General British politics discussion thread

Matthew Parris, former tory mp, was on sky earlier and expressed the view that this whole thing is about brexit. I agree but it's also about power. For the past week, ever since the report was released, the telegraph has been waging a relentless campaign on behalf of Paterson, daily wielding all their formidable arsenal to undermine the entire process and cast slurs on the independence and integrity of the commissioner. These powerful people simply can't stand the idea that there is a civilian out there to whom they are held accountable and that person simply must be destroyed. Some of the stuff they are writing about the commissioner seems borderline actionable to me, though I'm no legal eagle to be fair. It's pretty shoddy and disgraceful at a bare minimum anyway.

The case against Paterson is so cut and dried that, despite vigorously and repeatedly claiming his own innocence, not one colleague stood up in the commons debate over some 90 minutes and backed him up on that. Not a single one. And yet, most of them then dutifully went through the aye lobby to almost certainly ensure Paterson will never face any sanction for his "egregious" breaches of the rules. Tells you all you need to know about the contempt these people have for the rule of law and for those who elected them.

@Aegir is this a party of conservatism today ? It seems like a swinging indictment of power at all costs and absolute power with no consequence. This is extremely dangerous waters. It can no longer be dressed up as anything else and FPTP allows it to flourish.

Frankly I think entire opposition bench should walk out. Show that on TV and the newspapers. What would that do to bring public attention properly to this matter.

Shameful day for Westminster. I see the DUP's Sammy Wilson voted for it which comes as no surprise. I wonder will there be a backlash to this and will it resonate with the public like the expenses scandal, or is this going to be yet another thing the Tories get away with?

How low can you go? If you're a Tory MP, where does it end?

The people of Britain are being failed as much or more by HMs Loyal Opposition than by Her Majesty's Government.

There is something of a stalemate though, and its in the British psyche, the 50% who supported Brexit WILL NOT admit they are wrong and will put the head in the sand to anything the Tories do now, at least until a year or so out from the next General Election when the post Brexit and post pandemic effects have washed through, for good or ill.

To such voters its about saving face, its about deflecting the humiliation of Brexit reality, its about a siege mentality and not showing weakness or being deterred, its about being strong on illegal immigration, about getting behind the useless trade deals with outer Mongolia and Jupiter.

Keir Starmer would want to get very busy about breaking down that wall, rather than giving platitudinous speeches at the dispatch box and being utterly ineffective in the ground game.

The term "sleaze" is part of the problem. It minimises corruption and criminality to something that sounds so much more minor

I can but hope.

These things have occurred in the lifetime of this government yet they're still leading in the polls. Sufficient numbers of voters don't seem to be bothered by it.

Scandal after scandal, yet here they are still with I think a 6 point lead over Labour.

Maybe this is the tipping point? I just don't think so though.

Will the ex-red voters in traditionally red seats, who switched to Boris and all his union jacks last time, wake-up and see how they're being manipulated?

They voted for brexit and supporting the tories in the last election was their way of doubling down on that vote. If Johnson convinces them continuously that they're knee-deep still fighting the brexit battle against an untrustworthy and selfish EU then I can't see those votes changing tbh. Rally behind your flag, and all that rhetoric. If they've got a compliant BBC then they're almost there.

You miss the point, Aegir. Of course in a pandemic there may be good reasons for short-circuiting normal public procurement processes. And of course doing that may open up opportunities for graft and corruption. And, realistically, both of these factors are likely to be at play to some extent.

From an electoral point of view what matters here is how the thing is perceived by the public. Issues that look like they might involve corruption in pandemic procurement are at much greater risk as being perceived or assumed to be corrupt if the people involved have a bad reputation in this regard for other reasons. These things are cumulative. For example, the pandemic-related instances will be viewed in the light of Johnson's fairly open venality and sense of personal entitlement and his willingness to accept things he clearly ought not to accept, like free luxury holidays. How likely is it that a party in thrall to such a man would be vigilant about corruption? By the same token, his casual attitude to truth does not inspire confidence in the party as a whole to be truthful about things that might embarrass it, so they lose credibility. Similarly, the organised move to shield Paterson from the consequences of earning more from lobbying activities than he does from being a public representative is not a good look. It won't escape people's notice that the firms that were paying him what look like fairly extravagant sums to "advise" them were among those that received lucrative contracts without the tiresome bother of a competitive tender or a transparent process. When these things appear to be connected, when they are all taken together, it starts to look like a systemic problem.

It may well be that people are perceiving a pattern that isn't entirely there. From an electoral point of view, that doesn't matter; it's the perception that will drive how people vote. Which is why the Tory party needs to be vigilant not to create the conditions in which such a perception will arise, and will be intensified. Maybe they do need to cut short tendering processes for emergency procurement, but they do not need to accept free holidays or home redecoration from undisclosed donors; they do not need to cultivate a reputation for studied dishonesty; they do not need to accept lavish lobbying contracts to exploit public office to represent private interests, and they do not need to change the MPs' ethical standards processes retrospectively to shield the likes of Paterson. if they do these things, then their claims that all the corners cut in pandemic-related procurement were cut solely in the public interest are much less likely to find traction with the electorate.

In short, right now is a time when, if they do not need to do things like this, they very much need not to do them.

I'm not sure that's exactly what's happened tbh. They already knew even before they introduced it that the idea of a new committee, with a locked in tory majority (!?!), was a total non starter. Once opposition leaders said they'd have nothing to do with it, it was already baked. Until they back down, apologise to the commissioner for undermining her role and her investigation and agree that Paterson should face the sanctions recommended (which, let's remember, are remarkably lenient due to his personal circumstances being taken into account), I don't think any serious u turn can said to have taken place. It just puts them in a stand off position which is where I think they wanted to be.

The recall petition needs the suspension. But anyway, doesn't matter now.

Three by elections all in super safe Tory seats coming up.

According to Patterson (and the Times's parliamentary sketch writer) there was some comments from the Labour benches when the PM referred to Patterson's wifes's suicide which he took to be mocking.