Howdy, Stranger!

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

It is hard to see Old Bexley & Sidcup being other than a comfortable CON hold – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 4 in General
It is hard to see Old Bexley & Sidcup being other than a comfortable CON hold – politicalbetting.com

The Old Bexley & Sidcup by-election has been scheduled for Thursday 2nd December.Here's everything you need to know: pic.twitter.com/n7odqIYwrj

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • TazTaz Posts: 2,451
    First.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    I think this might be closer than Mike expects.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,740
    edited November 4
    Cup of Tea with Number 3.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,377
    tlg86 said:

    I think this might be closer than Mike expects.

    And how close do you think it might be?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,740
    Would anyone be able write a header about what France may be like if Le Pen or similar wins the Presidential election next year?

  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,435
    "since the referendum the party has found it difficult to flourish outside areas that did not vote Remain."

    -> Since the coalition the party has found it difficult.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    Good morning everybody.

    Wonder why OB&S was so heavily for Leave. Agree that under the circumstances. it doesn't seem fertile LD territory, but I expect quite a low turnout, unless someone can find a 'firework' local issue.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,523
    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    Would anyone be able write a header about what France may be like if Le Pen or similar wins the Presidential election next year?

    You mean, all the big changes likely if a narcissistic French person who like picking fights with the English becomes President?
    If Le Pen or similar wins, that strategy will be a busted flush....
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    philiph said:

    tlg86 said:

    I think this might be closer than Mike expects.

    And how close do you think it might be?
    Tories hold by 5-10 points. But I’m not sure who comes second...
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    If Le Pen or similar wins the fox will be in the Brussels hen house and no mistake.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,884
    Is it a mistake in a Leave seat for the Cons candidate to be French.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    edited November 4

    If Le Pen or similar wins the fox will be in the Brussels hen house and no mistake.

    Not really. Le Pen has made progress by moderating her views on the European Union.

    I would expect Le Pen-ite France would be an uncomfortable neighbour for southern England.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144
    edited November 4
    Foxy said:

    If Le Pen or similar wins the fox will be in the Brussels hen house and no mistake.

    Not really. Le Pen has made progress by moderating her views on the European Union.

    I hope you are right, but I'm not a very Merry Old Soul this morning! Had some bad news about a medical procedure yesterday.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701

    Foxy said:

    If Le Pen or similar wins the fox will be in the Brussels hen house and no mistake.

    Not really. Le Pen has made progress by moderating her views on the European Union.

    I hope you are right, but I'm not a very Merry Old Soul this morning! Had some bad news about a medical procedure yesterday.
    They couldn't get the rectal camera back out? :wink:
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    ydoethur said:

    Scrolling through the comments last night, surely Hyufd didn't mean to say corruption was fine as long as sufficient numbers of MPs approve of it?

    I mean - seriously?

    That is the party line...

    Kwarteng gives strong hint the commissioner Kathryn Stone should resign:

    "It's difficult to see what the future of the commissioner is, given the fact we are overturning and trying to reform the process".

    https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1456158302409199617
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,714
    I used to teach for many yearsin nearby Dartford and many of our students- much of the constituency is lower-middle/upper-working class. No 'liberal' tradition that I recall. It stayed blue throughout the Blair years so it would be an unlikely loss. I'd expect a lowish turnout.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,066

    Foxy said:

    If Le Pen or similar wins the fox will be in the Brussels hen house and no mistake.

    Not really. Le Pen has made progress by moderating her views on the European Union.

    I hope you are right, but I'm not a very Merry Old Soul this morning! Had some bad news about a medical procedure yesterday.
    Sorry to hear that. Hope you get better news soon.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,740
    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    Would anyone be able write a header about what France may be like if Le Pen or similar wins the Presidential election next year?

    You mean, all the big changes likely if a narcissistic French person who like picking fights with the English becomes President?
    At the moment Macron is like Lord Cardigan:

    Rightists to the right of him
    Rightists to the left of him
    Rightists on all sides of him
    He gibbered and chundered ...

    Which I think is driving his Putinesque behaviour.

    Macron is putting out that he is doing it all to defend all the other members of the EU.

    But I'm interested in the impact on France, us, and the EU, if there was a very different government in Paris.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,066
    MattW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    Would anyone be able write a header about what France may be like if Le Pen or similar wins the Presidential election next year?

    You mean, all the big changes likely if a narcissistic French person who like picking fights with the English becomes President?
    At the moment Macron is like Lord Cardigan:

    Rightists to the right of him
    Rightists to the left of him
    Rightists on all sides of him
    He gibbered and chundered ...

    Which I think is driving his Putinesque behaviour.

    Macron is putting out that he is doing it all to defend all the other members of the EU.

    But I'm interested in the impact on France, us, and the EU, if there was a very different government in Paris.
    A sane and honest government would be quite nice.

    I just can't think of the last time there was one in France.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scrolling through the comments last night, surely Hyufd didn't mean to say corruption was fine as long as sufficient numbers of MPs approve of it?

    I mean - seriously?

    That is the party line...

    Kwarteng gives strong hint the commissioner Kathryn Stone should resign:

    "It's difficult to see what the future of the commissioner is, given the fact we are overturning and trying to reform the process".

    https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1456158302409199617
    I understand that she has refused to do so.

    It's getting a bit like Poland. Only government approved judges permitted, and only as long as they facilitate government corruption.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,066
    edited November 4
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scrolling through the comments last night, surely Hyufd didn't mean to say corruption was fine as long as sufficient numbers of MPs approve of it?

    I mean - seriously?

    That is the party line...

    Kwarteng gives strong hint the commissioner Kathryn Stone should resign:

    "It's difficult to see what the future of the commissioner is, given the fact we are overturning and trying to reform the process".

    https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1456158302409199617
    I understand that she has refused to do so.

    It's getting a bit like Poland. Only government approved judges permitted, and only as long as they facilitate government corruption.
    She should indict every MP who voted for Paterson to be let off for corruption as well. Just for shits and giggles.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,183
    In less good news 40 countries vow to give up coal but these do not include China, India or the US, which makes it all kind of pointless: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59159018
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    edited November 4
    I wrote this in May, about the Conservative Party's decision that it no longer cared about right and wrong, only polling.
    https://thecritic.co.uk/nothing-matters-to-careless-people/


  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,893
    Foxy said:

    If Le Pen or similar wins the fox will be in the Brussels hen house and no mistake.

    Not really. Le Pen has made progress by moderating her views on the European Union.

    I would expect Le Pen-ite France would be an uncomfortable neighbour for southern England.
    She'd be handing out free kayaks at Grande-Synthe.
  • I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.

    Wow.

    HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    edited November 4
    MattW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    Would anyone be able write a header about what France may be like if Le Pen or similar wins the Presidential election next year?

    You mean, all the big changes likely if a narcissistic French person who like picking fights with the English becomes President?
    At the moment Macron is like Lord Cardigan:

    Rightists to the right of him
    Rightists to the left of him
    Rightists on all sides of him
    He gibbered and chundered ...

    Which I think is driving his Putinesque behaviour.

    Macron is putting out that he is doing it all to defend all the other members of the EU.

    But I'm interested in the impact on France, us, and the EU, if there was a very different government in Paris.
    Le Pen and Zemmour would both act as Putins useful idiots, so if you think of what would Vladimir want, you will be pretty close to it. Withdrawal from NATO for example.

    Bertrand etc would be more traditional Gaullists.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,183

    I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.

    Wow.

    HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.

    The DM has been eviscerating this government ever since the change of editor. Doesn't mean that they are not right about this one, of course.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,066
    edited November 4
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    Would anyone be able write a header about what France may be like if Le Pen or similar wins the Presidential election next year?

    You mean, all the big changes likely if a narcissistic French person who like picking fights with the English becomes President?
    At the moment Macron is like Lord Cardigan:

    Rightists to the right of him
    Rightists to the left of him
    Rightists on all sides of him
    He gibbered and chundered ...

    Which I think is driving his Putinesque behaviour.

    Macron is putting out that he is doing it all to defend all the other members of the EU.

    But I'm interested in the impact on France, us, and the EU, if there was a very different government in Paris.
    A sane and honest government would be quite nice.

    I just can't think of the last time there was one in France.
    It might be nice to have one here too.
    Well, yes, the thought had occurred :smile:
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,437
    TOPPING said:

    Is it a mistake in a Leave seat for the Cons candidate to be French.

    Not such a daft comment. The LDs lost Frimley Green by a very small margin and had someone with a French name. I understand @TSE travelled the 200 miles each day to ensure he lost.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,406
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scrolling through the comments last night, surely Hyufd didn't mean to say corruption was fine as long as sufficient numbers of MPs approve of it?

    I mean - seriously?

    He did. Also that its not corruption as the finding of corruption by the independent standards panel was apparently rendered null and void by the vote.

    Absurd. Even Charles is calling it corruption and he was loathe to call out all of the previous Tory corruption.

    Its the front page of the Daily Mail. The top of all the news bulletins. Remember the expenses scandal? That was also "obscure parliamentary procedure" but it ran and ran and ran. Why - because of the clear sense of right and wrong.

    What happened last night is wrong. You don't need to put it through a partisan filter for that judgement - its wrong. And the dripping sneering arrogance of the Tory party - loathsome Leadsom on C4 News, HYUFD on here, Paterson saying "I'd do it all again".

    And there's more. People didn't really poke the stick too hard at connections between donations to Tory HQ and MPs and the awarding of vast contracts without tender, peerages, planning consent etc etc etc. Paterson is so outrageous in waving his shilling for Randox that I expect the rest of it to be given another run over by the media as this story continues to have legs.

    HYUFD can foam on about voters, but all that is needed to remove this disgrace of a government from office is Tory voters abstaining. They don't need to be persuaded to vote Starmer or Davey or Farage or anyone else. Just to stay at home.
    The obvious reason that Tories want to kick into touch any serious sanction for paid lobbying for commercial interests is that Owen Paterson was only the tip of the iceberg. Many others, right up to the top of government have their snouts in the same trough.
    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/05/the-guardian-view-on-tory-party-funding-shine-the-light

    The whole Tory party is funded on a pay for access model. It is blatantly corrupt. Poor old Neil Hamilton and his brown envelopes of cash seem almost quaint by comparison.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,437
    At the risk of being accused of being a hypocrite the Today programme was reporting this morning that the flight Boris took yesterday for an urgent meeting was to have dinner with OP's mate.
  • DavidL said:

    I've had a scan through the various Daily Mail stories and the best rated comments.

    Wow.

    HYUFD really needs to watch it. The Tory Party is getting eviscerated by Tory supporters in a Tory newspaper. The idea that the corrupt and their shills are in the right and the parliamentary commissioner is wrong is laughable.

    The DM has been eviscerating this government ever since the change of editor. Doesn't mean that they are not right about this one, of course.
    I'm less interested by what the Heil is saying and more by what their readers are saying. An editor and his team can desperately try to push a line, the question is can they carry the readership with them. On this one they appear to be fully supported by Tory-voting readers with their attacks.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    Politwoops can be such a useful resource on mornings like this. Lucy Allan MP was up very early this morning, deleting a whole bunch of tweets. https://www.politwoops.co.uk/p/conservative/lucyallan This one, to @RhonddaBryant, was beyond outrageous. https://twitter.com/rhodri/status/1456164541612580869/photo/1
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    Chris Bryant, Labour MP and chairman of the committee on standards, says the actions of Owen Paterson is the "definition of corruption" #today
    https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1456164643785822208
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931
    ydoethur said:

    Scrolling through the comments last night, surely Hyufd didn't mean to say corruption was fine as long as sufficient numbers of MPs approve of it?

    I mean - seriously?

    Pretty much that.
    Though his line is that if Tory MPs approve then it's not corruption.
  • This image sums it up.


  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    Cabinet Minister makes clear yesterday's vote was (at least in part) about forcing the anti-sleaze Tsar out of her job https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1456158302409199617
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    Scott_xP said:

    I wrote this in May, about the Conservative Party's decision that it no longer cared about right and wrong, only polling.
    https://thecritic.co.uk/nothing-matters-to-careless-people/


    Written in May so that would have been, what, after wallpapergate? A couple of sentences from your link:-

    It ought to trouble the Tories that they appear to be acting in precisely the way Labour would like to portray them: rich people doing favours for their rich friends, lining their pockets and living lives of reckless extravagance while pensioners are dying alone in care homes.

    Conservatives ought to be able to say, with more confidence than they are at the moment, that their leader is an honest man who acted within both the letter and the spirit of the law. That used to be the sort of thing that mattered. But it’s a different party now.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    Is this personal for Boris Johnson? Stone has investigated him 3 times and is about to decide whether to launch a 4th into Downing St flat refurb - after the Electoral Commission reports back on the wallpaper saga https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1456162486328168449
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,162
    DavidL said:

    In less good news 40 countries vow to give up coal but these do not include China, India or the US, which makes it all kind of pointless: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59159018

    Ultimately every country has to give up coal, which includes the 40 who have promised to do so, which makes this a step forward.

    I'd have liked countries to move as fast as technically possible on coal, rather than as fast as economically inevitable - but the economics is going to see off coal now, and I think we'll end up being surprised at how fast the transition ends up being. The news on solar in India is really positive: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/03/indias-huge-uptake-in-solar-is-driving-more-ambitious-climate-goals-says-minister
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833

    Foxy said:

    If Le Pen or similar wins the fox will be in the Brussels hen house and no mistake.

    Not really. Le Pen has made progress by moderating her views on the European Union.

    I hope you are right, but I'm not a very Merry Old Soul this morning! Had some bad news about a medical procedure yesterday.
    Sorry to hear. All ok?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931
    The Guardian has a fairly good analysis of why Paterson claims the rules didn't apply to him:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/03/owen-paterson-his-claims-and-how-they-stack-up-in-analysis

    His argument lacks credibility, to put it mildly. Effectively he's arguing that if an MP believes he's exempt from the rules, that should be the end of the matter.
    And it is not an argument which would be significantly altered by any witness statements. The essential facts of the case are not in dispute.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,936
    Looks like Leon's "skirts" story has made the press:


  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931
    kjh said:

    At the risk of being accused of being a hypocrite the Today programme was reporting this morning that the flight Boris took yesterday for an urgent meeting was to have dinner with OP's mate.

    TBF, the climate change denier in question is an old mate of Boris, too.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,015
    Scott_xP said:

    Chris Bryant, Labour MP and chairman of the committee on standards, says the actions of Owen Paterson is the "definition of corruption" #today
    https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1456164643785822208

    I might be a whole lot more impressed if ..... the only Parliament without any official register of lobbyists, or any restriction on lobbying, is the one that Llafur control.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,158
    edited November 4
    I'm amazed anyone is surprised about yesterday's vote. As a fish rots from its head, so a political party does from its leader. Corbyn rotted the Labour Party; Johnson's doing the same for the Conservatives.

    Johnson has a long history of avoiding any inquiries into his actions. The Garden Bridge debacle is typical: a vainunglorious project, wanted by few except him and his sycophants, with little useful purpose, and which wasted £43 million of public money. He did not cooperate with the inquiry, preferring to ignore and debase it.

    I'm unsurprised his party is making this move now. I have some sympathy for Owen Paterson; the actions of his party overwhelm the sympathy. There may be problems with the defined processes; there may be problems with the way Paterson's case was handled. Even if those are both true, that truth will be lose beneath the stinking slurry of yesterday's vote, and those MPs who are swimming in the pigswill.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    This is really the problem, as many Tory MPs, never mind Labour, said yesterday. The evidence plainly suggests he is guilty, not innocent. of breaking the rules, and however much he moans there is not some secret third option for ruling on what he did https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1456168139927003137
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931

    DavidL said:

    In less good news 40 countries vow to give up coal but these do not include China, India or the US, which makes it all kind of pointless: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59159018

    Ultimately every country has to give up coal, which includes the 40 who have promised to do so, which makes this a step forward.

    I'd have liked countries to move as fast as technically possible on coal, rather than as fast as economically inevitable - but the economics is going to see off coal now, and I think we'll end up being surprised at how fast the transition ends up being. The news on solar in India is really positive: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/03/indias-huge-uptake-in-solar-is-driving-more-ambitious-climate-goals-says-minister
    It's very good news, since it sets out a realistic development model without coal. And as you say, increased investment will create a virtuous circle of cheaper/more efficient renewables.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931
    Scott_xP said:

    Cabinet Minister makes clear yesterday's vote was (at least in part) about forcing the anti-sleaze Tsar out of her job https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1456158302409199617

    Despite the protestations in the Commons that this vote was solely about introducing an appeal process.
    Bait and switch is a favoured technique of grifters.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833
    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    Would anyone be able write a header about what France may be like if Le Pen or similar wins the Presidential election next year?

    You mean, all the big changes likely if a narcissistic French person who like picking fights with the English becomes President?
    At the moment Macron is like Lord Cardigan:

    Rightists to the right of him
    Rightists to the left of him
    Rightists on all sides of him
    He gibbered and chundered ...

    Which I think is driving his Putinesque behaviour.

    Macron is putting out that he is doing it all to defend all the other members of the EU.

    But I'm interested in the impact on France, us, and the EU, if there was a very different government in Paris.
    A sane and honest government would be quite nice.

    I just can't think of the last time there was one in France.
    Edouard Balladur
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    edited November 4

    Scott_xP said:

    Chris Bryant, Labour MP and chairman of the committee on standards, says the actions of Owen Paterson is the "definition of corruption" #today
    https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1456164643785822208

    I might be a whole lot more impressed if ..... the only Parliament without any official register of lobbyists, or any restriction on lobbying, is the one that Llafur control.
    Google suggests there are restrictions in Wales on lobbying, or at least, on being lobbied:-

    https://senedd.wales/how-we-work/code-of-conduct-and-associated-rules-and-guidance-for-members-of-the-senedd/section-2-5-guidance-on-lobbying-and-access-to-assembly-members/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,183
    Nigelb said:

    The Guardian has a fairly good analysis of why Paterson claims the rules didn't apply to him:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/03/owen-paterson-his-claims-and-how-they-stack-up-in-analysis

    His argument lacks credibility, to put it mildly. Effectively he's arguing that if an MP believes he's exempt from the rules, that should be the end of the matter.
    And it is not an argument which would be significantly altered by any witness statements. The essential facts of the case are not in dispute.

    It's almost simpler than that. I am important and serious. What I do is important and serious. Therefore anything I do falls within the serious wrong exception.

    I am not sure what is the scarier: that someone with so little insight was once a cabinet minister or that Leadsom was once a non joke candidate (at least in some eyes) for the leadership of the Tory party. Its a shameful episode which reduces standards in public life significantly.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Is this personal for Boris Johnson? Stone has investigated him 3 times and is about to decide whether to launch a 4th into Downing St flat refurb - after the Electoral Commission reports back on the wallpaper saga https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1456162486328168449

    You mean the PM might have exploited the plight of a desperate man (OP's greatest sin was being stupid and getting caught) to further his own ends?

    Say it isn't so.
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,451
    The party of govt trying to force the sleaze watchdog out of office. How history repeats

    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12140345.anger-as-watchdog-for-mps-loses-her-job-standards-commissioner-ruffled-a-few-feathers/
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    Bryant was very good on R4 this morning, and the Paterson manoeuvre is looking more shabby than ever
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833

    ydoethur said:

    Scrolling through the comments last night, surely Hyufd didn't mean to say corruption was fine as long as sufficient numbers of MPs approve of it?

    I mean - seriously?

    He did. Also that its not corruption as the finding of corruption by the independent standards panel was apparently rendered null and void by the vote.

    Absurd. Even Charles is calling it corruption and he was loathe to call out all of the previous Tory corruption.

    Its the front page of the Daily Mail. The top of all the news bulletins. Remember the expenses scandal? That was also "obscure parliamentary procedure" but it ran and ran and ran. Why - because of the clear sense of right and wrong.

    What happened last night is wrong. You don't need to put it through a partisan filter for that judgement - its wrong. And the dripping sneering arrogance of the Tory party - loathsome Leadsom on C4 News, HYUFD on here, Paterson saying "I'd do it all again".

    And there's more. People didn't really poke the stick too hard at connections between donations to Tory HQ and MPs and the awarding of vast contracts without tender, peerages, planning consent etc etc etc. Paterson is so outrageous in waving his shilling for Randox that I expect the rest of it to be given another run over by the media as this story continues to have legs.

    HYUFD can foam on about voters, but all that is needed to remove this disgrace of a government from office is Tory voters abstaining. They don't need to be persuaded to vote Starmer or Davey or Farage or anyone else. Just to stay at home.
    I didn’t call this case corruption because I have no knowledge of the facts.

    But I was disturbed by @HYUFD argument that it was all ok because the House had voted it was ok.

    The idea of a completely independent body having the ability to suspend elected representatives doesn’t sit well with me. But a system where MPs vote in judgement on their peers falls apart when it becomes partisan. May be you need something like a panel of former Speakers? I don’t see a particularly good way out.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    Labour going hard on Kwasi's comments this morning.
    Frontbencher Thangam Debbonaire says it "is appalling" the government is "trying to bully the standards commissioner out of her job".
    “Boris Johnson must distance himself from these latest attempts to poison British politics."
    https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1456165133173018636
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931

    Foxy said:

    If Le Pen or similar wins the fox will be in the Brussels hen house and no mistake.

    Not really. Le Pen has made progress by moderating her views on the European Union.

    I hope you are right, but I'm not a very Merry Old Soul this morning! Had some bad news about a medical procedure yesterday.
    They couldn't get the rectal camera back out? :wink:
    LOL. Not quite; once had a nasty experience with one of those though, with the consultant and the junior arguing about exactly where the probe ought to be. While the thing was inside me! "Well push it up a bit further and move it about!" was one of the remarks made.
    Blimey. That's straying into @Leon territory.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scrolling through the comments last night, surely Hyufd didn't mean to say corruption was fine as long as sufficient numbers of MPs approve of it?

    I mean - seriously?

    He did. Also that its not corruption as the finding of corruption by the independent standards panel was apparently rendered null and void by the vote.

    Absurd. Even Charles is calling it corruption and he was loathe to call out all of the previous Tory corruption.

    Its the front page of the Daily Mail. The top of all the news bulletins. Remember the expenses scandal? That was also "obscure parliamentary procedure" but it ran and ran and ran. Why - because of the clear sense of right and wrong.

    What happened last night is wrong. You don't need to put it through a partisan filter for that judgement - its wrong. And the dripping sneering arrogance of the Tory party - loathsome Leadsom on C4 News, HYUFD on here, Paterson saying "I'd do it all again".

    And there's more. People didn't really poke the stick too hard at connections between donations to Tory HQ and MPs and the awarding of vast contracts without tender, peerages, planning consent etc etc etc. Paterson is so outrageous in waving his shilling for Randox that I expect the rest of it to be given another run over by the media as this story continues to have legs.

    HYUFD can foam on about voters, but all that is needed to remove this disgrace of a government from office is Tory voters abstaining. They don't need to be persuaded to vote Starmer or Davey or Farage or anyone else. Just to stay at home.
    The obvious reason that Tories want to kick into touch any serious sanction for paid lobbying for commercial interests is that Owen Paterson was only the tip of the iceberg. Many others, right up to the top of government have their snouts in the same trough.
    Its the full Hailsham. An elective dictatorship where the public elect a government who can then run rampant all over long established standards and principles whilst saying "we won, get over it". And even worse than when Mr Hogg first proposed it existed, said government remains popular, seemingly rewarded for their actions in trashing natural justice, propriety and decency.
    Hailsham would not have approved of government. It’s not kind to associate his name with them
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675

    Scott_xP said:

    Is this personal for Boris Johnson? Stone has investigated him 3 times and is about to decide whether to launch a 4th into Downing St flat refurb - after the Electoral Commission reports back on the wallpaper saga https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1456162486328168449

    You mean the PM might have exploited the plight of a desperate man (OP's greatest sin was being stupid and getting caught) to further his own ends?

    Say it isn't so.
    If this is the primary aim, then I'd suggest the outlook for Paterson is not very good.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    edited November 4
    Nigelb said:

    The Guardian has a fairly good analysis of why Paterson claims the rules didn't apply to him:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/03/owen-paterson-his-claims-and-how-they-stack-up-in-analysis

    His argument lacks credibility, to put it mildly. Effectively he's arguing that if an MP believes he's exempt from the rules, that should be the end of the matter.
    And it is not an argument which would be significantly altered by any witness statements. The essential facts of the case are not in dispute.

    Paterson's argument is essentially that the loophole that applies to warning about dangers to public health should apply to him, when what he was actually doing was trying to get a competitor's product - competitor to one of the pharma companies who just happened to be paying him £££££, that is - relabelled.

    As Bryant said this morning, if there was genuinely a risk to public health, how come Paterson as an MP with access to the media did nothing else about it - no speeches, no articles, no other letters, nothing?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Guardian has a fairly good analysis of why Paterson claims the rules didn't apply to him:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/03/owen-paterson-his-claims-and-how-they-stack-up-in-analysis

    His argument lacks credibility, to put it mildly. Effectively he's arguing that if an MP believes he's exempt from the rules, that should be the end of the matter.
    And it is not an argument which would be significantly altered by any witness statements. The essential facts of the case are not in dispute.

    It's almost simpler than that. I am important and serious. What I do is important and serious. Therefore anything I do falls within the serious wrong exception.

    I am not sure what is the scarier: that someone with so little insight was once a cabinet minister or that Leadsom was once a non joke candidate (at least in some eyes) for the leadership of the Tory party. Its a shameful episode which reduces standards in public life significantly.
    While I agree, I think it important to point out that Paterson's claims appear to have no merit.

    You might make them in the context of the Covid pandemic*, but they are considerably less convincing in the case of paid lobbying to get a competitor's products relabelled.

    *Some might recall this.
    In March 2020, Randox was awarded a £133 million contract from the Department of Health and Social Care to produce testing kits (at a cost of £49 each)[61] during the coronavirus pandemic without any other firms being given the opportunity to bid for the work.[62] Paterson represented Randox in a call with James Bethell, the minister responsible for awarding contracts to the private sector during the pandemic in April 2020.[61] A further £347 million contract was awarded to Randox six months later without other companies being able to bid...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    Attorney General and Solicitor General voted to stop normal disciplinary process against Owen Patterson just as it was about to find him in breach. Flagrant breach of the rule of law. They are supposed to be law officers, with obligations to the law, not just government stooges.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1456035773896171523
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,936
    The Mail, not pulling any punches:


  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    Betting on the Tories in that local by-election with headlines on polling day like this looks a little brave, even though on paper it should be safe:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-59158458
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Guardian has a fairly good analysis of why Paterson claims the rules didn't apply to him:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/03/owen-paterson-his-claims-and-how-they-stack-up-in-analysis

    His argument lacks credibility, to put it mildly. Effectively he's arguing that if an MP believes he's exempt from the rules, that should be the end of the matter.
    And it is not an argument which would be significantly altered by any witness statements. The essential facts of the case are not in dispute.

    Paterson's argument is essentially that the loophole that applies to warning about dangers to public health should apply to him, when what he was actually doing was trying to get a competitor's product - competitor to one of the pharma companies who just happened to be paying him £££££, that is - relabelled. ...
    No, that was the sausage company,
    The serious emergency argument appears to be infinitely flexible.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,465
    ConservativeHome’s @PaulGoodmanCH - closely followed in No10 - writes:

    There is now no good option for the Prime Minister.  The choice is between backing any reform plan advanced by the new Tory-only committee, or not doing so for fear of that slender majority of 18 vanishing


    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1456173265366528000
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,634
    Scott_xP said:

    Labour going hard on Kwasi's comments this morning.
    Frontbencher Thangam Debbonaire says it "is appalling" the government is "trying to bully the standards commissioner out of her job".
    “Boris Johnson must distance himself from these latest attempts to poison British politics."
    https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1456165133173018636

    Surely it is in Johnson's interests to be rid of the wretched woman, what with reports on wallpaper and curtains just around the corner.

    Sack her sorry arse and let John Whittingdale give the Number 10 refurbishment a clean bill of health.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,191
    Scott_xP said:

    Cabinet Minister makes clear yesterday's vote was (at least in part) about forcing the anti-sleaze Tsar out of her job https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1456158302409199617

    Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?

    If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scrolling through the comments last night, surely Hyufd didn't mean to say corruption was fine as long as sufficient numbers of MPs approve of it?

    I mean - seriously?

    Pretty much that.
    Though his line is that if Tory MPs approve then it's not corruption.
    To adapt the famous adage over treason:

    Corruption never prospers, for if it does no-one dare call it corruption.
  • tlg86 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Is this personal for Boris Johnson? Stone has investigated him 3 times and is about to decide whether to launch a 4th into Downing St flat refurb - after the Electoral Commission reports back on the wallpaper saga https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1456162486328168449

    You mean the PM might have exploited the plight of a desperate man (OP's greatest sin was being stupid and getting caught) to further his own ends?

    Say it isn't so.
    If this is the primary aim, then I'd suggest the outlook for Paterson is not very good.
    His case looks pretty flimsy, for all he wants another appeal.

    And it wouldn't exactly be out of character for BoJo to use the (genuine, I think) personal sympathy for OP to get something that will make Johnson's life easier.

    The smash'n'grab nature of this vote is classic Bozza.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,909
    Am I the only optimist about global warning? The CO2 levels will eventually fall owing to a combination of PR and technology. The Times' dire warning about horse-shit levels in London were superseded by the invention of the motor car with no one nailing themselves to the floor.

    Activists never 'do' anything - they perform a mutual onanism ritual to show they are better than the hoi poloi. But they will claim they are the cause. Even the recalcitrant nations will eventually take a bribe to fall into line.

    From a scientific point of view, it will be interesting to see how much effect the fall in CO2 has. No one can predict what percentage of global warming is caused by this gas. I won't live to see it but I think I know what will be claimed.

    If there's no change - it would have been much worse if we hadn't done it.
    If there's little change - we didn't reduce methane and X, Y, and Z. And reducing pollution in the air cooled the atmosphere, but it had to be done.
    If there's a large change, the onanists did it all.

    Then they'll have to find another six-year-old with a cause.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519

    Scott_xP said:

    Cabinet Minister makes clear yesterday's vote was (at least in part) about forcing the anti-sleaze Tsar out of her job https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1456158302409199617

    Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?

    If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
    Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.

    Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.

    https://t.co/Wf9RdBpaRk

    https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1455928741067214853?t=nuMMRUcqAqTCfZrJRmNdlg&s=19
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675

    tlg86 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Is this personal for Boris Johnson? Stone has investigated him 3 times and is about to decide whether to launch a 4th into Downing St flat refurb - after the Electoral Commission reports back on the wallpaper saga https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1456162486328168449

    You mean the PM might have exploited the plight of a desperate man (OP's greatest sin was being stupid and getting caught) to further his own ends?

    Say it isn't so.
    If this is the primary aim, then I'd suggest the outlook for Paterson is not very good.
    His case looks pretty flimsy, for all he wants another appeal.

    And it wouldn't exactly be out of character for BoJo to use the (genuine, I think) personal sympathy for OP to get something that will make Johnson's life easier.

    The smash'n'grab nature of this vote is classic Bozza.
    I reckon a few MPs might be regretting not voting No yesterday.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,015

    Scott_xP said:

    Chris Bryant, Labour MP and chairman of the committee on standards, says the actions of Owen Paterson is the "definition of corruption" #today
    https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1456164643785822208

    I might be a whole lot more impressed if ..... the only Parliament without any official register of lobbyists, or any restriction on lobbying, is the one that Llafur control.
    Google suggests there are restrictions in Wales on lobbying, or at least, on being lobbied:-

    https://senedd.wales/how-we-work/code-of-conduct-and-associated-rules-and-guidance-for-members-of-the-senedd/section-2-5-guidance-on-lobbying-and-access-to-assembly-members/
    From the doc you linked to:"There is currently no voluntary or statutory scheme for registering professional lobbyists operating in Wales."

    It is up to the Senedd member to determine whether the person he/she is talking to is a lobbyist. It is self-regulation 😉

    Is what Owen Patterson did against the rules of the Senedd ?
  • Paterson is a venal disgrace but I have a feeling his won't be the only transgression. I would love to see a full audit of EVERY MP'S income. I suspect that would show we are well on the way to having a replica of the corrupt US Senate, where professional politicians obtain huge wealth through outside lobbying. The expenses scandal was possibly the thin end of the wedge.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519
    CD13 said:

    Am I the only optimist about global warning? The CO2 levels will eventually fall owing to a combination of PR and technology. The Times' dire warning about horse-shit levels in London were superseded by the invention of the motor car with no one nailing themselves to the floor.

    Activists never 'do' anything - they perform a mutual onanism ritual to show they are better than the hoi poloi. But they will claim they are the cause. Even the recalcitrant nations will eventually take a bribe to fall into line.

    From a scientific point of view, it will be interesting to see how much effect the fall in CO2 has. No one can predict what percentage of global warming is caused by this gas. I won't live to see it but I think I know what will be claimed.

    If there's no change - it would have been much worse if we hadn't done it.
    If there's little change - we didn't reduce methane and X, Y, and Z. And reducing pollution in the air cooled the atmosphere, but it had to be done.
    If there's a large change, the onanists did it all.

    Then they'll have to find another six-year-old with a cause.

    There was a good article on this in the FT yesterday, and projections. Basically for every degree of warming, 1 billion people have to live in tperatures over 29C. Currently only 58 million do, but on current trajectory 3 billion will by 2070. Most are in Africa, Middle East, India and SE Asia.

    The penalty for complacency would be a billion or so climate refugees in Europe by 2070.

    https://www.ft.com/content/072b5c87-7330-459b-a947-be6767a1099d
  • Good morning

    I just cannot understand why Boris or his advisors thought this was a good idea.

    Paterson should take his punishment, and if there is an issue with the procedures then it is sensible to address it in the future

    The media say this morning that Paterson's 30 day exclusion has been suspended pending this new procedure but we all know that that is a long way away

    @HYUFD comments last night have rightly been called out as I did when he made them

    And to add to Parliament's woes Claudia Webbe is to be sentenced today
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,634
    Scott_xP said:

    This is really the problem, as many Tory MPs, never mind Labour, said yesterday. The evidence plainly suggests he is guilty, not innocent. of breaking the rules, and however much he moans there is not some secret third option for ruling on what he did https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1456168139927003137

    However if the punishment is a whopping 9 day suspension rather than an outrageously hard ten...no recall!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,704
    edited November 4
    Scott_xP said:

    ConservativeHome’s @PaulGoodmanCH - closely followed in No10 - writes:

    There is now no good option for the Prime Minister.  The choice is between backing any reform plan advanced by the new Tory-only committee, or not doing so for fear of that slender majority of 18 vanishing


    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1456173265366528000

    Why would someone who voted to reprieve Paterson and neuter the process yesterday change their tune? They can have been under no illusions what it looked like regardless of the butter wouldn't melt in their mouth protestations.

    Eyes on the prize - call it the Paterson Principle.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. NorthWales, if that's the Labour MP I think it is then not only has the idiot in Number 10 been stupid with the vote yesterday all by itself, he's also created a negative Conservative headline to eclipse a negative Labour one.

    And for what? One man, to be suspended for 30 days?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,406

    The Mail, not pulling any punches:


    Pulled some punches surely, blaming "shameless MPs" not "shameless Tories".
  • Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Cabinet Minister makes clear yesterday's vote was (at least in part) about forcing the anti-sleaze Tsar out of her job https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1456158302409199617

    Considering what drove this was serious allegations of a tainted process and that the "Tsar" was prejudiced and unfair, is that really a surprise?

    If as alleged the process followed was unfair and the "Tsar" was biased then that's an issue, isn't it?
    Which is to fail to understand the procedure. Chris Bryant explained it during the debate.

    Chris Bryant's closing contribution to the Owen Paterson debate is one of the most quietly effective and damning Commons speeches you'll hear in a while. Worth watching in full.

    https://t.co/Wf9RdBpaRk

    https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1455928741067214853?t=nuMMRUcqAqTCfZrJRmNdlg&s=19
    He was very good and I said so at the time
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376
    I agree with OGH.

    Old Bexley and Sidcup stayed Conservative even in 1997 and 2001. It was over 60% Leave and the LDs got just 8% there in 2019, so it offers little chance for a LD by election upset.

    The Conservatives have also selected a local candidate, the former deputy leader of Bexley council, who is well known in the area.

    Indeed the question will be more the size of the Conseervative majority, not whether the Tories win or not.

    The more interesting thing will be whether Labour can hold second from the LDs and ReformUK, whose leader Richard Tice will be their candidate in the by election
  • DavidL said:

    In less good news 40 countries vow to give up coal but these do not include China, India or the US, which makes it all kind of pointless: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59159018

    Ultimately every country has to give up coal, which includes the 40 who have promised to do so, which makes this a step forward.

    I'd have liked countries to move as fast as technically possible on coal, rather than as fast as economically inevitable - but the economics is going to see off coal now, and I think we'll end up being surprised at how fast the transition ends up being. The news on solar in India is really positive: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/03/indias-huge-uptake-in-solar-is-driving-more-ambitious-climate-goals-says-minister
    I disagree the economics will see coal come back in countries like ours where production has pretty much ceased.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,909
    Dr Fox,

    I would hardly call what we are undergoing is complacency, but with activists, nothing will ever be good enough, otherwise they'll be out of a job.

    Compared to the vagaries of planet Earth, projected estimates for a mere virus are a piece of piss.

    As always, we'll muddle through.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,406
    Foxy said:

    CD13 said:

    Am I the only optimist about global warning? The CO2 levels will eventually fall owing to a combination of PR and technology. The Times' dire warning about horse-shit levels in London were superseded by the invention of the motor car with no one nailing themselves to the floor.

    Activists never 'do' anything - they perform a mutual onanism ritual to show they are better than the hoi poloi. But they will claim they are the cause. Even the recalcitrant nations will eventually take a bribe to fall into line.

    From a scientific point of view, it will be interesting to see how much effect the fall in CO2 has. No one can predict what percentage of global warming is caused by this gas. I won't live to see it but I think I know what will be claimed.

    If there's no change - it would have been much worse if we hadn't done it.
    If there's little change - we didn't reduce methane and X, Y, and Z. And reducing pollution in the air cooled the atmosphere, but it had to be done.
    If there's a large change, the onanists did it all.

    Then they'll have to find another six-year-old with a cause.

    There was a good article on this in the FT yesterday, and projections. Basically for every degree of warming, 1 billion people have to live in tperatures over 29C. Currently only 58 million do, but on current trajectory 3 billion will by 2070. Most are in Africa, Middle East, India and SE Asia.

    The penalty for complacency would be a billion or so climate refugees in Europe by 2070.

    https://www.ft.com/content/072b5c87-7330-459b-a947-be6767a1099d
    And the kind of people who are currently denying it is a problem will be denying any responsibility for the billion climate refugees, guaranteed.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    Just when you think the government can’t get much worse, it finds new ways to surprise you.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,356
    CD13 said:

    Am I the only optimist about global warning? The CO2 levels will eventually fall owing to a combination of PR and technology. The Times' dire warning about horse-shit levels in London were superseded by the invention of the motor car with no one nailing themselves to the floor.

    Activists never 'do' anything - they perform a mutual onanism ritual to show they are better than the hoi poloi. But they will claim they are the cause. Even the recalcitrant nations will eventually take a bribe to fall into line.

    From a scientific point of view, it will be interesting to see how much effect the fall in CO2 has. No one can predict what percentage of global warming is caused by this gas. I won't live to see it but I think I know what will be claimed.

    If there's no change - it would have been much worse if we hadn't done it.
    If there's little change - we didn't reduce methane and X, Y, and Z. And reducing pollution in the air cooled the atmosphere, but it had to be done.
    If there's a large change, the onanists did it all.

    Then they'll have to find another six-year-old with a cause.

    There is a significant confusion in your account. You refer to 'fall' in CO2. This can mean two very distinct things:

    Firstly it can mean a fall in the amount of CO2 (PPM) in the atmosphere.

    Secondly it can mean a reduction in the rate at which CO2 is being added to the atmosphere (currently at record high and increasing after 30 years of 'last chance' talk).

    The first will, if the science is right, save us but the technology does not exist.

    The second, if the science is right, will eventually destroy life as we know it
    and meanwhile will make us all variously uncomfortable.

    Because of the radical difference between the outcomes in 'CO2 fall' it is important for politicians to get them confused - like deficit and debt. So it is massively important for people who like clarity and truth to not confuse them.

    Which did you mean?




This discussion has been closed.