right
Conservative
Posts: 17,001
|
Post by right on Oct 28, 2021 12:02:32 GMT
Has the House/Government ever refused to endorse the Committee’s recommended sanction? I wonder if the motion will be put to a division. EDIT: Just read this in The Guardian: Notionally, motions to censure politicians based on recommendations from the standards committee require a formal vote, but one is not normally called, and it goes through “on the nod”.
But Paterson said the investigation was biased and “offends against the basic standard of procedural fairness”, adding it played a “major role” in driving his wife, Rose, to kill herself last summer.
He said: “Parliament’s internal system of justice needs to operate properly within the principles of natural justice.” Paterson is expected to contest the committee and commissioner’s report when the government calls a vote on the floor of the Commons next week on adopting their findings.
One ally of Paterson’s said he had been “stitched up”. They told the Guardian: “He’s already lost everything. His reputation and seat are the only things he has left, so he’s going to fight this.”
The MP also said they were certain colleagues would join Paterson in voting against the motion to suspend him. They said the fact the commissioner and the committee had declined to take oral evidence from 17 witnesses was evidence of a dodgy investigation. However, the committee said it already had written statements from them.
Downing Street offered no direct criticism of Paterson, with Boris Johnson’s spokesman saying “the standards regime is a matter for the House of Commons” and that the prime minister was “mindful of the pain faced by the Paterson family”. The spokesman also refused to confirm he thought the standards commissioner and committee’s system of scrutinising MPs’ behaviour was fit for purpose.More disgraceful behaviour from the PM and others within the Conservative Party. This is a thorough investigation and report and Paterson has been found bang to rights. The PMs comments are again undermining organisations who hold people in his party to account and it wouldn't surprise me at all if this gets voted down by the Tories. Number Ten isn't supporting Patterson, it's mouthing kind words while offering no practical help. They know that this is going to go away one way or another but they'd rather not do it with any bad blood among his supporters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2021 22:02:07 GMT
If the Lib Dems repeat the Chesham & Amersham swing in a North Shropshire by-election the result would be
CON 37.55% LD 35.15%
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Oct 31, 2021 7:48:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 31, 2021 9:32:29 GMT
If Conservative MPs vote to overturn the Standards Committee recommendation they'll undermine the whole standards system, opening the whole party to an accusation of sleaze. If they accept the report, the sleaze only attaches to Owen Paterson. Risky for them.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Oct 31, 2021 9:41:27 GMT
If Conservative MPs vote to overturn the Standards Committee recommendation they'll undermine the whole standards system, opening the whole party to an accusation of sleaze. If they accept the report, the sleaze only attaches to Owen Paterson. Risky for them. Without commenting specifically on the merits of Paterson's case, there is no point in having MPs hold a formal vote to endorse suspensions unless there are at least some cases where they decide not to endorse the recommendation of the committee.
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Oct 31, 2021 9:52:41 GMT
If Conservative MPs vote to overturn the Standards Committee recommendation they'll undermine the whole standards system, opening the whole party to an accusation of sleaze. If they accept the report, the sleaze only attaches to Owen Paterson. Risky for them. Without commenting specifically on the merits of Paterson's case, there is no point in having MPs hold a formal vote to endorse suspensions unless there are at least some cases where they decide not to endorse the recommendation of the committee. You could say the same about Royal Assent or a whole host of other processes.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,813
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 31, 2021 10:45:50 GMT
If Conservative MPs vote to overturn the Standards Committee recommendation they'll undermine the whole standards system, opening the whole party to an accusation of sleaze. If they accept the report, the sleaze only attaches to Owen Paterson. Risky for them. Without commenting specifically on the merits of Paterson's case, there is no point in having MPs hold a formal vote to endorse suspensions unless there are at least some cases where they decide not to endorse the recommendation of the committee. They need a good reason to do so, not just the accused MP being their pal.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Oct 31, 2021 11:29:34 GMT
If Conservative MPs vote to overturn the Standards Committee recommendation they'll undermine the whole standards system, opening the whole party to an accusation of sleaze. If they accept the report, the sleaze only attaches to Owen Paterson. Risky for them. Without commenting specifically on the merits of Paterson's case, there is no point in having MPs hold a formal vote to endorse suspensions unless there are at least some cases where they decide not to endorse the recommendation of the committee. They wouldn’t just be rejecting the Committee’s recommendation however, they would also be rejecting the findings of the Commissioner who has actually carried out the investigation, thereby putting him/her in an untenable position by inserting a partisan element into the process. The only way it could remotely not be permanently damaging to the integrity of the system is if the whole House came together and said “sorry, this is wrong”.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 31, 2021 12:36:13 GMT
Without commenting specifically on the merits of Paterson's case, there is no point in having MPs hold a formal vote to endorse suspensions unless there are at least some cases where they decide not to endorse the recommendation of the committee. They wouldn’t just be rejecting the Committee’s recommendation however, they would also be rejecting the findings of the Commissioner who has actually carried out the investigation, thereby putting him/her in an untenable position by inserting a partisan element into the process. The only way it could remotely not be permanently damaging to the integrity of the system is if the whole House came together and said “sorry, this is wrong”. Ultimately, the commissioner has signed up to being part of the process, and that involves potentially having their conclusions rejected. The House regulates itself, and if it had to be concerned about the untenable position of the commissioner then it would be handing control of a law making body over to an unelected individual. If I was an MP I'd vote against the commissioners recommendations/findings regardless of circumstance every time to make the point.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,129
|
Post by maxque on Oct 31, 2021 12:37:27 GMT
They wouldn’t just be rejecting the Committee’s recommendation however, they would also be rejecting the findings of the Commissioner who has actually carried out the investigation, thereby putting him/her in an untenable position by inserting a partisan element into the process. The only way it could remotely not be permanently damaging to the integrity of the system is if the whole House came together and said “sorry, this is wrong”. Ultimately, the commissioner has signed up to being part of the process, and that involves potentially having their conclusions rejected. The House regulates itself, and if it had to be concerned about the untenable position of the commissioner then it would be handing control of a law making body over to an unelected individual. If I was an MP I'd vote against the commissioners recommendations/findings regardless of circumstance every time to make the point. Not because you want to put your hands on the greasy paid advocacy money?
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Oct 31, 2021 12:55:34 GMT
They wouldn’t just be rejecting the Committee’s recommendation however, they would also be rejecting the findings of the Commissioner who has actually carried out the investigation, thereby putting him/her in an untenable position by inserting a partisan element into the process. The only way it could remotely not be permanently damaging to the integrity of the system is if the whole House came together and said “sorry, this is wrong”. Ultimately, the commissioner has signed up to being part of the process, and that involves potentially having their conclusions rejected. The House regulates itself, and if it had to be concerned about the untenable position of the commissioner then it would be handing control of a law making body over to an unelected individual. If I was an MP I'd vote against the commissioners recommendations/findings regardless of circumstance every time to make the point. I think that would apply more to the Committee, where the Commissioner can verbally respond to questions/criticisms/requests for more work on an investigation, than the whole House where s/he has no right of defence or response. If we take Paterson as an example, he can stand up in the Chamber, along with any allies he may have, and trash the Commissioner’s integrity, methods and motivations and, apart from the MP members of the Committee (as the Lay members are equally unable to defend their position), there is no right of response, thereby destroying her credibility/reputation in the eyes of the wider public who are only going to see Paterson bleating. The situation is analagous to Sir Alex Allan’s invidious position as Independent Advisor on Ministerial Standards when Johnson dismissed his findings around Patel’s alleged bullying without seeking clarification or further information on how/why Sir Alex had arrived at his conclusions.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 31, 2021 13:06:46 GMT
Ultimately, the commissioner has signed up to being part of the process, and that involves potentially having their conclusions rejected. The House regulates itself, and if it had to be concerned about the untenable position of the commissioner then it would be handing control of a law making body over to an unelected individual. If I was an MP I'd vote against the commissioners recommendations/findings regardless of circumstance every time to make the point. Not because you want to put your hands on the greasy paid advocacy money? Nope. I'd be a damn sight more discreet than Paterson anyway.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 31, 2021 13:18:48 GMT
Not because you want to put your hands on the greasy paid advocacy money? Nope. I'd be a damn sight more discreet than Paterson anyway. So that's a no and a yes...
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 31, 2021 13:41:56 GMT
They wouldn’t just be rejecting the Committee’s recommendation however, they would also be rejecting the findings of the Commissioner who has actually carried out the investigation, thereby putting him/her in an untenable position by inserting a partisan element into the process. The only way it could remotely not be permanently damaging to the integrity of the system is if the whole House came together and said “sorry, this is wrong”. Ultimately, the commissioner has signed up to being part of the process, and that involves potentially having their conclusions rejected. The House regulates itself, and if it had to be concerned about the untenable position of the commissioner then it would be handing control of a law making body over to an unelected individual. If I was an MP I'd vote against the commissioners recommendations/findings regardless of circumstance every time to make the point. I'd have some sympathy with doing this if the aim were to discredit the process and get it ditched in favour of something more suitable.
Either the two Houses are capable of regulating their own members or they aren't. The current Paterson case, coupled with the even worse Lester case in the HoL a few years ago, seems to show conclusively that they aren't.
I therefore agree with Paterson that it should be a quasi-judicial process, in public, with testimony from witnesses under oath and subject to cross-examination. But - and this is where I suspect Paterson would not agree - the consequence of that approach is that the decision should be final, appealable only on JR grounds into the judicial system proper, and in the absence of a successful appeal then the decision, including any penalty attaching to it, would take effect automatically with no need for any confirmatory vote from the HoC.
|
|
|
Post by southernliberal on Oct 31, 2021 16:42:24 GMT
Without commenting specifically on the merits of Paterson's case, there is no point in having MPs hold a formal vote to endorse suspensions unless there are at least some cases where they decide not to endorse the recommendation of the committee. They need a good reason to do so, not just the accused MP being their pal. I also think its important to note that none of the Standard Committee - a group (https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/290/committee-on-standards/membership/) which includes four Conservative MPs voted to reject their report when it was coming out of committee. For the full house to subsequently vote a suspension down at a minimum I'd expect to see some dissent from some members of the Committee who are clearly going to be closer to the detail on this.
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,270
|
Post by peterl on Oct 31, 2021 20:34:10 GMT
A better system would be something like the old Standards Board for England. An independent body that can simply disqualify an MP if they behaviour breaches the code of conduct. And the reason that woud be better is precisely because politicians have a tendency to act politically to protect their own if at all possible. And that approach is not how high standards of ethical behaviour are maintained.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 31, 2021 20:43:25 GMT
Um, I don't think you'll find many councillors were happy with the way the Standards Board for England operated. It led to a great deal of reporting of fairly minor spats under the category of failing to show respect for fellow councillors, and a lot of that was 'tit for tat'. The fact that a councillor had been reported to the Standards Board was often enough for the local press to report a story, even if the inquiry went nowhere.
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,270
|
Post by peterl on Oct 31, 2021 23:01:37 GMT
Well the Standards Board really didn't exist for the benefit of councillors. It was there to regulate their behaviour independently. Parliament could do with the same system.
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Oct 31, 2021 23:09:49 GMT
This is a ridiculous plan. It can't be the case that when MP's don't want to play within the rules, they just change them. The public can't do that. Our veterans, who served in Northern Ireland to protect the British public from terrorists and who are being disgracefully hounded fifty years later, can't do that. Why the bleedin heck should they?
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Oct 31, 2021 23:25:27 GMT
This is a ridiculous plan. It can't be the case that when MP's don't want to play within the rules, they just change them. The public can't do that. Our veterans, who served in Northern Ireland to protect the British public from terrorists and who are being disgracefully hounded fifty years later, can't do that. Why the bleedin heck should they? I think there’s a danger of this being blown out of proportion; Paterson’s got a couple of his right wing mates, who are likely looking over their shoulders at potential similar complaints, and if they do push the report to a Division they won’t break 30, the Opposition parties, whilst there may be a case for abstaining on the grounds of letting the Tories fight amongst themselves, will likely decide the public perception of the integrity of the process is more important, will support the report, and the government, if they don’t Whip officially, will put on an unofficial Whip - “the Prime Minister would very much like to see the report accepted” - guaranteeing the payroll vote. If the Opposition play this right they have a golden opportunity, Paterson suspended in the same week Roberts is readmitted to the Party.
|
|