Owen Paterson: Anger as Tory MP avoids suspension in rule shake-up

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

snippety snip snip…

He has to do something wrong, not simply have a label thrown at him every time he takes action the opposition doesn't like.’


This is just another opportunist swipe at the PM.

The best leaders lead by example - here’s Johnson today at a hospital…







Here are the Northumbria Hospitals guidelines for visitors.

[daveeb]

I think his level of self entitlement and importance allows him to go mask free even in a hospital environment. Also the amount of hot air he exudes would be more than his chubby face could cope with if the air flow was restricted with a face covering.

Interesting comment (imho) on LBC Radio today

If you're being paid £200,000 or £300,000 as a lobbyist and you're getting £80,000 as an MP, then it's being an MP which is the second job.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Russ

No problem, I’m happy to wait. But you did ask.


Oh my apologies. How about proroguing parliament? Lying to the Queen? Lying to us that there would be no checks on good between GB and Ireland? Saying black people had “watermelon smiles”? Referring to his quarter-of-a-million pound salary as “chicken feed”? Lying to the press about how many EU people had applied for HGV licences? Lying about how many new hospitals would be built? Lying about how many new nurses we’d have?

Will they do you? Or would you like to add further perimeters to allow you more room to wriggle?

Again, nothing to do with this thread and I am not assisting you to go off topic and receive the ire of the mods.

Why don’t you give me a link to prove the assertion that the Conservatives were trying to let Paterson off the hook? The right of appeal would only let him off if the investigation was not properly carried out as he alleged.

I am very clear that an appeal would not have let him off the hook, unless there’s some evidence to the contrary of which I am unaware.

---------- Post added at 19:45 ---------- Previous post was at 19:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

The best leaders lead by example - here’s Johnson today at a hospital…







Here are the Northumbria Hospitals guidelines for visitors.

More deflection. This is the Owen Paterson thread.

---------- Post added at 19:57 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Owen resigned in disgrace. The case is closed. The only question is the diminishing credibility of the Government after it’s hapless attempt at getting him off the hook. And whether hapless Starmer can make any inroads.

I suppose now at what point would you find the Government failing in any way, shape or form is a side question. But I suspect the rest of us know the answer.

How can the matter be closed when the Opposition keep droning on and hyperventilating about it?

The correct course of action now should be to review the procedures with a view to establishing a right of appeal, which is what the government wanted all along. The delay to Paterson’s suspension while that was being considered was not an unreasonable suggestion.

All credit to the government for saying it was wrong to conflate the two issues, but I have to say that given the faults in the investigation that Paterson pointed out, an appeals process would have looked into whether or not that was an appropriate argument.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Again, nothing to do with this thread and I am not assisting you to go off topic and receive the ire of the mods.

Why don’t you give me a link to prove the assertion that the Conservatives were trying to let Paterson off the hook? The right of appeal would only let him off if the investigation was not properly carried out as he alleged.

I am very clear that an appeal would not have let him off the hook, unless there’s some evidence to the contrary of which I am unaware.

---------- Post added at 19:45 ---------- Previous post was at 19:44 ----------


More deflection. This is the Owen Paterson thread.

---------- Post added at 19:57 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------



How can the matter be closed when the Opposition keep droning on and hyperventilating about it?

The correct course of action now should be to review the procedures with a view to establishing a right of appeal, which is what the government wanted all along. The delay to Paterson’s suspension while that was being considered was not an unreasonable suggestion.

All credit to the government for saying it was wrong to conflate the two issues, but I have to say that given the faults in the investigation that Paterson pointed out, an appeals process would have looked into whether or not that was an appropriate argument.

My post was in reply to your comment about Boris

He has to do something wrong, not simply have a label thrown at him every time he takes action the opposition doesn't like.’


This is just another opportunist swipe at the PM.

It would appear it’s OK for you to defend Johnson on this thread, but if anyone questions your defence, it’s "deflection"….

The thread is about someone not following the rules - I highlighted that Johnson was also not following the rules (albeit different rules), so your proposition that it is off-topic is incorrect.

Strange that you give credit to the Government for saying it got it wrong, but no criticism for the fact it got it wrong…

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

My post was in reply to your comment about Boris



It would appear it’s OK for you to defend Johnson on this thread, but if anyone questions your defence, it’s "deflection"….

The thread is about someone not following the rules - I highlighted that Johnson was also not following the rules (albeit different rules), so your proposition that it is off-topic is incorrect.

Strange that you give credit to the Government for saying it got it wrong, but no criticism for the fact it got it wrong…

I suggest you take another look at the title of this thread. It is specifically about the Paterson case. So the deflections I have been referring to certainly are off-topic.

I am giving credit to the government for being conciliatory about this but I don’t accept they did anything wrong. They did what they did for the best of reasons and to see justice done and failed. But they did not attempt to ‘let him off the hook’ as far as I can see. Delay the suspension until an appeals mechanism was established, yes, but there is nothing to suggest that an appeal would come to a different conclusion. This was just about a fair system of justice, and it was right to suggest that Paterson was given this right of appeal given the particular issues he raised.

[1andrew1]

The pantomime season has started early this year in Berkshire, I see.

Q. What does Boris Johnson have to do for you to not regard his actions as an “hysterical overreaction”?
OB. Something wrong
Q. Forum members contribute some suggested wrongs including lying to the Queen.
OB. More deflection, this is the Owen Paterson thread.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I suggest you take another look at the title of this thread. It is specifically about the Paterson case. So the deflections I have been referring to certainly are off-topic.

I am giving credit to the government for being conciliatory about this but I don’t accept they did anything wrong. They did what they did for the best of reasons and to see justice done and failed. But they did not attempt to ‘let him off the hook’ as far as I can see. Delay the suspension until an appeals mechanism was established, yes, but there is nothing to suggest that an appeal would come to a different conclusion. This was just about a fair system of justice, and it was right to suggest that Paterson was given this right of appeal given the particular issues he raised.

Well, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office speaking at the Dispatch Box in the HoC today disagrees with you…

Mr Barclay told MPs: "I would like first and foremost to express my regret, and that of my ministerial colleagues, over the mistake made last week."
He said there had been concerns about the investigations system but said that had been "conflated" with Mr Paterson's case.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59213255

---------- Post added at 22:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:11 ----------

Good article about this in today’s Times, from a Conservative MP.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...site-lzct55zd5

Yesterday’s vote was different. As MPs we are elected by our 650 constituencies to defend their liberties. As members of parliament we enjoy privileges so that we can challenge the institutions of government on their behalf.

In return for those privileges we are expected to abide by the code of conduct and ensure that we register all our outside interests with the Parliamentary Commissioner who has the authority to investigate breaches of the code.

This isn’t a judicial process or a matter of law. It is a system of self regulation. The Parliamentary Commissioner will refer matters in the first instance to the committee on standards who will make a recommendation which is then considered by the whole house.

This process is enshrined in the code of conduct and in standing orders of the house. We are expected to abide by it in both our behaviour and in how we judge the behaviour of our fellow MPs

The principle is that judgment is exercised by the member’s peers, not by government. It is the job of the house to judge whether a breach has occurred as described by the commissioner and to resolve an appropriate penalty or otherwise. It is based on the principle that we are all honourable members and we all have an interest in maintaining the respect for parliament.

Such “house business” has traditionally been unwhipped. Whipping should be only for the management of government business. It reflects badly that it was used in this context, however well intentioned and whatever the party considers its duty of care.

It is entirely understandable that colleagues did not wish to vote for the penalties that were proposed for Owen Paterson. There is every sympathy for him. Sympathy I share. But I also respect the judgment of my colleagues on the standards committee who concurred that there was clear evidence that the ban on paid advocacy had been breached.

The vote totally undermined the deliberations of a committee of the house appointed for the purpose. That is totally regrettable and unfair on the colleagues who acted in good faith.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Again, nothing to do with this thread and I am not assisting you to go off topic and receive the ire of the mods.

Why don’t you give me a link to prove the assertion that the Conservatives were trying to let Paterson off the hook? The right of appeal would only let him off if the investigation was not properly carried out as he alleged.

I am very clear that an appeal would not have let him off the hook, unless there’s some evidence to the contrary of which I am unaware.

---------- Post added at 19:45 ---------- Previous post was at 19:44 ----------


More deflection. This is the Owen Paterson thread.

---------- Post added at 19:57 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------



How can the matter be closed when the Opposition keep droning on and hyperventilating about it?

The correct course of action now should be to review the procedures with a view to establishing a right of appeal, which is what the government wanted all along. The delay to Paterson’s suspension while that was being considered was not an unreasonable suggestion.

All credit to the government for saying it was wrong to conflate the two issues, but I have to say that given the faults in the investigation that Paterson pointed out, an appeals process would have looked into whether or not that was an appropriate argument.

You will note OB that I said his guilt was “case closed” with his resignation.

If the opposition want to make political capital out of corruption - and indeed a Government led bid to get him off the hook they are free to do so.

The Government deserves no credit whatsoever for belatedly recognising what is obvious to all members of this thread except seemingly one.

The correct course of action is to acknowledge that due process - as established by our great sovereign Parliament - was followed. A guilty man has resigned. A grubby cover-up was torpedoed and backbenchers are furious with Number 10 for being co-opted into it.

You are so far out on your own on this one it’s simply preposterous.

There is little further to add.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I suggest you take another look at the title of this thread. It is specifically about the Paterson case. So the deflections I have been referring to certainly are off-topic.

I am giving credit to the government for being conciliatory about this but I don’t accept they did anything wrong. They did what they did for the best of reasons and to see justice done and failed. But they did not attempt to ‘let him off the hook’ as far as I can see. Delay the suspension until an appeals mechanism was established, yes, but there is nothing to suggest that an appeal would come to a different conclusion. This was just about a fair system of justice, and it was right to suggest that Paterson was given this right of appeal given the particular issues he raised.

Even if the government’s motives were 100% honourable and unimpeachable in any way*, the execution was so horribly inept that Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition would be close to committing treason if they didn’t put both boots in, repeatedly, for at least a week.

Government is a political process and the politics at play here have been inept. I mean, Sid of the Sunday League type inept. This was a failure of judgment on such an astronomical scale, Dr Brian Cox was already scripting the 3-part landmark series, until he got into a bidding war with Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson because the government’s screeching u-turn was so spectacular he wants to incorporate it in his next film.

I’ll admit, it was so eye-watering that at first I had a hard time believing it could have been signed off at the top. But the jig is up. The high heid yins of the British cabinet actually thought this was a good idea. And that’s why a great many Tory MPs won’t even defend what you seem to think was a minor scrape that ended in lashings of ginger beer in the rose garden with no real harm done.

You really need to learn to read the room.



*they aren’t.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The pantomime season has started early this year in Berkshire, I see.

Q. What does Boris Johnson have to do for you to not regard his actions as an “hysterical overreaction”?
OB. Something wrong
Q. Forum members contribute some suggested wrongs including lying to the Queen.
OB. More deflection, this is the Owen Paterson thread.

you know OB will never ever admit tories doing anything wrong and never ever take off them tory rose tinted glasses imagine if it was another party that did what Paterson did he would change his tune straight away

[Russ]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Again, nothing to do with this thread and I am not assisting you to go off topic and receive the ire of the mods.

Well... you did bring up the subject of asking what he's done wrong. And when you were answered you covered your eyes by calling it "deflection".

But don't worry! The very next time you bring up anything positive about Bumbling Boris I'll be there to repeat the exact same questions, giving you enough time to formulate some answers.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Dave42

you know OB will never ever admit tories doing anything wrong and never ever take off them tory rose tinted glasses imagine if it was another party that did what Paterson did he would change his tune straight away

I'm not sure that OB is a member of the Conservative Party - at least based his profile photo, I don't recall him being at any of the constituency events.

Whether or not I am right about OB, I am a member of the party and can't stand Boris nor his governmental style. Not much I can do about it until the Parliamentary lot get their act together and oust that buffoon.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'm not sure that OB is a member of the Conservative Party - at least based his profile photo, I don't recall him being at any of the constituency events.

Whether or not I am right about OB, I am a member of the party and can't stand Boris nor his governmental style. Not much I can do about it until the Parliamentary lot get their act together and oust that buffoon.

There have been many people like Old Boy were wearing rose-tinted spectacles until very recently. Johnson won a great majority, "got Brexit done" and surely a few misdemeanors could be overlooked? After all, everyone knew Johnson had history. Scandal about who was paying for Downing Street's refurbishment? He's a bit of a rascal but he's our rascal. U-turns on free school dinners, exam grades, National Insurance hikes. No problem, still ahead in the polls. Scandal about a free holiday or two? Labour can't do anything, it's just Boris.

But trying to retrospectively rewrite the governance of Parliament and to whip MPs into voting for it has crossed the line for many traditional Conservative voters. They didn't vote to turn the UK into a banana republic.
And worsened by not turning up for yesterday's debate which reinforces negative perceptions. This shows he's either being poorly advised or ignoring good advice. Neither is good.

I'm sure Old Boy will come round to your way of thinking in due course, Seph.

[TheDaddy]

Looks like another headache on the horizon for bozo if Windsor MP Adam Afriyie is forced to step down due to a possible bankruptcy restriction order over unpaid taxes