ff1d1l
pfm Member
You'd be reducing their catchment to the rich inbred...no leavening with those who got there on merit. So less attractive to the so-called elite.
Not necessarily, just draft your specification with care.
Tory corruption & sleaze (lobbying, second jobs, dodgy contracts etc)
- Thread starter ks.234
- Start date
Not necessarily, just draft your specification with care.
Tony L
Administrator
The Geoffrey Cox thing really is quite staggering. I suggest folk do a good bit of googling here. To sum up to the best of my current understanding: Cox appears to have both used his government office and been paid best part of £1m to defend the British Virgin Islands in a corruption case brought by the UK government.
I’ll repeat that in the hope it sinks in:
Cox appears to have both used his government office and been paid best part of £1m to defend the British Virgin Islands in a corruption case brought by the UK government.
Seriously WTAF?!
I’ll repeat that in the hope it sinks in:
Cox appears to have both used his government office and been paid best part of £1m to defend the British Virgin Islands in a corruption case brought by the UK government.
Seriously WTAF?!
Ponty
pfm Member
No problem with free University education, based on ability and not for pointless degrees such as surfing. What’s interesting is how numbers increased once they stopped being free.
Good point about the poor MP’s. An 80K salary means you’ve got a slim chance of sending your kids to public school without wealth / family money, or making colossal personal sacrifices (which I know some do).
Tony L
Administrator
What’s wrong with surfing? Got to be better than an Oxbridge PPE degree which just turns people into psychopathic twunts as far as I can tell.
Bob McC
Living the life of Riley
No you wouldn’t.
gintonic
50 shades of grey pussy cats
eh? an Olympic sport - that needs well qualified coaches that understand amongst other things - sea currents, physics, physiology, tactics, materials and their properties.....and of course surfing practice
droodzilla
pfm Member
OK, abolition it is then.
droodzilla
pfm Member
Oi! First class honours in PPE here and I'm not a psychopath. Say that again and I'll kill you!
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Not denying the twunt bit, I notice, Drood
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Excellent! Do you have a larger-scale more detailed image? Used as a backdrop on a computer screen it would be a nice reminder of the situation.
laughingboy
pfm Member
NeilR
pfm Member
Fraud Lost? I do hope so.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
I like the idea that an MP gets paid a good salary and expenses so shouldn't have any other *paid* jobs. The snag is that they'd then make more use of the trick that it is their 'spouse' or 'son' or even 'pal' who gets paid for a dodgy job to launder the money for them. So dealing this is a challenge. The problem is rooted in the way they regard what the rest of us see as dodgy/unfair/corrupt. "Only little people pay tax" being the attitude.
MikeMA
pfm Member
My Tory MP Sally-Ann Hart's response to my letter regarding her disgraceful performance on the Owen Patterson corruption vote. Note that it comes from one of her understrappers, not her. I like to think she was overwhelmed and couldn't manage all the responses herself. It doesn't directly address any of the points I raised
HOWARD-SMITH, George <[email protected]>
16:17 (50 minutes ago)
Dear Mr M
Thank you for your email to Sally-Ann. Please see her response to you on this issue below.
"Thank you for contacting me on the matters surrounding Owen Paterson and on reform to the Standards Committee.
Owen Patterson has decided to resign, with immediate effect, as an MP. This is not because he is being made to step down but because, with this issue arising after the suicide of his wife, he has decided that politics – in his own words - is a ‘cruel world’ and one that he and his family no longer wish to be part of. Whilst I have never actually spoken to Mr Paterson, I feel compassion towards him and his family; for he and his family to live through the suicide of his wife and their mother is truly horrendous and for people, including some MPs, to mock their experience is quite frankly unacceptable.
As a fairly new MP who is aware of, but has not been subject to a review under, the parliamentary standards or discipline procedure for MPs (and hope that I never do), I looked in detail at the review process last week before the vote. I was surprised that there was no provision for independent judicial oversight – and I firmly believe it is deficient in this respect. A provision allowing an appeal, if felt necessary, should be a right for all who feel aggrieved with a determination. The current process does not meet the requirement for natural justice.
In Owen Patterson’s case, he was found to have breached the Code of Conduct without being able to call any witnesses or, once the decision was determined, any right to appeal. Reading the Standards Committee’s report, it appears to me that he has breached the Code, but to have his behaviour - his case – considered by a cross-party group of MPs, without any right of appeal or independent oversight, is not right given the partisan nature of party politics inherent in Parliament (on all sides of the House of Commons).
Owen Paterson was due to be suspended for 30 days. If any MP is suspended for more than 10 days, this can trigger a by-election and might result in a loss of office – his job. Given that any employee in such a situation would have had the right to have their case heard and make an appeal, I fail to see why MPs should not have the same natural justice applied to parliamentary determinations. Employees have recourse to industrial tribunals if they feel that they have been unfairly treated or dismissed. Although MPs are not employees, they should have similar rights to employees, especially when their job is at stake. Furthermore, I do not think that MPs should be judging each other and determining another MP’s guilt – an independent and impartial tribunal type process should be used instead.
Owen Paterson’s case identified a need for reform of the system but trying to implement the reform at the same time as dealing with his case was clearly poorly timed and many in the general public understandably took the view that Conservative MPs were ‘trying to protect one of their own’. I sympathise with that view.
In Parliament, events often escalate very quickly, with little notice, sometimes requiring decisions to be taken in short timescales. Many MPs decided that reform was needed and that Owen Patterson’s case, with consideration of the mitigating circumstances that he and his family have been through, needed the ability to appeal the decision made. Upon reflection, more time should have been given to this issue, to allow all MPs the chance to consider the unintended consequences of making such a decision.
You will be aware that Owen Paterson was found to have been lobbying on behalf of businesses he was retained by, contrary to the rules. For clarity’s sake, I do not, nor will not, take on any paid external consultancies to supplement my salary as an MP. Personally, I do not believe that it is right for an MP to do so, despite it being permitted.
Being an MP is an enormous privilege and representing the people of Hastings and Rye in Westminster is an honour. This honour and privilege rightly comes with scrutiny. However, it also comes with huge sacrifices and pressure. I feel very strongly that MPs should be held to the highest standards, but should their behaviour be subject to scrutiny, they should be afforded the benefits of natural justice, including the right to appeal. I also feel very strongly that MPs who have been found to have breached the rules should face the strongest sanctions once a fair process has taken place. I hope that reform makes this possible so that we get a system which is fair and equitable to those subject to it and more transparent to the public."
Kind regards,
George
George Howard-Smith
Constituency Caseworker to Sally-Ann Hart MP
Member of Parliament for Hastings and Rye
Swallow House, Theaklen Drive, St Leonards-on-Sea, TN38 9AY
[email protected] | 01424 71675
HOWARD-SMITH, George <[email protected]>
16:17 (50 minutes ago)
Dear Mr M
Thank you for your email to Sally-Ann. Please see her response to you on this issue below.
"Thank you for contacting me on the matters surrounding Owen Paterson and on reform to the Standards Committee.
Owen Patterson has decided to resign, with immediate effect, as an MP. This is not because he is being made to step down but because, with this issue arising after the suicide of his wife, he has decided that politics – in his own words - is a ‘cruel world’ and one that he and his family no longer wish to be part of. Whilst I have never actually spoken to Mr Paterson, I feel compassion towards him and his family; for he and his family to live through the suicide of his wife and their mother is truly horrendous and for people, including some MPs, to mock their experience is quite frankly unacceptable.
As a fairly new MP who is aware of, but has not been subject to a review under, the parliamentary standards or discipline procedure for MPs (and hope that I never do), I looked in detail at the review process last week before the vote. I was surprised that there was no provision for independent judicial oversight – and I firmly believe it is deficient in this respect. A provision allowing an appeal, if felt necessary, should be a right for all who feel aggrieved with a determination. The current process does not meet the requirement for natural justice.
In Owen Patterson’s case, he was found to have breached the Code of Conduct without being able to call any witnesses or, once the decision was determined, any right to appeal. Reading the Standards Committee’s report, it appears to me that he has breached the Code, but to have his behaviour - his case – considered by a cross-party group of MPs, without any right of appeal or independent oversight, is not right given the partisan nature of party politics inherent in Parliament (on all sides of the House of Commons).
Owen Paterson was due to be suspended for 30 days. If any MP is suspended for more than 10 days, this can trigger a by-election and might result in a loss of office – his job. Given that any employee in such a situation would have had the right to have their case heard and make an appeal, I fail to see why MPs should not have the same natural justice applied to parliamentary determinations. Employees have recourse to industrial tribunals if they feel that they have been unfairly treated or dismissed. Although MPs are not employees, they should have similar rights to employees, especially when their job is at stake. Furthermore, I do not think that MPs should be judging each other and determining another MP’s guilt – an independent and impartial tribunal type process should be used instead.
Owen Paterson’s case identified a need for reform of the system but trying to implement the reform at the same time as dealing with his case was clearly poorly timed and many in the general public understandably took the view that Conservative MPs were ‘trying to protect one of their own’. I sympathise with that view.
In Parliament, events often escalate very quickly, with little notice, sometimes requiring decisions to be taken in short timescales. Many MPs decided that reform was needed and that Owen Patterson’s case, with consideration of the mitigating circumstances that he and his family have been through, needed the ability to appeal the decision made. Upon reflection, more time should have been given to this issue, to allow all MPs the chance to consider the unintended consequences of making such a decision.
You will be aware that Owen Paterson was found to have been lobbying on behalf of businesses he was retained by, contrary to the rules. For clarity’s sake, I do not, nor will not, take on any paid external consultancies to supplement my salary as an MP. Personally, I do not believe that it is right for an MP to do so, despite it being permitted.
Being an MP is an enormous privilege and representing the people of Hastings and Rye in Westminster is an honour. This honour and privilege rightly comes with scrutiny. However, it also comes with huge sacrifices and pressure. I feel very strongly that MPs should be held to the highest standards, but should their behaviour be subject to scrutiny, they should be afforded the benefits of natural justice, including the right to appeal. I also feel very strongly that MPs who have been found to have breached the rules should face the strongest sanctions once a fair process has taken place. I hope that reform makes this possible so that we get a system which is fair and equitable to those subject to it and more transparent to the public."
Kind regards,
George
George Howard-Smith
Constituency Caseworker to Sally-Ann Hart MP
Member of Parliament for Hastings and Rye
Swallow House, Theaklen Drive, St Leonards-on-Sea, TN38 9AY
[email protected] | 01424 71675
Would it be better to pay them by the hour? There seems to be a vast range in hours worked for that £82k.
ff1d1l
pfm Member
Minimum wage...
billo
pfm Member
Joe, you are not in The House so you can just call her a liar!