Tory corruption & sleaze (lobbying, second jobs, dodgy contracts etc)
- Thread starter ks.234
- Start date
Bob McC
Living the life of Riley
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
she says
“Furthermore, I do not think that MPs should be judging each other and determining another MP’s guilt …
There are 11 MPs and 11 lay people - ordinary members of the public on the standards Committee.
Ponty
pfm Member
I’m sure some would struggle to get much more than a minimum wage job outside of politics. Others will be taking a massive pay cut to be an MP. I like the fact that MP’s can come from all backgrounds and walks of life but the financial side does need working through. There will be some who have chosen to be an MP who would have no chance of making ends meet on an MP’s salary. There will be others for which their salary seems like a lottery win every month.
kensalriser
pfm Member
If you can’t make ends meet on over 80 grand a year you don’t possess the basic life skills required for the job.
mandryka
pfm Member
It depends how far apart your ends are.
Ponty
pfm Member
Nonsense. 80K is circa 4.5K a month take home. Many people will have rent / monthly mortgage payments greater than this (particularly in London and SE).
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
See my post above. My heart bleeds for these people, so let’s make things easier for them. I’m sure they won’t mind doing their bit for levelling up by moving up North.
Enfield boy
pfm Member
If they feel the desire to give the electorate the benefit of their unique skills, perhaps they should have built up a financial cushion from all that wonderful prior experience. Alternatively they could live in the free accommodation provided and rent out their mansion?
Ponty
pfm Member
All I’m saying is that if we want to attract a cross section of society to become MP’s, we have to accept that for very many professional people, they simply can’t take the pay cut and meet their financial commitments. Therefore many won’t bother, certainly the ones who don’t have considerable wealth already behind them. I can see how we end up with MP’s who frankly, couldn’t earn £80K a year anywhere else and those who are seriously wealthy to whom the £80K is a rounding error.
Tony L
Administrator
Here are a couple of links relating to Cox and the British Virgin Islands corruption case; BBC, Guardian and another more recent Guardian article.
To recap:
a) There looks to be a situation of institutional corruption in BVI centred around its government and PM.
b) The UK government have embarked on a legal enquiry into this corruption.
c) Geoffrey Cox, a salaried elected member of the UK Conservative government who is paid at least £82k by the tax payer for that role, is charging a back-pocket >£1m fee to defend the BVI Prime Minister against the charges brought by the government that employs him (our government).
Again, WTAF?!
Have I got any of this wrong? It is just so recursively corrupt, so vastly conflicted in interest I’m genuinely lost for words.
To recap:
a) There looks to be a situation of institutional corruption in BVI centred around its government and PM.
b) The UK government have embarked on a legal enquiry into this corruption.
c) Geoffrey Cox, a salaried elected member of the UK Conservative government who is paid at least £82k by the tax payer for that role, is charging a back-pocket >£1m fee to defend the BVI Prime Minister against the charges brought by the government that employs him (our government).
Again, WTAF?!
Have I got any of this wrong? It is just so recursively corrupt, so vastly conflicted in interest I’m genuinely lost for words.
puddlesplasher
pfm Member
Interesting reply from your MP and would be interested how she will explain the reversal the Government are going to do on Monday especially as the conservatives are going to be whipped to do a 180 on the decision.
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
You seem to conflate ability to earn money with intelligence, integrity, the ability to lead. If that idea flew, we would be having Philip Green, Aaron Banks and Jordan representing us in Parliament. The other side of the coin you seem to be arguing is that we need to bribe these shysters more to stop them grifting.
andrew d
pfm Member
- On 22 October 2021, I accepted honorary membership of the Carlton Club for the duration of my time as the MP for the Cities of London and Westminster. (Registered 01 November 2021)
- Name of donor: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Qatar
Address of donor: Qatar Embassy, 1 South Audley Street, London W1K 1NB
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): Flights, accommodation, internal travel, and meals with a value of £7,523.67
Destination of visit: Qatar
Dates of visit: 12-17 October 2021
Purpose of visit: British-Qatari APPG visit to meet ministers and officials to discuss Qatar's humanitarian and political response to the Afghanistan crisis, preparations for the World Cup, workers' rights reform and bilateral relations.
(Registered 01 November 2021) - https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?f=2021-11-01
1) Well why is it appropriate to get membership for an establishment club? So the 'right people' have access to you?
2) Why visit Qatar rather than visit via a video link? Sounds like a rather grand jolly. Good work if you can get it!
- Name of donor: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Qatar
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
An MP’s earnings put them in the top 5% of earners so anyone who comes down must be in the top, what? 3%?
Not sure how someone that far removed from the economic realities that effect the vast majority of earners, and non earners, can be representative of the people
MikeMA
pfm Member
Well, yes, but not to a sh1thole like Middlesbrough which is what you were suggesting. No one would go.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Well if you forced them, you can be sure Middlesbrough would be levelled-up to **** before you can say ‘knife’.
MikeMA
pfm Member
I have a thing about Middlesbrough. In the 1970s I worked for a government department which was due to be relocated there from London. Ministers and senior colleagues had all made no secret of the fact that they were not happy and had no intention of relocating if they could possibly help it. Following an organised visit for the foot soldiers like me, we all made it clear that we felt the same way. The move was dropped after the next election! Possibly it's much nicer now than it was in the 1970s ?