[Misc] Owen Patterson M.P.

[clapham_gull]

How come Leadsom seems to be getting away with it.
I can't stand the woman, she looks just like you would expect a Tory woman to look like.
A horrible snob.

And clearly not happy doing so. I doubt very much she wanted anything to do with it. They aren't stupid enough to not know that is a personal issue for the PM and nothing to do with Patterson.

The last few days sums up this administration, a marriage of convenience. They all hate him, but he wins elections. They'll do anything he says to keep their jobs.

 

[Easy 10]

Yes, but it's far more nuanced than that and if not for the involvement of an MP most people would fall on his side of the debate.

A MP lobbying for food safety is a marvellous thing in the context of others MPs "sponsors". Using that to give his employers a competitive advantage, very clearly not so.

Still confused why people are directing their anger at the MP rather than the PM who clearly hijacked the issue for another agenda.

That leaves Johnson laughing all the way to the Maldives.

Whatever the issue, you simply cannot have MPs lobbying and using their highly privileged position of influence, when it directly benefits someone who is paying them. In many ways its worse and even more insidious than the 'cash for questions' scandal.

And I have even more anger for Johnson, being as he's just attempted to rip up independent parliamentary rules for scrutinising MPs that have been in place for CENTURIES. Nothing is too low for this snake of a PM. Every time I think I couldn't despise him any more than I do, he finds ever more new and innovative ways to disgust me.

 

[clapham_gull]

Whatever the issue, you simply cannot have MPs lobbying and using their highly privileged position of influence, when it directly benefits someone who is paying them. In many ways its worse and even more insidious than the 'cash for questions' scandal.

And I have even more anger for Johnson, being as he's just attempted to rip up independent parliamentary rules for scrutinising MPs that have been in place for CENTURIES. Nothing is too low for this snake of a PM. Every time I think I couldn't despise him any more than I do, he finds ever more new and innovative ways to disgust me.

I totally agree, but it's been going on for years on both sides of the house. It's totally ****ed and going on in the civil service as well.

I've come to the conclusion we:

1) Need less of them.
2) Pay them more (*)
3) Ban second jobs.

Two is controversial I know, but it's the only way to get rid of the current situation where they can "top up" outside.

 

[Easy 10]

I totally agree, but it's been going on for years on both sides of the house. It's totally ****ed and going on in the civil service as well.

I've come to the conclusion we:

1) Need less of them.
2) Pay them more (*)
3) Ban second jobs.

Two is controversial I know, but it's the only way to get rid of the current situation where they can "top up" outside.

You and I both know that whatever you pay MPs, they'd still be looking to outside sources for ways to top up their salaries on the snide.

Power corrupts.

 

[clapham_gull]

Today Johnson slipped into the members interest record that his Spanish holiday was paid for by Lord Zac Goldsmith who received a peerage from the PM in 2019.

A good day to bury bad news if you all the intention is focussed on a random back bencher.

 

[clapham_gull]

You and I both know that whatever you pay MPs, they'd still be looking to outside sources for ways to top up their salaries on the snide.

Power corrupts.

Not if their income is public record, they are banned from taking related directorships for a few years after office and their Westminster passes are taken away.

It really isn't difficult.

This goes all the way back to the Thatcher era. They knew increasing the salary of MPs was political dynamite and allowed expenses etc.. to become increasingly loose to make up for it.

That short term solution has ****ed the entire system, because nobody wants to see greedy ******** get a pay rise.

You will only get the best if you pay for it. Currently we have noddy middle managers on both sides, who whilst reaching their ceiling of incompetence know they can play the system for a top up.

I think we should pay MPs more but not this lot more. So many are appalling incompetent, they'd struggle to earn their currently salary in the real world.

 

[Pevenseagull]

Might as well give Question Time a go ...

 

[m20gull]

I totally agree, but it's been going on for years on both sides of the house. It's totally ****ed and going on in the civil service as well.

I've come to the conclusion we:

1) Need less of them.
2) Pay them more (*)
3) Ban second jobs.

Two is controversial I know, but it's the only way to get rid of the current situation where they can "top up" outside.

I sympathise with that conclusion. You could be an MP for a very short period. Why give up your day job (or other job opportunities)?

 

[Acker79]

Lay off this MP in my opinion (Labour MPs have done worse), he broke the rules but did so whilst alerting to the Government to food safety issues.

Paterson’s claim: He made approaches to government bodies about two firms, Randox and Lynn’s Country Foods, which employed him as a consultant. The MP said he was acting as a whistleblower in raising concerns about milk and pork standards and that this meant he could claim an exemption from the rules regarding paid advocacy because he was raising a “serious wrong”.

Watchdog response: While this excuse would have been permissible for an initial approach, Patterson’s investigators said it did not cover his follow-up letters and meetings. “What might have been permissible in a single exceptional case, became Paterson’s standard practice,” said the standards commissioner, Kathryn Stone, adding that it “stretches credulity to suggest that 14 approaches to ministers and public officials were all attempts to avert a serious wrong rather than to favour Randox and Lynn’s, however much Paterson may have persuaded himself he is in the right.”

The committee agreed. It said Paterson’s follow-up approaches “sought to promote Randox products” by praising their “superior technology” and that he promoted other unrelated products from the company. “These were all attempts to confer a benefit on Randox, to whom he was a paid consultant,” it found. “At best, Paterson was relying on an exemption he thought probably existed but of whose terms he was unsure. At worst, Paterson was knowingly in breach of the lobbying rules.”

The committee also agreed that Paterson’s attempts to get one of Lynn’s Country Foods’ competitors to relabel their product so as not to compete with Lynn’s own nitrite-free goods, as well his asking for this to be promoted in the press, was not incidental.

Paterson was paid more than £100,000 for his work for Randox and Lynn’s, and the committee was clear. “The paid advocacy rule does not distinguish between lobbying for good causes and lobbying for bad causes. It only applies to lobbying for reward or consideration.” It added that Paterson “went beyond presenting evidence of a serious wrong” in his follow-up approaches to the Food Standards Agency about milk testing.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-his-claims-and-how-they-stack-up-in-analysis

 

[lawros left foot]

When I started this thread, I thought “ Bear pit within 10 posts”

15 pages and still on the main board .

Well done everybody.

Can we now go after Robert Jenrick, cos if he isn’t corrupt, I’m a Dutchman.

 

[vegster]

When I started this thread, I thought “ Bear pit within 10 posts”

15 pages and still on the main board .

Well done everybody.

Can we now go after Robert Jenrick, cos if he isn’t corrupt, I’m a Dutchman.

Surely it should be Kwarteng for effectively telling the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to resign?

 

[Hugo Rune]

Paterson’s claim: He made approaches to government bodies about two firms, Randox and Lynn’s Country Foods, which employed him as a consultant. The MP said he was acting as a whistleblower in raising concerns about milk and pork standards and that this meant he could claim an exemption from the rules regarding paid advocacy because he was raising a “serious wrong”.

Watchdog response: While this excuse would have been permissible for an initial approach, Patterson’s investigators said it did not cover his follow-up letters and meetings. “What might have been permissible in a single exceptional case, became Paterson’s standard practice,” said the standards commissioner, Kathryn Stone, adding that it “stretches credulity to suggest that 14 approaches to ministers and public officials were all attempts to avert a serious wrong rather than to favour Randox and Lynn’s, however much Paterson may have persuaded himself he is in the right.”

The committee agreed. It said Paterson’s follow-up approaches “sought to promote Randox products” by praising their “superior technology” and that he promoted other unrelated products from the company. “These were all attempts to confer a benefit on Randox, to whom he was a paid consultant,” it found. “At best, Paterson was relying on an exemption he thought probably existed but of whose terms he was unsure. At worst, Paterson was knowingly in breach of the lobbying rules.”

The committee also agreed that Paterson’s attempts to get one of Lynn’s Country Foods’ competitors to relabel their product so as not to compete with Lynn’s own nitrite-free goods, as well his asking for this to be promoted in the press, was not incidental.

Paterson was paid more than £100,000 for his work for Randox and Lynn’s, and the committee was clear. “The paid advocacy rule does not distinguish between lobbying for good causes and lobbying for bad causes. It only applies to lobbying for reward or consideration.” It added that Paterson “went beyond presenting evidence of a serious wrong” in his follow-up approaches to the Food Standards Agency about milk testing.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-his-claims-and-how-they-stack-up-in-analysis

Good post.

Whilst the PM was clearly trying to protect his own bacon in this affair, it doesn’t change the fact that Patterson had his snout well and truly in the trough and was doing everything he could to benefit his own self interest (money and power). I do wonder what other stuff goes on that is not caught.

This government remind me of the pigs from animal farm.

 

[lawros left foot]

Surely it should be Kwarteng for effectively telling the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to resign?

That’s the problem, so many Conservative MPs are bent that it’s difficult just to choose one.

 

[rogersix]

I haven't seen any pics of said vandalism, but wonder if some Tory donors have been on the phone to their respective MPs with some disquiet.

I don't think the Russians would care one jot

 

[rippleman]

I emailed Loughton a few years ago to ask him about one of the Brexit votes in Parliament, I will admit to being not rude exactly, but, not very understanding of his position. I did call him Mr Loughton and in his reply, that more or less told me to mind my own business, he said “ I’m Sir Tim Loughton, not Mr Loughton “.
I did email back asking him if he’d got his knighthood for arrogance. Funnily enough, he didn’t reply to that one.

I contacted him on behalf of a number of his constituents who ran small, owner managed busineses and were denied relief under the CJRS because the scheme operated with a retrospective date. I had a couple of reasonable responses from his secretary but he wasn't bothered about pushing the issue with the Treasury. I kept pushing and in the end got a semi-hysterical, poorly worded, unpunctuated rant from Loughton who said "what do you want me to do about it"?

A reminder of how pathetic, childish and arrogant he is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QImnPvhNqdE

 

[Boroseagull]

These MP's just don't learn do they? It was almost exactly 20 years ago, November 2001, that Elizabeth Filkin the MP's 'watchdog' was effectively dismissed. Except they all handled it rather differently. Now it's Kathryn Stones turn.

 

[rippleman]

Not if their income is public record, they are banned from taking related directorships for a few years after office and their Westminster passes are taken away.

It really isn't difficult.

This goes all the way back to the Thatcher era. They knew increasing the salary of MPs was political dynamite and allowed expenses etc.. to become increasingly loose to make up for it.

That short term solution has ****ed the entire system, because nobody wants to see greedy ******** get a pay rise.

You will only get the best if you pay for it. Currently we have noddy middle managers on both sides, who whilst reaching their ceiling of incompetence know they can play the system for a top up.

I think we should pay MPs more but not this lot more. So many are appalling incompetent, they'd struggle to earn their currently salary in the real world.

The BASIC salary of a backbench MP is a smidge under £82K. And you want to pay them more? For real?

Maybe if I tell you that the average salary for a junior doctor in London is £38K it might put things in perspective for you.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I’ve read a revealing tweet this evening.

Opinion polls are for influencing public opinion, not measuring it.

You’ve only got to target your demographic, ask the ‘right’ questions to get the answers you want.

As this documentary highlighted over 40 years ago

 

[Stat Brother]

When I started this thread, I thought “ Bear pit within 10 posts”

15 pages and still on the main board .

Well done everybody.

Can we now go after Robert Jenrick, cos if he isn’t corrupt, I’m a Dutchman.

Nah t'is only a Pit thread when The Circle Jerks start pulling at each others virtual hair.

This whole sorry mess is many things but circular isn't one of them.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

As this documentary highlighted over 40 years ago

An actual by-election result yesterday.

[tweet]1456547531899478031[/tweet]