[Misc] Owen Patterson M.P.

[portlock seagull]

1. Most voters don't like admitting or being told that they are / were wrong.

2. Most voters don't keep up to date with current affairs and so will be ignorant of this Owen Paterson story, effluent in our water supply, the fact that Boris fell asleep unmasked next to 95 year-old Sir David Attenborough etc.

3. The political Left are disunited and fragmented.

4. There is a right-wing media machine that deliberately distorts the facts.

So for things to change people need to be more humble, more questioning, stop buying into tabloid rubbish, while Labour / Lib Dem / Green need to get their Progressive Alliance shit together.

It is plain we need to change so many things about the way we live and yet our governing party seems intent on living in the past. The clue is in the name - Conservative.

Superb post, but there is also an alternative to the Rable Alliance you refer to

 

[nwgull]

What perplexes me is that this bloke is a no-one as far as the government and conservatives are concerned. Worst-case scenario, he gets suspended and it results in a by-election, which they’d almost certainly win, but if they didn’t they’d still have a 78 seat majority. Regardless of how some people will always support the tories, this will cause them some political damage and future votes, so why not just let this go through the due process? Are they trying to cover their arses for future corruption charges that might come out of the Covid inquiries or other stuff?

 

[clapham_gull]

Are they trying to cover their arses for future corruption charges that might come out of the Covid inquiries or other stuff?

There is clearly an agenda and I usually have no time conspiracy theories. Why won't they complaining before ?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

What perplexes me is that this bloke is a no-one as far as the government and conservatives are concerned. Worst-case scenario, he gets suspended and it results in a by-election, which they’d almost certainly win, but if they didn’t they’d still have a 78 seat majority. Regardless of how some people will always support the tories, this will cause them some political damage and future votes, so why not just let this go through the due process? Are they trying to cover their arses for future corruption charges that might come out of the Covid inquiries or other stuff?

His punishment was a 30 day suspension not losing his seat, so there wouldn’t need to be a by-election.

 

[clapham_gull]

His punishment was a 30 day suspension not losing his seat, so there wouldn’t need to be a by-election.

In which case (I think) it allows the constituency to kick him out, in which case there would be. But even if they lost the seat it makes almost zero material effect.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Yep and what the **** are the Government doing getting involved with a free line whip.

If the committee needs reform it's a matter for Parliament, not the Executive and at worse being lead by the PM.

Stinks to high heaven.

Just to clarify, No:10 made this issue a three-line whip - eg. A strict instruction to attend and vote according to the party’s position.

 

[portlock seagull]

What perplexes me is that this bloke is a no-one as far as the government and conservatives are concerned. Worst-case scenario, he gets suspended and it results in a by-election, which they’d almost certainly win, but if they didn’t they’d still have a 78 seat majority. Regardless of how some people will always support the tories, this will cause them some political damage and future votes, so why not just let this go through the due process? Are they trying to cover their arses for future corruption charges that might come out of the Covid inquiries or other stuff?

Former cabinet minister isn’t a no-one, albeit a high percentage of the population cannot name their own MP never mind anyone beyond “Boris”.

Depressing as you state that some will always vote for the same party no matter what. Dismantling the system that holds them to account is kinda a move the Nazis would be proud of, this scandal isn’t something the British public should let lis and we need our free press to fan the flames of outrage as yet another hard won piece of our democracy is destroyed by this government. Getting writing to your MP and certainly don’t vote for them next time if they voted for.

 

[Hugo Rune]

What perplexes me is that this bloke is a no-one as far as the government and conservatives are concerned.

Nothing to do with this clearly corrupt ‘bloke’.

The standards committee has an active investigation concerning the **** PM. This committee needed to be cancelled.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

Nothing to do with this clearly corrupt ‘bloke’.

The standards committee has an active investigation concerning the **** PM. This committee needed to be cancelled.

Yes, just seem that myself, there is a possibility that Johnson saw what was coming down the road and got Leadsom to take the lead in getting rid of it.
By the way hat's off to Peter Bottomley, so there are still a few decent old school Tories around, he abstained on the compassion vote and then voted against the government because "it is just plain wrong
Johnson now needs to be grilled on this matter.

 

[nwgull]

Former cabinet minister isn’t a no-one, albeit a high percentage of the population cannot name their own MP never mind anyone beyond “Boris”.

Depressing as you state that some will always vote for the same party no matter what. Dismantling the system that holds them to account is kinda a move the Nazis would be proud of, this scandal isn’t something the British public should let lis and we need our free press to fan the flames of outrage as yet another hard won piece of our democracy is destroyed by this government. Getting writing to your MP and certainly don’t vote for them next time if they voted for.

Fair enough. However he’s a no-one as far as the current government is concerned and not someone that would’ve been missed if he’d been subject to a constituency recall and subsequent by-election, so point still stands that he alone is not worth the bad PR.

 

[clapham_gull]

Nothing to do with this clearly corrupt ‘bloke’.

The standards committee has an active investigation concerning the **** PM. This committee needed to be cancelled.

Well to be fair this MP clearly isn't "corrupt". In terms of food safety he appears to be bang on and the companies involved also. The second company I am well aware of, pioneering nitrate free meat products. I'm glad they are getting support in Parliament, particularly against their competitors who appear to be making claims about their own products that just aren't true.

However, by lobbying for them whilst being paid royally it was:

1) Clearly to their competitive benefit.
2) Justifies his large salary and was clearly a benefit to him.

To an extent I can understand his frustrations but he knew the rules and broke them many many times. He's said he will do the same in the future. End of story.

But, there is clearly an ideological agenda and the current regime have pounced on this (without giving two ****s about the actual case) to lessen the Power of Parliament because they think they can get away with it.

If this wasn't the case, they would have thrown him under a bus and disowned him. There is a truth to their defence that they want the committee reformed and after an appeal he is found guilty they will support it.

Of course they will, but it isn't about him. This isn't about looking after their own, it's about looking after themselves.

 

[clapham_gull]

He could have just taken this on the chin. Admitted a technical breach of the rules early, gone public and used the opportunity to highlight the levels of antibiotics in milk and nitrates in food products.

But he chose not to and it's quite clear why he didn't. Every cloud has a silver lining after all...

But the stench is not about what he did. Others have done much worse including those on the other benches.

It's about the Government highjacking the case to throw property scrutiny in the bin.

 

[jimhigham]

My MP has posted this on facebook:

*** Owen Patterson MP - votes today ***
There have been a handful of messages regarding why I didn't vote to suspend Owen Patterson today, but instead voted to allow an appeals process to take place first.
I understand that some people want to turn this into a party political issue, I don't think it is and am glad that 30 or so Labour MPs abstained today.
If, after that appeals process takes place, Mr Patterson is found to have broken the rules, I will vote to suspend him with all the consequences that will have (see below).
I am happy to explain the reasons for my decision:
1.) Mr Patterson has been investigated for 2 years, during which period his wife of 40 years killed herself. It has been suggested by many who knew her, including their children, that this was in part due to the pressure of this long, drawn out investigation. While I have immense sympathy on a personal level for Mr Patterson in this regard, this could be considered irrelevant but I think it is important to understand the personal context too.
2.) I've stood up for many employees, including working with Trades Unions when people have come to me and said that they have been unfairly dismissed from their jobs or have not had fair working conditions. Some have subsequently won at employment tribunal, some not.
In this case it is acknowledged by the Standards Commissioner that she did not interview all of the witnesses who came forward. David Davis MP (who resigned his seat in Parliament to prevent the then Labour Government's plans for 90 days detention without charge or trial in the late 2000s) has written about the case here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../DAVID-DAVIS-Owen-Paterson...
3.) At the moment their is no 'appeals process' for Mr Patterson, despite his circumstances. Today, I voted to create one. That is what the votes today were about. Do you want to create an ability for people to appeals or not? I voted to create one.
4.) If after this appeal, Mr Patterson is found to have breached the rules, I will certainly vote to suspend him.
5.) Any MP suspended for more than 10 days faces a 'Recall Petition' - which means that their constituents can then have a by-election if they choose to. That’s why a 30 day suspension is so serious, is basically means and MP loses their seat not at the decision or the electorate but essentially at the decision of an unelected commissioner without an appeals process.
I want that process to be a review of the decision by a high court judge or similar.
Q & A
Q1.) Why didn't you vote to suspend Mr Patterson?
A1.) See above. But in truth, I didn't vote not to suspend Mr Patterson either. I voted for him to be able to appeal. If that appeal comes back to suspend him, them I'll vote to suspend him.
Q2.) Other MPs in your party and in other parties took a different view, why did you vote to allow an appeals process?
A2.) Reasonable people are allowed have different views on this without making them evil/corrupt/malevolent, etc and I respect people coming to a different conclusion. Is suspect some didn't fancy having to write an explainer on their Facebook page of why they did what they did. In fact 30 Labour MPs abstained from voting too - so I don't view this as party political, more in the interests of natural justice.
I hope this is clear. I expect some people will agree with my decision, many won't, which is fair enough. But I thought you as my constituents deserve to know my thoughts.
Best wishes,
Richard Holden MP

Wretched, mealy mouthed response. Chris Bryant effectively debunked this, more or less point by point, in parliament during yesterday’s debate. I would urge anybody interested in this to take 10 minutes to watch his speech, which is linked below.

As if the entire episode wasn’t unsavoury enough, the apparent attempt to “rebrand” his wife’s suicide after no mention had been made of the investigation at the time of the inquest makes me shudder. As Bryant points out, the enquiry into Paterson’s conduct was initially suspended because of Covid. Every delay thereafter was at his request. Having stalled the proceedings repeatedly, Paterson then sought to portray the length of the enquiry as being unfair.

The mendacity of all of this astonishes and disgusts me. I shall be writing to my MP (who voted for the amendment of course) in much more detail than above and inviting his response. However, I can almost guarantee that any reply will be a variant on the “lines to take” package issued by Richard Holden (above).

https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1455928741067214853

 

[Thunder Bolt]

In which case (I think) it allows the constituency to kick him out, in which case there would be. But even if they lost the seat it makes almost zero material effect.

A recall needs 10,000 signatures from his constituents, and he’s in a safe Tory seat.

My opinion is the government wanted rid of this Standards committee because there is far worse going on, which they want to hide. Why is Johnson still refusing to publish the Russian report?

 

[scamander]

A couple of points (apologies if these have been mentioned already).
1. Boris has seriously miscalculated this. He thought it would be a 'Westminster bubble' thing. It's been trending on social media and seems to have gained a lot of traction.

2. Why did Boris do this? One opinion I have heard is that, ironically, it has little to do with the MP in question and more about the concern about what is coming down the line in regards to the contracts handed out during the Covid response. They've neutered Parliament from netting bigger fish.

 

[franks brother]

yesterday wasn't about Paterson at all.
The truth is, Johnson wants to destroy the standards committees infrastructure before his own dodgy expenses & sleazy behaviour are examined.

.

 

[sparkie]

A couple of points (apologies if these have been mentioned already).
1. Boris has seriously miscalculated this. He thought it would be a 'Westminster bubble' thing. It's been trending on social media and seems to have gained a lot of traction.

2. Why did Boris do this? One opinion I have heard is that, ironically, it has little to do with the MP in question and more about the concern about what is coming down the line in regards to the contracts handed out during the Covid response. They've neutered Parliament from netting bigger fish.

2. Billy Bunter doesn't care about other MPs. It is all about potential investigations into him.

 

[Springal]

yesterday wasn't about Paterson at all.
The truth is, Johnson wants to destroy the standards committees infrastructure before his own dodgy expenses & sleazy behaviour are examined.

.

Agreed. Even Cummings has pretty much said the same thing

 

[Thunder Bolt]

For those who live in constituencies with Tory MPs, remind them of this.

 

[nicko31]

yesterday wasn't about Paterson at all.
The truth is, Johnson wants to destroy the standards committees infrastructure before his own dodgy expenses & sleazy behaviour are examined.

.

The truth was destroyed in 2016, its a long way back now. They got away with that, got an 80 seat majority on the back of it, the public are easy meat

We're seeing widespread abuse of power, this incident is nothing new. The press and the judiciary are in the governments sight....

We'll be a non-EU Hungary soon...