Owen Paterson

[BillyStubbsTears]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10180901/Red-Wall-Tories-turn-Boris-Commons-sleaze-debacle.html

Oh dear.

I wonder what there was that was so much more important for him to do than attending the Commons and trying to stop the shitshow in person.

Total bottle job. If i screw up at work i go straight into my bosses office and own up to it face to face and take any consequences on the chin. I generally find this takes the heat out of the situation in any case.

He's famous for his cowardice. He wants the world to love him. He's all bluff and bluster, but when someone calls him out, he hasn't got the balls to face up to them. You can see it in his face when he's put on the spot in Select Committee meetings. He looks like a 13 year old that's been caught having a fag and is getting a bollocking. All embarrassed resentment.

[DonnyOsmond]

In the interests of balance.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10181913/The-LABOUR-MPs-second-jobs-David-Lammy-earned-140-000-three-years.html

Can't be doing with Lammy. Always playing the race card but it's all one way with him.

That link won’t be popular on here AL.

Why not? I don't see an issue with second jobs as long as they're not getting paid for dodgy contracts.

[Axholme Lion]

Shouldn't they be using all their time working for the benefits of their constituents?
I can't imagine it said on the ballot paper, vote for me but i'll only be working part time 'cause i've got a nice little earner on the side.
I'll try it tomorrow, 'Sorry guv can't come in today, this bloke down the road wants his bathroom tiling.'

[ravenrover]

Someones done some calculation

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

Paterson. That word that Angela Raynor said.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Shouldn't they be using all their time working for the benefits of their constituents?
I can't imagine it said on the ballot paper, vote for me but i'll only be working part time 'cause i've got a nice little earner on the side.
I'll try it tomorrow, 'Sorry guv can't come in today, this bloke down the road wants his bathroom tiling.'

They might need to keep their hand in in case they lose their seat and have to go back to work, but I don't think they should be paid for it, or if they are the money should go to a charity.

[Bentley Bullet]

I wonder why Labour's Glorious leader Starmer refuses to endorse an outright ban on second jobs?

Maybe because he's earned a bob or two doing the odd gig?

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Paterson issue has got bugger all to do with MPs having second jobs.

As ever, the usual suspects say nowt about the REAL issue in the Paterson case, then do their whataboutery thing on a separate issue entirely.

[Bentley Bullet]

The Paterson issue has got bugger all to do with MPs having second jobs.

As ever, the usual suspects say nowt about the REAL issue in the Paterson case, then do their whataboutery thing on a separate issue entirely.

And neither would you if he belonged to the Labour party.

[DonnyOsmond]

The Paterson issue has got bugger all to do with MPs having second jobs.

As ever, the usual suspects say nowt about the REAL issue in the Paterson case, then do their whataboutery thing on a separate issue entirely.

And neither would you if he belonged to the Labour party.

lol

[SydneyRover]

''Iain Duncan Smith accused of ‘brazen conflict of interest’ over £25,000 job
Ex-Tory leader chaired government taskforce that recommended new rules benefiting firm he was employed by''

the sleaze is in danger of spewing out over the floor

''Iain Duncan Smith is facing questions over his £25,000-a-year second job advising a multimillion-pound hand sanitiser company after he chaired a government taskforce that recommended new rules benefiting the firm''

Nearly 1/4 of tory mps have second jobs

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/09/iain-duncan-smith-accused-of-brazen-conflict-of-interest-over-25000-job

[Glyn_Wigley]

Pandora's Box is opening and it ain't to be closing again anytime soon now the nationals have finally grasped the nettle.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Paterson issue has got bugger all to do with MPs having second jobs.

As ever, the usual suspects say nowt about the REAL issue in the Paterson case, then do their whataboutery thing on a separate issue entirely.

And neither would you if he belonged to the Labour party.

Here's a challenge for you.

Show me some examples of corruption on a similar scale by Labour MPs and see what I say.

[albie]

It is really very simple...just ban second jobs.
Anyone becoming an MP would know at the outset, so they can choose if they can live on £85k per annum.

The scale of greed from Paterson is eye watering, with over £500k trousered down the years.
The job of MP is just an enabler, allowing him to pimp himself out.

It is not a party political point, as Labour have done similar on a smaller scale.

Maybe Mr Starmtrooper wants to stay out of the media spotlight just now;
https://labourhub.org.uk/2021/11/09/corbyn-vetoed-second-job-for-starmer-in-2017/
It should not be needed for Jeremy Corbyn to call out unethical behaviour from his own side.

Oh dear.....just realised that they were not on the same side, were they?

[SydneyRover]

It is really very simple...just ban second jobs.
Anyone becoming an MP would know at the outset, so they can choose if they can live on £85k per annum.

The scale of greed from Paterson is eye watering, with over £500k trousered down the years.
The job of MP is just an enabler, allowing him to pimp himself out.

It is not a party political point, as Labour have done similar on a smaller scale.

Maybe Mr Starmtrooper wants to stay out of the media spotlight just now;
https://labourhub.org.uk/2021/11/09/corbyn-vetoed-second-job-for-starmer-in-2017/
It should not be needed for Jeremy Corbyn to call out unethical behaviour from his own side.

Oh dear.....just realised that they were not on the same side, were they?

I agree ban second jobs.

Paterson £500,000 over 5 years.

Let me get this right you are calling out labor because Starmer didn't take a second job?

[drfchound]

The Paterson issue has got bugger all to do with MPs having second jobs.

As ever, the usual suspects say nowt about the REAL issue in the Paterson case, then do their whataboutery thing on a separate issue entirely.

And neither would you if he belonged to the Labour party.

Here's a challenge for you.

Show me some examples of corruption on a similar scale by Labour MPs and see what I say.

So to “do a bst”, is a bloke who shoots one person dead any less of a murderer than someone who shoots five people dead.

[SydneyRover]

The Paterson issue has got bugger all to do with MPs having second jobs.

As ever, the usual suspects say nowt about the REAL issue in the Paterson case, then do their whataboutery thing on a separate issue entirely.

And neither would you if he belonged to the Labour party.

Here's a challenge for you.

Show me some examples of corruption on a similar scale by Labour MPs and see what I say.

So to “do a bst”, is a bloke who shoots one person dead any less of a murderer than someone who shoots five people dead.

No, that's to do a BB

[wilts rover]

The Paterson issue has got bugger all to do with MPs having second jobs.

As ever, the usual suspects say nowt about the REAL issue in the Paterson case, then do their whataboutery thing on a separate issue entirely.

And neither would you if he belonged to the Labour party.

Here's a challenge for you.

Show me some examples of corruption on a similar scale by Labour MPs and see what I say.

So to “do a bst”, is a bloke who shoots one person dead any less of a murderer than someone who shoots five people dead.

Is a doctor doing weekend shifts in a hospital the same as a bloke advising a a foreign dependency how to be tax haven?

Is a bloke doing a one off speech - in which they may be promoting causes they are patrons of - the same as getting the government to change rules in favour of business based in tax havens they will benefit from?

Is what Ed Davey did ethical?

[SydneyRover]

Here's another scandal where an MP doesn't meet the government's standards

''Britain’s youngest MP vows to donate more than half of salary to charity to ‘give back to labour movement’''

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/youngest-mp-salary-charity-workers-labour-nadia-whittome-a9246686.html

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Paterson issue has got bugger all to do with MPs having second jobs.

As ever, the usual suspects say nowt about the REAL issue in the Paterson case, then do their whataboutery thing on a separate issue entirely.

And neither would you if he belonged to the Labour party.

Here's a challenge for you.

Show me some examples of corruption on a similar scale by Labour MPs and see what I say.

So to “do a bst”, is a bloke who shoots one person dead any less of a murderer than someone who shoots five people dead.

No, that's to do a BB

And shite analogies like that are why it's a relief to be ignoring Hound's posts.

The issue with Paterson has nothing to do with him earning a second living. I want MPs to be highly talented people who can help British companies' and institutions' interests, and if they get paid reasonably for that, I've no problem at all with it. The red line is when, like with Paterson, they are being paid to badger ministers to give their paymasters an unfair advantage.

I'd have thought that was obvious, but as with so many arguments, it seems to go over the heads of the Self Righteous Brothers in here.

[Bentley Bullet]

Even using my material now eh, BST?

 Imitation. What a compliment!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Similarly, I'd have no problem with Sir Geoffrey Cox doing legal work for UK companies if it didn't interfere with his duties as an MP. I DO have an issue with him being paid the thick end of a million quid to advise the rulers of an overseas tax haven how to avoid corruption charges. And flying over there for several weeks, rather than deal with his constituents' issues.

Likewise, I have problems with Iain Duncan Smith heading a committee to determine COVID hand sanitiser rules, while being paid £25k by a hand sanitiser company that benefited from that committee's decisions.

It's simple if you stop and think about it. But still some folk seem to struggle with it because all MPs are the same aren't they?

[BillyStubbsTears]

It is really very simple...just ban second jobs.
Anyone becoming an MP would know at the outset, so they can choose if they can live on £85k per annum.

The scale of greed from Paterson is eye watering, with over £500k trousered down the years.
The job of MP is just an enabler, allowing him to pimp himself out.

It is not a party political point, as Labour have done similar on a smaller scale.

Maybe Mr Starmtrooper wants to stay out of the media spotlight just now;
https://labourhub.org.uk/2021/11/09/corbyn-vetoed-second-job-for-starmer-in-2017/
It should not be needed for Jeremy Corbyn to call out unethical behaviour from his own side.

Oh dear.....just realised that they were not on the same side, were they?

Looks like LabourHub has taken that piece down Albie. What did it say?

[albie]

Sydney,

"Let me get this right you are calling out labor because Starmer didn't take a second job?"

No disrespect, but you are missing the point completely.
The issue is that Starmer did not see that there is a potential conflict of interest, and had to be over-ruled.
He should not even have been giving Mishcon de Reya consideration.

Legal advice is noted in the register of interests, but only the firms providing the work. Because of client confidentiality, it is not possible to see who the actual person or interest supported by that advice.

That being so, giving legal advice should be avoided by serving MP's, whether by Geoffrey Cox or by Starmer.
If the client is not revealed, then the potential for abuse is unchecked.

Labour included a policy in 2019 to prevent this conflict of interest arising, Starmer has rowed back on that.

The Labour Hub article is here;
https://archive.md/L0s62

Starmer is not in the best position to call out the Tories on this, though obviously Cox and Paterson are a different order of exploiter. As long as the rules have a loophole, it will be used by the greedy.

[Filo]

Sydney,

"Let me get this right you are calling out labor because Starmer didn't take a second job?"

No disrespect, but you are missing the point completely.
The issue is that Starmer did not see that there is a potential conflict of interest, and had to be over-ruled.
He should not even have been giving Mishcon de Reya consideration.

Legal advice is noted in the register of interests, but only the firms providing the work. Because of client confidentiality, it is not possible to see who the actual person or interest supported by that advice.

That being so, giving legal advice should be avoided by serving MP's, whether by Geoffrey Cox or by Starmer.
If the client is not revealed, then the potential for abuse is unchecked.

Labour included a policy in 2019 to prevent this conflict of interest arising, Starmer has rowed back on that.

The Labour Hub article is here;
https://archive.md/L0s62

Starmer is not in the best position to call out the Tories on this, though obviously Cox and Paterson are a different order of exploiter. As long as the rules have a loophole, it will be used by the greedy.

Geoffrey Cox a member of the UK government is giving legal advice against the UK Government and has on occasions used his office within the HoP to conduct that legal advice, there is a clear conflict of interests there

[BillyStubbsTears]

Sydney,

"Let me get this right you are calling out labor because Starmer didn't take a second job?"

No disrespect, but you are missing the point completely.
The issue is that Starmer did not see that there is a potential conflict of interest, and had to be over-ruled.
He should not even have been giving Mishcon de Reya consideration.

Legal advice is noted in the register of interests, but only the firms providing the work. Because of client confidentiality, it is not possible to see who the actual person or interest supported by that advice.

That being so, giving legal advice should be avoided by serving MP's, whether by Geoffrey Cox or by Starmer.
If the client is not revealed, then the potential for abuse is unchecked.

Labour included a policy in 2019 to prevent this conflict of interest arising, Starmer has rowed back on that.

The Labour Hub article is here;
https://archive.md/L0s62

Starmer is not in the best position to call out the Tories on this, though obviously Cox and Paterson are a different order of exploiter. As long as the rules have a loophole, it will be used by the greedy.

How odd that they took the original story down within hours of posting it...

[wilts rover]

Sydney,

"Let me get this right you are calling out labor because Starmer didn't take a second job?"

No disrespect, but you are missing the point completely.
The issue is that Starmer did not see that there is a potential conflict of interest, and had to be over-ruled.
He should not even have been giving Mishcon de Reya consideration.

Legal advice is noted in the register of interests, but only the firms providing the work. Because of client confidentiality, it is not possible to see who the actual person or interest supported by that advice.

That being so, giving legal advice should be avoided by serving MP's, whether by Geoffrey Cox or by Starmer.
If the client is not revealed, then the potential for abuse is unchecked.

Labour included a policy in 2019 to prevent this conflict of interest arising, Starmer has rowed back on that.

The Labour Hub article is here;
https://archive.md/L0s62

Starmer is not in the best position to call out the Tories on this, though obviously Cox and Paterson are a different order of exploiter. As long as the rules have a loophole, it will be used by the greedy.

Paterson and Cox didn't exploit the rules - they broke them! Paterson 'egregiously' so as proven by the Standard's Comissioner and Committee - with Cox clearly doing what Paterson was found guilty of. Seems at least two more Tories may also have done so - but we shall have to wait and see about them.

Corbyn was right when he foresaw the potential conflict of interest with Starmer advising Mischon de Reya - and how the right-wing media would react - but its coming to something when advising a law firm specialising in human rights is a bad thing.

[SydneyRover]

Sydney,

"Let me get this right you are calling out labor because Starmer didn't take a second job?"

No disrespect, but you are missing the point completely.
The issue is that Starmer did not see that there is a potential conflict of interest, and had to be over-ruled.
He should not even have been giving Mishcon de Reya consideration.

Legal advice is noted in the register of interests, but only the firms providing the work. Because of client confidentiality, it is not possible to see who the actual person or interest supported by that advice.

That being so, giving legal advice should be avoided by serving MP's, whether by Geoffrey Cox or by Starmer.
If the client is not revealed, then the potential for abuse is unchecked.

Labour included a policy in 2019 to prevent this conflict of interest arising, Starmer has rowed back on that.

The Labour Hub article is here;
https://archive.md/L0s62

Starmer is not in the best position to call out the Tories on this, though obviously Cox and Paterson are a different order of exploiter. As long as the rules have a loophole, it will be used by the greedy.

It appears that the conflict of interest was: ''The move was reported at the time as Sir Keir rejecting an offer to advise on the development of a training and development academy at Mishcon, on the grounds of other commitments''

So not advising their clients but being involved with the academy, but he accepted the ruling and stopped. My position is as I stated is that MPs should not have second jobs, unless as some have pointed out it is for good causes, is minimal in time and is not a conflict with their work as an MP nor a conflict with it.

[albie]

No, the fundamental conflict of interest is between client confidentiality required of a lawyer, and the need for full transparency as an elected member of the HoC.

The two are incompatible imo, and cast doubt on the impartiality of political process.
That Corbyn had to lay down the law for Shadow Cabinet members underlines the point.
Starmer needed to be reminded of the policy position, having entered into discussions.

How would it work should a lawyer be advising a client with commercial interests in decisions of the UK authorities? Muddy waters, best avoided.

It is perfectly possible for external work to involve no conflict of interest.
I would still argue that external paid employment for MP's should be forbidden, to avoid the ambiguity that arises from representation of interests other than those of constituents.

[SydneyRover]

No, the fundamental conflict of interest is between client confidentiality required of a lawyer, and the need for full transparency as an elected member of the HoC.

The two are incompatible imo, and cast doubt on the impartiality of political process.
That Corbyn had to lay down the law for Shadow Cabinet members underlines the point.
Starmer needed to be reminded of the policy position, having entered into discussions.

How would it work should a lawyer be advising a client with commercial interests in decisions of the UK authorities? Muddy waters, best avoided.

It is perfectly possible for external work to involve no conflict of interest.
I would still argue that external paid employment for MP's should be forbidden, to avoid the ambiguity that arises from representation of interests other than those of constituents.

Fair point Albie, I accept that.