I know that politicians' stock resolutely continues to plummet, and Huhne's case, sadly, isn't even the worst example we have seen, but today's news is surely another black day for the credibility of the lying, devious toerags which we have the misfortune to be in charge. How can you tell a politician's lying? His lips move? In the case of Mr Huhne, who is now pleading guilty, this does seem to be the case:
[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/04/chris-huhne-timeline-of-denails[/url



Is 6 months or whatever at her majesty's pleasure enough to finish him off, or will he be welcomed back after a suitable gap when nobody is interested in the story any more?

It just seems an incredibly stupid thing to do. To lie just to avoid a few points and a fine.
In the grand scheme of politicians lying though, it's pretty low down the list

Are you writing his mitigation speech?

compared with "Iraq has WMD's" and "My moral compass" it's nothing

I'm still waiting for his party leader to stop lying about being a Liberal Democrat.

Not quite. I can't stand most of the Lib Dems now. Though when you compare to things like the expenses scandal, where politicians lied to gain thousands and thousands of pounds, then this, while it's right his career is over, is pretty small fry but many times more stupid!

Me too.

Nice smokescreen for the cabinet to have a breather behind, too.

I know quite a few people who have done this and got away with it. Including one family who has an arrangement where whoever has the least points takes the hit.

Happens all the time in businesses and in families where a breadwinner doesn't want to lose the means to earn the bread, I suppose its what happens when you have a judicial system that relies on you admitting your own guilt on an initial accusation and threat.

Having said that, if you're an MP and don't appreciate the need to be squeaky clean and on top of all that don't understand that you can claim ALL of your travel expenses whether its you driving a car or some other means, then maybe you're not cut out to be an MP anymore, its not like your bog standard Joe who might lose his licence for six months and have to fork out lots of extra dosh for taxis, trains etc out of his own family's pocket.

Interesting that his 'ex' has pleaded not guilty. If she is found not guilty what would happen to him, would they do him for perjury for saying he was guilty when he wasn't

He will probably end up the next LibDem leader with his deputy being that other forgetfull MP David Expenses Laws.

Hardly. Persistently lying over and over and only admitting the truth when he had exhausted all potential legal avenues to have his case dismissed.

He lied to avoid a driving ban, as he was already on 9 points.

If he was Tory he would be labelled the reincarnation of Hitler.

The thing is - twelve points isn't an automatic ban - its eye-watering insurance premium time, but I've employed someone in the past who ended up with 14 points at one stage and still retained his licence.

Although as I mentioned earlier, the defence of "I'll lose my job if I lose my licence" won't wash with an MP who gets paid to commute via whatever means he chooses.

That's simply because most of them are

This is the key thing. Its why Lance Armstrong has fallen so much too. The initial crime is one thing but when a public figure stands in front of the cameras and assures people he is innocent, and then later is forced to come out and admit he was guilty and lied all along, it is his personal credibility that has been shot to pieces.

What these public figures really mean by "I am innocent" is, "my lawyers have advised me that I can probably get away with this". It is sickening.

Indeed.
I will bet you any money that he thought 'I'm an MP and they won't have the stones to actually go through with it.............So I'll shout about how unfair it is and plead my innocence and they will back down'
When it became apparent to him that they in fact were not going to back down when he entered court he had a quick rethink and coughed to it.

If he'd have admitted it, he would have had a while out of the limelight then staged a comeback later on. Peter Mandleson did this multiple times, when he got busted for something he just copped it, lay low for a bit and then re-emerged.

Huhne has shot his career to pieces. He would have been a potential leader of the Lib Dems otherwise.

Her 'defence' is "marital coercion". It's a new one on me, but I understand what she is getting at.

Perhaps she's simply confusing marital coercion and marital coition?

What is interesting is the fact that there are none so so bitter as a woman scorned.

This came out after he spit with his wife after having an afaair.

Not only was she so angry she destroyed his political life and future income ( and possibly hers as she would have been entitled to some maintenance etc off him) but she risked being convicted herself.

If you read the emails between Huhne and his son you can see the enourmous damage that it has done to their relationship.
It is a personal tragedy all around and when you look back at it his wife was motivated by revenge which has damaged a lot of people ( it is worth bearing in mind that he could have been a genuine challenger to Clegg) that has now gone and does not leave many alternatives to clegg the blue.

... and after the next election, the range of choice for leader will be even smaller.

I don't know about that, I'd reckon there's been at least as many seriously sed-off blokes. I wouldn't have wanted to scorn Genghis Khan, for example, to name but one. Or a Kray twin.


From what I have read, it wasn't like that*. I've seen that she made one comment to a Sunday paper in an interview many years back, but since when she has stuck to her story that it was she.

I remember reading a Sunday paper expose some years back when they did an investigation about Huhne's and his wife's expected routes and more or less proved (and certainly proved to me) that he was lying about the details, as not only could his wife not have reasonably picked him up, but also there was no earthly reason why she should or needed to. Still, that obviously wasn't enough to produce a reasonable prospect of convicton (or he would have been prosecuted) and so it MUST follow that his wife was, even then, still resolutely sticking to the script. Obviously a long time after his infidelity and desertion.

The reports seem to suggest that what gave the CPS the ammunition they needed was when they heard about the incriminating email exchanges with his son, so they raided his house and got the phone. His son was clearly seriously sed off. {There is nothing I have seen that the prosecution was born out of his wife's wish for revenge*}, and I think you may be doing her a disservice, and as for accusing her of having "damaged a lot of people", I'm sorry but that is bang out of order.

{*edit: report now says that indeed it was out of revenge that she passed the story to the press:
[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21333624[/url
Doesn't say the order of events re the raids etc., but suggests she didn't know of his "affair" till 2011}

There's always the [iGinger Rodent.[/i

He's even more right-wing than the present incumbent.

Not that quick a re-think, actually. He and his lawyers made strenuous attempts to have the case thrown out on the grounds of adverse publicity. It was only when this was rejected that he pleaded guilty.

Yes, it wasn't a question of them not backing down, but rather the court ruling that he did have a case to answer, and that he could get a fair trial.

John Kelsey-Fry, QC, counsel for Huhne, (who reportedly charges twenty grand a day plus VAT plus expenses) had been arguing in pre-trial hearings that
(1) there was no chance of a fair trial because pre-trial publicity had been extensive, and because of the passage of time; and
(2) no case to answer, because the speeding forms had been routinely destroyed

"There's simply no case against Mr Huhne. Indeed in this case there's no evidence of there having been any crime at all, let alone one as to his participation," he said.

His legal team pushed for closer scrutiny of the role of police and prosecutors in the case and a second team, from Kent, was brought in to examine the case, but no wrongdoing was found."

The court sat through 12 days of a QC arguing that no trial should go ahead.

The trial judge, Mr Justice Sweeney, ruled against Huhne's attempt to have the case thrown out last week.
[urlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-trial-right-to-the-end-chris-huhne-thought-his-lawyers-could-get-him-off-8480735.html[/url