Owen Patterson and sleaze- a shameful day in the House

Well, Keir's quick off the mark and calling it what it is; corruption. Good for him...

Perhaps he'll be a bit more oppositional now...

I don't believe it will make one iota of difference to many of those who voted for the Tories under Johnson.

He rallied the "Get Brexit Done" crowds, the "anyone but Corbyn" voters, with his blustering confidence, his smiling buffoonery. He knows his audience well and knows how to play to the gallery, and I suspect he'll manage to turn the tide against those who are critical of his judgement and that of the rest of the party in allowing these two back into the fold. Such criticism will be regarded by the party's supporters as simply "Tory - or Johnson - bashing" and will be largely dismissed. Then of course, there'll be the usual 'whataboutery' and "all politicians are the same" schtick.

Breaches of the ministerial code are not really taken that seriously by the electorate. That's where we're at. Both parties have / have had their rogues, but I don't think anyone really cares.

I care.

I wish that we lived in a democracy where this sort of corrupt behaviour by a government voted in by a minority could never happen.

Dickens I have been of the same view, thinking that Conservative voters are ‘not for turning’ even when they are ashamed of their leaders and policies, but it seems the good friends I have who are Tory supporters have now had enough.

Being realistic I’m guessing that that they will simply abstain from voting at the next election, rather than placing their cross against any other party’s candidate. Still, it shows that people of conscience in the Tory party are now acknowledging some of the current policies and practices are wrong and are unsupported by the rank and file voters.

I've found the same grannyactivist, many traditional tory voters have just had enough, they were misled by Leave vote there was no £325m for the NHS, they have taken £20 a week from poor people whilst spending billions on their friends mates shabby companies, like Serco, and now when an independent party finds paterson has taken £100k from companies he works for they're taking us for fools

I have posted on another thread about this truly appalling episode. Anyone with a sense of decency and fairness has to be disgusted by this but I fear that, as Dickens said, the apologists will be lining up to tell me that yet again I am "Johnson bashing".

I care, and I’m absolutely sickened by this latest news. A morally corrupt government that just changes the rules when it suits them. And the fact that the MP has tried to blame the investigation into his malpractice was partly to blame for his wife’s suicide is unbelievable.
Mr Soroptidad is a Tory and Brexiter, but he doesn’t say much about what’s going on any more!

I am waiting to see which of our Cons Grans will come and condone this ...

It's almost unbelievable. If there's something wrong with the process then it should have been amended, not after a lengthy investigation that ends with a result that's unpopular.

And the whole world is watching - and it is one more nail in the coffin of UK's credibility

I’ll jump.

I clicked on a link about the Chair of this committee (Stone) and once I read that she let off Chris Bryant and then Stephen Doughty who acquired a Class C prescription drug, i.e. diazepam, from a vulnerable constituent with an 'error of judgement' then you know that there is something seriously amiss.

Urmstongran

I’ll jump.

I clicked on a link about the Chair of this committee (Stone) and once I read that she let off Chris Bryant and then Stephen Doughty who acquired a Class C prescription drug, i.e. diazepam, from a vulnerable constituent with an 'error of judgement' then you know that there is something seriously amiss.

Urmstongran - She isn’t the chair of the committee, she is the independent Standards Commissioner who reported her investigation and findings to the parliament’s Standards Committee. This committee comprising cross party MPs voted unanimously that Patterson should be suspended.

I see the point missing has begun on this thread. Whether Patterson is "guilty" or not is not the point. The key question is is the process both fair and fairly applied. It clearly is not.

If any of us were subject to a judge and jury approach by a single individual, with no right of reply and no account being taken of our evidence we would be incensed and rightly so.

All the people complaining about "this" government seem happy that members of "our " opposition seem to be held by differing standards.

Urmstongran - I missed your acknowledgment of my correction of your previous comment?

If any of us were subject to a judge and jury approach by a single individual, with no right of reply and no account being taken of our evidence we would be incensed and rightly so.

She wasn't the judge and jury, Ug. She investigated the allegations and presented the results of her investigation to the MPs' committee. It was they who decided he should be suspended, not her.

Perhaps it might be helpful to read the select committee's report

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmstandards/797/79703.htm

I did think you would jump...

there are no limits for some of you.

No limits at all. Even by your Tory at any cost standards Urm, this episode cannot, just cannot be dismissed. I don't know about you, but this is not how I live my life or how I raised my children. Truly disgusting and those who think this is acceptable are just as bad

varian

I care.

I wish that we lived in a democracy where this sort of corrupt behaviour by a government voted in by a minority could never happen.

Yes, I care too varian but I don't believe the majority do - or care sufficiently to be exercised by such behaviour.

If governments give people what they want, they will overlook these breaches.

The last time people seemed to bother themselves was in 2003 when Tony Blair, together with others, took us into what was largely regarded as an illegal (under international law) war with Iraq. Then, individuals from all parties voiced their opposition.

Cards on the table: I do not like nor trust Boris Johnson. I'm not concerned with his private life nor particularly bothered by what appears to be his carefully constructed buffoonery - some politicians have these mannerisms that they exaggerate for public consumption. I mistrust him because I don't believe he has the best interests of the nation, as a whole, at heart. I think his personal ambition, and the establishment of the party as the only party of government, determines his decisions and overrides any consideration of what might or might not be best for the country. He is on record for saying completely contradictory things about the EU; he lightly - almost whimsically - makes comments about foreigners and women, and he has, in the past, also made some pretty derogatory observations about the working class male... the same working class who now vote for him and cheer him on. I am not a Corbynite, but I am left of centre. However, I still have respect for some of the - what is now considered to be 'old fashioned' - Conservatives who, whilst holding firmly to Tory ideology, still had integrity and an apparent desire to serve their country as opposed to using their position as a means to their own personal ends.

I don't think we are heading into a fascist state, but I do believe we are going into the realms of an elected dictatorship. As for Brexit - I am a firm Remainer, but can still understand some of the reasons why others wanted to Leave, because we are and always have been a very unequal and divided nation. The benefits of our membership of the EU have not always been apparent to some sections of society... to those in the industrial wastelands of the east and north of the country the advantages of being an EU member were less obvious than to those in the more affluent south. Unfortunately though, the blame for this disenfranchisement has been laid at the wrong door. IMO.

I just wanted to make clear that my cynical view is not just another Tory-bashing exercise.

Excellent post Dickens, in all aspects.

Urmstongran

I see the point missing has begun on this thread. Whether Patterson is "guilty" or not is not the point. The key question is is the process both fair and fairly applied. It clearly is not.

If any of us were subject to a judge and jury approach by a single individual, with no right of reply and no account being taken of our evidence we would be incensed and rightly so.

All the people complaining about "this" government seem happy that members of "our " opposition seem to be held by differing standards.

Account was taken of his evidence and the written evidence of his witnesses. If there were to be a right of appeal to a jury, the jury would be made up of MPs, so it would be loaded and not independent.

If there were concerns about the process, it is totally inappropriate to amend it while a case is still live.

You have been misled Urmstongran by whatever source you have.

An on-message Tory is on Newsnight right now explaining how bad the system is and bad mouthing the leader of the Standards Committee. Why has it taken them to this exact moment to decide that it's a bad system? It's beyond belief.

Yes Dickens, an excellent post.

Alegrias1

Excellent post Dickens, in all aspects.

Thank you Alegrias1. I'm glad you understood!

Urmstongran I suggest you read the report Maizie posted:

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmstandards/797/79703.htm

You've been conned and, furthermore, you've continued to spread lies.