I have speed read the summary - he did do wrong but it scarcely qualifies as a major crime.
One does wonder whether it was his personal skills which justified an income several times his parliamentary salary, or whether in reality it was payment for his contacts as a politician.
Predictably political opponents want to make capital out of this. Were the situation reversed, Labour in power, I am certain the Tories would react similarly.
That his political allies come out in his defence is unsurprising - were the situation reversed Labour would likely do likewise. Need to go back 12 years or more to find examples.
Sanctimonious disapproval founded on political leaning has no real substance - it is simply an exercise in hypocrisy.
Changing the rules mid-case probably has the effect of letting Paterson off the hook - it is wrong in principle. The "sentence" should stick and the rules changed subsequently.
All this charade demonstrates is that it is no surprise politicians are bottom of the trust league tables. The "case" may simply have been a witch-hunt or reaction to a failure to get traction on other possible abuses of power (eg: Covid contracts)
The "Woke" solution would be to deny all politicians any involvement in outside business activities to avoid the risk that some may abuse their power. This would just encourage more egocentric numbskulls into public office with less real ability to manage the affairs of the nation.
That an MP has outside interests is generally positive in bringing experience and knowledge that is otherwise be lacking in those who pursue a purely political career.
I want the best people for the job, rewarded sufficiently well that all who wish to serve are financially able to do so. A governance framework needs to have the authority to act on material breaches- be they financial misconduct, anti-semitism, bullying, racism etc etc.
|