[TobyD]

I found this article as well: https://inews.co.uk/opinion/rishi-sunaks-budget-nhs-backlog-doctors-and-nurses-cant-solve-1270608

I know she's a journalist at the spectator as well, however anyone who doesn't read it ever might be surprised that it's often pretty critical of the government, more so than some of the left wing papers.

Shame that the spectator also publishes some proper crap like Ross Clark

[TobyD]

“At least the bankers on short-haul flights sipping champagne will be cheering this budget today.”

A pithy summary of the spending review from Rachel Reeves. 

Write up here: https://www.politico.eu/article/rishi-sunak-boris-johnson-uk-budget-wages-spending-revenue/

[James Malloch]

It’s looking like the amendment to allow Owen Patterson to receive no suspension for undeclared paid lobbying is going to pass with a three-line whip from the Conservatives.

The reasons being the element of personal tragedy and a question of whether the review was fair.

Now, I’m probably biased but the decision was made by a cross-party group of MPs and Chris Bryant seems to have quite clearly offered explanation for the main challenges by Owen Patterson. It’s a tragedy that his wife took her own life but it doesn’t change the fact that these rule breaches were committed before then, and it was the pressure and likely result of the inquiry which drove her to do it (from what I have read in terms of quotes from her in the weeks before her death - I can’t say this with certainty).

To me, this highlights the complete lack of integrity of the Conservative party.

Recently it was voting to protect Rob Roberts from a recall petition for Sexual Assault as it wasn’t right to change the rules retrospectively. And then allowing him back into the party.

Now, it’s voting to change the rules retrospectively when a recall petition was likely which might lose them an MP. With such a big majority you’d think that they would let this lie…

[tommytwotone]

Au contraire...with a majority this big they can make the rules whatever they want them to be.

I guess in a way we should be glad all they are abusing their power for us covering up their own sleaze. For now.

[ali k]

This is a fucking disgrace. Hope Labour boycott the new committee to highlight that it’s just going to be a kangaroo court now

[mrjonathanr]

Patel breaks the ministerial code and keeps her job after the investigation found her guilty of bullying across different departmental positions.

Dacre didn’t get appointed, but since they retuned the ‘wrong answer’ his application will be resubmitted. Successfully, I expect.

Rob Roberts gets back onto the gov benches after sexually harassing staffers.

 It’s hardly a surprise if Paterson gets to avoid sanctions too, this administration has no shame.

That’s the key word really: past MPs would be held back from misdeeds or at least removed if found out where current ones don’t. A lot of our checks and balances are really only voluntary. If you don’t care and can brazen it out, there is little sanction with bite if the behaviour isn’t clearly prosecutable.

We also saw some similar values at work in Labour when clearly anti Semitic speech met nothing more than a bit of tutting from the leadership and precious little else.

My takeaway is that character really matters, rules not so much now.

[Johnny Brown]

Reading that Paterson even voted for his reprieve rather than abstaining. Classy.

[TobyD]

It’s looking like the amendment to allow Owen Patterson to receive no suspension for undeclared paid lobbying is going to pass with a three-line whip from the Conservatives.

...
To me, this highlights the complete lack of integrity of the Conservative party.

Its truly despicable the way they've played the card of his wife's suicide to justify the rejection of the rules.  Several political reporters said that a lot of the backbenchers were actually really pissed off by being whipped to vote on this and felt that the suspension should have gone ahead.  I think that the avoiding of any responsibility for anything is really a Johnson trademark.  Some of the party have more integrity. Rebellion against a three line whip is risky and not something many would risk. 

[TobyD]

Chris Bryant interviewed this morning on Today  compared the rule change to politics in Russia.  It's so corrupt; but why didn't 33 Labour MPs vote on it?

[ali k]

why didn't 33 Labour MPs vote on it?

Isn’t that some pairing procedure due to absentees?

The papers really are a joke in this country. The usual suspects have either gone with a different headline, backed Paterson, or in the case of the Mail tried to tar all MPs with the same brush.

[Oldmanmatt]

why didn't 33 Labour MPs vote on it?

Isn’t that some pairing procedure due to absentees?

The papers really are a joke in this country. The usual suspects have either gone with a different headline, backed Paterson, or in the case of the Mail tried to tar all MPs with the same brush.

A “Gentleman’s agreement”, or, given the simplicity of allowing remote attendance and voting on debates, an inexcusable policy to allow MPs to not show up for work, but still get paid.
Should the opposition decide to end this agreement, I would expect to see parliament run in a less half hearted manner, proper debate and quite a few MPs seeking careers outside public office, that don’t prevent them popping off for a bit of Grouse shooting on a whim or holding down a few score of NEDs on the side…

[TobyD]

The papers really are a joke in this country. The usual suspects have either gone with a different headline, backed Paterson, or in the case of the Mail tried to tar all MPs with the same brush.

In defence of the Times, it's often annoyingly loyal to Johnson, but is pretty critical in today's edition. Also features an op ed by the editor of Conservative Home, which warns that this vote could significantly affect voters opinions of the Conservative party, and does say explicitly that Patterson broke the rules by lobbying for Randox etc. FFS, he's paid 100,000 by Randox as a part time sideline to his MP role, it's just naked greed.

[Johnny Brown]

why didn't 33 Labour MPs vote on it?

Isn’t that some pairing procedure due to absentees?

A “Gentleman’s agreement”, or, given the simplicity of allowing remote attendance and voting on debates, an inexcusable policy to allow MPs to not show up for work, but still get paid.

There is a pandemic on and many, including Starmer I believe, could not attend without breaking quarantine. MPs also sometimes have more pressing concerns in their constituency. And the whole point is they pair with someone voting the opposite - so whether the pair attend or not, or vote remotely, is irrelevant to the outcome. Much as our parliament needs reform, pairing is surely well down the list of concerns.

It does amaze me when otherwise engaged folk are ignorant of basic functional procedures like this. Perhaps it is to the media's credit that they never mention it because of its irrelevance.

[andy popp]

I've just seen a tweet from Laura Kuenssberg that reversal of yesterday's decisions is expected imminently. If so, they don't even have the courage of their "convictions."

[James Malloch]

I hadn’t realised until I watched the debate yesterday, that Owen Patterson will go through this new process rather than being let-off straight away. During the debate, it was quite clear that there was little to no merit to make these changes in the way.

Some conservative MPs were highly critical of doing it this was and the number of votes against the amendment and abstains highlights this. JRM repeatably said that this case went on for far too long, there were personal tragedies involved and that witnesses weren’t able to speak orally.

Chris Bryant (Chair of the committee which reached the verdict) gave a very strong rebuttal at the end highlighting that the duration was due to allowing every request of a delay by Owen Patterson to be granted, only starting back after the death of his wife when his lawyers said they were ready to begin again, and that given many of the rule breaches were via email and therefore no witness’ evidence would make a slight bit of difference - they were purely initiated by OP with no observers.

I quickly realised that there seems to be no way that Owen Patterson could be perceived to be not Guilty and I’d be amazed if the new committee decided to let him off the hook. It makes you think what else might be coming down the line.

Ministers are out today criticising Kathryn Stone and suggesting she should step down. She also happens to be the person deciding whether to start the investigation into Johnson’s flat refurbishment which was an undeclared gift which quickly became a loan when made public. There must be plenty of things which might come out where it would be very handy to remove the independence of the decision from Government…

Does anyone know what happens if Labour/SNP decide to boycott the new committee as they are suggesting? I understand that the amendment was to put in a committee which had to be cross party.

[James Malloch]

Does anyone know what happens if Labour/SNP decide to boycott the new committee as they are suggesting? I understand that the amendment was to put in a committee which had to be cross party.

Turns out that it means a u-turn… s if it only became clear today that there wasn’t cross-party support for this…

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/04/boris-johnson-makes-u-turn-over-anti-sleaze-regime-for-mps-owen-paterson

[ali k]

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.

[Oldmanmatt]

why didn't 33 Labour MPs vote on it?

Isn’t that some pairing procedure due to absentees?

A “Gentleman’s agreement”, or, given the simplicity of allowing remote attendance and voting on debates, an inexcusable policy to allow MPs to not show up for work, but still get paid.

There is a pandemic on and many, including Starmer I believe, could not attend without breaking quarantine. MPs also sometimes have more pressing concerns in their constituency. And the whole point is they pair with someone voting the opposite - so whether the pair attend or not, or vote remotely, is irrelevant to the outcome. Much as our parliament needs reform, pairing is surely well down the list of concerns.

It does amaze me when otherwise engaged folk are ignorant of basic functional procedures like this. Perhaps it is to the media's credit that they never mention it because of its irrelevance.

Not ignorant. Re-read.
Remote attendance.

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.
I do think it’s cute that you believe all those absent MPs are engaged in vital constituency work (as surely, some are) or otherwise essential activities. I very much doubt that all of them are.
Isolation due to the pandemic, is something most of us have a fair amount of experience in mitigating, now. 

[teestub]

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.

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!

[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!

Yep! Absolutely no prospect of him becoming a decent human being but I do enjoy pointing out his hypocrisy and contradictions and generally wasting his time.

[James Malloch]

Is there a way to see if your local MP abstained in protest, or wasn’t in parliament/was paired with someone and therefore couldn’t vote?

[teestub]

Considering Julian Smith was in for the later divisions of the day and those of the day previously, I would assume he abstained
https://members.parliament.uk/member/4118/voting

[James Malloch]

Considering Julian Smith was in for the later divisions of the day and those of the day previously, I would assume he abstained
https://members.parliament.uk/member/4118/voting

Good to know, thanks. Glad that he chose to abstain in that case. He’s given some god-awful responses to past questions from me, but glad he had the backbone to defy the whip in this case.

[James Malloch]

Looks like Owen Patterson has resigned. Reports were that he wasn’t told about the U-turn and found out from a journalist whilst shopping. Must have known No.10 wasn’t looking out for him and decided he was better off away from the government rather than taking the heat for everything that went on…

[SA Chris]

At least he can focus on his day job now.