This podcast is sponsored by Canacord Genuity Wealth Management, award-winning wealth managers who go above and beyond to support and guide you.

Visit can-dowealth.com to start building your wealth with confidence.

Welcome to the Saturday edition of Coffee House Shots for Spectators Politics Podcast.

It's been quite a week in Westminster with an attempt to save Owen Patterson leading in disaster,

not just for Owen Patterson, but for the Tory party in general.

And at the root of it is the same question that bedeviled the House of Commons over the expenses scandal.

What should MPs be allowed to take? What is appropriate behaviour? When is lobbying acceptable?

And when does it cross the line? And what, if anything, have we learned in a decade or so since the

expenses scandal first erupted? I'm Fraser Nelson. I'm joined by James Forsyth and Isabel Hardman. James, let's go to the

question in hand. Owen Paterson was taking £100,000 a year from two companies he was advising.

His defence was that, first of all, it's perfectly legal for him to do so. And by the way, it is.

Nothing is stopping politicians earning huge amounts. We're talking more than the MP, doubling their salary, by shilling for

corporates. He was hauled up for two infractions. One was that he was meeting them in

Commons property. He's not supposed to do that. And the second was that he was

doing paid advocacy, in other words, talking to government members on behalf of his corporate

clients. But it was still quite within the rules for him to be trousering eight grand a month

from corporates. Is that the fundamental problem? Do you think that the rules on what MPs are taking

from corporates are

too lax? I think you need to distinguish between different types of work. So, for example,

I think if someone is, I mean, to take the example of Paul Beresford, the MP from Mulvalley,

if someone's a dentist and they carry on being a dentist and getting paid to do that.

I don't think anyone would object to that kind of second job, right?

...