Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
From my own experience I can tell you that if there is an MP or ex MP on the payroll of a finance or consultancy firm for meetings with investors, 95% of the time it will be a Tory.
According to the Guardian
"The register of MPs’ interests shows that more than 90 out of 360 Tories have extra jobs on top of their work in parliament, compared with three from Labour. They are overwhelmingly older and 86% are men. The highest earners were all former cabinet ministers."
Jobs for that analysis is paid regular work, not unpaid roles or "ad hoc payments for journalism, speaking at events, training, lectures or surveys"
So it is a reasonably small number of MPs, mostly the older intake. If it were banned it seems unlikely to change the newer intake much. I would suggest capping it at 500 hours per year and taxing all MP additional job earnings at the highest marginal rate anyone in the country faces.
Funnily enough (or not) it seems to be the MPs who are already wealthy who are making the most money on the side. So I'm not sure that the argument that limits to outside earnings will deter the talented from becoming MPs for such a meagre salary holds much water.
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
The onions are being sliced en masse as we write. About the poor impoverished MPs. Not mainly Tories, no siree.
George Grylls @georgegrylls Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.
He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.
He denies any conflict of interest.
Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.
If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.
Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
Dear me. We are at risk today of being drowned - not by the rising seas caused by climate change - but a veritable tsunami of crocodile tears, especially from those who poo-poohed those of us who pointed out last year the problems with how the government was operating - over contracts and much else.
I distinctly recall writing headers pointing out the issues - specifically, conflicts of interest. And the problem with automatically defending bad behaviour if it was done by your side. And much else besides.
And the response was " it's an emergency" and "no we can't possibly take the 5 minutes needed to declare a conflict of interest or do some accelerated due diligence" and "what's wrong with VIP lanes for friends of the PM and Ministers" and "don't be so moralistic or high-minded" etc etc.
And here we are with the shit hitting the fan as it was always going to do, as plenty of people warned.
You can have all the rules you want but if people refuse to accept they apply to them because they know that their ultimate boss won't enforce them then there is damn all you can do. A good culture comes from the top. And at the top we have a PM who could not care less about these matters. This is not a surprise. Tory MPs and Tory party members were warned about this long before they elected him. They chose to ignore those warnings. Voters did too So now they are getting what they voted for.
We can ask lots of questions about why MPs find it so hard to do the right thing.
We might also ask why it is that voters don't care enough about these matters to ensure that MPs do the right thing. If voters cared about this enough to change their votes then MPs would pretty soon change. They don't. So MPs look at the 80-seat majority and their large individual majorities and safe seats and think that this does not really matter very much to voters.
And those who point out that this hubristic "we are the masters now" approach leads to poor governance and corruption and a careless approach to spending taxpayers' money and the appointment of inadequate and incompetents to important posts and a general Italianisation of our public sphere get ignored or criticised.
Until those at the top take it seriously, until voters take it seriously this stuff will keep on happening.
It's a change of heart which is needed. Not simply a change in the rules.
I can cope with emergency contracts. What I object to is that being used as an excuse for everything that followed:
Contract awarded without tender not to expert company but to one founded last week by a Tory. Lets understand how / why that decision was made to avoid it in the next emergency
Contract awarded where vast sums (so often a £107m contract) were paid for equipment that was delivered faulty / not at all. Lets understand how we have paid for something we haven't received or can't use with no ability to claw back the money
Contract awarded with clear conflict of interest. We can have no future repeat of the "VIP channel" where top Tories lobby to have emergency 9-figure contracts awarded to top Tories
Contracts awarded on top of contracts on top of contracts. Its questionable enough awarding a contract worth double the value of a business even if they are in that field (unlike some others). Its then awarding procurement contracts on top then storage contracts on top. A transport company paid to transport stuff they have been paid to produce which turns out to be overprices usuable crap which the company then wins a further contract to store. Really?
Lets pick these apart, get our money back where the contract hasn't been fulfilled and learn the lessons.
Good morning
I agree with @Cyclefree and yourself and I suppose it was ever thus, and it is evident throughout local government as well
I am not persuaded about Cox but IDS needs to answer the allegations, but on all of this there has been a lot written over the last few days which does seem to be from guilty until proved innocent
Paterson was found guilty, and through Boris need to be liked and inability to follow the correct course he has opened this Pandora box
He is clearly not suitable to be PM but he does have a very loyal following and I am not at all certain he will be leaving his post anytime soon unless he suffers loss of the by elections and falling polling
I have a lot of respect for Chris Bryant and I hope some of the confrontational politics can be moderated to enable genuine cross party talks to resolve these serious issues
Acting as a consultant while an MP should be banned, and outside work permitted where it does not impacting the hours worked as an MP
Using Parliamentary estate for private business is a prima facie breach of the rules, is it not? So there is AIUI a very serious issue with Mr Cox [edit] which needs to be resolved.
I would be very surprised if many other mps have not done the same, especially in lockdown
He has been referred to the Standards Commissioner but according to Sky it is likely to be seen as a very minor breach which he may have to apologise for
You're speculating about what D, E or F might or might not have done. And you are saying 'oh, it's Ok, they all do it'.
The situatiuon with Mr Cox is different. Alleged hard video evidence, remember. At a hypersensitive time.
I am saying that Cox breach is minor and the video was shown on Sky
Are you saying Cox is the only MP to ever have conduced private business from their Commons Office
This MPs’ second jobs issue is tricky. In 1982-83, when John Smith was Shadow Energy Sec, I think I’m right in saying he made just one speech in the Commons, but spent several weeks in summer of 1983 as a QC in Scotland defending a man accused of murder. Was that right?
Not saying Mr Cox did: simply that it is alleged he did, with evidence of a kind which is visibly indicating his location.
Just because X does it doesn't mean it isn't against the rules.
John Smith: that example is a full 38 years old. Maybe in recess, too.
38 years ago they were doing the same, so why has it not been addressed until now
Damn! Am I? [Checks BMI] No, I'm healthy range. Am I ugly? I have been hit upon by women (although not recently to be fair, but then I am married with a wedding ring and... older). Last night's comments were the most action I've had in a long time, discounting marital action
More seriously, perhaps I have been hit on by a guy. I wasn't always the sharpest at spotting it with women. There were times when friends thought a woman was flirting with me and/or I was flirting with a woman and I just thought we were having a fun/interesting conversation (almost got me into a fight once, with a woman's partner - I had no romantic intentions towards her whatsoever).
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
So far the story is going in the opposite direction. "MP's Sleaze" has become "Tory sleaze". We know that coming down the runway we have covid contracts and the Downing Street flat refurb - those are exclusively Tory, as is Coxgate. It will take something massive, or realistically several massive somethings to swing the narrative.
As I posted above, we will see a few opposition MPs taken down by this. But the tsunami wave is targeted on the government and attempts to deflect aren't working.
George Grylls @georgegrylls Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.
He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.
He denies any conflict of interest.
Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.
If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.
Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
Not very libertarian of you Philip. They are private businesses they can and should do what they like.
They're licenced businesses.
If you want it to be private businesses then scrap the requirement for licences. But if you're going to have licences then it should be a condition of the licence that they treat punters equitably.
Fleecing losing punters but restricting winning ones should be something that unlicensed criminals are doing, not legal and licensed bookies given a licence and approval of the Gambling Commission.
Sorry but there are far bigger issues that need to be fixed before you tear up how the industry ensures its profitable (inappropriate / lax advertising laws, problem gambling, money laundering for 3).
Sorry but if the sector can't be profitable by treating punters equitably then maybe the sector shouldn't exist and the problem gambling issue would go away. If the sector is only profitable because its rigging the market to its own favour, then that shouldn't be licenced by the state.
Watch the football live on TV and almost every advert is for a 'free bet' if you do some offer, or something similar, to get people hooked gambling with that firm - but the firm can only do that because they're blocking winning punters from those bets.
If the firms weren't able to rig the market in their favour, they wouldn't be able to have such aggressive advertising to those who they expect to be able to get to become problem gamblers.
More likely the firms would remain profitable, but less profitable, and they'd be less aggressive in their advertising knowing that winning punters would also be able to respond to aggressive adverts.
Dear me. We are at risk today of being drowned - not by the rising seas caused by climate change - but a veritable tsunami of crocodile tears, especially from those who poo-poohed those of us who pointed out last year the problems with how the government was operating - over contracts and much else.
I distinctly recall writing headers pointing out the issues - specifically, conflicts of interest. And the problem with automatically defending bad behaviour if it was done by your side. And much else besides.
And the response was " it's an emergency" and "no we can't possibly take the 5 minutes needed to declare a conflict of interest or do some accelerated due diligence" and "what's wrong with VIP lanes for friends of the PM and Ministers" and "don't be so moralistic or high-minded" etc etc.
And here we are with the shit hitting the fan as it was always going to do, as plenty of people warned.
You can have all the rules you want but if people refuse to accept they apply to them because they know that their ultimate boss won't enforce them then there is damn all you can do. A good culture comes from the top. And at the top we have a PM who could not care less about these matters. This is not a surprise. Tory MPs and Tory party members were warned about this long before they elected him. They chose to ignore those warnings. Voters did too So now they are getting what they voted for.
We can ask lots of questions about why MPs find it so hard to do the right thing.
We might also ask why it is that voters don't care enough about these matters to ensure that MPs do the right thing. If voters cared about this enough to change their votes then MPs would pretty soon change. They don't. So MPs look at the 80-seat majority and their large individual majorities and safe seats and think that this does not really matter very much to voters.
And those who point out that this hubristic "we are the masters now" approach leads to poor governance and corruption and a careless approach to spending taxpayers' money and the appointment of inadequate and incompetents to important posts and a general Italianisation of our public sphere get ignored or criticised.
Until those at the top take it seriously, until voters take it seriously this stuff will keep on happening.
It's a change of heart which is needed. Not simply a change in the rules.
I can cope with emergency contracts. What I object to is that being used as an excuse for everything that followed:
Contract awarded without tender not to expert company but to one founded last week by a Tory. Lets understand how / why that decision was made to avoid it in the next emergency
Contract awarded where vast sums (so often a £107m contract) were paid for equipment that was delivered faulty / not at all. Lets understand how we have paid for something we haven't received or can't use with no ability to claw back the money
Contract awarded with clear conflict of interest. We can have no future repeat of the "VIP channel" where top Tories lobby to have emergency 9-figure contracts awarded to top Tories
Contracts awarded on top of contracts on top of contracts. Its questionable enough awarding a contract worth double the value of a business even if they are in that field (unlike some others). Its then awarding procurement contracts on top then storage contracts on top. A transport company paid to transport stuff they have been paid to produce which turns out to be overprices usuable crap which the company then wins a further contract to store. Really?
Lets pick these apart, get our money back where the contract hasn't been fulfilled and learn the lessons.
Good morning
I agree with @Cyclefree and yourself and I suppose it was ever thus, and it is evident throughout local government as well
I am not persuaded about Cox but IDS needs to answer the allegations, but on all of this there has been a lot written over the last few days which does seem to be from guilty until proved innocent
Paterson was found guilty, and through Boris need to be liked and inability to follow the correct course he has opened this Pandora box
He is clearly not suitable to be PM but he does have a very loyal following and I am not at all certain he will be leaving his post anytime soon unless he suffers loss of the by elections and falling polling
I have a lot of respect for Chris Bryant and I hope some of the confrontational politics can be moderated to enable genuine cross party talks to resolve these serious issues
Acting as a consultant while an MP should be banned, and outside work permitted where it does not impacting the hours worked as an MP
Consultant to whom? And what is a "consultant"?
Charities, businesses, Traddes Unions? What about unpaid (and therefore untransparent) consultancy?
One of the more interesting aspects of the "Alliance for Lobbying Transparency" (seems to have rebranded) is that they seemed to want their member organisations to be less regulated.
It feels like it's easy to define. If you're treating a patient, defending a client in court, playing professional football... that's all unrelated to your work as MP.
If you're getting paid for strategic advice in parliament/to lobby for changes to law... then that's dodgy.
But maybe the line isn't clear. In which case... probably best to just cancel 2nd jobs.
With antibody rates across all age groups at at least 89% it really suggests that we should be at herd immunity now or very soon.
Edit: In the older age groups you can see the impact of booster shots now.
Testing positive for antibodies doesn't imply immunity from infection or inability to infect others, though. If only it were that simple.
Come on Chris - its a lot better than NOT testing positive for antibodies. The vaccines have reduced the severity of the disease in most hugely, and reinfection post recovery is still minimal (unless you know otherwise?). Of course some of the old, frail population will be double and triple vaccinated and still die, but if it wasn't covid, it would be pneumonia or the flu or something else.
We have virtually no NPI's in place in England yet miraculously the case numbers (I know, I know) have dropped for two weeks now. Thats what herd immunity looks like, but it doesn't mean no one will catch covid.
George Grylls @georgegrylls Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.
He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.
He denies any conflict of interest.
Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.
If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.
Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
I wouldn't go that far. But a minimum standard market size available to all punters is appropriate. Something like to win £100 on specials and £500 on match odds, a horse race etc.
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.
An interesting one. Under English law everything is allowed unless specifically prohibited. It seems likely that the rules over use of Parliamentary offices was not written with zoom in mind, and probably does not mention it. I expect it says something like, "Parliamentary offices may not be used to conduct private business."
That wording would seem to preclude using the office to connect to zoom calls, but you could see that if the wording was more specific that it might only cover physical in person meetings.
Clearly one for the lawyers.
If you hold a meeting in a Parliamentary office, then the prestige of the surroundings in the HoC adds to the importance & gravitas of the occasion. I can see why that is improper for MPs to use it for private business.
A zoom call with a rather nondescript wall and blinds in the background (apparently it is his Parliamentary office, though it looks pretty undistinguished to me) seems not to offer the same gravitas.
So I can't see how his zoom backdrop can be affecting anything.
I'm sure you are right -- the rules don't mention zoom, and Cox will have no difficulty in wriggling free.
More to the point, I am not even sure I think it should be against the rules.
This looks and smells like a dead cat.
Not so sure about that. Even using HoC notepaper for private business purposes is forbidden. And using HoC property for personal purposes [edit] - or at least busainess (not worried about things like sorting out coming home times) is prima facie wrong. Including computer networks. Any ordinary civil servant knows that [edit] when it comes to using work tech for private business. And compare the regulations about income and CGT and home offices (that there are tax allowances doesn't obviate the underlying issue).
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!
Quite right.
Sir John is delusional and has never reconciled to Brexit. The dying gasp of people who can't accept Brexit should be ignored and the government should plow on with Article 16 because there is no alternative.
ECJ oversight of SM rules as they apply to NI - are we agreed this is our acid test for who has "caved" and who has "won" with whatever the agreed outcome is after the inevitable row?
Since I'm expecting a climbdown from Brussels, I also expect there to be a face-saving figleaf they can point to. Some supposed role for the ECJ, but completely neutered and with Britain maintaining the right to invoke Article 16 if the ECJ does get involved (so its there but not there) is quite possible I think.
There are far more substantive issues to address. It wouldn't surprise me if the ECJ being the hill they're prepared to die on, means that the EU gives ground on every other issue while keeping a tokenistic role for the ECJ. Thus winning that battle but losing the war.
A bit like Barnier getting completely obsessed over fish at the end of the TCA negotiations and Frost making out like a bandit on all the important issues like governance, divergence etc
Ok, sorry, missed that. Thanks for reposting.
So you're rolling the pitch so as to be able to claim "We Win!" regardless. Which is the usual MO from you tbf. Never mind, it was worth a try.
Let's just pose another one before we get back to the more interesting and important topic of Johnson Tory Sleaze. Are we going to trigger Art 16?
If your answer is the inevitable "Yes, if the EU don't cave, but if they do cave, no" don't worry about typing it all out, you can just say "Bananas!" and I'll understand.
George Grylls @georgegrylls Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.
He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.
He denies any conflict of interest.
Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.
If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.
Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
Not very libertarian of you Philip. They are private businesses they can and should do what they like.
They're licenced businesses.
If you want it to be private businesses then scrap the requirement for licences. But if you're going to have licences then it should be a condition of the licence that they treat punters equitably.
Fleecing losing punters but restricting winning ones should be something that unlicensed criminals are doing, not legal and licensed bookies given a licence and approval of the Gambling Commission.
They are operating freely under and in accordance with their licences. The government doesn't tell them what odds to offer on the favourite at Huntingdon. Nor should it tell them which customers to accept.
Surprised you aren't campaigning for the abolition of the licences.
Dear me. We are at risk today of being drowned - not by the rising seas caused by climate change - but a veritable tsunami of crocodile tears, especially from those who poo-poohed those of us who pointed out last year the problems with how the government was operating - over contracts and much else.
I distinctly recall writing headers pointing out the issues - specifically, conflicts of interest. And the problem with automatically defending bad behaviour if it was done by your side. And much else besides.
And the response was " it's an emergency" and "no we can't possibly take the 5 minutes needed to declare a conflict of interest or do some accelerated due diligence" and "what's wrong with VIP lanes for friends of the PM and Ministers" and "don't be so moralistic or high-minded" etc etc.
And here we are with the shit hitting the fan as it was always going to do, as plenty of people warned.
You can have all the rules you want but if people refuse to accept they apply to them because they know that their ultimate boss won't enforce them then there is damn all you can do. A good culture comes from the top. And at the top we have a PM who could not care less about these matters. This is not a surprise. Tory MPs and Tory party members were warned about this long before they elected him. They chose to ignore those warnings. Voters did too So now they are getting what they voted for.
We can ask lots of questions about why MPs find it so hard to do the right thing.
We might also ask why it is that voters don't care enough about these matters to ensure that MPs do the right thing. If voters cared about this enough to change their votes then MPs would pretty soon change. They don't. So MPs look at the 80-seat majority and their large individual majorities and safe seats and think that this does not really matter very much to voters.
And those who point out that this hubristic "we are the masters now" approach leads to poor governance and corruption and a careless approach to spending taxpayers' money and the appointment of inadequate and incompetents to important posts and a general Italianisation of our public sphere get ignored or criticised.
Until those at the top take it seriously, until voters take it seriously this stuff will keep on happening.
It's a change of heart which is needed. Not simply a change in the rules.
I can cope with emergency contracts. What I object to is that being used as an excuse for everything that followed:
Contract awarded without tender not to expert company but to one founded last week by a Tory. Lets understand how / why that decision was made to avoid it in the next emergency
Contract awarded where vast sums (so often a £107m contract) were paid for equipment that was delivered faulty / not at all. Lets understand how we have paid for something we haven't received or can't use with no ability to claw back the money
Contract awarded with clear conflict of interest. We can have no future repeat of the "VIP channel" where top Tories lobby to have emergency 9-figure contracts awarded to top Tories
Contracts awarded on top of contracts on top of contracts. Its questionable enough awarding a contract worth double the value of a business even if they are in that field (unlike some others). Its then awarding procurement contracts on top then storage contracts on top. A transport company paid to transport stuff they have been paid to produce which turns out to be overprices usuable crap which the company then wins a further contract to store. Really?
Lets pick these apart, get our money back where the contract hasn't been fulfilled and learn the lessons.
Good morning
I agree with @Cyclefree and yourself and I suppose it was ever thus, and it is evident throughout local government as well
I am not persuaded about Cox but IDS needs to answer the allegations, but on all of this there has been a lot written over the last few days which does seem to be from guilty until proved innocent
Paterson was found guilty, and through Boris need to be liked and inability to follow the correct course he has opened this Pandora box
He is clearly not suitable to be PM but he does have a very loyal following and I am not at all certain he will be leaving his post anytime soon unless he suffers loss of the by elections and falling polling
I have a lot of respect for Chris Bryant and I hope some of the confrontational politics can be moderated to enable genuine cross party talks to resolve these serious issues
Acting as a consultant while an MP should be banned, and outside work permitted where it does not impacting the hours worked as an MP
Using Parliamentary estate for private business is a prima facie breach of the rules, is it not? So there is AIUI a very serious issue with Mr Cox [edit] which needs to be resolved.
I would be very surprised if many other mps have not done the same, especially in lockdown
He has been referred to the Standards Commissioner but according to Sky it is likely to be seen as a very minor breach which he may have to apologise for
You're speculating about what D, E or F might or might not have done. And you are saying 'oh, it's Ok, they all do it'.
The situatiuon with Mr Cox is different. Alleged hard video evidence, remember. At a hypersensitive time.
I am saying that Cox breach is minor and the video was shown on Sky
Are you saying Cox is the only MP to ever have conduced private business from their Commons Office
This MPs’ second jobs issue is tricky. In 1982-83, when John Smith was Shadow Energy Sec, I think I’m right in saying he made just one speech in the Commons, but spent several weeks in summer of 1983 as a QC in Scotland defending a man accused of murder. Was that right?
Not saying Mr Cox did: simply that it is alleged he did, with evidence of a kind which is visibly indicating his location.
Just because X does it doesn't mean it isn't against the rules.
John Smith: that example is a full 38 years old. Maybe in recess, too.
38 years ago they were doing the same, so why has it not been addressed until now
People were robbing banks 38 years ago. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be stopped now.
There has been more attention on cases across Europe. What is even more concerning is the share of positive cases. We peaked at around 5%. Many countries in Europe are now closing in on 15%.
George Grylls @georgegrylls Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.
He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.
He denies any conflict of interest.
Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.
If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.
Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
Not very libertarian of you Philip. They are private businesses they can and should do what they like.
As long as MPs salaries are £82,000 a year they're going to do other jobs unless it's specifically outlawed, for the simple reason that most of them would otherwise be doing jobs paying a lot more than that.
That may have been true for old style Tory grandees like Cox, I don't think it is true for most Labour and SNP MPs nor many of the LDs and nor is true for many of the new Tory MPs elected in the RedWall who did not do high earning jobs in London but often worked in or near their constituencies as small businessmen or local solicitors and accountants etc.
Plus increasingly many MPs have been political researchers before election or SPADs and have never really worked outside politics before election, that was true of Osborne or Ed Miliband for instance when they were elected
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
George Grylls @georgegrylls Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.
He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.
He denies any conflict of interest.
Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.
If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.
Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
Not very libertarian of you Philip. They are private businesses they can and should do what they like.
George Grylls @georgegrylls Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.
He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.
He denies any conflict of interest.
Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.
If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.
Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
Not very libertarian of you Philip. They are private businesses they can and should do what they like.
They're licenced businesses.
If you want it to be private businesses then scrap the requirement for licences. But if you're going to have licences then it should be a condition of the licence that they treat punters equitably.
Fleecing losing punters but restricting winning ones should be something that unlicensed criminals are doing, not legal and licensed bookies given a licence and approval of the Gambling Commission.
They are operating freely under and in accordance with their licences. The government doesn't tell them what odds to offer on the favourite at Huntingdon. Nor should it tell them which customers to accept.
Surprised you aren't campaigning for the abolition of the licences.
It should be able to offer whatever odds it wants, what it shouldn't be able to do is restrict those odds to be available to losers only.
I see no reason if we're not going to abolish licences that a condition of licences shouldn't be that all potential punters are treated equitably. If they wish to stake limit a market to say £100 or £500 to prevent people from making too much if they're good at punting then that's fair enough - but then they should equally be stake limited to the same amount for those who are bad at punting too.
Its illegal to discriminate based on race, sex etc if you're operating as a business. Why should it be legal for bookies to discriminate against winning punters in order to better aggressively advertise at problem gamblers instead?
There has been more attention on cases across Europe. What is even more concerning is the share of positive cases. We peaked at around 5%. Many countries in Europe are now closing in on 15%.
As long as MPs salaries are £82,000 a year they're going to do other jobs unless it's specifically outlawed, for the simple reason that most of them would otherwise be doing jobs paying a lot more than that.
I think a lot of this board are likely to make the same mistake as most Tory MPs - to the vast bulk of the electorate, £82k is a lot of money and they can't see why anyone would need more than that. As it happens I earn almost exactly the same as an MP and it's possible to live very comfortably on it. So the public will just see greedy (Tory?) MPS with their snouts in the trough.
Dear me. We are at risk today of being drowned - not by the rising seas caused by climate change - but a veritable tsunami of crocodile tears, especially from those who poo-poohed those of us who pointed out last year the problems with how the government was operating - over contracts and much else.
I distinctly recall writing headers pointing out the issues - specifically, conflicts of interest. And the problem with automatically defending bad behaviour if it was done by your side. And much else besides.
And the response was " it's an emergency" and "no we can't possibly take the 5 minutes needed to declare a conflict of interest or do some accelerated due diligence" and "what's wrong with VIP lanes for friends of the PM and Ministers" and "don't be so moralistic or high-minded" etc etc.
And here we are with the shit hitting the fan as it was always going to do, as plenty of people warned.
You can have all the rules you want but if people refuse to accept they apply to them because they know that their ultimate boss won't enforce them then there is damn all you can do. A good culture comes from the top. And at the top we have a PM who could not care less about these matters. This is not a surprise. Tory MPs and Tory party members were warned about this long before they elected him. They chose to ignore those warnings. Voters did too So now they are getting what they voted for.
We can ask lots of questions about why MPs find it so hard to do the right thing.
We might also ask why it is that voters don't care enough about these matters to ensure that MPs do the right thing. If voters cared about this enough to change their votes then MPs would pretty soon change. They don't. So MPs look at the 80-seat majority and their large individual majorities and safe seats and think that this does not really matter very much to voters.
And those who point out that this hubristic "we are the masters now" approach leads to poor governance and corruption and a careless approach to spending taxpayers' money and the appointment of inadequate and incompetents to important posts and a general Italianisation of our public sphere get ignored or criticised.
Until those at the top take it seriously, until voters take it seriously this stuff will keep on happening.
It's a change of heart which is needed. Not simply a change in the rules.
I can cope with emergency contracts. What I object to is that being used as an excuse for everything that followed:
Contract awarded without tender not to expert company but to one founded last week by a Tory. Lets understand how / why that decision was made to avoid it in the next emergency
Contract awarded where vast sums (so often a £107m contract) were paid for equipment that was delivered faulty / not at all. Lets understand how we have paid for something we haven't received or can't use with no ability to claw back the money
Contract awarded with clear conflict of interest. We can have no future repeat of the "VIP channel" where top Tories lobby to have emergency 9-figure contracts awarded to top Tories
Contracts awarded on top of contracts on top of contracts. Its questionable enough awarding a contract worth double the value of a business even if they are in that field (unlike some others). Its then awarding procurement contracts on top then storage contracts on top. A transport company paid to transport stuff they have been paid to produce which turns out to be overprices usuable crap which the company then wins a further contract to store. Really?
Lets pick these apart, get our money back where the contract hasn't been fulfilled and learn the lessons.
Good morning
I agree with @Cyclefree and yourself and I suppose it was ever thus, and it is evident throughout local government as well
I am not persuaded about Cox but IDS needs to answer the allegations, but on all of this there has been a lot written over the last few days which does seem to be from guilty until proved innocent
Paterson was found guilty, and through Boris need to be liked and inability to follow the correct course he has opened this Pandora box
He is clearly not suitable to be PM but he does have a very loyal following and I am not at all certain he will be leaving his post anytime soon unless he suffers loss of the by elections and falling polling
I have a lot of respect for Chris Bryant and I hope some of the confrontational politics can be moderated to enable genuine cross party talks to resolve these serious issues
Acting as a consultant while an MP should be banned, and outside work permitted where it does not impacting the hours worked as an MP
Using Parliamentary estate for private business is a prima facie breach of the rules, is it not? So there is AIUI a very serious issue with Mr Cox [edit] which needs to be resolved.
I would be very surprised if many other mps have not done the same, especially in lockdown
He has been referred to the Standards Commissioner but according to Sky it is likely to be seen as a very minor breach which he may have to apologise for
You're speculating about what D, E or F might or might not have done. And you are saying 'oh, it's Ok, they all do it'.
The situatiuon with Mr Cox is different. Alleged hard video evidence, remember. At a hypersensitive time.
I am saying that Cox breach is minor and the video was shown on Sky
Are you saying Cox is the only MP to ever have conduced private business from their Commons Office
This MPs’ second jobs issue is tricky. In 1982-83, when John Smith was Shadow Energy Sec, I think I’m right in saying he made just one speech in the Commons, but spent several weeks in summer of 1983 as a QC in Scotland defending a man accused of murder. Was that right?
Not saying Mr Cox did: simply that it is alleged he did, with evidence of a kind which is visibly indicating his location.
Just because X does it doesn't mean it isn't against the rules.
John Smith: that example is a full 38 years old. Maybe in recess, too.
38 years ago they were doing the same, so why has it not been addressed until now
People were robbing banks 38 years ago. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be stopped now.
George Grylls @georgegrylls Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.
He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.
He denies any conflict of interest.
Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.
If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.
Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
Not very libertarian of you Philip. They are private businesses they can and should do what they like.
Private businesses aren’t subject to the law ?
They aren't and shouldn't be subject to the government telling them how to run their businesses.
Go to Coutts earning the median wage with no assets and ask to become a customer.
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
I am imagining Geordie Greig chairing the zoom call fightback plan with HYUFD, PT and BigG and getting quite frustrated with the arguments over who is the proper Tory.
I am not a conservative member anymore and anyway in @HYUFD eyes I am either a lib dem or labour and am most definitely not a conservative
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
So £100,000 over 5 years when he could easily earn £10,000+ a month doing private work.
Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
It's just that the Tories are the best at sleaze. Mainly because being capitalists they love nothing better than lining their own pockets.
Labour are instinctively less motivated by personal gain so there are proportionately fewer with their hands in the till.
I wouldn't quite put it like that.
I'd say that stereotypical Tories forget that they sometimes have things that normal people don't, and assume entitlement- which then is seen as unacceptable. And that stereotypical Lab don't have such things, and want them.
That looks to me like one pattern in the Expenses scandal. Both sides end up behaving differently from normal individuals, because the opportunity is there.
Interestingly, a lot of the really egregious stuff was related to property.
Dear me. We are at risk today of being drowned - not by the rising seas caused by climate change - but a veritable tsunami of crocodile tears, especially from those who poo-poohed those of us who pointed out last year the problems with how the government was operating - over contracts and much else.
I distinctly recall writing headers pointing out the issues - specifically, conflicts of interest. And the problem with automatically defending bad behaviour if it was done by your side. And much else besides.
And the response was " it's an emergency" and "no we can't possibly take the 5 minutes needed to declare a conflict of interest or do some accelerated due diligence" and "what's wrong with VIP lanes for friends of the PM and Ministers" and "don't be so moralistic or high-minded" etc etc.
And here we are with the shit hitting the fan as it was always going to do, as plenty of people warned.
You can have all the rules you want but if people refuse to accept they apply to them because they know that their ultimate boss won't enforce them then there is damn all you can do. A good culture comes from the top. And at the top we have a PM who could not care less about these matters. This is not a surprise. Tory MPs and Tory party members were warned about this long before they elected him. They chose to ignore those warnings. Voters did too So now they are getting what they voted for.
We can ask lots of questions about why MPs find it so hard to do the right thing.
We might also ask why it is that voters don't care enough about these matters to ensure that MPs do the right thing. If voters cared about this enough to change their votes then MPs would pretty soon change. They don't. So MPs look at the 80-seat majority and their large individual majorities and safe seats and think that this does not really matter very much to voters.
And those who point out that this hubristic "we are the masters now" approach leads to poor governance and corruption and a careless approach to spending taxpayers' money and the appointment of inadequate and incompetents to important posts and a general Italianisation of our public sphere get ignored or criticised.
Until those at the top take it seriously, until voters take it seriously this stuff will keep on happening.
It's a change of heart which is needed. Not simply a change in the rules.
I can cope with emergency contracts. What I object to is that being used as an excuse for everything that followed:
Contract awarded without tender not to expert company but to one founded last week by a Tory. Lets understand how / why that decision was made to avoid it in the next emergency
Contract awarded where vast sums (so often a £107m contract) were paid for equipment that was delivered faulty / not at all. Lets understand how we have paid for something we haven't received or can't use with no ability to claw back the money
Contract awarded with clear conflict of interest. We can have no future repeat of the "VIP channel" where top Tories lobby to have emergency 9-figure contracts awarded to top Tories
Contracts awarded on top of contracts on top of contracts. Its questionable enough awarding a contract worth double the value of a business even if they are in that field (unlike some others). Its then awarding procurement contracts on top then storage contracts on top. A transport company paid to transport stuff they have been paid to produce which turns out to be overprices usuable crap which the company then wins a further contract to store. Really?
Lets pick these apart, get our money back where the contract hasn't been fulfilled and learn the lessons.
Good morning
I agree with @Cyclefree and yourself and I suppose it was ever thus, and it is evident throughout local government as well
I am not persuaded about Cox but IDS needs to answer the allegations, but on all of this there has been a lot written over the last few days which does seem to be from guilty until proved innocent
Paterson was found guilty, and through Boris need to be liked and inability to follow the correct course he has opened this Pandora box
He is clearly not suitable to be PM but he does have a very loyal following and I am not at all certain he will be leaving his post anytime soon unless he suffers loss of the by elections and falling polling
I have a lot of respect for Chris Bryant and I hope some of the confrontational politics can be moderated to enable genuine cross party talks to resolve these serious issues
Acting as a consultant while an MP should be banned, and outside work permitted where it does not impacting the hours worked as an MP
Using Parliamentary estate for private business is a prima facie breach of the rules, is it not? So there is AIUI a very serious issue with Mr Cox [edit] which needs to be resolved.
I would be very surprised if many other mps have not done the same, especially in lockdown
He has been referred to the Standards Commissioner but according to Sky it is likely to be seen as a very minor breach which he may have to apologise for
You're speculating about what D, E or F might or might not have done. And you are saying 'oh, it's Ok, they all do it'.
The situatiuon with Mr Cox is different. Alleged hard video evidence, remember. At a hypersensitive time.
I am saying that Cox breach is minor and the video was shown on Sky
Are you saying Cox is the only MP to ever have conduced private business from their Commons Office
This MPs’ second jobs issue is tricky. In 1982-83, when John Smith was Shadow Energy Sec, I think I’m right in saying he made just one speech in the Commons, but spent several weeks in summer of 1983 as a QC in Scotland defending a man accused of murder. Was that right?
Not saying Mr Cox did: simply that it is alleged he did, with evidence of a kind which is visibly indicating his location.
Just because X does it doesn't mean it isn't against the rules.
John Smith: that example is a full 38 years old. Maybe in recess, too.
38 years ago they were doing the same, so why has it not been addressed until now
People were robbing banks 38 years ago. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be stopped now.
We are allowed to rob banks?
Apparently the Parliamentary equivalent is permissible according to some on this board.
The parliamentary commissioner for standards, Kathryn Stone, is going to need a lot more staff at this rate.
I believe there are some in her building quite happy to take on second jobs.
Isn't that a conflict of interest that will need investigating. I'm spinning down the plug hole of logic with that one and just wondering where it will end up.
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
So £100,000 over 5 years when he could easily earn £10,000+ a month doing private work.
Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
Or we could have parliament in session for a normal amount of time (some years they have 20+ weeks off!) and then reduce the amount of times bills fail not because there is no majority for them but simply because we ran out of time before the MPs swan off to the med on all expenses paid for holidays.
George Grylls @georgegrylls Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.
He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.
He denies any conflict of interest.
Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.
If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.
Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
Not very libertarian of you Philip. They are private businesses they can and should do what they like.
They're licenced businesses.
If you want it to be private businesses then scrap the requirement for licences. But if you're going to have licences then it should be a condition of the licence that they treat punters equitably.
Fleecing losing punters but restricting winning ones should be something that unlicensed criminals are doing, not legal and licensed bookies given a licence and approval of the Gambling Commission.
Sorry but there are far bigger issues that need to be fixed before you tear up how the industry ensures its profitable (inappropriate / lax advertising laws, problem gambling, money laundering for 3).
Sorry but if the sector can't be profitable by treating punters equitably then maybe the sector shouldn't exist and the problem gambling issue would go away. If the sector is only profitable because its rigging the market to its own favour, then that shouldn't be licenced by the state.
Watch the football live on TV and almost every advert is for a 'free bet' if you do some offer, or something similar, to get people hooked gambling with that firm - but the firm can only do that because they're blocking winning punters from those bets.
If the firms weren't able to rig the market in their favour, they wouldn't be able to have such aggressive advertising to those who they expect to be able to get to become problem gamblers.
More likely the firms would remain profitable, but less profitable, and they'd be less aggressive in their advertising knowing that winning punters would also be able to respond to aggressive adverts.
While you may be right, my concern would be that you are trying to fix a problem (lax advertising and promos) while fixing a second issue (banning winning punters). While you may be correct that the second problem would resolve the first problem I wouldn't want to bet on it (excuse the unintentional pun).
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
So £100,000 over 5 years when he could easily earn £10,000+ a month doing private work.
Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
We have established what he is, now we're just haggling over the price as someone said to someone else
Cox was a disastrous choice of primary target. Fatcat knighted lawyer, who could be possibly be compared with on the labour front bench?
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
So £100,000 over 5 years when he could easily earn £10,000+ a month doing private work.
Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
No mate you can't pick and choose. Either second jobs are fine and it's up to the MP to manage them or they are not fine.
The parliamentary commissioner for standards, Kathryn Stone, is going to need a lot more staff at this rate.
I believe there are some in her building quite happy to take on second jobs.
Isn't that a conflict of interest that will need investigating. I'm spinning down the plug hole of logic with that one and just wondering where it will end up.
Isn't that different? Civil servants. It's AIUI not wrong to have a second earner if it doesn't conflict with the main one. P. D. James for instance started by writing her novels in the evenings and weekends (and on commuter trains?) from her CS post. But in any case a disclosure to management will resolve any residual issues.
George Grylls @georgegrylls Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.
He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.
He denies any conflict of interest.
Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.
If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.
Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
George Grylls @georgegrylls Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.
He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.
He denies any conflict of interest.
Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.
If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.
Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
Not very libertarian of you Philip. They are private businesses they can and should do what they like.
Private businesses aren’t subject to the law ?
They aren't and shouldn't be subject to the government telling them how to run their businesses.
Go to Coutts earning the median wage with no assets and ask to become a customer.
If Coutts say you can't be a customer because of your ethnicity that would be against the law, would it not?
The issue is that bookies do accept people as customers, then cut them off because they're winning in order to more aggressively exploit those who are losing.
As long as MPs salaries are £82,000 a year they're going to do other jobs unless it's specifically outlawed, for the simple reason that most of them would otherwise be doing jobs paying a lot more than that.
I think a lot of this board are likely to make the same mistake as most Tory MPs - to the vast bulk of the electorate, £82k is a lot of money and they can't see why anyone would need more than that. As it happens I earn almost exactly the same as an MP and it's possible to live very comfortably on it. So the public will just see greedy (Tory?) MPS with their snouts in the trough.
Furthermore we've established beyond all doubt that it is a part time position. So the FTE salary must be higher than £82,000.
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
So £100,000 over 5 years when he could easily earn £10,000+ a month doing private work.
Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
Or we could have parliament in session for a normal amount of time (some years they have 20+ weeks off!) and then reduce the amount of times bills fail not because there is no majority for them but simply because we ran out of time before the MPs swan off to the med on all expenses paid for holidays.
It's just that the Tories are the best at sleaze. Mainly because being capitalists they love nothing better than lining their own pockets.
Labour are instinctively less motivated by personal gain so there are proportionately fewer with their hands in the till.
** raises eyebrow **
I was told this week of a former Labour Minister now in the Lords who is so rich that he pays for his grandchildren to go to Eton.
Greed cuts across party lines.
Does paying for your grandchildren to go to Eton suggest he 'had his hands in the till'?
No. And I am not suggesting that this person did anything illegal. Looking at their career they have done a lot of things which might have allowed them to accumulate the necessary wealth.
I was merely pointing out that the assumption that Labour politicians are not interested in accumulating wealth is not a safe one to make.
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
So far the story is going in the opposite direction. "MP's Sleaze" has become "Tory sleaze". We know that coming down the runway we have covid contracts and the Downing Street flat refurb - those are exclusively Tory, as is Coxgate. It will take something massive, or realistically several massive somethings to swing the narrative.
As I posted above, we will see a few opposition MPs taken down by this. But the tsunami wave is targeted on the government and attempts to deflect aren't working.
Why should I want it deflected.
Paterson was found guilty and should have served his penalty and would have but for Boris's idiotic actions, and so must each and every wrongdoer go before the Standards Commissioner and hopefully a better beefed up one and be cleared or if guilty take the consequences
I would agree however there are far too many assuming guilt even before a hearing and that sits very uncomfortably with me.
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
I wasn't having a go at you. But thank you for proving my point, anyway. For you, the guilt is spread across parties. For me, it's the Tories who own it. The emerging evidence is on my side at the moment.
George Grylls @georgegrylls Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.
He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.
He denies any conflict of interest.
Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.
If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.
Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
Not very libertarian of you Philip. They are private businesses they can and should do what they like.
Private businesses aren’t subject to the law ?
They aren't and shouldn't be subject to the government telling them how to run their businesses.
Go to Coutts earning the median wage with no assets and ask to become a customer.
If Coutts say you can't be a customer because of your ethnicity that would be against the law, would it not?
The issue is that bookies do accept people as customers, then cut them off because they're winning in order to more aggressively exploit those who are losing.
Irrelevant about the race example why on earth did you bring it up.
It is a commercial decision. They make money off richer people and simply don't allow poorer people to be clients.
You are complaining because some firms are refusing people services for commercial reasons. Just like Coutts and many others do.
The parliamentary commissioner for standards, Kathryn Stone, is going to need a lot more staff at this rate.
I believe there are some in her building quite happy to take on second jobs.
Kathryn Stone could really shake the system up and employ a recently-unemployed person who has detailed and extensive knowledge of how all the standards processes work. Step forward, Mr Paterson.
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
I wasn't having a go at you. But thank you for proving my point, anyway. For you, the guilt is spread across parties. For me, it's the Tories who own it. The emerging evidence is on my side at the moment.
Why is it on one side?
Is Keir Starmer a Tory? Is Ed Davey? Is Ian Blackford?
And those are just the leaders of their respective parties [in Westminster for Blackford].
If you want to make it party-partisan you can, but that's just through wilful disregard of what is going on elsewhere.
I've changed my view on the government. I thought that Boris had a political style that would avoid corruption scandals, but the Patterson incident may have started a snowball encompassing all sorts of things: other dubious second jobs, the downing street refurb, dodgy bungs to marginal constituencies, lucrative covid contracts, Greensill and David Cameron; etc etc. The government got no credit for the U turn, it just looks like a sign of weakness, and may not have really helped anything. In betting terms, the value is probably to wait for it to get really bad, which it undoubtedly will; then bet on a conservative majority - as ultimately corruption is unlikely to be determinative in many peoples voting decisions.
I've changed my view on the government. I thought that Boris had a political style that would avoid corruption scandals, but the Patterson incident may have started a snowball encompassing all sorts of things: other dubious second jobs, the downing street refurb, dodgy bungs to marginal constituencies, lucrative covid contracts, Greensill and David Cameron; etc etc. The government got no credit for the U turn, it just looks like a sign of weakness, and may not have really helped anything. In betting terms, the value is probably to wait for it to get really bad, which it undoubtedly will; then bet on a conservative majority - as ultimately corruption is unlikely to be determinative in many peoples voting decisions.
Interesting. But what about when Messrs Major and Blair had their general election?
George Grylls @georgegrylls Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.
He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.
He denies any conflict of interest.
Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.
If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.
Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
Not very libertarian of you Philip. They are private businesses they can and should do what they like.
Private businesses aren’t subject to the law ?
They aren't and shouldn't be subject to the government telling them how to run their businesses.
Go to Coutts earning the median wage with no assets and ask to become a customer.
If Coutts say you can't be a customer because of your ethnicity that would be against the law, would it not?
The issue is that bookies do accept people as customers, then cut them off because they're winning in order to more aggressively exploit those who are losing.
Irrelevant about the race example why on earth did you bring it up.
It is a commercial decision. They make money off richer people and simply don't allow poorer people to be clients.
You are complaining because some firms are refusing people services for commercial reasons. Just like Coutts and many others do.
The point is that the law already does get involved in saying firms can't discriminate.
If the law were to say that licensed gambling firms are not permitted to discriminate against winning punters, as a condition of their licence, that'd be reasonable as far as I'm concerned. If firms don't want to honour that condition, they wouldn't have to get a licence if they didn't want one, but they wouldn't then be able to do anything that requires a licence.
It's just that the Tories are the best at sleaze. Mainly because being capitalists they love nothing better than lining their own pockets.
Labour are instinctively less motivated by personal gain so there are proportionately fewer with their hands in the till.
** raises eyebrow **
I was told this week of a former Labour Minister now in the Lords who is so rich that he pays for his grandchildren to go to Eton.
Greed cuts across party lines.
Does paying for your grandchildren to go to Eton suggest he 'had his hands in the till'?
No. And I am not suggesting that this person did anything illegal. Looking at their career they have done a lot of things which might have allowed them to accumulate the necessary wealth.
I was merely pointing out that the assumption that Labour politicians are not interested in accumulating wealth is not a safe one to make.
Indeed, it was of course Peter Mandelson who said New Labour was 'perfectly relaxed about people getting filty rich.'
With even the NHS are defending him perhaps it is time to move on?
Not valid. Who's the boss of the NHS? And who's the boss's boss?
Ah yeah, coerced under threat of being fired. Seriously...
Oh yes. One of the best ways of getting sacked is to embarrass your employer politically, on the media, etc. It'll be in the contract of employment. As in, telling Mr J to behave = pointing out explicitly or implicitly how gutless the management is in enforcing health regulations on all visitors.
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
I wasn't having a go at you. But thank you for proving my point, anyway. For you, the guilt is spread across parties. For me, it's the Tories who own it. The emerging evidence is on my side at the moment.
The issue comes down to a simple point:-
When is an MP using their historic skillset to earn money and when is an MP using their current position to make money.
The former really shouldn't be a problem but the latter is clearly an abuse of their position.
The problem is that it's both very hard to identify what is the former and what is the latter and it's very much in the interest of those in the latter (abuse) category to do everything they can be widen the net.
With even the NHS are defending him perhaps it is time to move on?
Not valid. Who's the boss of the NHS? And who's the boss's boss?
Ah yeah, coerced under threat of being fired. Seriously...
Oh yes. One of the best ways of getting sacked is to embarrass your employer politically, on the media, etc. It'll be in the contract of employment. As in, telling Mr J to behave = pointing out explicitly or implicitly how gutless the management is in enforcing health regulations on all visitors.
So no one in the NHS has ever said anything embarrassing politically for the PM? Interesting.
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
I wasn't having a go at you. But thank you for proving my point, anyway. For you, the guilt is spread across parties. For me, it's the Tories who own it. The emerging evidence is on my side at the moment.
The issue comes down to a simple point:-
When is an MP using their historic skillset to earn money and when is an MP using their current position to make money.
The former really shouldn't be a problem but the latter is clearly an abuse of their position.
The problem is that it's both very hard to identify what is the former and what is the latter and it's very much in the interest of those in the latter (abuse) category to do everything they can be widen the net.
On the latter, ditto their supporters. As we see on PB today.
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
So £100,000 over 5 years when he could easily earn £10,000+ a month doing private work.
Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
I absolutely agree and this is why the debate has become so toxic
He is leading the attacks on conservative second jobs, so it does not look good when he has earned from the same position himself
He did look very awkward when quizzed about in on the media a couple of days ago
It is time the heat was dialled down and rational was applied to just what is sensible and that which is unacceptable which was so obvious in the Paterson case
I am sure that this what we all want and most certainly is the country's wish
George Grylls @georgegrylls Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.
He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.
He denies any conflict of interest.
Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.
If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.
Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
Not very libertarian of you Philip. They are private businesses they can and should do what they like.
They're licenced businesses.
If you want it to be private businesses then scrap the requirement for licences. But if you're going to have licences then it should be a condition of the licence that they treat punters equitably.
Fleecing losing punters but restricting winning ones should be something that unlicensed criminals are doing, not legal and licensed bookies given a licence and approval of the Gambling Commission.
They are operating freely under and in accordance with their licences. The government doesn't tell them what odds to offer on the favourite at Huntingdon. Nor should it tell them which customers to accept.
Surprised you aren't campaigning for the abolition of the licences.
The gambling companies are abusing the privileged position they hold in the market, by having a license, to rig the market in their favour. It feels fundamentally unfair.
It would be like a supermarket running a two for one offer and then refusing to sell it to you at the till, because they could see from your purchase history that you were a customer who only bought offers, and they only wanted customers who would also buy the high profit margin products at the same time as the offers.
The parliamentary commissioner for standards, Kathryn Stone, is going to need a lot more staff at this rate.
I believe there are some in her building quite happy to take on second jobs.
Isn't that a conflict of interest that will need investigating. I'm spinning down the plug hole of logic with that one and just wondering where it will end up.
Isn't that different? Civil servants. It's AIUI not wrong to have a second earner if it doesn't conflict with the main one. P. D. James for instance started by writing her novels in the evenings and weekends (and on commuter trains?) from her CS post. But in any case a disclosure to management will resolve any residual issues.
It was meant to be a joke. Obviously not a very good one, following on from @noneoftheabove 's excellent one. Meaning MPs taking 2nd job investigating MPs causing them to be investigated for conflict of interest, by MPs taking 2nd job to investigate them causing conflict of ....., etc, etc.
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.
It's a job with no set hours of work which is part of why I'd prefer not banning second jobs - they will be judged if they dont put effort in, even safe seats get wobbly if your are invisible. But it may be simpler and safer to just day no to all.
With even the NHS are defending him perhaps it is time to move on?
Not valid. Who's the boss of the NHS? And who's the boss's boss?
Ah yeah, coerced under threat of being fired. Seriously...
Oh yes. One of the best ways of getting sacked is to embarrass your employer politically, on the media, etc. It'll be in the contract of employment. As in, telling Mr J to behave = pointing out explicitly or implicitly how gutless the management is in enforcing health regulations on all visitors.
So no one in the NHS has ever said anything embarrassing politically for the PM? Interesting.
It depends on their position. Union leaders such as BMA are protected in a way that ordinary staff are not. Others are much more vulnerable.
It used to be said that Labour MPs' scandals were about money on the basis that Labour MPs are more likely to be poor and therefore can be bought whereas Conservative scandals were about sex as they are likely to be wealthy and can pay to act out their fantasies. That somewhat changed under the Blair government when some extemely wealthy Labour MPs entered the House; at one stage the wealthiest MP was the Labour MP Fiona McGregor (no relation).
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
So far the story is going in the opposite direction. "MP's Sleaze" has become "Tory sleaze". We know that coming down the runway we have covid contracts and the Downing Street flat refurb - those are exclusively Tory, as is Coxgate. It will take something massive, or realistically several massive somethings to swing the narrative.
As I posted above, we will see a few opposition MPs taken down by this. But the tsunami wave is targeted on the government and attempts to deflect aren't working.
Why should I want it deflected.
Paterson was found guilty and should have served his penalty and would have but for Boris's idiotic actions, and so must each and every wrongdoer go before the Standards Commissioner and hopefully a better beefed up one and be cleared or if guilty take the consequences
I would agree however there are far too many assuming guilt even before a hearing and that sits very uncomfortably with me.
I don't think that *you* want it deflected. You suggested a few days ago that the story seemed to be moving onto something else - I don't think that was hopeful deflection just an observation.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but we also are allowed to take into account statements and actions. Cox is shown on camera doing the thing he is accused of - the only defence is that "the rules don't cover zoom" which appears to be incorrect at a basic examination of those rules.
That is the sideshow though, as was Boris shamefully not wearing a mask, dodging the debate with lies and then that fool Raab repeating the same lie as proof of the lie is repeated on screen.
I and others are pulling at glaring holes in covid contracts, in peerage awards, in planning decisions, in the money only resting in various accounts before refitting Number 10 etc etc. It is entirely possible there is probity beneath the billowing smoke, but if so why is the government and Number 10 specifically acting in such a way?
In titting about failing to remove the commissioner, dodging the debate and continuing to act in a "rules don't apply to me" way, the PM just keeps the story going and the longer it goes the deeper they dig.
The parliamentary commissioner for standards, Kathryn Stone, is going to need a lot more staff at this rate.
I believe there are some in her building quite happy to take on second jobs.
Isn't that a conflict of interest that will need investigating. I'm spinning down the plug hole of logic with that one and just wondering where it will end up.
Isn't that different? Civil servants. It's AIUI not wrong to have a second earner if it doesn't conflict with the main one. P. D. James for instance started by writing her novels in the evenings and weekends (and on commuter trains?) from her CS post. But in any case a disclosure to management will resolve any residual issues.
It was meant to be a joke. Obviously not a very good one, following on from @noneoftheabove 's excellent one. Meaning MPs taking 2nd job investigating MPs causing them to be investigated for conflict of interest, by MPs taking 2nd job to investigate them causing conflict of ....., etc, etc.
I should have stopped at the Bank Robber joke.
Actually, it is a very fair point deserving a fair answer. Not least because some civil servant making crocheted flowers in the evening to sell at village fairs at weekends will somehow justify abuses in Parliament. .
With even the NHS are defending him perhaps it is time to move on?
Not valid. Who's the boss of the NHS? And who's the boss's boss?
Ah yeah, coerced under threat of being fired. Seriously...
Oh yes. One of the best ways of getting sacked is to embarrass your employer politically, on the media, etc. It'll be in the contract of employment. As in, telling Mr J to behave = pointing out explicitly or implicitly how gutless the management is in enforcing health regulations on all visitors.
So no one in the NHS has ever said anything embarrassing politically for the PM? Interesting.
It depends on their position. Union leaders such as BMA are protected in a way that ordinary staff are not. Others are much more vulnerable.
So only union leaders have said embarrassing things politically for the PM? The rest of the NHS staff have never uttered a bad word about the PM publicly?
It's just that the Tories are the best at sleaze. Mainly because being capitalists they love nothing better than lining their own pockets.
Labour are instinctively less motivated by personal gain so there are proportionately fewer with their hands in the till.
** raises eyebrow **
I was told this week of a former Labour Minister now in the Lords who is so rich that he pays for his grandchildren to go to Eton.
Greed cuts across party lines.
Does paying for your grandchildren to go to Eton suggest he 'had his hands in the till'?
No. And I am not suggesting that this person did anything illegal. Looking at their career they have done a lot of things which might have allowed them to accumulate the necessary wealth.
I was merely pointing out that the assumption that Labour politicians are not interested in accumulating wealth is not a safe one to make.
A lot of people accumulate wealth without being acquisitive
Dear me. We are at risk today of being drowned - not by the rising seas caused by climate change - but a veritable tsunami of crocodile tears, especially from those who poo-poohed those of us who pointed out last year the problems with how the government was operating - over contracts and much else.
I distinctly recall writing headers pointing out the issues - specifically, conflicts of interest. And the problem with automatically defending bad behaviour if it was done by your side. And much else besides.
And the response was " it's an emergency" and "no we can't possibly take the 5 minutes needed to declare a conflict of interest or do some accelerated due diligence" and "what's wrong with VIP lanes for friends of the PM and Ministers" and "don't be so moralistic or high-minded" etc etc.
And here we are with the shit hitting the fan as it was always going to do, as plenty of people warned.
You can have all the rules you want but if people refuse to accept they apply to them because they know that their ultimate boss won't enforce them then there is damn all you can do. A good culture comes from the top. And at the top we have a PM who could not care less about these matters. This is not a surprise. Tory MPs and Tory party members were warned about this long before they elected him. They chose to ignore those warnings. Voters did too So now they are getting what they voted for.
We can ask lots of questions about why MPs find it so hard to do the right thing.
We might also ask why it is that voters don't care enough about these matters to ensure that MPs do the right thing. If voters cared about this enough to change their votes then MPs would pretty soon change. They don't. So MPs look at the 80-seat majority and their large individual majorities and safe seats and think that this does not really matter very much to voters.
And those who point out that this hubristic "we are the masters now" approach leads to poor governance and corruption and a careless approach to spending taxpayers' money and the appointment of inadequate and incompetents to important posts and a general Italianisation of our public sphere get ignored or criticised.
Until those at the top take it seriously, until voters take it seriously this stuff will keep on happening.
It's a change of heart which is needed. Not simply a change in the rules.
Well said. The public not caring enough is no excuse, as it's an area where we expect and require those with power to be more responsible than Jane public, fir the good if everyone long term.
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
I wasn't having a go at you. But thank you for proving my point, anyway. For you, the guilt is spread across parties. For me, it's the Tories who own it. The emerging evidence is on my side at the moment.
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
So £100,000 over 5 years when he could easily earn £10,000+ a month doing private work.
Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
Or we could have parliament in session for a normal amount of time (some years they have 20+ weeks off!) and then reduce the amount of times bills fail not because there is no majority for them but simply because we ran out of time before the MPs swan off to the med on all expenses paid for holidays.
Given the current standard of MPs parliament sitting for less time would be a good thing as they would have reduced opportunities to pass ill thought out futile or damaging laws.
O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells; Rise up-for you the flag is flung-for you the bugle trills; For you bouquets and ribbon’d wreaths-for you the shores a-crowding; For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
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.
It's a job with no set hours of work which is part of why I'd prefer not banning second jobs - they will be judged if they dont put effort in, even safe seats get wobbly if your are invisible. But it may be simpler and safer to just day no to all.
I have a problem with the logic of banning second jobs. One can argue that if an MP is spending x number of hours a week doing something else, then they are obviously not doing enough as an MP.
The problem I have is that just because an MP doesn't have a second job, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are doing enough work as an MP. There is nothing to stop an elected MP from doing sod all for five years and picking up the money.
If we ban MPs from having other jobs, logically we ought to scrutinise how much work they actually do as MPs. And other than having them clock in at Westminster, how can we actually measure it fairly?
So I'm happy to leave things as they are. If the constituents don't think they are getting value for money from their MP, they know what they can do.
With even the NHS are defending him perhaps it is time to move on?
Not valid. Who's the boss of the NHS? And who's the boss's boss?
Ah yeah, coerced under threat of being fired. Seriously...
Sorry but it's a bizarre bit of sycophancy from whoever is in charge of the Northumbria NHS twitter account, he's clearly in breach of the guidelines.
Guidance: wear a face-covering at all times Tweet: in each clinical area
Guidelines or law?
If the law says clinical areas then that is what is required. People are not obligated to follow guidance.
He's the Prime Minister, if he's not going to follow guidance then err...
err... what?
He should follow the law. That's what the PM is responsible for.
Law is there for difficult cases & people. The PM isn't a staff member, he's not a patient, he's not visiting a patient. He's there for a photo OP. He is the perfect example of someone who should be going above the law and following all guidance.
George Grylls @georgegrylls Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.
He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.
He denies any conflict of interest.
Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.
If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.
Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
Best post from you in days, Philip.
The bar is set extremely low
How is that surge in cases for you and the new lockdown you were proclaiming?
George Grylls @georgegrylls Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.
He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.
He denies any conflict of interest.
Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.
If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.
Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
Not very libertarian of you Philip. They are private businesses they can and should do what they like.
Private businesses aren’t subject to the law ?
They aren't and shouldn't be subject to the government telling them how to run their businesses.
Go to Coutts earning the median wage with no assets and ask to become a customer.
All businesses are told by the government, in numerous ways, the limits on how they can run their businesses - especially when they are interacting directly with consumers. Your comparison isn’t even close.
I've changed my view on the government. I thought that Boris had a political style that would avoid corruption scandals, but the Patterson incident may have started a snowball encompassing all sorts of things: other dubious second jobs, the downing street refurb, dodgy bungs to marginal constituencies, lucrative covid contracts, Greensill and David Cameron; etc etc. The government got no credit for the U turn, it just looks like a sign of weakness, and may not have really helped anything. In betting terms, the value is probably to wait for it to get really bad, which it undoubtedly will; then bet on a conservative majority - as ultimately corruption is unlikely to be determinative in many peoples voting decisions.
Interesting. But what about when Messrs Major and Blair had their general election?
I am not saying it won't be a factor; but the mountain to climb for labour is huge. Looking at their MP's, I'm not convinced they're up to it.
With even the NHS are defending him perhaps it is time to move on?
Not valid. Who's the boss of the NHS? And who's the boss's boss?
Ah yeah, coerced under threat of being fired. Seriously...
Sorry but it's a bizarre bit of sycophancy from whoever is in charge of the Northumbria NHS twitter account, he's clearly in breach of the guidelines.
Guidance: wear a face-covering at all times Tweet: in each clinical area
Guidelines or law?
If the law says clinical areas then that is what is required. People are not obligated to follow guidance.
He's the Prime Minister, if he's not going to follow guidance then err...
err... what?
He should follow the law. That's what the PM is responsible for.
Law is there for difficult cases & people. The PM isn't a staff member, he's not a patient, he's not visiting a patient. He's there for a photo OP. He is the perfect example of someone who should be going above the law and following all guidance.
Even if the guidance is an ass?
If the hospital wanted to tell him he had to meet the guidance, it could. It didn't.
Guidance is not mandatory. I will not wear a mask unless its mandatory, "guidance" is not enough.
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
I wasn't having a go at you. But thank you for proving my point, anyway. For you, the guilt is spread across parties. For me, it's the Tories who own it. The emerging evidence is on my side at the moment.
Why is it on one side?
Is Keir Starmer a Tory? Is Ed Davey? Is Ian Blackford?
And those are just the leaders of their respective parties [in Westminster for Blackford].
If you want to make it party-partisan you can, but that's just through wilful disregard of what is going on elsewhere.
We will see a couple of opposition MPs taken down by this. The problem for such attempted deflections is that it isn't the act of lobbying that is the problem, its what the lobbying results in.
Even you can see the difference between Ed Davey and Iain Duncan Smith as two examples.
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
I wasn't having a go at you. But thank you for proving my point, anyway. For you, the guilt is spread across parties. For me, it's the Tories who own it. The emerging evidence is on my side at the moment.
Why is it on one side?
Is Keir Starmer a Tory? Is Ed Davey? Is Ian Blackford?
And those are just the leaders of their respective parties [in Westminster for Blackford].
If you want to make it party-partisan you can, but that's just through wilful disregard of what is going on elsewhere.
I think the opportunities for corruption are greater in the Governing Party.
So, if I was Sleaze Buster General, I would be looking carefully at the Tories in Westminster, Labour in Wales and the SNP in Scotland.
The activities of the parties in Corruption Bae, Caerdydd would be well worth much more detailed scrutiny.
First, all the Welsh politicians are very, very gullible. They can be taken in by a very stupid crook.
And second, there is no register of lobbyists.
Senedd Members are --incredibly -- all on an "honour" system.
So, it is just up to individual MS's integrity and honesty. 😉😉😉
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
So £100,000 over 5 years when he could easily earn £10,000+ a month doing private work.
Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
I absolutely agree and this is why the debate has become so toxic
He is leading the attacks on conservative second jobs, so it does not look good when he has earned from the same position himself
He did look very awkward when quizzed about in on the media a couple of days ago
It is time the heat was dialled down and rational was applied to just what is sensible and that which is unacceptable which was so obvious in the Paterson case
I am sure that this what we all want and most certainly is the country's wish
Yet you were quite happy to post the £100,000 figure without context in your previous post.
So you are one of the people quite happy to post inflammatory data out of context and then calling for things to be calmed down when pulled up on it with the context that explains why your original attack was utterly invalid.
The issue isn't MPs with second jobs based on their existing skillset it's MPs using their position to earn extra money.
Dear me. We are at risk today of being drowned - not by the rising seas caused by climate change - but a veritable tsunami of crocodile tears, especially from those who poo-poohed those of us who pointed out last year the problems with how the government was operating - over contracts and much else.
I distinctly recall writing headers pointing out the issues - specifically, conflicts of interest. And the problem with automatically defending bad behaviour if it was done by your side. And much else besides.
And the response was " it's an emergency" and "no we can't possibly take the 5 minutes needed to declare a conflict of interest or do some accelerated due diligence" and "what's wrong with VIP lanes for friends of the PM and Ministers" and "don't be so moralistic or high-minded" etc etc.
And here we are with the shit hitting the fan as it was always going to do, as plenty of people warned.
You can have all the rules you want but if people refuse to accept they apply to them because they know that their ultimate boss won't enforce them then there is damn all you can do. A good culture comes from the top. And at the top we have a PM who could not care less about these matters. This is not a surprise. Tory MPs and Tory party members were warned about this long before they elected him. They chose to ignore those warnings. Voters did too So now they are getting what they voted for.
We can ask lots of questions about why MPs find it so hard to do the right thing.
We might also ask why it is that voters don't care enough about these matters to ensure that MPs do the right thing. If voters cared about this enough to change their votes then MPs would pretty soon change. They don't. So MPs look at the 80-seat majority and their large individual majorities and safe seats and think that this does not really matter very much to voters.
And those who point out that this hubristic "we are the masters now" approach leads to poor governance and corruption and a careless approach to spending taxpayers' money and the appointment of inadequate and incompetents to important posts and a general Italianisation of our public sphere get ignored or criticised.
Until those at the top take it seriously, until voters take it seriously this stuff will keep on happening.
It's a change of heart which is needed. Not simply a change in the rules.
Well said. The public not caring enough is no excuse, as it's an area where we expect and require those with power to be more responsible than Jane public, fir the good if everyone long term.
That is all true but this primarily (supposed to be) a political betting site so it is entirely appropriate for people to comment on whether the public cares enough as it has important betting implications.
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.
Stationary is trying to use the authority of the office for personal gain though. A VC from an office is convenience. I understand what the rules say but they were written with physical use in mind
With even the NHS are defending him perhaps it is time to move on?
Not valid. Who's the boss of the NHS? And who's the boss's boss?
Ah yeah, coerced under threat of being fired. Seriously...
Sorry but it's a bizarre bit of sycophancy from whoever is in charge of the Northumbria NHS twitter account, he's clearly in breach of the guidelines.
Guidance: wear a face-covering at all times Tweet: in each clinical area
Guidelines or law?
If the law says clinical areas then that is what is required. People are not obligated to follow guidance.
He's the Prime Minister, if he's not going to follow guidance then err...
err... what?
He should follow the law. That's what the PM is responsible for.
Law is there for difficult cases & people. The PM isn't a staff member, he's not a patient, he's not visiting a patient. He's there for a photo OP. He is the perfect example of someone who should be going above the law and following all guidance.
Even if the guidance is an ass?
If the hospital wanted to tell him he had to meet the guidance, it could. It didn't.
Guidance is not mandatory. I will not wear a mask unless its mandatory, "guidance" is not enough.
I think people are looking at this backwards.
NHS Guidance to Trusts suggests that in order to meet their legal duties to staff and patients they should require the wearing of masks in both clinical and non-clinical areas of hospitals (and other healthcare settings).
I am therefore unclear on why the Trust did not require Boris to wear a mask, as a matter of law. It is certainly not on the basis that the photo is in a 'non-clinical area'.
Having given him the freedom, whether Boris wears a mask or not is not a legal question, but a moral and political one.
Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
Excuse me
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
So £100,000 over 5 years when he could easily earn £10,000+ a month doing private work.
Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
I absolutely agree and this is why the debate has become so toxic
He is leading the attacks on conservative second jobs, so it does not look good when he has earned from the same position himself
He did look very awkward when quizzed about in on the media a couple of days ago
It is time the heat was dialled down and rational was applied to just what is sensible and that which is unacceptable which was so obvious in the Paterson case
I am sure that this what we all want and most certainly is the country's wish
Yet you were quite happy to post the £100,000 figure without context in your previous post.
So you are one of the people quite happy to post inflammatory data out of context and then calling for things to be calmed down when pulled up on it with the context that explains why your original attack was utterly invalid.
The issue isn't MPs with second jobs based on their existing skillset it's MPs using their position to earn extra money.
I think the press haven't got that particular memo, given the furore over Cox.
Comments
[Checks BMI]
No, I'm healthy range. Am I ugly?
I have been hit upon by women (although not recently to be fair, but then I am married with a wedding ring and... older). Last night's comments were the most action I've had in a long time, discounting marital action
More seriously, perhaps I have been hit on by a guy. I wasn't always the sharpest at spotting it with women. There were times when friends thought a woman was flirting with me and/or I was flirting with a woman and I just thought we were having a fun/interesting conversation (almost got me into a fight once, with a woman's partner - I had no romantic intentions towards her whatsoever).
As I posted above, we will see a few opposition MPs taken down by this. But the tsunami wave is targeted on the government and attempts to deflect aren't working.
Watch the football live on TV and almost every advert is for a 'free bet' if you do some offer, or something similar, to get people hooked gambling with that firm - but the firm can only do that because they're blocking winning punters from those bets.
If the firms weren't able to rig the market in their favour, they wouldn't be able to have such aggressive advertising to those who they expect to be able to get to become problem gamblers.
More likely the firms would remain profitable, but less profitable, and they'd be less aggressive in their advertising knowing that winning punters would also be able to respond to aggressive adverts.
If you're getting paid for strategic advice in parliament/to lobby for changes to law... then that's dodgy.
But maybe the line isn't clear. In which case... probably best to just cancel 2nd jobs.
I was told this week of a former Labour Minister now in the Lords who is so rich that he pays for his grandchildren to go to Eton.
Greed cuts across party lines.
Surprised you aren't campaigning for the abolition of the licences.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?time=2021-09-20..latest&facet=none&uniformYAxis=0&Metric=Share+of+positive+tests&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=ITA~DEU~GBR~FRA~BEL~NLD~ESP~AUS~NZL~PRT~DNK~POL~IRL
Plus increasingly many MPs have been political researchers before election or SPADs and have never really worked outside politics before election, that was true of Osborne or Ed Miliband for instance when they were elected
I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's
The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias
Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
I see no reason if we're not going to abolish licences that a condition of licences shouldn't be that all potential punters are treated equitably. If they wish to stake limit a market to say £100 or £500 to prevent people from making too much if they're good at punting then that's fair enough - but then they should equally be stake limited to the same amount for those who are bad at punting too.
Its illegal to discriminate based on race, sex etc if you're operating as a business. Why should it be legal for bookies to discriminate against winning punters in order to better aggressively advertise at problem gamblers instead?
Incidentally, anyone know why Austria has such an incredible testing rate?
Go to Coutts earning the median wage with no assets and ask to become a customer.
Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
I'd say that stereotypical Tories forget that they sometimes have things that normal people don't, and assume entitlement- which then is seen as unacceptable.
And that stereotypical Lab don't have such things, and want them.
That looks to me like one pattern in the Expenses scandal. Both sides end up behaving differently from normal individuals, because the opportunity is there.
Interestingly, a lot of the really egregious stuff was related to property.
List here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expenses_claims_in_the_United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal
Cox was a disastrous choice of primary target. Fatcat knighted lawyer, who could be possibly be compared with on the labour front bench?
Oh ...
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/maskless-boris-johnson-backed-nhs-164617493.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly91ay5zZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGLCnyB3fkVUfpgT1Mhyw6QcPQOUEGKJq4iAkXJjTmKjXiLXxQxF81vDZsbaAW5s9AYCH3W_GnQeEfkVJfEyMN1Rwq6k8oC4JHUZHaCFkyyWwRU6e21WfYt1lb_6-m_Ihvdg5Re0dU31AQReWflUOVf6A-uT20jsupTYZKT6-w5B
The issue is that bookies do accept people as customers, then cut them off because they're winning in order to more aggressively exploit those who are losing.
We don't want *more* politician time.
Let it meet for 6 weeks twice a year.
I'm sure lots of MPs would be happy to take on a second job.
I was merely pointing out that the assumption that Labour politicians are not interested in accumulating wealth is not a safe one to make.
Paterson was found guilty and should have served his penalty and would have but for Boris's idiotic actions, and so must each and every wrongdoer go before the Standards Commissioner and hopefully a better beefed up one and be cleared or if guilty take the consequences
I would agree however there are far too many assuming guilt even before a hearing and that sits very uncomfortably with me.
It is a commercial decision. They make money off richer people and simply don't allow poorer people to be clients.
You are complaining because some firms are refusing people services for commercial reasons. Just like Coutts and many others do.
Is Keir Starmer a Tory? Is Ed Davey? Is Ian Blackford?
And those are just the leaders of their respective parties [in Westminster for Blackford].
If you want to make it party-partisan you can, but that's just through wilful disregard of what is going on elsewhere.
If the law were to say that licensed gambling firms are not permitted to discriminate against winning punters, as a condition of their licence, that'd be reasonable as far as I'm concerned. If firms don't want to honour that condition, they wouldn't have to get a licence if they didn't want one, but they wouldn't then be able to do anything that requires a licence.
Guidance: wear a face-covering at all times
Tweet: in each clinical area
When is an MP using their historic skillset to earn money and when is an MP using their current position to make money.
The former really shouldn't be a problem but the latter is clearly an abuse of their position.
The problem is that it's both very hard to identify what is the former and what is the latter and it's very much in the interest of those in the latter (abuse) category to do everything they can be widen the net.
If the law says clinical areas then that is what is required. People are not obligated to follow guidance.
He is leading the attacks on conservative second jobs, so it does not look good when he has earned from the same position himself
He did look very awkward when quizzed about in on the media a couple of days ago
It is time the heat was dialled down and rational was applied to just what is sensible and that which is unacceptable which was so obvious in the Paterson case
I am sure that this what we all want and most certainly is the country's wish
It would be like a supermarket running a two for one offer and then refusing to sell it to you at the till, because they could see from your purchase history that you were a customer who only bought offers, and they only wanted customers who would also buy the high profit margin products at the same time as the offers.
I should have stopped at the Bank Robber joke.
He should follow the law. That's what the PM is responsible for.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but we also are allowed to take into account statements and actions. Cox is shown on camera doing the thing he is accused of - the only defence is that "the rules don't cover zoom" which appears to be incorrect at a basic examination of those rules.
That is the sideshow though, as was Boris shamefully not wearing a mask, dodging the debate with lies and then that fool Raab repeating the same lie as proof of the lie is repeated on screen.
I and others are pulling at glaring holes in covid contracts, in peerage awards, in planning decisions, in the money only resting in various accounts before refitting Number 10 etc etc. It is entirely possible there is probity beneath the billowing smoke, but if so why is the government and Number 10 specifically acting in such a way?
In titting about failing to remove the commissioner, dodging the debate and continuing to act in a "rules don't apply to me" way, the PM just keeps the story going and the longer it goes the deeper they dig.
O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up-for you the flag is flung-for you the bugle trills;
For you bouquets and ribbon’d wreaths-for you the shores a-crowding;
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
The problem I have is that just because an MP doesn't have a second job, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are doing enough work as an MP. There is nothing to stop an elected MP from doing sod all for five years and picking up the money.
If we ban MPs from having other jobs, logically we ought to scrutinise how much work they actually do as MPs. And other than having them clock in at Westminster, how can we actually measure it fairly?
So I'm happy to leave things as they are. If the constituents don't think they are getting value for money from their MP, they know what they can do.
Your comparison isn’t even close.
Guidelines can go above and beyond conditions or law, but they remain only guidelines unless made actual law or actual conditions.
If the hospital wanted to tell him he had to meet the guidance, it could. It didn't.
Guidance is not mandatory. I will not wear a mask unless its mandatory, "guidance" is not enough.
Even you can see the difference between Ed Davey and Iain Duncan Smith as two examples.
* technically stupidity rather than ignorance but I chose to use the cliche as it sounds better
So, if I was Sleaze Buster General, I would be looking carefully at the Tories in Westminster, Labour in Wales and the SNP in Scotland.
The activities of the parties in Corruption Bae, Caerdydd would be well worth much more detailed scrutiny.
First, all the Welsh politicians are very, very gullible. They can be taken in by a very stupid crook.
And second, there is no register of lobbyists.
Senedd Members are --incredibly -- all on an "honour" system.
So, it is just up to individual MS's integrity and honesty. 😉😉😉
So you are one of the people quite happy to post inflammatory data out of context and then calling for things to be calmed down when pulled up on it with the context that explains why your original attack was utterly invalid.
The issue isn't MPs with second jobs based on their existing skillset it's MPs using their position to earn extra money.
NHS Guidance to Trusts suggests that in order to meet their legal duties to staff and patients they should require the wearing of masks in both clinical and non-clinical areas of hospitals (and other healthcare settings).
I am therefore unclear on why the Trust did not require Boris to wear a mask, as a matter of law. It is certainly not on the basis that the photo is in a 'non-clinical area'.
Having given him the freedom, whether Boris wears a mask or not is not a legal question, but a moral and political one.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-will-struggle-to-contain-this-sleaze-row