that various forces in the Conservative Party are perhaps starting to gather for an attempted toppling of Cameron.

    I would also like to commend you for the tone used. This typically Redwood-ian (!) sense of decorum is in sharp contrast to some of the quite mean-spirited hatchet jobs that have been doing the rounds. The comments sections of certain blogs also suggest the combination of Warsi’s sex, religion and stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have acted as something of a clarion call for some (other forces ed).

    Reply No I do not think this heralds a toppling of Mr Cameron. The Parliamentary party has decided he will lead us into the election.

    • Posted August 6, 2014 at 11:10 am | Permalink

      No one can replace the dreadful Cameron (short of him falling under a bus) before the election. This as the largely pro EU, wet Tory party could never unite behind anyone else.

      Cameron will clearly lead them to defeat, unless he has a sudden change of compass and does a deal with UKIP. He would rather go down than form a proper Tory government. One with low tax, cheap energy, efficient government and far, far less EU and reguation. It is just in his genes alas, it is always emotion and PR over brain logic & reason for these people.

      • Feodor
        Posted August 6, 2014 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

        A la Major in 1995, the attempted toppling probably won’t prove successful. It probably won’t even get as far as a leadership election–Cameron won’t be so bold as to challenge his critics as did Major in 1995. However, esp. when viewed alongside Boris’ latest offerings, it does seem the manoeuvring to replace Cameron has already begun, though I suspect most of those involved expect their chance will come after Cameron loses the next election.

        Perhaps it’s a stretch to view Warsi’s resignation in this context, though I still wouldn’t discount it out of hand. Her resignation letter certainly goes to bat for some of those who might be considered to be on the Party’s more liberal wing–or ‘wets’ as they used to known. And I imagine that, atm, this wing is probably more disgruntled with Cameron than the Eurosceptic right.

        Finally, it is of course your choice to edit posts however you like. But if you were to glance over Guido’s blog, e.g., I think you’d find my characterisation of some of the commenters is actually quite fair.

      • Bazman
        Posted August 6, 2014 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

        Channel Islands being your mythical tax haven or something else you are trying to flog?

  5. Posted August 6, 2014 at 12:56 am | Permalink

    So Baroness Warsi does not like the steady disappearance of Tory Wets from positions of power and influence. She is in a minority. Now that she has gone, the Conservative Party can freely ask itself if they is anything fundamentally different about Islam, compared with other world religions.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 9:18 am | Permalink

      The government is still dripping with wets and is led by one. He is just doing his pre-election cast iron deception Mk II.

  6. Old Albion
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 5:52 am | Permalink

    Mayne Baroness Warsi resigned on a point of principle, maybe others in parliament could learn something from that?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 9:20 am | Permalink

      I doubt that, she did not resign over her expenses. She was always out of her depth.

  7. Mark B
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 5:57 am | Permalink

    John Redwood MP said;

    “It is a letter about her friends and relationships in government . . . .”

    Oh Mr.Redwood MP sir, you indeed have a fine mind. :)

    As for Gaza and the Noble Lady (sic). I have come to think that people treat the plight of the Palestinians much like a spotty faced adolescent looks upon their poster of Che Guevara. It is a, cause celeb. They do not really understand the issues behind it, much like the man on their wall. It’s just a bit of symbolism that puts them in the, ‘correct’ category.

    Vapid fools.

  8. Lifelogic
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 6:20 am | Permalink

    I could never understand why Baroness Warsi was ever elected to be chairman of the conservative party, nor made a Baroness. She is just yet another ordinary lawyer after all, who had worked for the state in immigration matters. She seemed totally out of her depth on television. I assumed it was just part of Cameron typical chocolate box or flower arranging and he wanted a muslim, northern, woman to help fill the top layer. Just about the last thing parliament needs is more lawyers, with little experience of the real world.

    I cannot see Cameron’s moves on the ECHR to be anything other than a pre-election gimmick to appear to be anti-Europe thus trying to con and rat a second time. I do not imagine it will make it into law before the election given that Cameron has saddled us with the Libdems and is clearly one himself. Nor do I think it will amount to much in reality if it does.

    Perhaps Cameron will now learn to promote on ability to do the job, rather than skin colour, gender and superficial appearances for a change.

  9. The PrangWizard
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    You make very telling points in a polite way as usual, and if Mr Hammond can revolutionise the Foreign Office as you say he wishes he will have pulled off a miracle; he has a Herculean task and I wish him well. There is no doubt it is vital and urgent. Warsi’s loyalty to and belief in our traditional values and history was in my view slim and she had an alternative agenda. Her constituency is elsewhere.

    Cameron’s appointment of her to a position of power was pandering; we shall see if he has learned anything and if he strengthens Mr Hammond’s position.

  10. APL
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    JR: “It is curious that Baroness Warsi left her resignation until the very day when the UK’s policy of working with the UN, Egypt and the USA to secure a ceasefire and peace talks over Gaza finally appears to have achieved something.”

    Where is Blair? He accepted the position of the official envoy of the Quartet, (US, Russia, UN & EU ), in June 2007.

    I think he should put *his* boots on the ground in Gaza now. Get some ‘quality face time’ with Hamas.

  11. APL
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    “In many ways the absence of the experience and expertise of colleagues like Ken Clarke and Dominic Grieve has over the last few weeks become very apparent”

    Which reminds me, since Clarke spent the last year swanning around government, we paid for it. Isn’t it reasonable to have an account of this ‘vanity’ appointment – especially now it has been recognised to have been a mistake?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 9:23 am | Permalink

      Yet still we will have Clarke as an MP after 2015 it seems. Doubtless he will try to block progress on the EU should any ever look likely.

      • APL
        Posted August 6, 2014 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

        Lifelogic: “Yet still we will have Clarke as an MP after 2015 it seems.”

        One just has to hang around to pick up that £10,000 bung that’s going free after the election. For running the country into the ground, it’s a snip.

  12. alan jutson,
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 7:51 am | Permalink

    Always thought she was a lightweight, elevated above her talents, with a little of her own agenda, rather than that of the UK people.

    Come to think of it, I can think of a few that fit that bill, still holding a position of power, so one less is rather good news, providing she is replaced by someone more able.

  13. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    There are many worthy reasons for a disgruntled and principled Mp to resign from the Conservative party… but these aren’t the I would choose. How about this list. :-

    - David Cameron’s Tony Blair tribute act. More style over substance and ‘Liberal intervention’ style war mongering colonialism and rubbing of our noses in diversity and political correctness.

    - Arbitrary 0.7%GDp foreign aid that is keeping the third world poor and corrupt.

    -Economic incompetence and dishonesty ie buying ‘growth’ with yet more printed and borrowed money then pretending the economy is ‘healing’.

    -John Redwood being excluded by the cabinet by a spiteful No. 10 administration

    -The fact that the party is stacked with Europhiles (particularly at the highest
    level).

    - Cameron thumbing his nose at the majority of the electorate by talking tough on net migration but doing nothing of real substance.

    -Infact quite a lot of ‘talking tough’ but doing nothing.

    -Joining the Liberal Democrats instead of going back to the electors because Mr Cameron & Osborne put career before party (another key mistake that the Conservatives seem very good at making)

    • Mark B
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

      Stating that he vetoed a Treaty that in truth, never existed.

      Stating that he negotiated a reduction in the EU Budget, only for:

      a) Have the UK contribution increased.
      b) Not done sufficient checking to ensure ALL the bills were paid and therefor no monies owing.

      Making promises that can never be delivered because, he neither has the time frame and, the power to effect those changes. eg a new treaty.

      Intervention in Libya and the subsequent mess it has caused.

      The debarcle of Syria.

      The mess we are making with relations, not with Russia, but much of the Commonwealth and the world – think the debacle of threatening to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy.

      I will look back on this coalition government and say; “5 years wasted, and for what ?”

  14. Richard1
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    What this shows is if people are to be appointed ministers without being elected to the Commons they need to be people of real substance and distinction. Baroness Warsi probably did her best to make a coherent contribution, but it was always clear she was nowhere near the calibre required to be a cabinet minister. She was of course promoted for no reason other than she was a Muslim woman. Her appointment first as party Chairman and subsequently as a minister doesn’t speak well for Mr Cameron’s judgement on these issues. Will Muslims / women / Muslim women really decide to vote Conservative because there is a minister such as Lady Warsi? The idea seems patronizing and almost insulting to me. Muslims will decide what to vote like everybody else – based on whether or not they agree with a party’s policies.

    Tokenism should be stigmatised as patronizing and perhaps even racist / sexist. Let’s have people appointed on their merits.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 9:28 am | Permalink

      “people of real substance and distinction” – Cameron alas clearly wants flower arranging on gender, colour and superficial religious diversity – regardless of ability and talent – it certainly looks that way to me.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

      Of course we could try electing people on their merits as an alternative.

      • Richard1
        Posted August 6, 2014 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

        I actually thought some variant of the LibDem house of Lords reform could have been better than what we have now, which is the revelation of completely unknown and undistinguished party hacks.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted August 7, 2014 at 6:07 am | Permalink

          I didn’t like the LibDem proposals, but at least they would have established the principle that the members of the second chamber must be elected by the people in some way rather being appointed. Those Tory MPs who succeeded in blocking them and provoking Clegg into blocking the boundary changes in retaliation, whether deserved or not, will bear a lot of responsibility if as a consequence their party loses the next general election, as is likely to happen. I wonder whether they will then think that losing a election was a sacrifice worth making in order to keep their appointed chums in the Lords.

          Reply The changes passed the Commons easily – it was the Lords where no party has a majority which was going to destroy them because Clegg had not even squared all his own peers!

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

      Tokenism should indeed be stigmatised. It is clearly hugely discriminatory against people who do not fit the token profile wanted at that time. Do we really want token judges, token surgeons, token airline pilots, token bridge engineers or just the best ones for the job? It is even damaging to the tokens thus selected, perhaps ennobled and often placed out of their depth.

      Well we know where Cameron and the BBC stands on this alas on the wrong side as always.

      • Bazman
        Posted August 6, 2014 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

        Many politicians are Eton educated is this Tokenism as by far the vast majority of people are not and more than half cannot go the Eton no matter how clever they are?

        • Edward2
          Posted August 7, 2014 at 12:00 am | Permalink

          I suppose it is.
          It is difficult to suceed if your face does not fit.
          Try forging a career in science if your views do not agree with the existing consensus.
          You soon find people calling you deluded.

          • Bazman
            Posted August 7, 2014 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

            They are if they are not scientific and most of the global warming deniers are not and have dubious funding sources. From the oil industry and rich individuals with vested interests who have paid 100′s of millions to spread propaganda. Take a look.

          • Edward2
            Posted August 7, 2014 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

            You need to ask yourself Baz, if you would ever engage in employment or promote anyone who had any views you did not agree with.
            I suspect you would not.
            Anyone who holds different views to you is labelled by you as a fool or as deluded etc.
            You would develop an organisation of yes men and women who would just go along with you.
            OK if you are always right as you think you are
            If you were not always right your organisation would fail as many run in this closed mind, no dissent allowed manner do.

  15. Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    A woman scorned?

  16. They Work For Us
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    England, the majority member of the UK, should always act in its own interest. I am always annoyed to hear of a demonstration outside an Embassy, by those that left that country, protesting about conditions in the old country and worse expecting the UK to spend blood and treasure to right the situation to their point of view.
    We must govern for the majority and tell minorities from whatever part of the world that they are just that, a minority. Baroness Warsi is well gone, her work efforts would be better placed in “Amnesty International” or similar organisation.

  17. Paul
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    Baroness Warsi’s resignation is good news as far as I am concerned. This is a woman who seemed to wield great power and influence despite being unelected and unpopular with no great talent. Her public appearances on QT or the Daily Politics were always below par and had no resonance. She trotted out the tired old line of professing to be ‘very Eurosceptic’ but wanting to remain ‘in Europe but not run by Europe’. Do me a favour, she’s just another pro-EU fanatic, no wonder she got along with Cameron so well and is mourning the departure of Ken Clarke from Government. She got to where she was by just being the right gender, religion and colour – pure tokenism, nothing to do with skill, talent or experience. etc ed

  18. Mactheknife
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    Baroness Warsi’s resignation was more about her own future and perceived isolation when Clarke and Grieve went. She was overlooked for the top jobs, as rumour has it she wanted the job of Foreign Secretary. Smacks a little of “toys out of the pram”.

    Removing the EU support within the cabinet was of course a message to the backbenchers and UKIP defectors, but we hear all sorts of rumours about exiting the ECHR and still nothing has happened after 4 years.

    As for the ECHR judgements I’m confused. Some legal commentators say that we have to implement their wishes whereas other say that they are really advisory and its up to the national government to go with the judgement or not. Anyone clarify ?

    Reply All the time we stay in the Convention our courts will require implementation. There will be a policy announcement on how we will tackle the ECHR at party Conference. Lib Dems have blocked progress this Parliament.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

      What is now Article 46(1) of the Convention is clear enough:

      http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

      “The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.”

      And the substance of that was in Article 53 of the original Convention:

      http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Collection_Convention_1950_ENG.pdf

      “The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the decision of the Court in any case to which they are parties”.

      The binding force of judgements was there from the start, it is not something that was introduced subsequently as is sometimes claimed.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

      So it will be a pre election gimmick. A bill of rights pretending to do something about the ECHR after the election. Not really doing anything at all, even if Cameron does do a miracle and wins a majority. Another Cast Iron or IHT promise then.

  19. bluedog
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    It’s just possible that Lady Warsi heard things said about Islam in the cabinet room which she knew to be true, but could not accept.

    • yulwaymartyn
      Posted August 6, 2014 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

      bluedog: or the other way round. It is just possible that Lady Warsi heard things said about Islam in the cabinet room which she knew to be false, but could not accept.

      • bluedog
        Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

        yulwaymartyn, if your hypothesis is correct, an individual of integrity would stay on to rebutt the lies, secure in the knowledge of ultimate victory. But no, Lady Warsi did not stay on, preferring instead to announce that implicitly, she was right. By extension, the Government is in the wrong. One can only conclude that the shame of defending the indefensible was too much for Lady Warsi. Indeed, one can ask, was she told by her colleagues that they had had enough?

        • yulwaymartyn
          Posted August 7, 2014 at 11:34 am | Permalink

          I don’t know. Maybe she thought her words were falling upon deaf ears. It does not follow that a person of integrity would stay to rebutt the lies. (If i were in a room full of racists and bigots would I stay? I may in fact say my piece and then leave. I am not saying that the cabinet are racists and bigots – I just use this as an example). It would be interesting to ask her what she really thinks about the people in the cabinet – by extension she clearly believes that they are morally in the wrong.

  20. Posted August 6, 2014 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    Egos are funny things ; Warsi was dropped a rung or two and simply could not accept her diminished role ; as a Muslim woman she ought to have been used to following rather than leading . As others have commented ” she was a lightweight ” ; her badly worded letter of resignation has attempted to throw the reason on the guilty Israelis and not on her incapability to make an impact on the affairs in which she was involved . Cameron was wrong to have appointed her in the first place .

  21. dumpling
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Baroness Warsi did not criticise the sacking of Owen Paterson or Michael Gove. That tells me something of the lady.

  22. zorro
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps she should have resigned earlier and it might have made more of an impact on the slaughter of civilians in Gaza.

    The funniest part in the comments was the idea that Baroness Warsi would have been appoined Foreign Secretary…… Really? The Conservative Party….80% of whose MPs are supposed to be in the CFI (Conservative Friends of Israel) according to the Peter Oborne article which I was not allowed to quote in a previous article….. That would have gone down a treat with their sponsors.

    zorro

  23. Tony Watts
    Posted August 6, 2014 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

    Baroness Warsi has resigned and gives the British Government’s lack of aggression towards Israel as her reason. She like many others see this conflict as a purely Muslim/Jewish problem and I’m afraid her words and actions show a Muslim bias which have prevented her from seeing the true picture.
    It doesn’t help when the media at large portray the Palestinians as the only victims and the BBC give us a body count every morning. Casualties are described as civilians and quote Hamas and UN observers as their source of information. Most of the casualties are young men who are quite likely jihadist combatants.
    The media describe Gaza as densely populated, certainly true of their three main cities; however a quick look on Google reveals there are large areas where habitation is either scarce or non- existent. That being so why didn’t the UN representatives based in Gaza, some several thousand I gather, not provide tented villages for the temporary housing of the civilians. The simple true is that Hamas wouldn’t let them.
    Tony Watts

  24. Terry
    Posted August 7, 2014 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    MS Warsi was a token Muslim woman placed in cabinet solely as a PR stunt. She was never an elected MP, so the PM following on with tactics from Blair the terrible bestowed her with a title in order to have her promoted to a Cabinet post. Why? Isn’t it about time it became mandatory that Cabinet ministers be appointed only from the House of Commons? They are supposed to be servants of the public who are elected by the public. Those selected by a PM outside the realm of the public’s influence do not have the necessary confidence of the electorate and that is undemocratic. It’s time the UK adopted many of the USA’s procedures when appointing senior political posts. And it’s time we elected the DPP and the Judges too. That’s democracy.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College, and has a DPhil from All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.
  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page