New Tory Leader

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

4 hours ago, Herman said:

Got to chase these corrupt feckers out of power. Absolutely bloody disgraceful. 

Anyone who keeps voting for a Johnson-led Tory party will be complicit in this continuing corruption of British politics.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

They were siht scared there might be a by election and they have a huge majority which if badly lessened or even wiped out would be a signal they do not want to face.

Paterson is an almost far right politician who has manouvered donations into flimsy organisations that allow him to make seedy trips to other far right groups in the US.

And if he wasn't guilty, why did he say it was his wife's death that affected him.

Shoplift and you get a sentence. Theft by stealth and you become a right honourable.

[Rock The Boat 1,324]

On 29/10/2021 at 17:07, sonyc said:

I support the spending VW. Yet it certainly ought not to be considered a triumph of left wing ideas. That is a damning view imo. We ought not forget how we got to this place of increasing inequality over many years. I can think of dysfunctional family relationships where people are abused for years (let's say emotionally) and made to feel small and then showered with love later as if what really happened was never meant to hurt or injure.

Lots to be critical about for me.

 

What's happening now is old fashioned tax and spend. Even under Wilson and Callaghan the spending was on big infrastructure projects such as Concorde, motorways and nationalised industries. Exactly what Johnson is promoting with HS2, Heathrow and climate change. Same policies, different eras. But don't forget, Wilson and Callaghan were not considered left wingers either, but straight down the middle Centrists. And that is my point, Johnson is a Centrist with policies no different to all the Labour Prime Ministers stretching back to the early 1960s.

When pressed on the facts, you grudgingly admit that government spending has increased to highest levels in years and yet you still make a post that contains paragraphs about spending cuts.

Quote"Local authorities are struggling desperately. Bin collections have had to be rationed (perhaps not where you are?), local libraries closed (ours is open 3 days a week and run by volunteers)...800 of them have been closed in the last decade. Youth centres in so many towns have shut with funding ended (900 shut in many towns and more in cities). Good luck too if you've got a child with special needs because budget cuts have decimated special teaching assistants. The care sector (take my own LA just as one example) has been pared back. Care costs have had to be put onto the elderly and offspring (decisions now are heavily influenced by what can be afforded and less by physical or mental health needs). The Care sector will need £8bn by 2024/5 yearly just to stay at current levels. NI will be increased to pay for this. Carers face poverty because the increase in wages will be eaten up by inflation.

Local authorities resources have been cut by almost 50% in the last 10 years. Another example is that parks budgets have fallen by 97% in the same period. That's incredible." Unquote.

I asked you to explain the disconnect between higher public spending and the cuts you are describing but you failed to comment. Instead you muttered something about dysfunctional family relationships. 

You know nothing about me yet claim I need to get out in the community more. I will share a little with you. I haven't spent the past forty years sighing 'woe is the world around me'. I spent my time creating jobs for thousands of people, so that they could take care of their families, make choices about their lives, and contribute to their communities. This week, I have helped two immigrants submit applications for British citizenship. I do more for people than all the hippies in Hebdon Bridge combined.

[Herman 9,710]

Here they all are. Yep, Shapps and Bacon included.

 

[Rock The Boat 1,324]

On 29/10/2021 at 13:00, keelansgrandad said:

The only way to make tax cuts for working people is to raise the threshold of course. And to take minimum wage earners out of taxation would mean raising it to over £20K. That would also raise a lot of pensioners out of taxation as well.

Its those in the middle that are suffering the most. We need to do more for those who are playing the game and being responsible. While there are many wealthy people evading and avoiding tax, there are many people on benefits who do not need to be. As far as I am concerned, both groups make me sick. And that is a socialist talking.

I think we can sustain a certain level of inflation but not a rise in interest rates. Families could not manage a hike in mortgage repayments and still maintain an income ready to sustain the economy.

Definitely I would raise the tax threshold by a significant amount, and maybe even have a 10% tax band so that people who make the calculation as to whether it is better to take extra work instead of benefits find the balance tipped more towards work. Ha ha, I am not a socialist but I can understand why people would take benefits over work if the calculation was skewed towards benefits. I agree too, that we need a little bit of inflation but I would like to see a small increases in interest rates to remove negative savings rates and prevent inflation getting out of control like it did in the 70s. Business tax rates, I wouldn't cut. Biden is trying to get a global consensus on business tax rates with the EU in agreement. It will mean an end to the Irish corporate tax advantage so keeping ours unchanged will give us an edge over other major economies. I would join in with specific measures against big-Tech non-taxpayers.

[horsefly 4,282]

This article describes well just how corrupt and damaging to democracy is today's vote to allow Owen Patterson to get away with an egregious breach of the rules on lobbying. The stench of corruption and self-interest was so strong that 13 Tories defied the whip to vote against Johnson's instructions and dozens more abstained. This is truly one of the most shameful days in UK politics.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tory-mps-vote-to-tear-up-sleaze-rules-after-conservative-ex-minister-found-guilty-of-paid-lobbying/ar-AAQhoW6?ocid=msedgntp

 

Conservative MPs have voted to tear up parliamentary rules for dealing with MP sleaze after an independent investigation found a former Tory minister guilty of breaching a ban on paid lobbying.

MPs voted by 250 to 232 to set aside the 30-day suspension recommended by an independent investigation into Owen Paterson and instead set up a Conservative-dominated panel to draw up new rules.

Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party all said they will boycott the new committee, which will be chaired by former Tory minister John Whittingdale, who has himself in the past been forced to apologise for a standards breach.

“Today the Tories voted to give a green light to corruption,” said Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner. “Labour will not be taking any part in this sham process or any corrupt committee.

“The prime minister, Conservative ministers and MPs have brought shame on our democracy.”

Boris Johnson was accused of “wallowing in sleaze” after he whipped Tories to back the change, which he defended on the grounds that MPs should have the right to appeal against the standards commissioner’s findings.

The result of the vote was greeted by cries of “shame” from the opposition benches, while former Tory cabinet minister David Gauke wrote on Twitter that it was “a good day not to be a Conservative MP”.

Many of the MPs voting to overhaul the system - including the prime minister himself - have previously been reprimanded by the Commons Standards Committee following inquiries by commissioner Kathryn Stone.

The vote came shortly after ministers refused to amend rules retrospectively to allow a recall petition to give voters a chance to remove former Tory MP Rob Roberts from the Commons after he was found guilty of sexual harassment of staff.

A former chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Sir Alistair Graham, said the vote was “truly shocking” and meant there was now no body overseeing breaches of the MPs’ code of conduct.

“There is a void,” said Sir Alistair. “We must worry about what the electorate will think about the House of Commons behaving in such an inappropriate and partisan way.”

Tom Brake, director of the Unlock Democracy thinktank and an MP for 22 years, said it was “a tragic day for democracy”.

“It is official,” said Mr Brake. “The UK has now achieved banana republic status thanks to a PM who personally gave a nod and a wink to Conservative MPs that egregious breaches of lobbying rules by Conservative MPs will be overlooked.”

The director of the University of Sussex Centre for the Study of Corruption, Professor Elizabeth David-Barrett, described it as “a shocking blow to democracy in the UK, at a moment when the world’s eyes are on us”.

Prof David-Barrett said: “The vote completely undermines the existing standards system, which was an example of international best practice combining self-regulation with independent investigation, and was already carrying out a review through a proper consultative process. And it replaces that with a politicised kangaroo court.”

The general secretary of civil servants’ union the FDA, Dave Penman, denounced what he said was a “vicious and orchestrated campaign of personal attacks” against Ms Stone by MPs opposed to her findings in the Paterson investigation.

And he said: “The reality of today’s vote is that the government has whipped its MPs to exert party political control over the system for regulating the conduct of MPs. This is a retrograde step which risks undermining the public’s confidence in the system for holding MPs to account and dealing a fatal blow to the independent process set up to deal with complaints of bullying and harassment against MPs.” 

Liberal Democrat chief whip Wendy Chamberlain said: “This is a shameful move by Conservative MPs to rewrite the rules to look after one of their own.

“It’s also sheer hypocrisy after ministers claimed they couldn’t change the rules retrospectively to allow Rob Roberts to be voted out by his constituents.”

A new committee of nine MPs, including five Conservatives, will now be set up to consider changes to the procedure for dealing with allegations of standards breaches.

They will be asked to ensure that the system accords with “natural justice” and to decide whether MPs in future cases should be granted the right of representation and appeal and the opportunity to call witnesses in their defence to be questioned in person.

Some 13 Conservative MPs, including former chief whip Mark Harper, defied the three-line whip to vote against the dilution of sleaze rules. And dozens of the 361 Conservative MPs did not vote, in an apparent sign of unease on the Tory benches at Mr Johnson’s decision.

Among those voting in favour of the change was Mr Roberts, currently sitting as an Independent MP.

Theresa May’s former chief of staff, ex-Tory MP Gavin Barwell, said: “This is a terrible decision that will do real damage to reputation of Parliament”

Speaking in the Commons, the chair of the Standards Committee, Labour MP Chris Bryant, denied that Mr Paterson had been treated unfairly in the investigation into his work for private companies Randox and Lynn Country Foods.

Ms Stone’s inquiry found that the former minister breached lobbying rules by approaching ministers and regulators on issues in which the companies had an interest on 14 separate occasions.

And the committee - made up of seven MPs and seven lay members - recommended a 30-day suspension after finding he had committed an “egregious case of paid advocacy” on behalf of firms who paid him three times his parliamentary salary.

Mr Bryant told MPs that the committee effectively provides MPs with a right of appeal when it considers Ms Stone’s reports.

By repeatedly lobbying ministers on behalf of paying clients, Mr Paterson had engaged in a “corrupt practice” and he had “brought the House into disrepute”, said Mr Bryant. His name now risks becoming “a byword for bad behaviour” as a result of today’s vote.

Ms Stone declined to comment on the outcome but confirmed that she intends to see out her remaining term in office until December 2022. And the standards committee will continue to meet and to make reports to the Commons.

[horsefly 4,282]

12 minutes ago, Herman said:

Here they all are. Yep, Shapps and Bacon included.

 

No surprise that fatty Bacon managed to find time to vote for a fellow "snout in the trough" Tory. Rayner was right when she described them as scum.

[Well b back 3,186]

All other parties say they will boycott all talks of reform regards the disciplinary committee, where Tories also found him guilty. As is being mentioned on most news channels, Boris has gambled on people being more interested in other things to realise what has just been voted.

[Herman 9,710]

20 minutes ago, horsefly said:

No surprise that fatty Bacon managed to find time to vote for a fellow "snout in the trough" Tory. Rayner was right when she described them as scum.

I wonder if she'll retract her apology?

[sonyc 5,489]

47 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

I asked you to explain the disconnect between higher public spending and the cuts you are describing but you failed to comment. Instead you muttered something about dysfunctional family relationships. 

You know nothing about me yet claim I need to get out in the community more. I will share a little with you. I haven't spent the past forty years sighing 'woe is the world around me'. I spent my time creating jobs for thousands of people, so that they could take care of their families, make choices about their lives, and contribute to their communities. This week, I have helped two immigrants submit applications for British citizenship. I do more for people than all the hippies in Hebdon Bridge combined.

Fair enough RTB...I only know you for your political leanings on here and therefore my comment about getting out more is me pushing it too far. You've clearly made useful contributions to communities (you are an employer I seem to recall).

Speaking of people living in Hebden Bridge I dare say there are business people there who help a lot. I do actually know two people who live there (one a business enterprise coach and another a psychotherapist) and I reckon they might say they try to help people too. Your characterisation therefore of an entire town seems very influenced by certain media. I therefore think your comment rather ruins your good points you made in the preceding sentence. Other posters on here have also been very dismissive of the Bradford district (usual prejudices).

On your point about spending - yes I get your point completely. Johnson is not called Bertie Booster for no reason i(n some parts of the press...you'll know which). Johnson loves big projects. My point was that this spending (I did say I supported it...twice...and even posted elsewhere about the need for infrastructure spending) is needed because his party had run down areas for so long (and I gave examples of how austerity has hit the north especially and in what kind of areas). I would love to show folk on this forum around some places. It is quite a shock. However, there is inequality everywhere so I'm not suggesting that it is all about the north. I challenged your view that it was left wing because (rightly or wrongly) funding and investment would ordinarily have been provided by a more centrist / left wing government over many years.

My comment about dysfunctional families was my attempt at saying that just because a person suddenly shows someone care and attention now does not excuse decades of being a bast4rd to that person. It was a clunky analogy perhaps but hopefully you'll get the gist. You can put money into communities but it will take a lifetime of sustained support before any real impact is felt. The points I made about support in childcare, schooling, social care, libraries ....all these kinds of things have always been very important to people struggling in communities. They were hammered under Cameron and Osborne. 

Does this explain the "disconnect" between higher spending and cuts satisfactorily? By all means as a government you can try and redress inequality but it needs an ideology to go with that if you really mean it - not one simply trying to buy votes. I have suggested a read of Marmot before and it's a decent read explaining inequality. You may not like reading the conclusions because it is probably seen as  left-ist by those on the right. Yet, his updated report is evidenced by all kinds of metrics, statistics and real-life studies.

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2021 by sonyc

[Yellow Fever 3,739]

So Tory Mps cost £100K each. Gosh they can be bought cheaply.

🐷 oink 🐷 

[Herman 9,710]

 

[Well b back 3,186]

As he seems to like football stories now in his tosh, how about this one

'One rule for them'

But given that Boris Johnson has become fond of football metaphors lately: one of their team was given a serious red card, but rather than follow the decision, they've decided to sack the referee and the player can finish the match.

[sonyc 5,489]

5 minutes ago, Well b back said:

As he seems to like football stories now in his tosh, how about this one

'One rule for them'

But given that Boris Johnson has become fond of football metaphors lately: one of their team was given a serious red card, but rather than follow the decision, they've decided to sack the referee and the player can finish the match.

You'll enjoy this brief article WBB...it's amusing about his football metaphors but cutting and dry too.

I enjoyed your "sack the referee" reference too.

I think 'sleaze' is back.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/02/whether-were-5-2-or-5-3-down-its-all-about-the-optics-at-cop26?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

43 minutes ago, Well b back said:

As he seems to like football stories now in his tosh, how about this one

'One rule for them'

But given that Boris Johnson has become fond of football metaphors lately: one of their team was given a serious red card, but rather than follow the decision, they've decided to sack the referee and the player can finish the match.

I prefer

"You don't know what you're doing"

[dj11 377]

This is an astonishing new low for the Tories. It is absolutely beyond me how anyone with an insight of what is going, could vote for them. They resemble looters dragging televisions out of shops during riots. 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

5 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Anyone who keeps voting for a Johnson-led Tory party will be complicit in this continuing corruption of British politics.

It’s some trick. Under Johnson the UK has become a banana republic that doesn’t grow bananas and doesn’t have them for sale in the shops.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

28 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

It’s some trick. Under Johnson the UK has become a banana republic that doesn’t grow bananas and doesn’t have them for sale in the shops.

Because the EU has kept all the curved ones😉

[sonyc 5,489]

39 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

It’s some trick. Under Johnson the UK has become a banana republic that doesn’t grow bananas and doesn’t have them for sale in the shops.

Haha....saw this little cartoon earlier too. 

On a serious note, there is talk that Johnson wants to trash the whole basis of the committee to protect himself at some stage in the future...when his own behaviour(s) and rule breaking emerge (at such times when there is a more searching light)

[horsefly 4,282]

Tories do their best to trash what remains of their reputation

Who would have guessed? The debate on Andrea Leadsom’s amendment to set up another committee, top heavy with Tories and chaired by the inadvertently dominatrix-friendly John Whittingdale, to determine whether the committee on standards had reached the right verdict on Owen Paterson had nothing to do with many of Paterson’s friends believing the committee on standards had come to the wrong one.

It was a far, far nobler thing they were doing. All the Conservatives wanted was to improve the right of appeal for Conservative MPs found in breach of parliamentary standards. That it was taking place on the very day the Commons was supposed to be voting to impose a 30-day suspension on Paterson – something that would ordinarily have gone through on the nod – was entirely coincidental.

At least that was roughly the explanation offered by Boris Johnson to Angela Rayner at prime minister’s questions.

The thing about Owen was that he seemed spectacularly dim. Off the scale dim. So stupid that he thought Randox and Lynn’s Country Foods were paying him more than 9k a month for his brilliance. And because they quite liked him. Certainly not to seek any commercial advantage from paid advocacy. So dim also, that it had never occurred to him that he might be able to get up in parliament or go to the media to blow the whistle on concerns of contaminated milks and dodgy meat, rather than have a quick word in a minister’s ear.

Especially when he was offering Randox and Lynn’s as solutions to these problems. So dim that he was found to have breached the rules at least 14 times and still couldn’t see what he had done wrong after the parliamentary commissioner on standards had repeatedly pointed it out to him.

This was also roughly the same argument that Jacob Rees-Mogg used to open the 90-minute debate as he chose to talk about the amendment as a fait accompli even before Leadsom had introduced it.

He wasn’t there to judge whether Paterson had breached the rules or not. That was not within his remit. All he was asking for was that another committee might be formed that would come to a different conclusion and let Owen off. One that would make allowances for particularly thick MPs who were seemingly unable to grasp the consequences of their actions.

Predictably there were many interventions from opposition MPs, including Jess Phillips, Angela Eagle, Caroline Lucas and Margaret Hodge, all of whom were at pains to point out the obvious.

The whole thing stank. This was as clear an example of Tory sleaze as you could hope for. The government hadn’t got the result it had wanted from the investigation so it was going to set up another body who would come up with the correct one. One rule for MPs, one for the rest of the country. No wonder people’s trust in politicians was so low.

Rees-Mogg was horrified that anyone could believe this of him. The whole point of making this debate a party political issue was precisely because it wasn’t.

Labour were bound to vote against the amendment because they believed in the old-fashioned, tribal values of natural justice so it was important that the Tories changed the rules and Boris Johnson called a three-line whip to get his man off. And it was some kind of remainer plot as all the Tories who had been busted by the commissioner were leavers. Or something. It’s often hard to follow his train of thought as it isn’t always clear there is one.

Labour’s shadow leader of the Commons, Thangam Debbonaire, kept it short and sweet, pointing out that the Tories had never expressed any doubt about the probity of the system before.

Indeed they had gone out of their way to insist that sex-pest Tory MP Rob Roberts couldn’t be subject to a recall petition as it would be completely wrong to change the rules retrospectively. But now apparently it was OK. Go figure.

Much of the rest of the debate passed for surreal performance art. A government doing its best to trash what remained of it and parliament’s reputation, while daring the public not to notice.

We even got Leadsom claiming her new committee was politically balanced as it had more Tories on it than opposition MPs. The SNP said it wouldn’t be taking up its one token seat and Labour later followed suit.

So who is going to end up on the committee is a mystery.

Presumably Mark Francois, Craig Mackinlay and the four other Tory MPs whose suspensions had been recommended by the commissioner and had signed Leadsom’s amendment were free?

Not all Tories look quite so enthused about the standards coup. Peter Bottomley said he couldn’t vote for it and Aaron Bell said it would be moving the goalposts – it would make a change for Paterson from the badgers moving them.

Steve Baker offered the unusual insight that the new committee could make things worse for Paterson.

Chris Bryant, chair of the standards committee, wound things up. More in sorrow than in anger. The process had been absolutely transparent. It had moved at Paterson’s pace. His witnesses had been heard. And he’d had right of reply at various stages along the way. It was calm, forensic and devastating.

Paterson, who had been sitting wordlessly on the Conservative benches throughout, looked as if the penny had finally dropped – and he had begun to question his innocence.

Though not enough to vote against himself. Which was just as well as the government only won its three-line whip by 18 votes. There were a few Tories that had voted against the amendment and more that had abstained. And most of those who had voted for it had done so knowing they had sold what remained of their souls.

Just when you think the government can’t get much worse, it finds new ways to surprise you. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tories-do-their-best-to-trash-what-remains-of-their-reputation/ar-AAQi0uU?ocid=msedgntp

[horsefly 4,282]

Worth reading:

https://alastaircampbell.org/2021/10/johnson-not-a-joke-nor-a-joker-definitely-not-trivial-but-a-sado-populist-threat-to-liberal-democracy/

[Van wink 2,994]

Kwarteng’s attempt to defend the indefensible on the Today program was feeble, quite simply because it’s indefensible. 
I don’t know enough about the process involved to determine if it needs reform, but whatever the merits of review ( if indeed there are any ) it should not be done retrospectively. 

Edited November 4, 2021 by Van wink

[Yellow Fever 3,739]

A strong smell of corrupting sewage coming from Johnson's government. What will it be next a plague of flies like something out of the Omen?

I suggest we call in pest control asap. It's a big job.

Perhaps sensible MPs in the commons have to wear mask not only because of Covid but because of the smell.

Edited November 4, 2021 by Yellow Fever

[horsefly 4,282]

28 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Kwarteng’s attempt to defend the indefensible on the Today program was feeble, quite simply because it’s indefensible. 
I don’t know enough about the process involved to determine if it needs reform, but whatever the merits of review ( if indeed there are any ) it should not be done retrospectively. 

Indeed! Worth comparing it to the interview with Tobias Elwood shortly afterwards, who admitted this was a shameful day for the Tories. Did anyone else also notice that Kwateng, having claimed that yesterday's three-line whip had nothing to do with letting Patterson off the hook, then went on to call for Stone to "consider her position" on the grounds that parliament had overturned her specific decision regarding Patterson.

Mr Kwarteng said: “It’s up to her to do that. I mean, it’s up to anyone where they’ve made a judgment and people have sought to change that, to consider their position, that’s a natural thing" (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/cabinet-minister-suggests-commissioner-should-quit-as-paterson-anger-grows/ar-AAQjb9z?ocid=msedgntp)

Utter, shameless, naked hypocrisy and corruption.

Edited November 4, 2021 by horsefly

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

What is all this bull about an appeal? He was questioned by his peers and independents. Why an appeal? We aren't talking about murder.

[Barbe bleu 812]

58 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Kwarteng’s attempt to defend the indefensible on the Today program was feeble, quite simply because it’s indefensible. 
I don’t know enough about the process involved to determine if it needs reform, but whatever the merits of review ( if indeed there are any ) it should not be done retrospectively. 

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)

Edited November 4, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[horsefly 4,282]

Watch the video

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ex-minister-defends-lobbying-for-cash/vi-AAQivjU?ocid=msedgntp

[horsefly 4,282]

7 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

My concern therefore is not with last night's vote, but for the one that is to come.

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 £500,000 over the last five years. The parliamentary standards committee comprised of all parties and independent lay-persons were unanimous in support of committee's conclusions. Patterson had ample opportunity to raise the issues he claims to have been concerned about in open parliament and through multiple public forums (the media etc); instead he chose to meet ministers in private and promote the companies he was being paid by as providers of solutions to the "problems" he claimed to be affecting milk and meat. There couldn't be a more cut and dried case of explicitly forbidden lobbying by an MP.

The government enforced a three-line whip to prevent the suspension of Patterson contra the PSC's recommendation. If the government are genuinely concerned that the PSC's rules need reforming they could have presented that case to parliament WITHOUT enforcing a three-line whip to let Patterson off the hook. There couldn't be a clearer case of government corruption than last night's vote.

I absolutely agree with you that we should be deeply concerned with what is to come (particularly given Johnson's utter disregard for standards and ethics in public life). But I respectfully suggest you needn't forgo concern and outrage at what happened yesterday either.

[sonyc 5,489]

35 minutes 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)

https://www.businessinsider.com/22-tory-mps-probed-parliament-watchdog-vote-to-overhaul-it-2021-11

A bit more context for you BB

Quite a lot going on we ought to know more about.

Horsefly posted an article about sado-populism but you'd probably have to agree that there are many facets of our current government that smell of fascism. 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.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2021 by sonyc

[horsefly 4,282]

Even Johnson's place man as chair of  the committee on standards in public life is disgusted by yesterday's assault on democracy.

Owen Paterson vote ‘very serious and damaging moment’ for politics, warns sleaze watchdog chief

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/owen-paterson-vote-very-serious-and-damaging-moment-for-politics-warns-sleaze-watchdog-chief/ar-AAQiXOO?ocid=msedgntp

Lords Evans, a former head of Mi5 and chair of the committee on standards in public life — an independent body which advises the prime minister — hit out at the proposal to create a Tory-dominated committee to investigate sleaze.

“This extraordinary proposal is deeply at odds with the best traditions with the best traditions of British democracy,” he said during a keynote speech at the Institute for Government (IfG).

“In my view yesterday’s vote was a very serious and damaging moment for parliament and for public standards in this country,” he said.

“It cannot be right that MPs should reject after one short debate the conclusions of the independent commissioner for standards and the House of Commons committee on standards — conclusions from an investigation last two years.

“It cannot be right to propose an overhaul of the entire regulatory system in order to postpone or prevent sanctions in a very serious case of paid lobbying by an MP.

He went on: “It cannot be right this was accompanied by repeated attempts to question the integrity for commissioner on standards herself. It cannot be right to propose that the standards system in the House of Commons should be reviewed a select committee chaired by a member of the ruling party and a majority of members of that same party.

“The seven principles of public life that all governments have espoused for over 25 years require that ministers and MPs should show leadership in upholding ethical standards in public life. I find it hard to see how yesterday’s actions in any way meet that test.