It won't be long before the next standards scandal. The government have re-rigged the appointments process to make Dacre a shoo-in at Ofcom. They've now changed the job description and interviewer, because Dacre was deemed too confrontational and "unemployable" for the role in front of the interview panel last time ; rather than change the kind of candidates interviewed.
This is eerily similar to what happened yesterday, and deeply worrying for democratic standards.
Its Rory Stewart. Former soldier and diplomat. Officer of the Order of the British Empire. Resigned from Johnson's Tory Party on principle. Currently running an NGO in Jordan and a visiting fellow at Yale.
To hold up a mirror to corruption you need to find someone who is demonstrably good and uncorruptable. Rory Stewart.
If Labour and LDs stood aside he would surely win. I wonder if he could even if they didn't?
He is without doubt an outstanding individual who seems from another age compared to a lot of the pigmies on the current front benches. Dare I say it, a genuine heir to Churchill, rather than the pathetic wannabe poundshop version who currently occupies No10
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
Why the f*** did they not look at the allegations and defence before starting to defend him.
The paperwork was available online and made it 100% clear why this was the wrong case to do anything with.
Heck I said as much yesterday, no character witness can explain multiple letters (so not a single accidental mistake) where you misrepresent the reason you are writing the letter and fail to mention you are being paid to do so.
Some of them fell for the bullshit perpetuated on here about the Commissioner and the process.
Something which was rebutted extensively.
I wonder if one of the issues here was the disconnect between the Tory MPs in "traditional" seats and their new base beyond the red wall. It is noteworthy that the likes of Aaron and the new MP for Hartlepool were among those voting against the amendment. Because if there is one area where this whole thing is likely to have gone done particularly badly it is in the traditional Labour voting areas (or even the traditional swing seats in places like the Midlands. There's still a large number of Tory MPs who don't understand these areas, occupy "safe" seats in the South, who thought that they could get away with this.
There cannot be a single Tory MP who now has even the remotest faith in the Prime Minister. Over the last 24 hours he has demonstrated conclusively that he is entirely untrustworthy and someone who is very happy to betray anyone at any time if it is convenient to do so.
Well everyone has always known that about Boris...
But...
He's a WINNER!
Until that demonstrably changes he's going nowhere.
The thing about him being “a winner” is all very good until he isn’t a winner. If he trashed the party then next election he won’t be a winner….. it also pre-supposes that there are not any other potential “winners” in the Tory ranks and in reality nobody knows until they know (sorry for the proto-Rumsfeld-ism…).
It might be that enough Tory MPs look at Boris the winner, look at shiny Rishi, look at Boris and then think that they need a new fresh “winner”.
Nobody knew Blair was a winner until he won but they could see he was fresh and connected with people. He had a “brand” like Rishi.
The 1922 chaps need to say to Boris “look old chap, you’ve been PM/world king, you “got Brexit done”, got COP26 done, got a start on levelling up - hand over the hard work of following it through to someone more focussed and enjoy your millions”.
Or is this too sensible…..
PS I write this as someone who had optimism that Boris could change and grow into the role but he’s just the wrong personality type. He won, got the Tories in now he should step aside - think of it like getting Big Sam in to save your club from relegation then thank him, pay him off and get someone in who can make the next season a success and avoid the need for a big Sam rescue in the future!
Perfect.
Sam Allardyce for North Shropshire. Its either that or the Newcastle United job.
You know what, Gary Neville might be tempted.
Only commentator accurately to predict the u-turn, several hours ahead of time.
1) Covid snowflakery: Manchester and Salford City Councils have both elected to cancel their bonfires this year because of covid (despite having some of the lowest rates of infections in the country). Parts of the public sector are still addicted to the power rush of last year. 2) Daughter snowflakery: my six year old daughter complained yesterday that “Mabel said that I always cry. And that’s not respecting my rights!” (Arguably, Mabel has a point).
Covid theatre at its finest (Manchester fireworks rather than your daughter).
There cannot be a single Tory MP who now has even the remotest faith in the Prime Minister. Over the last 24 hours he has demonstrated conclusively that he is entirely untrustworthy and someone who is very happy to betray anyone at any time if it is convenient to do so.
Well everyone has always known that about Boris...
But...
He's a WINNER!
Until that demonstrably changes he's going nowhere.
The thing about him being “a winner” is all very good until he isn’t a winner. If he trashed the party then next election he won’t be a winner….. it also pre-supposes that there are not any other potential “winners” in the Tory ranks and in reality nobody knows until they know (sorry for the proto-Rumsfeld-ism…).
It might be that enough Tory MPs look at Boris the winner, look at shiny Rishi, look at Boris and then think that they need a new fresh “winner”.
Nobody knew Blair was a winner until he won but they could see he was fresh and connected with people. He had a “brand” like Rishi.
The 1922 chaps need to say to Boris “look old chap, you’ve been PM/world king, you “got Brexit done”, got COP26 done, got a start on levelling up - hand over the hard work of following it through to someone more focussed and enjoy your millions”.
Or is this too sensible…..
PS I write this as someone who had optimism that Boris could change and grow into the role but he’s just the wrong personality type. He won, got the Tories in now he should step aside - think of it like getting Big Sam in to save your club from relegation then thank him, pay him off and get someone in who can make the next season a success and avoid the need for a big Sam rescue in the future!
Perfect.
Sam Allardyce for North Shropshire. Its either that or the Newcastle United job.
You know what, Gary Neville might be tempted.
Only commentator accurately to predict the u-turn, several hours ahead of time.
He couldn't possibly afford to live on an MP's salary, and why would he?
In a more (hopefully) useful theme, in the cricket, England qualify as long as their Net Run rate doesn't swing behind South Africa's.
NRR is an arcane way of tie-breaking (it is arguably fair, but not remotely easy to work out a team's target; I still prefer the suggestion by someone that the team batting second should have their Duckworth-Lewis score at the end credited to them in terms of runs (so could "win by dozens of runs" even batting second, and then do it as runs for and against).
I've had a crack at the targets for SA batting first and England batting first. For the latter, it requires the final score (so if scores were level before the winning hit, SA could get a maximum of a 6 run victory batting second).
Here's what I've got for: - SA bat first; what must England get? - England bat first, how many overs have SA got to knock the runs off?
The latter is remarkably invariant - if SA successfully chase down England's score in 8 and a half overs or less, they qualify. If they fail to chase down England's score after 9 overs are completed, they're out, win or lose. Between 8 and a half overs and 9 overs, it's down to the calculators.
In the former, if England knock SA over for 70 or fewer runs, they qualify before even coming out to bat. Above that.
If SA qualify, what's the range for knocking Eng out compared to knocking Aus out? Does that rely on a reasonable or unreasonable Aus result?
Depends on Australia’s performance against the Windies. I’ve merely measured Eng vs SA on this; putting a range for Aus would increase the complexity to absurd levels.
So, for “knocked out,” read “dependent on Aus-vs-WI.” For “qualified,” it’s certainly qualified.
The Tories are very lucky that both North Shropshire and Bexley and Sidcup are rock solid leave voting conservative seats. Even a Martin-Bell type campaign by Stewart would probably not be enough, especially as Paterson himself wouldn't be standing but some new fresh-faced - no doubt impeccably uncorrupt - candidate. It will mean that they have 2 fairly comfortable wins on the trot and can wrest back the momentum.
If Paterson had been MP for somewhere in the Surrey/Hants/Berks/Bucks remain belt things might be looking somewhat shakier.
The thing about the coming by-elections is that it won't be the Tory candidate who is under the spotlight, it is the party.
Had Paterson volunteered to lobby for Her Majesty then they could have campaigned on a clean slate. Instead they have exposed just how bent they are and just how much concern they have at upholding standards in public office.
So in both byelections I expect their opponents to hammer away massively on how the Tory party and the PM as its leader is openly corrupt. As we saw with yesterday's Starmer opinion piece and the LD attack ad.
They will and itll get attention, but people tend to be give the new candidate benefit of the doubt.
There simply is no rational other vote anyway. Labour live in the late 19th century, and the LD leader is unelectable.
Now if the LDs ditched Davey and all of the dull-arse LDs.... Moran/Hobhouse/Cooper - all far, far better.
There cannot be a single Tory MP who now has even the remotest faith in the Prime Minister. Over the last 24 hours he has demonstrated conclusively that he is entirely untrustworthy and someone who is very happy to betray anyone at any time if it is convenient to do so.
Well everyone has always known that about Boris...
But...
He's a WINNER!
Until that demonstrably changes he's going nowhere.
The thing about him being “a winner” is all very good until he isn’t a winner. If he trashed the party then next election he won’t be a winner….. it also pre-supposes that there are not any other potential “winners” in the Tory ranks and in reality nobody knows until they know (sorry for the proto-Rumsfeld-ism…).
It might be that enough Tory MPs look at Boris the winner, look at shiny Rishi, look at Boris and then think that they need a new fresh “winner”.
Nobody knew Blair was a winner until he won but they could see he was fresh and connected with people. He had a “brand” like Rishi.
The 1922 chaps need to say to Boris “look old chap, you’ve been PM/world king, you “got Brexit done”, got COP26 done, got a start on levelling up - hand over the hard work of following it through to someone more focussed and enjoy your millions”.
Or is this too sensible…..
PS I write this as someone who had optimism that Boris could change and grow into the role but he’s just the wrong personality type. He won, got the Tories in now he should step aside - think of it like getting Big Sam in to save your club from relegation then thank him, pay him off and get someone in who can make the next season a success and avoid the need for a big Sam rescue in the future!
Perfect.
Sam Allardyce for North Shropshire. Its either that or the Newcastle United job.
You know what, Gary Neville might be tempted.
Only commentator accurately to predict the u-turn, several hours ahead of time.
He couldn't possibly afford to live on an MP's salary, and why would he?
Neither can Boris, but the handouts by friends and family see him over the line...just.
There cannot be a single Tory MP who now has even the remotest faith in the Prime Minister. Over the last 24 hours he has demonstrated conclusively that he is entirely untrustworthy and someone who is very happy to betray anyone at any time if it is convenient to do so.
Well everyone has always known that about Boris...
But...
He's a WINNER!
Until that demonstrably changes he's going nowhere.
The thing about him being “a winner” is all very good until he isn’t a winner. If he trashed the party then next election he won’t be a winner….. it also pre-supposes that there are not any other potential “winners” in the Tory ranks and in reality nobody knows until they know (sorry for the proto-Rumsfeld-ism…).
It might be that enough Tory MPs look at Boris the winner, look at shiny Rishi, look at Boris and then think that they need a new fresh “winner”.
Nobody knew Blair was a winner until he won but they could see he was fresh and connected with people. He had a “brand” like Rishi.
The 1922 chaps need to say to Boris “look old chap, you’ve been PM/world king, you “got Brexit done”, got COP26 done, got a start on levelling up - hand over the hard work of following it through to someone more focussed and enjoy your millions”.
Or is this too sensible…..
PS I write this as someone who had optimism that Boris could change and grow into the role but he’s just the wrong personality type. He won, got the Tories in now he should step aside - think of it like getting Big Sam in to save your club from relegation then thank him, pay him off and get someone in who can make the next season a success and avoid the need for a big Sam rescue in the future!
Perfect.
Sam Allardyce for North Shropshire. Its either that or the Newcastle United job.
You know what, Gary Neville might be tempted.
Only commentator accurately to predict the u-turn, several hours ahead of time.
Maybe Boris is actually an earlier Mourinho - you get him in because he’s “a winner” but he’s toxic as hell , wins a trophy and it all goes tits up after three years and then he gets replaced by someone………
JRM's posh voice and mannered manners heavily disguise his incompetence.
My working assumption is that all posh people are incompetent, until proven otherwise.
That seems a good starting requirement in dealing with all people nowadays, the difference is posh people are more likely to have been severely over promoted.
The biggest change in the few decades is that instead of promoting posh people despite their lack of skills, we now promote people who have a lack of skills from the "right backgrounds"
Hence Cressida Dick. On the upside, woman at the top etc. On the downside, no observable difference to what when before, in terms of policy, behaviour etc.
She is the child of an Oxford professor and an Oxford fellow, and went to Oxford herself. Almost as posh as Starmer.
Ah, like privately educated political outsider Laura Kussenberg who's family includes: chair/president of Royal College of General Practitioners; a high court judge (among other roles), Govenor General of Nigeria; high commisioner of Mozambique.
So outsider.
But But But... they got their jobs through Merit*. Merit is the New Nobility.
So they have a... Divine Right to Rule.
What is interesting is that people outside the new Upper 10,000 are so ungrateful. They even presume to suggest that some of them are not there on merit.....
*Getting degrees at Oxbridge etc.
I don't worship at the altar of Meritocracy either - it's just another 'ocracy' - but it's not at all clear to me what you are driving at with this Upper 10,000 business. What do you want? The top jobs going to a birth nobility instead? Decided by a random number generator? Going to the worst educated in a kind of Cultural Revolution? Or maybe what you want is for there not to be any top jobs? In which case, the latter, you're a kindred spirit. But I suspect you aren't. All I really pick up is a kind of enigmatic whinge at a type of person. A type who irritates you. So what gives?
The point I am making is an old one - the Revolution came and went and all we get is the New Managerial class.
Further, that the new incumbents are even more endowed with belief in their absolute right to rule than the Old Regime.
I think on the group of lawyers I discussed the problem of shoplifting with a while ago. To their minds, shoplifting shouldn't be prosecuted, since the criminals are such wretched victims themselves. When I pointed out that the shop keepers might not agree, the curling of lips was magnificent... It comes back to another theme, I think...
The modern world has sold Democracy to the masses. It has been made a Cornerstone* of the legitimacy of government. Yet, to those that rule, more and more of the structure of our society is supposed to be beyond the reach of the ballot - to be held safely among the lawyers and... experts.
Yet none dare say, outright, that Democracy has its limits. So we have a structure where democracy is preached by the state, but the state declares that we are bound to object it's dictat on various things *and* we are not allowed to have a say
I recall an interesting conversation I had with a young relative who was studying history. She was appalled when I said that some of those involve in Irish Nationalism had *rejected* democracy as the last argument. She thought I was saying that they were evil. I was trying to explain that they simply had a different belief in the sanctity of the ballot and it's power.
But do these shopkeeper-hating lawyers have any power? Last time I looked, shoplifting was still a crime and people still go to jail for it. We live in a liberal democracy, and there is an often unacknowledged tension between those two words. The liberal aspects are supposed to protect individuals and minority groups from the tyranny of the majority. To the extent that that creates some constraint on democracy, I am not sure that is something we should bemoan. I guess the question is where exactly we put those constraints on democracy. I'm comfortable with much of the day to day business of running the country being delegated to experts, aka people who know what they're doing. I don't see that as a conspiracy. It's the job of politicians to ensure that they do know what they are doing and aren't simply acting in their own interests, of course.
They were the kind of layers who work for the big firms that will end up writing our laws, and writing policy papers that the System will use. You will note that in many parts of the country, shop lifting is essentially ignore by the police and and prosecutorial system - they simply use discretion to prioritise it to... zero.
It is not about hating shop keepers. To their minds, they were Plato's Philosopher Kings, making the Right Choices. The shop keepers in that world are ignorant wretches, who need guidance from their benevolent superiors.
The issue, which needs to be addressed, is not the day to day running of the country, so much as the ultimate control and oversight of that running.
Some people want to take more and more out of the democratic political sphere and place it in the legal/human rights sphere. For example, some years ago, there was an attempt to place control of state pensions in the human rights sphere - rejected by the courts, it would have put a large section of state benefits outside democratic control and left the government in the interesting situation of having to provide money for whatever the courts decided. In fact that was the reason for the rejection by the High Court, IIRC.
The problem is that this situation is corrosive to social compact. My personal preference is for Swiss style referenda and democratic control on everything.
Ah ha to that last sentence. I didn't want to mind read - it annoys people when I do that - but that's what I kind of deduced you might be a fan of. "Direct" democracy. Ok, so your musings make more sense to me now. They have more of a theme and a shape and a point. So the challenge there imo is twofold. (i) How to make complex decisions, eg on economic policy. (ii) How to avoid things being enacted which are either objectively stupid or prejudicial, ie violate the "beyond democracy" principle of equality under the law. And I'm not taking "well it works in Switzerland" as an answer. Switzerland is Switzerland. It's a very unique sort of a place. Eg its benefits system which was discussed the other day.
I would argue that a large part of why Switzerland works the way it does is that the elements of direct democracy give the people power over the political class, which in turn gives them a sense of really being in charge. Which also helps to pull together a very disparate set of cultures - Switzerland, the place when the Germans, French and Italians agree to live happily together, without a hint of separatism.
Consider "Control the Coinage and the Courts. Let the rabble have the rest"... this is what the Meritocracy sounds like to many people. Too many.
"Leicester East MP Claudia Webbe has been sentenced to 10 weeks in custody which will be suspended for two years. The 56-year-old has been ordered to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work after being found guilty of harassment."
Stupid, stupid, stupid. I really cannot think of an excuse for this. Presumably Boris was fully focused on COP26 but a moment's thought should have been enough.
I don't think that the Tories will be in any rush to move the writ for this one.
It was such a rushed 'solution' to save Paterson that they cocked up royally. What a waste of lobby fodder. Now a potential election is certain and more controversial.
"Leicester East MP Claudia Webbe has been sentenced to 10 weeks in custody which will be suspended for two years. The 56-year-old has been ordered to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work after being found guilty of harassment."
No automatic recall...
I thought a jail term - even suspended - was an automatic recall?
There cannot be a single Tory MP who now has even the remotest faith in the Prime Minister. Over the last 24 hours he has demonstrated conclusively that he is entirely untrustworthy and someone who is very happy to betray anyone at any time if it is convenient to do so.
Well everyone has always known that about Boris...
But...
He's a WINNER!
Until that demonstrably changes he's going nowhere.
The thing about him being “a winner” is all very good until he isn’t a winner. If he trashed the party then next election he won’t be a winner….. it also pre-supposes that there are not any other potential “winners” in the Tory ranks and in reality nobody knows until they know (sorry for the proto-Rumsfeld-ism…).
It might be that enough Tory MPs look at Boris the winner, look at shiny Rishi, look at Boris and then think that they need a new fresh “winner”.
Nobody knew Blair was a winner until he won but they could see he was fresh and connected with people. He had a “brand” like Rishi.
The 1922 chaps need to say to Boris “look old chap, you’ve been PM/world king, you “got Brexit done”, got COP26 done, got a start on levelling up - hand over the hard work of following it through to someone more focussed and enjoy your millions”.
Or is this too sensible…..
PS I write this as someone who had optimism that Boris could change and grow into the role but he’s just the wrong personality type. He won, got the Tories in now he should step aside - think of it like getting Big Sam in to save your club from relegation then thank him, pay him off and get someone in who can make the next season a success and avoid the need for a big Sam rescue in the future!
Perfect.
Sam Allardyce for North Shropshire. Its either that or the Newcastle United job.
You know what, Gary Neville might be tempted.
Only commentator accurately to predict the u-turn, several hours ahead of time.
He couldn't possibly afford to live on an MP's salary, and why would he?
Fair point. So who would be a suitably unimpeachable National Treasure willing and able to be the (wo)man in the white suit/dress?
There cannot be a single Tory MP who now has even the remotest faith in the Prime Minister. Over the last 24 hours he has demonstrated conclusively that he is entirely untrustworthy and someone who is very happy to betray anyone at any time if it is convenient to do so.
Well everyone has always known that about Boris...
But...
He's a WINNER!
Until that demonstrably changes he's going nowhere.
The thing about him being “a winner” is all very good until he isn’t a winner. If he trashed the party then next election he won’t be a winner….. it also pre-supposes that there are not any other potential “winners” in the Tory ranks and in reality nobody knows until they know (sorry for the proto-Rumsfeld-ism…).
It might be that enough Tory MPs look at Boris the winner, look at shiny Rishi, look at Boris and then think that they need a new fresh “winner”.
Nobody knew Blair was a winner until he won but they could see he was fresh and connected with people. He had a “brand” like Rishi.
The 1922 chaps need to say to Boris “look old chap, you’ve been PM/world king, you “got Brexit done”, got COP26 done, got a start on levelling up - hand over the hard work of following it through to someone more focussed and enjoy your millions”.
Or is this too sensible…..
PS I write this as someone who had optimism that Boris could change and grow into the role but he’s just the wrong personality type. He won, got the Tories in now he should step aside - think of it like getting Big Sam in to save your club from relegation then thank him, pay him off and get someone in who can make the next season a success and avoid the need for a big Sam rescue in the future!
Perfect.
Sam Allardyce for North Shropshire. Its either that or the Newcastle United job.
You know what, Gary Neville might be tempted.
Only commentator accurately to predict the u-turn, several hours ahead of time.
He couldn't possibly afford to live on an MP's salary, and why would he?
1. He's an ex footballer who had all the success in the world. He won't be short of cash. 2. He's a businessman, football club owner and hotelier as well as pundit.
Money is not an impediment here. I just can't see why he would want the faff.
"Leicester East MP Claudia Webbe has been sentenced to 10 weeks in custody which will be suspended for two years. The 56-year-old has been ordered to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work after being found guilty of harassment."
No automatic recall...
I thought a jail term - even suspended - was an automatic recall?
You're right, sorry
"The reference in section 1(3) to an MP being sentenced or ordered— (a)includes the MP being sentenced or ordered where the sentence or order is suspended,"
"Leicester East MP Claudia Webbe has been sentenced to 10 weeks in custody which will be suspended for two years. The 56-year-old has been ordered to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work after being found guilty of harassment."
No automatic recall...
No, but watch the wazzocks try and blame the conviction on Israel / Centrists / Blairites / Starmer. Any court of the people would have throw the case out.
In a more (hopefully) useful theme, in the cricket, England qualify as long as their Net Run rate doesn't swing behind South Africa's.
NRR is an arcane way of tie-breaking (it is arguably fair, but not remotely easy to work out a team's target; I still prefer the suggestion by someone that the team batting second should have their Duckworth-Lewis score at the end credited to them in terms of runs (so could "win by dozens of runs" even batting second, and then do it as runs for and against).
I've had a crack at the targets for SA batting first and England batting first. For the latter, it requires the final score (so if scores were level before the winning hit, SA could get a maximum of a 6 run victory batting second).
Here's what I've got for: - SA bat first; what must England get? - England bat first, how many overs have SA got to knock the runs off?
The latter is remarkably invariant - if SA successfully chase down England's score in 8 and a half overs or less, they qualify. If they fail to chase down England's score after 9 overs are completed, they're out, win or lose. Between 8 and a half overs and 9 overs, it's down to the calculators.
In the former, if England knock SA over for 70 or fewer runs, they qualify before even coming out to bat. Above that.
If SA qualify, what's the range for knocking Eng out compared to knocking Aus out? Does that rely on a reasonable or unreasonable Aus result?
Depends on Australia’s performance against the Windies. I’ve merely measured Eng vs SA on this; putting a range for Aus would increase the complexity to absurd levels.
So, for “knocked out,” read “dependent on Aus-vs-WI.” For “qualified,” it’s certainly qualified.
Australia would have to do something extra-ordinary against WI for South Africa's route to qualification to depend on beating England and getting ahead of England's (as opposed to Australia's) run-rate I think.
There cannot be a single Tory MP who now has even the remotest faith in the Prime Minister. Over the last 24 hours he has demonstrated conclusively that he is entirely untrustworthy and someone who is very happy to betray anyone at any time if it is convenient to do so.
Well everyone has always known that about Boris...
But...
He's a WINNER!
Until that demonstrably changes he's going nowhere.
The thing about him being “a winner” is all very good until he isn’t a winner. If he trashed the party then next election he won’t be a winner….. it also pre-supposes that there are not any other potential “winners” in the Tory ranks and in reality nobody knows until they know (sorry for the proto-Rumsfeld-ism…).
It might be that enough Tory MPs look at Boris the winner, look at shiny Rishi, look at Boris and then think that they need a new fresh “winner”.
Nobody knew Blair was a winner until he won but they could see he was fresh and connected with people. He had a “brand” like Rishi.
The 1922 chaps need to say to Boris “look old chap, you’ve been PM/world king, you “got Brexit done”, got COP26 done, got a start on levelling up - hand over the hard work of following it through to someone more focussed and enjoy your millions”.
Or is this too sensible…..
PS I write this as someone who had optimism that Boris could change and grow into the role but he’s just the wrong personality type. He won, got the Tories in now he should step aside - think of it like getting Big Sam in to save your club from relegation then thank him, pay him off and get someone in who can make the next season a success and avoid the need for a big Sam rescue in the future!
Perfect.
Sam Allardyce for North Shropshire. Its either that or the Newcastle United job.
You know what, Gary Neville might be tempted.
Only commentator accurately to predict the u-turn, several hours ahead of time.
He couldn't possibly afford to live on an MP's salary, and why would he?
1. He's an ex footballer who had all the success in the world. He won't be short of cash. 2. He's a businessman, football club owner and hotelier as well as pundit.
Money is not an impediment here. I just can't see why he would want the faff.
He wouldn't be very convincing as an "independent". He's pretty much traditional Labour. I think he even once led the England team to the verge of a strike in a protest over money.
There cannot be a single Tory MP who now has even the remotest faith in the Prime Minister. Over the last 24 hours he has demonstrated conclusively that he is entirely untrustworthy and someone who is very happy to betray anyone at any time if it is convenient to do so.
Well everyone has always known that about Boris...
But...
He's a WINNER!
Until that demonstrably changes he's going nowhere.
The thing about him being “a winner” is all very good until he isn’t a winner. If he trashed the party then next election he won’t be a winner….. it also pre-supposes that there are not any other potential “winners” in the Tory ranks and in reality nobody knows until they know (sorry for the proto-Rumsfeld-ism…).
It might be that enough Tory MPs look at Boris the winner, look at shiny Rishi, look at Boris and then think that they need a new fresh “winner”.
Nobody knew Blair was a winner until he won but they could see he was fresh and connected with people. He had a “brand” like Rishi.
The 1922 chaps need to say to Boris “look old chap, you’ve been PM/world king, you “got Brexit done”, got COP26 done, got a start on levelling up - hand over the hard work of following it through to someone more focussed and enjoy your millions”.
Or is this too sensible…..
PS I write this as someone who had optimism that Boris could change and grow into the role but he’s just the wrong personality type. He won, got the Tories in now he should step aside - think of it like getting Big Sam in to save your club from relegation then thank him, pay him off and get someone in who can make the next season a success and avoid the need for a big Sam rescue in the future!
Perfect.
Sam Allardyce for North Shropshire. Its either that or the Newcastle United job.
You know what, Gary Neville might be tempted.
Only commentator accurately to predict the u-turn, several hours ahead of time.
He couldn't possibly afford to live on an MP's salary, and why would he?
Nor can MPs, apparently. If he's looking for ways to top it up there's some pretty massive pointers in all this.
There cannot be a single Tory MP who now has even the remotest faith in the Prime Minister. Over the last 24 hours he has demonstrated conclusively that he is entirely untrustworthy and someone who is very happy to betray anyone at any time if it is convenient to do so.
Well everyone has always known that about Boris...
But...
He's a WINNER!
Until that demonstrably changes he's going nowhere.
The thing about him being “a winner” is all very good until he isn’t a winner. If he trashed the party then next election he won’t be a winner….. it also pre-supposes that there are not any other potential “winners” in the Tory ranks and in reality nobody knows until they know (sorry for the proto-Rumsfeld-ism…).
It might be that enough Tory MPs look at Boris the winner, look at shiny Rishi, look at Boris and then think that they need a new fresh “winner”.
Nobody knew Blair was a winner until he won but they could see he was fresh and connected with people. He had a “brand” like Rishi.
The 1922 chaps need to say to Boris “look old chap, you’ve been PM/world king, you “got Brexit done”, got COP26 done, got a start on levelling up - hand over the hard work of following it through to someone more focussed and enjoy your millions”.
Or is this too sensible…..
PS I write this as someone who had optimism that Boris could change and grow into the role but he’s just the wrong personality type. He won, got the Tories in now he should step aside - think of it like getting Big Sam in to save your club from relegation then thank him, pay him off and get someone in who can make the next season a success and avoid the need for a big Sam rescue in the future!
Perfect.
Sam Allardyce for North Shropshire. Its either that or the Newcastle United job.
You know what, Gary Neville might be tempted.
Only commentator accurately to predict the u-turn, several hours ahead of time.
He couldn't possibly afford to live on an MP's salary, and why would he?
Fair point. So who would be a suitably unimpeachable National Treasure willing and able to be the (wo)man in the white suit/dress?
Stupid, stupid, stupid. I really cannot think of an excuse for this. Presumably Boris was fully focused on COP26 but a moment's thought should have been enough.
I don't think that the Tories will be in any rush to move the writ for this one.
Focussed on the Telegraph dinner and his ear being bent there more like - with that private plane dash, bang as he leaves COP26 - so, so stupid too.
I'm sure the Telegraph journos were giving him an earful about COP26. Standing up for one the paper's favourite MPs must have seemed like a great way to reassure them that he was still one of them and hadn't been lost to the other side.
Perhaps he would have done better to stay in Glasgow.
"I’m sorry, that is completely wrong. The independent commissioner comes to a decision and then there is an appeal to the standards committee. And that appeal involves that individual, Owen Paterson, being able to put in, with his lawyers, his appeal points in writing and also to make his case in person which he did. So he’s been through the appeal.
And this idea there’s not an appeal is such a ... I’ve been six years in politics and many years as a lawyer, I’ve heard some really, really dodgy defences. That is as dodgy as they come."
"Leicester East MP Claudia Webbe has been sentenced to 10 weeks in custody which will be suspended for two years. The 56-year-old has been ordered to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work after being found guilty of harassment."
No automatic recall...
No, but watch the wazzocks try and blame the conviction on Israel / Centrists / Blairites / Starmer. Any court of the people would have throw the case out.
This just before the sentence:-
News from Claudia Webbe's hearing:
Her barrister asked the judge to "please consider my clients suffering as a black woman and the abuse she encounters"
The judge reminded her that Claudia is not the victim.
"Leicester East MP Claudia Webbe has been sentenced to 10 weeks in custody which will be suspended for two years. The 56-year-old has been ordered to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work after being found guilty of harassment."
No automatic recall...
I thought a jail term - even suspended - was an automatic recall?
I don't think anything's an "automatic" recall is it*. It's just to have to reach a threshold for a recall process to be potentially activated. But semantics in this case guess (less so in very safe seats when the 10% (or whatever it is) signature threshold might present a barrier).
*although a custodial sentence over a certain length (six months?) triggers an automatic by-election in which presumably the previous MP cannot stand, i guess? Which isn't the same thing, as a recalled MP can stand in their defence.
"Leicester East MP Claudia Webbe has been sentenced to 10 weeks in custody which will be suspended for two years. The 56-year-old has been ordered to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work after being found guilty of harassment."
No automatic recall...
That seems rather soft, if the reports out of her trial were correct and the whole story (yes, I know...)
Whatever, she does not seem the sort of person who is suitable to be an MP...
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
The "my wife committed suicide" angle was appalling. Yes its a persona tragedy. But it is no defence against corruption. Or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying? If so why is he saying he would do it all again?
In ordinary times I would ask how stupid the Tory party think people are. Sadly we know that they know quite a lot of people are pretty stupid...
It is pretty appalling. He sees himself as purely a victim, and thus any conclusion otherwise must be unfair.
Just coming back for a second to ask, quite simply, what is Johnson paying people to keep the Tories where they are in the polls and why am I not getting any of it?
Caroline Lucas @CarolineLucas · 58m This has gone from a threatened suspension to a major political crisis because PM wanted to save his own skin from further investigations into his own misconduct
This isn’t just about one resignation - it’s about systemic weakening of parliamentary standard & rule of law
Anyway, I have just been asked to do a talk to some bankers later this month on, wait for it, the importance of integrity and what happens when you don't have it.
Perhaps I could recycle it for MPs.
The hardest thing, I find, about doing these talks is how much to charge.
That and choosing which examples to use. One is spoilt for choice.
"Leicester East MP Claudia Webbe has been sentenced to 10 weeks in custody which will be suspended for two years. The 56-year-old has been ordered to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work after being found guilty of harassment."
No automatic recall...
No, but watch the wazzocks try and blame the conviction on Israel / Centrists / Blairites / Starmer. Any court of the people would have throw the case out.
This just before the sentence:-
News from Claudia Webbe's hearing:
Her barrister asked the judge to "please consider my clients suffering as a black woman and the abuse she encounters"
The judge reminded her that Claudia is not the victim.
He's earnt his massive payments..
@GuidoFawkes Our mole reports Webbe's barrister has said she - of £80,000 a year salary - is broke and can only pay max £100 per month.
eta - sorry, he's talking about her £1000 fine I think, not payments to her barrister
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
The "my wife committed suicide" angle was appalling. Yes its a persona tragedy. But it is no defence against corruption. Or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying? If so why is he saying he would do it all again?
In ordinary times I would ask how stupid the Tory party think people are. Sadly we know that they know quite a lot of people are pretty stupid...
It is pretty appalling. He sees himself as purely a victim, and thus any conclusion otherwise must be unfair.
I detect a similarity between him and Claudia Webbe. Separated at birth? Share a soul?
"That thing we made the MPs vote for was wrong. We're going the other way."
- "Oh, FFS, now we look really stupid."
(Everyone else: "Now you look stupid?")
It can't be good for morale, but many Tory MPs will be acutely aware of the extent to which they owe Boris Johnson for their seat in the Commons.
The vast majority will prefer to be an MP who looks stupid, than an ex-MP.
Of course, that means that the instant anyone else looks like there'd be more likely to help them hold their seat than Johnson they will drop him. But I think we're still a long way from that.
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
The "my wife committed suicide" angle was appalling. Yes its a persona tragedy. But it is no defence against corruption. Or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying? If so why is he saying he would do it all again?
In ordinary times I would ask how stupid the Tory party think people are. Sadly we know that they know quite a lot of people are pretty stupid...
It really isn't appalling. AIUI, the family believes the stress of the investigation - and her fears she would lose positions she loves, including one at the ?jockey club?, led her to do it. So it is perfectly acceptable to mention it.
It's amazing how quickly all the pleas for a kinder, more compassionate kind of politics after Amess's murder have been forgotten. His wife took her own life: he's perfectly right to mention it.
"Leicester East MP Claudia Webbe has been sentenced to 10 weeks in custody which will be suspended for two years. The 56-year-old has been ordered to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work after being found guilty of harassment."
No automatic recall...
No, but watch the wazzocks try and blame the conviction on Israel / Centrists / Blairites / Starmer. Any court of the people would have throw the case out.
This just before the sentence:-
News from Claudia Webbe's hearing:
Her barrister asked the judge to "please consider my clients suffering as a black woman and the abuse she encounters"
The judge reminded her that Claudia is not the victim.
He's earnt his massive payments..
@GuidoFawkes Our mole reports Webbe's barrister has said she - of £80,000 a year salary - is broke and can only pay max £100 per month.
Well, if you are paying a barrister £500 an hour.....
The Covid death rate in parts of Europe is now higher than the peak here before the vaccines.
The UK is still "beating" its Western European peers on deaths though.
Although given what we know about how (I think) Germany count, there may already be cross over on that one already. UK miss Covid deaths over 28 days, but Germany don't count non-Covid deaths. Not clear which has the greater impact, and maybe different at different stages of pandemic and vary with overall positive tests.
The Covid death rate in parts of Europe is now higher than the peak here before the vaccines.
The UK is still "beating" its Western European peers on deaths though.
The UK is also beating its Western European peers on having lifted all restrictions, which is more important than the negligible number of deaths that are occurring at the moment.
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
The "my wife committed suicide" angle was appalling. Yes its a persona tragedy. But it is no defence against corruption. Or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying? If so why is he saying he would do it all again?
In ordinary times I would ask how stupid the Tory party think people are. Sadly we know that they know quite a lot of people are pretty stupid...
It really isn't appalling. AIUI, the family believes the stress of the investigation - and her fears she would lose positions she loves, including one at the ?jockey club?, led her to do it. So it is perfectly acceptable to mention it.
It's amazing how quickly all the pleas for a kinder, more compassionate kind of politics after Amess's murder have been forgotten. His wife took her own life: he's perfectly right to mention it.
It really is appalling - just because the suicide was a consequence of the crime he committed that wouldn't reduce any sentence at a criminal court and it shouldn't do so here.
The fact it's been continually brought up as a means of trying to reduce the sentence doesn't do him, nor anyone else who uses the excuse any favours.
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
The "my wife committed suicide" angle was appalling. Yes its a persona tragedy. But it is no defence against corruption. Or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying? If so why is he saying he would do it all again?
In ordinary times I would ask how stupid the Tory party think people are. Sadly we know that they know quite a lot of people are pretty stupid...
It really isn't appalling. AIUI, the family believes the stress of the investigation - and her fears she would lose positions she loves, including one at the ?jockey club?, led her to do it. So it is perfectly acceptable to mention it.
It's amazing how quickly all the pleas for a kinder, more compassionate kind of politics after Amess's murder have been forgotten. His wife took her own life: he's perfectly right to mention it.
Not a topic on which I wish to get into a conversation, but what a remarkably wrong headed post on more levels than I can count. Does the murder of Amess mean we should stop investigating the wrongdoing of MPs?
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
The "my wife committed suicide" angle was appalling. Yes its a persona tragedy. But it is no defence against corruption. Or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying? If so why is he saying he would do it all again?
In ordinary times I would ask how stupid the Tory party think people are. Sadly we know that they know quite a lot of people are pretty stupid...
It really isn't appalling. AIUI, the family believes the stress of the investigation - and her fears she would lose positions she loves, including one at the ?jockey club?, led her to do it. So it is perfectly acceptable to mention it.
It's amazing how quickly all the pleas for a kinder, more compassionate kind of politics after Amess's murder have been forgotten. His wife took her own life: he's perfectly right to mention it.
As a mitigating defence for why he shouldn't be suspended? When he says he would do it all again?
There cannot be a single Tory MP who now has even the remotest faith in the Prime Minister. Over the last 24 hours he has demonstrated conclusively that he is entirely untrustworthy and someone who is very happy to betray anyone at any time if it is convenient to do so.
Well everyone has always known that about Boris...
But...
He's a WINNER!
Until that demonstrably changes he's going nowhere.
The thing about him being “a winner” is all very good until he isn’t a winner. If he trashed the party then next election he won’t be a winner….. it also pre-supposes that there are not any other potential “winners” in the Tory ranks and in reality nobody knows until they know (sorry for the proto-Rumsfeld-ism…).
It might be that enough Tory MPs look at Boris the winner, look at shiny Rishi, look at Boris and then think that they need a new fresh “winner”.
Nobody knew Blair was a winner until he won but they could see he was fresh and connected with people. He had a “brand” like Rishi.
The 1922 chaps need to say to Boris “look old chap, you’ve been PM/world king, you “got Brexit done”, got COP26 done, got a start on levelling up - hand over the hard work of following it through to someone more focussed and enjoy your millions”.
Or is this too sensible…..
PS I write this as someone who had optimism that Boris could change and grow into the role but he’s just the wrong personality type. He won, got the Tories in now he should step aside - think of it like getting Big Sam in to save your club from relegation then thank him, pay him off and get someone in who can make the next season a success and avoid the need for a big Sam rescue in the future!
Perfect.
Sam Allardyce for North Shropshire. Its either that or the Newcastle United job.
You know what, Gary Neville might be tempted.
Only commentator accurately to predict the u-turn, several hours ahead of time.
He couldn't possibly afford to live on an MP's salary, and why would he?
1. He's an ex footballer who had all the success in the world. He won't be short of cash. 2. He's a businessman, football club owner and hotelier as well as pundit.
Money is not an impediment here. I just can't see why he would want the faff.
He wouldn't be very convincing as an "independent". He's pretty much traditional Labour. I think he even once led the England team to the verge of a strike in a protest over money.
Yes. I was just jesting. He endorses Labour publicly at every election and might even be a party member for all I know. As you say, he would be ‘independent’ in name only.
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
The "my wife committed suicide" angle was appalling. Yes its a persona tragedy. But it is no defence against corruption. Or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying? If so why is he saying he would do it all again?
In ordinary times I would ask how stupid the Tory party think people are. Sadly we know that they know quite a lot of people are pretty stupid...
It really isn't appalling. AIUI, the family believes the stress of the investigation - and her fears she would lose positions she loves, including one at the ?jockey club?, led her to do it. So it is perfectly acceptable to mention it.
It's amazing how quickly all the pleas for a kinder, more compassionate kind of politics after Amess's murder have been forgotten. His wife took her own life: he's perfectly right to mention it.
Had he not behaved abysmally, his wife would not have been under the fear of losing position.
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
The "my wife committed suicide" angle was appalling. Yes its a persona tragedy. But it is no defence against corruption. Or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying? If so why is he saying he would do it all again?
In ordinary times I would ask how stupid the Tory party think people are. Sadly we know that they know quite a lot of people are pretty stupid...
It is pretty appalling. He sees himself as purely a victim, and thus any conclusion otherwise must be unfair.
I detect a similarity between him and Claudia Webbe. Separated at birth? Share a soul?
He is actually a pound shop Jonathan Aitken.
If it falls to him to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. He is ready for the fight. The fight against falsehood and those who peddle it. His fight begins today.
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
The "my wife committed suicide" angle was appalling. Yes its a persona tragedy. But it is no defence against corruption. Or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying? If so why is he saying he would do it all again?
In ordinary times I would ask how stupid the Tory party think people are. Sadly we know that they know quite a lot of people are pretty stupid...
It really isn't appalling. AIUI, the family believes the stress of the investigation - and her fears she would lose positions she loves, including one at the ?jockey club?, led her to do it. So it is perfectly acceptable to mention it.
It's amazing how quickly all the pleas for a kinder, more compassionate kind of politics after Amess's murder have been forgotten. His wife took her own life: he's perfectly right to mention it.
The suicide happened after the acts by Mr Patterson which caused the investogation. So it is irrelevant to innocence, and cannot b e used as a justification or mitigation of the offence.
It can only be pleaded in mitigation of punishment.
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
The "my wife committed suicide" angle was appalling. Yes its a persona tragedy. But it is no defence against corruption. Or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying? If so why is he saying he would do it all again?
In ordinary times I would ask how stupid the Tory party think people are. Sadly we know that they know quite a lot of people are pretty stupid...
It really isn't appalling. AIUI, the family believes the stress of the investigation - and her fears she would lose positions she loves, including one at the ?jockey club?, led her to do it. So it is perfectly acceptable to mention it.
It's amazing how quickly all the pleas for a kinder, more compassionate kind of politics after Amess's murder have been forgotten. His wife took her own life: he's perfectly right to mention it.
As a mitigating defence for why he shouldn't be suspended? When he says he would do it all again?
He doesn't think he did anything wrong, he says he was warning about illegal carcinogens in food.
Anyone who knows about illegal carcinogens in food really should be under an obligation to mention it.
The Covid death rate in parts of Europe is now higher than the peak here before the vaccines.
The UK is still "beating" its Western European peers on deaths though.
The UK is also beating its Western European peers on having lifted all restrictions, which is more important than the negligible number of deaths that are occurring at the moment.
Hardly negligible - around 10% of all deaths in the UK are currently from covid. But I suppose that for some people money is more important than life.
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
The "my wife committed suicide" angle was appalling. Yes its a persona tragedy. But it is no defence against corruption. Or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying? If so why is he saying he would do it all again?
In ordinary times I would ask how stupid the Tory party think people are. Sadly we know that they know quite a lot of people are pretty stupid...
It really isn't appalling. AIUI, the family believes the stress of the investigation - and her fears she would lose positions she loves, including one at the ?jockey club?, led her to do it. So it is perfectly acceptable to mention it.
It's amazing how quickly all the pleas for a kinder, more compassionate kind of politics after Amess's murder have been forgotten. His wife took her own life: he's perfectly right to mention it.
As a mitigating defence for why he shouldn't be suspended? When he says he would do it all again?
He doesn't think he did anything wrong, he says he was warning about illegal carcinogens in food.
Anyone who knows about illegal carcinogens in food really should be under an obligation to mention it.
Not relevant. The chartge is paid advocacy. Any MP taking money is definitely under an obligation to mention it.
The Covid death rate in parts of Europe is now higher than the peak here before the vaccines.
The UK is still "beating" its Western European peers on deaths though.
The UK is also beating its Western European peers on having lifted all restrictions, which is more important than the negligible number of deaths that are occurring at the moment.
Negligible? Can't you read the "deaths" graph through your blue-tinted spectacles?
Germany **** the bed today due to rising deaths, look at the graph, and you are claiming we've beaten Covid.
"Leicester East MP Claudia Webbe has been sentenced to 10 weeks in custody which will be suspended for two years. The 56-year-old has been ordered to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work after being found guilty of harassment."
No automatic recall...
No, but watch the wazzocks try and blame the conviction on Israel / Centrists / Blairites / Starmer. Any court of the people would have throw the case out.
This just before the sentence:-
News from Claudia Webbe's hearing:
Her barrister asked the judge to "please consider my clients suffering as a black woman and the abuse she encounters"
The judge reminded her that Claudia is not the victim.
Oh Fuck Right Off. "I am the victim here because I am black / a woman / a socialist / my wife committed suicide". They can both do one.
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
The "my wife committed suicide" angle was appalling. Yes its a persona tragedy. But it is no defence against corruption. Or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying? If so why is he saying he would do it all again?
In ordinary times I would ask how stupid the Tory party think people are. Sadly we know that they know quite a lot of people are pretty stupid...
It really isn't appalling. AIUI, the family believes the stress of the investigation - and her fears she would lose positions she loves, including one at the ?jockey club?, led her to do it. So it is perfectly acceptable to mention it.
It's amazing how quickly all the pleas for a kinder, more compassionate kind of politics after Amess's murder have been forgotten. His wife took her own life: he's perfectly right to mention it.
As a mitigating defence for why he shouldn't be suspended? When he says he would do it all again?
He doesn't think he did anything wrong, he says he was warning about illegal carcinogens in food.
Anyone who knows about illegal carcinogens in food really should be under an obligation to mention it.
Not relevant. The chartge is paid advocacy. Any MP taking money is definitely under an obligation to mention it.
If it really was so important why didn't Paterson do it pro bono publico?
1-1 off 1.2 overs, Chris Gale out, chasing 190 to avoid being eliminated.
They'd need to significantly improve their NRR by knocking this over in 10 overs to stand a chance of qualification though. They're realistically out either way.
"Leicester East MP Claudia Webbe has been sentenced to 10 weeks in custody which will be suspended for two years. The 56-year-old has been ordered to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work after being found guilty of harassment."
No automatic recall...
I thought a jail term - even suspended - was an automatic recall?
Yes. Any jail sentence (ROMPs Act 1.3.a). Even if suspended (ROMPS Act 2.3.a) triggers the process.
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
The "my wife committed suicide" angle was appalling. Yes its a persona tragedy. But it is no defence against corruption. Or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying? If so why is he saying he would do it all again?
In ordinary times I would ask how stupid the Tory party think people are. Sadly we know that they know quite a lot of people are pretty stupid...
It really isn't appalling. AIUI, the family believes the stress of the investigation - and her fears she would lose positions she loves, including one at the ?jockey club?, led her to do it. So it is perfectly acceptable to mention it.
It's amazing how quickly all the pleas for a kinder, more compassionate kind of politics after Amess's murder have been forgotten. His wife took her own life: he's perfectly right to mention it.
Had he not behaved abysmally, his wife would not have been under the fear of losing position.
Hold on. "Behaved abysmally" ? Get a grip. He did wrong. He broke the rules over lobbying. He probably should not be an MP (and will not be now). But no-one was hurt, no-one was threatened. Compare and contrast with (say) Webbe.
His wife committed suicide. It doesn't excuse what he did, but he darned well deserves compassion over it. And he ain't getting much of it on here.
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
The "my wife committed suicide" angle was appalling. Yes its a persona tragedy. But it is no defence against corruption. Or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying? If so why is he saying he would do it all again?
In ordinary times I would ask how stupid the Tory party think people are. Sadly we know that they know quite a lot of people are pretty stupid...
It really isn't appalling. AIUI, the family believes the stress of the investigation - and her fears she would lose positions she loves, including one at the ?jockey club?, led her to do it. So it is perfectly acceptable to mention it.
It's amazing how quickly all the pleas for a kinder, more compassionate kind of politics after Amess's murder have been forgotten. His wife took her own life: he's perfectly right to mention it.
His mentioning it is not the appalling part. Of course we have compassion for him suffering that tragedy, I feel terrible for him going through that. And I have no issue with him suggesting the stress of the investigation did not help her or him in that situation.
What it isn't is an excuse for his behaviour acting as a lobbyist inappropriately.
Personal tragedy does not give a blank check on poor behaviour, but his constituents might well have felt it was mitigation against the need to punish him further. He quite obviously did not trust his constituents to do so, hence not even risking a recall and by-election.
A kinder, more compassionate kind of politics does not prevent and should not prevent reasonable and proportionate condemnation of what was apparently described as an egregious breach. Excusing his behaviou in sympathy is not kindness.
I think you are mixing up two quite seperate things - having a less vicious politics, and still holding politicians to account for their actions. I think it is a mistake to suggest the latter means the former.
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
The "my wife committed suicide" angle was appalling. Yes its a persona tragedy. But it is no defence against corruption. Or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying? If so why is he saying he would do it all again?
In ordinary times I would ask how stupid the Tory party think people are. Sadly we know that they know quite a lot of people are pretty stupid...
It really isn't appalling. AIUI, the family believes the stress of the investigation - and her fears she would lose positions she loves, including one at the ?jockey club?, led her to do it. So it is perfectly acceptable to mention it.
It's amazing how quickly all the pleas for a kinder, more compassionate kind of politics after Amess's murder have been forgotten. His wife took her own life: he's perfectly right to mention it.
As a mitigating defence for why he shouldn't be suspended? When he says he would do it all again?
He doesn't think he did anything wrong, he says he was warning about illegal carcinogens in food.
Anyone who knows about illegal carcinogens in food really should be under an obligation to mention it.
Not relevant. The chartge is paid advocacy. Any MP taking money is definitely under an obligation to mention it.
If it really was so important why didn't Paterson do it pro bono publico?
Indeed, given who is paying his base salary and expenses and the cost of his cushy position in the HoC with its subsidised catering.
"Leicester East MP Claudia Webbe has been sentenced to 10 weeks in custody which will be suspended for two years. The 56-year-old has been ordered to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work after being found guilty of harassment."
No automatic recall...
So Paterson resigns but Webbe can stay an MP, 10 weeks suspended sentence is much less than the year jail term she would have needed to face to be forced to resign her seat and she will not serve it unless she commits another offence. She avoids too the months suspension from the Commons needed to enable a recall to be triggered. 200 hours of unpaid work she can do alongside her Commons work or at weekends
There cannot be a single Tory MP who now has even the remotest faith in the Prime Minister. Over the last 24 hours he has demonstrated conclusively that he is entirely untrustworthy and someone who is very happy to betray anyone at any time if it is convenient to do so.
Well everyone has always known that about Boris...
But...
He's a WINNER!
Until that demonstrably changes he's going nowhere.
The thing about him being “a winner” is all very good until he isn’t a winner. If he trashed the party then next election he won’t be a winner….. it also pre-supposes that there are not any other potential “winners” in the Tory ranks and in reality nobody knows until they know (sorry for the proto-Rumsfeld-ism…).
It might be that enough Tory MPs look at Boris the winner, look at shiny Rishi, look at Boris and then think that they need a new fresh “winner”.
Nobody knew Blair was a winner until he won but they could see he was fresh and connected with people. He had a “brand” like Rishi.
The 1922 chaps need to say to Boris “look old chap, you’ve been PM/world king, you “got Brexit done”, got COP26 done, got a start on levelling up - hand over the hard work of following it through to someone more focussed and enjoy your millions”.
Or is this too sensible…..
PS I write this as someone who had optimism that Boris could change and grow into the role but he’s just the wrong personality type. He won, got the Tories in now he should step aside - think of it like getting Big Sam in to save your club from relegation then thank him, pay him off and get someone in who can make the next season a success and avoid the need for a big Sam rescue in the future!
Perfect.
Sam Allardyce for North Shropshire. Its either that or the Newcastle United job.
You know what, Gary Neville might be tempted.
Only commentator accurately to predict the u-turn, several hours ahead of time.
He couldn't possibly afford to live on an MP's salary, and why would he?
Fair point. So who would be a suitably unimpeachable National Treasure willing and able to be the (wo)man in the white suit/dress?
David Attenborough.
I imagine he has better ways to spend his time, though.
Boaty McBoatface would still be an improvement, to be fair.
The Covid death rate in parts of Europe is now higher than the peak here before the vaccines.
The UK is still "beating" its Western European peers on deaths though.
The UK is also beating its Western European peers on having lifted all restrictions, which is more important than the negligible number of deaths that are occurring at the moment.
How restricted does the continent continue to be?
The public sector in Greater Manchester still thinks there are restrictions - all the mails I get from my middle daughter's school seem desperate to point out that 'covid restrictions still apply' and arbitrary impediments to children doing stuff or parents going into the school get put up every so often. Mind you, the latest one started out "Although the night's are drawing in..." - I'm not sure the people in charge are necessarily the brightest.
Well well. I've been asleep for a couple of hours and have woken to the splendid news - Paterson has gone.
I think I've posted on this more than any other single subject since I've been contributing here. That's because I actually read the full Commissioner's Report, and realised two things: a) he's guilty without a shadow of doubt - the evidence was overwhelming; b) his, and his supporters' (including the PM) efforts to say that the report's findings are wrong were a pack of lies, and depended entirely on banking on people not reading the report. He appealed against the findings throughout. He had every opportunity to clear his name - but couldn't, because the evidence was so vast. His wife's suicide was taken fully into account. His witnesses views were taken fully into account. All this was in the report, and he pretended it wasn't - as did the PM. Not only was he guilty of egregious paid advocacy, he and his supporters were guilty of egregious mistruths to try and get him off the hook.
Good riddens to a corrupt, dishonest, greedy politician who would even sink so low as to exploit his wife's tragic death to protect himself.
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
The "my wife committed suicide" angle was appalling. Yes its a persona tragedy. But it is no defence against corruption. Or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying? If so why is he saying he would do it all again?
In ordinary times I would ask how stupid the Tory party think people are. Sadly we know that they know quite a lot of people are pretty stupid...
It really isn't appalling. AIUI, the family believes the stress of the investigation - and her fears she would lose positions she loves, including one at the ?jockey club?, led her to do it. So it is perfectly acceptable to mention it.
It's amazing how quickly all the pleas for a kinder, more compassionate kind of politics after Amess's murder have been forgotten. His wife took her own life: he's perfectly right to mention it.
As a mitigating defence for why he shouldn't be suspended? When he says he would do it all again?
He doesn't think he did anything wrong, he says he was warning about illegal carcinogens in food.
Anyone who knows about illegal carcinogens in food really should be under an obligation to mention it.
Not relevant. The chartge is paid advocacy. Any MP taking money is definitely under an obligation to mention it.
If it really was so important why didn't Paterson do it pro bono publico?
Anyway, I have just been asked to do a talk to some bankers later this month on, wait for it, the importance of integrity and what happens when you don't have it.
Perhaps I could recycle it for MPs.
The hardest thing, I find, about doing these talks is how much to charge.
That and choosing which examples to use. One is spoilt for choice.
Given 2 MPs with lots of integrity, Jo Cox and David Amess, have recently been murdered for doing their job rather a cynical post from you.
Believe it or not there are even a few bankers with integrity too
What I don't get (and granted I was at the dentist between 9 and 10 this morning) is what changed that meant Boris and Co had no choice but to switch from protecting Owen to getting shot of him by close of play today?
From what I heard Tory MPs had sympathy for Paterson because of his wife’s suicide.
Overnight they finally read the allegations and his defence (sic) and realised he was guilty as sin.
So there had to be another vote to censure him and nobody wanted to defend that.
The "my wife committed suicide" angle was appalling. Yes its a persona tragedy. But it is no defence against corruption. Or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying? If so why is he saying he would do it all again?
In ordinary times I would ask how stupid the Tory party think people are. Sadly we know that they know quite a lot of people are pretty stupid...
It really isn't appalling. AIUI, the family believes the stress of the investigation - and her fears she would lose positions she loves, including one at the ?jockey club?, led her to do it. So it is perfectly acceptable to mention it.
It's amazing how quickly all the pleas for a kinder, more compassionate kind of politics after Amess's murder have been forgotten. His wife took her own life: he's perfectly right to mention it.
As a mitigating defence for why he shouldn't be suspended? When he says he would do it all again?
He doesn't think he did anything wrong, he says he was warning about illegal carcinogens in food.
Anyone who knows about illegal carcinogens in food really should be under an obligation to mention it.
Not relevant. The chartge is paid advocacy. Any MP taking money is definitely under an obligation to mention it.
If it really was so important why didn't Paterson do it pro bono publico?
Avarice?
He's a sleazy piece of work who would make Neil Hamilton blush.
Wikipedia on the Recall of MPs act: Section 1 sets out the circumstances in which the Speaker of the House of Commons would trigger the recall process, namely:
A custodial prison sentence Note that MPs imprisoned with sentences greater than one year are automatically removed due to the Representation of the People Act 1981
An sentencing council website: Suspended sentences are custodial sentences where the offender does not have to go to prison provided that they commit no further offences and comply with any requirements imposed. They are used only when the custodial sentence is no longer than two years. A suspended sentence is both a punishment and a deterrent.
So my reading would be: suspended = custodial and custodial = recall, so there would be a recall.
There cannot be a single Tory MP who now has even the remotest faith in the Prime Minister. Over the last 24 hours he has demonstrated conclusively that he is entirely untrustworthy and someone who is very happy to betray anyone at any time if it is convenient to do so.
Well everyone has always known that about Boris...
But...
He's a WINNER!
Until that demonstrably changes he's going nowhere.
The thing about him being “a winner” is all very good until he isn’t a winner. If he trashed the party then next election he won’t be a winner….. it also pre-supposes that there are not any other potential “winners” in the Tory ranks and in reality nobody knows until they know (sorry for the proto-Rumsfeld-ism…).
It might be that enough Tory MPs look at Boris the winner, look at shiny Rishi, look at Boris and then think that they need a new fresh “winner”.
Nobody knew Blair was a winner until he won but they could see he was fresh and connected with people. He had a “brand” like Rishi.
The 1922 chaps need to say to Boris “look old chap, you’ve been PM/world king, you “got Brexit done”, got COP26 done, got a start on levelling up - hand over the hard work of following it through to someone more focussed and enjoy your millions”.
Or is this too sensible…..
PS I write this as someone who had optimism that Boris could change and grow into the role but he’s just the wrong personality type. He won, got the Tories in now he should step aside - think of it like getting Big Sam in to save your club from relegation then thank him, pay him off and get someone in who can make the next season a success and avoid the need for a big Sam rescue in the future!
Perfect.
Sam Allardyce for North Shropshire. Its either that or the Newcastle United job.
You know what, Gary Neville might be tempted.
Only commentator accurately to predict the u-turn, several hours ahead of time.
He couldn't possibly afford to live on an MP's salary, and why would he?
Fair point. So who would be a suitably unimpeachable National Treasure willing and able to be the (wo)man in the white suit/dress?
David Attenborough.
I imagine he has better ways to spend his time, though.
Boaty McBoatface would still be an improvement, to be fair.
Slightly surprised he's not a peer already, but it might not have suited him for all I know.
Leicester East MP Claudia Webbe has been given a suspended 10-week jail sentence and ordered to complete 200 hours of community service after threatening and harassing a woman.
Webbe, 56, was convicted last month of one count of harassment against Michelle Merritt, a long-term friend of her partner, Lester Thomas.
The former Labour MP, who was accompanied by Mr Thomas to court, was found guilty of threatening to throw acid in her face and release naked images of the victim.
Well well. I've been asleep for a couple of hours and have woken to the splendid news - Paterson has gone.
I think I've posted on this more than any other single subject since I've been contributing here. That's because I actually read the full Commissioner's Report, and realised two things: a) he's guilty without a shadow of doubt - the evidence was overwhelming; b) his, and his supporters' (including the PM) efforts to say that the report's findings are wrong were a pack of lies, and depended entirely on banking on people not reading the report. He appealed against the findings throughout. He had every opportunity to clear his name - but couldn't, because the evidence was so vast. His wife's suicide was taken fully into account. His witnesses views were taken fully into account. All this was in the report, and he pretended it wasn't - as did the PM. Not only was he guilty of egregious paid advocacy, he and his supporters were guilty of egregious mistruths to try and get him off the hook.
Good riddens to a corrupt, dishonest, greedy politician who would even sink so low as to exploit his wife's tragic death to protect himself.
I feel vindicated.
There was a very common allegation that you see in complaints of 'X did not consider Y' when in fact they did, but did not agree with it, which is not the same thing.
Comments
This is eerily similar to what happened yesterday, and deeply worrying for democratic standards.
Only commentator accurately to predict the u-turn, several hours ahead of time.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2021-08-13..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&hideControls=true&Metric=Confirmed+deaths&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=GBR~ESP~ITA~IND~KOR~DNK~FRA~DEU~FIN~NOR~CAN~NLD
If only someone had said something .
So, for “knocked out,” read “dependent on Aus-vs-WI.” For “qualified,” it’s certainly qualified.
Now if the LDs ditched Davey and all of the dull-arse LDs.... Moran/Hobhouse/Cooper - all far, far better.
There is sadly only one party that can win an election outright.
It isn't the Tories' job to make Labour electable outright again; that's Labour's job, and at the moment they are not close.
The Tories are all over Labour's lawns: tax, spend, NHS, grand schemes, minimum wage worth (FTE) £19,000 pa.
There is only one party that can plausibly say it supports Brexit.
"We don't support UK independence but are the best people to implement post-Brexit policy" isn't a great line.
Consider "Control the Coinage and the Courts. Let the rabble have the rest"... this is what the Meritocracy sounds like to many people. Too many.
No automatic recall...
A shameful 24 hours....
2. He's a businessman, football club owner and hotelier as well as pundit.
Money is not an impediment here. I just can't see why he would want the faff.
"The reference in section 1(3) to an MP being sentenced or ordered—
(a)includes the MP being sentenced or ordered where the sentence or order is suspended,"
(unless appealed)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw-zJ3bAg08
Might well still face recall petition, though, says the Guardian
Perhaps he would have done better to stay in Glasgow.
"I’m sorry, that is completely wrong. The independent commissioner comes to a decision and then there is an appeal to the standards committee. And that appeal involves that individual, Owen Paterson, being able to put in, with his lawyers, his appeal points in writing and also to make his case in person which he did. So he’s been through the appeal.
And this idea there’s not an appeal is such a ... I’ve been six years in politics and many years as a lawyer, I’ve heard some really, really dodgy defences. That is as dodgy as they come."
News from Claudia Webbe's hearing:
Her barrister asked the judge to "please consider my clients suffering as a black woman and the abuse she encounters"
The judge reminded her that Claudia is not the victim.
*although a custodial sentence over a certain length (six months?) triggers an automatic by-election in which presumably the previous MP cannot stand, i guess? Which isn't the same thing, as a recalled MP can stand in their defence.
Whatever, she does not seem the sort of person who is suitable to be an MP...
@CarolineLucas
·
58m
This has gone from a threatened suspension to a major political crisis because PM wanted to save his own skin from further investigations into his own misconduct
This isn’t just about one resignation - it’s about systemic weakening of parliamentary standard & rule of law
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1450777137003237382/video/1
Perhaps I could recycle it for MPs.
The hardest thing, I find, about doing these talks is how much to charge.
That and choosing which examples to use. One is spoilt for choice.
@GuidoFawkes
Our mole reports Webbe's barrister has said she - of £80,000 a year salary - is broke and can only pay max £100 per month.
eta - sorry, he's talking about her £1000 fine I think, not payments to her barrister
The vast majority will prefer to be an MP who looks stupid, than an ex-MP.
Of course, that means that the instant anyone else looks like there'd be more likely to help them hold their seat than Johnson they will drop him. But I think we're still a long way from that.
It's amazing how quickly all the pleas for a kinder, more compassionate kind of politics after Amess's murder have been forgotten. His wife took her own life: he's perfectly right to mention it.
The fact it's been continually brought up as a means of trying to reduce the sentence doesn't do him, nor anyone else who uses the excuse any favours.
1-1 off 1.2 overs, Chris Gale out, chasing 190 to avoid being eliminated.
If it falls to him to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play, so be it. He is ready for the fight. The fight against falsehood and those who peddle it. His fight begins today.
So watch what you say about him.
It can only be pleaded in mitigation of punishment.
Anyone who knows about illegal carcinogens in food really should be under an obligation to mention it.
It's clear that Labour will not play ball on the government's new calls for cross party talks for a new appeals process.
One insider tells "after yesterday, no one is going to trust the Tories on this"
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1456291458877689859
Paterson got the message, at last, very clearly.
Germany **** the bed today due to rising deaths, look at the graph, and you are claiming we've beaten Covid.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/25/section/2/2016-03-04
His wife committed suicide. It doesn't excuse what he did, but he darned well deserves compassion over it. And he ain't getting much of it on here.
What it isn't is an excuse for his behaviour acting as a lobbyist inappropriately.
Personal tragedy does not give a blank check on poor behaviour, but his constituents might well have felt it was mitigation against the need to punish him further. He quite obviously did not trust his constituents to do so, hence not even risking a recall and by-election.
A kinder, more compassionate kind of politics does not prevent and should not prevent reasonable and proportionate condemnation of what was apparently described as an egregious breach. Excusing his behaviou in sympathy is not kindness.
I think you are mixing up two quite seperate things - having a less vicious politics, and still holding politicians to account for their actions. I think it is a mistake to suggest the latter means the former.
I imagine he has better ways to spend his time, though.
Boaty McBoatface would still be an improvement, to be fair.
The public sector in Greater Manchester still thinks there are restrictions - all the mails I get from my middle daughter's school seem desperate to point out that 'covid restrictions still apply' and arbitrary impediments to children doing stuff or parents going into the school get put up every so often. Mind you, the latest one started out "Although the night's are drawing in..." - I'm not sure the people in charge are necessarily the brightest.
I think I've posted on this more than any other single subject since I've been contributing here. That's because I actually read the full Commissioner's Report, and realised two things: a) he's guilty without a shadow of doubt - the evidence was overwhelming; b) his, and his supporters' (including the PM) efforts to say that the report's findings are wrong were a pack of lies, and depended entirely on banking on people not reading the report. He appealed against the findings throughout. He had every opportunity to clear his name - but couldn't, because the evidence was so vast. His wife's suicide was taken fully into account. His witnesses views were taken fully into account. All this was in the report, and he pretended it wasn't - as did the PM. Not only was he guilty of egregious paid advocacy, he and his supporters were guilty of egregious mistruths to try and get him off the hook.
Good riddens to a corrupt, dishonest, greedy politician who would even sink so low as to exploit his wife's tragic death to protect himself.
I feel vindicated.
“Nike will no longer be the kit supplier for Yorkshire CCC. We stand firmly against racism and discrimination of any kind.”
https://twitter.com/SarahDawkins23/status/1456293007255347201
Believe it or not there are even a few bankers with integrity too
Wikipedia on the Recall of MPs act:
Section 1 sets out the circumstances in which the Speaker of the House of Commons would trigger the recall process, namely:
A custodial prison sentence
Note that MPs imprisoned with sentences greater than one year are automatically removed due to the Representation of the People Act 1981
An sentencing council website:
Suspended sentences are custodial sentences where the offender does not have to go to prison provided that they commit no further offences and comply with any requirements imposed. They are used only when the custodial sentence is no longer than two years. A suspended sentence is both a punishment and a deterrent.
So my reading would be: suspended = custodial and custodial = recall, so there would be a recall.
But, again, IANAL.
Webbe, 56, was convicted last month of one count of harassment against Michelle Merritt, a long-term friend of her partner, Lester Thomas.
The former Labour MP, who was accompanied by Mr Thomas to court, was found guilty of threatening to throw acid in her face and release naked images of the victim.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/claudia-webbe-leicester-east-mp-given-suspended-sentence-victim-became-hermit-through-fear-1284799?utm_term=Autofeed&ito=social_itw_theipaper&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1636042209
I still can't believe that the Tories made him Environment Secretary. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/27/uk-climate-change-owen-paterson
🚨NEW Westminster Voting Intention🚨
🌳Con 40 (+3)
🌹Lab 35 (=)
🔶LDM 9 (+1)
🎗️SNP 5 (=)
♻️Grn 4 (-3)
⬜️Other 8 (-2)
2,242 UK adults, 29-31 Oct
(Changes from 22-24 Oct) https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1456293758073516032/photo/1