Jump to content
A Load of Squit

New Tory Leader

Recommended Posts

And so it begins! Having arrogantly thought they could get away with undermining the very basis of parliamentary accountability and democracy, Rees-Bogg begins the obsequious and disingenuous retreat:

https://news.sky.com/story/owen-paterson-government-paves-the-way-for-u-turn-less-than-24-hours-after-mps-block-fellow-torys-suspension-12459639

It is crucial for the future of this country that the opposition to this bunch of self-interested spivs ensures a complete reversal of yesterday's shameless attack on our democratic system.

I wonder what Kwasi has to say now about yesterday's vote? No doubt he's waiting patiently to have his new thoughts dictated from Johnson's rear end.

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, horsefly said:

How can you not be concerned with last night's vote? The facts are indisputable that Patterson on at least fourteen occasions is proven to have lobbied on behalf of companies that paid him ...

But I respectfully suggest you needn't forgo concern and outrage at what happened yesterday either.

I see these as quite distinct things.  If he broke the rules in a material manner he should be held to account on that. I didn't comment on the facts of the case or the decision  only in response to VW and KGs comments in the need (or otherwise) for a right of appeal.

 I strongly believe that everyone, from parking ticket evaders up to murderers, is entitled to fair process and that a fair process almost necessarily requires there to be some form of right to an appeal. I can't therefore in principle object to the outcome of a vote that purports to seek the construction of a fairer process.

What I would object to though is if this vote led to the creation of an unfair (to the public interest) process that allowed the defendant to evade the rules.  I'll reserve my concern and outrage until such a time as I see what the process creates. I don't think that's unreasonable.

If there is an appeal to a fair and independent panel and the decision still stands then he should take his punishment.

There's a whole other debate about the rights and wrongs of second jobs and conflicts of interest but sometimes it is better not to get overwhelmed by the bigger picture and to concentrate on the details instead.

 

Edited by Barbe bleu
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, sonyc said:

All being played out by a jokey figure of a leader. If we are not careful the population will sleep walk into something very serious, certainly 'un-English' you could say.

It this that is shocking and what I see and more so hear from abroad.

The notion of us British as law abiding, my word is my bond, pragmatic , honest & thoughtful has simply been trashed by Johnson and his rotting kabal of followers, excusers and hangers on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

 I strongly believe that everyone, from parking ticket evaders up to murderers, are entitled to fair process and that a fair process almost necessarily requires there to be some form of right to an appeal. I cant therefore in principle object to the outcome of a vote that purports to seek the construction of a fairer process.

I have no problem with parliament reviewing its processes to ensure they are fair. They could quite easily have introduced a bill to that effect without controversy. What was so utterly outrageous about yesterday's vote was that the government tacked onto the bill an amendment, enforced by a three-line whip, to allow Patterson off the hook. Thus I think you absolutely should out of principle object most vociferously to this disgraceful act of political skulduggery which threatens the very basis of democratic accountability. It is even clear that many Tories couldn't bring themselves shamelessly to stoop so low (13 voted against and over 90 abstained). So I suggest you take your lead from them in thinking that passing a bill to review the procedures regarding parliamentary scrutiny was not worth the price paid in shamefully undermining parliamentary democracy. Yesterday's "victory" was a phyrric victory at the most egregious cost to the integrity of UK political life. No surprise then, that the government is already attempting to retract its miscalclation that this would be another scandal they could simply breeze over.

Edited by horsefly
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...who would have guessed it! Yet another U Turn. I reckon this kind of thing is a good indicator that this government just tries to push things as far as it can and only retracts if there is an almighty push back.

Those that voted against yesterday (the handful of Tory MPs who voted despite all kinds of pressure on them) should feel empowered. But what does it say for those MPs who actually voted for? 

I still think this may have something to do with Johnson himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Would you like to earn £500 an hour representing Randox? Wouldn't be surprised if they have a position vacant soon. But don't apply to become one of its scientists, they only pay £11 per hour for that.

https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salary/Randox-Laboratories-Salaries-E407553.htm

Just think - at £100K/year for about 360 Tory Oinky MPs you can buy the government lock stock and barrel.

So that's just £36M.

Less than the price of 1 fighter jet. 

What a bargain says Putin, Xi, Bolsonaro, Bannon....

Edited by Yellow Fever
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Well...who would have guessed it! Yet another U Turn. I reckon this kind of thing is a good indicator that this government just tries to push things as far as it can and only retracts if there is an almighty push back.

Those that voted against yesterday (the handful of Tory MPs who voted despite all kinds of pressure on them) should feel empowered. But what does it say for those MPs who actually voted for? 

I still think this may have something to do with Johnson himself.

Shambles 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they're in full retreat now!

Damage done. Credibility sub-zero. Obviously the lights were on but nobody was at home yesterday as per every day with Johnson's self centred government shambles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must be hard supporting this government having to change your opinion every few hours or so. 😂

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this and its just typical. It was a 'Telegraph' dinner for old journos I believe. I call it making a mockery out of the public and COP26. Must of run on methane from the sewage plant in Tory head office or No. 10.

  • The spokesman defended Johnson’s decision to take a private jet from Glasgow to London on Tuesday night after attending the Cop26 climate conference. (See 10.13am.) The spokesman said the government was taking a lead in addressing climate change. He also said that the plane used sustainable aviation fuel, and that emissions were offset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Herman said:

It must be hard supporting this government having to change your opinion every few hours or so. 😂

Sadly Herman, it's all too easy when you don't have a single principled bone in your body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Saw this and its just typical. It was a 'Telegraph' dinner for old journos I believe. I call it making a mockery out of the public and COP26. Must of run on methane from the sewage plant in Tory head office or No. 10.

  • The spokesman defended Johnson’s decision to take a private jet from Glasgow to London on Tuesday night after attending the Cop26 climate conference. (See 10.13am.) The spokesman said the government was taking a lead in addressing climate change. He also said that the plane used sustainable aviation fuel, and that emissions were offset.

Yep! It was a private, men only "scoff at the trough" at the Garrick Club. So nothing at all to do with government business. The man is an utter cnut who can not refuse a freebie even when it means taking a private jet from COP26 just to stuff his fat face. Anyone who continues to support this bloated corrupt shyster should take a serious look at themself.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-took-private-jet-from-cop26-to-dine-with-climate-sceptic-at-member-e2-80-99s-club/ar-AAQjEdn?ocid=uxbndlbing

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I see these as quite distinct things.  If he broke the rules in a material manner he should be held to account on that. I didn't comment on the facts of the case or the decision  only in response to VW and KGs comments in the need (or otherwise) for a right of appeal.

 I strongly believe that everyone, from parking ticket evaders up to murderers, is entitled to fair process and that a fair process almost necessarily requires there to be some form of right to an appeal. I can't therefore in principle object to the outcome of a vote that purports to seek the construction of a fairer process.

What I would object to though is if this vote led to the creation of an unfair (to the public interest) process that allowed the defendant to evade the rules.  I'll reserve my concern and outrage until such a time as I see what the process creates. I don't think that's unreasonable.

If there is an appeal to a fair and independent panel and the decision still stands then he should take his punishment.

There's a whole other debate about the rights and wrongs of second jobs and conflicts of interest but sometimes it is better not to get overwhelmed by the bigger picture and to concentrate on the details instead.

 

I could see a need for an appeal if he was about to lose his job. But he was being prevented from entering Parliament for 30 days. That doesn't stop him working or indeed continuing to lobby. Parliament is a debating chamber that is now redundant because the Government has such a large majority.

The amount of complaints about him should have convinced anyone that there was something that went beyond normal lobbying. And his balanced and also independent peers decided, unanimously that he have breached the code. I do not believe he was told to hand the money back or told he could no longer be an MP. So his punishment was minor for what many think is fraud and corruption and would probably face a custodial in another walk of life.

Now the stupid idiots, for the sake of trying to cover for a colleague, have raised the temperature on their activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Back-peddling on a Penny Farthing. 😂

 

Apparently Johnson changed his mind as he didn't realise the sense of feeling surrounding this case.

My Mun always told me to wear clean underwear in case I was run over by a bus. SO Owen, nip into Primark and get a few pairs. As your boss is sihtting himself about the criticism he is getting over yesterday's vote.

Some idiot said some Labour MP's voted with the Government until the pairing procedure was pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

Apparently Johnson changed his mind as he didn't realise the sense of feeling surrounding this case.

My Mun always told me to wear clean underwear in case I was run over by a bus. SO Owen, nip into Primark and get a few pairs. As your boss is sihtting himself about the criticism he is getting over yesterday's vote.

Some idiot said some Labour MP's voted with the Government until the pairing procedure was pointed out.

Many Labour MP's were self isolating and couldn't vote as Jacob Rees Mogg had stopped remote voting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A Load of Squit said:

 

At least he won't have to worry about there being any lorries on the road as he backpedals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Many Labour MP's were self isolating and couldn't vote as Jacob Rees Mogg had stopped remote voting.

 

Of course it was Rees-Bogg who pointed out that Tories are immune to Covid because they all get on so well. I believe it was King Cnut who pointed out the naturalistic fallacy in thinking nature responded to human wishes by commanding the sea to retreat. Interestingly Cnut's name is an anagram of the perfect adjective used to describe Rees-Bogg's standing in public life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paterson resigned as MP.

Best thing he's done. His position was completely untenable. 

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Paterson resigned as MP.

Best thing he's done. His position was completely untenable. 

He's still got his main job to fall back on  he'll have to try and get by on the £100,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

He's still got his main job to fall back on  he'll have to try and get by on the £100,000.

Get the feeling they won't be too interested in paying him £500 an hour anymore. Will be interested to see if they keep him on for his obvious "expertise" in science, rather than his access to ministers. Mind you, if they keep him on for his scientific expertise he'll have to be happy to take a £489 per hour pay cut.

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth reflecting on what the last 24 hours tells us about the corrupt and chaotic leadership polluting this current government. They thought they could get away with fixing parliament through a three-line whip to get their mate off serious charges of corruption. When it turns out that the rest of parliament (including a good number of their own side) and the general public refused to stomach the gross undermining of political accountability and democracy involved, they quickly backtracked on their spiv proposal. Unsurprisingly Patterson has jumped ship before a daily onslaught of media attention lays out the full extent of his corrupt breach of the lobbying rules. No doubt Boris has promised him a few names from his WhatsApps contacts to thank him for falling on his sword (perhaps he'll get a job selling Dyson vacs door-to-door).

If ever there was a 24-hour period in UK politics that demonstrates the corrupt and chaotic consequences of voting in a populist government, this was it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I think there are three or four different things being conflated here.   (1) whether or not his actions amount to a material breach of the rules, (2) whether there should be a right of appeal against a first tier tribunal decision (3) whether there can be trust that any appeal panel/mechanism will be sufficiently independent to come to a 'proper' decision. (4) questions over motivations for proposed change given that the need for an appeals process does not seem (as far as I know) to have been mentioned until now.

As to (2) I dont think it is controversial to say that there should be a right of appeal against a decision that can have serious implications for the accused. I cannot think of any fair process that does or would not have such a right of appeal built in.

My concern therefore is not with last night's vote, but for the one that is to come. If a new appeals process amounts to a self preservation society then that's where the (very serious) flaw will be.  If its properly independent, swift, empowered etc then I think that the principles of justice will have been respected.

That's not to say that the need for a proper appeals process excuses anything that may be said in respect or (1), (3) and (4)

Dissembling again I see .

I'd say its extremely controversial to say there should a right of a appeal to a decision retrospectively on receiving you and Johnson don't like, and when there has never been any demand for such a right previously.

Even in many situations where a right to appeal exists it is not an unfettered or automatic right - there have to be substantive reasons that justify an appeal and there is nothing whatsoever in Patterson's case that would give any grounds for an appeal or any likelihood that a different decision would be reached even if an appeal was possible.

I can't see any practical way or need to introduce an appeal process here - we have an Independent Commissioner who has conducted a thorough investigation and produced very clear recommendations which have been reviewed by a cross-party HoC committee and unanimously approved by them. It then has to be approved or rejected, by the full HoC.

So, who on earth do you suggest would hear an appeal – the ECJ?? 😂

It seems pretty clear to everyone except you and this government that all that has happened here is a corrupt Government has stepped in to save one its corrupt backbenchers and of course to protect themselves against any future cases of which several are in the pipeline. There isn’t a shadow of doubt that the HoC would have confirmed Patterson’s suspension until the Government introduced its amendment with a 3 line whip.

Angela Rayner was right when she called the scum although she perhaps should have spelt it out more clearly – sleazy scum rolls off the tongue nicely and entirely justified.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Paterson resigned as MP.

Best thing he's done. His position was completely untenable. 

Going to play the "hounded out" card?

The by election should be fun. Big Tory majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Dissembling again I see ....

So, who on earth do you suggest would hear an appeal – the ECJ?? 😂

You've changed font I see. But still up for a fight!

Any fair process in relation to serious matters should have a right to appeal. That is why, for instance, you have an employment tribunal and an employment appeals tribunal.   Or why you can appeal a criminal conviction in a higher court. There are any number of other examples of rights of appeal.  

I honestly cannot see why suggesting that a right of appeal should be part of a disciplinary process that is capable of handing out serious sanctions is remotely controversial. 

Also if there is an appeals process no one can really whine about how the ultimate decision is unfair. It adds credibility to the whole process.

I said nothing more and nothing less than this, so please stop with your continual attempts to put words in my mouth- It is rather annoying, or better still read my post and then hold your tongue.

What's the ECJ got to do with this?  why must everything be seen through the prism of brexit?

 

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Herman said:

It must be hard supporting this government having to change your opinion every few hours or so. 😂

I suspect you'd have to be the equivalent of punch drunk and away with the fairies in la la land to keep on blindly supporting Johnson as he turns cartwheels every few hours/days/weeks. How else do you explain it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Any fair process in relation to serious matters should have a right to appeal. That is why, for instance, you have an employment tribunal and an employment appeals tribunal.   Or why you can appeal a criminal conviction in a higher court. There are any number of other examples of rights of appeal.  

I honestly cannot see why suggesting that a right of appeal should be part of a disciplinary process that is capable of handing out serious sanctions is remotely controversial. 

Also if there is an appeals process no one can really whine about how the ultimate decision is unfair. It adds credibility to the whole process.

'I’m sorry, that is completely wrong. The independent commissioner comes to a decision and then there is an appeal to the standards committee. And that appeal involves that individual, Owen Paterson, being able to put in, with his lawyers, his appeal points in writing and also to make his case in person which he did. So he’s been through the appeal.

And this idea there’s not an appeal is such a ... I’ve been six years in politics and many years as a lawyer, I’ve heard some really, really dodgy defences. That is as dodgy as they come.'     Keir Starmer

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...