I’m sure I read that Bercow thought Paterson had been unfairly treated by the committee. EDIT: here (sorry for crap source, only one not behind a paywall): https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...dsay-hoyle-news-commons-speaker-owen-paterson
If everyone cares so much they could have a whip round and help Paterson (though he lives in a country manor) seek Judicial Review. This is the usual way such decisions can be challenged (though I don’t know if these are exempt by some provision - don’t think so). My guess is it wouldn’t go far. Judges will usually defer to properly constituted process as long as it is not wrong in law.
He did say that, however Rees-Mogg admitted in the Commons yesterday the reform of the Standards Committee should not have been tied in to a named individual. Hoyle himself was worried if the sanctions were voted down it would cause the House real reputational damage as the House voted for the system.
Nope. It’s stronger than that. Proceedings in Parliament cannot be questioned in court under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689.
Then it probably is likely some sort of appeal system is required in case of material flaw or new evidence even though most decisions are going to be carefully made and almost unassailable.
Michael Green is still SoS for Transport and so sits in cabinet. He was on the telly just the other day.
There is an appeals process. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmstandards/1976/197604.htm
I think the process is already pretty robust: I believe it goes Standards Commissioner --> Select Committee --> whole of Parliament in full sitting. There are three opportunities for the MP in question to influence the process, bring forward evidence and challenge findings if need be. While the latter vote is usually procedural, I can't see anything stopping the MP in the firing line from standing up and defending him/herself. If enough other MPs agree the vote to suspend them would fail. The need to do and then redo and then reexamine decisions seems to be a modern phenomenon. And frankly it comes from people who can't accept the judgement of others. The bit I do think needs sorting out is the timeliness of the investigations. 2 years is a ridiculous length of time to be on the hook, especially in politics where presumably having something like that hanging over you could be career ending if you were not in a solid safe seat and a general election came around.
Presumably it wouldn’t take two years if, a - they admitted wrongdoing quicker, b - there was less wrongness. Time taken is a criticism that can be levelled at almost every disciplinary process across the professions.
You're right, my mistake, I confused him with Gavin Williamson - he was the other one who was always wheeled out. Didn't realise Shapps went to Watford Boys Grammar.
The Government have made themselves look absolute clowns over this Patterson business. Luckily for them 99.9 per cent of the population will forget about it faster than you can say Kwasi Kwarteng
By the way, if anyone wants to read the Committee's report: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmstandards/797/79702.htm
Westminster voting intention: CON: 36% (-3) LAB: 35% (+2) LDEM: 8% (-) GRN: 9% (-1) REFUK: 5% (+2) via @YouGov, 03 - 04 Nov Chgs. w/ 28 Obviously just one poll but it looks like the Paterson affair has already had an impact on voting intentions. Good week for Reform UK.
This will go back to normal in a few weeks - the fact that even now the tories still have a majority in polls shows the state of the voting population. Interesting twitter thread: https://twitter.com/MarinaPurkiss/status/1456521008656130048 It's the sort of thing you hear and associate with 1990s Russia.
What's also interesting in the 3 line whip, Tory backbenchers were told if they didn't vote with the government they would lose funding for their constituency. https://www.ft.com/content/51c93ba3-4a59-4e88-92ed-3e152a896493
Yep, I referenced this #206. Whatever the party politics, it’s cynical to make constituents the losers, particularly when levelling up is supposed to be addressing years of negligence, notably over the last decade their own.
I imagine this sort of thing happens all the time, though. What seems problematic in this instance is this being used to shore up support for a governmental position in a situation where there is conventionally a free vote.
Very entertaining monologue from J O'Brien this morning. And spot on. https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1456601290096660482
It’s surely problematic at any time and totally against the Nolan principles of selflessness and objectivity i.e. to make decisions impartially and fairly.
You don't think ministers have for a long time been offering 'incentives' to backbench MPs in respect of what can be done for their constituencies in return for support for government policies? I think that's very naive. Just watch any episode of Yes MInister...
I think you misunderstand. ‘Levelling up’ is not a one off bargain with Sir Humphrey. It was a manifesto promise to the electorate, also promised by Labour. It’s absolutely not a chip up for grabs.
No, I don't misunderstand and I'm not defendng what happened, I am just taking a pragmatic view and suggesting that this sort of thing is not likely to be unprecedented. Albeit that it is not used (and should not be used) in such shady circumstances and in breach of parliamentary practice.
If you read back, I didn’t write that it was ‘unprecedented’. You wrote that it was problematic in this instance because it was linked to this vote. I’m saying that it’s problematic because it concerned a wider pledge to the Country, on that basis just plain wrong. I think we can just agree, down with this sort of thing.
