[ali k]

The penny probably dropped that he’d just been used as collateral in another clumsy Johnson power play to preemptively attack the standards committee ahead of what’s to come for the PM.

[petekitso]

It's one of the most self serving resignation statements I have ever seen. Apparently some MPs have been mocking his wife's suicide and/or belittling his family's pain. I have been pretty much glued to the news cycle on this and have not seen any such thing. The tone has been completely respectful other than when Boris shamelessly alluded to it in the commons yesterday.

He is resigning before he is subject to a vote which Boris would not be able to whip.

I was trying to explain the whole debacle to my 16 year old yesterday  just after she told me that Boris took a private jet back from Scotland to attend a dinner of Telegraph journalists  . . . it is hard not to despair.

[ali k]

Yes. If he wanted to respect the “memory and reputation” of his late wife the best thing he and the PM could have done was not to use it to garner sympathy and cover for his previous misdemeanours and bring it up at every opportunity.

[teestub]

Some more Machiavellian level plotting at the top of UK politics there, bet Patterson just wishes he’d taken the 30 days unpaid or whatever it was.

[seankenny]

Ffs. The debate being the more important aspect of this. The fact that the system functions on predetermined voting position and party whips, rather than individual conscience is an awful situation and absolutely ripe for reform.
MPs of both parties are, currently, simply drones, in most cases. Such agreements, should not be possible, if Parliament functioned as something better than a Labour versus Tory pissing contest and part time debating society.

Yeah and either everyone would vote with their party for entirely sensible reasons (they want to get ahead) or no government could be sure of getting a vote through and making laws would be even more chaotic and long-winded. Parliament can and does exert pressure over the executive, that the current lot seem to want to reduce this is a massive problem against which complaining about pairing (an entirely sensible way of accounting for absences) is small beer.

More general question: MPs pay - increase it but ban second and third jobs?

[Oldmanmatt]

Ffs. The debate being the more important aspect of this. The fact that the system functions on predetermined voting position and party whips, rather than individual conscience is an awful situation and absolutely ripe for reform.
MPs of both parties are, currently, simply drones, in most cases. Such agreements, should not be possible, if Parliament functioned as something better than a Labour versus Tory pissing contest and part time debating society.

Yeah and either everyone would vote with their party for entirely sensible reasons (they want to get ahead) or no government could be sure of getting a vote through and making laws would be even more chaotic and long-winded. Parliament can and does exert pressure over the executive, that the current lot seem to want to reduce this is a massive problem against which complaining about pairing (an entirely sensible way of accounting for absences) is small beer.

More general question: MPs pay - increase it but ban second and third jobs?

No. It’s not. It’s merely symptomatic of the mess. You could, should you wish to take it too the extreme, simply send home one of each party until one party runs out of MPs and assume the vote falls with the party with the majority. Which is exactly what happens on most occasions, one vote cancelling another, making it a forgone conclusion. Very few MPs vote with conscience on either side.
To give them their due, far more Labour MPs than Tories fall into that bracket (that I would, loosely, term “good people”).
Parliament is all too convivial and our two party system renders it largely moot, with an overall Tory bias. Labour are as much to blame as the Tories and stand to lose as much from PR as the Tories do. What you seem to view as potential chaos, actually usually engenders compromise and negotiation. Our current situation, with only a little hyperbole, might as well be seen as a straight contest between the PM and Leader of the Opposition, with each wielding their seated votes as their personal power. Of course, given PR, the issue itself would be moot.

Imagine the house split along the lines of the voting percentages cast in 2019.
Do you imagine making laws would be that much harder? I tend to think it would be more equitable, by a country mile or six.
The composition of the house would be majority progressive, for sure and life would be much better for the majority, I feel certain.

Labour, would in fact, exert more influence over government, than they do today, I suspect.
As it stands, they may as well drop the “Labour” title and rebrand as “The Official and Permanent Party in Opposition”. I’ll take that back and buy you a beer, if Labour win the next election, though.

Edit:

Also, making laws should be long winded. Quick fixes leave holes that often hurt.

[mrjonathanr]

More general question: MPs pay - increase it but ban second and third jobs?

Yes. Should have been done long ago. Obvious time was the expenses scandal in 2009.

[seankenny]

No. It’s not. It’s merely symptomatic of the mess. You could, should you wish to take it too the extreme, simply send home one of each party until one party runs out of MPs and assume the vote falls with the party with the majority. Which is exactly what happens on most occasions, one vote cancelling another, making it a forgone conclusion. Very few MPs vote with conscience on either side.
To give them their due, far more Labour MPs than Tories fall into that bracket (that I would, loosely, term “good people”).
Parliament is all too convivial and our two party system renders it largely moot, with an overall Tory bias. Labour are as much to blame as the Tories and stand to lose as much from PR as the Tories do. What you seem to view as potential chaos, actually usually engenders compromise and negotiation. Our current situation, with only a little hyperbole, might as well be seen as a straight contest between the PM and Leader of the Opposition, with each wielding their seated votes as their personal power. Of course, given PR, the issue itself would be moot.

Imagine the house split along the lines of the voting percentages cast in 2019.
Do you imagine making laws would be that much harder? I tend to think it would be more equitable, by a country mile or six.
The composition of the house would be majority progressive, for sure and life would be much better for the majority, I feel certain.

Labour, would in fact, exert more influence over government, than they do today, I suspect.
As it stands, they may as well drop the “Labour” title and rebrand as “The Official and Permanent Party in Opposition”. I’ll take that back and buy you a beer, if Labour win the next election, though.

Edit:

Also, making laws should be long winded. Quick fixes leave holes that often hurt.

I think your characterisation of the Parliamentary system misses out an awful lot of what actually goes on in getting bills through Parliament, and seems to ignore the oversight aspect of the institution altogether. Bills can and do get changed at second and third readings as a result of MPs' debate/pressure, and the work of Select Committees is important - after all it was the Committee on Standards that started this whole row... Leaders often don't have the full and complete control over their party, and MPs can and do use their power to achieve their goals - remember the ERG? They certainly "voted with their conscience" - or threatened to - plenty of times in the last few years.

If you want "compromise and negotiation" over a strong executive, how do you think that would have played out in the financial crisis when the executive needed to make very quick decisions? Or indeed the pandemic? Even in a PR system you're going to have whipping simply because if you can't regularly count on votes, you gum up the process of actually doing anything - the political scientists Francis Fukuyama calls the US a "vetocracy" and they really do struggle getting stuff done at the moment. I'm all for taking the time to pass laws but sometimes the executive needs to act quickly.

Whilst I'm sympathetic to a move to PR, you can't assume there'd be an automatic progressive majority. All UK parties are internal coalitions, even the Lib Dems, some of whom would probably rather be with a free market/liberal centre-right grouping that would attract a lot of current Tories. It's a mistake to think that under PR current voting patterns would map directly into seats/MPs as the current choices hide as much as they obscure. I strongly doubt we'd even have the same parties as we do now.

[shurt]

Owen Patterson has left the building...

[Oldmanmatt]

No. It’s not. It’s merely symptomatic of the mess. You could, should you wish to take it too the extreme, simply send home one of each party until one party runs out of MPs and assume the vote falls with the party with the majority. Which is exactly what happens on most occasions, one vote cancelling another, making it a forgone conclusion. Very few MPs vote with conscience on either side.
To give them their due, far more Labour MPs than Tories fall into that bracket (that I would, loosely, term “good people”).
Parliament is all too convivial and our two party system renders it largely moot, with an overall Tory bias. Labour are as much to blame as the Tories and stand to lose as much from PR as the Tories do. What you seem to view as potential chaos, actually usually engenders compromise and negotiation. Our current situation, with only a little hyperbole, might as well be seen as a straight contest between the PM and Leader of the Opposition, with each wielding their seated votes as their personal power. Of course, given PR, the issue itself would be moot.

Imagine the house split along the lines of the voting percentages cast in 2019.
Do you imagine making laws would be that much harder? I tend to think it would be more equitable, by a country mile or six.
The composition of the house would be majority progressive, for sure and life would be much better for the majority, I feel certain.

Labour, would in fact, exert more influence over government, than they do today, I suspect.
As it stands, they may as well drop the “Labour” title and rebrand as “The Official and Permanent Party in Opposition”. I’ll take that back and buy you a beer, if Labour win the next election, though.

Edit:

Also, making laws should be long winded. Quick fixes leave holes that often hurt.

I think your characterisation of the Parliamentary system misses out an awful lot of what actually goes on in getting bills through Parliament, and seems to ignore the oversight aspect of the institution altogether. Bills can and do get changed at second and third readings as a result of MPs' debate/pressure, and the work of Select Committees is important - after all it was the Committee on Standards that started this whole row... Leaders often don't have the full and complete control over their party, and MPs can and do use their power to achieve their goals - remember the ERG? They certainly "voted with their conscience" - or threatened to - plenty of times in the last few years.

If you want "compromise and negotiation" over a strong executive, how do you think that would have played out in the financial crisis when the executive needed to make very quick decisions? Or indeed the pandemic? Even in a PR system you're going to have whipping simply because if you can't regularly count on votes, you gum up the process of actually doing anything - the political scientists Francis Fukuyama calls the US a "vetocracy" and they really do struggle getting stuff done at the moment. I'm all for taking the time to pass laws but sometimes the executive needs to act quickly.

Whilst I'm sympathetic to a move to PR, you can't assume there'd be an automatic progressive majority. All UK parties are internal coalitions, even the Lib Dems, some of whom would probably rather be with a free market/liberal centre-right grouping that would attract a lot of current Tories. It's a mistake to think that under PR current voting patterns would map directly into seats/MPs as the current choices hide as much as they obscure. I strongly doubt we'd even have the same parties as we do now.

Of course it’s an over simplification. I made no such assumption either, I merely pointed out that if the current parliament actually represented the voting split at the last election, it would favour progressives, quite markedly. I rather think that free market/liberal/ centre grouping you envisage there to be a: a good thing and b: allow a good many moderate Tories to get behind socially liberal policies they probably already favour. Currently they will be whipped to the right of their natural inclination.
I’ve said it before, the middle ground decide elections. They create the majority. When people “defect”, “cross the aisle” etc, they were never actually ardent supporters of their original party to begin with. However, when a two party system evolves as ours has (and to an even greater extent in the US), the parties must gravitate away from centre, forming their own little bell curves about the centre line. Reducing the opportunity for compromise.

“Rebel” groups of cross party alliances are almost impossible in this system, but much more likely within a PR parliament. This is the ground where new parties should be growing, drawing in the disenchanted from both sides, those cross party alliances sprouting legs. It happens elsewhere, not in the UK or the US.  We have seen an almost total stagnation of our political system as the 21st century, a marked entrenchment of the right in power and the left in shattered disarray.
Labour is not doing well.
It is not polling well.
People are not even trickling into it’s ranks.
The latest “U” turn? Popular opinion induced, based on response to press coverage. The man on the street wouldn’t give a toss about Starmer or Labour at large “boycotting” the proposed new scrutiny regimen, but the blatant corruption of the Government’s move was obvious enough for even Joe Public to notice and they failed to line up a Paedo Prince, Royal wedding or Junior Royal flouncing out of the country, to cover their shit.

Of course this system is not entirely dysfunctional. Of course the “good” people inside are slapping bandaids on here there and everywhere and it still limps on. Some of those bandaids are trying to hold back arterial bleeds. Look at the Government we have. How do you think we got here? Does this look like a system that is working, or one that is really very close to drowning?

As an aside from the main point: Given everything that has happen, pretty much since 2016, all the proven lies, the failed initiatives, the obvious corruption, the staggering number of actual deaths; how do you explain the Tory’s enduring popularity and Labour’s continued decline?

[TobyD]

As an aside from the main point: Given everything that has happen, pretty much since 2016, all the proven lies, the failed initiatives, the obvious corruption, the staggering number of actual deaths; how do you explain the Tory’s enduring popularity and Labour’s continued decline?

Easy answer,  most people aren't really paying attention.  Its common in focus groups for several members to be barely aware that Corbyn is no longer leader of the labour party,  and to think that Johnson is doing a marvellous job.  People who are paying attention are generally not especially happy with the Johnson government, even the very Conservative leaning commentators who are worried about the financial situation, constant breaking manifesto promises, chaotic decision making and the increase in the size of the state. 

[ali k]

The papers really are a joke in this country.

Well the headlines are going to make for very uncomfortable reading in No10 this morning. Without exception they’re hammering Johnson over this.

Doubt it’ll change the polls but will wait and see.

[TobyD]

From the BBC report: Mr Paterson said he now wanted a life "outside the cruel world of politics".

Ah, diddums. The cruel world is a £20 cut to UC, not the one where people get annoyed about representatives being corrupt. 

[TobyD]

I was trying to explain the whole debacle to my 16 year old yesterday  just after she told me that Boris took a private jet back from Scotland to attend a dinner of Telegraph journalists  . . . it is hard not to despair.

He flew back in a GB branded jet, funded by taxpayers,  to have that dinner with Lord Moore of Etchingham at the Garrick club; on the menu was pheasant followed by Grand Marnier souffle. 
That's dedication to your job.

[JohnM]

I was trying to explain the whole debacle to my 16 year old yesterday  just after she told me that Boris took a private jet back from Scotland to attend a dinner of Telegraph journalists  . . . it is hard not to despair.

He flew back in a GB branded jet, funded by taxpayers,  to have that dinner with Lord Moore of Etchingham at the Garrick club; on the menu was pheasant followed by Grand Marnier souffle. 
That's dedication to your job.

Yep, pheasant can often be dry!

[Johnny Brown]

From the BBC report: Mr Paterson said he now wanted a life "outside the cruel world of politics".

Ah, diddums. 

You don't think it was more likely a reference to his wife's suicide? As much as the guy's political career should have ended in 2014 let's not ignore the tragic human element.

[Bonjoy]

I was trying to explain the whole debacle to my 16 year old yesterday  just after she told me that Boris took a private jet back from Scotland to attend a dinner of Telegraph journalists  . . . it is hard not to despair.

He flew back in a GB branded jet, funded by taxpayers,  to have that dinner with Lord Moore of Etchingham at the Garrick club; on the menu was pheasant followed by Grand Marnier souffle. 
That's dedication to your job.

Yep, pheasant can often be dry!

The wine omelette sounds pretty hard work too

[SA Chris]

Anyone got any good ideas for a pithy but polite reply to my Tory MP who was defending the vote in email exchanges right up until this morning? In light of the u-turn.

You could send him a pair of flip flops as per The Thick Of It.

[ali k]

You don't think it was more likely a reference to his wife's suicide?

I took it as a reference to being hung out to dry by No10. After all, that’s what prompted him to resign.

[SA Chris]

Agree. I think he felt he was not given the opportunity to defend his indefensible position.

[TobyD]

You don't think it was more likely a reference to his wife's suicide?

I took it as a reference to being hung out to dry by No10. After all, that’s what prompted him to resign.

Agree. I think it was a shameless attempt at emotional blackmail to cultivate some sympathy for him. He didn't say anything about the cruel world of politics when he thought he'd got away with it the day before, only saying he'd do the same thing again. There are many excellent Conservative MPs, who seem to be decent people, in my opinion, but Patterson wasn't one of them.

[TobyD]

John Major interviewed on the Today programme this morning has called the government politically corrupt and extremely stupid. 

[ali k]

Aren’t you Shipley and thus represented by the delightful Philip Davies? I can’t imagine any form of words having any effect on him!

From BBC News:

“The relationship between MPs and those at the top has been left bruised. This could bite the government when it needs those MPs on side again in future votes, particularly on controversial issues.
The Mail on Sunday quotes Shipley MP Philip Davies pleading, "Please don't ever ask me to vote for anything ever again," after claiming he received abuse from his constituents for it.”

No abuse from me, only (hopefully) reasoned arguments, but good to see he’s regretting slavish loyalty now.

[TobyD]

Aren’t you Shipley and thus represented by the delightful Philip Davies? I can’t imagine any form of words having any effect on him!

No abuse from me, only (hopefully) reasoned arguments, but good to see he’s regretting slavish loyalty now.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/07/30-mps-who-could-be-affected-by-proposed-consultancy-ban?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

I see that Philip Davies is a paid consultant for a pawnbrokers. I wonder if that's all above board?

[Nigel]

Some tasty rates in there. Wouldn't mind getting onto some of these gigs myself. Taking one random example:

Julian Smith, Skipton and Ripon (Conservative)
External adviser on business development for hydrogen distribution company, Ryse Hydrogen, earning £60,000pa for 20 hours

£3000 per hour. They must be getting some fantastic "advice" on hydrogen distribution!