Ex-minister Owen Paterson could be suspended from the Commons
for 30 days after an MPs' watchdog found he had "repeatedly"
used his position as an MP to benefit two companies who paid him as a consultant.
The level of corruption amongst mp's is astonishing. IMO, he should be sacked, a new candidate selected, and a by election should occur, to let the people decide .
We are all being taken for mugs
Currywurst and Chips wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:02 pm
Why won't our Government do more to tackle climate change!?
Only 2% of Chinese in the top 5% of total energy users. In the uk it’s 20%.
2% of Chinese is a few million more bods than the whole of Australia
Of course but that’s another debate. The chart you posted is meaningless because China and India have such large populations. Those large populations do a lot less consuming than us however. When I say us, I mean the richest 10% who use 50% of the energy and take 70% of the flights. Not me.
To add to the chat - doesn't that last line in the image indicate that the values for China would include all the power they use to create all the things we buy but have exported the manufacture (and hence the energy / resource consumption) to China ?
Only 2% of Chinese in the top 5% of total energy users. In the uk it’s 20%.
2% of Chinese is a few million more bods than the whole of Australia
Of course but that’s another debate. The chart you posted is meaningless because China and India have such large populations. Those large populations do a lot less consuming than us however. When I say us, I mean the richest 10% who use 50% of the energy and take 70% of the flights. Not me.
Actually I wasn't trying to make a point about China or India at all.
But since we're on the topic, do you think the answer to reducing emissions is waving the finger at Qatar as they produce more per capita (as your per head argument suggests)? Or getting China/India/USA to reduce emissions?
Ex-minister Owen Paterson could be suspended from the Commons
for 30 days after an MPs' watchdog found he had "repeatedly"
used his position as an MP to benefit two companies who paid him as a consultant.
The committee added that "Mr Paterson's financial remuneration from Randox and Lynn's amounted to nearly three times his annual parliamentary salary" and that during the investigation Mr Paterson had "made serious, personal, and unsubstantiated allegations against the integrity of the commissioner and her team".
Yup, he’s doing the usual “flatly deny everything” approach and say how “stunned” he is, despite that 1/3 of the committee is made up of serving Tory MP’s and the verdict was unanimous.
You got caught bang to rights and you’re still protesting. What a cnut.
Ex-minister Owen Paterson could be suspended from the Commons
for 30 days after an MPs' watchdog found he had "repeatedly"
used his position as an MP to benefit two companies who paid him as a consultant.
The committee added that "Mr Paterson's financial remuneration from Randox and Lynn's amounted to nearly three times his annual parliamentary salary" and that during the investigation Mr Paterson had "made serious, personal, and unsubstantiated allegations against the integrity of the commissioner and her team".
Yup, he’s doing the usual “flatly deny everything” approach and say how “stunned” he is, despite that 1/3 of the committee is made up of serving Tory MP’s and the verdict was unanimous.
You got caught bang to rights and you’re still protesting. What a cnut.
He's a Tory & therefore is "Scum" according to a Labour politician .
well im not going to agree with her but i wont disagree either .
i think your description is far more accurate though .
Petrov788 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 5:39 pm
Sad, but predictable - and of course it won't make a difference to any polls or the discourse in this country.
It's as if the Electorate who vote for them
enjoy being shafted up the jacksie
It'd be nice to think this would finally have some resonance with the electorate but I'm sure I'll see Con (+1) in the next opinion poll.
There is some hope. For what was reportedly a 3 line whip, only 250 out of 361 Tory MPs voted for the amendment.
But, allow me to whip that hope away. There were 31 Labour abstentions! I'm looking forward to their explanations.
Oh, and 13 SNP abstentions. I don't think pairings are supposed to apply under a 3 line whip either. If I'm right we can call bullsh*t on any MPs trying that excuse.
It'd be nice to think this would finally have some resonance with the electorate but I'm sure I'll see Con (+1) in the next opinion poll.
There is some hope. For what was reportedly a 3 line whip, only 250 out of 361 Tory MPs voted for the amendment.
But, allow me to whip that hope away. There were 31 Labour abstentions! I'm looking forward to their explanations.
There were 98 Tory abstentions .
so obviously some members were not available to vote.
however im sure if the 31 labour mps had voted then 30+ Tory
mps would have been called by the whip to make sure they got into vote.
Last edited by tuffers#1 on Thu Nov 04, 2021 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
It'd be nice to think this would finally have some resonance with the electorate but I'm sure I'll see Con (+1) in the next opinion poll.
There is some hope. For what was reportedly a 3 line whip, only 250 out of 361 Tory MPs voted for the amendment.
But, allow me to whip that hope away. There were 31 Labour abstentions! I'm looking forward to their explanations.
Oh, and 13 SNP abstentions. I don't think pairings are supposed to apply under a 3 line whip either. If I'm right we can call bullsh*t on any MPs trying that excuse.
Think this details reasons for some of the abstentions although it looks like pairings applied. Assume some weren’t due to be present for other commitments and probably couldn’t change plans as the amendment was only reported on yesterday evening.
