Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Nano violins and all that, Paterson crying “cruel world of politics”, I don’t think I’ll bother looking at his voting record. Also now he’s fucked off the golden goose, he no use to anyone now

Paterson has also tried to link his wife's suicide to the inquiry into his alleged wrong doing yet in the reports I have read about the inquest state that when Paterson was asked by the coroner what might have caused his wife to take her own life Paterson said he couldn't think of anything. So he is now rewriting history to try and garner sympathy.

Causes of suicide are often many and complex. To isolate one thing as a cause is simply wrong.

However (and yes, everything before the but is bollocks etc) if his wife was deeply concerned about the outcome of the investigation into his lobbying, that suggests that a) they knew it was against the rules, and b) they saw their "reputation" (and cash flow) as more important than doing the right thing.

End of the day, he chose to take the money. If the issues he raised were that important, he should have raised them for free. May she rest in peace, away from her shit of a husband.

The gentleman in questioned suggest those who have retired should fill in the jobs of the European migrants and on the cheap.

He only made it crueler, good riddance and I’m glad it’s made Boris look like a shit, three line whip on this is suicidal but then he is Etonian it’s bow to their way or the highway.

Even Johnson didn't go near the "they laughed at my wife's suicide". Who might? Oh, here's Telford's Marco Rubio.

His statement is complete shite as well - less than 24 hours ago he was looking forward to “clearing his name” (read: thought he’d got away with it). And only now is he getting out because of his kids (who are all adults).

His wife’s suicide is a tragedy, and I have all the sympathy in the world for him in that regard. But none whatsoever if he’s now trying to use it as cover for running away after having been rumbled and discovering that his boss’s support lasts precisely as long as it’s more beneficial for him to give it than withdraw it.

I'm wondering how Tory MPs missed this mocking of suicide.

Watching Jacob Rees-Mogg having to eat his own shit at the despatch box this afternoon was the funniest thing I've seen for a while.

You just know that the narrative now will be heartless Labour scum mocking the death of a poor innocent woman - that's what they're REALLY like.

Couldn’t he have gone away for 30 days accepted his punishment realised he made a gross misjudgement returned repented for 10 minutes and be back in his position as an Mp?

No, a complete charade was made of the whole thing and he hasn’t shown the littlest amount of regret for what he did.

davidjay wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 11:40 pm You just know that the narrative now will be heartless Labour scum mocking the death of a poor innocent woman - that's what they're REALLY like.

If Owen Paterson and Lucy Allan are in charge of that narrative, then it'll go nowhere.

Geordie Grieg slaughtered Paterson today on the front of his paper. You can't revive Paterson as the hard done by guy after that.

mattomac wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 11:58 pm Couldn’t he have gone away for 30 days accepted his punishment realised he made a gross misjudgement returned repented for 10 minutes and be back in his position as an Mp?

It seems he genuinely thought he was being paid huge sums of money for his genius insight and had done no wrong. Either that, or he saw how often Johnson gets away with stuff and thought “I’ll have a piece of that”. Regardless, it means he’s either extraordinarily stupid or extraordinarily corrupt.

There's nothing to stop him being both.

Plenty in the public domain already to keep the hacks busy until the next dirty shit emerges

I think the most enjoyable part of this is that Johnson has u-turned on a vote he won. That shows 2 things: despite everything, the government does have a shame/embarrassment limit, and that he is in fact extraordinarily weak despite his apparent majority and will fold like a damp fag packet in a strong breeze.

The latter will most definitely have been noticed. Not least by the current occupant of No. 11...

This doesn't work for me. As someone BTL says, this would ban Dr Rosena and Dr Dan Poulter from working in the NHS, which most people would see as a good thing for an MP to be doing. I'd extend that to any MP who comes in with an existing occupation. The issue I have is with the "milk round" jobs, where backbenchers in the governing party get signed up for something they know nothing about. This is barely disguised paid advocacy.

I don't know how you can make legislation work to this effect though. Has anybody come up with a serious proposal to make it work?

Has Labour got a formal policy agreed on lobbying? You can stop fools like Paterson, but what about other MPs, who aren't so stupid?

The former ministers policy is workable and good though.

Ah, she's referring to the last manifesto on lobbying. Ban on all second jobs except those needed to continue professional registration. That would stop Dr Rosena, wouldn't it?

It's assuming that all lobbying will be done via a certain route or process. How do you stop a former minister from calling or emailing their mates? Especially when we've seen that professional standards and Chinese walls don't work?

I saw a thing by Richard Burgon saying that some jobs would be exempt from the ban on 2nd jobs - doctors being an obvious one. But even then, is that all doctors, or just NHS, and what about dentists and other healthcare professionals? Many an MP can legitimately say that they're a company director or owner, or a farmer or whatever. I can't see any way in which this doesn't become "not them, they're a mate".

We do still have professional standards though, even if we accept they don't always work and that people who are dishonest can get around them. Lots of professionals do take them seriously, if not because they're ethical saints but because they don't fancy being on the front page of the Financial Times. I would think most ex-ministers would be worried about that too, not least because it'll hurt their future earnings if they're caught.

In terms of ministers, I think the distinction that MPs have (general consultancy OK, not direct lobbying for cash) is a useful one. We can't stop direct lobbying off the record, of course.

I remember when cash for questions came up, Tony Benn was on with Tim Renton (sane Tory MP). Renton made the reasonable point that Benn did lots of paid journalism. Is that OK?