The focus moves to ex-Tory leader and former A-G – politicalbetting.com

System

The focus moves to ex-Tory leader and former A-G – politicalbetting.com

It is just a week since Owen Paterson had to step down but there no abating the media interest in what other Tory MPs are doing. As can be seen the Times is leading on the former Attorney General Geoffrey Cox and the Guardian is putting the focus on the former Tory leader, IDS.

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

Sadly it seems I won't be able to use the headline 'Cox out!'

Cox, who is the MP for Torridge & West Devon, is understood to be determined to fight his corner and has told friends that there is “nothing new” in the reports. He is said to have privately dismissed calls for him to resign.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/990b394c-41b0-11ec-96bf-de0821791f3f?shareToken=d93858f6b2ec431c7ad2c7dc8fbc737d

Pulpstar

It's a thoroughly deserved pile on for the Tories

Carnyx

FPT

RobD said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/09/iain-duncan-smith-accused-of-brazen-conflict-of-interest-over-25000-job

Brazen indeed.

IDS was asked to chair a committee on post-Brexit deregulation opportunities.

Mysteriously he recommends alcohol-free hand sanitizer, after receiving 25k from a relevant manufacturer.

Can that be legal?

Does it work?

I thought it has to be 70% ethyl or isopropyl alcohol to break down viruses reliably.

Apparently so: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/535460

Brazen is right though.

This is interesting. The researchers do it for free, so to speak, with a range of brands of disinfectant and just plain disinfectant. But our parliamentarians ...

"Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Funding sources
None."

Edit: https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-6701(20)30547-8/fulltext#relatedArticles

TheScreamingEagles

The IDS story is jaw dropping, it is a text book example of what not to do if you want high standards of probity.

I've fired people for less egregious conflicts of interests.

What were IDS and the PM thinking?

TheScreamingEagles

Adam Boulton leaving Sky News at the end of the year.

Why? “Well,” he says awkwardly, “it’s a kind of mutual decision. Basically, just looking ahead, having been at two start-ups, first with TV-am and then Sky, I think it looks like the direction which Sky News wants to go over the next few years is not one that’s a particularly good fit for me.”

He refers me to an article his boss, Sky News’s head John Ryley, recently wrote in Press Gazette, a last rites for the age of the “all-powerful anchor”. Reporters were now experts, he wrote; the votive anchor’s role had shrunk.

“And also,” Boulton says, “he’s made it quite clear he believes the future of news is digital, is on the platform for phones and is very strongly based around data journalism. At that point you do start thinking . . .”

He acknowledges a genuine problem. For decades Sky News broke the news. Now Twitter, unobligated to check its sources, does.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/adam-boulton-on-leaving-sky-news-we-baby-boomers-have-had-our-day-hhkrv33sb

Dura_Ace

Look at the state of the fat gammony fuck. Save some chin for the rest of us.

TimS

Cox does seem like a convenient detour for the Tory press. His role wasn't against the rules per se - it takes the story away from corruption and conflicts of interest into the wider question of second jobs, which of course a lot of opposition MPs have too. Most importantly it takes the spotlight off Boris and his mismanagement of the Paterson vote.

The IDS story is much more damaging for the Tories.

rkrkrk

DavidL said:

I want the most able people who are willing to give up their time to be MPs. I think we have to accept if we are going to get that additional earnings are a part of the package. But I also expect that people are much more alert to both actual and perceived conflicts of interest and accept that there are somethings that they just cannot do.

This is where I think you are quite wrong.
I do not want the most able people if they are not honest and motivated to serve the public.
This isn't a comment on Geoffrey Cox - but a more general point.

rkrkrk

TheScreamingEagles said:

The IDS story is jaw dropping, it is a text book example of what not to do if you want high standards of probity.

I've fired people for less egregious conflicts of interests.

What were IDS and the PM thinking?

That they are above the rules. And they're right it would seem.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

The IDS story is jaw dropping, it is a text book example of what not to do if you want high standards of probity.

I've fired people for less egregious conflicts of interests.

What were IDS and the PM thinking?

He's either terminally thick, or extremely greedy.

kle4

It will be dismissed as relatively minor, and certainly Cox seems to have been focused on because of the amount he has earned rather than any specific misbehaviour as this is the first actual such listed, but rules are rules, and parliamentary resources shouldn't be used for non parliamentary work. MPs get chided frequently about sending things on House of Commons letterhead which shouldn't be for example.

But juicier meat will probably be needed to keep attention on this topic, which is very needed. IDS being a good example, as TimS notes.

RochdalePioneers

TheScreamingEagles said:

MattW said:

Scott_xP said:

Yesterday Labour couldn’t say Geoffrey Cox broke any rules by working and voting from the BVI

Luckily overnight @hzeffman found one - uncovering this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/990b394c-41b0-11ec-96bf-de0821791f3f?shareToken=d93858f6b2ec431c7ad2c7dc8fbc737d

La Rayner seems to think that civilisation will come to an end because somebody made a videoconference from his Parliamentary Office.

Angela Rayner Jumps the shark?

No, it's the rules, you can only use your parliamentary offices for parliamentary or non partisan constituency work.

You have to love the "so what" here. He is sat in his taxpayer-provided office helping the corrupt BVI government sue our own government. Being paid a stonking amount of cash on top of what most people already consider a stonking salary as an MP. So what that he has spoken once in the commons since getting sacked at AG?

My mind boggles. The only explanation for how the party can keep making self-inflicted screwup after another, unforced errors that kick the scandal along and make the press pack chasing it more determined is sneering arrogance.

And then we have the people who make no cash from this - indeed it is their cash these shysters are stealing - who pop up willing to excuse literally anything because its their team stealing their money.

RochdalePioneers

TheScreamingEagles said:

The IDS story is jaw dropping, it is a text book example of what not to do if you want high standards of probity.

I've fired people for less egregious conflicts of interests.

What were IDS and the PM thinking?

That they can do what they like.

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

The IDS story is jaw dropping, it is a text book example of what not to do if you want high standards of probity.

I've fired people for less egregious conflicts of interests.

What were IDS and the PM thinking?

IDS thinking ?

More generally, though, it might have something to do with getting used to awarding no bid contracts worth hundreds of millions, without (up until now) any great impact on public opinion.

kle4

Dura_Ace said:

Look at the state of the fat gammony fuck. Save some chin for the rest of us.

Never trust a skinny barrister? Plump and posh would fit the mental image.

Dura_Ace

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The IDS story is jaw dropping, it is a text book example of what not to do if you want high standards of probity.

I've fired people for less egregious conflicts of interests.

What were IDS and the PM thinking?

He's either terminally thick, or extremely greedy.

The really amazing thing about the IDS story is the low, low price for which rented out his, presumably as hairless as his head, ringpiece. £25,000!

kle4

Charles said:

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

DavidL said:

The IDS thing really isn't great. How on earth did he (or the PM) think it was ok to chair a task force dealing with that sector when he had such a clear and obvious vested interest? A bit like Owen Paterson, it is the mindset of entitlement that is the most troubling. They genuinely seem to believe because they know that they are good chaps that is all that is required. It really isn't.

I suspect that his conclusion on the hand wash was both inevitable and helpful. Clearly the company were going to have a spectacular pay day out of Covid regardless. But the failure to understand the most basic elements of conflict of interest rules and the importance of appearances is just weird. Everyone else moved on to this decades ago.

I'm not a fan of just out and out banning other jobs, or even of the various issues where parliament has essentially divested itself of personal responsibility (in theory) on the basis people don't believe they can be trusted on certain things relating to themselves.

But standards and probity are not difficult, the principles around interests and biases, apparent or actual, are well established and known. Yet as you point out in bold there is a culture that thinks these things are unimportant if as individuals they 'know' they are ok.

So, unfortunately, there may not really be any other options. MPs, as a collective, really cannot be trusted to maintain proper registers, make proper declarations, or not involve themselves in things in which they have an interest. Most manage it just fine, but enough of them won't and it is very damaging when that happens, so the collective body may need punishing because of the arrogant few.

But this government, even with all else going on, hasn't even responded to a report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life on local government standards in more than 2 years. A furore over Paterson and others won't make them act, because ultimately it is not in the interests of MPs to hold themselves to high standards.

Banning other jobs would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and cause damage to the floor around the nut, but does anyone really believe a more nuanced or targeted series of efforts to improve matters has any chance of happening, or succeeding if it does?

For the reasons I have set out I do not think a ban is the answer. But they need to be held to the same standards as every other profession has managed for decades. It needs to be independent and rigorous and clear. This is not rocket science. Many of these people, like Geoffrey Cox QC, already comply with such standards on a daily basis in their other jobs.

It’s relatively simple as well.

When I was at LSHTM for example, I disclosed my interests as the first item on the agenda of every meeting (as did everyone else)

If in any doubt, declare, and consider carefully your involvement. It is indeed not difficult.

TheScreamingEagles

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The IDS story is jaw dropping, it is a text book example of what not to do if you want high standards of probity.

I've fired people for less egregious conflicts of interests.

What were IDS and the PM thinking?

IDS thinking ?

Ah yes that might have been the flaw in my assumption.

Foxy

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The IDS story is jaw dropping, it is a text book example of what not to do if you want high standards of probity.

I've fired people for less egregious conflicts of interests.

What were IDS and the PM thinking?

He's either terminally thick, or extremely greedy.

Or both...

kle4

Dura_Ace said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The IDS story is jaw dropping, it is a text book example of what not to do if you want high standards of probity.

I've fired people for less egregious conflicts of interests.

What were IDS and the PM thinking?

He's either terminally thick, or extremely greedy.

The really amazing thing about the IDS story is the low, low price for which rented out his, presumably as hairless as his head, ringpiece. £25,000!

I guess he's not as fortunate as May at being able to get 50k a time to deliver a speech to organisations with too much money on their hands.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

I see the PM's decision to support Owen Paterson has gone well.

TheScreamingEagles

I suppose this enjoyable in the sense that I suspect these stories would not have been picked up if Boris Johnson hadn't tried to protect Owen Paterson and get the Standards Commissioner fired/to resign.

Magnificent strategy egged by the likes of HYUFD because they have a majority of 80.

Foxy

kle4 said:

It will be dismissed as relatively minor, and certainly Cox seems to have been focused on because of the amount he has earned rather than any specific misbehaviour as this is the first actual such listed, but rules are rules, and parliamentary resources shouldn't be used for non parliamentary work. MPs get chided frequently about sending things on House of Commons letterhead which shouldn't be for example.

But juicier meat will probably be needed to keep attention on this topic, which is very needed. IDS being a good example, as TimS notes.

Now, a by-election in Chingford and Woodford Green would be tasty indeed!

kle4

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the PM's decision to support Owen Paterson has gone well.

It's an interesting thought where things would be without him doing so. Sure, it'd be news, but he's indelibly associated himself with poor behaviour by members of his party from his efforts to get one out of trouble for it. He will still be liked and supported by many, but the sins of others are now much more his own as well, because even if he doe try to throw them to the wolves, we have the proof that, if he could get away with it, he'd try to cover such things up. Whereas before it'd just be a story about this MP, then that MP, doing something wrong, and attempts to stick that to him would be harder.

One of the stupidest political own goals in recent memory. "Let's intervene in a way that looks like we are trying to defend an MP already found guilty by a cross party panel, that'll go down well".

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the PM's decision to support Owen Paterson has gone well.

As well as Carthage going to war with Rome.

Winning the vote last = Cannae

Everything since then = Zama.

This is what happens when you put an overrated leader in charge, people mistake a lucky early victory with winning the war.

RochdalePioneers

TheScreamingEagles said:

I suppose this enjoyable in the sense that I suspect these stories would not have been picked up if Boris Johnson hadn't tried to protect Owen Paterson and get the Standards Commissioner fired/to resign.

Magnificent strategy egged by the likes of HYUFD because they have a majority of 80.

But they do have a majority of 80 and still some poll leads so people enjoy having their money stolen from them and taking this latest poll because there will never again be another poll we can clearly see the Tories win the election so there.

Scott_xP

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the PM's decision to support Owen Paterson has gone well.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I suppose this enjoyable in the sense that I suspect these stories would not have been picked up if Boris Johnson hadn't tried to protect Owen Paterson and get the Standards Commissioner fired/to resign.

Magnificent strategy egged by the likes of HYUFD because they have a majority of 80.

As noted elsewhere, BoZo spent more effort trying to save Paterson than Nazanin

Given the result, maybe that's a good thing...

TheScreamingEagles

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I suppose this enjoyable in the sense that I suspect these stories would not have been picked up if Boris Johnson hadn't tried to protect Owen Paterson and get the Standards Commissioner fired/to resign.

Magnificent strategy egged by the likes of HYUFD because they have a majority of 80.

But they do have a majority of 80 and still some poll leads so people enjoy having their money stolen from them and taking this latest poll because there will never again be another poll we can clearly see the Tories win the election so there.

For those of us who campaigned for the Tories in 1997/2001/2005 all remember how badly sleaze damaged the Tory brand, even years after the Tories left office.

Eventually one day it will catch up with the modern day Tory party.

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

I suppose this enjoyable in the sense that I suspect these stories would not have been picked up if Boris Johnson hadn't tried to protect Owen Paterson and get the Standards Commissioner fired/to resign.

Magnificent strategy egged by the likes of HYUFD because they have a majority of 80.

You raise a good point, in that there has already been much rewriting of what went on in the Paterson business, but let's not forget part of the reasoning, and the line Kwarteng was sent out to make to defend it. He can't really split hairs about raising that she should probably consider her position given what happened and that the government, by that action, was wanting her to consider her position. Everyone knows what that is a euphemism for, no one has ever suggested someone should consider their position and decide all is well.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, your comparison, as ever, is utterly flawed.

Saguntum, Trebia, Ticinus, Trasimene, Cannae, the slaughter of countless hundreds of thousands of Roman soldiers, the destruction of the Scipio brothers in Iberia, Hannibal marauding in Italy, undefeated for a decade: these things are not the mere equivalent of an 80 seat majority government narrowly winning a 3 line whip for less than a day of 'success'.

To school with you, boy!

TheScreamingEagles

Scott_xP said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the PM's decision to support Owen Paterson has gone well.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I suppose this enjoyable in the sense that I suspect these stories would not have been picked up if Boris Johnson hadn't tried to protect Owen Paterson and get the Standards Commissioner fired/to resign.

Magnificent strategy egged by the likes of HYUFD because they have a majority of 80.

As noted elsewhere, BoZo spent more effort trying to save Paterson than Nazanin

Given the result, maybe that's a good thing...

He also spent more time defending O-Patz than he has in kicking out Rob Roberts.

A scandal.

Pulpstar

Foxy said:

kle4 said:

It will be dismissed as relatively minor, and certainly Cox seems to have been focused on because of the amount he has earned rather than any specific misbehaviour as this is the first actual such listed, but rules are rules, and parliamentary resources shouldn't be used for non parliamentary work. MPs get chided frequently about sending things on House of Commons letterhead which shouldn't be for example.

But juicier meat will probably be needed to keep attention on this topic, which is very needed. IDS being a good example, as TimS notes.

Now, a by-election in Chingford and Woodford Green would be tasty indeed!

Labour win

kjh

kle4 said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

DavidL said:

The IDS thing really isn't great. How on earth did he (or the PM) think it was ok to chair a task force dealing with that sector when he had such a clear and obvious vested interest? A bit like Owen Paterson, it is the mindset of entitlement that is the most troubling. They genuinely seem to believe because they know that they are good chaps that is all that is required. It really isn't.

I suspect that his conclusion on the hand wash was both inevitable and helpful. Clearly the company were going to have a spectacular pay day out of Covid regardless. But the failure to understand the most basic elements of conflict of interest rules and the importance of appearances is just weird. Everyone else moved on to this decades ago.

I'm not a fan of just out and out banning other jobs, or even of the various issues where parliament has essentially divested itself of personal responsibility (in theory) on the basis people don't believe they can be trusted on certain things relating to themselves.

But standards and probity are not difficult, the principles around interests and biases, apparent or actual, are well established and known. Yet as you point out in bold there is a culture that thinks these things are unimportant if as individuals they 'know' they are ok.

So, unfortunately, there may not really be any other options. MPs, as a collective, really cannot be trusted to maintain proper registers, make proper declarations, or not involve themselves in things in which they have an interest. Most manage it just fine, but enough of them won't and it is very damaging when that happens, so the collective body may need punishing because of the arrogant few.

But this government, even with all else going on, hasn't even responded to a report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life on local government standards in more than 2 years. A furore over Paterson and others won't make them act, because ultimately it is not in the interests of MPs to hold themselves to high standards.

Banning other jobs would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and cause damage to the floor around the nut, but does anyone really believe a more nuanced or targeted series of efforts to improve matters has any chance of happening, or succeeding if it does?

For the reasons I have set out I do not think a ban is the answer. But they need to be held to the same standards as every other profession has managed for decades. It needs to be independent and rigorous and clear. This is not rocket science. Many of these people, like Geoffrey Cox QC, already comply with such standards on a daily basis in their other jobs.

It’s relatively simple as well.

When I was at LSHTM for example, I disclosed my interests as the first item on the agenda of every meeting (as did everyone else)

If in any doubt, declare, and consider carefully your involvement. It is indeed not difficult.

Absolutely. I fell over backwards in my role to do so to avoid any claim of conflict of interest

YBarddCwsc

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

I want the most able people who are willing to give up their time to be MPs. I think we have to accept if we are going to get that additional earnings are a part of the package. But I also expect that people are much more alert to both actual and perceived conflicts of interest and accept that there are somethings that they just cannot do.

This is where I think you are quite wrong.
I do not want the most able people if they are not honest and motivated to serve the public.
This isn't a comment on Geoffrey Cox - but a more general point.

But, why does that not apply more generally?

I mean I can say: why should we pay a BBC presenter 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

Why should I pay a High Court judge 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

Why should I pay a top civil servant 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

I don't see why the pay, terms and conditions for an MP should be so radically different from many other jobs.

IshmaelZ

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MattW said:

Scott_xP said:

Yesterday Labour couldn’t say Geoffrey Cox broke any rules by working and voting from the BVI

Luckily overnight @hzeffman found one - uncovering this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/990b394c-41b0-11ec-96bf-de0821791f3f?shareToken=d93858f6b2ec431c7ad2c7dc8fbc737d

La Rayner seems to think that civilisation will come to an end because somebody made a videoconference from his Parliamentary Office.

Angela Rayner Jumps the shark?

No, it's the rules, you can only use your parliamentary offices for parliamentary or non partisan constituency work.

You have to love the "so what" here. He is sat in his taxpayer-provided office helping the corrupt BVI government sue our own government. Being paid a stonking amount of cash on top of what most people already consider a stonking salary as an MP. So what that he has spoken once in the commons since getting sacked at AG?

My mind boggles. The only explanation for how the party can keep making self-inflicted screwup after another, unforced errors that kick the scandal along and make the press pack chasing it more determined is sneering arrogance.

And then we have the people who make no cash from this - indeed it is their cash these shysters are stealing - who pop up willing to excuse literally anything because its their team stealing their money.

The corrupt BVI government suing our whiter than white one?

Even corrupt organisations are entitled to lawyers.

Scott_xP

Sajid Javid tells @TimesRadio he took a £150,000 a year advisory 2nd job with JP Morgan before returning to the Cabinet because "it's good to have experience that is not all about politics". Added: "It's for my constituents to judge, and I'm happy with that".
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1458347006922039301

Sandpit

TheScreamingEagles said:

Adam Boulton leaving Sky News at the end of the year.

Why? “Well,” he says awkwardly, “it’s a kind of mutual decision. Basically, just looking ahead, having been at two start-ups, first with TV-am and then Sky, I think it looks like the direction which Sky News wants to go over the next few years is not one that’s a particularly good fit for me.”

He refers me to an article his boss, Sky News’s head John Ryley, recently wrote in Press Gazette, a last rites for the age of the “all-powerful anchor”. Reporters were now experts, he wrote; the votive anchor’s role had shrunk.

“And also,” Boulton says, “he’s made it quite clear he believes the future of news is digital, is on the platform for phones and is very strongly based around data journalism. At that point you do start thinking . . .”

He acknowledges a genuine problem. For decades Sky News broke the news. Now Twitter, unobligated to check its sources, does.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/adam-boulton-on-leaving-sky-news-we-baby-boomers-have-had-our-day-hhkrv33sb

Wasn’t he reportedly on close to a million a year? If he’s been doing that for a couple of decades, he’s probably decided, at 61, that he’d rather be sitting on a cruise ship with a cocktail, than being shouted at by Bad Al Campbell.

IshmaelZ

Scott_xP said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the PM's decision to support Owen Paterson has gone well.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I suppose this enjoyable in the sense that I suspect these stories would not have been picked up if Boris Johnson hadn't tried to protect Owen Paterson and get the Standards Commissioner fired/to resign.

Magnificent strategy egged by the likes of HYUFD because they have a majority of 80.

As noted elsewhere, BoZo spent more effort trying to save Paterson than Nazanin

Given the result, maybe that's a good thing...

Very very good point

TheScreamingEagles

FPT

MattW said:

Scott_xP said:

Yesterday Labour couldn’t say Geoffrey Cox broke any rules by working and voting from the BVI

Luckily overnight @hzeffman found one - uncovering this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/990b394c-41b0-11ec-96bf-de0821791f3f?shareToken=d93858f6b2ec431c7ad2c7dc8fbc737d

La Rayner seems to think that civilisation will come to an end because somebody made a videoconference from his Parliamentary Office.

Angela Rayner Jumps the shark?

Well Sajid Javed agrees with Angela Rayner.

Sajid Javid says MPs should not use parliamentary office for second jobs amid claims against former attorney general Sir Geoffrey Cox

https://news.sky.com/story/sajid-javid-says-mps-should-not-use-parliamentary-office-for-second-jobs-amid-claims-against-former-attorney-general-sir-geoffrey-cox-12465036

TheScreamingEagles

Dear Kiwis, get your boundary count ready.

Scott_xP

YBarddCwsc said:

I don't see why the pay, terms and conditions for an MP should be so radically different from many other jobs.

A job which requires no skills or qualifications, no training, no experience, no physical barriers with a high degree of job security (and a massive pension).

What should the going rate be for that?

kjh

kle4 said:

It will be dismissed as relatively minor, and certainly Cox seems to have been focused on because of the amount he has earned rather than any specific misbehaviour as this is the first actual such listed, but rules are rules, and parliamentary resources shouldn't be used for non parliamentary work. MPs get chided frequently about sending things on House of Commons letterhead which shouldn't be for example.

But juicier meat will probably be needed to keep attention on this topic, which is very needed. IDS being a good example, as TimS notes.

I agree. Especially as these days our office is everywhere with mobile technology. What do you do for instance when your phone rings? I suppose not answer it which seems extreme if you can.

I think using HofC headed paper inappropriately is far more serious.

Philip_Thompson

YBarddCwsc said:

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

I want the most able people who are willing to give up their time to be MPs. I think we have to accept if we are going to get that additional earnings are a part of the package. But I also expect that people are much more alert to both actual and perceived conflicts of interest and accept that there are somethings that they just cannot do.

This is where I think you are quite wrong.
I do not want the most able people if they are not honest and motivated to serve the public.
This isn't a comment on Geoffrey Cox - but a more general point.

But, why does that not apply more generally?

I mean I can say: why should we pay a BBC presenter 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

Why should I pay a High Court judge 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

Why should I pay a top civil servant 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

I don't see why the pay, terms and conditions for an MP should be so radically different from many other jobs.

I see no reason why the BBC, funded by a tax at threat of prison, should be paying people £200k.

If they want to spend that sort of money, they should raise it privately from willing subscribers.

Scott_xP

Excellent column from ⁦⁦@Dannythefink⁩ on the likely triggering of Article 16 and the parallel with the Paterson fiasco.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-must-decide-if-they-care-about-reality-rfqbl58d9

RochdalePioneers

We know it is sneering arrogance because nobody with the slightest political nous would be doing what they are doing. They needed to shut the story down, deflect onto something else and then hope people are as nonplussed as previously when the spotlight shines onto the Number 10 refurb scandal.

So instead literally everything they do reinforces the growing monster of a story that the party is openly corrupt. Even something as innocuous as a hospital visit - a welcome distraction surely - managed to add more momentum to the main story.

Yes we already had Boris hiding at a hospital, can't make it back for a key debate but could take a private jet back from COP26 to peasant dinner at the Garrick with climate change deniers. But that would have passed. Instead we have Iannouchi parody writ large. PM with no mask on in a hospital in flagrant breach of common sense the hospital rules and the rules. PM can't make it back yet is photographed having made it back getting off the train with hours of debate still to run. And then that hopeless idiot Raaaaaab sat repeating over and over "the PM followed all the rules" as GMTV repeat the clip proving that he did no such thing.

The last thing any political strategist would have wanted during that 24 hour period was event after event reinforcing that there is one rule for us and another for them. It is claimed that Boris is some master strategist and yet here he is doing stupid after stupid after stupid.

Corrupt and stupid. Not a good look. Defending corrupt and stupid? Even worse, yet the last bastion defenders still line up on here to do so.

Sandpit

kjh said:

kle4 said:

It will be dismissed as relatively minor, and certainly Cox seems to have been focused on because of the amount he has earned rather than any specific misbehaviour as this is the first actual such listed, but rules are rules, and parliamentary resources shouldn't be used for non parliamentary work. MPs get chided frequently about sending things on House of Commons letterhead which shouldn't be for example.

But juicier meat will probably be needed to keep attention on this topic, which is very needed. IDS being a good example, as TimS notes.

I agree. Especially as these days our office is everywhere with mobile technology. What do you do for instance when your phone rings? I suppose not answer it which seems extreme if you can.

I think using HofC headed paper inappropriately is far more serious.

If he had been on the call from his chambers, critics would have said he should have been in Parliament. It wasn’t as if his office location was in any way related to the business he was conducting. As a top corporate QC, one imagines that time management is high up his list of skills.

I get the impression that the issue with Cox isn’t his working 10 hours a week at his profession, more the amount of money involved. He’s declared all his income and there’s no obvious conflict of interest. Paterson and IDS, on the other hand, have been discussing their second employer in Parliament, which requires careful declaration of the interest and recusement from any decisions related to those companies.

The use of HoC stationery is a much bigger issue, because it gives authority to the communication which may not be deserved.

RochdalePioneers

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

MattW said:

Scott_xP said:

Yesterday Labour couldn’t say Geoffrey Cox broke any rules by working and voting from the BVI

Luckily overnight @hzeffman found one - uncovering this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/990b394c-41b0-11ec-96bf-de0821791f3f?shareToken=d93858f6b2ec431c7ad2c7dc8fbc737d

La Rayner seems to think that civilisation will come to an end because somebody made a videoconference from his Parliamentary Office.

Angela Rayner Jumps the shark?

Well Sajid Javed agrees with Angela Rayner.

Sajid Javid says MPs should not use parliamentary office for second jobs amid claims against former attorney general Sir Geoffrey Cox

https://news.sky.com/story/sajid-javid-says-mps-should-not-use-parliamentary-office-for-second-jobs-amid-claims-against-former-attorney-general-sir-geoffrey-cox-12465036

Given that it is self-evident that Cox broke the rules, and given the circumstances, the party machine really should be encouraging his compliance in contrition in the gentle ways known to a score of now former Tory MPs. Because if they don't the story goes on and on and the "should consider her position" Independent Commissioner is going to enjoy enforcing sanctions on him.

Scott_xP

RochdalePioneers said:

Corrupt and stupid. Not a good look. Defending corrupt and stupid? Even worse, yet the last bastion defenders still line up on here to do so.

80 seat majority...

YBarddCwsc

kle4 said:

It will be dismissed as relatively minor, and certainly Cox seems to have been focused on because of the amount he has earned rather than any specific misbehaviour as this is the first actual such listed, but rules are rules, and parliamentary resources shouldn't be used for non parliamentary work. MPs get chided frequently about sending things on House of Commons letterhead which shouldn't be for example.

I bet Cox has broken no rules.

What did he do? It seems he may have connected by zoom to a meeting from his desk in his Parliamentary office. So, what resources did he use?

Assuming he is using his own computer, then I guess there is wear and tear on the chair where he parked his ample trouser seat, and slight abrasion of his desk by the base of his laptop.

This seems to me more trivial that using House of Commons letter paper, for which MPs seem to get regularly done for.

I bet there are no Parliamentary rules on zoom use.

Scott_xP

Gordon Brown calls for a crackdown on MPs second jobbing

“Where there is a conflict of interest using your public office for private gain should be banned outright”

Warns today’s Parliament will be “associated with sleaze” if there is no crackdown #today

https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1458353803841921024

IanB2

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The IDS story is jaw dropping, it is a text book example of what not to do if you want high standards of probity.

I've fired people for less egregious conflicts of interests.

What were IDS and the PM thinking?

He's either terminally thick, or extremely greedy.

Well I was a councillor for a Borough partly covering his seat for a long time, and I have referred to the former on a fair few occasions.

Also note that the venn diagram of your two alternatives has a big overlap in the middle!

Scott_xP

There is a very strong case to say that the Paterson affair has a number of parallels with Brexit as a whole. https://twitter.com/davidgauke/status/1457766841535930374

Scott_xP

Both yesterday and today the Government line on MP second jobs is if the voters are fine with it then fair enough.

The problem with that metric is it suggests Tory MPs in super-safe seats have more leeway.

Is appropriateness now defined by majority size?
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1458354145421758466

IanB2

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the PM's decision to support Owen Paterson has gone well.

Neither has HY's assurance the day after that it was all over!

TheScreamingEagles

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the PM's decision to support Owen Paterson has gone well.

Neither has HY's assurance the day after that it was all over!

Or Big G's assurance that the story was moving on from Paterson to Yorkshire CCC and COP26.

Jonathan

Philip_Thompson said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

I want the most able people who are willing to give up their time to be MPs. I think we have to accept if we are going to get that additional earnings are a part of the package. But I also expect that people are much more alert to both actual and perceived conflicts of interest and accept that there are somethings that they just cannot do.

This is where I think you are quite wrong.
I do not want the most able people if they are not honest and motivated to serve the public.
This isn't a comment on Geoffrey Cox - but a more general point.

But, why does that not apply more generally?

I mean I can say: why should we pay a BBC presenter 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

Why should I pay a High Court judge 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

Why should I pay a top civil servant 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

I don't see why the pay, terms and conditions for an MP should be so radically different from many other jobs.

I see no reason why the BBC, funded by a tax at threat of prison, should be paying people £200k.

If they want to spend that sort of money, they should raise it privately from willing subscribers.

Nah, the beeb is just paying market rates for the talent people want.

IanB2

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the PM's decision to support Owen Paterson has gone well.

As well as Carthage going to war with Rome.

Winning the vote last = Cannae

Everything since then = Zama.

This is what happens when you put an overrated leader in charge, people mistake a lucky early victory with winning the war.

The Italian invasion of Greece comes to mind. Now Boris and his chums have been pushed back into the Albanian hills being shot at by bandits.

Scott_xP

TheScreamingEagles said:

Or Big G's assurance that the story was moving on from Paterson to Yorkshire CCC and COP26.

BoZo's chicken run to COP26 today will extend the sleaze story for yet another day.

Numpty.

MattW

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

MattW said:

Scott_xP said:

Yesterday Labour couldn’t say Geoffrey Cox broke any rules by working and voting from the BVI

Luckily overnight @hzeffman found one - uncovering this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/990b394c-41b0-11ec-96bf-de0821791f3f?shareToken=d93858f6b2ec431c7ad2c7dc8fbc737d

La Rayner seems to think that civilisation will come to an end because somebody made a videoconference from his Parliamentary Office.

Angela Rayner Jumps the shark?

Well Sajid Javed agrees with Angela Rayner.

Sajid Javid says MPs should not use parliamentary office for second jobs amid claims against former attorney general Sir Geoffrey Cox

https://news.sky.com/story/sajid-javid-says-mps-should-not-use-parliamentary-office-for-second-jobs-amid-claims-against-former-attorney-general-sir-geoffrey-cox-12465036

Thoughts on this:

1 - I spent a bot of time reading through the Kathryn Stone decisions for a period of time, and a large proportion of the stuff is trivial, tactical politics.

2 - Do we have a timeline on IDS - was he on that committee whilst receiving the cash? (would be damning). Was there a "cooling off" period, as Ministers have? I recall my ex-MP Mr Hoon offering himself up at £3k a day on how to win public contracts, with conditions set by the vetting committee. That will be part of the sort of things Davey does on solar projects.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/sep/27/geoff-hoon-consultancy-firm-watchdog

Do we need one of these for all external contracts for MPs (as a possible genuine way to fix it)?

3 - I'm really quite surprised the Govt are not being more aggressive on pushback / seizing the agenda on this. But Boris is a bit sh*t at the rough and tumble, as we know. Is there a Tory Ali Campbell out there?

Is there really a shortage of targets on any side?

RochdalePioneers

YBarddCwsc said:

kle4 said:

It will be dismissed as relatively minor, and certainly Cox seems to have been focused on because of the amount he has earned rather than any specific misbehaviour as this is the first actual such listed, but rules are rules, and parliamentary resources shouldn't be used for non parliamentary work. MPs get chided frequently about sending things on House of Commons letterhead which shouldn't be for example.

I bet Cox has broken no rules.

What did he do? It seems he may have connected by zoom to a meeting from his desk in his Parliamentary office. So, what resources did he use?

Assuming he is using his own computer, then I guess there is wear and tear on the chair where he parked his ample trouser seat, and slight abrasion of his desk by the base of his laptop.

This seems to me more trivial that using House of Commons letter paper, for which MPs seem to get regularly done for.

I bet there are no Parliamentary rules on zoom use.

The Commissioner will gleefully demonstrate that you are wrong.

YBarddCwsc

Scott_xP said:

YBarddCwsc said:

I don't see why the pay, terms and conditions for an MP should be so radically different from many other jobs.

A job which requires no skills or qualifications, no training, no experience, no physical barriers with a high degree of job security (and a massive pension).

What should the going rate be for that?

You should know better than anyone, Scott.

RochdalePioneers

Scott_xP said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Or Big G's assurance that the story was moving on from Paterson to Yorkshire CCC and COP26.

BoZo's chicken run to COP26 today will extend the sleaze story for yet another day.

Numpty.

I assume he flying in both directions

Mexicanpete

Dura_Ace said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The IDS story is jaw dropping, it is a text book example of what not to do if you want high standards of probity.

I've fired people for less egregious conflicts of interests.

What were IDS and the PM thinking?

He's either terminally thick, or extremely greedy.

The really amazing thing about the IDS story is the low, low price for which rented out his, presumably as hairless as his head, ringpiece. £25,000!

Duncan-Smith is interesting in that calling into question (again) his financial propriety flies in the face of his image as someone not averse to demanding dodgy benefits claiments are thrown to the courts and to the dogs.

Definitely someone who plays to less rigerous rules than the rest of us.

isam

Scott_xP said:

Gordon Brown calls for a crackdown on MPs second jobbing

“Where there is a conflict of interest using your public office for private gain should be banned outright”

Warns today’s Parliament will be “associated with sleaze” if there is no crackdown #today

https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1458353803841921024

Citing both Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown in less than an hour.

To think it was considered controversial, some took it as an insult, when I said Cameroons and Blairites would be in the same party when politics realigned

Chris

Philip_Thompson said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

I want the most able people who are willing to give up their time to be MPs. I think we have to accept if we are going to get that additional earnings are a part of the package. But I also expect that people are much more alert to both actual and perceived conflicts of interest and accept that there are somethings that they just cannot do.

This is where I think you are quite wrong.
I do not want the most able people if they are not honest and motivated to serve the public.
This isn't a comment on Geoffrey Cox - but a more general point.

But, why does that not apply more generally?

I mean I can say: why should we pay a BBC presenter 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

Why should I pay a High Court judge 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

Why should I pay a top civil servant 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

I don't see why the pay, terms and conditions for an MP should be so radically different from many other jobs.

I see no reason why the BBC, funded by a tax at threat of prison, should be paying people £200k.

Surely it would be well worth it if the person concerned was in a position to influence government policy towards the BBC favourably?

Scott_xP

Gordon Brown sticks the boot in.

“I do believe that unless the Prime Minister takes a grip of this issue this parliament will be remember for the extent to which sleaze has allowed to become a feature of British politics again.”
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1458355415650115585

Roger

TheScreamingEagles said:

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the PM's decision to support Owen Paterson has gone well.

Neither has HY's assurance the day after that it was all over!

Or Big G's assurance that the story was moving on from Paterson to Yorkshire CCC and COP26.

Wasn't it going to move on to Guido's revelation that the Shadow Home Secretary was sending too many letters of complaint about Tory sleaze?

eek

Scott_xP said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Or Big G's assurance that the story was moving on from Paterson to Yorkshire CCC and COP26.

BoZo's chicken run to COP26 today will extend the sleaze story for yet another day.

Numpty.

The failure to close it down yesterday means things will continue all week through the COP26 summit.

That may be the plan however if the COP26 isn't going well.

Scott_xP

YBarddCwsc said:

You should know better than anyone, Scott.

I am not an MP

SouthamObserver

I am about as shocked to discover that Iain Duncan Smith is a grifting shyster as I was to find that it was raining this morning when I woke up.

IanB2

Scott_xP said:

Excellent column from ⁦⁦@Dannythefink⁩ on the likely triggering of Article 16 and the parallel with the Paterson fiasco.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-must-decide-if-they-care-about-reality-rfqbl58d9

To trigger Article 16 while still supporting the Good Friday agreement is to reject both available options. It is to campaign under the slogan “Reality? No thank you!” And this is indeed, as Sir John says, unconservative.

There is a parallel here with the Paterson affair. A group of very self-confident people managed to persuade the rest of the party to act as if Paterson had not done what he absolutely had done. Everyone was persuaded to treat the most ludicrous “dog ate my homework” defence as if the accused was Dreyfus. It is an object lesson in the deleterious consequences of ignoring reality.

The reason why the prime minister agreed to the protocol is that he thought he would be much stronger fighting an election with a withdrawal agreement than offering a no-deal Brexit. And he was correct. Doing that deal was central to the result. It is not just that there were some Conservative-inclined Remainers who would not have voted for a no-deal party. That might have been a relatively small group. It is that large numbers of voters wanted to get the whole thing over with, tie up the loose ends, get on with life. It is these people who will feel bemused and perhaps betrayed if the whole saga begins again. As it might well if we trigger Article 16.

The government has argued that the Northern Ireland protocol has had unexpected consequences. That is flatly not true. That it involved a border in the Irish Sea and regulatory obstacles for Northern Ireland was entirely obvious when it was signed. Indeed it was the subject of extensive public debate.

If the Conservative Party no longer thinks our international agreements matter or that our word as a country is important then, really, what is it? What has it become?

TheScreamingEagles

Roger said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the PM's decision to support Owen Paterson has gone well.

Neither has HY's assurance the day after that it was all over!

Or Big G's assurance that the story was moving on from Paterson to Yorkshire CCC and COP26.

Wasn't it going to move on to Guido's revelation that the Shadow Home Secretary was sending too many letters of complaint about Tory sleaze?

Give it time.

YBarddCwsc

RochdalePioneers said:

YBarddCwsc said:

kle4 said:

It will be dismissed as relatively minor, and certainly Cox seems to have been focused on because of the amount he has earned rather than any specific misbehaviour as this is the first actual such listed, but rules are rules, and parliamentary resources shouldn't be used for non parliamentary work. MPs get chided frequently about sending things on House of Commons letterhead which shouldn't be for example.

I bet Cox has broken no rules.

What did he do? It seems he may have connected by zoom to a meeting from his desk in his Parliamentary office. So, what resources did he use?

Assuming he is using his own computer, then I guess there is wear and tear on the chair where he parked his ample trouser seat, and slight abrasion of his desk by the base of his laptop.

This seems to me more trivial that using House of Commons letter paper, for which MPs seem to get regularly done for.

I bet there are no Parliamentary rules on zoom use.

The Commissioner will gleefully demonstrate that you are wrong.

So, please be specific. What rule do you think Cox has broken?

I think if he had invited people to his MP's office to conduct private business, you would be right.

He connected via zoom.

If he was using his own computing resources, I don't think he has done anything wrong.

HYUFD

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the PM's decision to support Owen Paterson has gone well.

Neither has HY's assurance the day after that it was all over!

The Tories still lead in all the 5 polls taken since the Mori poll which put Labour ahead. So the damage has been somewhat reduced from what it could have been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

Labour have also now started to get caught by this issue. David Lammy for example has earned £141,000 from Google, Facebook and City corporations and Starmer made £25k from legal advice.

So the issue of whether MPs should be allowed a second income or not is not simply a party political one
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10181913/The-LABOUR-MPs-second-jobs-David-Lammy-earned-140-000-three-years.html

eek

RochdalePioneers said:

YBarddCwsc said:

kle4 said:

It will be dismissed as relatively minor, and certainly Cox seems to have been focused on because of the amount he has earned rather than any specific misbehaviour as this is the first actual such listed, but rules are rules, and parliamentary resources shouldn't be used for non parliamentary work. MPs get chided frequently about sending things on House of Commons letterhead which shouldn't be for example.

I bet Cox has broken no rules.

What did he do? It seems he may have connected by zoom to a meeting from his desk in his Parliamentary office. So, what resources did he use?

Assuming he is using his own computer, then I guess there is wear and tear on the chair where he parked his ample trouser seat, and slight abrasion of his desk by the base of his laptop.

This seems to me more trivial that using House of Commons letter paper, for which MPs seem to get regularly done for.

I bet there are no Parliamentary rules on zoom use.

The Commissioner will gleefully demonstrate that you are wrong.

Has the Commissioner actually said anything or are people now expanding things away from things that were beyond dodgy to things that are only dodgy because you hate the 100% honest person involved.

I suspect we are getting to the latter stage which will means those that are relatively dodgy (IDS) will get away scot free

Northern_Al

Antipathy towards the Commissioner and the Standards Committee from a number of Tory MPs has been festering away for months now; it was Paterson (and then Johnson) who, unwisely, dragged it into the public domain. Several Tory MPs have been rebuked for offences such as inappropriate use of headed notepaper, and several cases are ongoing. The Commissioner has been doing her job properly, which is why she's unpopular among a minority of, mainly Tory, MPs.

When Conor Burns was suspended for misuse of parliamentary privilege and intimidation of a constituent using official Commons notepaper, because the suspension was only for 7 days and no recall was involved, the story faded fast. He was lucky the suspension was so short, if you read this summary:

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/290/committee-on-standards/news/115152/committee-on-standards-publishes-report-on-conor-burns/

It does seem that rather too many Tory MPs worship their leader and follow his abiding motto: the rules don't apply to me, they are for the little people.

Selebian

Now £1800 available to bet for an 11% return tomorrow unless the government does an astonishing (even by their standards) reverse ferret on the care home vaccine mandate:
https://smarkets.com/event/42288882/current-affairs/covid-19/lifestyle/will-covid-restrictions-be-re-introduced-in-2021/?market=15612636

DYOR and make sure you've got your back and lay the right way round, as we (well, Philip) discovered yesterday I'm done with this market, so I'm not partaking any more, just watching in morbid fascination at the people apparently offering free money (unless the layer is Sajid Javid engaged in a bit of insider trading!)

rottenborough

News from the sewers:


Kate Ferguson
@kateferguson4
Sajid Javid says it’s ok for an MP to “take a call or maybe make a video call” from their parliamentary office “but the rules are v clear” they shouldn’t be using their Commons office repeatedly #today


(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
23m
This is what I’m talking about. What is the rule? Can you use Commons facilities for second jobs, or can’t you? The only way to resolve this is to ban all second jobs, period.

Scott_xP

Amid a lot of Geoffrey Cox jokes in the past 24 hrs, @patrickkmaguire in the @timesredbox email has come up with the only one that has properly made me laugh.
https://twitter.com/KateMaltby/status/1458356044695015425/photo/1

HYUFD

Foxy said:

kle4 said:

It will be dismissed as relatively minor, and certainly Cox seems to have been focused on because of the amount he has earned rather than any specific misbehaviour as this is the first actual such listed, but rules are rules, and parliamentary resources shouldn't be used for non parliamentary work. MPs get chided frequently about sending things on House of Commons letterhead which shouldn't be for example.

But juicier meat will probably be needed to keep attention on this topic, which is very needed. IDS being a good example, as TimS notes.

Now, a by-election in Chingford and Woodford Green would be tasty indeed!

Not happening, IDS has not done anything criminal or broken any parliamentary rules as they currently stand.

Though of course the Tories could still win a majority even if they lost Chingford and Woodford Green to Labour even if there was given how marginal the seat now is

rottenborough

Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
·
11h
EXC: Amid sleaze row PM has abandoned his Cabinet away day to Chequers on Thursday,
@TheSun
can reveal.

YBarddCwsc

Scott_xP said:

YBarddCwsc said:

You should know better than anyone, Scott.

I am not an MP

But, you are well-qualified to be one, from the description you supplied.

I don't myself like hypocrisy.

So, I don't like it when a bunch of very well-paid people with multiple jobs in the media set themselves up to accuse others of things they do themselves.

I don't like MPs & I don't like Geoffrey Cox -- but I don't like hypocrites more.

TimS

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the PM's decision to support Owen Paterson has gone well.

Neither has HY's assurance the day after that it was all over!

The Tories still lead in all the 5 polls taken since the Mori poll which put Labour ahead. So the damage has been somewhat reduced from what it could have been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

Labour have also now started to get caught by this issue. David Lammy for example has earned £141,000 from Google, Facebook and City corporations and Starmer made £25k from legal advice.

So the issue of whether MPs should be allowed a second income or not is not simply a party political one
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10181913/The-LABOUR-MPs-second-jobs-David-Lammy-earned-140-000-three-years.html

Here's a good insight into the Tory press thinking here. Clever branching out of the story into second jobs, rather than lobbying and conflicts of interest. And hey presto: a plague on all their houses!

Guess what's now not filling the front pages? Boris's holidays. Dodgy test and trace contracts. Cash for peerages. i.e. the real sleaze.

So I don't quite buy the view that the leadership is cocking up the messaging on this. They seem to have landed a couple of quite effective red herrings.

Scott_xP

Tories were frothing at the mouth with those working from home previously.

Geoffrey Cox was working from the Caribbean.

Levelling up.
https://twitter.com/JonJonesSnr/status/1458071468286300162

isam

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the PM's decision to support Owen Paterson has gone well.

Neither has HY's assurance the day after that it was all over!

The Tories still lead in all the 5 polls taken since the Mori poll which put Labour ahead. So the damage has been somewhat reduced from what it could have been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

Labour have also now started to get caught by this issue. David Lammy for example has earned £141,000 from Google, Facebook and City corporations and Starmer made £25k from legal advice.

So the issue of whether MPs should be allowed a second income or not is not simply a party political one
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10181913/The-LABOUR-MPs-second-jobs-David-Lammy-earned-140-000-three-years.html

Sir Keir full of righteous anger about MPs doing what he tried to do

https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1457820419025690632?s=21

MattW

RochdalePioneers said:

YBarddCwsc said:

kle4 said:

It will be dismissed as relatively minor, and certainly Cox seems to have been focused on because of the amount he has earned rather than any specific misbehaviour as this is the first actual such listed, but rules are rules, and parliamentary resources shouldn't be used for non parliamentary work. MPs get chided frequently about sending things on House of Commons letterhead which shouldn't be for example.

I bet Cox has broken no rules.

What did he do? It seems he may have connected by zoom to a meeting from his desk in his Parliamentary office. So, what resources did he use?

Assuming he is using his own computer, then I guess there is wear and tear on the chair where he parked his ample trouser seat, and slight abrasion of his desk by the base of his laptop.

This seems to me more trivial that using House of Commons letter paper, for which MPs seem to get regularly done for.

I bet there are no Parliamentary rules on zoom use.

The Commissioner will gleefully demonstrate that you are wrong.

Serious Q: has the Commissioner previously made such a decision?

If she is serious / competent - and she's the only one I have noticed in that role since Elizabeth Filkin (Mandelson Mortgage case) - then she won't be doing *anything* gleefully.

Not sure how good Philip Mawer and John Lyon were. Philip Mawer was previously a bureaucrat in the Church of England Synod General Synod. No idea who John Lyon was - on the whole I found him a bit weak wrt expenses, and missed some of the opportunities.

Roger

Scott_xP said:

Gordon Brown sticks the boot in.

“I do believe that unless the Prime Minister takes a grip of this issue this parliament will be remember for the extent to which sleaze has allowed to become a feature of British politics again.”
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1458355415650115585

......and James O'Brien fills in a few of the gaps from 'rant 1'

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6dovgn

Selebian

On Cox, if it's just a case of him being sat in his parl office using the computer etc to do the side work, I can't get that worked up about it. If any taxpayer funded aides had been used to assist with that work, then I'd be pretty cross - even if he was using taxpayer funded printing etc. But I don't really see here how the taxpayer loses out any more than if he did his business fom Starbucks.

Of course, if it is against the rules then he has a case to answer, but - as per the comments reported by rottenborough - it seems to be a bit of a grey area. If you're permitted second jobs and you're in your office doing MP work when a meeting is scheduled by video call, what is gained by you stepping outside?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. B2, doesn't Lord Trimble disagree?

Philip_Thompson

Jonathan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

I want the most able people who are willing to give up their time to be MPs. I think we have to accept if we are going to get that additional earnings are a part of the package. But I also expect that people are much more alert to both actual and perceived conflicts of interest and accept that there are somethings that they just cannot do.

This is where I think you are quite wrong.
I do not want the most able people if they are not honest and motivated to serve the public.
This isn't a comment on Geoffrey Cox - but a more general point.

But, why does that not apply more generally?

I mean I can say: why should we pay a BBC presenter 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

Why should I pay a High Court judge 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

Why should I pay a top civil servant 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

I don't see why the pay, terms and conditions for an MP should be so radically different from many other jobs.

I see no reason why the BBC, funded by a tax at threat of prison, should be paying people £200k.

If they want to spend that sort of money, they should raise it privately from willing subscribers.

Nah, the beeb is just paying market rates for the talent people want.

That's fair if they're raising the money from the market.

kjh

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

kle4 said:

It will be dismissed as relatively minor, and certainly Cox seems to have been focused on because of the amount he has earned rather than any specific misbehaviour as this is the first actual such listed, but rules are rules, and parliamentary resources shouldn't be used for non parliamentary work. MPs get chided frequently about sending things on House of Commons letterhead which shouldn't be for example.

But juicier meat will probably be needed to keep attention on this topic, which is very needed. IDS being a good example, as TimS notes.

Now, a by-election in Chingford and Woodford Green would be tasty indeed!

Not happening, IDS has not done anything criminal or broken any parliamentary rules as they currently stand

I don't know the answer to this, but has he not broken any rules re his conflict of interest in this case. If he hasn't the rules are rubbish.

JosiasJessop

New Tory Sleaze scandal!

News emerged last night that Tory MP for Richville West, Sir Toppum Hat, repeatedly went to the toilet on parliamentary premises. He used the toilet on fifteen separate occasions, and wasted sixty sheets of parliamentary toilet paper on what can only be described as intensely 'personal' business.

"It's a disgrace!" commented Labour MP, Mr H.P. O'cryte. "He wasted over an hour luxuriating on the toilet, when he should have been looking after the affairs of his constituents. This misuse of parliamentary time, premises and materials should be investigated immediately, and Mr Hat should be immediately taken onto Parliament Green and hung for his crimes against humanity."

IanB2

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the PM's decision to support Owen Paterson has gone well.

Neither has HY's assurance the day after that it was all over!

The Tories still lead in all the 5 polls taken since the Mori poll which put Labour ahead. So the damage has been somewhat reduced from what it could have been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

Labour have also now started to get caught by this issue. David Lammy for example has earned £141,000 from Google, Facebook and City corporations and Starmer made £25k from legal advice.

So the issue of whether MPs should be allowed a second income or not is not simply a party political one
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10181913/The-LABOUR-MPs-second-jobs-David-Lammy-earned-140-000-three-years.html

Here's a good insight into the Tory press thinking here. Clever branching out of the story into second jobs, rather than lobbying and conflicts of interest. And hey presto: a plague on all their houses!

Guess what's now not filling the front pages? Boris's holidays. Dodgy test and trace contracts. Cash for peerages. i.e. the real sleaze.

So I don't quite buy the view that the leadership is cocking up the messaging on this. They seem to have landed a couple of quite effective red herrings.

Feeding a monster and leading it off into the woods is a *bold* strategy

Philip_Thompson

Chris said:

Philip_Thompson said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

I want the most able people who are willing to give up their time to be MPs. I think we have to accept if we are going to get that additional earnings are a part of the package. But I also expect that people are much more alert to both actual and perceived conflicts of interest and accept that there are somethings that they just cannot do.

This is where I think you are quite wrong.
I do not want the most able people if they are not honest and motivated to serve the public.
This isn't a comment on Geoffrey Cox - but a more general point.

But, why does that not apply more generally?

I mean I can say: why should we pay a BBC presenter 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

Why should I pay a High Court judge 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

Why should I pay a top civil servant 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

I don't see why the pay, terms and conditions for an MP should be so radically different from many other jobs.

I see no reason why the BBC, funded by a tax at threat of prison, should be paying people £200k.

Surely it would be well worth it if the person concerned was in a position to influence government policy towards the BBC favourably?

Not for the licence fee payer who is only paying the licence fee as they're compelled to do so by law, no.

It the BBC is raising it's cash by willing subscribers who pay voluntarily that's fair enough. But it isn't.

rkrkrk

YBarddCwsc said:

rkrkrk said:

DavidL said:

I want the most able people who are willing to give up their time to be MPs. I think we have to accept if we are going to get that additional earnings are a part of the package. But I also expect that people are much more alert to both actual and perceived conflicts of interest and accept that there are somethings that they just cannot do.

This is where I think you are quite wrong.
I do not want the most able people if they are not honest and motivated to serve the public.
This isn't a comment on Geoffrey Cox - but a more general point.

But, why does that not apply more generally?

I mean I can say: why should we pay a BBC presenter 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

Why should I pay a High Court judge 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

Why should I pay a top civil servant 200k? We want someone who is able, honest and motivated to serve the public. That should be enough.

I don't see why the pay, terms and conditions for an MP should be so radically different from many other jobs.

I think being an MP is a fundamentally different role to working in a job as a news presenter, judge or civil servant. Not sure I can easily describe why or how... but it's something about being a decision maker and representative for the country...

In any case, all of those 3 individuals could presumably earn a lot more in the private sector... they have chosen to take a significant pay cut to work for the public sector.

Mexicanpete

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I see the PM's decision to support Owen Paterson has gone well.

Neither has HY's assurance the day after that it was all over!

The Tories still lead in all the 5 polls taken since the Mori poll which put Labour ahead. So the damage has been somewhat reduced from what it could have been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary

Labour have also now started to get caught by this issue. David Lammy for example has earned £141,000 from Google, Facebook and City corporations and Starmer made £25k from legal advice.

So the issue of whether MPs should be allowed a second income or not is not simply a party political one
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10181913/The-LABOUR-MPs-second-jobs-David-Lammy-earned-140-000-three-years.html

You may be correct that IDS's grifting won't affect the Conservatives in the longer term, but your assumption that any association with Labour sleaze will neutralise Tory sleaze is erroneous. Cast your mind back to the "Labour" expenses scandal. Everyone was at it, but it stuck to Labour alone.

TOPPING

1. I'm sure every MP is grateful to the PM for shining a light on their various extra-parliamentary activities; I have no doubt that this is what was intended; and

2. Just finished listening to the excellent "Cheat" podcast, hosted by the even more excellent Alzo Slade. This one was on NFL "race norming". What. The. Actual. Fuck. Extraordinary. Well worth a listen if you hadn't heard of it.

Gallowgate

I’m not sure how I feel about second jobs for backbench MPs now. I get the argument about staying “in touch” but I’m not sure Cox is staying in touch with his constituents with such a job (although I appreciate it’s probably not for me to say).

Part of me thinks that there is an air of entitlement here. That “second jobbing” has always been an unofficial MP perk. Does such a thing fit into modern society?

You can argue semantics about office holders vs employees but at the end of the day we’re paying these people to do a job and if there isn’t enough to do to make it a 9-5 job then maybe we need less MPs? That’s how any other organisation would look at it.

Alternatively we decide collectively that an MP should have “free time” to do with what they so wish, and then its up to the constituents to decide, but then we need very clear rules on transparency and accountability. I’m not sure we do have that.

Mexicanpete

YBarddCwsc said:

RochdalePioneers said:

YBarddCwsc said:

kle4 said:

It will be dismissed as relatively minor, and certainly Cox seems to have been focused on because of the amount he has earned rather than any specific misbehaviour as this is the first actual such listed, but rules are rules, and parliamentary resources shouldn't be used for non parliamentary work. MPs get chided frequently about sending things on House of Commons letterhead which shouldn't be for example.

I bet Cox has broken no rules.

What did he do? It seems he may have connected by zoom to a meeting from his desk in his Parliamentary office. So, what resources did he use?

Assuming he is using his own computer, then I guess there is wear and tear on the chair where he parked his ample trouser seat, and slight abrasion of his desk by the base of his laptop.

This seems to me more trivial that using House of Commons letter paper, for which MPs seem to get regularly done for.

I bet there are no Parliamentary rules on zoom use.

The Commissioner will gleefully demonstrate that you are wrong.

So, please be specific. What rule do you think Cox has broken?

I think if he had invited people to his MP's office to conduct private business, you would be right.

He connected via zoom.

If he was using his own computing resources, I don't think he has done anything wrong.

The free taxpayer's cash he is receiving for pretending to be an MP from the Caribbean might grate on some nonetheless.

RochdalePioneers

IanB2 said:

Scott_xP said:

Excellent column from ⁦⁦@Dannythefink⁩ on the likely triggering of Article 16 and the parallel with the Paterson fiasco.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-must-decide-if-they-care-about-reality-rfqbl58d9

To trigger Article 16 while still supporting the Good Friday agreement is to reject both available options. It is to campaign under the slogan “Reality? No thank you!” And this is indeed, as Sir John says, unconservative.

There is a parallel here with the Paterson affair. A group of very self-confident people managed to persuade the rest of the party to act as if Paterson had not done what he absolutely had done. Everyone was persuaded to treat the most ludicrous “dog ate my homework” defence as if the accused was Dreyfus. It is an object lesson in the deleterious consequences of ignoring reality.

The reason why the prime minister agreed to the protocol is that he thought he would be much stronger fighting an election with a withdrawal agreement than offering a no-deal Brexit. And he was correct. Doing that deal was central to the result. It is not just that there were some Conservative-inclined Remainers who would not have voted for a no-deal party. That might have been a relatively small group. It is that large numbers of voters wanted to get the whole thing over with, tie up the loose ends, get on with life. It is these people who will feel bemused and perhaps betrayed if the whole saga begins again. As it might well if we trigger Article 16.

The government has argued that the Northern Ireland protocol has had unexpected consequences. That is flatly not true. That it involved a border in the Irish Sea and regulatory obstacles for Northern Ireland was entirely obvious when it was signed. Indeed it was the subject of extensive public debate.

If the Conservative Party no longer thinks our international agreements matter or that our word as a country is important then, really, what is it? What has it become?

Naah. Triggering A16 is literally the end of the process. We hold all the cards. There will be no trade war. Huzzah for Boris!