Categories
Protecting Patterson – the Tory gift to the Opposition – politicalbetting.com
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
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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...
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.
Will Starmer or Davey be able to do the same?
Anyway, the whole Tory party is funded on the pay for access model so it must be okay.
Nice pick-up - thanks to @MrEd and @Alistair
No pmq I assume?
They don't change, do they?
If anything, they are more blatant than ever.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
His arguments are almost entirely self serving.
The serious concern is the the Tory party is prepared to rip up the rule book to protect one of its own.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am still furious I missed a chance to lay Andrew Yang as odds on favourite for the Dem nomination.
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.
If it had been a one off you could understand it but the biggest issue is that it was done multiple times.
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.
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.
And I thought you posted that you weren't going to comment on this any more?
Some people made interesting points I hadn't considered or discussed yet that I thought it was worth responding to.
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
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.
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.
The bottom of your barrel is getting awfully thin.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.”
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.
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.
GET OUT AND ENJOY YOUR CITY FFS.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/covid-vaccine-children-doses-latest-b1950102.html
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.
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.
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..
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.
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
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.
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.]
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?
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.
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?