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?
Only one man for it, Piers Morgan, so destined to be PM he even has the initials for 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...
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
I got myself a bit confused earlier.
I was correct to say she is not automatically recalled, by which I meant, automatically removed under the Representation of the Peoples Act.
She can however be subject to a recall petition, if her appeal is unsuccessful.
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.
Besides which he looks exactly like the Chemistry Teacher who made my life absolute hell for the two years prior to "O" levels.
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.
Yep - it does seem she is subject to a recall petition once all appeal options have been (ab)used.
England cases 30.1k down from 33.9k last week and 44.3k the week before that - genuinely expected some bounce back so great numbers.
Admissions and total in hospital both down too.
That's the crucial thing. Of all of them, the "total in hospital" and "number on mechanical ventilation" are the most important metrics. If we had 200,000 cases per day, but only a few thousand in hospital - no problem.
The number in hospital may well have peaked on the 1st of November. It's fallen every day since then - which is quicker than I'd expected, as that's a lagging indicator behind admissions (usually), which is itself a lagging indicator behind cases. We haven't had three consecutive drops in number in hospital since September. And never more than four days in a row of drops since the Delta surge hit the hospitals in May.
If we get two more days of drops, I will be really happy.
"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
The recall criteria are not perfect (though there's confusion over this one). I think any conviction should count, though I accept the concern raised yesterday about the possibility of government putting in bullcrap crimes to trap people.
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.
She has not been imprisoned for greater than one year so cannot be removed under the Representation of the People Act 1981.
She has also not been suspended from the House either for a month or more by the Standards Commissioner and there is no reason she cannot resume her work as an MP tomorrow and she will and would have clear legal grounds to stay in post.
Legally therefore it looks like Webbe could stay an MP until the next general election even as Paterson resigns
A bad day for the bad eggs in parliament. good. We can do much, much better than the Patersons and Webbes. And important to note that for every one of them there are ten who are doing a good, honest job. On all sides.
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.
Yes, but who caused his wife to suffer the 'stress of the investigation'? He did. Through his corrupt behaviour. Doesn't he bear any responsibility for bringing that stress upon his family through his behaviour?
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.
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
Um what you've posted has nothing to do with what @Cyclefree posted
But then again given the sewers you seem to inhabit its not difficult to see how you can read something very different from what was actually posted.
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.
We assured daily on PB that actual covid rules and data are irrelevant - what matters is ‘perception’.
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.
Besides which he looks exactly like the Chemistry Teacher who made my life absolute hell for the two years prior to "O" levels.
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
Um what you've posted has nothing to do with what @Cyclefree posted
But then again given the sewers you seem to inhabit its not difficult to see how you can read something very different from what was actually posted.
It was a typical high moralising Cyclefree post basically castigating MPs in their entirety, that was obvious
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.
AFAIAA he never used the suicide as an excuse for his behaviour. Some on here seem to be trying to make out he did (*) to make him look bad. That's poor.
(Interestingly, I wouldn't be surprised if his actions since the suicide have been effected by it. My mind wouldn't exactly be in the right place, especially over the issue that you believe caused the tragedy.)
And I don't believe I am not confusing the two things. The two are very related: we can hold politicians to account without torturing them and their families. She probably feared the ire that would be poured on him, and by extension, her.
(*) If he did, then I'm obviously wrong, and apologies. But that wasn't what his family have been saying about it.
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.
She has not been imprisoned for greater than one year so cannot be removed under the Representation of the People Act 1981.
She has also not been suspended from the House either for a month or more by the Standards Commissioner and there is no reason she cannot resume her work as an MP tomorrow and she will and would have clear legal grounds to stay in post.
Legally therefore it looks like Webbe could stay an MP until the next general election even as Paterson resigns
There can be a recall petition.
MPs can be recalled only under certain circumstances:
If they are convicted in the UK of an offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained and all appeals have been exhausted (and the sentence does not lead to automatic disqualification from being an MP)
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.
He might have actually taken it seriously and felt if he was a Peer he should show up frequently, and he had more impactful things to do.
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.
She has not been imprisoned for greater than one year so cannot be removed under the Representation of the People Act 1981.
She has also not been suspended from the House either for a month or more by the Standards Commissioner and there is no reason she cannot resume her work as an MP tomorrow and she will and would have clear legal grounds to stay in post.
Legally therefore it looks like Webbe could stay an MP until the next general election even as Paterson resigns
She has however, received a custodial sentence, so I think the recall process must apply, unless she succeeds in either overturning the conviction, or receives a non-custodial sentence, upon appeal.
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.
If his conduct does not seem to you abysmal I am glad not to have any financial dealings with you.
I am confident (I really am) that everybody here appreciates the almost unimaginable grief of the loss of his wife. Why would you think or say otherwise?
Not particularly happy with Paterson's statement trying to imply that he's resigning because of all the beastly opponents mocking his dead wife. The Ahhhs in the commons were unedifying but the idea that all this trouble he's in is anyone else's fault is a self-pitying fiction. He should have resigned days ago and spared his party this grim farce.
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
Given the nonsense you have been posting for the last 24 hours in defence of the indefensible you are in no position to lecture anyone else about integrity. Sad though to see you use the Paterson gambit and use the death of others to make a point. It is possible to be appalled at the murder of MPs doing their job while criticising vigorously the behaviour of MPs yesterday who showed how little they valued integrity.
As for bankers I suspect I know a great deal more about their integrity than you ever will. The fact that this particular bank wants to have such a talk shows that they know the importance of the topic. It is to their credit. The Tory party and its cheerleaders might want to reflect on that.
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.
She has not been imprisoned for greater than one year so cannot be removed under the Representation of the People Act 1981.
She has also not been suspended from the House either for a month or more by the Standards Commissioner and there is no reason she cannot resume her work as an MP tomorrow and she will and would have clear legal grounds to stay in post.
Legally therefore it looks like Webbe could stay an MP until the next general election even as Paterson resigns
Go and read what the law actually says - as you haven't
A prison sentence (of any length), even if suspended results in a recall petition once all appeal procedures have been used or are time expired.
From one of the reports today, Yorkshire CCC say that if he were an employee today Rafiq would be disciplined for historically calling Ballance a "Zimbo" whilst maintaining Ballance calling Rafiq a "Paki" is banter not a disciplinary issue. Seems quite extraordinary. Having said that I do hope action is more directed at the management and executive at the club than Ballance. The complete failure to investigate properly or change the culture is worse than it having happened.
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.
He might have actually taken it seriously and felt if he was a Peer he should show up frequently, and he had more impactful things to do.
"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
I got myself a bit confused earlier.
I was correct to say she is not automatically recalled, by which I meant, automatically removed under the Representation of the Peoples Act.
She can however be subject to a recall petition, if her appeal is unsuccessful.
Constituents cannot institute recall petitions for Westminster MPs themselves without grounds.
Those grounds are in the event of a custodial sentence (automatically if 1 year or more) or a suspension from the House of 10 days or more (which is normally done by the Speaker for disorderly conduct within the House) or for a conviction over expenses claims. None of which apply in her case
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.
There would be a recall - if a petition calling for it gathers sufficient numbers of legitimate signatures. Maybe the Tories would rather keep her in post as a likely gain at the next election!
Suggestion: Double MPs salaries and forbid them taking paid employment, or taking benefits in kind, whilst they are serving MPs.
- The Goode Olde style of corruption was that *after* an MP stepped down, they would get a long, long list of non-executive directorships, share options etc etc. - Another issue is that you ensure that the MPs will become yet more isolated from reality.
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.
She has not been imprisoned for greater than one year so cannot be removed under the Representation of the People Act 1981.
She has also not been suspended from the House either for a month or more by the Standards Commissioner and there is no reason she cannot resume her work as an MP tomorrow and she will and would have clear legal grounds to stay in post.
Legally therefore it looks like Webbe could stay an MP until the next general election even as Paterson resigns
Go and read what the law actually says - as you haven't
A prison sentence (of any length), even if suspended results in a recall petition once all appeal procedures have been used or are time expired.
"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
I got myself a bit confused earlier.
I was correct to say she is not automatically recalled, by which I meant, automatically removed under the Representation of the Peoples Act.
She can however be subject to a recall petition, if her appeal is unsuccessful.
Constituents cannot institute recall petitions for Westminster MPs.
They can only be instituted in the event of a custodial sentence of 1 year or more or a suspension from the House of 10 days or more (which has to have been done by the Speaker for disorderly conduct within the House) or for a conviction over expenses claims. None of which apply in her case
"(3)The first recall condition is that— (a)the MP has, after becoming an MP, been convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained, and (b)the appeal period expires without the conviction, sentence or order having being overturned on appeal.Sections 2 to 4 contain more about the first recall condition."
The Act isn't restricted to the ground you mention:
"(4)The second recall condition is that, following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length."
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
Um what you've posted has nothing to do with what @Cyclefree posted
But then again given the sewers you seem to inhabit its not difficult to see how you can read something very different from what was actually posted.
It was a typical high moralising Cyclefree post basically castigating MPs in their entirety, that was obvious
Nope, it was a post that had everything to do with the fact that in all industries (Banks, Parliament, web communities) some people don't understand integrity nor the difference between right and wrong..
Suggestion: Double MPs salaries and forbid them taking paid employment, or taking benefits in kind, whilst they are serving MPs.
- The Goode Olde style of corruption was that *after* an MP stepped down, they would get a long, long list of non-executive directorships, share options etc etc. - Another issue is that you ensure that the MPs will become yet more isolated from reality.
The reality of paid employment for the 99% is not the same experience as getting paid £500 ph to get your ex school chums to give your company a multi million pound contract.
A bad day for the bad eggs in parliament. good. We can do much, much better than the Patersons and Webbes. And important to note that for every one of them there are ten who are doing a good, honest job. On all sides.
How would we know? Admittedly there is a PBer in there, hurray, but I wouldn't trust any of the rest of them further than I could throw them. I don't think there was a 10:1 good to bad egg ratio in the expenses scandal
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.
AFAIAA he never used the suicide as an excuse for his behaviour. Some on here seem to be trying to make out he did (*) to make him look bad. That's poor.
(Interestingly, I wouldn't be surprised if his actions since the suicide have been effected by it. My mind wouldn't exactly be in the right place, especially over the issue that you believe caused the tragedy.)
And I don't believe I am not confusing the two things. The two are very related: we can hold politicians to account without torturing them and their families. She probably feared the ire that would be poured on him, and by extension, her.
(*) If he did, then I'm obviously wrong, and apologies. But that wasn't what his family have been saying about it.
How could he be held to account fo his behaviour without investigating him for it and then punishing him for it if found in breach? He is using it as an excuse (one of them at least) as to why he should not face consequences.
I am all for kind politics and not 'torturing' MPs and their families. But investigating misconduct is not that. He will continue to have my every sympathy for what he suffered, and if there are lessons about how to go about things if someone is known to be vulnerable then all the better, but people in his situation also usually delay and obfuscate and then simultaneously complain about justice delayed is justice denied. You simply cannot blanket stop looking into misconduct because it 'tortures' the person involved.
"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
I got myself a bit confused earlier.
I was correct to say she is not automatically recalled, by which I meant, automatically removed under the Representation of the Peoples Act.
She can however be subject to a recall petition, if her appeal is unsuccessful.
Constituents cannot institute recall petitions for Westminster MPs themselves without grounds.
Those grounds are in the event of a custodial sentence of 1 year or more or a suspension from the House of 10 days or more (which is normally done by the Speaker for disorderly conduct within the House) or for a conviction over expenses claims. None of which apply in her case
Er, i think you mean "custodial sentence of 1 year OR LESS"? A custodial sentence of one year or more is an automatic by-election, not grounds for a constituent triggered recall election. The debate is whether a suspended custodial sentence qualifies as a custodial sentence under the act.
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.
She has not been imprisoned for greater than one year so cannot be removed under the Representation of the People Act 1981.
She has also not been suspended from the House either for a month or more by the Standards Commissioner and there is no reason she cannot resume her work as an MP tomorrow and she will and would have clear legal grounds to stay in post.
Legally therefore it looks like Webbe could stay an MP until the next general election even as Paterson resigns
Go and read what the law actually says - as you haven't
A prison sentence (of any length), even if suspended results in a recall petition once all appeal procedures have been used or are time expired.
A decent person would resign.
Webbe is not a decent person.
Very similar to the previous Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam. It does seem that Corbyn had an interest selection criteria when parachuting people into some seats.
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.
Yes, although they are better off with him going quickly than they would have been with an extended recall campaign - not least because the LibDems have practise in using a recall campaign to kickstart an election campaign.
England cases 30.1k down from 33.9k last week and 44.3k the week before that - genuinely expected some bounce back so great numbers.
Admissions and total in hospital both down too.
That's the crucial thing. Of all of them, the "total in hospital" and "number on mechanical ventilation" are the most important metrics. If we had 200,000 cases per day, but only a few thousand in hospital - no problem.
The number in hospital may well have peaked on the 1st of November. It's fallen every day since then - which is quicker than I'd expected, as that's a lagging indicator behind admissions (usually), which is itself a lagging indicator behind cases. We haven't had three consecutive drops in number in hospital since September. And never more than four days in a row of drops since the Delta surge hit the hospitals in May.
If we get two more days of drops, I will be really happy.
I've found this quite a useful daily updated chart, showing cases by age group with the usual assumptions to get to a daily cases figure cutting out some lag -
Has 65+ in (gentle) decline since c. 20th of October which may well fit with the (gently) falling hospitalisations 10 days later.
Also confirms the fall is kids, with 25-64 basically flat - hopefully they'll start to drop down as kids continue to fall. May be a bit speculative to suggest the 65+ dropping quicker is a booster effect but heres hoping.
"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
I got myself a bit confused earlier.
I was correct to say she is not automatically recalled, by which I meant, automatically removed under the Representation of the Peoples Act.
She can however be subject to a recall petition, if her appeal is unsuccessful.
Constituents cannot institute recall petitions for Westminster MPs.
They can only be instituted in the event of a custodial sentence of 1 year or more or a suspension from the House of 10 days or more (which has to have been done by the Speaker for disorderly conduct within the House) or for a conviction over expenses claims. None of which apply in her case
"(3)The first recall condition is that— (a)the MP has, after becoming an MP, been convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained, and (b)the appeal period expires without the conviction, sentence or order having being overturned on appeal.Sections 2 to 4 contain more about the first recall condition."
The Act isn't restricted to the ground you mention:
"(4)The second recall condition is that, following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length."
Correct. The Act does not say "immediate custodial sentence", it says "custodial sentence". A custodial sentence which is suspended is still a custodial sentence.
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.
She has not been imprisoned for greater than one year so cannot be removed under the Representation of the People Act 1981.
She has also not been suspended from the House either for a month or more by the Standards Commissioner and there is no reason she cannot resume her work as an MP tomorrow and she will and would have clear legal grounds to stay in post.
Legally therefore it looks like Webbe could stay an MP until the next general election even as Paterson resigns
She has however, received a custodial sentence, so I think the recall process must apply, unless she succeeds in either overturning the conviction, or receives a non-custodial sentence, upon appeal.
We will see, it is not entirely clear in terms of suspended sentences
Not particularly happy with Paterson's statement trying to imply that he's resigning because of all the beastly opponents mocking his dead wife. The Ahhhs in the commons were unedifying but the idea that all this trouble he's in is anyone else's fault is a self-pitying fiction. He should have resigned days ago and spared his party this grim farce.
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
Given the nonsense you have been posting for the last 24 hours in defence of the indefensible you are in no position to lecture anyone else about integrity. Sad though to see you use the Paterson gambit and use the death of others to make a point. It is possible to be appalled at the murder of MPs doing their job while criticising vigorously the behaviour of MPs yesterday who showed how little they valued integrity.
As for bankers I suspect I know a great deal more about their integrity than you ever will. The fact that this particular bank wants to have such a talk shows that they know the importance of the topic. It is to their credit. The Tory party and its cheerleaders might want to reflect on that.
Not particularly happy with Paterson's statement trying to imply that he's resigning because of all the beastly opponents mocking his dead wife. The Ahhhs in the commons were unedifying but the idea that all this trouble he's in is anyone else's fault is a self-pitying fiction. He should have resigned days ago and spared his party this grim farce.
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
Given the nonsense you have been posting for the last 24 hours in defence of the indefensible you are in no position to lecture anyone else about integrity. Sad though to see you use the Paterson gambit and use the death of others to make a point. It is possible to be appalled at the murder of MPs doing their job while criticising vigorously the behaviour of MPs yesterday who showed how little they valued integrity.
As for bankers I suspect I know a great deal more about their integrity than you ever will. The fact that this particular bank wants to have such a talk shows that they know the importance of the topic. It is to their credit. The Tory party and its cheerleaders might want to reflect on that.
"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
I got myself a bit confused earlier.
I was correct to say she is not automatically recalled, by which I meant, automatically removed under the Representation of the Peoples Act.
She can however be subject to a recall petition, if her appeal is unsuccessful.
Constituents cannot institute recall petitions for Westminster MPs themselves without grounds.
Those grounds are in the event of a custodial sentence (automatically if 1 year or more) or a suspension from the House of 10 days or more (which is normally done by the Speaker for disorderly conduct within the House) or for a conviction over expenses claims. None of which apply in her case
You seem to want to add to your terrible 24 hours by trying to excuse Webbe from recall
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.
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
One has to admire your effort to find good everywhere, even the most unlikely places.
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.
Germany is likely to have a much more difficult winter than us, with a lower vaccination rate, slow uptake of boosters, and lower levels of natural immunity.
Suggestion: Double MPs salaries and forbid them taking paid employment, or taking benefits in kind, whilst they are serving MPs.
- The Goode Olde style of corruption was that *after* an MP stepped down, they would get a long, long list of non-executive directorships, share options etc etc. - Another issue is that you ensure that the MPs will become yet more isolated from reality.
The reality of paid employment for the 99% is not the same experience as getting paid £500 ph to get your ex school chums to give your company a multi million pound contract.
Quite.
Personal anecdote alert.
A close relative has reached the stage with the company he started himself, from scratch, literally working with his hands, that he can step back a bit from the day to day. PhD in the sciences, a bunch of publications. A career in amateur sport that reached international levels at one point....
In times not very past, he would have been shoved into the local council by now and would be in parliament within a few years He was offered, but resisted. A political career is not merely not of interest, but actively to be avoided.
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.
She has not been imprisoned for greater than one year so cannot be removed under the Representation of the People Act 1981.
She has also not been suspended from the House either for a month or more by the Standards Commissioner and there is no reason she cannot resume her work as an MP tomorrow and she will and would have clear legal grounds to stay in post.
Legally therefore it looks like Webbe could stay an MP until the next general election even as Paterson resigns
She has however, received a custodial sentence, so I think the recall process must apply, unless she succeeds in either overturning the conviction, or receives a non-custodial sentence, upon appeal.
We will see, it is not entirely clear in terms of suspended sentences
Read the actual act - it's incredibly clear
There is even a specific clause regarding the custodial sentences that are suspended (the suspension is irrelevant).
I really don't get how you are allowed to post complete lies on this website even after multiple people have corrected your intentional stupidity / inability to do basic research.
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.
She has not been imprisoned for greater than one year so cannot be removed under the Representation of the People Act 1981.
She has also not been suspended from the House either for a month or more by the Standards Commissioner and there is no reason she cannot resume her work as an MP tomorrow and she will and would have clear legal grounds to stay in post.
Legally therefore it looks like Webbe could stay an MP until the next general election even as Paterson resigns
But my reading is the 'suspension from the house' is only one of a few recall triggers set out by the act.
A custodial sentence is a different trigger in the Act operating independently from Commons sanctions.
We'll soon see but take care not to drive your indignation on a partial reading.
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.
Yes, it's a personal tragedy which merits every sympathy but it doesn't really work for mitigation imo. It was his bad behaviour which caused the stress not the stress which caused the bad behaviour. Or so it appears anyway. One can't know for sure about other people's inner lives.
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 though the Standards Committee dealt with this very well. They restrained themselves to commenting that they had found the personal allegations against the Commissioner unsubstantiated.
I’ve no idea who might be the MPs referred to in Paterson’s resignation letter who ‘mocked’ his dead wife, despite following the story quite closely.
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.
She has not been imprisoned for greater than one year so cannot be removed under the Representation of the People Act 1981.
She has also not been suspended from the House either for a month or more by the Standards Commissioner and there is no reason she cannot resume her work as an MP tomorrow and she will and would have clear legal grounds to stay in post.
Legally therefore it looks like Webbe could stay an MP until the next general election even as Paterson resigns
She has however, received a custodial sentence, so I think the recall process must apply, unless she succeeds in either overturning the conviction, or receives a non-custodial sentence, upon appeal.
We will see, it is not entirely clear in terms of suspended sentences
Read the actual act - it's incredibly clear
There is even a specific clause regarding the custodial sentences that are suspended (the suspension is irrelevant).
I really don't get how you are allowed to post complete lies on this website even after multiple people have corrected your intentional stupidity / inability to do basic research.
He's practising for when he becomes a MP. In fact, HYUFD, you'd better get your CV up to date. Away off this site and get on with it.
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret · 26m Memo to Opposition parties ... check out my diaries, volume 1 ... relevant index entries ... Tatton, by-election; Hamilton, Neil; Bell, Martin.
Hamilton was standing in that election... Bit different...
Not really, Johnson has painted the Conservative party in Paterson's image over the last 24 hours.
It's still different. A good candidate, particularly a local one trusted in the area, will be able to counteract that to some extent. Remember this a constituency with a 60%+ Tory vote last time. Hamilton was personally involved.
One of the questions many in Westminster have been asking over the past year and a bit is why the numerous Tory sleaze stories haven't had the sort of cut-through that similar rows and revelations had in the John Major years?
And I really don't know what the answer is...
John Major started a morality campaign - his MPs were not up to it, and it turned out he was having an affair!
People don't like hypocrisy. And when you place today's 'misdemeamours' against the sleaze of the past it looks feeble.
Cash for access Cash for honours Cash for questions Drug use Perjury to get out of speeding ticket Writing letters on behalf of paid employer which had some content related to health concerns, some lobbying
The thing that is worse for the government is using political capital to get support then back out. Next week / next month most voters will not know who Owen Paterson is but they will notice if Boris cannot get his MPs to support him.
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.
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
Um what you've posted has nothing to do with what @Cyclefree posted
But then again given the sewers you seem to inhabit its not difficult to see how you can read something very different from what was actually posted.
It was a typical high moralising Cyclefree post basically castigating MPs in their entirety, that was obvious
You are a top performer when on form, but you need a couple of matches on the subs bench to rest and get back on your game. You are missing sitters and tapping in own goals.
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 though the Standards Committee dealt with this very well. They restrained themselves to commenting that they had found the personal allegations against the Commissioner unsubstantiated.
I’ve no idea who might be the MPs referred to in Paterson’s resignation letter who ‘mocked’ his dead wife, despite following the story quite closely.
I think it was actually a response to Mr Johnson's speech which was itself - not the suicide - seen as inappropriate. The Graun feed discusses this issue. See its entry for 1506 today:
"Oppositon MPs may be surprised by the claim in Owen Paterson’s statement that some of them mocked his wife’s death by suicide last year. (See 2.45pm.) He may have been referring to a moment during PMQs yesterday. In his sketch (paywall) for The Times (paywall), Quentin Letts said: “At PMQs earlier, Boris Johnson had mentioned Rose Paterson’s suicide. Up went several aw-diddums “ahhs” from the Labour side.” My colleague John Crace, the Guardian’s sketchwriter, was also in the gallery and he tells me he did not see anything that could be described as MPs mocking Rose’s death. My impression was that when Johnson mentioned Rose’s suicide, that did prompt a feint reaction from some MPs, but that was more because they felt Johnson was using Rose’s death as cover because he was finding it hard to justify the vote exempting Paterson from the standards committee recommendations. But I was listening to the debate on TV, not watching from the gallery, so I may have missed aspects of the reaction."
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.
She has not been imprisoned for greater than one year so cannot be removed under the Representation of the People Act 1981.
She has also not been suspended from the House either for a month or more by the Standards Commissioner and there is no reason she cannot resume her work as an MP tomorrow and she will and would have clear legal grounds to stay in post.
Legally therefore it looks like Webbe could stay an MP until the next general election even as Paterson resigns
She has however, received a custodial sentence, so I think the recall process must apply, unless she succeeds in either overturning the conviction, or receives a non-custodial sentence, upon appeal.
We will see, it is not entirely clear in terms of suspended sentences
Read the actual act - it's incredibly clear
There is even a specific clause regarding the custodial sentences that are suspended (the suspension is irrelevant).
I really don't get how you are allowed to post complete lies on this website even after multiple people have corrected your intentional stupidity / inability to do basic research.
He's practising for when he becomes a MP. In fact, HYUFD, you'd better get your CV up to date. Away off this site and get on with it.
Will the good folk of Epping be most enthused by the prospect of tanks in Scotland, another civil war in Northern Ireland or the purge of Catholics and republicans? It is hard to tell which will resonate the most.
Suggestion: Double MPs salaries and forbid them taking paid employment, or taking benefits in kind, whilst they are serving MPs.
- The Goode Olde style of corruption was that *after* an MP stepped down, they would get a long, long list of non-executive directorships, share options etc etc. - Another issue is that you ensure that the MPs will become yet more isolated from reality.
The reality of paid employment for the 99% is not the same experience as getting paid £500 ph to get your ex school chums to give your company a multi million pound contract.
Quite.
Personal anecdote alert.
A close relative has reached the stage with the company he started himself, from scratch, literally working with his hands, that he can step back a bit from the day to day. PhD in the sciences, a bunch of publications. A career in amateur sport that reached international levels at one point....
In times not very past, he would have been shoved into the local council by now and would be in parliament within a few years He was offered, but resisted. A political career is not merely not of interest, but actively to be avoided.
As I've pointed out multiple times here no-one sane goes into politics nowadays. Ignoring the stench coming from the Tory party over the past 48 hours, social media makes it an utterly appalling idea.
Heck the only poster on here who seems to want a political career is HYUFD and that probably tells you everything.
As I've posted before I suspect a lot of people in his position (and mine) can do a lot more good outside of politics rather than inside 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.
Suggestion: Double MPs salaries and forbid them taking paid employment, or taking benefits in kind, whilst they are serving MPs.
- The Goode Olde style of corruption was that *after* an MP stepped down, they would get a long, long list of non-executive directorships, share options etc etc. - Another issue is that you ensure that the MPs will become yet more isolated from reality.
1. How does taking a paid sinecure for a company seeking influence over policy prevent 'isolation from reality'? If MPs want to ensure connection to reality they should spend more time helping constituents in difficulty. (I know that many do and many are thus very well connected to reality.)
2. I have no problem with MPs taking lucrative jobs *after* they step down. They are free to use their experience to guide companies and be rewarded for that - provided such ex-MPs are not allowed preferential influence with sitting MPs. If MPs can have a lucrative employ after retiring so much the better - it might encourage some of the old fossils to make space for fresh blood.
Not particularly happy with Paterson's statement trying to imply that he's resigning because of all the beastly opponents mocking his dead wife. The Ahhhs in the commons were unedifying but the idea that all this trouble he's in is anyone else's fault is a self-pitying fiction. He should have resigned days ago and spared his party this grim farce.
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
Given the nonsense you have been posting for the last 24 hours in defence of the indefensible you are in no position to lecture anyone else about integrity. Sad though to see you use the Paterson gambit and use the death of others to make a point. It is possible to be appalled at the murder of MPs doing their job while criticising vigorously the behaviour of MPs yesterday who showed how little they valued integrity.
As for bankers I suspect I know a great deal more about their integrity than you ever will. The fact that this particular bank wants to have such a talk shows that they know the importance of the topic. It is to their credit. The Tory party and its cheerleaders might want to reflect on that.
However disgraceful Paterson is, he has been resigned. Webbe will not go so unwillingly.
I'm almost disappointed he did. He maintains he has done nothing wrong, and has denied his constituents the chance to show they agree (or that even if not, they still think he should be their MP).
We can only speculate as to why that is. But escaping 'cruel' politics doesn't seem likely. Like those cheats who don't follow through on those calling them cheaters because they don't want to spend the energy or something.
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.
I'm not sure political parties should be criticised for finding leaders who win elections. Surely that should be part of their raisin d'etre. Lablur seem to have forgotten that your leader can be as pure as possible with the correct views bit if they don't get elected they can't change anything
Not particularly happy with Paterson's statement trying to imply that he's resigning because of all the beastly opponents mocking his dead wife. The Ahhhs in the commons were unedifying but the idea that all this trouble he's in is anyone else's fault is a self-pitying fiction. He should have resigned days ago and spared his party this grim farce.
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
Given the nonsense you have been posting for the last 24 hours in defence of the indefensible you are in no position to lecture anyone else about integrity. Sad though to see you use the Paterson gambit and use the death of others to make a point. It is possible to be appalled at the murder of MPs doing their job while criticising vigorously the behaviour of MPs yesterday who showed how little they valued integrity.
As for bankers I suspect I know a great deal more about their integrity than you ever will. The fact that this particular bank wants to have such a talk shows that they know the importance of the topic. It is to their credit. The Tory party and its cheerleaders might want to reflect on that.
Suggestion: Double MPs salaries and forbid them taking paid employment, or taking benefits in kind, whilst they are serving MPs.
- The Goode Olde style of corruption was that *after* an MP stepped down, they would get a long, long list of non-executive directorships, share options etc etc. - Another issue is that you ensure that the MPs will become yet more isolated from reality.
The reality of paid employment for the 99% is not the same experience as getting paid £500 ph to get your ex school chums to give your company a multi million pound contract.
Quite.
Personal anecdote alert.
A close relative has reached the stage with the company he started himself, from scratch, literally working with his hands, that he can step back a bit from the day to day. PhD in the sciences, a bunch of publications. A career in amateur sport that reached international levels at one point....
In times not very past, he would have been shoved into the local council by now and would be in parliament within a few years He was offered, but resisted. A political career is not merely not of interest, but actively to be avoided.
As I've pointed out multiple times here no-one sane goes into politics nowadays. Ignoring the stench coming from the Tory party over the past 48 hours, social media makes it an utterly appalling idea.
Heck the only poster on here who seems to want a political career is HYUFD and that probably tells you everything.
As I've posted before I suspect a lot of people in his position (and mine) can do a lot more good outside of politics rather than inside it...
He would make an interesting Prime Minster, I think.
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.
What has Germany done? Missed it.
30k+ positive tests (some bank holiday effect apparently) rising hospital nos and deaths. The thing about the headlines in the UK which are increasingly having to focus on the deaths numbers coz everything else is going down, is that in a few days the deaths will start going down as well.
UK vs (vaccinated) Western Europe could look very different in a few weeks...
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.
People die. 10% of all deaths is something that we can live with.
Its not that money is more important than life, it is that life is more important than death. Is it worth 67 million people not living their life to the full in order to prevent 100 deaths per day? Especially if those 100 deaths are either people who refused the vaccine, or are so vulnerable that any illness could finish them off? For me, absolutely not.
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.
What has Germany done? Missed it.
Panicking over rising Covid death rates.
Yes but what have they done about the panic? Arguably if you look at our media, we are constantly panicking over the rates.
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.
I suggest you read my post on the previous thread at 10:41 am. It is possible to have very great sympathy for him because of his personal loss while criticising his behaviour as an MP.
Personal tragedy does not get you off the hook for your wrongdoings. If it did, our prisons would largely be empty since most of the people who end up in prison have suffered any number of personal tragedies and difficulties before they got there.
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.
In my humble opinion, acting as a paid advocate for more than his MPs salary, in direct contravention of the rules, is abysmal behavour.
For the record, I feel extremely sorry for Paterson and his family for their loss of his wife - suicide is always a terrible tragedy.
If that is abysmal, then what do you call Webbe's behaviour, where she threatened someone with acid? Super-abysmal? Or Vaz's? Hyper-abysmal?
I'm not defending what Paterson did. It was bad. Abysmal? That's a word I's reserve for actions designed to hurt people, or that level of things. You may obviously differ.
The sort of comment I'm talking about is the following from RP:
"or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying?"
AFAIAA (and I might be wrong) Paterson has never used the suicide as an excuse for his actions.
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.
She has not been imprisoned for greater than one year so cannot be removed under the Representation of the People Act 1981.
She has also not been suspended from the House either for a month or more by the Standards Commissioner and there is no reason she cannot resume her work as an MP tomorrow and she will and would have clear legal grounds to stay in post.
Legally therefore it looks like Webbe could stay an MP until the next general election even as Paterson resigns
But my reading is the 'suspension from the house' is only one of a few recall triggers set out by the act.
A custodial sentence is a different trigger in the Act operating independently from Commons sanctions.
We'll soon see but take care not to drive your indignation on a partial reading.
Even if that is the case, if she overturns the suspended sentence on appeal she would still avoid a recall.
There is of course no guarantee a recall would go through anyway
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.
What has Germany done? Missed it.
Panicking over rising Covid death rates.
They've also recorded an all-time high number of daily cases.
"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
I got myself a bit confused earlier.
I was correct to say she is not automatically recalled, by which I meant, automatically removed under the Representation of the Peoples Act.
She can however be subject to a recall petition, if her appeal is unsuccessful.
Constituents cannot institute recall petitions for Westminster MPs.
They can only be instituted in the event of a custodial sentence of 1 year or more or a suspension from the House of 10 days or more (which has to have been done by the Speaker for disorderly conduct within the House) or for a conviction over expenses claims. None of which apply in her case
"(3)The first recall condition is that— (a)the MP has, after becoming an MP, been convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained, and (b)the appeal period expires without the conviction, sentence or order having being overturned on appeal.Sections 2 to 4 contain more about the first recall condition."
The Act isn't restricted to the ground you mention:
"(4)The second recall condition is that, following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length."
Correct. The Act does not say "immediate custodial sentence", it says "custodial sentence". A custodial sentence which is suspended is still a custodial sentence.
Well if there were any doubt: 2(3)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...
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.
She has not been imprisoned for greater than one year so cannot be removed under the Representation of the People Act 1981.
She has also not been suspended from the House either for a month or more by the Standards Commissioner and there is no reason she cannot resume her work as an MP tomorrow and she will and would have clear legal grounds to stay in post.
Legally therefore it looks like Webbe could stay an MP until the next general election even as Paterson resigns
She has however, received a custodial sentence, so I think the recall process must apply, unless she succeeds in either overturning the conviction, or receives a non-custodial sentence, upon appeal.
We will see, it is not entirely clear in terms of suspended sentences
Read the actual act - it's incredibly clear
There is even a specific clause regarding the custodial sentences that are suspended (the suspension is irrelevant).
I really don't get how you are allowed to post complete lies on this website even after multiple people have corrected your intentional stupidity / inability to do basic research.
He's practising for when he becomes a MP. In fact, HYUFD, you'd better get your CV up to date. Away off this site and get on with it.
Will the good folk of Epping be most enthused by the prospect of tanks in Scotland, another civil war in Northern Ireland or the purge of Catholics and republicans? It is hard to tell which will resonate the most.
Not necessarily Epping. There is a vacancy coming up rather sooner than the Epping one, so far as I know. Which HYUFD is absolutely and perfectly entitled to compete for.
Suggestion: Double MPs salaries and forbid them taking paid employment, or taking benefits in kind, whilst they are serving MPs.
- The Goode Olde style of corruption was that *after* an MP stepped down, they would get a long, long list of non-executive directorships, share options etc etc. - Another issue is that you ensure that the MPs will become yet more isolated from reality.
The reality of paid employment for the 99% is not the same experience as getting paid £500 ph to get your ex school chums to give your company a multi million pound contract.
Quite.
Personal anecdote alert.
A close relative has reached the stage with the company he started himself, from scratch, literally working with his hands, that he can step back a bit from the day to day. PhD in the sciences, a bunch of publications. A career in amateur sport that reached international levels at one point....
In times not very past, he would have been shoved into the local council by now and would be in parliament within a few years He was offered, but resisted. A political career is not merely not of interest, but actively to be avoided.
As I've pointed out multiple times here no-one sane goes into politics nowadays. Ignoring the stench coming from the Tory party over the past 48 hours, social media makes it an utterly appalling idea.
Heck the only poster on here who seems to want a political career is HYUFD and that probably tells you everything.
As I've posted before I suspect a lot of people in his position (and mine) can do a lot more good outside of politics rather than inside it...
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
Um what you've posted has nothing to do with what @Cyclefree posted
But then again given the sewers you seem to inhabit its not difficult to see how you can read something very different from what was actually posted.
It was a typical high moralising Cyclefree post basically castigating MPs in their entirety, that was obvious
You are a top performer when on form, but you need a couple of matches on the subs bench to rest and get back on your game. You are missing sitters and tapping in own goals.
There are no goals to be made on PB, 90% of posters are pretty firm in their views on most issues. Most are Tory or anti Tory, pro Brexit or anti Brexit, you make comments you don't ever win
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.
I suggest you read my post on the previous thread at 10:41 am. It is possible to have very great sympathy for him because of his personal loss while criticising his behaviour as an MP.
Personal tragedy does not get you off the hook for your wrongdoings. If it did, our prisons would largely be empty since most of the people who end up in prison have suffered any number of personal tragedies and difficulties before they got there.
I totally agree. However (rightly or wrongly), it's often used in court as mitigation, is it not?
Suggestion: Double MPs salaries and forbid them taking paid employment, or taking benefits in kind, whilst they are serving MPs.
- The Goode Olde style of corruption was that *after* an MP stepped down, they would get a long, long list of non-executive directorships, share options etc etc. - Another issue is that you ensure that the MPs will become yet more isolated from reality.
1. How does taking a paid sinecure for a company seeking influence over policy prevent 'isolation from reality'? If MPs want to ensure connection to reality they should spend more time helping constituents in difficulty. (I know that many do and many are thus very well connected to reality.)
2. I have no problem with MPs taking lucrative jobs *after* they step down. They are free to use their experience to guide companies and be rewarded for that - provided such ex-MPs are not allowed preferential influence with sitting MPs. If MPs can have a lucrative employ after retiring so much the better - it might encourage some of the old fossils to make space for fresh blood.
I am trying to avoid the traditional political methodology of changing a system, with all concerned knowing that the exact same problem will occur is a slightly different form.
If they re selling their souls for an IOU, is that really better than selling their souls for cash on the barrelhead?
Comments
I was correct to say she is not automatically recalled, by which I meant, automatically removed under the Representation of the Peoples Act.
She can however be subject to a recall petition, if her appeal is unsuccessful.
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL
@campbellclaret
·
26m
Memo to Opposition parties ... check out my diaries, volume 1 ... relevant index entries ... Tatton, by-election; Hamilton, Neil; Bell, Martin.
https://www.class37.co.uk/imagepage.aspx?strnumber=rt37269
Was renumbered to 37417, so expect a late adjustment to the figures!
Of all of them, the "total in hospital" and "number on mechanical ventilation" are the most important metrics. If we had 200,000 cases per day, but only a few thousand in hospital - no problem.
The number in hospital may well have peaked on the 1st of November. It's fallen every day since then - which is quicker than I'd expected, as that's a lagging indicator behind admissions (usually), which is itself a lagging indicator behind cases. We haven't had three consecutive drops in number in hospital since September. And never more than four days in a row of drops since the Delta surge hit the hospitals in May.
If we get two more days of drops, I will be really happy.
She has also not been suspended from the House either for a month or more by the Standards Commissioner and there is no reason she cannot resume her work as an MP tomorrow and she will and would have clear legal grounds to stay in post.
Legally therefore it looks like Webbe could stay an MP until the next general election even as Paterson resigns
But then again given the sewers you seem to inhabit its not difficult to see how you can read something very different from what was actually posted.
(Interestingly, I wouldn't be surprised if his actions since the suicide have been effected by it. My mind wouldn't exactly be in the right place, especially over the issue that you believe caused the tragedy.)
And I don't believe I am not confusing the two things. The two are very related: we can hold politicians to account without torturing them and their families. She probably feared the ire that would be poured on him, and by extension, her.
(*) If he did, then I'm obviously wrong, and apologies. But that wasn't what his family have been saying about it.
NYTimes.
No kidding...
MPs can be recalled only under certain circumstances:
If they are convicted in the UK of an offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained and all appeals have been exhausted (and the sentence does not lead to automatic disqualification from being an MP)
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05089/
1 year+ is automatic disqualification.
Let's see what the side effects are like...
I am confident (I really am) that everybody here appreciates the almost unimaginable grief of the loss of his wife. Why would you think or say otherwise?
As for bankers I suspect I know a great deal more about their integrity than you ever will. The fact that this particular bank wants to have such a talk shows that they know the importance of the topic. It is to their credit. The Tory party and its cheerleaders might want to reflect on that.
A prison sentence (of any length), even if suspended results in a recall petition once all appeal procedures have been used or are time expired.
There would clearly be great benefits in that the really crap MPs would simply be out. However we'd no doubt have even more sitters.
Those grounds are in the event of a custodial sentence (automatically if 1 year or more) or a suspension from the House of 10 days or more (which is normally done by the Speaker for disorderly conduct within the House) or for a conviction over expenses claims. None of which apply in her case
- Another issue is that you ensure that the MPs will become yet more isolated from reality.
Webbe is not a decent person.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/25/section/1/enacted
"(3)The first recall condition is that—
(a)the MP has, after becoming an MP, been convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained, and
(b)the appeal period expires without the conviction, sentence or order having being overturned on appeal.Sections 2 to 4 contain more about the first recall condition."
The Act isn't restricted to the ground you mention:
"(4)The second recall condition is that, following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length."
Come back in January and tell me I was wrong.
I am all for kind politics and not 'torturing' MPs and their families. But investigating misconduct is not that. He will continue to have my every sympathy for what he suffered, and if there are lessons about how to go about things if someone is known to be vulnerable then all the better, but people in his situation also usually delay and obfuscate and then simultaneously complain about justice delayed is justice denied. You simply cannot blanket stop looking into misconduct because it 'tortures' the person involved.
“Nike will no longer be the kit supplier for Yorkshire CCC. We stand firmly against racism and discrimination of any kind.”
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1456296493137207296
http://sonorouschocolate.com/covid19/index.php?title=CasesByAge
Has 65+ in (gentle) decline since c. 20th of October which may well fit with the (gently) falling hospitalisations 10 days later.
Also confirms the fall is kids, with 25-64 basically flat - hopefully they'll start to drop down as kids continue to fall. May be a bit speculative to suggest the 65+ dropping quicker is a booster effect but heres hoping.
adjective: 1. extremely bad; appalling.
In my humble opinion, acting as a paid advocate (for more than his MP's salary) in direct contravention of the rules is abysmal behavour.
For the record, I feel extremely sorry for Paterson and his family for their loss of his wife - suicide is always a terrible tragedy.
Personal anecdote alert.
A close relative has reached the stage with the company he started himself, from scratch, literally working with his hands, that he can step back a bit from the day to day. PhD in the sciences, a bunch of publications. A career in amateur sport that reached international levels at one point....
In times not very past, he would have been shoved into the local council by now and would be in parliament within a few years He was offered, but resisted. A political career is not merely not of interest, but actively to be avoided.
There is even a specific clause regarding the custodial sentences that are suspended (the suspension is irrelevant).
I really don't get how you are allowed to post complete lies on this website even after multiple people have corrected your intentional stupidity / inability to do basic research.
A custodial sentence is a different trigger in the Act operating independently from Commons sanctions.
We'll soon see but take care not to drive your indignation on a partial reading.
They restrained themselves to commenting that they had found the personal allegations against the Commissioner unsubstantiated.
I’ve no idea who might be the MPs referred to in Paterson’s resignation letter who ‘mocked’ his dead wife, despite following the story quite closely.
People don't like hypocrisy. And when you place today's 'misdemeamours' against the sleaze of the past it looks feeble.
Cash for access
Cash for honours
Cash for questions
Drug use
Perjury to get out of speeding ticket
Writing letters on behalf of paid employer which had some content related to health concerns, some lobbying
The thing that is worse for the government is using political capital to get support then back out. Next week / next month most voters will not know who Owen Paterson is but they will notice if Boris cannot get his MPs to support him.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2021/nov/04/uk-politics-live-tory-sleaze-owen-paterson-boris-johnson-kwasi-kwarteng-latest-updates
"Oppositon MPs may be surprised by the claim in Owen Paterson’s statement that some of them mocked his wife’s death by suicide last year. (See 2.45pm.) He may have been referring to a moment during PMQs yesterday. In his sketch (paywall) for The Times (paywall), Quentin Letts said: “At PMQs earlier, Boris Johnson had mentioned Rose Paterson’s suicide. Up went several aw-diddums “ahhs” from the Labour side.” My colleague John Crace, the Guardian’s sketchwriter, was also in the gallery and he tells me he did not see anything that could be described as MPs mocking Rose’s death. My impression was that when Johnson mentioned Rose’s suicide, that did prompt a feint reaction from some MPs, but that was more because they felt Johnson was using Rose’s death as cover because he was finding it hard to justify the vote exempting Paterson from the standards committee recommendations. But I was listening to the debate on TV, not watching from the gallery, so I may have missed aspects of the reaction."
Heck the only poster on here who seems to want a political career is HYUFD and that probably tells you everything.
As I've posted before I suspect a lot of people in his position (and mine) can do a lot more good outside of politics rather than inside it...
2. I have no problem with MPs taking lucrative jobs *after* they step down. They are free to use their experience to guide companies and be rewarded for that - provided such ex-MPs are not allowed preferential influence with sitting MPs. If MPs can have a lucrative employ after retiring so much the better - it might encourage some of the old fossils to make space for fresh blood.
How closely are Britons following the Owen Paterson lobbying suspension story
Very/fairly 28%
Not very closely 20%
Aware but -not following 24%
Not aware 28%
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1456289791922876423?t=nC8LlurK_h5bUv9dEeBtuw&s=19
We can only speculate as to why that is. But escaping 'cruel' politics doesn't seem likely. Like those cheats who don't follow through on those calling them cheaters because they don't want to spend the energy or something.
Bit of terrifying thought in some ways, actually.
UK vs (vaccinated) Western Europe could look very different in a few weeks...
Its not that money is more important than life, it is that life is more important than death. Is it worth 67 million people not living their life to the full in order to prevent 100 deaths per day? Especially if those 100 deaths are either people who refused the vaccine, or are so vulnerable that any illness could finish them off? For me, absolutely not.
Personal tragedy does not get you off the hook for your wrongdoings. If it did, our prisons would largely be empty since most of the people who end up in prison have suffered any number of personal tragedies and difficulties before they got there.
Or Vaz's? Hyper-abysmal?
I'm not defending what Paterson did. It was bad. Abysmal? That's a word I's reserve for actions designed to hurt people, or that level of things. You may obviously differ.
The sort of comment I'm talking about is the following from RP:
"or was he suggesting that he was so grief-stricken by her suicide that he accidentally made half a mil from lobbying?"
AFAIAA (and I might be wrong) Paterson has never used the suicide as an excuse for his actions.
There is of course no guarantee a recall would go through anyway
2(3)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...
I'd have a go myself if I ever thought I'd stand a chance of getting elected (and I am entriely sane) - but at my age the opportunity has long gone.
But that wasn't my main point.
If they re selling their souls for an IOU, is that really better than selling their souls for cash on the barrelhead?