Much is written on here and elsewhere about 'levelling up'. There is a great deal of cynicism and doubt that it means anything.
Here in Cambridgeshire, it increasingly looks as though the March to Wisbech railway line will reopen - perhaps by 2028. Whilst that is after the next election, initial ?exploratory? works are already underway.
Before anyone says 'Wisbech isn't the north!'; it is a relatively poor town (it has a significant issue with child poverty), with poor transport links - the single-carriageway A47 bring the main link. If the A47 dualling is funded as well, then these transport links will be transformative for the town and its area.
This will get noticed.
Was there recently several Polish shops and looked pretty run down but some lovely old buildings there. We didn't stay long.
There are some superb Georgian buildings, especially along the waterfront. But much of it is rather rundown. There is, in particular, a children's playground on a scrap of grass, very unkempt, with (from memory) just one set of swings beside some pallisade fencing.
Wisbech could be a gem. But it is very much in the middle of the sticks, with poor connectivity.
Although personally, I think they should rebuild the Wisbech and Upwell Tramway. Bring back Tpby!
The future for places like Wisbech is as commuter dormitories for the local “metro”, which would be Cambridge in this case.
I see there is an occasionally 30 minute connection by train…
They point is to rebuild the rail link for passengers - the freight line has been unused for years. But yes, it looks as though the main connection will be with Cambridge.
AIUI it's actually a major job, as there are level crossings that need replacing by bridges.
A combination of Treasury “orthodoxy”, gross centralisation, and a soviet-style planning regime acts as a massive sandbag on U.K. productivity.
It should be possible to get into Cambridge within 30 odd minutes from Wisbech, Peterborough, Bedford, Bury and even Luton.
Cambridge is one of the innovation hubs of Europe, with house prices to match, surrounded by vast acres of deprivation.
Bury to Cambridge in 30 minutes would be impressive. The tram from Bury to Manchester Piccadilly is 35 minutes.
Bury St Edmunds, I guess.
And whilst the immediate necklace round Cambridge is incredibly comfortable, it gets surprisingly grim once you get north of Ely. It is all about the transport links.
The A10 is about the grimmest road I can think of as it heads towards Norfolk. Unendingly flat, grey, bleak.
The A17 - the "Road of Bones". You turn off the A1 at Newark for endless flat nothing all the way to Narwch. Eugh. The sad bit is there are some pretty towns and villages en route - its just the setting and location that grinds...
There's some sort of space-time discontinuum along both of those roads, or indeed perhaps around the entire county - you look at somewhere in Norfolk on the map and think, that's not too far, yet you can drive for what seems like hours and never reach Norwich.
A17, finest road in England. Every moment a joy. What is not to love about Brant Broughton, Heckington and Swineshead? And it nearly goes through Algarkirk. True, the bit past King's Lynn is dull. But other routes are available.
When Stuart Bell was looking after his Middlesbrough constituents from the comfort of his Paris home the Tories were less keen on this sort of arrangement. Odd that.
Its the same thing with Teesside PCC Steve Turner. Local Tories tore into Labour's Barry Coppinger for egregious crimes like communicating with the Chief Constable on WhatsApp. made him wholly unfit for office.
Now that we have their PCC having failed to declare a police caution and now being investigated on far more serious charges? Absolute radio silence. Its as if they apply different standards to themselves than they do to everyone else. And it isn't going unnoticed - the Northern Echo has been harrying the gobby local Tories who endlessly fed them lines about Coppinger for the same about Turner's far worse issues. And turning their refusal into front page stories.
Hypocricy and incompetence and double standards. Never positive attributes in politics.
Never trust any politician. They will always let you down.
There are lots of decent hard working politicians who go into it for the right reasons from all parties and lots of hard working volunteers behind them who provide time and money for no expected return.
I used to be heavily involved at a relatively senior level and never received or expected to receive a penny. I was lucky enough to be able to do this nearly full time at times, because I was financially secure,. Many give what limited time they have. Regardless of our differences I can say that the Tories l opposed (l was always in LD/Tory fights) were the same. In particular one Tory Agent was one of the most decent persons you could meet, but he was a formidable opponent.
I imagine the above is true for so many on here, who are either activists or councillors. The suggestion that we are all up to no good is rather offensive.
Just to think of one in particular, @HYUFD . Now I disagree often with HYUFD, but things I am pretty sure of are:
a) He is honest b) He believes in what he does c) He works hard for the Conservative cause without anything expected in return d) And I wouldn't mind betting he works hard for his constituents.
MPs have to declare all their outside interests, and do so. on the Register of Members' Financial Interests. Guido's, and others', investigative journalism can be done by all of us. One can make one's own judgement on whether the outside earnings are legitimate.
The most recent full list is here; 293 pages, but it's easy to search and find your favourite MP:
Cox is a wealthy man - lots of outside work etc., including:
From 28 September 2020 until further notice, Consultant Global Counsel (international legal services) to Withers LLP, 20 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7AN. I will receive £468,000 plus VAT annually, to be paid quarterly, in return for an expected commitment of up to 48 hours a month. (Registered 19 October 2020)
There's lots of interesting stuff in there, and certain patterns emerge; I'll leave readers who are interested top discern them.
Regular updates to the register are available here:
Much is written on here and elsewhere about 'levelling up'. There is a great deal of cynicism and doubt that it means anything.
Here in Cambridgeshire, it increasingly looks as though the March to Wisbech railway line will reopen - perhaps by 2028. Whilst that is after the next election, initial ?exploratory? works are already underway.
Before anyone says 'Wisbech isn't the north!'; it is a relatively poor town (it has a significant issue with child poverty), with poor transport links - the single-carriageway A47 bring the main link. If the A47 dualling is funded as well, then these transport links will be transformative for the town and its area.
This will get noticed.
Was there recently several Polish shops and looked pretty run down but some lovely old buildings there. We didn't stay long.
There are some superb Georgian buildings, especially along the waterfront. But much of it is rather rundown. There is, in particular, a children's playground on a scrap of grass, very unkempt, with (from memory) just one set of swings beside some pallisade fencing.
Wisbech could be a gem. But it is very much in the middle of the sticks, with poor connectivity.
Although personally, I think they should rebuild the Wisbech and Upwell Tramway. Bring back Tpby!
The future for places like Wisbech is as commuter dormitories for the local “metro”, which would be Cambridge in this case.
I see there is an occasionally 30 minute connection by train…
They point is to rebuild the rail link for passengers - the freight line has been unused for years. But yes, it looks as though the main connection will be with Cambridge.
AIUI it's actually a major job, as there are level crossings that need replacing by bridges.
A combination of Treasury “orthodoxy”, gross centralisation, and a soviet-style planning regime acts as a massive sandbag on U.K. productivity.
It should be possible to get into Cambridge within 30 odd minutes from Wisbech, Peterborough, Bedford, Bury and even Luton.
Cambridge is one of the innovation hubs of Europe, with house prices to match, surrounded by vast acres of deprivation.
Bury to Cambridge in 30 minutes would be impressive. The tram from Bury to Manchester Piccadilly is 35 minutes.
Bury St Edmunds, I guess.
And whilst the immediate necklace round Cambridge is incredibly comfortable, it gets surprisingly grim once you get north of Ely. It is all about the transport links.
The A10 is about the grimmest road I can think of as it heads towards Norfolk. Unendingly flat, grey, bleak.
The A17 - the "Road of Bones". You turn off the A1 at Newark for endless flat nothing all the way to Narwch. Eugh. The sad bit is there are some pretty towns and villages en route - its just the setting and location that grinds...
Even the train from Peterborough to Kings Lynn grinds - I think the only thing of interest on the route is the ditches that run alongside the track.
Ely was reached about 20 minutes early where we ran into the down Reception loop. Here the 56 ran round and we waited. And we waited. By this time the wind had reached gale force and the flimsy overhead wires were bouncing around. Between the procession of plastic units we were entertained by a group of lads trying to play a game of football. Eventually we left the loop at the booked time only to be held for a late running unit bound for Norwich. The 56 was a strong engine, but rather quiet as grids go. The most amazing dust storms were constantly being whipped up by the winds, an amazing sight for as far as the eye could see.
As far as the eye could see was the window. The dust was coming into the mark 1 carriage.
Oddly enough, I love the Fens. They are, in equal measure, bleak, remote, captivating, and homely. 360-degree horizons, the curtain of sky draping down towards black soil. Telegraph posts leaning at odd angles. A hard but rich land, with its own legends.
Then again, I also love bog-trotting across moorland.
There's something about the sight of Ely cathedral rising above, too.
MPs will be furious that Johnson's chaos over the last week now means ALL paid work is up for investigation by the newspapers.
There will be a few dozen of them earning a lot of money on the side.
Yes. When it was just Paterson the strategy of lying low to let time repair the damage of last week's fiasco was viable. With other MPs involved, who will be relatively blameless in comparison, they will want the PM to take some positive action to draw a line under the crisis.
Which is why the original plan was to defend Paterson as well. And why BoJo had a clear "no resignations for tawdriness" policy.
If one MP does the right thing (however grudgingly and reluctantly), it sets a precedent, and others might have to as well.
Yes, look at how he backed Hancock despite the most obvious case of both personal and professional misconduct. Boris can't afford for his underlings to be honourable and show him up.
On a side note, whoever leaked that video has done the nation a huge service by getting Hancock out of the job. The Saj has been much better than Hancock ever was.
Some remarkable entries there - not Theresa who is obviously in demand as an ex-PM, or Nadine Dorries, who I can well imagine genuinely writing her novels at weekends, but Cox in particular is extraordinary. I think having a 40p claim for a pint of milk disallowed may actually hit home more than the £1m+ income.
Tech nerds stick data in databases, and more importantly talk about databases at tech conferences which are often available online. Brits and Americans say dayta(base) whereas dahta is favoured by Australians and New Zealanders.
Dahta is favoured in Ireland too. Pronouncing the "i" in vehicle is more jarring though.
Much is written on here and elsewhere about 'levelling up'. There is a great deal of cynicism and doubt that it means anything.
Here in Cambridgeshire, it increasingly looks as though the March to Wisbech railway line will reopen - perhaps by 2028. Whilst that is after the next election, initial ?exploratory? works are already underway.
Before anyone says 'Wisbech isn't the north!'; it is a relatively poor town (it has a significant issue with child poverty), with poor transport links - the single-carriageway A47 bring the main link. If the A47 dualling is funded as well, then these transport links will be transformative for the town and its area.
This will get noticed.
Was there recently several Polish shops and looked pretty run down but some lovely old buildings there. We didn't stay long.
There are some superb Georgian buildings, especially along the waterfront. But much of it is rather rundown. There is, in particular, a children's playground on a scrap of grass, very unkempt, with (from memory) just one set of swings beside some pallisade fencing.
Wisbech could be a gem. But it is very much in the middle of the sticks, with poor connectivity.
Although personally, I think they should rebuild the Wisbech and Upwell Tramway. Bring back Tpby!
The future for places like Wisbech is as commuter dormitories for the local “metro”, which would be Cambridge in this case.
I see there is an occasionally 30 minute connection by train…
They point is to rebuild the rail link for passengers - the freight line has been unused for years. But yes, it looks as though the main connection will be with Cambridge.
AIUI it's actually a major job, as there are level crossings that need replacing by bridges.
A combination of Treasury “orthodoxy”, gross centralisation, and a soviet-style planning regime acts as a massive sandbag on U.K. productivity.
It should be possible to get into Cambridge within 30 odd minutes from Wisbech, Peterborough, Bedford, Bury and even Luton.
Cambridge is one of the innovation hubs of Europe, with house prices to match, surrounded by vast acres of deprivation.
Bury to Cambridge in 30 minutes would be impressive. The tram from Bury to Manchester Piccadilly is 35 minutes.
Bury St Edmunds, I guess.
And whilst the immediate necklace round Cambridge is incredibly comfortable, it gets surprisingly grim once you get north of Ely. It is all about the transport links.
The A10 is about the grimmest road I can think of as it heads towards Norfolk. Unendingly flat, grey, bleak.
The A17 - the "Road of Bones". You turn off the A1 at Newark for endless flat nothing all the way to Narwch. Eugh. The sad bit is there are some pretty towns and villages en route - its just the setting and location that grinds...
There's some sort of space-time discontinuum along both of those roads, or indeed perhaps around the entire county - you look at somewhere in Norfolk on the map and think, that's not too far, yet you can drive for what seems like hours and never reach Norwich.
Isn't that partly because on the A17 and beyond you get stuck behind lorries loaded with sugar beet going at 25mph for about 40 miles? I used to do that journey a lot (York-Norwich), and that's my abiding memory.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 21m Now it’s possible to decouple from Paterson, couple of things seem clear:
A) There is going to need to be significant reform of standards process There is going to have to be an independent element. Can’t continue to have MPs policing themselves C) Second jobs need to go
====
A hand list of things that wont happen, me thinks.
Presumably all the things that are coming to the press at the moment have been done (a) legally and (b) reported to the relevant places. If so, I get that you can question aspects of this, but by the standards in place NOW, they have done nothing wrong. Paterson, on the other hand, was found to have transgressed. I am sure he is convinced that he was in the right, but I'm pretty sure an awful lot of judgements go against people who still think they are in the right. Not having a right of appeal could be addressed, but in this case does anyone believe he would have been cleared? He missed his only real chance to reclaim his honour - full apology, serve his time and get on with it. Now he has detonated a bomb in parliament, with the help of his 'friends', that threatens to blow up the whole system. No more seconds jobs, the journo's will cry, whilst being happy to trouser other earnings themselves, partly on the basis of their main jobs.
We'll end up with someone suggesting that MP's all have to live in a spartan hotel when at parliament, and can only be made the national living wage.
Which is why it was so foolish of all the grandees / old farts to support Paterson.
Some remarkable entries there - not Theresa who is obviously in demand as an ex-PM, or Nadine Dorries, who I can well imagine genuinely writing her novels at weekends, but Cox in particular is extraordinary. I think having a 40p claim for a pint of milk disallowed may actually hit home more than the £1m+ income.
It does show he knows the price of a pint of milk, at least.
Peter "Duck House" Viggers was my hometown MP, I stuffed the odd letterbox for him back in the day. He asked whether he could claim for the duck house, was told no and accepted that.
What did for him was that he shouldn't have had to ask- he wasn't bad, but he showed he was clueless. Cox claiming for milk feels similar.
(Oh, and the ducks never liked the duck house anyway.)
MPs will be furious that Johnson's chaos over the last week now means ALL paid work is up for investigation by the newspapers.
There will be a few dozen of them earning a lot of money on the side.
And across parties
Which isn't really a problem for other parties - as most Labour MPs don't have grafting as a second job.
Perhaps my memory is at fault, but my recollection is that in the first Great Expenses Scandal, it was only Labour MPs who ended up in prison.
I don't think it is - but they were all taking money from Parliament, the issue here isn't expenses (my company is more generous than Parliament is) but they are selling their position and power to make money for themselves.
That's why suddenly second jobs are in the firing line..
Brexit Webinar. 12 minutes in and all the talk of "the UK" has stopped. Its now all about moving goods between the EU and GB. There is no UK from a trading perspective any more.
How can there by when NI is in the EU for trade purposes?
It is intriguing to wonder what Mr Corbyn really made of the NI Protocol. A long standing Brexiteer and reunification supporter, he presumably couldn’t have been more pleased from a personal pov with the outcome, even though he had to publicly pretend he was outraged about Brexit and then that he wanted a customs Union.
It's hardly worth pursuing debates about Corbyn at this point, but for the record he never pretended he was outraged about Brexit - his public and private stance was that he'd warmed to the EU as progressive forces were now stronger there, but he was still only 70% in favour. It was one of the many issues where his dogged honesty got in the way of a vigorous and unambiguous campaigning stance.
I'm sure you're right that he will have felt that NI staying largely inside was a splendid decision for both reasons.
MPs have to declare all their outside interests, and do so, on the Register of Members' Financial Interests. Guido's, and others', investigative journalism can be done by all of us. One can make one's own judgement on whether the outside earnings are legitimate.
The most recent full list is here; 293 pages, but it's easy to search and find your favourite MP:
Cox is a wealthy man - lots of outside work etc., including:
From 28 September 2020 until further notice, Consultant Global Counsel (international legal services) to Withers LLP, 20 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7AN. I will receive £468,000 plus VAT annually, to be paid quarterly, in return for an expected commitment of up to 48 hours a month. (Registered 19 October 2020)
There's lots of interesting stuff in there, and certain patterns emerge; I'll leave readers who are interested to discern them.
Regular updates to the register are available here:
Just be done with it and pay MPs a lot more. To most people 80K is a large salary. However if you want the best people to aspire to be MPs then it needs to be more. If I were to become a MP then I would be looking around for what else I could do to earn extra income. The challenge with MPs is that there are so many more opportunities for conflicts of interest.
I think Cox's 140 hours might cut through a smidge.
As Raab says it is of course up to the voters to decide whether that's outrageous or not but for general perception of the Cons an MP with a 140hr/month other job might be quite striking.
Much is written on here and elsewhere about 'levelling up'. There is a great deal of cynicism and doubt that it means anything.
Here in Cambridgeshire, it increasingly looks as though the March to Wisbech railway line will reopen - perhaps by 2028. Whilst that is after the next election, initial ?exploratory? works are already underway.
Before anyone says 'Wisbech isn't the north!'; it is a relatively poor town (it has a significant issue with child poverty), with poor transport links - the single-carriageway A47 bring the main link. If the A47 dualling is funded as well, then these transport links will be transformative for the town and its area.
This will get noticed.
Was there recently several Polish shops and looked pretty run down but some lovely old buildings there. We didn't stay long.
There are some superb Georgian buildings, especially along the waterfront. But much of it is rather rundown. There is, in particular, a children's playground on a scrap of grass, very unkempt, with (from memory) just one set of swings beside some pallisade fencing.
Wisbech could be a gem. But it is very much in the middle of the sticks, with poor connectivity.
Although personally, I think they should rebuild the Wisbech and Upwell Tramway. Bring back Tpby!
The future for places like Wisbech is as commuter dormitories for the local “metro”, which would be Cambridge in this case.
I see there is an occasionally 30 minute connection by train…
They point is to rebuild the rail link for passengers - the freight line has been unused for years. But yes, it looks as though the main connection will be with Cambridge.
AIUI it's actually a major job, as there are level crossings that need replacing by bridges.
A combination of Treasury “orthodoxy”, gross centralisation, and a soviet-style planning regime acts as a massive sandbag on U.K. productivity.
It should be possible to get into Cambridge within 30 odd minutes from Wisbech, Peterborough, Bedford, Bury and even Luton.
Cambridge is one of the innovation hubs of Europe, with house prices to match, surrounded by vast acres of deprivation.
Bury to Cambridge in 30 minutes would be impressive. The tram from Bury to Manchester Piccadilly is 35 minutes.
Bury St Edmunds, I guess.
And whilst the immediate necklace round Cambridge is incredibly comfortable, it gets surprisingly grim once you get north of Ely. It is all about the transport links.
The A10 is about the grimmest road I can think of as it heads towards Norfolk. Unendingly flat, grey, bleak.
The A17 - the "Road of Bones". You turn off the A1 at Newark for endless flat nothing all the way to Narwch. Eugh. The sad bit is there are some pretty towns and villages en route - its just the setting and location that grinds...
Even the train from Peterborough to Kings Lynn grinds - I think the only thing of interest on the route is the ditches that run alongside the track.
Ely was reached about 20 minutes early where we ran into the down Reception loop. Here the 56 ran round and we waited. And we waited. By this time the wind had reached gale force and the flimsy overhead wires were bouncing around. Between the procession of plastic units we were entertained by a group of lads trying to play a game of football. Eventually we left the loop at the booked time only to be held for a late running unit bound for Norwich. The 56 was a strong engine, but rather quiet as grids go. The most amazing dust storms were constantly being whipped up by the winds, an amazing sight for as far as the eye could see.
As far as the eye could see was the window. The dust was coming into the mark 1 carriage.
Oddly enough, I love the Fens. They are, in equal measure, bleak, remote, captivating, and homely. 360-degree horizons, the curtain of sky draping down towards black soil. Telegraph posts leaning at odd angles. A hard but rich land, with its own legends.
Then again, I also love bog-trotting across moorland.
There's something about the sight of Ely cathedral rising above, too.
Oh yes. One of my favourite walks is north along the Cam and Great Ouse, from Waterbeach to Ely. You get to see the Cathedral rising up in the distance as you approach (I haven't done it in a few years, so I don't know if the Ely southern bypass has spoilt this effect).
I was living in Waterbeach when I had my last ankle operation, and the first long walk I did afterwards was up to Ely. It therefore has a place in my heart. The Lodes - some Roman in origin - running into the river are fascinating. One (?Lode Lode?) runs for a few miles from the river, after which a massive Anglo-Saxon dyke continues across Newmarket racecourse. Superb walks.
For me the contracts stuff is a far bigger deal than the second jobs stuff. I wonder whether the government and Tory media are deliberately pushing the agenda onto less explosive territory.
Much is written on here and elsewhere about 'levelling up'. There is a great deal of cynicism and doubt that it means anything.
Here in Cambridgeshire, it increasingly looks as though the March to Wisbech railway line will reopen - perhaps by 2028. Whilst that is after the next election, initial ?exploratory? works are already underway.
Before anyone says 'Wisbech isn't the north!'; it is a relatively poor town (it has a significant issue with child poverty), with poor transport links - the single-carriageway A47 bring the main link. If the A47 dualling is funded as well, then these transport links will be transformative for the town and its area.
This will get noticed.
Was there recently several Polish shops and looked pretty run down but some lovely old buildings there. We didn't stay long.
There are some superb Georgian buildings, especially along the waterfront. But much of it is rather rundown. There is, in particular, a children's playground on a scrap of grass, very unkempt, with (from memory) just one set of swings beside some pallisade fencing.
Wisbech could be a gem. But it is very much in the middle of the sticks, with poor connectivity.
Although personally, I think they should rebuild the Wisbech and Upwell Tramway. Bring back Tpby!
The future for places like Wisbech is as commuter dormitories for the local “metro”, which would be Cambridge in this case.
I see there is an occasionally 30 minute connection by train…
They point is to rebuild the rail link for passengers - the freight line has been unused for years. But yes, it looks as though the main connection will be with Cambridge.
AIUI it's actually a major job, as there are level crossings that need replacing by bridges.
A combination of Treasury “orthodoxy”, gross centralisation, and a soviet-style planning regime acts as a massive sandbag on U.K. productivity.
It should be possible to get into Cambridge within 30 odd minutes from Wisbech, Peterborough, Bedford, Bury and even Luton.
Cambridge is one of the innovation hubs of Europe, with house prices to match, surrounded by vast acres of deprivation.
Bury to Cambridge in 30 minutes would be impressive. The tram from Bury to Manchester Piccadilly is 35 minutes.
Bury St Edmunds, I guess.
And whilst the immediate necklace round Cambridge is incredibly comfortable, it gets surprisingly grim once you get north of Ely. It is all about the transport links.
The A10 is about the grimmest road I can think of as it heads towards Norfolk. Unendingly flat, grey, bleak.
The A17 - the "Road of Bones". You turn off the A1 at Newark for endless flat nothing all the way to Narwch. Eugh. The sad bit is there are some pretty towns and villages en route - its just the setting and location that grinds...
The A1111 - like the A1 but four times as good according to John Shuttleworth.
Much is written on here and elsewhere about 'levelling up'. There is a great deal of cynicism and doubt that it means anything.
Here in Cambridgeshire, it increasingly looks as though the March to Wisbech railway line will reopen - perhaps by 2028. Whilst that is after the next election, initial ?exploratory? works are already underway.
Before anyone says 'Wisbech isn't the north!'; it is a relatively poor town (it has a significant issue with child poverty), with poor transport links - the single-carriageway A47 bring the main link. If the A47 dualling is funded as well, then these transport links will be transformative for the town and its area.
This will get noticed.
Was there recently several Polish shops and looked pretty run down but some lovely old buildings there. We didn't stay long.
There are some superb Georgian buildings, especially along the waterfront. But much of it is rather rundown. There is, in particular, a children's playground on a scrap of grass, very unkempt, with (from memory) just one set of swings beside some pallisade fencing.
Wisbech could be a gem. But it is very much in the middle of the sticks, with poor connectivity.
Although personally, I think they should rebuild the Wisbech and Upwell Tramway. Bring back Tpby!
The future for places like Wisbech is as commuter dormitories for the local “metro”, which would be Cambridge in this case.
I see there is an occasionally 30 minute connection by train…
They point is to rebuild the rail link for passengers - the freight line has been unused for years. But yes, it looks as though the main connection will be with Cambridge.
AIUI it's actually a major job, as there are level crossings that need replacing by bridges.
A combination of Treasury “orthodoxy”, gross centralisation, and a soviet-style planning regime acts as a massive sandbag on U.K. productivity.
It should be possible to get into Cambridge within 30 odd minutes from Wisbech, Peterborough, Bedford, Bury and even Luton.
Cambridge is one of the innovation hubs of Europe, with house prices to match, surrounded by vast acres of deprivation.
Bury to Cambridge in 30 minutes would be impressive. The tram from Bury to Manchester Piccadilly is 35 minutes.
Bury St Edmunds, I guess.
And whilst the immediate necklace round Cambridge is incredibly comfortable, it gets surprisingly grim once you get north of Ely. It is all about the transport links.
The A10 is about the grimmest road I can think of as it heads towards Norfolk. Unendingly flat, grey, bleak.
The A17 - the "Road of Bones". You turn off the A1 at Newark for endless flat nothing all the way to Narwch. Eugh. The sad bit is there are some pretty towns and villages en route - its just the setting and location that grinds...
There's some sort of space-time discontinuum along both of those roads, or indeed perhaps around the entire county - you look at somewhere in Norfolk on the map and think, that's not too far, yet you can drive for what seems like hours and never reach Norwich.
Isn't that partly because on the A17 and beyond you get stuck behind lorries loaded with sugar beet going at 25mph for about 40 miles? I used to do that journey a lot (York-Norwich), and that's my abiding memory.
Friend of mine..... not the chap in Skegness .......... did much of his National Service guarding an airbase in Norfolk. He used to get the odd weekends leave and late one Sunday night, driving his motor-bike along one of the Fen roads he didn't realise he'd come to a bend..... there hadn't been one for ages .... and went straight into the ditch. Fortunately neither he nor the bike were hurt.
MPs have to declare all their outside interests, and do so, on the Register of Members' Financial Interests. Guido's, and others', investigative journalism can be done by all of us. One can make one's own judgement on whether the outside earnings are legitimate.
The most recent full list is here; 293 pages, but it's easy to search and find your favourite MP:
Cox is a wealthy man - lots of outside work etc., including:
From 28 September 2020 until further notice, Consultant Global Counsel (international legal services) to Withers LLP, 20 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7AN. I will receive £468,000 plus VAT annually, to be paid quarterly, in return for an expected commitment of up to 48 hours a month. (Registered 19 October 2020)
There's lots of interesting stuff in there, and certain patterns emerge; I'll leave readers who are interested to discern them.
Regular updates to the register are available here:
For me the contracts stuff is a far bigger deal than the second jobs stuff. I wonder whether the government and Tory media are deliberately pushing the agenda onto less explosive territory.
Of course they are. Anything to stop the spotlight shining through the Number 10 windows.
MPs will be furious that Johnson's chaos over the last week now means ALL paid work is up for investigation by the newspapers.
There will be a few dozen of them earning a lot of money on the side.
And across parties
Not that many - only 1 of the top 20 is Labour. That's partly because companies pay more for access to Government MPs, perhaps.
A cursory skim through the Register that I posted earlier reveals that, not surprisingly, it is largely Tory MPs who have the most lucrative employment in their spare time. Obviously because they're more employable and valuable than Labour MPs. Can't be any other explanation.
For me the contracts stuff is a far bigger deal than the second jobs stuff. I wonder whether the government and Tory media are deliberately pushing the agenda onto less explosive territory.
Contracts require a lot of documentation and checks and discussions with lawyers before you start accusing anyone of anything.
Boris's biggest issue here is that will be what next Sunday's papers started doing at 9am yesterday morning and they have all week to get the evidence in place to ensure their lawyers are happy for the stories to be printed.
Some remarkable entries there - not Theresa who is obviously in demand as an ex-PM, or Nadine Dorries, who I can well imagine genuinely writing her novels at weekends, but Cox in particular is extraordinary. I think having a 40p claim for a pint of milk disallowed may actually hit home more than the £1m+ income.
It does show he knows the price of a pint of milk, at least.
Peter "Duck House" Viggers was my hometown MP, I stuffed the odd letterbox for him back in the day. He asked whether he could claim for the duck house, was told no and accepted that.
What did for him was that he shouldn't have had to ask- he wasn't bad, but he showed he was clueless. Cox claiming for milk feels similar.
(Oh, and the ducks never liked the duck house anyway.)
Omg, we share a Gosport connection.
I am always astonished to find anyone else who is even aware of that hard-drinking, naval brigadoon.
I think Cox's 140 hours might cut through a smidge.
As Raab says it is of course up to the voters to decide whether that's outrageous or not but for general perception of the Cons an MP with a 140hr/month other job might be quite striking.
Clearly the voters of Torridge and West Devon don't mind too much...
2005: 42.7% (gained from the Lib Dems) 2019: 60.1%
Just be done with it and pay MPs a lot more. To most people 80K is a large salary. However if you want the best people to aspire to be MPs then it needs to be more. If I were to become a MP then I would be looking around for what else I could do to earn extra income. The challenge with MPs is that there are so many more opportunities for conflicts of interest.
I don't much like Lord Foulkes (Labour). Baron Foulkes of Cumnock, as he now calls himself. He always seemed the embodiment of self-serving SLAB.
But he had a moment of glory for me, when at the height of the First Expenses Scandal, he turned the tables on Carrie Gracie. We learnt a pretty average BBC presenter earned considerably more than an MP
I would be pretty confident that (i) most people on pb.com earn more than an MP, especially those currently rabbiting on about second jobs, and (ii) most people in the media earn more than an MP.
The problem can only be fixed by paying MPs more .... which no-one wants to do,
It looks as though we are in for a prolonged bout of British hypocrisy.
Much is written on here and elsewhere about 'levelling up'. There is a great deal of cynicism and doubt that it means anything.
Here in Cambridgeshire, it increasingly looks as though the March to Wisbech railway line will reopen - perhaps by 2028. Whilst that is after the next election, initial ?exploratory? works are already underway.
Before anyone says 'Wisbech isn't the north!'; it is a relatively poor town (it has a significant issue with child poverty), with poor transport links - the single-carriageway A47 bring the main link. If the A47 dualling is funded as well, then these transport links will be transformative for the town and its area.
This will get noticed.
Was there recently several Polish shops and looked pretty run down but some lovely old buildings there. We didn't stay long.
There are some superb Georgian buildings, especially along the waterfront. But much of it is rather rundown. There is, in particular, a children's playground on a scrap of grass, very unkempt, with (from memory) just one set of swings beside some pallisade fencing.
Wisbech could be a gem. But it is very much in the middle of the sticks, with poor connectivity.
Although personally, I think they should rebuild the Wisbech and Upwell Tramway. Bring back Tpby!
The future for places like Wisbech is as commuter dormitories for the local “metro”, which would be Cambridge in this case.
I see there is an occasionally 30 minute connection by train…
They point is to rebuild the rail link for passengers - the freight line has been unused for years. But yes, it looks as though the main connection will be with Cambridge.
AIUI it's actually a major job, as there are level crossings that need replacing by bridges.
A combination of Treasury “orthodoxy”, gross centralisation, and a soviet-style planning regime acts as a massive sandbag on U.K. productivity.
It should be possible to get into Cambridge within 30 odd minutes from Wisbech, Peterborough, Bedford, Bury and even Luton.
Cambridge is one of the innovation hubs of Europe, with house prices to match, surrounded by vast acres of deprivation.
Bury to Cambridge in 30 minutes would be impressive. The tram from Bury to Manchester Piccadilly is 35 minutes.
Bury St Edmunds, I guess.
And whilst the immediate necklace round Cambridge is incredibly comfortable, it gets surprisingly grim once you get north of Ely. It is all about the transport links.
The A10 is about the grimmest road I can think of as it heads towards Norfolk. Unendingly flat, grey, bleak.
The A17 - the "Road of Bones". You turn off the A1 at Newark for endless flat nothing all the way to Narwch. Eugh. The sad bit is there are some pretty towns and villages en route - its just the setting and location that grinds...
The A1111 - like the A1 but four times as good according to John Shuttleworth.
We were on the A1101 a lot iirc or was it 1011?
I rather like the A17, if you're not in a hurry. Fenland flatness is oddly compelling. I once had a sandwich sat atop a drainage dyke next to the A17 between Holbeach and King's Lynn: elevation can't have been more than 10 feet but the view was as big as from the top of some hills. And average speeds aren't THAT slow. The problem is not lack of speed per se, it's the frustration of being forced to go at that speed because of the lorry four vehicles in front of you.
We are conflating two ENTIRELY different issues here. One, the less interesting one, is do MPs have the time to do two jobs, like Cox is doing. The other is corruption on a French president, failed African state, Russian oligarch kinda level. Randox got paid £347m for the extension of an existing contract, 500m in total. I would bet that 7 figure backhanders were involved.
MPs have to declare all their outside interests, and do so, on the Register of Members' Financial Interests. Guido's, and others', investigative journalism can be done by all of us. One can make one's own judgement on whether the outside earnings are legitimate.
The most recent full list is here; 293 pages, but it's easy to search and find your favourite MP:
Cox is a wealthy man - lots of outside work etc., including:
From 28 September 2020 until further notice, Consultant Global Counsel (international legal services) to Withers LLP, 20 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7AN. I will receive £468,000 plus VAT annually, to be paid quarterly, in return for an expected commitment of up to 48 hours a month. (Registered 19 October 2020)
There's lots of interesting stuff in there, and certain patterns emerge; I'll leave readers who are interested to discern them.
Regular updates to the register are available here:
Actually, this is something of an issue. Partly due to the nature of their jobs, it's very common for MPs to end up owning more than one house. I make no moral judgement of that in itself. We need landlords. But landlords are the only big winners from rising house prices, and the big losers from falling house prices. It's unsurprising that house prices are a problem given this quirk in our representatives.
I think Cox's 140 hours might cut through a smidge.
As Raab says it is of course up to the voters to decide whether that's outrageous or not but for general perception of the Cons an MP with a 140hr/month other job might be quite striking.
He's a backbencher though.
Do you think the PM spends 140hr/month on his PM duties instead of constituency duties? Do you think the Foreign Secretary, Health Secretary or Leader of the Opposition spend 140hr/month on their 'second job' as ministers/shadow minister instead of constituency duties?
MPs will be furious that Johnson's chaos over the last week now means ALL paid work is up for investigation by the newspapers.
There will be a few dozen of them earning a lot of money on the side.
And across parties
Not that many - only 1 of the top 20 is Labour. That's partly because companies pay more for access to Government MPs, perhaps.
A cursory skim through the Register that I posted earlier reveals that, not surprisingly, it is largely Tory MPs who have the most lucrative employment in their spare time. Obviously because they're more employable and valuable than Labour MPs. Can't be any other explanation.
Guardian have done a bit of digging. IMO this is going to really piss off Tory MPs.
MPs will be furious that Johnson's chaos over the last week now means ALL paid work is up for investigation by the newspapers.
There will be a few dozen of them earning a lot of money on the side.
And across parties
Not that many - only 1 of the top 20 is Labour. That's partly because companies pay more for access to Government MPs, perhaps.
I wonder to what extent the workload of the MPs makes a difference? I'd imagine that some Tory MPs have a fairly quiet life whereas I can imagine most Labour MPs have to deal with a lot of stuff in their constituencies.
For me the contracts stuff is a far bigger deal than the second jobs stuff. I wonder whether the government and Tory media are deliberately pushing the agenda onto less explosive territory.
Contracts require a lot of documentation and checks and discussions with lawyers before you start accusing anyone of anything.
Boris's biggest issue here is that will be what next Sunday's papers started doing at 9am yesterday morning and they have all week to get the evidence in place to ensure their lawyers are happy for the stories to be printed.
I hope you're right. Even the details out there already suggest we are in pretty blatantly corrupt territory. I would like to see some of the money returned to the exchequer and some jail time handed out for the worst offenders.
For me the contracts stuff is a far bigger deal than the second jobs stuff. I wonder whether the government and Tory media are deliberately pushing the agenda onto less explosive territory.
I am fairly forgiving about the PPE contracts as long as (a) goods were actually delivered and (b) were to spec. If yes to both then a bit of fast and loose in an emergency, when your old friend across the water was impounding your goods, stopping your original supplies.
Just be done with it and pay MPs a lot more. To most people 80K is a large salary. However if you want the best people to aspire to be MPs then it needs to be more. If I were to become a MP then I would be looking around for what else I could do to earn extra income. The challenge with MPs is that there are so many more opportunities for conflicts of interest.
I don't much like Lord Foulkes (Labour). Baron Foulkes of Cumnock, as he now calls himself. He always seemed the embodiment of self-serving SLAB.
But he had a moment of glory for me, when at the height of the First Expenses Scandal, he turned the tables on Carrie Gracie. We learnt a pretty average BBC presenter earned considerably more than an MP
I would be pretty confident that (i) most people on pb.com earn more than an MP, especially those currently rabbiting on about second jobs, and (ii) most people in the media earn more than an MP.
The problem can only be fixed by paying MPs more .... which no-one wants to do,
It looks as though we are in for a prolonged bout of British hypocrisy.
I'll be clear - I probably do earn more than an MP (when I put my mind to it).
And I have zero problems with MPs earning money from second jobs, the issue comes when that money is coming because
i) they are an MP ii) they are abusing the contacts they have because they are an MP..
MPs will be furious that Johnson's chaos over the last week now means ALL paid work is up for investigation by the newspapers.
There will be a few dozen of them earning a lot of money on the side.
And across parties
Not that many - only 1 of the top 20 is Labour. That's partly because companies pay more for access to Government MPs, perhaps.
A cursory skim through the Register that I posted earlier reveals that, not surprisingly, it is largely Tory MPs who have the most lucrative employment in their spare time. Obviously because they're more employable and valuable than Labour MPs. Can't be any other explanation.
Guardian have done a bit of digging. IMO this is going to really piss off Tory MPs.
MPs have to declare all their outside interests, and do so, on the Register of Members' Financial Interests. Guido's, and others', investigative journalism can be done by all of us. One can make one's own judgement on whether the outside earnings are legitimate.
The most recent full list is here; 293 pages, but it's easy to search and find your favourite MP:
Cox is a wealthy man - lots of outside work etc., including:
From 28 September 2020 until further notice, Consultant Global Counsel (international legal services) to Withers LLP, 20 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7AN. I will receive £468,000 plus VAT annually, to be paid quarterly, in return for an expected commitment of up to 48 hours a month. (Registered 19 October 2020)
There's lots of interesting stuff in there, and certain patterns emerge; I'll leave readers who are interested to discern them.
Regular updates to the register are available here:
Actually, this is something of an issue. Partly due to the nature of their jobs, it's very common for MPs to end up owning more than one house. I make no moral judgement of that in itself. We need landlords. But landlords are the only big winners from rising house prices, and the big losers from falling house prices. It's unsurprising that house prices are a problem given this quirk in our representatives.
Ditto property taxes, which are low in the UK (especially for expensive properties).
Ditto second homes (second home owners -- or double first-home owners as I believe it is called on pb.com -- are absurdly cosseted).
I think we have learnt that even hard-left Corbynistas (like Williamson and McDonnell) rent out properties.
Just be done with it and pay MPs a lot more. To most people 80K is a large salary. However if you want the best people to aspire to be MPs then it needs to be more. If I were to become a MP then I would be looking around for what else I could do to earn extra income. The challenge with MPs is that there are so many more opportunities for conflicts of interest.
I don't much like Lord Foulkes (Labour). Baron Foulkes of Cumnock, as he now calls himself. He always seemed the embodiment of self-serving SLAB.
But he had a moment of glory for me, when at the height of the First Expenses Scandal, he turned the tables on Carrie Gracie. We learnt a pretty average BBC presenter earned considerably more than an MP
I would be pretty confident that (i) most people on pb.com earn more than an MP, especially those currently rabbiting on about second jobs, and (ii) most people in the media earn more than an MP.
The problem can only be fixed by paying MPs more .... which no-one wants to do,
It looks as though we are in for a prolonged bout of British hypocrisy.
I don't, and I don't see strong grounds for thinking the average pber does. The mean income might be pulled upwards by the rich returns in the lapidary sex toy and californian insurance markets. And what was great about Foulkes's point? Meejah people get paid lots of dosh. It's like complaining that football players get paid more than the nurses in Our NHS.
Fucking hell, soon his fourth explanation will be that his dog ate his phone.
The former health minister Lord Bethell admitted deleting texts and WhatsApp messages related to coronavirus testing contracts because he mistakenly thought there would be back-ups, disclosures show.
Bethell, who had been appointed in March last year, was sacked in September’s reshuffle amid an investigation by the information commissioner into the use of private email by health ministers.
Official guidance says ministers should use government systems, and if they use private channels, should ensure a record of these is provided to their department.
Details of his personal phone use have emerged as part of a High Court challenge related to the award of £90 million coronavirus testing contracts made by the Good Law Project.
In a witness statement signed by Bethell as part of the proceedings, he explained that three previous explanations he had given as to why messages could be produced to the court had been mistaken.
He had apparently claimed that he could not produce them because the handset had been “lost”, according to letters from the government’s legal department. A few days later, Bethell said instead that his phone was “broken” or “defective”.
Finally, in a meeting with lawyers, he said that was wrong, and he had given the phone to a member of his family.
His final signed witness statement now says he realises he bought a new phone in November 2019, and the previous explanations given related to a previous phone given to a member of his family.
His statement says his phone had become “overloaded with data” so he often cleared messages to free up storage space.
Sixth excuse, you mean. Lord Bethell is already up to five.
1. Phone lost 2. Phone broken 3. Phone given away 4. Messages deleted to free up space 5. (from the url) he thought they were backed up but they weren't
Just be done with it and pay MPs a lot more. To most people 80K is a large salary. However if you want the best people to aspire to be MPs then it needs to be more. If I were to become a MP then I would be looking around for what else I could do to earn extra income. The challenge with MPs is that there are so many more opportunities for conflicts of interest.
I want MPs who are driven to public service, who are looking to improve the country. Paying them more money doesn't get us that.
Regardless of what MPs do get paid, we should be banning these consulting second jobs. That's an attraction for the corrupt who realize they can use their position as MP to make lots of extra cash on the side. That works against all our interests.
I think there is clearly a line between lobbying for a company (i.e. work that you only got because you are an MP and which isn't in public interest) and someone working in a hospital (i.e. work that you got because you're a qualified doctor/nurse etc.).
For me the contracts stuff is a far bigger deal than the second jobs stuff. I wonder whether the government and Tory media are deliberately pushing the agenda onto less explosive territory.
I am fairly forgiving about the PPE contracts as long as (a) goods were actually delivered and (b) were to spec. If yes to both then a bit of fast and loose in an emergency, when your old friend across the water was impounding your goods, stopping your original supplies.
If no, then we want our money back.
This is the problem. I also can forgive rushed tenders when made to a genuine company.
The problem is when they have been awarded not to the genuine suppliers but to to a company just set up by a Tory / a Tory donor or the friend of a Tory. Who has no track record or experience at all in the sector. Secretly. Via the VIP lane which they insisted didn't exist. To deliver a shit ton of faulty PPE which we pay for anyway, or better still NOT supplying which we pay for anyway. Or how about duff PPE sourced by the transport company who then earns a further £1m a DAY to store the crap the procured at inflated prices on their no competition no experience tender?
Vast sums - billions and billions and billions - have been paid to Tories for crap. Any other contracts would have been voided. Monies not paid or recouped. Here we have them given under the table contract and paid for nothing.
You don't have to be a Tory to question this. Surely.
I think Cox's 140 hours might cut through a smidge.
As Raab says it is of course up to the voters to decide whether that's outrageous or not but for general perception of the Cons an MP with a 140hr/month other job might be quite striking.
Clearly the voters of Torridge and West Devon don't mind too much...
2005: 42.7% (gained from the Lib Dems) 2019: 60.1%
So he's outperformed the national performance by the Tories:
2005: 32.4% 2019: 43.6%
And who TF previously knew how many hours he spent away from his MPs job. No one. Now they do. And as I said more broadly, it feeds into the overall Cons sleaze/one law for us narrative.
But yes, if the good burghers of wherever he is don't mind then all is good for Geoff.
Just be done with it and pay MPs a lot more. To most people 80K is a large salary. However if you want the best people to aspire to be MPs then it needs to be more. If I were to become a MP then I would be looking around for what else I could do to earn extra income. The challenge with MPs is that there are so many more opportunities for conflicts of interest.
I would be pretty confident that (i) most people on pb.com earn more than an MP, especially those currently rabbiting on about second jobs, and (ii) most people in the media earn more than an MP.
MPs will be furious that Johnson's chaos over the last week now means ALL paid work is up for investigation by the newspapers.
There will be a few dozen of them earning a lot of money on the side.
And across parties
Not that many - only 1 of the top 20 is Labour. That's partly because companies pay more for access to Government MPs, perhaps.
A cursory skim through the Register that I posted earlier reveals that, not surprisingly, it is largely Tory MPs who have the most lucrative employment in their spare time. Obviously because they're more employable and valuable than Labour MPs. Can't be any other explanation.
Guardian have done a bit of digging. IMO this is going to really piss off Tory MPs.
For me the contracts stuff is a far bigger deal than the second jobs stuff. I wonder whether the government and Tory media are deliberately pushing the agenda onto less explosive territory.
I am fairly forgiving about the PPE contracts as long as (a) goods were actually delivered and (b) were to spec. If yes to both then a bit of fast and loose in an emergency, when your old friend across the water was impounding your goods, stopping your original supplies.
If no, then we want our money back.
Indefensible. I mean, yes if corrupt payments were made overseas to get goods to here which would otherwise go elsewhere, but that's not the point. Not people in this country helping themselves to bungs of money which should have been spent on ppe
MPs have to declare all their outside interests, and do so, on the Register of Members' Financial Interests. Guido's, and others', investigative journalism can be done by all of us. One can make one's own judgement on whether the outside earnings are legitimate.
The most recent full list is here; 293 pages, but it's easy to search and find your favourite MP:
Cox is a wealthy man - lots of outside work etc., including:
From 28 September 2020 until further notice, Consultant Global Counsel (international legal services) to Withers LLP, 20 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7AN. I will receive £468,000 plus VAT annually, to be paid quarterly, in return for an expected commitment of up to 48 hours a month. (Registered 19 October 2020)
There's lots of interesting stuff in there, and certain patterns emerge; I'll leave readers who are interested to discern them.
Regular updates to the register are available here:
Actually, this is something of an issue. Partly due to the nature of their jobs, it's very common for MPs to end up owning more than one house. I make no moral judgement of that in itself. We need landlords. But landlords are the only big winners from rising house prices, and the big losers from falling house prices. It's unsurprising that house prices are a problem given this quirk in our representatives.
Ditto property taxes, which are low in the UK (especially for expensive properties).
Ditto second homes (second home owners -- or double first-home owners as I believe it is called on pb.com -- are absurdly cosseted).
I think we have learnt that even hard-left Corbynistas (like Williamson and McDonnell) rent out properties.
Hating multi house owning people is the politics of envy.
Anyhoo the third and fourth homes I own I plan to give away to young people for free in just over a decade, they are an altruistic purchase.
Just be done with it and pay MPs a lot more. To most people 80K is a large salary. However if you want the best people to aspire to be MPs then it needs to be more. If I were to become a MP then I would be looking around for what else I could do to earn extra income. The challenge with MPs is that there are so many more opportunities for conflicts of interest.
I don't much like Lord Foulkes (Labour). Baron Foulkes of Cumnock, as he now calls himself. He always seemed the embodiment of self-serving SLAB.
But he had a moment of glory for me, when at the height of the First Expenses Scandal, he turned the tables on Carrie Gracie. We learnt a pretty average BBC presenter earned considerably more than an MP
I would be pretty confident that (i) most people on pb.com earn more than an MP, especially those currently rabbiting on about second jobs, and (ii) most people in the media earn more than an MP.
The problem can only be fixed by paying MPs more .... which no-one wants to do,
It looks as though we are in for a prolonged bout of British hypocrisy.
I'll be clear - I probably do earn more than an MP (when I put my mind to it).
And I have zero problems with MPs earning money from second jobs, the issue comes when that money is coming because
i) they are an MP ii) they are abusing the contacts they have because they are an MP..
I think what you say is uncontroversial.
The problem is writing a piece of legislation that actually defines (ii).
Is the consultancy that Ed Davey is doing because he is an MP?
Probably, yes. But, it is hard to show it. Ditto most consultancy.
Much is written on here and elsewhere about 'levelling up'. There is a great deal of cynicism and doubt that it means anything.
Here in Cambridgeshire, it increasingly looks as though the March to Wisbech railway line will reopen - perhaps by 2028. Whilst that is after the next election, initial ?exploratory? works are already underway.
Before anyone says 'Wisbech isn't the north!'; it is a relatively poor town (it has a significant issue with child poverty), with poor transport links - the single-carriageway A47 bring the main link. If the A47 dualling is funded as well, then these transport links will be transformative for the town and its area.
This will get noticed.
Was there recently several Polish shops and looked pretty run down but some lovely old buildings there. We didn't stay long.
There are some superb Georgian buildings, especially along the waterfront. But much of it is rather rundown. There is, in particular, a children's playground on a scrap of grass, very unkempt, with (from memory) just one set of swings beside some pallisade fencing.
Wisbech could be a gem. But it is very much in the middle of the sticks, with poor connectivity.
Although personally, I think they should rebuild the Wisbech and Upwell Tramway. Bring back Tpby!
The future for places like Wisbech is as commuter dormitories for the local “metro”, which would be Cambridge in this case.
I see there is an occasionally 30 minute connection by train…
They point is to rebuild the rail link for passengers - the freight line has been unused for years. But yes, it looks as though the main connection will be with Cambridge.
AIUI it's actually a major job, as there are level crossings that need replacing by bridges.
A combination of Treasury “orthodoxy”, gross centralisation, and a soviet-style planning regime acts as a massive sandbag on U.K. productivity.
It should be possible to get into Cambridge within 30 odd minutes from Wisbech, Peterborough, Bedford, Bury and even Luton.
Cambridge is one of the innovation hubs of Europe, with house prices to match, surrounded by vast acres of deprivation.
Bury to Cambridge in 30 minutes would be impressive. The tram from Bury to Manchester Piccadilly is 35 minutes.
Bury St Edmunds, I guess.
And whilst the immediate necklace round Cambridge is incredibly comfortable, it gets surprisingly grim once you get north of Ely. It is all about the transport links.
The A10 is about the grimmest road I can think of as it heads towards Norfolk. Unendingly flat, grey, bleak.
The A17 - the "Road of Bones". You turn off the A1 at Newark for endless flat nothing all the way to Narwch. Eugh. The sad bit is there are some pretty towns and villages en route - its just the setting and location that grinds...
The A1111 - like the A1 but four times as good according to John Shuttleworth.
We were on the A1101 a lot iirc or was it 1011?
I rather like the A17, if you're not in a hurry. Fenland flatness is oddly compelling. I once had a sandwich sat atop a drainage dyke next to the A17 between Holbeach and King's Lynn: elevation can't have been more than 10 feet but the view was as big as from the top of some hills. And average speeds aren't THAT slow. The problem is not lack of speed per se, it's the frustration of being forced to go at that speed because of the lorry four vehicles in front of you.
Depends what you are doing. There arecl warnings all.over the place about risk of driving into the ditches. A steady 45 seemed fine to.me.
I remember telling my Dad many moons ago aged about 20 that i had been to Brighton and got there two mins faster then I had ever done before. Very pleased with myself.. he responded. ...And what did you do with thise two.minutes... ??? Something I have not dorhotten to this day nearly 50 yrs later.
Just be done with it and pay MPs a lot more. To most people 80K is a large salary. However if you want the best people to aspire to be MPs then it needs to be more. If I were to become a MP then I would be looking around for what else I could do to earn extra income. The challenge with MPs is that there are so many more opportunities for conflicts of interest.
I don't much like Lord Foulkes (Labour). Baron Foulkes of Cumnock, as he now calls himself. He always seemed the embodiment of self-serving SLAB.
But he had a moment of glory for me, when at the height of the First Expenses Scandal, he turned the tables on Carrie Gracie. We learnt a pretty average BBC presenter earned considerably more than an MP
I would be pretty confident that (i) most people on pb.com earn more than an MP, especially those currently rabbiting on about second jobs, and (ii) most people in the media earn more than an MP.
The problem can only be fixed by paying MPs more .... which no-one wants to do,
It looks as though we are in for a prolonged bout of British hypocrisy.
I'll be clear - I probably do earn more than an MP (when I put my mind to it).
And I have zero problems with MPs earning money from second jobs, the issue comes when that money is coming because
i) they are an MP ii) they are abusing the contacts they have because they are an MP..
I think what you say is uncontroversial.
The problem is writing a piece of legislation that actually defines (ii).
Is the consultancy that Ed Davey is doing because he is an MP?
Probably, yes. But, it is hard to show it. Ditto most consultancy.
However it's dressed up, most of these consultancies are effectively cash for access
Just be done with it and pay MPs a lot more. To most people 80K is a large salary. However if you want the best people to aspire to be MPs then it needs to be more. If I were to become a MP then I would be looking around for what else I could do to earn extra income. The challenge with MPs is that there are so many more opportunities for conflicts of interest.
I don't much like Lord Foulkes (Labour). Baron Foulkes of Cumnock, as he now calls himself. He always seemed the embodiment of self-serving SLAB.
But he had a moment of glory for me, when at the height of the First Expenses Scandal, he turned the tables on Carrie Gracie. We learnt a pretty average BBC presenter earned considerably more than an MP
I would be pretty confident that (i) most people on pb.com earn more than an MP, especially those currently rabbiting on about second jobs, and (ii) most people in the media earn more than an MP.
The problem can only be fixed by paying MPs more .... which no-one wants to do,
It looks as though we are in for a prolonged bout of British hypocrisy.
I don't, and I don't see strong grounds for thinking the average pber does.
Fucking hell, soon his fourth explanation will be that his dog ate his phone.
The former health minister Lord Bethell admitted deleting texts and WhatsApp messages related to coronavirus testing contracts because he mistakenly thought there would be back-ups, disclosures show.
Bethell, who had been appointed in March last year, was sacked in September’s reshuffle amid an investigation by the information commissioner into the use of private email by health ministers.
Official guidance says ministers should use government systems, and if they use private channels, should ensure a record of these is provided to their department.
Details of his personal phone use have emerged as part of a High Court challenge related to the award of £90 million coronavirus testing contracts made by the Good Law Project.
In a witness statement signed by Bethell as part of the proceedings, he explained that three previous explanations he had given as to why messages could be produced to the court had been mistaken.
He had apparently claimed that he could not produce them because the handset had been “lost”, according to letters from the government’s legal department. A few days later, Bethell said instead that his phone was “broken” or “defective”.
Finally, in a meeting with lawyers, he said that was wrong, and he had given the phone to a member of his family.
His final signed witness statement now says he realises he bought a new phone in November 2019, and the previous explanations given related to a previous phone given to a member of his family.
His statement says his phone had become “overloaded with data” so he often cleared messages to free up storage space.
Sixth excuse, you mean. Lord Bethell is already up to five.
1. Phone lost 2. Phone broken 3. Phone given away 4. Messages deleted to free up space 5. (from the url) he thought they were backed up but they weren't
Nothing to hide, I'm sure.
But it goes to show the levels of deprivation these people have to live with. Most people would bin a phone with a cracked screen and "defective battery," not give it to a family member
We are conflating two ENTIRELY different issues here. One, the less interesting one, is do MPs have the time to do two jobs, like Cox is doing. The other is corruption on a French president, failed African state, Russian oligarch kinda level. Randox got paid £347m for the extension of an existing contract, 500m in total. I would bet that 7 figure backhanders were involved.
And as for that 37bn for test n trace...
Did Randox provide value for money for that £347m ?
If so what's the problem.
Though one thing I would look into is whether individuals / businesses were operating as needless middle men and creaming off 10% (or more) for so doing.
MPs will be furious that Johnson's chaos over the last week now means ALL paid work is up for investigation by the newspapers.
There will be a few dozen of them earning a lot of money on the side.
And across parties
Not that many - only 1 of the top 20 is Labour. That's partly because companies pay more for access to Government MPs, perhaps.
I wonder to what extent the workload of the MPs makes a difference? I'd imagine that some Tory MPs have a fairly quiet life whereas I can imagine most Labour MPs have to deal with a lot of stuff in their constituencies.
Being an MP is one of those jobs which can expand to fill every available moment and then some, but where you can do very little if you're not so interested.
There will always be more government business to scrutinise, or causes to support at the behest of your constituents. There will be local politics to be involved with, if you wish, and campaigning to be done. There will be the issues that drove you to involve yourself in politics in the first place.
You could argue that MPs should be forced to find some ordinary work to do, unconnected to politics, to give them a break from it.
Just be done with it and pay MPs a lot more. To most people 80K is a large salary. However if you want the best people to aspire to be MPs then it needs to be more. If I were to become a MP then I would be looking around for what else I could do to earn extra income. The challenge with MPs is that there are so many more opportunities for conflicts of interest.
I want MPs who are driven to public service, who are looking to improve the country. Paying them more money doesn't get us that.
Regardless of what MPs do get paid, we should be banning these consulting second jobs. That's an attraction for the corrupt who realize they can use their position as MP to make lots of extra cash on the side. That works against all our interests.
I think there is clearly a line between lobbying for a company (i.e. work that you only got because you are an MP and which isn't in public interest) and someone working in a hospital (i.e. work that you got because you're a qualified doctor/nurse etc.).
Honour and duty doesn't pay a mortgage. Double their wages, have qualifying criteria including having worked outside of politics for a minimum period of 5 years and a lower age bound of 25. Ban all outside income. What we have now are career politicians who have done little to no work outside of the political world (Dave and George come to mind) before entering politics and making decisions whose consequences few of them will ever really experience first hand or have experienced in their previous career.
For about 10 minutes I considered it and then I realised just how big of a pay cut it would be and how limited my impact would be unless I climbed the greasy pole and by the time I got anywhere near the top what I set out to achieve as an elected representative is so far off in the distance and I've had daily triple helpings of shit bowls from the whip's office that I've become the very person I despise in politics. Or you can become an MP that chats to local people and in all honesty, I don't care about the minutiae of people's problems and lives enough to do that all day. I'm grateful that people who can do it exist but I freely admit I'm not one of them. So ended my potential as future MP and eventual PM.
Re MPs second jobs has anyone suggested limiting outside earnings to a proportion of their MP's pay ?
Good idea. They can also volunteer to do the extra if they feel it is something necessary
I think for some professions - medicine, law, finance, engineering - you have to do some work each year or risk losing your professional status.
So I have some sympathy for those involved if they are doing genuine work.
It also allows them first hand knowledge on how their professions are being affected by current issues thus allowing feedback to government decision making.
We are conflating two ENTIRELY different issues here. One, the less interesting one, is do MPs have the time to do two jobs, like Cox is doing. The other is corruption on a French president, failed African state, Russian oligarch kinda level. Randox got paid £347m for the extension of an existing contract, 500m in total. I would bet that 7 figure backhanders were involved.
And as for that 37bn for test n trace...
Did Randox provide value for money for that £347m ?
If so what's the problem.
Though one thing I would look into is whether individuals / businesses were operating as needless middle men and creaming off 10% (or more) for so doing.
If the middle men is providing a necessary service then is 10% not appropriate for their service?
If nobody (or not enough) was coming forwards direct at 10% cheaper then is it not appropriate to pay a middle man to do the work to ensure the necessary goods arrived?
We are conflating two ENTIRELY different issues here. One, the less interesting one, is do MPs have the time to do two jobs, like Cox is doing. The other is corruption on a French president, failed African state, Russian oligarch kinda level. Randox got paid £347m for the extension of an existing contract, 500m in total. I would bet that 7 figure backhanders were involved.
And as for that 37bn for test n trace...
Did Randox provide value for money for that £347m ?
If so what's the problem.
Though one thing I would look into is whether individuals / businesses were operating as needless middle men and creaming off 10% (or more) for so doing.
No they didn't - plenty of coverage of faulty tests and testing. Thats just Randox. There have been plenty of reports of dodgy company set up weeks before by person with zero knowledge of sector. Awarded £107m contract without competition by their mates. Fails to deliver. Gets paid anyway. Or the Uniserve contract where they get paid for crap PPE and then paid to store it.
We can forgive rushed procurement in a crisis. But that was then. Now we investigate just how we bypassed expert companies to award without tender to Tories and friends of Tories. Reclaim monies paid for crap or for non-delivery. And prosecute the open fraud where it is found.
MPs will be furious that Johnson's chaos over the last week now means ALL paid work is up for investigation by the newspapers.
There will be a few dozen of them earning a lot of money on the side.
And across parties
Not that many - only 1 of the top 20 is Labour. That's partly because companies pay more for access to Government MPs, perhaps.
I wonder to what extent the workload of the MPs makes a difference? I'd imagine that some Tory MPs have a fairly quiet life whereas I can imagine most Labour MPs have to deal with a lot of stuff in their constituencies.
Being an MP is one of those jobs which can expand to fill every available moment and then some, but where you can do very little if you're not so interested.
There will always be more government business to scrutinise, or causes to support at the behest of your constituents. There will be local politics to be involved with, if you wish, and campaigning to be done. There will be the issues that drove you to involve yourself in politics in the first place.
You could argue that MPs should be forced to find some ordinary work to do, unconnected to politics, to give them a break from it.
Yeah, I find it hard to get worked up about MPs doing other work.
Just be done with it and pay MPs a lot more. To most people 80K is a large salary. However if you want the best people to aspire to be MPs then it needs to be more. If I were to become a MP then I would be looking around for what else I could do to earn extra income. The challenge with MPs is that there are so many more opportunities for conflicts of interest.
I don't much like Lord Foulkes (Labour). Baron Foulkes of Cumnock, as he now calls himself. He always seemed the embodiment of self-serving SLAB.
But he had a moment of glory for me, when at the height of the First Expenses Scandal, he turned the tables on Carrie Gracie. We learnt a pretty average BBC presenter earned considerably more than an MP
I would be pretty confident that (i) most people on pb.com earn more than an MP, especially those currently rabbiting on about second jobs, and (ii) most people in the media earn more than an MP.
The problem can only be fixed by paying MPs more .... which no-one wants to do,
It looks as though we are in for a prolonged bout of British hypocrisy.
I don't, and I don't see strong grounds for thinking the average pber does.
Why I am not surprised that you don't? 😀
Because you have gathered from my postings that I am devoted to the high-minded but austere study of the Glory that was Greece. My last paid employment as a visiting fellow at von Humboldt pulled down somewhere vsouth of 30,000 euros
And because inheritances are accounted for separately
Just be done with it and pay MPs a lot more. To most people 80K is a large salary. However if you want the best people to aspire to be MPs then it needs to be more. If I were to become a MP then I would be looking around for what else I could do to earn extra income. The challenge with MPs is that there are so many more opportunities for conflicts of interest.
I want MPs who are driven to public service, who are looking to improve the country. Paying them more money doesn't get us that.
Regardless of what MPs do get paid, we should be banning these consulting second jobs. That's an attraction for the corrupt who realize they can use their position as MP to make lots of extra cash on the side. That works against all our interests.
I think there is clearly a line between lobbying for a company (i.e. work that you only got because you are an MP and which isn't in public interest) and someone working in a hospital (i.e. work that you got because you're a qualified doctor/nurse etc.).
Honour and duty doesn't pay a mortgage. Double their wages, have qualifying criteria including having worked outside of politics for a minimum period of 5 years and a lower age bound of 25. Ban all outside income. What we have now are career politicians who have done little to no work outside of the political world (Dave and George come to mind) before entering politics and making decisions whose consequences few of them will ever really experience first hand or have experienced in their previous career.
For about 10 minutes I considered it and then I realised just how big of a pay cut it would be and how limited my impact would be unless I climbed the greasy pole and by the time I got anywhere near the top what I set out to achieve as an elected representative is so far off in the distance and I've had daily triple helpings of shit bowls from the whip's office that I've become the very person I despise in politics. Or you can become an MP that chats to local people and in all honesty, I don't care about the minutiae of people's problems and lives enough to do that all day. I'm grateful that people who can do it exist but I freely admit I'm not one of them. So ended my potential as future MP and eventual PM.
Good post.
Boris of course would meet the 'work outside of politics for a minimum period of 5 years' qualification but I still think it's a good one.
We are conflating two ENTIRELY different issues here. One, the less interesting one, is do MPs have the time to do two jobs, like Cox is doing. The other is corruption on a French president, failed African state, Russian oligarch kinda level. Randox got paid £347m for the extension of an existing contract, 500m in total. I would bet that 7 figure backhanders were involved.
And as for that 37bn for test n trace...
On the two jobs thing, well we actively encourage many MPs to have two jobs with cabinet (and other ministerial) positions. If someone can be a cabinet minister and be a good constituency MP then there's no reason why someone can't be a backbencher and hold down another part time job.
(Personally, I don't think both can be done well, but I don't see an easy solution for separating e.g. cabinet ministers from constituency MPs, given they - ministers - can be hired and fired at will)
Just be done with it and pay MPs a lot more. To most people 80K is a large salary. However if you want the best people to aspire to be MPs then it needs to be more. If I were to become a MP then I would be looking around for what else I could do to earn extra income. The challenge with MPs is that there are so many more opportunities for conflicts of interest.
If people are *that* motivated by money, then almost by definition they are unlikely to be those we want as MPs.
82k + 30k+ for a place in London plus all the others is more than enough.
We are conflating two ENTIRELY different issues here. One, the less interesting one, is do MPs have the time to do two jobs, like Cox is doing. The other is corruption on a French president, failed African state, Russian oligarch kinda level. Randox got paid £347m for the extension of an existing contract, 500m in total. I would bet that 7 figure backhanders were involved.
And as for that 37bn for test n trace...
Did Randox provide value for money for that £347m ?
If so what's the problem.
Though one thing I would look into is whether individuals / businesses were operating as needless middle men and creaming off 10% (or more) for so doing.
If the middle men is providing a necessary service then is 10% not appropriate for their service?
If nobody (or not enough) was coming forwards direct at 10% cheaper then is it not appropriate to pay a middle man to do the work to ensure the necessary goods arrived?
Yes, but if the middle man is a proxy for an inside man inside the purchasing organisation that's corruption.
It doesn't matter who presents Good Morning Britain, they can be trusted to put politicians under the spotlight. Q: Why didn't the PM wear a mask in hospital yesterday? Raab: "he didn't wear a mask when he was required to"
Indeed. Why not? Why did he decide to take his mask off for the cameras to stand there illegally breathing over those nurses? What is the rationale for such stupidity?
Just be done with it and pay MPs a lot more. To most people 80K is a large salary. However if you want the best people to aspire to be MPs then it needs to be more. If I were to become a MP then I would be looking around for what else I could do to earn extra income. The challenge with MPs is that there are so many more opportunities for conflicts of interest.
I don't much like Lord Foulkes (Labour). Baron Foulkes of Cumnock, as he now calls himself. He always seemed the embodiment of self-serving SLAB.
But he had a moment of glory for me, when at the height of the First Expenses Scandal, he turned the tables on Carrie Gracie. We learnt a pretty average BBC presenter earned considerably more than an MP
I would be pretty confident that (i) most people on pb.com earn more than an MP, especially those currently rabbiting on about second jobs, and (ii) most people in the media earn more than an MP.
The problem can only be fixed by paying MPs more .... which no-one wants to do,
It looks as though we are in for a prolonged bout of British hypocrisy.
I'll be clear - I probably do earn more than an MP (when I put my mind to it).
And I have zero problems with MPs earning money from second jobs, the issue comes when that money is coming because
i) they are an MP ii) they are abusing the contacts they have because they are an MP..
I think what you say is uncontroversial.
The problem is writing a piece of legislation that actually defines (ii).
Is the consultancy that Ed Davey is doing because he is an MP?
Probably, yes. But, it is hard to show it. Ditto most consultancy.
Ed Davey's is mainly highish level environmental consultancy for a solar power company.
Obvs related to experience when he was a Minister here, and relevant experience / perceived authority therefrom.
MPs will be furious that Johnson's chaos over the last week now means ALL paid work is up for investigation by the newspapers.
There will be a few dozen of them earning a lot of money on the side.
And across parties
Not that many - only 1 of the top 20 is Labour. That's partly because companies pay more for access to Government MPs, perhaps.
I wonder to what extent the workload of the MPs makes a difference? I'd imagine that some Tory MPs have a fairly quiet life whereas I can imagine most Labour MPs have to deal with a lot of stuff in their constituencies.
Being an MP is one of those jobs which can expand to fill every available moment and then some, but where you can do very little if you're not so interested.
There will always be more government business to scrutinise, or causes to support at the behest of your constituents. There will be local politics to be involved with, if you wish, and campaigning to be done. There will be the issues that drove you to involve yourself in politics in the first place.
You could argue that MPs should be forced to find some ordinary work to do, unconnected to politics, to give them a break from it.
Yeah, I find it hard to get worked up about MPs doing other work.
Really? I find it very easy. They are elected and paid to be our representatives. If we dn't need 650 MPs fully dedicated to their role let's have fewer MPs and pay them more if necessary.
It doesn't matter who presents Good Morning Britain, they can be trusted to put politicians under the spotlight. Q: Why didn't the PM wear a mask in hospital yesterday? Raab: "he didn't wear a mask when he was required to"
Indeed. Why not? Why did he decide to take his mask off for the cameras to stand there illegally breathing over those nurses? What is the rationale for such stupidity?
It doesn't matter who presents Good Morning Britain, they can be trusted to put politicians under the spotlight. Q: Why didn't the PM wear a mask in hospital yesterday? Raab: "he didn't wear a mask when he was required to"
Indeed. Why not? Why did he decide to take his mask off for the cameras to stand there illegally breathing over those nurses? What is the rationale for such stupidity?
👇 This echoes the point I was making last night. The government says it’s backtracked over its sleaze overhaul. Actually it’s created a mess that won’t be fixed for weeks / months - leaving a stain on the existing system raising qs about whether future verdicts will be accepted https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1458017548428001282
It doesn't matter who presents Good Morning Britain, they can be trusted to put politicians under the spotlight. Q: Why didn't the PM wear a mask in hospital yesterday? Raab: "he didn't wear a mask when he was required to"
Indeed. Why not? Why did he decide to take his mask off for the cameras to stand there illegally breathing over those nurses? What is the rationale for such stupidity?
Re MPs second jobs has anyone suggested limiting outside earnings to a proportion of their MP's pay ?
Good idea. They can also volunteer to do the extra if they feel it is something necessary
I think for some professions - medicine, law, finance, engineering - you have to do some work each year or risk losing your professional status.
So I have some sympathy for those involved if they are doing genuine work.
It also allows them first hand knowledge on how their professions are being affected by current issues thus allowing feedback to government decision making.
Agree. I think that is probably the case with my MP. The register of interest shows him drawing £500 a month from his dental practice for approx 300 hours a year.
MPs have to declare all their outside interests, and do so, on the Register of Members' Financial Interests. Guido's, and others', investigative journalism can be done by all of us. One can make one's own judgement on whether the outside earnings are legitimate.
The most recent full list is here; 293 pages, but it's easy to search and find your favourite MP:
Cox is a wealthy man - lots of outside work etc., including:
From 28 September 2020 until further notice, Consultant Global Counsel (international legal services) to Withers LLP, 20 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7AN. I will receive £468,000 plus VAT annually, to be paid quarterly, in return for an expected commitment of up to 48 hours a month. (Registered 19 October 2020)
There's lots of interesting stuff in there, and certain patterns emerge; I'll leave readers who are interested to discern them.
Regular updates to the register are available here:
Actually, this is something of an issue. Partly due to the nature of their jobs, it's very common for MPs to end up owning more than one house. I make no moral judgement of that in itself. We need landlords. But landlords are the only big winners from rising house prices, and the big losers from falling house prices. It's unsurprising that house prices are a problem given this quirk in our representatives.
Are they?
I have had several people move into my road who have made money from tax free house inflation down South somewhere and pivoted to mortgage free here on the increase.
LLs who sell a house pay CGT on the gain (plus 3% extra Stamp Duty when they bought it), or Corporaton Tax if incorporated. Plus an extra 1-1.5% currently on any mortgage, but that's not so pertinent on this particular question.
Boris didn't just spend £12-15bn on a Stamp Duty holiday to help LLs.
It's very simple. At the moment, MPs are perfectly entitled to do outside work (as long as they declare it). That has been the case since time immemorial, under every flavour of government.
Therefore, it is disgraceful gutter journalism to try to make an issue about the fact that many MPs, such as Ed Davey, do outside work.
If we don't want MPs to do outside work, then fine, argue for that. But if you are arguing for that, the figures earned by people like Geoffrey Cox are totally irrelevant to the argument. QCs are paid a hell of a lot. How much they 'trouser' (a word which invariably is a sure sign of partisan muck-raking) has zero to do with the argument about MPs' outside interests.
Having said that, there is a certain lurid fascination in watching just how disastrous a PM Boris is. You have to hand it to him, he really has excelled himself with this entirely self-imposed clusterfuck.
Senators in the USA are very well paid indeed. I presume they receive no cash from lobbying groups ?
But the whole point of paying them more is that there is no more stupid lobbying our outside interests. The US is an example of how to never, ever approach politics, local, state or national.
MPs will be furious that Johnson's chaos over the last week now means ALL paid work is up for investigation by the newspapers.
There will be a few dozen of them earning a lot of money on the side.
And across parties
Not that many - only 1 of the top 20 is Labour. That's partly because companies pay more for access to Government MPs, perhaps.
I wonder to what extent the workload of the MPs makes a difference? I'd imagine that some Tory MPs have a fairly quiet life whereas I can imagine most Labour MPs have to deal with a lot of stuff in their constituencies.
Being an MP is one of those jobs which can expand to fill every available moment and then some, but where you can do very little if you're not so interested.
There will always be more government business to scrutinise, or causes to support at the behest of your constituents. There will be local politics to be involved with, if you wish, and campaigning to be done. There will be the issues that drove you to involve yourself in politics in the first place.
You could argue that MPs should be forced to find some ordinary work to do, unconnected to politics, to give them a break from it.
Yeah, I find it hard to get worked up about MPs doing other work.
Really? I find it very easy. They are elected and paid to be our representatives. If we dn't need 650 MPs fully dedicated to their role let's have fewer MPs and pay them more if necessary.
But what would that look like? LostPassword is right, there is an unending list of things and MP could do. How much time should they spend dealing with constituency work? How much time should they spend in the Commons Chamber?
Far better to leave them to it. If the Lib Dems or whoever want to point out to the good people of Torridge and West Devon that their MP is doing a lot of other work, then let them and let the people decide.
Including income from investments and other assets, I think so.
It's hard to compare. Retired, I have less than half the gross income I had when working but am still surprisingly better off because: no mortgage, no pension contributions, no commute costs, no (financial) family commitments, no NI, free this, free that...
Senators in the USA are very well paid indeed. I presume they receive no cash from lobbying groups ?
The USA has a different problem - a virtual free-for-all on lobbying, donations and campaign finance, enforced by the Republicans most of all, over many years, and under the smokescreen of "freedom". Coincidentally, a group of those campaigners for "freedom", were also associated with the Trump campaign.
Human nature being what it is, you unfortunately need both positive incentives - a more substantial salary - and deterrents - proper scrutiny of the many potentially damaging areas between lawmakers, elections, corporations and lobbyists.
We are conflating two ENTIRELY different issues here. One, the less interesting one, is do MPs have the time to do two jobs, like Cox is doing. The other is corruption on a French president, failed African state, Russian oligarch kinda level. Randox got paid £347m for the extension of an existing contract, 500m in total. I would bet that 7 figure backhanders were involved.
And as for that 37bn for test n trace...
On the two jobs thing, well we actively encourage many MPs to have two jobs with cabinet (and other ministerial) positions. If someone can be a cabinet minister and be a good constituency MP then there's no reason why someone can't be a backbencher and hold down another part time job.
(Personally, I don't think both can be done well, but I don't see an easy solution for separating e.g. cabinet ministers from constituency MPs, given they - ministers - can be hired and fired at will)
@NickPalmer will know way more than me but an MP has 2 specific jobs
1) Handle constituency issues (problems, requests) 2) Parliamentary work
Constituency issues are largely handled by their offices but it some MPs will do more of this than others and the Parliamentary work isn't full time. After all MPs can wander away from the Commons they just need to be close enough to get back and vote in time.
So it's possible to see how you do more external work, you leave more of the constituency work within your constituency office.
MPs will be furious that Johnson's chaos over the last week now means ALL paid work is up for investigation by the newspapers.
There will be a few dozen of them earning a lot of money on the side.
And across parties
Not that many - only 1 of the top 20 is Labour. That's partly because companies pay more for access to Government MPs, perhaps.
I wonder to what extent the workload of the MPs makes a difference? I'd imagine that some Tory MPs have a fairly quiet life whereas I can imagine most Labour MPs have to deal with a lot of stuff in their constituencies.
Being an MP is one of those jobs which can expand to fill every available moment and then some, but where you can do very little if you're not so interested.
There will always be more government business to scrutinise, or causes to support at the behest of your constituents. There will be local politics to be involved with, if you wish, and campaigning to be done. There will be the issues that drove you to involve yourself in politics in the first place.
You could argue that MPs should be forced to find some ordinary work to do, unconnected to politics, to give them a break from it.
Yeah, I find it hard to get worked up about MPs doing other work.
Really? I find it very easy. They are elected and paid to be our representatives. If we dn't need 650 MPs fully dedicated to their role let's have fewer MPs and pay them more if necessary.
But what would that look like? LostPassword is right, there is an unending list of things and MP could do. How much time should they spend dealing with constituency work? How much time should they spend in the Commons Chamber?
Far better to leave them to it. If the Lib Dems or whoever want to point out to the good people of Torridge and West Devon that their MP is doing a lot of other work, then let them and let the people decide.
But look where that approach has got us! Probably the crappiest set of MPs since universal suffrage was introduced.
Offtopic: is there any evidence of a government wobble on the care homes vaccine mandate - due to be enforced on Thursday? The infamous Smarkets market on Covid restrictions has moved a bit to no again (partly by me, possibly, as someone took my lay of no for 5, but there have been other trades at even shorter odds since). I'm not trading any more at present (I'm in profit both ways, but ~9:1 in favour of yes) but if you believe the government on the care home mandate then there's an 11% return available on up to £117 stake in two days' time (DYOR - as noted, I'm not taking it as this market has been barmy wrt to 'clarifications' and I'm happy with my small profit both ways position).
I see the government is apparently going to announce a vaccine mandate for te NHS later today (effective in the spring) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59215282 which, if true, would be truly bizarre if they were going to backtrack on the care home mandate within a couple of days. Still, give recent u-turns, I guess anything is possible!
We are conflating two ENTIRELY different issues here. One, the less interesting one, is do MPs have the time to do two jobs, like Cox is doing. The other is corruption on a French president, failed African state, Russian oligarch kinda level. Randox got paid £347m for the extension of an existing contract, 500m in total. I would bet that 7 figure backhanders were involved.
And as for that 37bn for test n trace...
Did Randox provide value for money for that £347m ?
If so what's the problem.
Though one thing I would look into is whether individuals / businesses were operating as needless middle men and creaming off 10% (or more) for so doing.
If the middle men is providing a necessary service then is 10% not appropriate for their service?
If nobody (or not enough) was coming forwards direct at 10% cheaper then is it not appropriate to pay a middle man to do the work to ensure the necessary goods arrived?
Yes, but if the middle man is a proxy for an inside man inside the purchasing organisation that's corruption.
Completely agreed on that!
But a lot of businesses work as import/export "middle men" perfectly legitimately.
It's very simple. At the moment, MPs are perfectly entitled to do outside work (as long as they declare it). That has been the case since time immemorial, under every flavour of government.
Therefore, it is disgraceful gutter journalism to try to make an issue about the fact that many MPs, such as Ed Davey, do outside work.
If we don't want MPs to do outside work, then fine, argue for that. But if you are arguing for that, the figures earned by people like Geoffrey Cox are totally irrelevant to the argument. QCs are paid a hell of a lot. How much they 'trouser' (a word which invariably is a sure sign of partisan muck-raking) has zero to do with the argument about MPs' outside interests.
Having said that, there is a certain lurid fascination in watching just how disastrous a PM Boris is. You have to hand it to him, he really has excelled himself with this entirely self-imposed clusterfuck.
As @IshmaelZ and @IanB2 point out there's work and then there's 'work'...
We are conflating two ENTIRELY different issues here. One, the less interesting one, is do MPs have the time to do two jobs, like Cox is doing. The other is corruption on a French president, failed African state, Russian oligarch kinda level. Randox got paid £347m for the extension of an existing contract, 500m in total. I would bet that 7 figure backhanders were involved.
And as for that 37bn for test n trace...
On the two jobs thing, well we actively encourage many MPs to have two jobs with cabinet (and other ministerial) positions. If someone can be a cabinet minister and be a good constituency MP then there's no reason why someone can't be a backbencher and hold down another part time job.
(Personally, I don't think both can be done well, but I don't see an easy solution for separating e.g. cabinet ministers from constituency MPs, given they - ministers - can be hired and fired at will)
A lot of the constituency work can be handled by a good office, so that's a red herring.
What ministers are doing is executive work, but this is instead of the scrutinizing work that is done by backbench and opposition MPs. Generally speaking ministers are not doing the work of holding other ministers accountable to Parliament, they are asked questions by select committees, rather than asking the questions. Being a minister is having a different job rather than an additional one.
Labour Party chair Anneliese Dodds writes to Boris Johnson demanding he decides if MP Geoffrey Cox is a "Caribbean-based barrister or a Conservative MP"
It doesn't matter who presents Good Morning Britain, they can be trusted to put politicians under the spotlight. Q: Why didn't the PM wear a mask in hospital yesterday? Raab: "he didn't wear a mask when he was required to"
Indeed. Why not? Why did he decide to take his mask off for the cameras to stand there illegally breathing over those nurses? What is the rationale for such stupidity?
"Please wash your hands at the hospital entrance and wear a face covering when you enter the hospital until you leave. If you have not got a face covering a surgical mask will be supplied. There are also hand-sanitising points around the hospital – please feel free to use them.
You must ensure that you wear your covering or mask throughout your visit and you must not remove your face covering/mask or kiss your loved one."
"visitors and outpatients to hospital settings should wear a form of face covering"
Once again, the rules that apply to absolutely everyone do not apply to the PM. And when Raab says the PM followed the rules, he knows that he did not.
When you are under the cosh for not applying rules equally, what is he thinking in behaving like this? We have to go back to his former Eton masters who said that even as a boy he was sure the rules did not apply to him. The press are all at it over this mask issue so it is hardly helping him.
Offtopic: is there any evidence of a government wobble on the care homes vaccine mandate - due to be enforced on Thursday? The infamous Smarkets market on Covid restrictions has moved a bit to no again (partly by me, possibly, as someone took my lay of no for 5, but there have been other trades at even shorter odds since). I'm not trading any more at present (I'm in profit both ways, but ~9:1 in favour of yes) but if you believe the government on the care home mandate then there's an 11% return available on up to £117 stake in two days' time (DYOR - as noted, I'm not taking it as this market has been barmy wrt to 'clarifications' and I'm happy with my small profit both ways position).
I see the government is apparently going to announce a vaccine mandate for te NHS later today (effective in the spring) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59215282 which, if true, would be truly bizarre if they were going to backtrack on the care home mandate within a couple of days. Still, give recent u-turns, I guess anything is possible!
I don't think there's the slightest chance in hell that the vaccine mandate for care homes will be reversed within 48 hours. Its effectively too late already, care homes surely have already started having to give notice of termination for those refusing to vaccinate?
Truss is also even more unpopular than Boris, with a rating of -24% as a potential good PM with the public in yesterdays' Mori, even worse than Boris' -21% and below Starmer's -16%.
By contrast Sunak is more popular than all of them, with a rating of -9% on whether he would make a good PM
It's very simple. At the moment, MPs are perfectly entitled to do outside work (as long as they declare it). That has been the case since time immemorial, under every flavour of government.
Therefore, it is disgraceful gutter journalism to try to make an issue about the fact that many MPs, such as Ed Davey, do outside work.
If we don't want MPs to do outside work, then fine, argue for that. But if you are arguing for that, the figures earned by people like Geoffrey Cox are totally irrelevant to the argument. QCs are paid a hell of a lot. How much they 'trouser' (a word which invariably is a sure sign of partisan muck-raking) has zero to do with the argument about MPs' outside interests.
Having said that, there is a certain lurid fascination in watching just how disastrous a PM Boris is. You have to hand it to him, he really has excelled himself with this entirely self-imposed clusterfuck.
Agree but as mentioned earlier there are second jobs and then there are 35-hr week second jobs which many might think is taking the p****.
Comments
Just to think of one in particular, @HYUFD . Now I disagree often with HYUFD, but things I am pretty sure of are:
a) He is honest
b) He believes in what he does
c) He works hard for the Conservative cause without anything expected in return
d) And I wouldn't mind betting he works hard for his constituents.
He's a Cambridge educated lawyer*, people will pay top money for their advice, as I can attest.
*JCL college though.
On a side note, whoever leaked that video has done the nation a huge service by getting Hancock out of the job. The Saj has been much better than Hancock ever was.
I think this is developing into as big a scandal as the duck house and politics altogether will be the worse for it
Parliament needs to address this urgently but I have little faith they will without lots of rancour
The whole issue needs taking away from politicians and to a separate independent body with a judge for appeals
Peter "Duck House" Viggers was my hometown MP, I stuffed the odd letterbox for him back in the day.
He asked whether he could claim for the duck house, was told no and accepted that.
What did for him was that he shouldn't have had to ask- he wasn't bad, but he showed he was clueless. Cox claiming for milk feels similar.
(Oh, and the ducks never liked the duck house anyway.)
That's why suddenly second jobs are in the firing line..
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/russia/
I'm sure you're right that he will have felt that NI staying largely inside was a splendid decision for both reasons.
As is my former MP.
As Raab says it is of course up to the voters to decide whether that's outrageous or not but for general perception of the Cons an MP with a 140hr/month other job might be quite striking.
However Boris and JRM know better so wouldn't let today be used to shut things down.
I was living in Waterbeach when I had my last ankle operation, and the first long walk I did afterwards was up to Ely. It therefore has a place in my heart. The Lodes - some Roman in origin - running into the river are fascinating. One (?Lode Lode?) runs for a few miles from the river, after which a massive Anglo-Saxon dyke continues across Newmarket racecourse. Superb walks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Dyke,_Cambridgeshire
And Waterbeach also had a superb stretch of the Roman Car Dyke, a canal that went all the way from Cambridge to Lincoln.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Dyke
Contracts require a lot of documentation and checks and discussions with lawyers before you start accusing anyone of anything.
Boris's biggest issue here is that will be what next Sunday's papers started doing at 9am yesterday morning and they have all week to get the evidence in place to ensure their lawyers are happy for the stories to be printed.
I am always astonished to find anyone else who is even aware of that hard-drinking, naval brigadoon.
2005: 42.7% (gained from the Lib Dems)
2019: 60.1%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torridge_and_West_Devon_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
So he's outperformed the national performance by the Tories:
2005: 32.4%
2019: 43.6%
But he had a moment of glory for me, when at the height of the First Expenses Scandal, he turned the tables on Carrie Gracie. We learnt a pretty average BBC presenter earned considerably more than an MP
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/may/12/bbc-news-presenter-carrie-gracie-reveals-salary?guni=Article:in body link
I would be pretty confident that (i) most people on pb.com earn more than an MP, especially those currently rabbiting on about second jobs, and (ii) most people in the media earn more than an MP.
The problem can only be fixed by paying MPs more .... which no-one wants to do,
It looks as though we are in for a prolonged bout of British hypocrisy.
And average speeds aren't THAT slow. The problem is not lack of speed per se, it's the frustration of being forced to go at that speed because of the lorry four vehicles in front of you.
And as for that 37bn for test n trace...
Do you think the PM spends 140hr/month on his PM duties instead of constituency duties?
Do you think the Foreign Secretary, Health Secretary or Leader of the Opposition spend 140hr/month on their 'second job' as ministers/shadow minister instead of constituency duties?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/09/at-least-a-quarter-of-tory-mps-have-second-jobs-earning-5m-a-year
If no, then we want our money back.
And I have zero problems with MPs earning money from second jobs, the issue comes when that money is coming because
i) they are an MP
ii) they are abusing the contacts they have because they are an MP..
I'd like to know which MPs have second jobs earning £5m a year. That's an impressive sum for a second job.
Ditto second homes (second home owners -- or double first-home owners as I believe it is called on pb.com -- are absurdly cosseted).
I think we have learnt that even hard-left Corbynistas (like Williamson and McDonnell) rent out properties.
1. Phone lost
2. Phone broken
3. Phone given away
4. Messages deleted to free up space
5. (from the url) he thought they were backed up but they weren't
Nothing to hide, I'm sure.
Regardless of what MPs do get paid, we should be banning these consulting second jobs. That's an attraction for the corrupt who realize they can use their position as MP to make lots of extra cash on the side. That works against all our interests.
I think there is clearly a line between lobbying for a company (i.e. work that you only got because you are an MP and which isn't in public interest) and someone working in a hospital (i.e. work that you got because you're a qualified doctor/nurse etc.).
The problem is when they have been awarded not to the genuine suppliers but to to a company just set up by a Tory / a Tory donor or the friend of a Tory. Who has no track record or experience at all in the sector. Secretly. Via the VIP lane which they insisted didn't exist. To deliver a shit ton of faulty PPE which we pay for anyway, or better still NOT supplying which we pay for anyway. Or how about duff PPE sourced by the transport company who then earns a further £1m a DAY to store the crap the procured at inflated prices on their no competition no experience tender?
Vast sums - billions and billions and billions - have been paid to Tories for crap. Any other contracts would have been voided. Monies not paid or recouped. Here we have them given under the table contract and paid for nothing.
You don't have to be a Tory to question this. Surely.
But yes, if the good burghers of wherever he is don't mind then all is good for Geoff.
Anyhoo the third and fourth homes I own I plan to give away to young people for free in just over a decade, they are an altruistic purchase.
For my kids.
The problem is writing a piece of legislation that actually defines (ii).
Is the consultancy that Ed Davey is doing because he is an MP?
Probably, yes. But, it is hard to show it. Ditto most consultancy.
I remember telling my Dad many moons ago aged about 20 that i had been to Brighton and got there two mins faster then I had ever done before. Very pleased with myself.. he responded. ...And what did you do with thise two.minutes... ??? Something I have not dorhotten to this day nearly 50 yrs later.
If so what's the problem.
Though one thing I would look into is whether individuals / businesses were operating as needless middle men and creaming off 10% (or more) for so doing.
There will always be more government business to scrutinise, or causes to support at the behest of your constituents. There will be local politics to be involved with, if you wish, and campaigning to be done. There will be the issues that drove you to involve yourself in politics in the first place.
You could argue that MPs should be forced to find some ordinary work to do, unconnected to politics, to give them a break from it.
For about 10 minutes I considered it and then I realised just how big of a pay cut it would be and how limited my impact would be unless I climbed the greasy pole and by the time I got anywhere near the top what I set out to achieve as an elected representative is so far off in the distance and I've had daily triple helpings of shit bowls from the whip's office that I've become the very person I despise in politics. Or you can become an MP that chats to local people and in all honesty, I don't care about the minutiae of people's problems and lives enough to do that all day. I'm grateful that people who can do it exist but I freely admit I'm not one of them. So ended my potential as future MP and eventual PM.
So I have some sympathy for those involved if they are doing genuine work.
It also allows them first hand knowledge on how their professions are being affected by current issues thus allowing feedback to government decision making.
If nobody (or not enough) was coming forwards direct at 10% cheaper then is it not appropriate to pay a middle man to do the work to ensure the necessary goods arrived?
We can forgive rushed procurement in a crisis. But that was then. Now we investigate just how we bypassed expert companies to award without tender to Tories and friends of Tories. Reclaim monies paid for crap or for non-delivery. And prosecute the open fraud where it is found.
And because inheritances are accounted for separately
Boris of course would meet the 'work outside of politics for a minimum period of 5 years' qualification but I still think it's a good one.
(Personally, I don't think both can be done well, but I don't see an easy solution for separating e.g. cabinet ministers from constituency MPs, given they - ministers - can be hired and fired at will)
82k + 30k+ for a place in London plus all the others is more than enough.
So it will rumble into another week after recess begins tonight.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1458016796460601344
Q: Why didn't the PM wear a mask in hospital yesterday?
Raab: "he didn't wear a mask when he was required to"
Indeed. Why not? Why did he decide to take his mask off for the cameras to stand there illegally breathing over those nurses? What is the rationale for such stupidity?
https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1457993482694533120
Obvs related to experience when he was a Minister here, and relevant experience / perceived authority therefrom.
Rules do not apply...
Senators in the USA are very well paid indeed. I presume they receive no cash from lobbying groups ?
I have had several people move into my road who have made money from tax free house inflation down South somewhere and pivoted to mortgage free here on the increase.
LLs who sell a house pay CGT on the gain (plus 3% extra Stamp Duty when they bought it), or Corporaton Tax if incorporated. Plus an extra 1-1.5% currently on any mortgage, but that's not so pertinent on this particular question.
Boris didn't just spend £12-15bn on a Stamp Duty holiday to help LLs.
Therefore, it is disgraceful gutter journalism to try to make an issue about the fact that many MPs, such as Ed Davey, do outside work.
If we don't want MPs to do outside work, then fine, argue for that. But if you are arguing for that, the figures earned by people like Geoffrey Cox are totally irrelevant to the argument. QCs are paid a hell of a lot. How much they 'trouser' (a word which invariably is a sure sign of partisan muck-raking) has zero to do with the argument about MPs' outside interests.
Having said that, there is a certain lurid fascination in watching just how disastrous a PM Boris is. You have to hand it to him, he really has excelled himself with this entirely self-imposed clusterfuck.
Far better to leave them to it. If the Lib Dems or whoever want to point out to the good people of Torridge and West Devon that their MP is doing a lot of other work, then let them and let the people decide.
Human nature being what it is, you unfortunately need both positive incentives - a more substantial salary - and deterrents - proper scrutiny of the many potentially damaging areas between lawmakers, elections, corporations and lobbyists.
1) Handle constituency issues (problems, requests)
2) Parliamentary work
Constituency issues are largely handled by their offices but it some MPs will do more of this than others and the Parliamentary work isn't full time. After all MPs can wander away from the Commons they just need to be close enough to get back and vote in time.
So it's possible to see how you do more external work, you leave more of the constituency work within your constituency office.
I see the government is apparently going to announce a vaccine mandate for te NHS later today (effective in the spring) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59215282 which, if true, would be truly bizarre if they were going to backtrack on the care home mandate within a couple of days. Still, give recent u-turns, I guess anything is possible!
But a lot of businesses work as import/export "middle men" perfectly legitimately.
What ministers are doing is executive work, but this is instead of the scrutinizing work that is done by backbench and opposition MPs. Generally speaking ministers are not doing the work of holding other ministers accountable to Parliament, they are asked questions by select committees, rather than asking the questions. Being a minister is having a different job rather than an additional one.
https://bbc.in/2YtsQ46
"Please wash your hands at the hospital entrance and wear a face covering when you enter the hospital until you leave. If you have not got a face covering a surgical mask will be supplied. There are also hand-sanitising points around the hospital – please feel free to use them.
You must ensure that you wear your covering or mask throughout your visit and you must not remove your face covering/mask or kiss your loved one."
And on the government rules to hospitals of September 2021 (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-infection-prevention-and-control/new-government-recommendations-for-england-nhs-hospital-trusts-and-private-hospital-providers)
"visitors and outpatients to hospital settings should wear a form of face covering"
Once again, the rules that apply to absolutely everyone do not apply to the PM. And when Raab says the PM followed the rules, he knows that he did not.
When you are under the cosh for not applying rules equally, what is he thinking in behaving like this? We have to go back to his former Eton masters who said that even as a boy he was sure the rules did not apply to him. The press are all at it over this mask issue so it is hardly helping him.
I'm surprised she has achieved cut-through.