Tory MP suspended

jam69 said:
For lobbying for cash. Time to stop MPs having outside interests.
Even if it means increasing the pay.
"MP Owen Paterson faces suspension for breaking lobbying rules | Politics | The Guardian" https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rson-faces-suspension-breaking-lobbying-rules
Click to expand...
Totally agree. There should zero conflicts of interest when an MP.

that means no money laundering
Unavailable to lobby in person
No share in companies.
No third party work, including dinner speeches (see money laundering)

It’s a job that should require 100% focus, I would also have it written in law they have to spend X amount of time in the constituency
 
Lottowyn said:
It's no lie Muttley, that Expenses Fiddling" applied to Tories and Labour. So as I said "not much to choose between" and I always vote for someone or other, in fact once I stupidly voted for the Liberals, but then nobody's perfect.
Click to expand...
This is not about expenses. It's about a former Tory Minister caught lining his pockets while the majority of society is struggling to make ends meet.

Austerity started in 2010 remember.
 
Lottowyn said:
Not much to choose between any of them. Remember the Big Expenses Fiddle.

Last week I saw Jackie Smith ex Labour Home Secretary, she used to sleep in her sister's cupboard apparently for claims purposes, telling us how the country should be run.
Click to expand...
Ah the old "The're all at it" excuse. it's a lovely catch all to allow you to support corruption and sleaze isn't it?
 
If, as MP's claim, the job of representing a constituency is full time, how can they find the time for other fiddly jobs? Obviously, they cannot be giving their all to the constuency that voted for them.
I think JC said he would ban MP's having outside interests didn't he?
 
SmallTown said:
Ah the old "The're all at it" excuse. it's a lovely catch all to allow you to support corruption and sleaze isn't it?
Click to expand...
The trouble is ST is that they "are all at it". So there really is not much choice when it comes to voting. If the candidates stated their outside interests and connections then people could make a choice before voting for them.
 
Trug said:
If, as MP's claim, the job of representing a constituency is full time, how can they find the time for other fiddly jobs? Obviously, they cannot be giving their all to the constuency that voted for them.
I think JC said he would ban MP's having outside interests didn't he?
Click to expand...
Think the companies usually draw up contracts saying £100k for 10 hours per year. In reality the probably don’t even do that and they are there to help the companies profits/avoid scrutiny
 
Trug said:
The trouble is ST is that they "are all at it". So there really is not much choice when it comes to voting. If the candidates stated their outside interests and connections then people could make a choice before voting for them.
Click to expand...
Do you think they do it to the same level? Also how is that an excuse?

Imagine defending a doctor who murdered his patients? I mean Shipman did it
 
GazC_MFC said:
Totally agree. There should zero conflicts of interest when an MP.

that means no money laundering
Unavailable to lobby in person
No share in companies.
No third party work, including dinner speeches (see money laundering)

It’s a job that should require 100% focus, I would also have it written in law they have to spend X amount of time in the constituency
Click to expand...
exactly, and I would be happy to double pay for MPs if all the above were implemented.
 
Lottowyn said:
It's no lie Muttley, that Expenses Fiddling" applied to Tories and Labour. So as I said "not much to choose between" and I always vote for someone or other, in fact once I stupidly voted for the Liberals, but then nobody's perfect.
Click to expand...
Yes, expenses fiddling did apply across the board but this is about an MP breaking lobbying rules to benefit companies who he was employed by and using his position to give them unfair advantages and access, so it's totally untrue to say that in this instance they're all as bad as each other as that is demonstrably not the case, Patterson has broke the guidelines and has rightly been suspended it has no equivalence to Jacqui Smith in 2009, deflection, deadcatting and whataboutery are not any kind of defence for Patterson's actions.
 
Trug said:
The trouble is ST is that they "are all at it". So there really is not much choice when it comes to voting. If the candidates stated their outside interests and connections then people could make a choice before voting for them.
Click to expand...

This is such a lazy attitude and is exactly why they get away with it. They certainly aren't all at it and with a little research its obvious.

This is how the Tories stay in power - people don't care or can't be bothered to care. If you don't like the sleaze one for another candidate that isn't sleazy. Simple.
 
American_Mary said:
Yes, expenses fiddling did apply across the board but this is about an MP breaking lobbying rules to benefit companies who he was employed by and using his position to give them unfair advantages and access, so it's totally untrue to say that in this instance they're all as bad as each other as that is demonstrably not the case, Patterson has broke the guidelines and has rightly been suspended it has no equivalence to Jacqui Smith in 2009, deflection, deadcatting and whataboutery are not any kind of defence for Patterson's actions.
Click to expand...

Whataboutary is the standard defence for Tory failure / sleaze / incompetence nowadays. I'm surprised no one has mentioned Iraq yet.
 
The problem I have with this particular case is that it's clear that he knew what he was doing, was at best ambiguous to whether he was following the rules.

However, he still asserts what he is/was doing isn't against those rules.

He was previously receiving donations (undeclared) through a think tank, that he'd ran since 2014, so he's probably trousered millions over the last 6 or 7 years.
 
“The Govt's Whips Office has already started contacting Tory MPs to get them to publicly support corrupt MP Owen Paterson and reject the Committee on Standards' recommendation he be suspended from Parliament.

Govt is concerned a suspension could trigger a by-election”

Here we go.
 
Muttley said:
OK let us compare the Leader of the Opposition with the Prime Minister.

Not much to choose between them? One a serial liar, philanderer, racist dog whistler, incompetent, scheming, duplicitous, I could go on.

The other bought his mother a field for a donkey sanctuary (and has been getting rid of a few left wingers from his own party)

I'd say there was a startling contrast between the competency and honesty of the two. What do you reckon?
Click to expand...
They like to dumb down the facts so that they can blow smoke up peoples ass that Labour are just as corrupt. Labour are nowhere near and never have been, even when Blair had a decade in power they didn't behave like this lot
 
I'll outright say that Johnson is corrupt. There's a reason why May didn't want him to have completely free rein as Foreign Secretary.

Johnson had seen the Russia report when he went on TV to say that there was no evidence of Russian interference in our politics.

That same report said that there is substantial evidence that Russian interference in British politics is commonplace.

Even Starmer's fiercest critics, I don't think would say that about him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top