As Politico reports this morning:
As the prime minister returns to Westminster, the news is quickly moving on to a remarkable attempt by Downing Street to use its parliamentary majority at a vote this afternoon to overturn the 30-day suspension handed to scandal-hit Conservative MP Owen Paterson. No. 10 appears to be plotting to crush the independence of the current system for investigating MPs' wrongdoing, by establishing a new committee with a Tory majority that would redraw the rules and leave the government open to the charge that it is marking its own homework.
As Politico also note, Tory MPs are claiming the House committee that sanctioned Paterson was wrong. They say he was acting in the public interest whilst promoting two companies to whom he acted as a paid adviser. So as Politico notes:
Playbook reread the standards committee report and the findings of the commissioner last night. On Paterson's side of the argument, Stone does appear to agree with him that he was acting in good faith and attempting to raise what he considered to be important public health issues with ministers and relevant bodies. She also finds Randox and Lynn's saw no immediate financial gain from his actions.
However, the emails from Paterson to ministers and the Food Standards Agency are extremely problematic. In the emails, Paterson does repeatedly seek meetings between ministers, officials and the companies, while in the same breath praising things like their “state of the art technologies” that he claims could “deliver dramatically better health outcomes.” It is pretty clear why the commissioner and the committee judged he was acting as a paid advocate, lobbying on behalf of firms in breach of the rules.
In other words, a platform not noted for left-wing bias can spot the evidence on which he was found guilty of what amounts to taking cash for influence. In other countries we would call that corruption.
However, remember that on 17 October the Law Gazette, amongst many others, reported that:
A mechanism' to allow the government to introduce ad hoc legislation to correct court judgments that ministers believe are 'incorrect' will form part of proposals to reform the Human Rights Act, the lord chancellor [Dominic Raab] has revealed.
In one sweeping moment, that government announced that the rule of law was going to be brought to an end.
It now seems that they want to pave the way for that by ending the requirement that there be parliamentary standards that must be obeyed in the Commons.
It's as if they wanted to open the floodgates to corruption.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
After the track and trace rubbish – yeah not really surprised.
We are at a very dangerous point right now.
The only political ideology whom I thought re-wrote history was the extreme left.
Now the extreme Right are doing the same bare-facedly.
This is really bad. English exceptionalism on the rampage again with a load of Neo-liberals on hand to redefine the concept of ‘public interest’.
For all those who voted for them, ‘sleep now in the fire’ I say.
You’ll see.
The re-writing of history has been conducted by people from all along the political spectrum – even those claiming to be smack-bang in the so-called centre have been every bit as culpable (in frequency and magnitude) of this as those considered to be at either extreme ends of the political line. Then again, perhaps I’ve incorrectly interpreted your use of the term “re-writing history”, in which case my apologies.
There are good reasons why the Conservative party is the most successful political party in the OECD, they will do anything to stay in power. What I find interesting from a cultural perspective is that they don’t seem to think it necessary to even pretend to be democratic anymore. It seems that the social mores of liberalism are collapsing.
Johnson appears to be following Trump’s blueprints and utilising his tactics. I was aware that Steve Bannon has made quite a number of trips to the UK in recent years and I’d venture that it wasn’t for the purpose of sight-seeing. At the risk of completely wrapping myself in tin foil, compared with the seemingly plodding, wrong-headed reacting of much of the current government’s actions, legislation changes like this (such as the spy cops and military overseas bills) have been penned adroitly and sent to parliament with little time wasted: very much at odds with the observed inept handling of the various other crises we face.
The chaos we’re forced to engage with is a highly effective tool in building barriers between people, causing distractions from matters of importance and allowing endless bullshit and shit-stirring to permeate all of our discourse. The social mores of liberalism are being demolished.
Thanks Chris W: Today’s general subject for Richard’s Posts, and for many comments, is beyond amsing and has become depressing. To the extent of readers suggesting leaving the UK. Scots readers who access the ‘Sunday National’ have a weekly diet of Constitution Building, why that’s important, etc., and what might be involved – Scotland will soon need a constitution. And all the UK’s turmoil outlned today is largely due to … ? The UK’s lack of a constitution. Each new day the government may make / remake the UK into whatever they wish.
Richard, and others, have noted that one of the great examples of constitutional democracy is under possible threat – a Trump USA. So a constitution is not a panacea, but it ought to form a protection for the population which we here do not have.
Agreed Phil
[…] I have also noted the UK government’s plans to turn a blind eye to corruption and the rule of law. [And has done so. Leadsom amendment passed. A dark day for democracy. Ed] […]