Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Protecting Patterson – the Tory gift to the Opposition – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 3 in General
Protecting Patterson – the Tory gift to the Opposition – politicalbetting.com

NEW: The Leadsom amendment on the Owen Paterson case has been published. This means Tory MPs will line up tomorrow to block the suspension of one of their own over 'egregious' breaches of Commons rules. 59 have signed it and the Tel reports Tory whips have told MPs to back it pic.twitter.com/gKWhm6YJSV

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,578
    But @Philip_Thompson says this is OK, so I don't understand what point OGH is making
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743
    edited November 3
    But it's great now as a Tory MP

    You can demand money for writing any letter they want (while pretending to do it in your role as an MP) and nothing will come of that abuse...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,578
    Having it fronted by Leadsom doesn't look great either, she has been largely invisible since 2016 but is vaguely rememebered for lying about banks
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743
    eek said:

    But it's great now as a Tory MP

    You can demand money for writing any letter they want (while pretending to do it in your role as an MP) and nothing will come of that abuse...

    Consequence of that is - when I get a letter regarding something from a Tory MP you can no longer trust the source as being a constituent with a legitimate concern - it's just as likely to be a competitor paying a few quid to make trouble
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    IshmaelZ said:

    But @Philip_Thompson says this is OK, so I don't understand what point OGH is making

    I've said that Paterson has raised serious concerns about the report that should be looked at in an appeal.

    That seems reasonable to me. Others opinions may vary. I don't see the point in going around in circles on this so have nothing more to say on the matter. If his concerns are valid then an appeal should vindicate that, if they're not then an appeal should say so and he should be censured accordingly.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 1,003
    I really don't think this will have very much resonance. Fighting and losing a by-election would surely be worse if there was a recall election in Paterson's seat.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,162
    Blair and Campbell were able to firmly pin sleaze to the incumbent Tory government.

    Will Starmer or Davey be able to do the same?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,406
    I don't know what all the fuss is about. Of course MPs should lobby for their constituents. But surely if someone is paying the MP £500 an hour that must mean their views are really important, and it's only right that MPs should prioritise them.
    Anyway, the whole Tory party is funded on the pay for access model so it must be okay.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    Doesn’t the fact of this process mean he can’t be the subject of a recall petition?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,025
    I see Smarkets has settled Virginia. Not BF yet though.

    Nice pick-up - thanks to @MrEd and @Alistair
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    That's an interesting list of MPs. Notably, it includes Jeremy Hunt.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,578

    Blair and Campbell were able to firmly pin sleaze to the incumbent Tory government.

    Will Starmer or Davey be able to do the same?

    Well, yes. Major made token attempts to distance himself and wait for the outcomes of inquiries, he didn't jump in and tell the whips to nobble the inquiries. Even SKS should be able to ace this one

    No pmq I assume?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,578

    I don't know what all the fuss is about. Of course MPs should lobby for their constituents. But surely if someone is paying the MP £500 an hour that must mean their views are really important, and it's only right that MPs should prioritise them.
    Anyway, the whole Tory party is funded on the pay for access model so it must be okay.

    Fully agree.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,267
    Tories.

    They don't change, do they?

    If anything, they are more blatant than ever.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675

    Tories.

    They don't change, do they?

    If anything, they are more blatant than ever.

    Well, many of us think they're continuity New Labour...
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 1,003

    Doesn’t the fact of this process mean he can’t be the subject of a recall petition?

    I think if he was to be suspended for 30 days he would be liable to a recall petition. Hence this effort to prevent it coming to that, plus sympathy for Paterson, personally.

    Paul Goodman has written an interesting piece on the Paterson imbroglio which explains some of the thinking.

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2021/11/paterson-a-contestable-verdict-an-unfair-sentence-and-skewed-punishment-mps-should-heed-his-appeal.html
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    tlg86 said:

    That's an interesting list of MPs. Notably, it includes Jeremy Hunt.

    That is interesting, and Robert Buckland too.

    Its funny that those who vociferously and regularly criticise Boris and lavish praise upon Hunt as a contrast are now holding this up signed by Hunt as a flaw of Boris's party. Funny that.

    I think Hunt's right personally on this one. Serious allegations have been made and natural justice means there should be a right of an appeal if serious breaches have occurred.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806
    edited November 3
    So, the betting opportunity you've all been waiting for: North Yorkshire Police, Fire & Crime Commissioner by-election!
    https://smarkets.com/event/42448924/politics/uk/local-government/north-yorkshire-police-fire-crime-commissioner
    (£17 traded so far, not by me!)

    The post became vacant when the incumbent, Allot, bowed to the inevitable and resigned after having opened his mouth and confirmed he was a misogynist out of touch fool rather than keeping it shut and preserving an element of doubt.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-58762029
    (The Everard family are in Yorkshire, so it cuts even deeper; her father is a Professor at York)

    This is, largely, donkey in a blue rosette country, so Metcalfe should be a shoo-in. There could possibly be a backlash against the Tories based on Allot, but as long as Metcalfe is not obviously as stupid as her predecessor, she should be ok. Being female, she may at least avoid the stupid mansplaining genes. Metcalfe seems to be a councillor and one time (2015) PPC for Doncaster Central, where she managed to generate a swing towards Labour. She's not obviously a great candidate, but as she's got the blue rosette, that probably does not matter

    Results last time
    Philip Allott, The Conservative Party Candidate 73,657
    James Barker, Liberal Democrats 19,773
    Alison Hume, Alison, Labour and Co-operative Party 40,803
    Keith Tordoff, Independent 22,338

    Runners this time:
    Zoë Metcalfe (Conservative)
    Keith Tordoff (Independent)
    Emma Scott-Spivey (Labour)
    Hannah Barham-Brown (Women's Equality Party)
    James Barker (Liberal Democrat)

    Given no-one gives a shit about the PCC, turnout will be super low and there's the possibility for someone with a good campaign to cause an upset. Tordoff was strong last time, for an independent, and I think he's justified to be second in the betting. I'm not taking the 8.2 or so on offer, but might have a nibble if he goes longer or I get the sense that he's having a good campaign.

    Edit: There were no other elections locally the same day in May, so turnout was those people who cared enough to vote for the PCC. So turnout this time could be similar to last. On that basis, Metcalfe is probably even safer than I thought (I thought there was also a council election the same day and people ticking the same party on the PCC form, but I remembered wrong). So I'd want much longer on Tordoff unless he seems to be setting the world on fire or Metcalfe says/does something as stupid as her predecessor.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 492
    There is a bit of a chicken and egg situation here though. The fact they are doing this at all shows how invincible they feel. They can, essentially, get away with anything. The polls won't budge an inch. Things are different from the 1990s.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 1,003
    This is an interesting article and shows what an enormous challenge is facing Starmer if Brexit continues to resonate with voters in the North and Midlands.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/03/nigel-farages-brexit-party-saved-labour-seats-in-2019-election-analysis-finds

    "But elections experts John Curtice, Stephen Fisher and Patrick English say that by attracting Leave-supporting former Labour voters who might otherwise have backed the Conservatives, Farage may have significantly cut the scale of Labour’s defeat."

    An example given is Hartlepool. Labour held it in 2019 with a big vote going to the Brexit Party, but the Tories romped home in the subsequent by-election. I find it very difficult to believe that Labour will win back Hartlepool next time, or any other of the seats they lost in the NE. If anything, they will be fighting to hang on to some of the seats in Teesside and Co Durham that they held in 2019.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,437
    edited November 3
    From previous thread @Philip_Thompson

    Your last post in reply to me was rather different to what you were saying before. You (less so I'd admit than others) seemed to think it was cut and dry re the French fisherman and now you doubt a report re Patterson. yet as usual with many on this site they are convinced one way or another on topics without having the indepth knowledge of the circumstances. At least now you accept if they can proved prima facia evidence they may actually have a case. I wish others would do the same rather than just assuming they must be in the wrong.

    I found it amazing that people like @MaxPB got himself so emotional about me just for even suggesting that they MAY have a case. I don't even know if they do, but that is the point none of us know.

    So here are two examples, analogous to the log book argument that were put by others that they used to prove the French were in the wrong, which shows that type of argument is flawed


    a) When you go in and out of the EU now your passport is stamped so as to determine whether you have exceeded the 90/180 limit. A woman from the UK left Spain and the passport wasn't stamped. When she returned she was denied entry (and presumably there are other consequences eg tax) because she was deemed to have overstayed her welcome. Now it is blindingly obvious she left, after all she is flying in from the UK so she must have left and she can provided lots of other evidence but the Spanish are being pillocks about it (there you go @MaxPB an anti EU story from me).

    Do you know how flexible Jersey is being? I don't. As with the log books the passport is something you should be able to rely on, but in this case can't.


    b) When you travel abroad you used to need a Day 2 test. You apply for one from the Govt list, but it turns out a lot of the suppliers are either crooks or incompetent and don't send them. However they do send you the code you need for your Passenger Locator Form which you can't fill in until 48 hours before returning so you have no idea that the test won't arrive while you are away. On return you don't have a test and can't do one because you don't now have time and anyway the code for a new test will not tie up with the one on the PLF. I know two people for whom this applies. There must be thousands. The suppliers do not respond to calls or emails.

    If these people ever need to prove they have complied they can't. But you would say but they had to. It is the rules. Chuck them in jail (or ban them from fishing).


    It isn't a perfect world and things go wrong and flexibility should be shown rather than 'the rules are the rules' It is normally pretty easy to spot those trying it on.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    TimS said:

    There is a bit of a chicken and egg situation here though. The fact they are doing this at all shows how invincible they feel. They can, essentially, get away with anything. The polls won't budge an inch. Things are different from the 1990s.

    The bubble gets excited about sleaze because of 1992-97. But that wasn't why the Tories got booted out of government, though it obviously contributed to some specific defeats (Hamilton being the obvious one).
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,144
    TimS said:

    There is a bit of a chicken and egg situation here though. The fact they are doing this at all shows how invincible they feel. They can, essentially, get away with anything. The polls won't budge an inch. Things are different from the 1990s.

    Yes. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the matter, the huge difference is that Labour doesn't have a super-smooth, very disciplined, ruthless, highly effective, Alastair-Campbell-run media operation to push, and in many cases create, the narrative.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    kjh said:

    From previous thread @Philip_Thompson

    Your last post in reply to me was rather different to what you were saying before. You (less so I'd admit than others) seemed to think it was cut and dry re the French fisherman and now you doubt a report re Patterson. yet as usual with many on this site they are convinced one way or another on topics without having the indepth knowledge of the circumstances. At least now you accept if they can proved prima facia evidence they may actually have a case. I wish others would do the same rather than just assuming they must be in the wrong.

    I found it amazing that people like @MaxPB got himself so emotional about me just for even suggesting that they MAY have a case. I don't even know if they do, but that is the point none of us know.

    So here are two examples analogous to the log book argument that were put by others proving the French were in the wrong:


    a) When you go in and out of the EU now your passport is stamped so as to determine whether you have exceeded the 90/180 limit. A woman from the UK left Spain and the passport wasn't stamped. When she returned she was denied entry (and presumably there are other consequences eg tax) because she was deemed to have overstayed her welcome. Now it is blindingly obvious she left, after all she is flying in from the UK so she must have left and she can provided lots of other evidence but the Spanish are being pillocks about it (there you go @MaxPB an anti EU story from me).

    Do you know how flexible Jersey is being? I don't. As with the log books the passport is something you should be able to rely on, but in this case can't.


    b) When you travel abroad you used to need a Day 2 test. You apply for one from the Govt list, but it turns out a lot of the suppliers are either crooks or incompetent and don't send them. However they do send you the code you need for your Passenger Locator Form which you can't fill in until 48 hours before returning so you have no idea that the test won't arrive while you are away. On return you don't have a test and can't do one because you don't now have time and anyway the code for a new test will not tie up with the one on the PLF. I know two people for whom this applies. There must be thousands. The suppliers do not respond to calls or emails.

    If these people ever need to prove they have complied they can't. But you would say but they had to. It is the rules. Chuck them in jail (or ban them from fishing).


    It isn't a perfect world and things go wrong and flexibility should be shown rather than 'the rules are the rules' It is normally pretty easy to spot those trying it on.

    I think conflating the two issues shows the sillyness of all this.

    Jersey seem to have bent over backwards to accommodate the French fishermen. 98% of the applications for licences have been granted, and they've changed the process repeatedly in order to facilitate more flexibility for the fishermen. They've extended the deadlines repeatedly, they've accepted other forms of evidence that weren't originally proposed to be accepted. Fishermen have raised concerns and they're being looked at before a final decision is made. They've now extended the deadline again in order to provide more time for evidence to be found to clear this.

    On this there's been serious allegations of a flawed process and the response by some here is not to follow the Jersey model of being flexible and extending the deadline to look into the concerns. Instead some people want to ignore any alleged faults with the process, slam the book and close the case without any right of appeal whatsoever.

    That is not how the fishermen are being treated and its not how anybody should be treated under natural justice.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806
    Saw Farrar getting some gyp on the last thread. His resignation comments seem quite innocuous (the pandemic is far from over - I think we're ok here, barring new variants - but there's much to be done around the world) and I'm not aware that he's been someone publicly pushing for endless lockdown. I would note that he was personally instrumental in some of the great efforts we've seen here with e.g. the treatment studies that identified useful therapies and and showed the lack of efficacy in others. He deserves our thanks.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,681
    Stocky said:

    I see Smarkets has settled Virginia. Not BF yet though.

    Nice pick-up - thanks to @MrEd and @Alistair

    No worries @Stocky hope you treat yourself to a lavish meal :)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    Agree with the lead. The two Tories trying to defend this on the radio this morning came across badly. They were trying to shield him by playing his wife's suicide for all that it was worth; sympathy for personal tragedy isn't any excuse for what they are trying to do.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,960
    Selebian said:

    Saw Farrar getting some gyp on the last thread. His resignation comments seem quite innocuous (the pandemic is far from over - I think we're ok here, barring new variants - but there's much to be done around the world) and I'm not aware that he's been someone publicly pushing for endless lockdown. I would note that he was personally instrumental in some of the great efforts we've seen here with e.g. the treatment studies that identified useful therapies and and showed the lack of efficacy in others. He deserves our thanks.

    It is another example of the lack of nuance in modern public life. Everyone is either a (temporary) hero or a menace that we should be delighted if they leave. In reality they are experts in their field trying their best, getting some things right and some things wrong.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,357

    This is an interesting article and shows what an enormous challenge is facing Starmer if Brexit continues to resonate with voters in the North and Midlands.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/03/nigel-farages-brexit-party-saved-labour-seats-in-2019-election-analysis-finds

    "But elections experts John Curtice, Stephen Fisher and Patrick English say that by attracting Leave-supporting former Labour voters who might otherwise have backed the Conservatives, Farage may have significantly cut the scale of Labour’s defeat."

    An example given is Hartlepool. Labour held it in 2019 with a big vote going to the Brexit Party, but the Tories romped home in the subsequent by-election. I find it very difficult to believe that Labour will win back Hartlepool next time, or any other of the seats they lost in the NE. If anything, they will be fighting to hang on to some of the seats in Teesside and Co Durham that they held in 2019.

    This seems about right, but is already well known. This whole argument is part of what is a very big picture: currently the Tories have no potential allies whatsoever (even the awful DUP, IMHO), while Labour cannot win alone.

    So the next election is between a party that cannot win alone against a party that must win alone, while the window for an unstable result is pretty wide.

    These factors will be the most important bit of background for what will be a unique election in 23/24. Tory tactics already look fairly clear; Labour's less so.

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    edited November 3
    Stocky said:

    I see Smarkets has settled Virginia. Not BF yet though.

    Nice pick-up - thanks to @MrEd and @Alistair

    Much like the NY Mayor race I wasn't fully paying attention to this one and I didn't realise how out of line the odds were with reality until much too late to make big money.

    I am still furious I missed a chance to lay Andrew Yang as odds on favourite for the Dem nomination.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193

    Two separate points here.

    OGH is absolutely right that the Tories are stupid to get involved in this and be seen to be trying to change the process to avoid one of their own off the hook. It should be down to the individual MP, not the party and especially not the Government, to mount any challenge or appeal if they feel they have been wronged by the system.

    But...

    What is the process for an MP to appeal a decision if they feel it is wrong and the Commissioner has been either negligent or malicious? I assume there must be some process whereby a decision can be challenged? I just don't know what that system is. The idea that an MP can be ruined at the whim of an individual seems as wrong to me as it would be if it were anyone outside Parliament. There at least there is an accepted appeals process.

    Paterson was investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Her report was upheld by a jury of his peers, including four Tory MPs. If you read the report, he was challenging the findings throughout, and the investigation process gave him many opportunities, which he took, to challenge the findings. So in a sense an appeals process is built in.

    Now, if MPs think that the whole process is unsatisfactory, then of course they can change it, just as they installed the current one. But to seek to change it following a judgment that they don't like is simply appalling. Would they be doing this if it was an opposition MP? Of course not. If they let the Paterson verdict stand and then brought forward changes, then fair enough.
    Except the Commons voting to accept the report is a part of the process. So if the Commons declines to do so and wishes to set up an appeal system to look into the very serious allegations of flaws raised then that isn't interfering with the report or changing the process, it is acting within the constraints of the process.

    The process isn't finished until the MPs vote to accept the report. Just as the Lib Dems rejecting the boundary reforms in the 2010-15 Parliament.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited November 3
    I am wary of these methods, however I do have some sympathy with Patterson given these allegations may have contributed to his wife's suicide
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743
    IanB2 said:

    Agree with the lead. The two Tories trying to defend this on the radio this morning came across badly. They were trying to shield him by playing his wife's suicide for all that it was worth; sympathy for personal tragedy isn't any excuse for what they are trying to do.

    Personal tragedy doesn't excuse continual abuse of position - which is what this looks like.

    If it had been a one off you could understand it but the biggest issue is that it was done multiple times.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,437
    edited November 3

    kjh said:

    From previous thread @Philip_Thompson

    Your last post in reply to me was rather different to what you were saying before. You (less so I'd admit than others) seemed to think it was cut and dry re the French fisherman and now you doubt a report re Patterson. yet as usual with many on this site they are convinced one way or another on topics without having the indepth knowledge of the circumstances. At least now you accept if they can proved prima facia evidence they may actually have a case. I wish others would do the same rather than just assuming they must be in the wrong.

    I found it amazing that people like @MaxPB got himself so emotional about me just for even suggesting that they MAY have a case. I don't even know if they do, but that is the point none of us know.

    So here are two examples analogous to the log book argument that were put by others proving the French were in the wrong:


    a) When you go in and out of the EU now your passport is stamped so as to determine whether you have exceeded the 90/180 limit. A woman from the UK left Spain and the passport wasn't stamped. When she returned she was denied entry (and presumably there are other consequences eg tax) because she was deemed to have overstayed her welcome. Now it is blindingly obvious she left, after all she is flying in from the UK so she must have left and she can provided lots of other evidence but the Spanish are being pillocks about it (there you go @MaxPB an anti EU story from me).

    Do you know how flexible Jersey is being? I don't. As with the log books the passport is something you should be able to rely on, but in this case can't.


    b) When you travel abroad you used to need a Day 2 test. You apply for one from the Govt list, but it turns out a lot of the suppliers are either crooks or incompetent and don't send them. However they do send you the code you need for your Passenger Locator Form which you can't fill in until 48 hours before returning so you have no idea that the test won't arrive while you are away. On return you don't have a test and can't do one because you don't now have time and anyway the code for a new test will not tie up with the one on the PLF. I know two people for whom this applies. There must be thousands. The suppliers do not respond to calls or emails.

    If these people ever need to prove they have complied they can't. But you would say but they had to. It is the rules. Chuck them in jail (or ban them from fishing).


    It isn't a perfect world and things go wrong and flexibility should be shown rather than 'the rules are the rules' It is normally pretty easy to spot those trying it on.

    I think conflating the two issues shows the sillyness of all this.

    Jersey seem to have bent over backwards to accommodate the French fishermen. 98% of the applications for licences have been granted, and they've changed the process repeatedly in order to facilitate more flexibility for the fishermen. They've extended the deadlines repeatedly, they've accepted other forms of evidence that weren't originally proposed to be accepted. Fishermen have raised concerns and they're being looked at before a final decision is made. They've now extended the deadline again in order to provide more time for evidence to be found to clear this.

    On this there's been serious allegations of a flawed process and the response by some here is not to follow the Jersey model of being flexible and extending the deadline to look into the concerns. Instead some people want to ignore any alleged faults with the process, slam the book and close the case without any right of appeal whatsoever.

    That is not how the fishermen are being treated and its not how anybody should be treated under natural justice.
    As usual you are writing this stuff without knowing any of the facts. That is the point. You refuse to read the report and you have not spoken to any of the fishermen (I assume) so how do you know?

    I have given you two analogous examples which demonstrate the nonsense of the log book argument that others put the other day. There are always going to be exceptions where something falls through the cracks. How do you know that isn't the case with the 2% (or a subset of it)?

    Whereas I sit in the position of giving everyone the benefit of the doubt because I don't know just like everyone else here.

    @Dura_Ace post the other day re the experts on this site on everything was the most sane post I have seen for some time.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    That's an interesting list of MPs. Notably, it includes Jeremy Hunt.

    That is interesting, and Robert Buckland too.

    Its funny that those who vociferously and regularly criticise Boris and lavish praise upon Hunt as a contrast are now holding this up signed by Hunt as a flaw of Boris's party. Funny that.

    I think Hunt's right personally on this one. Serious allegations have been made and natural justice means there should be a right of an appeal if serious breaches have occurred.
    The lack of an appeal against the determination of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards looks something of a red herring to me. Firstly, whatever is done in the future no such right currently exists under the agreed procedure. Secondly, does the right of the House to reject the recommendations not constitute a right of appeal?

    Of course, rejecting the Commissioner's recommendations comes at a considerable political cost and is far too likely to become partisan as it has in the present case. I do not think that price is one worth paying for the Tories in this case, whatever sympathy there is for Owen Patterson's personal circumstances.
    Well if the House has a right to reject the recommendations as a right of appeal, then surely the MPs voting for Leadsom and Hunt's amendment falls under that?

    The procedure isn't finished until the Commons accepts the report, if the Commons sends the report back to be looked into before accepting it then that is the Commons doing its job. The Commons doesn't have to just be a rubber stamp.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,944
    edited November 3

    Two separate points here.

    OGH is absolutely right that the Tories are stupid to get involved in this and be seen to be trying to change the process to avoid one of their own off the hook. It should be down to the individual MP, not the party and especially not the Government, to mount any challenge or appeal if they feel they have been wronged by the system.

    But...

    What is the process for an MP to appeal a decision if they feel it is wrong and the Commissioner has been either negligent or malicious? I assume there must be some process whereby a decision can be challenged? I just don't know what that system is. The idea that an MP can be ruined at the whim of an individual seems as wrong to me as it would be if it were anyone outside Parliament. There at least there is an accepted appeals process.

    Paterson was investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Her report was upheld by a jury of his peers, including four Tory MPs. If you read the report, he was challenging the findings throughout, and the investigation process gave him many opportunities, which he took, to challenge the findings. So in a sense an appeals process is built in.

    Now, if MPs think that the whole process is unsatisfactory, then of course they can change it, just as they installed the current one. But to seek to change it following a judgment that they don't like is simply appalling. Would they be doing this if it was an opposition MP? Of course not. If they let the Paterson verdict stand and then brought forward changes, then fair enough.
    Except the Commons voting to accept the report is a part of the process. So if the Commons declines to do so and wishes to set up an appeal system to look into the very serious allegations of flaws raised then that isn't interfering with the report or changing the process, it is acting within the constraints of the process.

    The process isn't finished until the MPs vote to accept the report. Just as the Lib Dems rejecting the boundary reforms in the 2010-15 Parliament.
    You still haven't done your homework and actually read the report, have you?
    And I thought you posted that you weren't going to comment on this any more?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193

    Two separate points here.

    OGH is absolutely right that the Tories are stupid to get involved in this and be seen to be trying to change the process to avoid one of their own off the hook. It should be down to the individual MP, not the party and especially not the Government, to mount any challenge or appeal if they feel they have been wronged by the system.

    But...

    What is the process for an MP to appeal a decision if they feel it is wrong and the Commissioner has been either negligent or malicious? I assume there must be some process whereby a decision can be challenged? I just don't know what that system is. The idea that an MP can be ruined at the whim of an individual seems as wrong to me as it would be if it were anyone outside Parliament. There at least there is an accepted appeals process.

    Paterson was investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Her report was upheld by a jury of his peers, including four Tory MPs. If you read the report, he was challenging the findings throughout, and the investigation process gave him many opportunities, which he took, to challenge the findings. So in a sense an appeals process is built in.

    Now, if MPs think that the whole process is unsatisfactory, then of course they can change it, just as they installed the current one. But to seek to change it following a judgment that they don't like is simply appalling. Would they be doing this if it was an opposition MP? Of course not. If they let the Paterson verdict stand and then brought forward changes, then fair enough.
    Except the Commons voting to accept the report is a part of the process. So if the Commons declines to do so and wishes to set up an appeal system to look into the very serious allegations of flaws raised then that isn't interfering with the report or changing the process, it is acting within the constraints of the process.

    The process isn't finished until the MPs vote to accept the report. Just as the Lib Dems rejecting the boundary reforms in the 2010-15 Parliament.
    You still haven't done your homework and actually read the report, have you?
    And I thought you posted that you weren't going to comment on this any more?
    Its not my homework to read the report. The appeal process can do that.

    Some people made interesting points I hadn't considered or discussed yet that I thought it was worth responding to.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited November 3
    Republican candidate Ciattarrelli now 61 votes ahead of Democratic incumbent Governor Phil Murphy with 84% in in the New Jersey governor race.

    That would be an even bigger shock than Virginia if the GOP did win it
    https://edition.cnn.com/election/2021/results/new-jersey/governor
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,960
    Alistair said:

    Stocky said:

    I see Smarkets has settled Virginia. Not BF yet though.

    Nice pick-up - thanks to @MrEd and @Alistair

    Much like the NY Mayor race I wasn't fully paying attention to this one and I didn't realise how out of line the odds were with reality until much too late to make big money.

    I am still furious I missed a chance to lay Andrew Yang as odds on favourite for the Dem nomination.
    I did mention Yang on here a few times without much response. He was even odds on when polling around 20% and two other candidates at 15%.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,893
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    From previous thread @Philip_Thompson

    Your last post in reply to me was rather different to what you were saying before. You (less so I'd admit than others) seemed to think it was cut and dry re the French fisherman and now you doubt a report re Patterson. yet as usual with many on this site they are convinced one way or another on topics without having the indepth knowledge of the circumstances. At least now you accept if they can proved prima facia evidence they may actually have a case. I wish others would do the same rather than just assuming they must be in the wrong.

    I found it amazing that people like @MaxPB got himself so emotional about me just for even suggesting that they MAY have a case. I don't even know if they do, but that is the point none of us know.

    So here are two examples analogous to the log book argument that were put by others proving the French were in the wrong:


    a) When you go in and out of the EU now your passport is stamped so as to determine whether you have exceeded the 90/180 limit. A woman from the UK left Spain and the passport wasn't stamped. When she returned she was denied entry (and presumably there are other consequences eg tax) because she was deemed to have overstayed her welcome. Now it is blindingly obvious she left, after all she is flying in from the UK so she must have left and she can provided lots of other evidence but the Spanish are being pillocks about it (there you go @MaxPB an anti EU story from me).

    Do you know how flexible Jersey is being? I don't. As with the log books the passport is something you should be able to rely on, but in this case can't.


    b) When you travel abroad you used to need a Day 2 test. You apply for one from the Govt list, but it turns out a lot of the suppliers are either crooks or incompetent and don't send them. However they do send you the code you need for your Passenger Locator Form which you can't fill in until 48 hours before returning so you have no idea that the test won't arrive while you are away. On return you don't have a test and can't do one because you don't now have time and anyway the code for a new test will not tie up with the one on the PLF. I know two people for whom this applies. There must be thousands. The suppliers do not respond to calls or emails.

    If these people ever need to prove they have complied they can't. But you would say but they had to. It is the rules. Chuck them in jail (or ban them from fishing).


    It isn't a perfect world and things go wrong and flexibility should be shown rather than 'the rules are the rules' It is normally pretty easy to spot those trying it on.

    I think conflating the two issues shows the sillyness of all this.

    Jersey seem to have bent over backwards to accommodate the French fishermen. 98% of the applications for licences have been granted, and they've changed the process repeatedly in order to facilitate more flexibility for the fishermen. They've extended the deadlines repeatedly, they've accepted other forms of evidence that weren't originally proposed to be accepted. Fishermen have raised concerns and they're being looked at before a final decision is made. They've now extended the deadline again in order to provide more time for evidence to be found to clear this.

    On this there's been serious allegations of a flawed process and the response by some here is not to follow the Jersey model of being flexible and extending the deadline to look into the concerns. Instead some people want to ignore any alleged faults with the process, slam the book and close the case without any right of appeal whatsoever.

    That is not how the fishermen are being treated and its not how anybody should be treated under natural justice.
    As usual you are writing this stuff without knowing any of the facts. That is the point. You refuse to read the report and you have not spoken to any of the fishermen (I assume) so how do you know?

    I have given you two analogous examples which demonstrate the nonsense of the log book argument that others put the other day. There are always going to be exceptions where something falls through the cracks. How do you know that isn't the case with the 2% (or a subset of it)?

    Whereas I sit in the position of giving everyone the benefit of the doubt because I don't know just like everyone else here.

    @Dura_Ace post the other day re the experts on this site on everything was the most sane post I have seen for some time.
    We do have some people with a genuinely profound knowledge of some areas (HYUFD on polling, NP on Labour party kremlinology, me on 911s, etc) but there are a lot more who are clearly and quite unashamedly busking it.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 492
    tlg86 said:

    TimS said:

    There is a bit of a chicken and egg situation here though. The fact they are doing this at all shows how invincible they feel. They can, essentially, get away with anything. The polls won't budge an inch. Things are different from the 1990s.

    The bubble gets excited about sleaze because of 1992-97. But that wasn't why the Tories got booted out of government, though it obviously contributed to some specific defeats (Hamilton being the obvious one).
    Exactly. The sleaze resonated in the 90s because it was the icing on the cake of a divided and fractious party, and an air of staleness and drift.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    HYUFD said:

    Republican candidate Ciattarrelli now 61 votes ahead of Democratic incumbent Governor Phil Murphy with 84% in in the New Jersey governor race.

    That would be an even bigger shock than Virginia if the GOP did win it
    https://edition.cnn.com/election/2021/results/new-jersey/governor

    Look below at the makeup of the counties that have the lowest % counted so far.

    As we learn every presidential, in the US the more densely populated the county the slower it counts - the opposite of the position in the UK.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,178
    IshmaelZ said:

    Having it fronted by Leadsom doesn't look great either, she has been largely invisible since 2016 but is vaguely rememebered for lying about banks

    Hard to believe now that she was clear second favourite for the Tory leadership, twice.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Agree with the lead. The two Tories trying to defend this on the radio this morning came across badly. They were trying to shield him by playing his wife's suicide for all that it was worth; sympathy for personal tragedy isn't any excuse for what they are trying to do.

    Personal tragedy doesn't excuse continual abuse of position - which is what this looks like.

    If it had been a one off you could understand it but the biggest issue is that it was done multiple times.
    On this I completely agree with you.

    His wife's suicide is sad, but it shouldn't affect the case.

    The concerns about flaws are much more serious and they should be looked into - and it seems the system as designed permits the Commons to reject the report if it chooses to do so (like the Lib Dems did with boundary reforms) so the Commons choosing to send it to appeal to determine whether they wish to accept or reject it falls under its existing rights surely?

    If the Commons has to vote to accept or reject the report, and there are allegations of flaws in the report, then better surely to have those alleged flaws investigated first rather than just voting on party lines - and if the MPs were supposed to use their own judgement on this matter they shouldn't have been a part of the process, but they are.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477

    IshmaelZ said:

    Having it fronted by Leadsom doesn't look great either, she has been largely invisible since 2016 but is vaguely rememebered for lying about banks

    Hard to believe now that she was clear second favourite for the Tory leadership, twice.
    That's hardly a "look what you could have won...." moment, though, is it?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,960

    IshmaelZ said:

    Having it fronted by Leadsom doesn't look great either, she has been largely invisible since 2016 but is vaguely rememebered for lying about banks

    Hard to believe now that she was clear second favourite for the Tory leadership, twice.
    If it wasnt for the pesky lack of kids she would have been PM!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Agree with the lead. The two Tories trying to defend this on the radio this morning came across badly. They were trying to shield him by playing his wife's suicide for all that it was worth; sympathy for personal tragedy isn't any excuse for what they are trying to do.

    Personal tragedy doesn't excuse continual abuse of position - which is what this looks like.

    If it had been a one off you could understand it but the biggest issue is that it was done multiple times.
    On this I completely agree with you.

    His wife's suicide is sad, but it shouldn't affect the case.

    The concerns about flaws are much more serious and they should be looked into - and it seems the system as designed permits the Commons to reject the report if it chooses to do so (like the Lib Dems did with boundary reforms) so the Commons choosing to send it to appeal to determine whether they wish to accept or reject it falls under its existing rights surely?

    If the Commons has to vote to accept or reject the report, and there are allegations of flaws in the report, then better surely to have those alleged flaws investigated first rather than just voting on party lines - and if the MPs were supposed to use their own judgement on this matter they shouldn't have been a part of the process, but they are.
    You're drawing an analogy with the boundary review - where the Tories have since abolished that step, because in that circumstance it happened to suit them?

    The bottom of your barrel is getting awfully thin.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 492
    I've come to the conclusion the only thing that will meaningfully shift the polling and prospects for the next election is a significant fall in house prices (triggered by interest rate rises). That's the one to watch.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,162

    This is an interesting article and shows what an enormous challenge is facing Starmer if Brexit continues to resonate with voters in the North and Midlands.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/03/nigel-farages-brexit-party-saved-labour-seats-in-2019-election-analysis-finds

    "But elections experts John Curtice, Stephen Fisher and Patrick English say that by attracting Leave-supporting former Labour voters who might otherwise have backed the Conservatives, Farage may have significantly cut the scale of Labour’s defeat."

    An example given is Hartlepool. Labour held it in 2019 with a big vote going to the Brexit Party, but the Tories romped home in the subsequent by-election. I find it very difficult to believe that Labour will win back Hartlepool next time, or any other of the seats they lost in the NE. If anything, they will be fighting to hang on to some of the seats in Teesside and Co Durham that they held in 2019.

    This is one of the reasons I think Johnson will win the next election with an increased majority. The Brexit realignment is not finished.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    IanB2 said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Agree with the lead. The two Tories trying to defend this on the radio this morning came across badly. They were trying to shield him by playing his wife's suicide for all that it was worth; sympathy for personal tragedy isn't any excuse for what they are trying to do.

    Personal tragedy doesn't excuse continual abuse of position - which is what this looks like.

    If it had been a one off you could understand it but the biggest issue is that it was done multiple times.
    On this I completely agree with you.

    His wife's suicide is sad, but it shouldn't affect the case.

    The concerns about flaws are much more serious and they should be looked into - and it seems the system as designed permits the Commons to reject the report if it chooses to do so (like the Lib Dems did with boundary reforms) so the Commons choosing to send it to appeal to determine whether they wish to accept or reject it falls under its existing rights surely?

    If the Commons has to vote to accept or reject the report, and there are allegations of flaws in the report, then better surely to have those alleged flaws investigated first rather than just voting on party lines - and if the MPs were supposed to use their own judgement on this matter they shouldn't have been a part of the process, but they are.
    You're drawing an analogy with the boundary review - where the Tories have since abolished that step, because in that circumstance it happened to suit them?

    The bottom of your barrel is getting awfully thin.
    That's the point though. People are claiming they want the "process as it is" followed and that "any changes" should be for "future cases".

    But process as it is includes the MPs having the final choice whether to accept the report or not. If the MPs choose not to accept the report until they've had a chance to look into the allegations of flaws in the reports, then that is satisfying the pre-agreed process. The pre-agreed process gives MPs the final say, and if the MPs wish to look into serious concerns before having their final say then how is that not following the pre-agreed process?

    If MPs didn't have the final say, but were now changing the rules, then that would be a different matter. But the pre-agreed process already had MPs getting involved at this stage - even if some assumed (like with boundary reforms) that MPs would just rubber stamp what was offered to them without them looking into it.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,229
    edited November 3
    As I said on the last thread I do not know the detail of Paterson's case but it does not look good, and IMO all MP's should be paid a higher salary but conditional on no consultancy work

    I would just add that I doubt it will make much difference in the public perception as there are far too many issues clouding it out

    ConHome and Boris (and Rishi) seem to be leaving it behind, especially if you look at the top half on their list

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2021/11/conhomes-cabinet-league-table-our-panel-gives-its-take-on-the-budget-net-zero-and-energy-by-marking-down-sunak-sharma-and-kwarteng.html?utm_medium=email
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,025
    edited November 3
    TimS said:

    I've come to the conclusion the only thing that will meaningfully shift the polling and prospects for the next election is a significant fall in house prices (triggered by interest rate rises). That's the one to watch.

    Why would there be a fall in house prices?

    At the start of the first lockdown and the shock to markets and the economy generally sank in I was predicting a 15 - 20% pretty instant fall in house prices as borrowers' financial situations were now more rocky and lenders wouldn't want to lend. Therefore demand to buy houses falls and so, therefore, do prices. However I was wrong. House prices have gone up.

    If house prices didn't fall then why would they now?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,450
    edited November 3

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Agree with the lead. The two Tories trying to defend this on the radio this morning came across badly. They were trying to shield him by playing his wife's suicide for all that it was worth; sympathy for personal tragedy isn't any excuse for what they are trying to do.

    Personal tragedy doesn't excuse continual abuse of position - which is what this looks like.

    If it had been a one off you could understand it but the biggest issue is that it was done multiple times.
    On this I completely agree with you.

    His wife's suicide is sad, but it shouldn't affect the case.

    The concerns about flaws are much more serious and they should be looked into - and it seems the system as designed permits the Commons to reject the report if it chooses to do so (like the Lib Dems did with boundary reforms) so the Commons choosing to send it to appeal to determine whether they wish to accept or reject it falls under its existing rights surely?

    If the Commons has to vote to accept or reject the report, and there are allegations of flaws in the report, then better surely to have those alleged flaws investigated first rather than just voting on party lines - and if the MPs were supposed to use their own judgement on this matter they shouldn't have been a part of the process, but they are.
    I have not been following this in detail, but why is it all of a sudden a flawed process? Plenty of MPs have been done under it already.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    I'm currently at a virtual stats conference and David Spiegelhalter is giving his keynote speech. I was delighted to hear him singing the virtues of the weekly deaths stats and says he looks at them every Tuesday at 09:30, in particular, this graph:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1650/fig2/index.html

    Due to COVID, the 5-year average being used is 2015-2019, and he says that the actuaries reckon that the non-COVID deaths aren't that far out from what they'd expect with an ageing population. Since early July, the non-COVID deaths have been around 500 a week more than the five-year average. It will be interesting to see if that increases through the winter.

    He also said that the undercount on non-COVID deaths in the winter was, in part, due to people already being dead from COVID in the first wave. Now, obviously that will be true. The question is, to what extent. He didn't put a number on it, but the fact that he mentioned it suggests to me that he thinks it's "more than you would expect if COVID had spread randomly". Perhaps the care home disaster of the first wave meant that those closer to the end of their lives were more likely to catch it.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,162

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Agree with the lead. The two Tories trying to defend this on the radio this morning came across badly. They were trying to shield him by playing his wife's suicide for all that it was worth; sympathy for personal tragedy isn't any excuse for what they are trying to do.

    Personal tragedy doesn't excuse continual abuse of position - which is what this looks like.

    If it had been a one off you could understand it but the biggest issue is that it was done multiple times.
    On this I completely agree with you.

    His wife's suicide is sad, but it shouldn't affect the case.

    The concerns about flaws are much more serious and they should be looked into - and it seems the system as designed permits the Commons to reject the report if it chooses to do so (like the Lib Dems did with boundary reforms) so the Commons choosing to send it to appeal to determine whether they wish to accept or reject it falls under its existing rights surely?

    If the Commons has to vote to accept or reject the report, and there are allegations of flaws in the report, then better surely to have those alleged flaws investigated first rather than just voting on party lines - and if the MPs were supposed to use their own judgement on this matter they shouldn't have been a part of the process, but they are.
    If the Commons is acting as the appeals step then all the procedural arguments about due process and a lack of an appeal are bunkum. His appeal to his fellow MPs should be on the merits of the case.

    It also makes it outrageous that the vote is being whipped.

    But I've been dragged into arguing about the merits of the case rather than the politics. Politicizing the issue aggressively is the way to get partisans on your side to defend the indefensible. That's what the Tories have succeeded in doing, and it's why the damage from this will be slight to non-existent.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Agree with the lead. The two Tories trying to defend this on the radio this morning came across badly. They were trying to shield him by playing his wife's suicide for all that it was worth; sympathy for personal tragedy isn't any excuse for what they are trying to do.

    Personal tragedy doesn't excuse continual abuse of position - which is what this looks like.

    If it had been a one off you could understand it but the biggest issue is that it was done multiple times.
    On this I completely agree with you.

    His wife's suicide is sad, but it shouldn't affect the case.

    The concerns about flaws are much more serious and they should be looked into - and it seems the system as designed permits the Commons to reject the report if it chooses to do so (like the Lib Dems did with boundary reforms) so the Commons choosing to send it to appeal to determine whether they wish to accept or reject it falls under its existing rights surely?

    If the Commons has to vote to accept or reject the report, and there are allegations of flaws in the report, then better surely to have those alleged flaws investigated first rather than just voting on party lines - and if the MPs were supposed to use their own judgement on this matter they shouldn't have been a part of the process, but they are.
    I have not been following this in detail, but why is it all of a sudden a flawed process? Plenty of MPs have been done under it already.
    Because of the list of issues that Paterson has raised which should be looked into.

    To the best of my knowledge no other MPs had raised a list of issues, though they'd have all been entitled to do so if they chose to do so.
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,455
    Sleazy Tories on the slide. This is a bad look. There is no excuse for them on this. OGH is right
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    edited November 3

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Agree with the lead. The two Tories trying to defend this on the radio this morning came across badly. They were trying to shield him by playing his wife's suicide for all that it was worth; sympathy for personal tragedy isn't any excuse for what they are trying to do.

    Personal tragedy doesn't excuse continual abuse of position - which is what this looks like.

    If it had been a one off you could understand it but the biggest issue is that it was done multiple times.
    On this I completely agree with you.

    His wife's suicide is sad, but it shouldn't affect the case.

    The concerns about flaws are much more serious and they should be looked into - and it seems the system as designed permits the Commons to reject the report if it chooses to do so (like the Lib Dems did with boundary reforms) so the Commons choosing to send it to appeal to determine whether they wish to accept or reject it falls under its existing rights surely?

    If the Commons has to vote to accept or reject the report, and there are allegations of flaws in the report, then better surely to have those alleged flaws investigated first rather than just voting on party lines - and if the MPs were supposed to use their own judgement on this matter they shouldn't have been a part of the process, but they are.
    If the Commons is acting as the appeals step then all the procedural arguments about due process and a lack of an appeal are bunkum. His appeal to his fellow MPs should be on the merits of the case.

    It also makes it outrageous that the vote is being whipped.

    But I've been dragged into arguing about the merits of the case rather than the politics. Politicizing the issue aggressively is the way to get partisans on your side to defend the indefensible. That's what the Tories have succeeded in doing, and it's why the damage from this will be slight to non-existent.
    They're only bunkum if we don't listen to those like you who are demanding the Common rubber stamp this report without looking into it, thus denying any opportunity to appeal.

    The amendment Hunt signed has set out sensible steps to look into an appeal. That is the Commons doing its job, its not aggressive politicisation.

    Hunt is being sensible, and those who normally agree with Hunt here who are now going off the deep end trying to politicise this to score points are not.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,960
    Taz said:

    Sleazy Tories on the slide. This is a bad look. There is no excuse for them on this. OGH is right

    The excuse is the public will let them get away with it. They are probably right.
  • tlg86 said:

    I'm currently at a virtual stats conference and David Spiegelhalter is giving his keynote speech. I was delighted to hear him singing the virtues of the weekly deaths stats and says he looks at them every Tuesday at 09:30, in particular, this graph:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1650/fig2/index.html

    Due to COVID, the 5-year average being used is 2015-2019, and he says that the actuaries reckon that the non-COVID deaths aren't that far out from what they'd expect with an ageing population. Since early July, the non-COVID deaths have been around 500 a week more than the five-year average. It will be interesting to see if that increases through the winter.

    He also said that the undercount on non-COVID deaths in the winter was, in part, due to people already being dead from COVID in the first wave. Now, obviously that will be true. The question is, to what extent. He didn't put a number on it, but the fact that he mentioned it suggests to me that he thinks it's "more than you would expect if COVID had spread randomly". Perhaps the care home disaster of the first wave meant that those closer to the end of their lives were more likely to catch it.

    What is really concerning is how many of these excess deaths are in younger people. Some big questions are not being asked.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    edited November 3
    tlg86 said:

    I'm currently at a virtual stats conference and David Spiegelhalter is giving his keynote speech. I was delighted to hear him singing the virtues of the weekly deaths stats and says he looks at them every Tuesday at 09:30, in particular, this graph:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1650/fig2/index.html

    Due to COVID, the 5-year average being used is 2015-2019, and he says that the actuaries reckon that the non-COVID deaths aren't that far out from what they'd expect with an ageing population. Since early July, the non-COVID deaths have been around 500 a week more than the five-year average. It will be interesting to see if that increases through the winter.

    He also said that the undercount on non-COVID deaths in the winter was, in part, due to people already being dead from COVID in the first wave. Now, obviously that will be true. The question is, to what extent. He didn't put a number on it, but the fact that he mentioned it suggests to me that he thinks it's "more than you would expect if COVID had spread randomly". Perhaps the care home disaster of the first wave meant that those closer to the end of their lives were more likely to catch it.

    That last point is surely key, given that during the first wave I believe around half of the deaths (at one point, at least) were in care homes, and another important vector of transmission was hospitals, and a lesser one cruise ships.

    According to the ONS, throughout 2020 a majority of the UK covid deaths occurred in hospital or care homes (the hospital figure perhaps misleading, as I assume this includes people who caught it elsewhere and were taken to hospital)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    edited November 3
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    That SAGE scientist who resigned has coincidentally got a book coming out this week. What a numpty.

    His reasons for resigning were idiotic too. Another one of the "let's protect our freedom by giving it up!". Everyone who proposes freedom in theory needs to be questioned on what the point of it is.

    I was having a chat with a few friends last night and the general consensus is that COVID is done. The government is right to tell the scientists to get fucked on plan b and we're right to continue living as normal now that vaccines are freely available and older people can get third doses. The burden of self preservation has been shifted from society to the individual.

    As I asked upthread, I wonder what "the public" wants to happen next. They have throughout been in favour of longer, harsher lockdowns so I would be interested to know the view now. My sense is that it is over in peoples' minds.

    Oh and on another topic, I saw your post about Yorkshire CC. Abso-bloody-lutely. It is beyond contempt that people should have remained in post after that.
    Yeah I'd be interested to see what the public thinks on a "what would you personally do" question rather than the standard ones of "what should everyone else do" which can be pretty misleading.

    My sense is that in private almost all people are not wearing masks indoors to visit friends and family and they are seeing lots of them in indoor spaces.

    The other thing pointed out by one of my friends last night is that we're very much on course to be the first large nation to get to the other side of the exit wave. A process that every nation will have to endure, we've managed, just about, to do it before Xmas and temperatures dropping to below zero. Other Northern European countries are not even close, he pointed out the Netherlands who didn't "run hot" in the summer and autumn and have now had to reimpose indoor social distancing and mask wearing.
    I think and would very much hope that no one in the UK is wearing a mask indoors to visit friends and family.
    It was sad when they were sensible pre-vaccines to see masks become a part of the culture wars in the USA.

    But they're used to culture wars. It is even sadder to see some people in this country desperately trying to make masks a culture war in the UK post-vaccines now we're at the stage they're quite rightly no longer required.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    TimS said:

    I've come to the conclusion the only thing that will meaningfully shift the polling and prospects for the next election is a significant fall in house prices (triggered by interest rate rises). That's the one to watch.

    Maybe, negative equity led to a big loss of Tory support in 1993.

    However if house prices do not fall as badly as that but fall far enough to allow more younger people to buy their first property in London and the South in particular that may even boost Tory support
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    I wonder why someone like Hunt is willing to put his name to such an amendment. If I had to guess, I reckon it's because he and others think that Paterson deserves a lot more credit for raising the issue to begin with.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited November 3
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Republican candidate Ciattarrelli now 61 votes ahead of Democratic incumbent Governor Phil Murphy with 84% in in the New Jersey governor race.

    That would be an even bigger shock than Virginia if the GOP did win it
    https://edition.cnn.com/election/2021/results/new-jersey/governor

    Look below at the makeup of the counties that have the lowest % counted so far.

    As we learn every presidential, in the US the more densely populated the county the slower it counts - the opposite of the position in the UK.
    Yes but we are now 84% in.

    All but 2 of the counties Murphy is leading in are over 75% in and all over 60% in and plenty of counties Ciattarrelli leads in are yet to fully report too.

    Either way it will go to the wire in New Jersey despite Biden winning the state by nearly 16% over Trump last year, still a huge swing to the GOP, even more so than in Virginia.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    Even some Labour MPs now telling me they support the overhaul of the Standards process, even if they don’t want to let off Owen Paterson.

    Today is a show of political strength by the PM.

    Plenty of MPs think standards procedure isn’t right, but many also think OP broke rules.

    … by combining these two issues and big whipping operation, Johnson’s Downing Street is showing how to wield power to get its way, knocking opponents out the way like skittles


    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1455840927130476544
  • TimSTimS Posts: 492
    Stocky said:

    TimS said:

    I've come to the conclusion the only thing that will meaningfully shift the polling and prospects for the next election is a significant fall in house prices (triggered by interest rate rises). That's the one to watch.

    Why would there be a fall in house prices?

    At the start of the first lockdown and the shock to markets and the economy generally sank in I was predicting a 15 - 20% pretty instant fall in house prices as borrowers' financial situations were now more rocky and lenders wouldn't want to lend. Therefore demand to buy houses falls and so, therefore, do prices. However I was wrong. House prices have gone up.

    If house prices didn't fall then why would they now?
    It's not a forecast, but it's a possibility. Affordability is what drives house prices. If interest rates rise by a percentage or more (which in turn will happen if inflation - and inflation expectations - take hold) then affordability drops. If rates rise significantly then all bets are off, though that seems unlikely.
  • TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    That SAGE scientist who resigned has coincidentally got a book coming out this week. What a numpty.

    His reasons for resigning were idiotic too. Another one of the "let's protect our freedom by giving it up!". Everyone who proposes freedom in theory needs to be questioned on what the point of it is.

    I was having a chat with a few friends last night and the general consensus is that COVID is done. The government is right to tell the scientists to get fucked on plan b and we're right to continue living as normal now that vaccines are freely available and older people can get third doses. The burden of self preservation has been shifted from society to the individual.

    As I asked upthread, I wonder what "the public" wants to happen next. They have throughout been in favour of longer, harsher lockdowns so I would be interested to know the view now. My sense is that it is over in peoples' minds.

    Oh and on another topic, I saw your post about Yorkshire CC. Abso-bloody-lutely. It is beyond contempt that people should have remained in post after that.
    Yeah I'd be interested to see what the public thinks on a "what would you personally do" question rather than the standard ones of "what should everyone else do" which can be pretty misleading.

    My sense is that in private almost all people are not wearing masks indoors to visit friends and family and they are seeing lots of them in indoor spaces.

    The other thing pointed out by one of my friends last night is that we're very much on course to be the first large nation to get to the other side of the exit wave. A process that every nation will have to endure, we've managed, just about, to do it before Xmas and temperatures dropping to below zero. Other Northern European countries are not even close, he pointed out the Netherlands who didn't "run hot" in the summer and autumn and have now had to reimpose indoor social distancing and mask wearing.
    I think and would very much hope that no one in the UK is wearing a mask indoors to visit friends and family.
    It was sad when they were sensible pre-vaccines to see masks become a part of the culture wars in the USA.

    But they're used to culture wars. It is even sadder to see some people in this country desperately trying to make masks a culture war in the UK post-vaccines now we're at the stage they're quite rightly no longer required.
    They never were. A massive psy-op.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,025
    edited November 3
    tlg86 said:

    I wonder why someone like Hunt is willing to put his name to such an amendment. If I had to guess, I reckon it's because he and others think that Paterson deserves a lot more credit for raising the issue to begin with.

    From what I can gather there is a feeling the the rules have been interpreted so strictly as to verge on the incorrect and unfair. Plus the kangaroo-court aspect that Paterson is obviously concerned about. I don't think he expected the report to conclude as it did because he thought his robust defence would put an end to the matter.

    I don't what to think about all this , but in Paterson's own words:

    “My arguments and witnesses are not properly represented in the report. My lawyers are astounded by the procedure and said if Parliamentary privilege were surrendered and we had open access to a judge in court, the whole process would be chucked out.”

  • IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    I'm currently at a virtual stats conference and David Spiegelhalter is giving his keynote speech. I was delighted to hear him singing the virtues of the weekly deaths stats and says he looks at them every Tuesday at 09:30, in particular, this graph:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1650/fig2/index.html

    Due to COVID, the 5-year average being used is 2015-2019, and he says that the actuaries reckon that the non-COVID deaths aren't that far out from what they'd expect with an ageing population. Since early July, the non-COVID deaths have been around 500 a week more than the five-year average. It will be interesting to see if that increases through the winter.

    He also said that the undercount on non-COVID deaths in the winter was, in part, due to people already being dead from COVID in the first wave. Now, obviously that will be true. The question is, to what extent. He didn't put a number on it, but the fact that he mentioned it suggests to me that he thinks it's "more than you would expect if COVID had spread randomly". Perhaps the care home disaster of the first wave meant that those closer to the end of their lives were more likely to catch it.

    That last point is surely key, given that during the first wave I believe around half of the deaths (at one point, at least) were in care homes, and another important vector of transmission was hospitals, and a lesser one cruise ships.

    According to the ONS, throughout 2020 a majority of the UK covid deaths occurred in hospital or care homes (the hospital figure perhaps misleading, as I assume this includes people who caught it elsewhere and were taken to hospital)
    The hospital spread of virus last winter was huge.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,960
    Stocky said:

    TimS said:

    I've come to the conclusion the only thing that will meaningfully shift the polling and prospects for the next election is a significant fall in house prices (triggered by interest rate rises). That's the one to watch.

    Why would there be a fall in house prices?

    At the start of the first lockdown and the shock to markets and the economy generally sank in I was predicting a 15 - 20% pretty instant fall in house prices as borrowers' financial situations were now more rocky and lenders wouldn't want to lend. Therefore demand to buy houses falls and so, therefore, do prices. However I was wrong. House prices have gone up.

    If house prices didn't fall then why would they now?
    Furlough and lack of opportunity for spending on commuting, hospitality and holidays more than offset the average borrowers financial situations, and also enabled prospective first time buyers to save bigger deposits, the effects of which get amplified through the mortgage process.

    So house prices didn't fall because your (and most peoples) expectations of economic life under lockdown were wrong, not because they couldn't fall. I don't think that tells us much about prices for the next couple of years.

    The two key things are that the government will do as much as it can to keep prices high, and interest rates rises might push them down. Crystal ball unavailable for this one, but we have a pretty cynical govt so expect they will find a way.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    That's an interesting list of MPs. Notably, it includes Jeremy Hunt.

    That is interesting, and Robert Buckland too.

    Its funny that those who vociferously and regularly criticise Boris and lavish praise upon Hunt as a contrast are now holding this up signed by Hunt as a flaw of Boris's party. Funny that.

    I think Hunt's right personally on this one. Serious allegations have been made and natural justice means there should be a right of an appeal if serious breaches have occurred.
    The lack of an appeal against the determination of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards looks something of a red herring to me. Firstly, whatever is done in the future no such right currently exists under the agreed procedure. Secondly, does the right of the House to reject the recommendations not constitute a right of appeal?

    Of course, rejecting the Commissioner's recommendations comes at a considerable political cost and is far too likely to become partisan as it has in the present case. I do not think that price is one worth paying for the Tories in this case, whatever sympathy there is for Owen Patterson's personal circumstances.
    Well if the House has a right to reject the recommendations as a right of appeal, then surely the MPs voting for Leadsom and Hunt's amendment falls under that?

    The procedure isn't finished until the Commons accepts the report, if the Commons sends the report back to be looked into before accepting it then that is the Commons doing its job. The Commons doesn't have to just be a rubber stamp.
    Yes and no Philip. The Commons has the right to reject the report, just as Boris had the right to reject the report on Ministerial standards. But there is a price in doing so and that price is that to do so undermines the independence and integrity of the system.

    The Commissioner was appointed because that independence was thought, rightly, to be important after the last lot of MP scandals. Parliament was not thought trustworthy enough to regulate its own. If they exercise their power to reject the independent conclusion they need compelling reasons to do so otherwise we are back to where we were with the expenses scandal.

    I have not studied this in detail and some of the summaries are very far from objective but I am not seeing conclusions that seem obviously wrong. I am seeing an MP who was being paid significant sums fighting his corner for his client. If he did this without declaring and acknowledging that interest that was very wrong.

    About 3 years ago now I had a complaint against me. It was without merit but the procedure which allowed that to be determined was very long, expensive and anxious. More than once in that process the very nature of the complaint changed and I faced different allegations. It was anxious and frustrating. I won't pretend for a second I did not moan about it down the pub with my mates. But I completely accept that subjecting myself to that procedure is a part of the price of holding the office of Advocate. MPs are exactly the same. Holding that office is a privilege and it comes at a price. The Tories really should not vote down this report or support this amendment.
    In your system did all other Advocates have to vote whether to uphold a ruling that came from it or not? Was there a chance to appeal a flawed decision or not?

    The system isn't truly independent because MPs have to vote to back it. If the system were truly independent then the sanction should have been automatic and not have MPs get involved at this stage. As a counter-example if the Bank of England votes to raise interest rates then they raise interest rates, because they're independent. Its not the case anymore of the Bank advising the Chancellor then the Chancellor choosing whether to accept the recommendation or not.

    If the system is flawed, then it doesn't have integrity. Jeremy Hunt is right, that if there are serious flaws then following through on a flawed system isn't showing integrity, looking into those flaws is.

    Rightly or wrongly the MPs were put at the final stage of this process. If the MPs like Hunt vote for this amendment then they are doing their job, not getting involved where they're not supposed to be.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,025

    Stocky said:

    TimS said:

    I've come to the conclusion the only thing that will meaningfully shift the polling and prospects for the next election is a significant fall in house prices (triggered by interest rate rises). That's the one to watch.

    Why would there be a fall in house prices?

    At the start of the first lockdown and the shock to markets and the economy generally sank in I was predicting a 15 - 20% pretty instant fall in house prices as borrowers' financial situations were now more rocky and lenders wouldn't want to lend. Therefore demand to buy houses falls and so, therefore, do prices. However I was wrong. House prices have gone up.

    If house prices didn't fall then why would they now?
    Furlough and lack of opportunity for spending on commuting, hospitality and holidays more than offset the average borrowers financial situations, and also enabled prospective first time buyers to save bigger deposits, the effects of which get amplified through the mortgage process.

    So house prices didn't fall because your (and most peoples) expectations of economic life under lockdown were wrong, not because they couldn't fall. I don't think that tells us much about prices for the next couple of years.

    The two key things are that the government will do as much as it can to keep prices high, and interest rates rises might push them down. Crystal ball unavailable for this one, but we have a pretty cynical govt so expect they will find a way.
    Sunak's stamp duty relaxations had an impact too I'm sure.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    I'm currently at a virtual stats conference and David Spiegelhalter is giving his keynote speech. I was delighted to hear him singing the virtues of the weekly deaths stats and says he looks at them every Tuesday at 09:30, in particular, this graph:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1650/fig2/index.html

    Due to COVID, the 5-year average being used is 2015-2019, and he says that the actuaries reckon that the non-COVID deaths aren't that far out from what they'd expect with an ageing population. Since early July, the non-COVID deaths have been around 500 a week more than the five-year average. It will be interesting to see if that increases through the winter.

    He also said that the undercount on non-COVID deaths in the winter was, in part, due to people already being dead from COVID in the first wave. Now, obviously that will be true. The question is, to what extent. He didn't put a number on it, but the fact that he mentioned it suggests to me that he thinks it's "more than you would expect if COVID had spread randomly". Perhaps the care home disaster of the first wave meant that those closer to the end of their lives were more likely to catch it.

    That last point is surely key, given that during the first wave I believe around half of the deaths (at one point, at least) were in care homes, and another important vector of transmission was hospitals, and a lesser one cruise ships.

    According to the ONS, throughout 2020 a majority of the UK covid deaths occurred in hospital or care homes (the hospital figure perhaps misleading, as I assume this includes people who caught it elsewhere and were taken to hospital)
    The hospital spread of virus last winter was huge.
    I haven't seen any data, but I can believe it, and anecdotally know of several people who were or went into hospital for other things and then got covid as a bonus condition.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,960
    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:

    I wonder why someone like Hunt is willing to put his name to such an amendment. If I had to guess, I reckon it's because he and others think that Paterson deserves a lot more credit for raising the issue to begin with.

    From what I can gather there is a feeling the the rules have been interpreted so strictly as to verge on the incorrect and unfair. Plus the kangaroo-court aspect that Paterson is obviously concerned about. I don't think he expected the report to conclude as it did because he thought his robust defence would put an end to the matter.

    I don't what to think about all this , but in Paterson's own words:

    “My arguments and witnesses are not properly represented in the report. My lawyers are astounded by the procedure and said if Parliamentary privilege were surrendered and we had open access to a judge in court, the whole process would be chucked out.”

    Judging by the "success" of the serious fraud office, or the case this week where the police would not investigate the theft of a house through fraudulent means without being pushed into it by the media, he is probably right! We are terrible at prosecuting the powerful for fraud.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    TimS said:

    I've come to the conclusion the only thing that will meaningfully shift the polling and prospects for the next election is a significant fall in house prices (triggered by interest rate rises). That's the one to watch.

    Why would there be a fall in house prices?

    At the start of the first lockdown and the shock to markets and the economy generally sank in I was predicting a 15 - 20% pretty instant fall in house prices as borrowers' financial situations were now more rocky and lenders wouldn't want to lend. Therefore demand to buy houses falls and so, therefore, do prices. However I was wrong. House prices have gone up.

    If house prices didn't fall then why would they now?
    Furlough and lack of opportunity for spending on commuting, hospitality and holidays more than offset the average borrowers financial situations, and also enabled prospective first time buyers to save bigger deposits, the effects of which get amplified through the mortgage process.

    So house prices didn't fall because your (and most peoples) expectations of economic life under lockdown were wrong, not because they couldn't fall. I don't think that tells us much about prices for the next couple of years.

    The two key things are that the government will do as much as it can to keep prices high, and interest rates rises might push them down. Crystal ball unavailable for this one, but we have a pretty cynical govt so expect they will find a way.
    Sunak's stamp duty relaxations had an impact too I'm sure.
    Probably not an especially big one. Those relaxations have already been reversed but the price changes haven't been which shows they're probably not the big factor.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924
    Bonkers nonsense FPT on London 'zones'. There are interesting places to visit in all zones of London. Barnes, Richmond, Chiswick, Hampton Court, Walthamstow Village (yes!), Epping Forest – all outside the inner zones. I'm stunned, amazed, slightly saddened that people even think in 'zones' any more.

    GET OUT AND ENJOY YOUR CITY FFS.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,924
    edited November 3
    I have heard of precisely zero people IRL agitating for another lockdown. Yes, I know, dovish London etc etc etc – I realise that other areas are different. But is there anywhere in the UK where people are clinging to their homes, praying that the government soon forces everyone to stay inside? Really? I just can't believe that.I hew heard of precisely zero people ITL agitating for another lockdown. Yes, I know, dovish London etc etc etc – I realise that other areas are different. But is there anywhere in the UK where people are clinging to their homes, praying that the government soon forces everyone to stay inside? Really? I just can't believe that.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,025
    Looks like 16/17 year olds are about to be eligible for a second jab:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/covid-vaccine-children-doses-latest-b1950102.html
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    TimS said:

    I've come to the conclusion the only thing that will meaningfully shift the polling and prospects for the next election is a significant fall in house prices (triggered by interest rate rises). That's the one to watch.

    Why would there be a fall in house prices?

    At the start of the first lockdown and the shock to markets and the economy generally sank in I was predicting a 15 - 20% pretty instant fall in house prices as borrowers' financial situations were now more rocky and lenders wouldn't want to lend. Therefore demand to buy houses falls and so, therefore, do prices. However I was wrong. House prices have gone up.

    If house prices didn't fall then why would they now?
    Furlough and lack of opportunity for spending on commuting, hospitality and holidays more than offset the average borrowers financial situations, and also enabled prospective first time buyers to save bigger deposits, the effects of which get amplified through the mortgage process.

    So house prices didn't fall because your (and most peoples) expectations of economic life under lockdown were wrong, not because they couldn't fall. I don't think that tells us much about prices for the next couple of years.

    The two key things are that the government will do as much as it can to keep prices high, and interest rates rises might push them down. Crystal ball unavailable for this one, but we have a pretty cynical govt so expect they will find a way.
    Sunak's stamp duty relaxations had an impact too I'm sure.
    Probably not an especially big one. Those relaxations have already been reversed but the price changes haven't been which shows they're probably not the big factor.
    Be very careful there, house prices are remarkably sticky on the upside until suddenly they aren't..

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    HYUFD said:

    Republican candidate Ciattarrelli now 61 votes ahead of Democratic incumbent Governor Phil Murphy with 84% in in the New Jersey governor race.

    That would be an even bigger shock than Virginia if the GOP did win it
    https://edition.cnn.com/election/2021/results/new-jersey/governor

    Why? No Democratic Governor of NJ has been re-elected since the 1970s. Since 1980 the Republicans have held the governorship for the majority of the time.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,189

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    That's an interesting list of MPs. Notably, it includes Jeremy Hunt.

    That is interesting, and Robert Buckland too.

    Its funny that those who vociferously and regularly criticise Boris and lavish praise upon Hunt as a contrast are now holding this up signed by Hunt as a flaw of Boris's party. Funny that.

    I think Hunt's right personally on this one. Serious allegations have been made and natural justice means there should be a right of an appeal if serious breaches have occurred.
    The lack of an appeal against the determination of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards looks something of a red herring to me. Firstly, whatever is done in the future no such right currently exists under the agreed procedure. Secondly, does the right of the House to reject the recommendations not constitute a right of appeal?

    Of course, rejecting the Commissioner's recommendations comes at a considerable political cost and is far too likely to become partisan as it has in the present case. I do not think that price is one worth paying for the Tories in this case, whatever sympathy there is for Owen Patterson's personal circumstances.
    Well if the House has a right to reject the recommendations as a right of appeal, then surely the MPs voting for Leadsom and Hunt's amendment falls under that?

    The procedure isn't finished until the Commons accepts the report, if the Commons sends the report back to be looked into before accepting it then that is the Commons doing its job. The Commons doesn't have to just be a rubber stamp.
    Yes and no Philip. The Commons has the right to reject the report, just as Boris had the right to reject the report on Ministerial standards. But there is a price in doing so and that price is that to do so undermines the independence and integrity of the system.

    The Commissioner was appointed because that independence was thought, rightly, to be important after the last lot of MP scandals. Parliament was not thought trustworthy enough to regulate its own. If they exercise their power to reject the independent conclusion they need compelling reasons to do so otherwise we are back to where we were with the expenses scandal.

    I have not studied this in detail and some of the summaries are very far from objective but I am not seeing conclusions that seem obviously wrong. I am seeing an MP who was being paid significant sums fighting his corner for his client. If he did this without declaring and acknowledging that interest that was very wrong.

    About 3 years ago now I had a complaint against me. It was without merit but the procedure which allowed that to be determined was very long, expensive and anxious. More than once in that process the very nature of the complaint changed and I faced different allegations. It was anxious and frustrating. I won't pretend for a second I did not moan about it down the pub with my mates. But I completely accept that subjecting myself to that procedure is a part of the price of holding the office of Advocate. MPs are exactly the same. Holding that office is a privilege and it comes at a price. The Tories really should not vote down this report or support this amendment.
    In your system did all other Advocates have to vote whether to uphold a ruling that came from it or not? Was there a chance to appeal a flawed decision or not?

    The system isn't truly independent because MPs have to vote to back it. If the system were truly independent then the sanction should have been automatic and not have MPs get involved at this stage. As a counter-example if the Bank of England votes to raise interest rates then they raise interest rates, because they're independent. Its not the case anymore of the Bank advising the Chancellor then the Chancellor choosing whether to accept the recommendation or not.

    If the system is flawed, then it doesn't have integrity. Jeremy Hunt is right, that if there are serious flaws then following through on a flawed system isn't showing integrity, looking into those flaws is.

    Rightly or wrongly the MPs were put at the final stage of this process. If the MPs like Hunt vote for this amendment then they are doing their job, not getting involved where they're not supposed to be.
    In my case the complaint ultimately went before a disciplinary tribunal set up under our code of conduct. That Tribunal has a majority lay representative element to ensure independence.

    MPs were not willing to give up ultimate control over their own discipline. The Commissioner does not make decisions so there is nothing to appeal. She makes a recommendation which Parliament has to determine they should accept, both in terms of guilt and in terms of sentence. That's the way they wanted it. But if the system is to work they need to accept those recommendations in all but the most egregious cases.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    edited November 3
    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    TimS said:

    I've come to the conclusion the only thing that will meaningfully shift the polling and prospects for the next election is a significant fall in house prices (triggered by interest rate rises). That's the one to watch.

    Why would there be a fall in house prices?

    At the start of the first lockdown and the shock to markets and the economy generally sank in I was predicting a 15 - 20% pretty instant fall in house prices as borrowers' financial situations were now more rocky and lenders wouldn't want to lend. Therefore demand to buy houses falls and so, therefore, do prices. However I was wrong. House prices have gone up.

    If house prices didn't fall then why would they now?
    Furlough and lack of opportunity for spending on commuting, hospitality and holidays more than offset the average borrowers financial situations, and also enabled prospective first time buyers to save bigger deposits, the effects of which get amplified through the mortgage process.

    So house prices didn't fall because your (and most peoples) expectations of economic life under lockdown were wrong, not because they couldn't fall. I don't think that tells us much about prices for the next couple of years.

    The two key things are that the government will do as much as it can to keep prices high, and interest rates rises might push them down. Crystal ball unavailable for this one, but we have a pretty cynical govt so expect they will find a way.
    Sunak's stamp duty relaxations had an impact too I'm sure.
    And more interest in the market because lockdowns and WFH have changed (or brought forward) many homeowners' plans - so that there has been a boom in houses, property with gardens, and in rural or scenic locations, as well as homes with room for a 'home office', at the expense of smaller properties without open space, flats, and in the inner city.

    The sad thing about the pandemic is that many of those who are worse off because of it will be those who weren't able to get onto the housing ladder in the first place.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,743
    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:

    I wonder why someone like Hunt is willing to put his name to such an amendment. If I had to guess, I reckon it's because he and others think that Paterson deserves a lot more credit for raising the issue to begin with.

    From what I can gather there is a feeling the the rules have been interpreted so strictly as to verge on the incorrect and unfair. Plus the kangaroo-court aspect that Paterson is obviously concerned about. I don't think he expected the report to conclude as it did because he thought his robust defence would put an end to the matter.

    I don't what to think about all this , but in Paterson's own words:

    “My arguments and witnesses are not properly represented in the report. My lawyers are astounded by the procedure and said if Parliamentary privilege were surrendered and we had open access to a judge in court, the whole process would be chucked out.”

    Yet the accusation seems to be very simple.

    Letters were written by him as an MP that didn't mention the paid relationship between him and the companies he was written on behalf of. That lack of detail means the letters would be considered in a different light to how they would otherwise have been treated.

    I don't see how the excuses that have appeared in the press changes or excuses the actual accusation..
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319

    Alistair said:

    Stocky said:

    I see Smarkets has settled Virginia. Not BF yet though.

    Nice pick-up - thanks to @MrEd and @Alistair

    Much like the NY Mayor race I wasn't fully paying attention to this one and I didn't realise how out of line the odds were with reality until much too late to make big money.

    I am still furious I missed a chance to lay Andrew Yang as odds on favourite for the Dem nomination.
    I did mention Yang on here a few times without much response. He was even odds on when polling around 20% and two other candidates at 15%.
    I apologise for missing your posts. I bet with a strictly limited balance on Betfair but I would have broken all my rules to lump on that.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,858

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    That SAGE scientist who resigned has coincidentally got a book coming out this week. What a numpty.

    His reasons for resigning were idiotic too. Another one of the "let's protect our freedom by giving it up!". Everyone who proposes freedom in theory needs to be questioned on what the point of it is.

    I was having a chat with a few friends last night and the general consensus is that COVID is done. The government is right to tell the scientists to get fucked on plan b and we're right to continue living as normal now that vaccines are freely available and older people can get third doses. The burden of self preservation has been shifted from society to the individual.

    As I asked upthread, I wonder what "the public" wants to happen next. They have throughout been in favour of longer, harsher lockdowns so I would be interested to know the view now. My sense is that it is over in peoples' minds.

    Oh and on another topic, I saw your post about Yorkshire CC. Abso-bloody-lutely. It is beyond contempt that people should have remained in post after that.
    Yeah I'd be interested to see what the public thinks on a "what would you personally do" question rather than the standard ones of "what should everyone else do" which can be pretty misleading.

    My sense is that in private almost all people are not wearing masks indoors to visit friends and family and they are seeing lots of them in indoor spaces.

    The other thing pointed out by one of my friends last night is that we're very much on course to be the first large nation to get to the other side of the exit wave. A process that every nation will have to endure, we've managed, just about, to do it before Xmas and temperatures dropping to below zero. Other Northern European countries are not even close, he pointed out the Netherlands who didn't "run hot" in the summer and autumn and have now had to reimpose indoor social distancing and mask wearing.
    I think and would very much hope that no one in the UK is wearing a mask indoors to visit friends and family.
    It was sad when they were sensible pre-vaccines to see masks become a part of the culture wars in the USA.

    But they're used to culture wars. It is even sadder to see some people in this country desperately trying to make masks a culture war in the UK post-vaccines now we're at the stage they're quite rightly no longer required.
    Some elements of the socialist left really loved the idea of masks, and desperately wanted them to be the long term solution, rather than vaccines. There was a longish period where you saw this all over social media - "I hope we'll be wearing masks for years/forever; I don't think the vaccines are going to work/make enough of a difference".

    It fed quite nicely into the overall socialist ideology - "my mask protects you, your mask protects me". Everyone collectively relies on everyone else participating and following rules , as opposed to the vaccines which are individual choice: "my vaccine protects me, your vaccine... protects you, so I don't care if you get it or not."

    As usual, individual freedom has trumped collectivism. Tongue firmly in cheek.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    edited November 3
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Republican candidate Ciattarrelli now 61 votes ahead of Democratic incumbent Governor Phil Murphy with 84% in in the New Jersey governor race.

    That would be an even bigger shock than Virginia if the GOP did win it
    https://edition.cnn.com/election/2021/results/new-jersey/governor

    Why? No Democratic Governor of NJ has been re-elected since the 1970s. Since 1980 the Republicans have held the governorship for the majority of the time.
    Mainly expectations management, nobody was expecting Murphy to be in trouble, only McAuliffe. Also signifies that much of the North East is now more Republican than California where Newsom easily avoided recall a few months ago.

    However also Christie's win in NJ in 2009 foretold the GOP picking up the swing district of NJ 3rd in 2010, as the GOP regained the House in the 2010 midterms.

    Similarly the GOP win in Virginia in 2009 was followed by the GOP picking up 3 swing districts in Virginia in 2010
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,162

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Agree with the lead. The two Tories trying to defend this on the radio this morning came across badly. They were trying to shield him by playing his wife's suicide for all that it was worth; sympathy for personal tragedy isn't any excuse for what they are trying to do.

    Personal tragedy doesn't excuse continual abuse of position - which is what this looks like.

    If it had been a one off you could understand it but the biggest issue is that it was done multiple times.
    On this I completely agree with you.

    His wife's suicide is sad, but it shouldn't affect the case.

    The concerns about flaws are much more serious and they should be looked into - and it seems the system as designed permits the Commons to reject the report if it chooses to do so (like the Lib Dems did with boundary reforms) so the Commons choosing to send it to appeal to determine whether they wish to accept or reject it falls under its existing rights surely?

    If the Commons has to vote to accept or reject the report, and there are allegations of flaws in the report, then better surely to have those alleged flaws investigated first rather than just voting on party lines - and if the MPs were supposed to use their own judgement on this matter they shouldn't have been a part of the process, but they are.
    If the Commons is acting as the appeals step then all the procedural arguments about due process and a lack of an appeal are bunkum. His appeal to his fellow MPs should be on the merits of the case.

    It also makes it outrageous that the vote is being whipped.

    But I've been dragged into arguing about the merits of the case rather than the politics. Politicizing the issue aggressively is the way to get partisans on your side to defend the indefensible. That's what the Tories have succeeded in doing, and it's why the damage from this will be slight to non-existent.
    They're only bunkum if we don't listen to those like you who are demanding the Common rubber stamp this report without looking into it, thus denying any opportunity to appeal.

    The amendment Hunt signed has set out sensible steps to look into an appeal. That is the Commons doing its job, its not aggressive politicisation.

    Hunt is being sensible, and those who normally agree with Hunt here who are now going off the deep end trying to politicise this to score points are not.
    I did not say that the Commons should rubber stamp the report. I haven't read it, so I haven't made a judgement on its contents.

    What I've said is that MPs should be free to judge the merits of the case without being whipped to vote one way or the other. I'm hoping they will have read the report and will have been able to form their own view.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Agree with the lead. The two Tories trying to defend this on the radio this morning came across badly. They were trying to shield him by playing his wife's suicide for all that it was worth; sympathy for personal tragedy isn't any excuse for what they are trying to do.

    Personal tragedy doesn't excuse continual abuse of position - which is what this looks like.

    If it had been a one off you could understand it but the biggest issue is that it was done multiple times.
    On this I completely agree with you.

    His wife's suicide is sad, but it shouldn't affect the case.

    The concerns about flaws are much more serious and they should be looked into - and it seems the system as designed permits the Commons to reject the report if it chooses to do so (like the Lib Dems did with boundary reforms) so the Commons choosing to send it to appeal to determine whether they wish to accept or reject it falls under its existing rights surely?

    If the Commons has to vote to accept or reject the report, and there are allegations of flaws in the report, then better surely to have those alleged flaws investigated first rather than just voting on party lines - and if the MPs were supposed to use their own judgement on this matter they shouldn't have been a part of the process, but they are.
    If the Commons is acting as the appeals step then all the procedural arguments about due process and a lack of an appeal are bunkum. His appeal to his fellow MPs should be on the merits of the case.

    It also makes it outrageous that the vote is being whipped.

    But I've been dragged into arguing about the merits of the case rather than the politics. Politicizing the issue aggressively is the way to get partisans on your side to defend the indefensible. That's what the Tories have succeeded in doing, and it's why the damage from this will be slight to non-existent.
    They're only bunkum if we don't listen to those like you who are demanding the Common rubber stamp this report without looking into it, thus denying any opportunity to appeal.

    The amendment Hunt signed has set out sensible steps to look into an appeal. That is the Commons doing its job, its not aggressive politicisation.

    Hunt is being sensible, and those who normally agree with Hunt here who are now going off the deep end trying to politicise this to score points are not.
    I did not say that the Commons should rubber stamp the report. I haven't read it, so I haven't made a judgement on its contents.

    What I've said is that MPs should be free to judge the merits of the case without being whipped to vote one way or the other. I'm hoping they will have read the report and will have been able to form their own view.
    Certainly, whipping such a vote is (would be) shameless by the Tories.
  • alednamalednam Posts: 154
    What's at issue in the Patterson case is protecting the principles of public life.
    With Johnson as PM, and with the PM (ex officio) being in charge of the Ministerial Code, of appointments to ACoBA etc. etc., these principles, so far from being protected, will be breached if it suits Johnson and his friends.*
    And now the Tories wish to interfere with the Standards Committee's workings.
    [*Of course Johnson himself first breached the Code before he came to be in charge of it—when he resigned as Foreign Secretary.]
  • TimSTimS Posts: 492
    eek said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    TimS said:

    I've come to the conclusion the only thing that will meaningfully shift the polling and prospects for the next election is a significant fall in house prices (triggered by interest rate rises). That's the one to watch.

    Why would there be a fall in house prices?

    At the start of the first lockdown and the shock to markets and the economy generally sank in I was predicting a 15 - 20% pretty instant fall in house prices as borrowers' financial situations were now more rocky and lenders wouldn't want to lend. Therefore demand to buy houses falls and so, therefore, do prices. However I was wrong. House prices have gone up.

    If house prices didn't fall then why would they now?
    Furlough and lack of opportunity for spending on commuting, hospitality and holidays more than offset the average borrowers financial situations, and also enabled prospective first time buyers to save bigger deposits, the effects of which get amplified through the mortgage process.

    So house prices didn't fall because your (and most peoples) expectations of economic life under lockdown were wrong, not because they couldn't fall. I don't think that tells us much about prices for the next couple of years.

    The two key things are that the government will do as much as it can to keep prices high, and interest rates rises might push them down. Crystal ball unavailable for this one, but we have a pretty cynical govt so expect they will find a way.
    Sunak's stamp duty relaxations had an impact too I'm sure.
    Probably not an especially big one. Those relaxations have already been reversed but the price changes haven't been which shows they're probably not the big factor.
    Be very careful there, house prices are remarkably sticky on the upside until suddenly they aren't..

    It's been the cry wolf poster child for coming on 3 decades now. The perfect example of the crisis that economists perpetually predict yet never happens. So it is a mug's game predicting house prices. But, one day, given affordability can go no further now interest rates are for all practical matters zero, it might just happen.

    I do think it's the key to why so many around the country continue to vote conservative, and conversely why so many in the rental sector do not. If you are a home owner - particularly one who has owned for a decade or more - then whatever might befall you in your job, other investments, day to day spending and so on you have the comforting fall back of an asset on which you probably have significant positive equity. The house becomes the core social safety net for a large portion of the middle and old aged population. Commentators who bemoan the UK's obsession with bricks and mortar treat it as if it's magic money, not real investment, a house of cards ready to collapse at any time. But I'd argue it does a lot of the work that in other countries a more generous social security provision does: gives people the confidence to spend money knowing they have a fall back.

    As soon as this looks to be under threat the electorate goes wild. Either because prices fall for economic reasons or because someone in government wants to get their hands on it (see debate about funding social care).

    One unknown at the moment is whether the supply-demand equation shifts. With a fall in birth rate, reduced net migration and increasing trend for young adults to stay in the family home (especially in the SE) do we perhaps finally see a reversal of the trend towards ever greater housing demand?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,128

    I have heard of precisely zero people IRL agitating for another lockdown. Yes, I know, dovish London etc etc etc – I realise that other areas are different. But is there anywhere in the UK where people are clinging to their homes, praying that the government soon forces everyone to stay inside? Really? I just can't believe that.I hew heard of precisely zero people ITL agitating for another lockdown. Yes, I know, dovish London etc etc etc – I realise that other areas are different. But is there anywhere in the UK where people are clinging to their homes, praying that the government soon forces everyone to stay inside? Really? I just can't believe that.

    Agree, I don't think people are agitating for a lockdown.
    And we shouldn't need one, unless we get some new and nasty variant.

    But, I do know people (older/more vulnerable on average) who are reducing social contact and avoiding events where they feel unsafe. That is likely to continue whilst cases are high I would guess.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,193
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    That's an interesting list of MPs. Notably, it includes Jeremy Hunt.

    That is interesting, and Robert Buckland too.

    Its funny that those who vociferously and regularly criticise Boris and lavish praise upon Hunt as a contrast are now holding this up signed by Hunt as a flaw of Boris's party. Funny that.

    I think Hunt's right personally on this one. Serious allegations have been made and natural justice means there should be a right of an appeal if serious breaches have occurred.
    The lack of an appeal against the determination of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards looks something of a red herring to me. Firstly, whatever is done in the future no such right currently exists under the agreed procedure. Secondly, does the right of the House to reject the recommendations not constitute a right of appeal?

    Of course, rejecting the Commissioner's recommendations comes at a considerable political cost and is far too likely to become partisan as it has in the present case. I do not think that price is one worth paying for the Tories in this case, whatever sympathy there is for Owen Patterson's personal circumstances.
    Well if the House has a right to reject the recommendations as a right of appeal, then surely the MPs voting for Leadsom and Hunt's amendment falls under that?

    The procedure isn't finished until the Commons accepts the report, if the Commons sends the report back to be looked into before accepting it then that is the Commons doing its job. The Commons doesn't have to just be a rubber stamp.
    Yes and no Philip. The Commons has the right to reject the report, just as Boris had the right to reject the report on Ministerial standards. But there is a price in doing so and that price is that to do so undermines the independence and integrity of the system.

    The Commissioner was appointed because that independence was thought, rightly, to be important after the last lot of MP scandals. Parliament was not thought trustworthy enough to regulate its own. If they exercise their power to reject the independent conclusion they need compelling reasons to do so otherwise we are back to where we were with the expenses scandal.

    I have not studied this in detail and some of the summaries are very far from objective but I am not seeing conclusions that seem obviously wrong. I am seeing an MP who was being paid significant sums fighting his corner for his client. If he did this without declaring and acknowledging that interest that was very wrong.

    About 3 years ago now I had a complaint against me. It was without merit but the procedure which allowed that to be determined was very long, expensive and anxious. More than once in that process the very nature of the complaint changed and I faced different allegations. It was anxious and frustrating. I won't pretend for a second I did not moan about it down the pub with my mates. But I completely accept that subjecting myself to that procedure is a part of the price of holding the office of Advocate. MPs are exactly the same. Holding that office is a privilege and it comes at a price. The Tories really should not vote down this report or support this amendment.
    In your system did all other Advocates have to vote whether to uphold a ruling that came from it or not? Was there a chance to appeal a flawed decision or not?

    The system isn't truly independent because MPs have to vote to back it. If the system were truly independent then the sanction should have been automatic and not have MPs get involved at this stage. As a counter-example if the Bank of England votes to raise interest rates then they raise interest rates, because they're independent. Its not the case anymore of the Bank advising the Chancellor then the Chancellor choosing whether to accept the recommendation or not.

    If the system is flawed, then it doesn't have integrity. Jeremy Hunt is right, that if there are serious flaws then following through on a flawed system isn't showing integrity, looking into those flaws is.

    Rightly or wrongly the MPs were put at the final stage of this process. If the MPs like Hunt vote for this amendment then they are doing their job, not getting involved where they're not supposed to be.
    In my case the complaint ultimately went before a disciplinary tribunal set up under our code of conduct. That Tribunal has a majority lay representative element to ensure independence.

    MPs were not willing to give up ultimate control over their own discipline. The Commissioner does not make decisions so there is nothing to appeal. She makes a recommendation which Parliament has to determine they should accept, both in terms of guilt and in terms of sentence. That's the way they wanted it. But if the system is to work they need to accept those recommendations in all but the most egregious cases.
    And if MPs like Hunt determine that in their considered opinion this is one of those "most egregious cases"?

    Hunt is not a loyalist, or a lapdog, I'm sure you'd agree as would most of those having a go today in any other circumstance.

    I expect considering the health implications of the carcinogens etc involved that he's quite familiar with this case and if he thinks this is seriously flawed, why shouldn't he get involved with saying this is egregious?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,450

    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    Agree with the lead. The two Tories trying to defend this on the radio this morning came across badly. They were trying to shield him by playing his wife's suicide for all that it was worth; sympathy for personal tragedy isn't any excuse for what they are trying to do.

    Personal tragedy doesn't excuse continual abuse of position - which is what this looks like.

    If it had been a one off you could understand it but the biggest issue is that it was done multiple times.
    On this I completely agree with you.

    His wife's suicide is sad, but it shouldn't affect the case.

    The concerns about flaws are much more serious and they should be looked into - and it seems the system as designed permits the Commons to reject the report if it chooses to do so (like the Lib Dems did with boundary reforms) so the Commons choosing to send it to appeal to determine whether they wish to accept or reject it falls under its existing rights surely?

    If the Commons has to vote to accept or reject the report, and there are allegations of flaws in the report, then better surely to have those alleged flaws investigated first rather than just voting on party lines - and if the MPs were supposed to use their own judgement on this matter they shouldn't have been a part of the process, but they are.
    I have not been following this in detail, but why is it all of a sudden a flawed process? Plenty of MPs have been done under it already.
    Because of the list of issues that Paterson has raised which should be looked into.

    To the best of my knowledge no other MPs had raised a list of issues, though they'd have all been entitled to do so if they chose to do so.
    In a House full of lawyers, both actual and of the barrack-room chancer variety? I find that remarkable.
This discussion has been closed.