You can always tell things are bad when I take the blog out of mothballs.
I have entitled this entry ‘The Tragedy of Owen Paterson’.
Watching the events unfold yesterday, I was left with a feeling that I was witnessing the end of any pretence that Tory MP’s (most Tory MP’s) have any decency.
A vote in the House of Commons which basically emasculated the present system of independent oversight of the standards in said House. The proposal of a new system, heavily weighted in favour of the governing party. A delay in voting on the recommendations of the report into the ‘egregious’ actions of Owen Paterson. This seems like a death knell for proper, independent oversight of the behaviour of politicians, who are pocketing hundreds of thousands of pounds from external sources. A tragedy for democracy…and yet I call this ‘The Tragedy of Owen Paterson’.
I shall try to be fair-minded as I present my thoughts on this matter so to begin we must accept the very real tragedy that Mr Paterson and his family suffered with the death of his wife, Rose.
In June 2020, Mrs Paterson ended her life by suicide. The inquest did not look into, nor offer any reasons as to why Mrs Paterson might have ended her life.
We have heard frequently though, from Mr Paterson and others, that the investigation into his alleged wrongdoing was a contributory factor. There is no evidence I can find to substantiate this claim.
In a statement he gave after the inquest he made it clear he had no idea as to why his wife had ended her life. Could it possibly be that Paterson is using the death of his wife as some kind of emotional camouflage? To deflect us from considering other possibilities including that his own ‘egregious’ actions had taken a direct toll on his wife’s mental state? That would be a tragedy wouldn’t it?
One of the complaints from Mr Paterson is that the process of investigation took so long. This is smoke and mirrors, as from what I can see on the record, many of the delays were requested BY Mr Paterson and agreed too by the committee investigating the allegations, allegations that he took thousands of pounds from companies who he then lobbied for in parliament.
And I think at this point we must say that, as far as I can tell, not one Tory MP has come forward to defend those allegations. Paterson himself continues to state that he did not consider what he did was wrong and would do exactly the same again. The tragedy being he cannot see what the rest of the world can see. He took money for his benefit and that of the company he was working for and helped procure advantages for them. Plainly not allowed under the rules.
And he did it 14 times. Hence the use of the word ‘egregious’ in the committee’s findings.
Paterson claims he wasn’t able to call witnesses, but to what end?
What might people be able to testify too, when Paterson doesn’t deny he acted in the manner reported?
What Paterson actually wants his ‘witnesses’ to offer is opinion as to why he and they think the process of taking money to lobby in parliament should not be illegal in certain circumstances. What Paterson wants is to make it easier for himself and other MP’s to make money out of their status and office.
What Paterson and 250 other MP’s (mostly Tory) want, is to be free to act without oversight from an independent body. They’ll just have their mates change the rules so they can line their pockets.
Supporters of Mr Paterson were lining up yesterday to talk about ‘natural justice’. How there was no avenue of appeal for someone found to have breached the rules. OK, amend the rules to introduce a route for appeal, don’t throw the rules away.
Imagine you’re caught speeding. You’re doing 100mph in a 30mph zone. You don’t deny driving fast but you claim you weren’t in the wrong because what you were going to do was more important than the rule. So, they change the rule for you, and you can now drive at 100mph wherever you want. But the rest of us have to stick to the limit. That’s basically the world we now live in. One rule for us, the rule of law, and for Tory MP’s, whatever law they make up. Does that sound like ‘natural justice’?
And on the subject of ‘natural justice’, the accepted norm is actually that a process is seen to be fair. The only unfairness in this tragedy for Mr Paterson is that the system worked all too well.
Paterson has been an MP since 1997. He knows what the rules are and if he had an issue with the rules then he had many avenues to go down to highlight this. He chose to take the money believing he knew what was right. What he knew was more important than the rules.
Of course, without the intervention of Andrea Leadsom and her iniquitous amendment, it was likely Mr Paterson would have been suspended from the House for 30 sitting days. This could have triggered a recall motion and if enough names signed the recall petition then a by-election would have been called. There was a possibility he could have lost his seat. That’s a good reason for a ruling party to obstruct the natural justice of the process in place isn’t it?
Also, deconstructing the body that might subsequently find against other Tory MP’s, I bet that went down well in the PM’s office. Or am I being cynical? (The answer is ‘NO’.)
Corruption exists in many organisations, but it’s usually hidden from public view. Yesterday, in full view, we watched 250 elected representatives of you, and I, vote to ‘mark their own homework’.
Those who spoke against the amendment, were referred to as ‘sanctimonious’, as if aspiring to higher standards in public office was a bad thing.
Be warned, a government with a large majority but with a lack of scruples will lead us to a very bad place. And that’s a tragedy wrought by Owen Paterson.
NB: A day is a long time in politics - between me writing this blog this morning and the time I add this note, the government has completed an embarrassing u-tun and Mr Paterson has announced his intention to retire from politics. I think that's what they call a happy ending.
