Owen Paterson #Torysleaze

If there was a genuine reason why the ones who didn’t vote, didn’t turn up I am all ears. At the moment as a tax payer who pays MP’s wages I feel a little bit let down that they were not there to stop something as important as this.

When did it become apparent that this was going to be a major vote? Historically committee sanctions have mostly been rubber stamped. If your MPs are all working in their constituencies, at COP26, etc when you discover on Tuesday that this is going to be a big deal then you may not have time to mobilise them? I think the Leadsome Ammendment was only tabled late on Tuesday?

As far as I am aware pairing goes out the window with a 3 line whip.

Was this actually a 3 line whip though? I think it was only a standard whip?

There’s no pairing for three line whips.

It can as long as both parties agree.

But no, we’re going to get distracted by a few MPs who didn’t vote and who wouldn’t have overturned the government majority anyway.

Distracted by? I haven’t seen the answer anywhere and I’ve been looking.

I’m finding the opposition abstentions inexplicable, too. No explanation in the media. I do have one theory but it’s probably wrong and I’m not sharing…

Some of them are isolating. Etc. No proxy vote.

change of tack. Well, U turn realising they’d overstepped maybe. Personally I don’t think this changes much as in we’ve seen they’ll get away with what they can…

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/04/boris-johnson-makes-u-turn-over-anti-sleaze-regime-for-mps-owen-paterson

It’s all about the virtue signaling.

Something the hard right are experts at.
Anyway enough of your desperate attempts to divert away from just how bent the tories are now that they are having to rewrite the rules to try and protect themselves. Since lets face it its not about Paterson is it, its about Johnson and his cronies getting worried about external scrutiny.

Distracted by? I haven’t seen the answer anywhere and I’ve been looking.

You might want to look at the last couple of pages again, plenty of potential reasons and suggestions…..oh, squirrel!

It can as long as both parties agree.

In this case they obviously didn’t agree to pairing because hundreds of them turned up. …and why would either side agree, the whole point is to get the jump on the other side.

Was this actually a 3 line whip though? I think it was only a standard whip?

Deffo a three line whip.

If your MPs are all working in their constituencies, at COP26, etc when you discover on Tuesday that this is going to be a big deal then you may not have time to mobilise them?

Yes, you do, you charter a helicopter you cancel your engagement. Missing a 3 line whip is serious and career limiting. That’s the point. (And some of these abstaining Mps are in London.)

But we’re all guessing. There must be a reason for it, none of us know the answer and apart from an article that I can’t find the media haven’t answered it. Maybe the political podcasts over the weekend will explain it all.

Handy that the new Covid treatment is annouced today. Pill shaped squirrel.

Anyway enough of your desperate attempts to divert away from just how bent the tories are now that they are having to rewrite the rules to try and protect themselves. Since lets face it its not about Paterson is it, its about Johnson and his cronies getting worried about external scrutiny.

Who are you on about? I’m in the throw the book at him and a 30 day suspension is too light camp based on what I’ve read. The system may need improving but Owen Paterson isn’t a good example of why.

It’s the left wingers on here getting upset about labour MPs not voting on the amendment hence the reference. Starmer couldn’t lose on this, win the vote it’s a government defeat on sleaze, lose the vote the government are making sleaze easier. But let’s focus on beating labour up, bonkers.

change of tack. Well, U turn realising they’d overstepped maybe.

Not sure what else he could do as soon as the other parties refused to join in the rewrite.

…but again, wasn’t that predictable? So why bother.

Scratching my head today….

It’s the left wingers

Of course its always the left to blame isnt it?
Now lets get back to the bent tories rather than your attempts to show us that lovely squirrel.

Of course its always the left to blame isnt it?
Now lets get back to the bent tories rather than your attempts to show us that lovely squirrel.

I don’t think that’s the point he was making,but we digress.

Pushing boundaries… simple tactic that needs an opportunity (Owen Patterson) the Cabinet is better informed of its MPs risk appetite/tolerance for a really important (for them) issue in the future.

Ledsom was primed for this one, obvious from her reaction to being questioned on the “issue”

Or all involved were dumb as **** but i doubt it.

Mogg as ever utilsed as the voice of reason (oh the irony) rather than retreat.

Might be a sign of some genuine “thinking” going on.

In this case they obviously didn’t agree to pairing because hundreds of them turned up. …and why would either side agree, the whole point is to get the jump on the other side.

Annelise Dodds has said that all Labour MPs who did not vote were paired.

Yes, you do, you charter a helicopter you cancel your engagement. Missing a 3 line whip is serious and career limiting. That’s the point. (And some of these abstaining Mps are in London.)

Charter a helicopter?

FFS, you’re missing the key issue here – it’s all about ensuring that Johnson & Co aren’t investigated and got FA to do with Paterson.

Annelise Dodds has said that all Labour MPs who did not vote were paired.

Linky? ​Not sure that can be right for the reasons above*.

I’m sure it’s either a trap by Keir Starmer to get Boris to walk into this mess – winning the votes has predictably been a disaster for him. OR there some reasonable explanation. Be interesting to find out.

* And one other, if everyone was paired off, why are the Tory abstainers being represented as disatisfied – clearly they were, by definition, simply paired. In fact we know they are effing livid.

Charter a helicopter?

Well, I’m assuming the 13 SNP MPs might not be within walking distance. (Although, I’d assume they’d be in London, not in their constituencies so who knows.)

FFS, you’re missing the key issue here – it’s all about ensuring that Johnson & Co aren’t investigated and got FA to do with Paterson.

There’s only one* aspect of this I don’t understand, and it’s pretty clear nobody else on STW understands it either. I don’t think anyone is missing anything else, it’s being widely reported and commented on.

* OK, Two aspects.

why are the Tory abstainers being represented as disatisfied – clearly they were, by definition, simply paired

A cursory look will show that the numbers of tories abstainers are far higher than the other parties. So clearly they were not all, by definition, simply paired.
Abstaining from a three line whip is generally a sign of dissatisfaction without going into open rebellion (as a few did).

Abstaining from a three line whip is generally a sign of dissatisfaction

It certainly is. Because there is no pairing.

Yes, you do, you charter a helicopter you cancel your engagement. Missing a 3 line whip is serious and career limiting. That’s the point. (And some of these abstaining Mps are in London.)

Charter a helo – at who’s expense? That’s quite an extreme action that could just as easily backfire – imagine the PR of an MP flying in by private Helo during COP26 just to vote and then going back to what they were doing? Or perhaps the MP felt their prior commitment was more important than party political BS.

Some research confirms tory party did 3 line whip it – but its not clear that labour etc did. What happens then to the pairing arrangements then? In a last minute scramble did everyone know? Were some people sick? And, as others have said – maybe labour decided it didn’t matter as the press/public would crucify the tories anyway.

If the backbench tories had any backbone they’d have resisted the whip anyway – career limiting protests in the current government might be the thing that gets you reelected in the next one!

Janes O’Brien’s view:

This is James O'Brien's powerful response to 250 MPs trying to 'let Owen Paterson off the hook' for his 'egregious' breaking of lobbying rules.@mrjamesob pic.twitter.com/2uzLZmdc6U

— LBC (@LBC) November 4, 2021

You seem to have decided that three line whips cant allow pairing which, as far as I can tell, isnt the case. Its a semi formal process so there are no clear cut rules beyond what is agreed by the whips at the time.
As such I will have to go with Annelise Dodds rather than your opinion.

Linky? ​Not sure that can be right for the reasons above*.

In the Times this morning. Either she is lying or you haven’t got your facts straight.

Even the tory supporters think it was a complete foulup.

Am surprised by how unanimously negative the topvoted comments are on this –

Johnson’s plan for dealing with the Paterson case has failed. His choice now is: back down – or risk real damage.

Even the tory supporters think it was a complete foulup.

+1

You seem to have decided that three line whips cant allow pairing

Well, if you think about it for thirty seconds they can’t, can they? Certainly not in the conventional sense.

Either she is lying or you haven’t got your facts straight.

Far more likely she’s simplifying or using shorthand to get something a bit more involved and technical across to us. Or even more likely, given nobody has linked to it, she actually said something completely different.

Charter a helo – at who’s expense? That’s quite an extreme action that could just as easily backfire – imagine the PR of an MP flying in by private Helo during COP26 just to vote and then going back to what they were doing? Or perhaps the MP felt their prior commitment was more important than party political BS.

Which is just a long winded way of saying this vote wasn’t *that* important. A lot of people think it was very important.

If the backbench tories had any backbone they’d have resisted the whip anyway

They did. They abstained because they were livid and strongly thought the government were wrong to the point they were willing to damage their careers. Unless you think they were mostly paired with opposition MPs with the blessing of the Whips.

Some research confirms tory party did 3 line whip it – but its not clear that labour etc did.

Ok, on that genius insight I’m going to quit this thread. Clue: Who do you think the opposition have to pair *with* to nullify each other’s no-show?

I will check back to see if STW finds the answer before I do.

Edited to add What was Jeremy Corbyn’s excuse for not turning up ?

I know this question is a few hours old now, but according to the voting record, he voted AGAINST not abstained/didn’t show up.

Manchester Guardian data. 

As much as I don’t care for the man, lets at least get the basic facts right!

Loving the phrase “greased albino piglet” to describe Johnson in the Conservative article.

The comments are pretty consistently damming beyond a few headbangers

I have no idea why people are arguing about the numbers of labour MPs who voted, it isn’t relevant, labour would have won either way

Far more interesting is the amount of political capital Boris has spent in the failed attempt to save Paterson and change the process. Even the PPS who resigned to vote against has been put back in her job.

Well, if you think about it for thirty seconds they can’t, can they? Certainly not in the conventional sense.

You really are digging hard here. There is no conventional sense beyond it being an agreement between whips. As such your imaginary rules and regulations do not apply. The times they wouldnt agree to a pairing is if things were looking close and they were therefore willing to burn through goodwill with the other party and risk revenge at some point.

Anyway enough of your digging and bluster lets get back to the tories and their digging and blustering.
Anyone got any guesses what their plan will be now?

It seems that we’ve reverted back to the default Johnson cycle

1. Announce a policy that is pretty indefensible to anyone sane

2. Send an array of cannon fodder ministers out into the morning media round to defend the indefensible

3. Screeching u-turn and abandon the policy, leaving said ministers looking like a right bunch of lemons

You’d think that they’d have grown tired of being used as his human shields by now, but apparently not

To be truthful, it has probably been in Labours favour to lose the motion last night. Nothing is better that watching the Tories panic that there plans to allow corruption are being challenged by the right wing press. Labour has just to sit there and do nothing apart from refusing to have nothing to do with it. If they had managed to get more MPs in Westminster then I suspect the Tories would have got more in and ‘won’

There was a great interview on Today this morning with the chair of the Parliamentary Standards Committee. Which said that the idiot had already been allowed to appeal both to the commissioner and the committee. The other amusing fact is that the current process was set up by MPs and now some of them are claiming that it is unfair.

labour would have won either way

I think we need to be careful with the word “won” here. Political parties exist to serve the interests of the people. If they abstained intentionally, they took a gamble with those interests (which is arguably paying off). I agree with the sentiment but I think we need to get away from the idea of political parties competing against each other, like some kind of tribal game.

Far more interesting is the amount of political capital Boris has spent in the failed attempt to save Paterson and change the process.

No way was all this done to protect one MP. There’s clearly some deeper motivations, which is a story in itself.

3. Screeching u-turn and abandon the policy, leaving said ministers looking like a right bunch of lemons

Saw a comment on twitter that its less a u-turn as opposed to just sticking the car in reverse and heading back down the motorway at flat out speed.

You’d think that they’d have grown tired of being used as his human shields by now, but apparently not

Its generally only a couple of them though who volunteer to trot out to defend the indefensible and then they get hidden away until the next time everyone else announces they are busy washing their hair so cant do an interview.

That lot of clowns will never get tired of being cannon fodder. They are all just self aware enough to know that they will never ever get a chance of there were decent (for tories) people in charge.
I mean **** dorries is a minister

No way was all this done to protect one MP. There’s clearly some deeper motivations, which is a story in itself.

Lots of suggestions its an attempt to neuter the independent body in advance of awkward questions being asked about Johnsons own activities and possibly those of others around the great covid giveaway to tory donors.
That said I wouldnt completely put it past him just to have agreed to it to keep some of Patersons backbencher mates happy without thinking through what would happen next.

Political parties exist to serve the interests of the people.

You’re new here (Earth) aren’t you?

Lots of suggestions its an attempt to neuter the independent body in advance of awkward questions being asked about Johnsons own activities and possibly those of others around the great covid giveaway to tory donors.
That said I wouldnt completely put it past him just to have agreed to it to keep some of Patersons backbencher mates happy without thinking through what would happen next

Have they u-turned on the whole parliamentary standards review thing, or have they just re-thrown Paterson back under the bus? If just the latter, the revised process will still benefit the greased porker in chief, as they won’t start any new investigations until it’s complete.

It seems that we’ve reverted back to the default Johnson cycle

1. Announce a policy that is pretty indefensible to anyone sane

2. Send an array of cannon fodder ministers out into the morning media round to defend the indefensible

3. Screeching u-turn and abandon the policy, leaving said ministers looking like a right bunch of lemons

Not sure about looking like lemons, more about testing the water to see what they can get away with.

You’d think that they’d have grown tired of being used as his human shields by now, but apparently not

They know, but they do it not out of loyalty to Johnson, but because they are talentless **** who will have never got such access to money and power without him, so they will continue “taking one for the team” time and again.

Just another set of Useful idiots, like the Fisherman in Brexit, there are loads of them around.

have they just re-thrown Paterson back under the bus? If just the latter, the revised process will still benefit the greased porker in chief, as they won’t start any new investigations until it’s complete

I think it is under the bus partly- according to some reports him going round the news outlets in full indignant mode went down very very badly, even with the No. 10 machine. According to Laura Kunnessburg Paterson found out about the latest u-turn whilst at the supermarket from a BBC journalist

There are active investigations into a number of mp’s including Boris but as they have not yet reported you may well be right about the new standards/right of appeal