Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The Mail continues with it attacks on Cox – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 11 in General
imageThe Mail continues with it attacks on Cox – politicalbetting.com

For the second day running the Daily Mail decides that Geoffrey Cox is the main story unlike almost the rest of the papers which have moved on.

Read the full story here

«13456711

Comments

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,227
    edited November 11
    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    Second rate like Boris
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,925
    Third rate, like the misremembering soon to be former Duchess of Sussex.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,740
    edited November 11
    Multiply and Go Fourth.

    Can't do that on third as it is a Prime position.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,740
    FPT:

    Farooq said:

    Foxy said:

    Off topic (like every other post this evening tbf)...

    Is there a simple calculator available online that shows the global warming impact we each have through the choices we make?

    If we could easily get a summary of the impact of our personal choices (e.g. electric car, flying long-haul, solar panels, new boiler, going veggie, etc. etc.) it might help people decide which steps they could take themsleves.

    My assumption is that none of us are going to do everything we possibly could but a simple calculator might make it easy to choose the options that work for us as individuals.

    There are quite a few apps and online carbon calculators. The WWF has one. Some seem to be pushing carbon offset sales but I think the calculations themselves are OK.

    My carbon footprint on the WWF is 9 tons per year, slightly less than the national average that they cite, and I haven't flown anywhere, and have an electric car and we'll insulated house. It isn't going to be easy going lower.

    https://footprint.wwf.org.uk/#/results/
    11 tonnes. I live in a shockingly badly insulated house.

    I lied about my flights on the survey. I haven't flown in the last year, but I counted backward from March 2020 so included 1 flight in the year to that point.
    Thanks @Foxy that's just the sort of calculator I was looking for.

    9.19 tonnes for me. (Disappointed it didn't ask me about our air source heat pump though!)
    I'm really surprised by your figures. I thought the UK average was down to 7 tonnes.

    Hard to know without looking at the details whether the calculator is up-to-date.

    That said, the Monbiot article today had some startling figures on the disparities in carbon use with wealth, so perhaps that explains it.
    WWF says that I am on 10.7, but I'm hugely cynical about all such calculators because they use so many inapplicable averages, and from a group like WWF it is likely aimed at bashing / guilt-tripping developed countries.

    This one asked me if I have a "big diesel", but not whether I drive it 3k or 30k miles per annum, and if I have "solar panels", but did not explore that they generate 2-3x as much electricity as I actually use.

    On the meat, they often have a worldwide average which holds our local beef responsible for demolishing rainforests - whilst the research work shows that UK beef runs at approx. half the world average for emissions, with some systems being better than that.

    I'm having a look at the more recommended one, but *&^% Apple are telling me I need V13 or V15 of their OS.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    On topic, if the clown's *cunning plan* last week boomerangs into a clamp down on second jobs, his colleagues aren't going to be laughing.
  • Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,924

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    That's good news. Like a large meal the public need time to digest it and one as satisfying as that should stay in the memory for a long time.
  • I think this is now starting to pass. If the Mail is correct Cox will lose his seat at the next election but his constituency seem to like him even though it is well known that he spends a lot of his time on his legal practice.Geordie Grieg has been a massive disappointment as the Mail's editor. His sensationalised coverage of covid, the petrol shortage etc do not seem to have done any favours for the Mail's circulation.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 492
    Sad really that the news this morning isn’t all about COP26, and England’s loss in the T20.

    The Cox gambit has paid off well for the government. I hope IDS, Bradley, Johnson and Co will pay him well for his diversionary services.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    LoL from the FT:

    "In another life, Boris Johnson might have spent his days trying the handles of parked cars"
  • IanB2 said:

    On topic, if the clown's *cunning plan* last week boomerangs into a clamp down on second jobs, his colleagues aren't going to be laughing.

    There are second jobs and second jobs and it needs sensible cross party discussions
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477

    IanB2 said:

    On topic, if the clown's *cunning plan* last week boomerangs into a clamp down on second jobs, his colleagues aren't going to be laughing.

    There are second jobs and second jobs and it needs sensible cross party discussions
    Yes, but it's the wrong sort that most of his colleagues have.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,636

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    Thank goodness for that. Hopefully the diversionary invasion of the EU is now off.
  • I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.
  • TimS said:

    Sad really that the news this morning isn’t all about COP26, and England’s loss in the T20.

    The Cox gambit has paid off well for the government. I hope IDS, Bradley, Johnson and Co will pay him well for his diversionary services.

    The US/China COP accord seems to have eclipsed his Borisness.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
  • Looks like the Military Police reported two SNP and one Labour politician for drunken behaviour on a flight to Gibraltar for remembrance day service
  • TimS said:

    Sad really that the news this morning isn’t all about COP26, and England’s loss in the T20.

    The Cox gambit has paid off well for the government. I hope IDS, Bradley, Johnson and Co will pay him well for his diversionary services.

    He does seem the wrong target
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,837

    Looks like the Military Police reported two SNP and one Labour politician for drunken behaviour on a flight to Gibraltar for remembrance day service

    We’ve all been massively intoxicated on a flight to Gibraltar mate. Sounds like they’re in touch with the people to me.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833
    TimS said:

    Sad really that the news this morning isn’t all about COP26, and England’s loss in the T20.

    The Cox gambit has paid off well for the government. I hope IDS, Bradley, Johnson and Co will pay him well for his diversionary services.

    The BBC this morning started referring to “the UN climate change conference in Glasgow” rather than “COP26”.

    Perhaps they thought Boris might too much credit otherwise?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,925
    MattW said:

    FPT:

    Farooq said:

    Foxy said:

    Off topic (like every other post this evening tbf)...

    Is there a simple calculator available online that shows the global warming impact we each have through the choices we make?

    If we could easily get a summary of the impact of our personal choices (e.g. electric car, flying long-haul, solar panels, new boiler, going veggie, etc. etc.) it might help people decide which steps they could take themsleves.

    My assumption is that none of us are going to do everything we possibly could but a simple calculator might make it easy to choose the options that work for us as individuals.

    There are quite a few apps and online carbon calculators. The WWF has one. Some seem to be pushing carbon offset sales but I think the calculations themselves are OK.

    My carbon footprint on the WWF is 9 tons per year, slightly less than the national average that they cite, and I haven't flown anywhere, and have an electric car and we'll insulated house. It isn't going to be easy going lower.

    https://footprint.wwf.org.uk/#/results/
    11 tonnes. I live in a shockingly badly insulated house.

    I lied about my flights on the survey. I haven't flown in the last year, but I counted backward from March 2020 so included 1 flight in the year to that point.
    Thanks @Foxy that's just the sort of calculator I was looking for.

    9.19 tonnes for me. (Disappointed it didn't ask me about our air source heat pump though!)
    I'm really surprised by your figures. I thought the UK average was down to 7 tonnes.

    Hard to know without looking at the details whether the calculator is up-to-date.

    That said, the Monbiot article today had some startling figures on the disparities in carbon use with wealth, so perhaps that explains it.
    WWF says that I am on 10.7, but I'm hugely cynical about all such calculators because they use so many inapplicable averages, and from a group like WWF it is likely aimed at bashing / guilt-tripping developed countries.

    This one asked me if I have a "big diesel", but not whether I drive it 3k or 30k miles per annum, and if I have "solar panels", but did not explore that they generate 2-3x as much electricity as I actually use.

    On the meat, they often have a worldwide average which holds our local beef responsible for demolishing rainforests - whilst the research work shows that UK beef runs at approx. half the world average for emissions, with some systems being better than that.

    I'm having a look at the more recommended one, but *&^% Apple are telling me I need V13 or V15 of their OS.
    Or if you have an older petrol car, which despite emissions is generally much better for the environment than making a new one.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833
    kjh said:

    Interesting that the focus is on people with 2nd jobs who don't have a conflict of interest and not on the conflict of interest jobs which I consider a greater ssue.

    Now 2nd jobs alone is an issue, but less so than those who then abuse a conflict because of their 2nd job.

    I feel that Geoffrey Cox is getting the focus while not being the chief offender more out of envy for his wealth. Let's focus on those who abuse their conflict of interest.

    For me it is consulting and lobbying that are the issue. I don’t particularly have a concern about MPs being non-executive directors (subject to disclosure whenever relevant as well as a standing disclosure) because that is all out in the open & it is a limited role.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,925

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    Typical Mirror class-war article. What are they alleging he’s actually done wrong, or do they just not like him because he earns £850 an hour?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,177
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic, if the clown's *cunning plan* last week boomerangs into a clamp down on second jobs, his colleagues aren't going to be laughing.

    There are second jobs and second jobs and it needs sensible cross party discussions
    Yes, but it's the wrong sort that most of his colleagues have.
    You can always tell when the BJ kakocracy has dropped a bollock by the calls for cross party discussions.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,837
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    100%
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,925
    MaxPB said:

    EU has given up trying to move clearing. Unlimited extension granted to London to clear Euro denominated trades.

    It always struck me as futile to try and move clearing. So it has proven.

    That was always about as likely to happen, as persuading tens of thousands of City professionals to relocate their families to Frankfurt or Paris.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Good morning, everyone.

    I was first, but forgot to post.
  • IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    It is interesting that under the law drawn up by politicians that those on housing benefit are compelled to pay rent, even if its cheaper to have a mortgage, but those rules don't apply to MP expenses.

    Why is that? 🤔
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?

    And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?

    I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,837
    edited November 11
    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,177

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    I think we can all agree spending months on a Caribbean island billing at £X000s a day is the bracing cold shower of real worldness that we all need.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376

    I think this is now starting to pass. If the Mail is correct Cox will lose his seat at the next election but his constituency seem to like him even though it is well known that he spends a lot of his time on his legal practice.Geordie Grieg has been a massive disappointment as the Mail's editor. His sensationalised coverage of covid, the petrol shortage etc do not seem to have done any favours for the Mail's circulation.

    Will he lose his seat? He has continued his legal practice ever since he was first elected in 2005 and been re elected ever since despite the LDs trying to make it an issue.

    He has also converted what was a LD held seat in 1997 and 2001 into a safe Conservative seat where he had a majority of 41% in 2019
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833
    Sandpit said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    Typical Mirror class-war article. What are they alleging he’s actually done wrong, or do they just not like him because he earns £850 an hour?
    They actually say in the article that he’s not broken any rules!
  • Looks like the Military Police reported two SNP and one Labour politician for drunken behaviour on a flight to Gibraltar for remembrance day service

    We’ve all been massively intoxicated on a flight to Gibraltar mate. Sounds like they’re in touch with the people to me.
    Are you condoning MPs drunken behaviour on a military flight for remembrance day to the point the military police became involved and one of the participants was taken off the aircraft in a wheelchair

    Indeed Lucy Powell was more than embarrassed when asked about it on the news this morning

    And today is the 11 November
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,837
    edited November 11
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?

    And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?

    I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
    What on earth are you on about?

    MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.

    MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,519

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    That might be true if their second job was on the checkout or bin lorry, waitresses or padding the beat, but is a second job advising companies on how to get the most out of government special deals really keeping in touch with the real world?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    It is interesting that under the law drawn up by politicians that those on housing benefit are compelled to pay rent, even if its cheaper to have a mortgage, but those rules don't apply to MP expenses.

    Why is that? 🤔
    I thought MPs could only rent these days?

    They should not get a free option on house prices, as @IanB2 said
  • I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    I think we can all agree spending months on a Caribbean island billing at £X000s a day is the bracing cold shower of real worldness that we all need.
    That's up to voters to judge if its what we need or not, but it is what some people do in the real world, yes.

    A bigger issue for me is why we as taxpayers have apparently paid for a mortgage for him on expenses. Someone working a minimum wage job on Universal Credit can't use Housing Benefit to pay for a mortgage, even if it would be cheaper than paying rent, so why should he be able to claim a mortgage on expenses? Why shouldn't the same rules apply?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,461
    Inflation could do for Johnson, far more than seems likely for Second-Jobs Gate.

    Biden firefighting 6% inflation in US.

    Meanwhile: "official figures from Chinese factories on Wednesday pointed to producer prices climbing at their fastest pace in 26 years amid elevated raw material costs and power shortages.

    Chinese factory gate prices jumped 13.5pc year-on-year in October"
    (Telegraph)
  • IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    On topic, if the clown's *cunning plan* last week boomerangs into a clamp down on second jobs, his colleagues aren't going to be laughing.

    There are second jobs and second jobs and it needs sensible cross party discussions
    Yes, but it's the wrong sort that most of his colleagues have.
    You can always tell when the BJ kakocracy has dropped a bollock by the calls for cross party discussions.
    It will not be resolved without it
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,837
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
    If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
  • Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    It is interesting that under the law drawn up by politicians that those on housing benefit are compelled to pay rent, even if its cheaper to have a mortgage, but those rules don't apply to MP expenses.

    Why is that? 🤔
    I thought MPs could only rent these days?

    They should not get a free option on house prices, as @IanB2 said
    If so that's fair enough. I guess the "you helped fund" might refer to a mortgage before the rules changed?
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
    If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
    Being an MP is a Part Time job. Every single Minister in Parliament has a Second Job - being a Minister.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?

    And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?

    I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
    What on earth are you on about?

    MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.

    MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
    Indeed. The problem is MPs' buying flats and houses and us paying for it; meanwhile the MP enjoys the capital gain, charges us for all sorts of home improvements, flips their properties about so that their designated actual home is forever changing, and then ends up renting out the property we have mostly paid for and spending the rent themselves.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?

    And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?

    I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
    What on earth are you on about?

    MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.

    MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
    You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.

    The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,837

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
    If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
    Being an MP is a Part Time job. Every single Minister in Parliament has a Second Job - being a Minister.
    Nope being a minister is a promotion not a second job - I refuse to engage with your convenient fiction.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,837
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?

    And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?

    I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
    What on earth are you on about?

    MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.

    MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
    You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.

    The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
    No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    I think we can all agree spending months on a Caribbean island billing at £X000s a day is the bracing cold shower of real worldness that we all need.
    That's up to voters to judge if its what we need or not, but it is what some people do in the real world, yes.

    A bigger issue for me is why we as taxpayers have apparently paid for a mortgage for him on expenses. Someone working a minimum wage job on Universal Credit can't use Housing Benefit to pay for a mortgage, even if it would be cheaper than paying rent, so why should he be able to claim a mortgage on expenses? Why shouldn't the same rules apply?
    I believe they do now. But MPs used to be able to claim mortgages on expenses. Which was a bad system.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,925
    Foxy said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    That might be true if their second job was on the checkout or bin lorry, waitresses or padding the beat, but is a second job advising companies on how to get the most out of government special deals really keeping in touch with the real world?
    Exactly. The key point is whether their outside work intrudes on, or is purely because of, their Parliamentary work, or generates a conflict of interest.

    Cox is working a dozen hours a week as a lawyer, in the same way a doctor might work a couple of shifts in the hospital.

    The problem is those whose jobs are lobbying, political advise, access to ministers or other things purely because they are an MP.

    The edge cases are those who worked in political consultancy before they were MPs (including unions), and yet another reason why we need to be encouraging people to have had a life before Parliament.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    It is interesting that under the law drawn up by politicians that those on housing benefit are compelled to pay rent, even if its cheaper to have a mortgage, but those rules don't apply to MP expenses.

    Why is that? 🤔
    I thought MPs could only rent these days?

    They should not get a free option on house prices, as @IanB2 said
    TBF the rules have tightened up since the worst of the excesses.

    The chair of some standards review body set up by John Major has just been on the radio saying that his committee produced a report with recommendations on second jobs way back, but MPs never implemented it.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,837
    Charles said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    I think we can all agree spending months on a Caribbean island billing at £X000s a day is the bracing cold shower of real worldness that we all need.
    That's up to voters to judge if its what we need or not, but it is what some people do in the real world, yes.

    A bigger issue for me is why we as taxpayers have apparently paid for a mortgage for him on expenses. Someone working a minimum wage job on Universal Credit can't use Housing Benefit to pay for a mortgage, even if it would be cheaper than paying rent, so why should he be able to claim a mortgage on expenses? Why shouldn't the same rules apply?
    I believe they do now. But MPs used to be able to claim mortgages on expenses. Which was a bad system.
    I’m open in principle to mortgage interest perhaps being an allowable expense but only during times Parliament is in session.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    The BBC does seem to be treading carefully where criticism of the Government and/or the Conservative party is concerned.
    Threats from Nadine?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,376

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
    If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
    Until the middle of the last century most MPs worked in the day at their previous profession, often in the city or the law courts and then debated and voted in the evening when Commons sittings began
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    It is interesting that under the law drawn up by politicians that those on housing benefit are compelled to pay rent, even if its cheaper to have a mortgage, but those rules don't apply to MP expenses.

    Why is that? 🤔
    I thought MPs could only rent these days?

    They should not get a free option on house prices, as @IanB2 said
    If so that's fair enough. I guess the "you helped fund" might refer to a mortgage before the rules changed?
    I only skimmed the article but yes - he claimed £80k in the 4 years from 2007 onwards I think
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
    If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
    Being an MP is a Part Time job. Every single Minister in Parliament has a Second Job - being a Minister.
    Nope being a minister is a promotion not a second job - I refuse to engage with your convenient fiction.
    No, its a second job. Hence why they can be a Minister and not an MP by joining the Lords - and nobody would claim being a Lord is a Full Time job, hence why they get an attendance allowance instead.

    In most of the world Ministers are not members of the legislature and are a full time job. Do you really think that being Foreign Secretary is "just a promotion" and not a job in its own right? Why isn't her counterpart Blinken in the US Congress?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,925

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    I think we can all agree spending months on a Caribbean island billing at £X000s a day is the bracing cold shower of real worldness that we all need.
    That's up to voters to judge if its what we need or not, but it is what some people do in the real world, yes.

    A bigger issue for me is why we as taxpayers have apparently paid for a mortgage for him on expenses. Someone working a minimum wage job on Universal Credit can't use Housing Benefit to pay for a mortgage, even if it would be cheaper than paying rent, so why should he be able to claim a mortgage on expenses? Why shouldn't the same rules apply?
    IIRC the post-2010 expenses rules stop payments on MPs’ second-home mortgages. There was a scandal soon after those rules were introduced, about MPs renting from each other rather than selling up.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477

    Charles said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    I think we can all agree spending months on a Caribbean island billing at £X000s a day is the bracing cold shower of real worldness that we all need.
    That's up to voters to judge if its what we need or not, but it is what some people do in the real world, yes.

    A bigger issue for me is why we as taxpayers have apparently paid for a mortgage for him on expenses. Someone working a minimum wage job on Universal Credit can't use Housing Benefit to pay for a mortgage, even if it would be cheaper than paying rent, so why should he be able to claim a mortgage on expenses? Why shouldn't the same rules apply?
    I believe they do now. But MPs used to be able to claim mortgages on expenses. Which was a bad system.
    I’m open in principle to mortgage interest perhaps being an allowable expense but only during times Parliament is in session.
    No, public money shouldn't be subsidising house purchase at all
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,837
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
    If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
    Until the middle of the last century most MPs worked in the day at their previous profession, often in the city or the law courts and then debated and voted in the evening when Commons sittings began
    So what? It’s nearly 2022 now.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?

    And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?

    I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
    What on earth are you on about?

    MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.

    MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
    Indeed. The problem is MPs' buying flats and houses and us paying for it; meanwhile the MP enjoys the capital gain, charges us for all sorts of home improvements, flips their properties about so that their designated actual home is forever changing, and then ends up renting out the property we have mostly paid for and spending the rent themselves.
    Agreed - which is why the rules were changed
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,837

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
    If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
    Being an MP is a Part Time job. Every single Minister in Parliament has a Second Job - being a Minister.
    Nope being a minister is a promotion not a second job - I refuse to engage with your convenient fiction.
    No, its a second job. Hence why they can be a Minister and not an MP by joining the Lords - and nobody would claim being a Lord is a Full Time job, hence why they get an attendance allowance instead.

    In most of the world Ministers are not members of the legislature and are a full time job. Do you really think that being Foreign Secretary is "just a promotion" and not a job in its own right? Why isn't her counterpart Blinken in the US Congress?
    Ministers having too much to do under our system is a completely different debate to whether MPs have enough to do.

    They’re supposed to be full-time legislators ffs.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,740
    edited November 11

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    I think we can all agree spending months on a Caribbean island billing at £X000s a day is the bracing cold shower of real worldness that we all need.
    That's up to voters to judge if its what we need or not, but it is what some people do in the real world, yes.

    A bigger issue for me is why we as taxpayers have apparently paid for a mortgage for him on expenses. Someone working a minimum wage job on Universal Credit can't use Housing Benefit to pay for a mortgage, even if it would be cheaper than paying rent, so why should he be able to claim a mortgage on expenses? Why shouldn't the same rules apply?
    That was done before the Expenses system changed in 2010, and was a big reason why it changed.

    Mirror planting a couple of landmines for Labour in their desire to bash a Tory, as there are numbers of MPs renting out flats bought at a time when Expenses offered the option of paying interest on a mortgage - which led to main residence flipping with some heroic abuses. There are MPs of most parties on that list.

    The intention was that profits from selling such flats would be clawed back, and sales should have been forced then and there as good intentions that cost MPs personal money have a habit of being ignored, but iPSA have - and still are - soft-pedalling it. Regulatory capture.

    Labour MP John Mann said: “The understanding after the expenses scandal was that parliament would claim back profits made from house sales. I am surprised to learn that this appears not to be happening.”

    But an Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority official said: “There are no plans to ask MPs to make any additional payments, seven years after mortgage claims ended.”

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/scandal-mps-claiming-cash-rent-14277665


  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?

    And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?

    I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
    What on earth are you on about?

    MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.

    MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
    You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.

    The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
    No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
    But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?

  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
    If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
    Being an MP is a Part Time job. Every single Minister in Parliament has a Second Job - being a Minister.
    Nope being a minister is a promotion not a second job - I refuse to engage with your convenient fiction.
    No, its a second job. Hence why they can be a Minister and not an MP by joining the Lords - and nobody would claim being a Lord is a Full Time job, hence why they get an attendance allowance instead.

    In most of the world Ministers are not members of the legislature and are a full time job. Do you really think that being Foreign Secretary is "just a promotion" and not a job in its own right? Why isn't her counterpart Blinken in the US Congress?
    Ministers having too much to do under our system is a completely different debate to whether MPs have enough to do.

    They’re supposed to be full-time legislators ffs.
    No they're not supposed to be full-time legislators.

    The Commons doesn't even sit full-time so who ever said they're "supposed" to be that?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931

    Good morning, everyone.

    I was first, but forgot to post.

    Morning MD.
    Too busy reading the comments ? :smile:
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,837
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    I think we can all agree spending months on a Caribbean island billing at £X000s a day is the bracing cold shower of real worldness that we all need.
    That's up to voters to judge if its what we need or not, but it is what some people do in the real world, yes.

    A bigger issue for me is why we as taxpayers have apparently paid for a mortgage for him on expenses. Someone working a minimum wage job on Universal Credit can't use Housing Benefit to pay for a mortgage, even if it would be cheaper than paying rent, so why should he be able to claim a mortgage on expenses? Why shouldn't the same rules apply?
    I believe they do now. But MPs used to be able to claim mortgages on expenses. Which was a bad system.
    I’m open in principle to mortgage interest perhaps being an allowable expense but only during times Parliament is in session.
    No, public money shouldn't be subsidising house purchase at all
    Well its the same debate with housing benefit and mortgage interest being cheaper to cover as an expense than rent.

    I aim to be pragmatic at the end of the day.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?

    And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?

    I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
    What on earth are you on about?

    MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.

    MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
    You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.

    The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
    No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
    But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?

    They're not.

    An expense isn't supposed to be a payment for their benefit, but to cover a cost.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,837

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
    If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
    Being an MP is a Part Time job. Every single Minister in Parliament has a Second Job - being a Minister.
    Nope being a minister is a promotion not a second job - I refuse to engage with your convenient fiction.
    No, its a second job. Hence why they can be a Minister and not an MP by joining the Lords - and nobody would claim being a Lord is a Full Time job, hence why they get an attendance allowance instead.

    In most of the world Ministers are not members of the legislature and are a full time job. Do you really think that being Foreign Secretary is "just a promotion" and not a job in its own right? Why isn't her counterpart Blinken in the US Congress?
    Ministers having too much to do under our system is a completely different debate to whether MPs have enough to do.

    They’re supposed to be full-time legislators ffs.
    No they're not supposed to be full-time legislators.

    The Commons doesn't even sit full-time so who ever said they're "supposed" to be that?
    Most people would consider 80k a year to be a handsome full time salary. The fact they’re lazy af is another debate entirely.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?

    And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?

    I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
    What on earth are you on about?

    MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.

    MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
    Indeed. The problem is MPs' buying flats and houses and us paying for it; meanwhile the MP enjoys the capital gain, charges us for all sorts of home improvements, flips their properties about so that their designated actual home is forever changing, and then ends up renting out the property we have mostly paid for and spending the rent themselves.
    Yes. This actually has a lot more cut-through with me than any 2nd job stuff.

    Why am I paying for the London home of a wealthy MP if they own ANOTHER London property they are renting to someone else? That’s blatant graft. I naively thought all this had been sorted with the expenses scandal, yet not?

    Many will feel similarly
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,636
    .

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    The real world by "Zoom" from the Caribbean?

    Last week you were demanding MPs take a paycut and now you're encouraging the "troughers" to fill their boots. Mad!

    Give them a decent salary and accountable allowance and NO second jobs while in office and no lobbying jobs for 5 years or one full Parliament thereafter. I remember our Conservative MP lost his seats in 1997 he returned to the mundanity of being a sub-postmaster.

    Oh and if people like Allin-Khan need to complete CPD for their medical career to continue after they are hurled out of office in a Tory- landslide they do so gratis
    Charles said:

    TimS said:

    Sad really that the news this morning isn’t all about COP26, and England’s loss in the T20.

    The Cox gambit has paid off well for the government. I hope IDS, Bradley, Johnson and Co will pay him well for his diversionary services.

    The BBC this morning started referring to “the UN climate change conference in Glasgow” rather than “COP26”.

    Perhaps they thought Boris might too much credit otherwise?
    ...or vice versa.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
    If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
    Being an MP is a Part Time job. Every single Minister in Parliament has a Second Job - being a Minister.
    Nope being a minister is a promotion not a second job - I refuse to engage with your convenient fiction.
    No, its a second job. Hence why they can be a Minister and not an MP by joining the Lords - and nobody would claim being a Lord is a Full Time job, hence why they get an attendance allowance instead.

    In most of the world Ministers are not members of the legislature and are a full time job. Do you really think that being Foreign Secretary is "just a promotion" and not a job in its own right? Why isn't her counterpart Blinken in the US Congress?
    Ministers having too much to do under our system is a completely different debate to whether MPs have enough to do.

    They’re supposed to be full-time legislators ffs.
    No they're not supposed to be full-time legislators.

    The Commons doesn't even sit full-time so who ever said they're "supposed" to be that?
    Most people would consider 80k a year to be a handsome full time salary. The fact they’re lazy af is another debate entirely.
    That's the point though, it is a handsome salary - its an even more handsome salary when you realise its for a part time job.

    Being an MP has never been full time. It can't be either until we scrap Ministers being MPs.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,461
    Some parts of the Telegraph are going off Johnson quickly.

    "Dispiriting doesn’t even begin to describe the current Government’s performance."

    "It isn’t too late for Boris Johnson to turn things around, but for now the outlook is dismal. When I ask Tories what is going on, they shrug, point to the fact that they are still, usually, ahead in the polls, and thank God for the lacklustre Keir Starmer."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/10/feckless-tory-government-has-charted-course-absolute-failure/
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,837
    edited November 11

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
    If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
    Being an MP is a Part Time job. Every single Minister in Parliament has a Second Job - being a Minister.
    Nope being a minister is a promotion not a second job - I refuse to engage with your convenient fiction.
    No, its a second job. Hence why they can be a Minister and not an MP by joining the Lords - and nobody would claim being a Lord is a Full Time job, hence why they get an attendance allowance instead.

    In most of the world Ministers are not members of the legislature and are a full time job. Do you really think that being Foreign Secretary is "just a promotion" and not a job in its own right? Why isn't her counterpart Blinken in the US Congress?
    Ministers having too much to do under our system is a completely different debate to whether MPs have enough to do.

    They’re supposed to be full-time legislators ffs.
    No they're not supposed to be full-time legislators.

    The Commons doesn't even sit full-time so who ever said they're "supposed" to be that?
    Most people would consider 80k a year to be a handsome full time salary. The fact they’re lazy af is another debate entirely.
    That's the point though, it is a handsome salary - its an even more handsome salary when you realise its for a part time job.

    Being an MP has never been full time. It can't be either until we scrap Ministers being MPs.
    Of course we can. Ministers are MPs who make laws and Backbench MPs are MPs who scrutinise laws. They’re two sides of the same coin. It’s the same job just one is more senior and therefore is paid more.

    Like I said I refuse to engage with your fiction that being a minister is a second job.

    Ministers in the Lords are analogous to contractors.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,742
    edited November 11
    On the monthly index the UK is only 0.6% behind pre-pandemic GDP. October looks like it will come in at about 0.8% growth, it's very likely that we are now beyond pre-pandemic GDP and into the point where we start recovering the lost potential growth. November to February will be really key months if the economy doesn't slow down from the September/October rate significantly then we will recover a very big proportion of "what should have been".

    I also enjoy when one ONS release disagrees with another one, particularly when they come out on the same day.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,740
    edited November 11
    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?

    And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?

    I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
    What on earth are you on about?

    MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.

    MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
    Indeed. The problem is MPs' buying flats and houses and us paying for it; meanwhile the MP enjoys the capital gain, charges us for all sorts of home improvements, flips their properties about so that their designated actual home is forever changing, and then ends up renting out the property we have mostly paid for and spending the rent themselves.
    Yes. This actually has a lot more cut-through with me than any 2nd job stuff.

    Why am I paying for the London home of a wealthy MP if they own ANOTHER London property they are renting to someone else? That’s blatant graft. I naively thought all this had been sorted with the expenses scandal, yet not?

    Many will feel similarly
    This is a legacy of switching to a better system since 2012, though.

    Chris Bryant is on the list of MPs who made money renting out flats previously purchased with mortgage interest paid by MP Expenses, according to the Mirror.
    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/scandal-mps-claiming-cash-rent-14277665

    The line from the Mirror this morning will help diffuse the story.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,738

    Some parts of the Telegraph are going off Johnson quickly.

    "Dispiriting doesn’t even begin to describe the current Government’s performance."

    "It isn’t too late for Boris Johnson to turn things around, but for now the outlook is dismal. When I ask Tories what is going on, they shrug, point to the fact that they are still, usually, ahead in the polls, and thank God for the lacklustre Keir Starmer."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/10/feckless-tory-government-has-charted-course-absolute-failure/

    The object of power is power. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,437

    Good morning, everyone.

    I was first, but forgot to post.

    MD I think you will find I didn't post before you.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    edited November 11
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?

    And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?

    I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
    What on earth are you on about?

    MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.

    MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
    You are requiring MP1 to use his/her capital to benefit the state.

    The economically rationale thing to do would be for MP1 to sell their flat and reinvest the proceeds elsewhere. They then don’t own a flat and can get one paid for by the state
    No I’m not. MP1 could sell their home then rent one if they wish, however I imagine one may prefer to live in their own home.
    But why should they be paid less than their colleagues?

    You don't seem to understand the difference between reimbursement of expenses, and remuneration.

    (...ever thought of standing for parliament? ;) )
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,262
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
    If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
    Until the middle of the last century most MPs worked in the day at their previous profession, often in the city or the law courts and then debated and voted in the evening when Commons sittings began
    Or early shift down the pit?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,187
    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?

    And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?

    I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
    What on earth are you on about?

    MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.

    MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
    Indeed. The problem is MPs' buying flats and houses and us paying for it; meanwhile the MP enjoys the capital gain, charges us for all sorts of home improvements, flips their properties about so that their designated actual home is forever changing, and then ends up renting out the property we have mostly paid for and spending the rent themselves.
    Yes. This actually has a lot more cut-through with me than any 2nd job stuff.

    Why am I paying for the London home of a wealthy MP if they own ANOTHER London property they are renting to someone else? That’s blatant graft. I naively thought all this had been sorted with the expenses scandal, yet not?

    Many will feel similarly
    As an MP he is entitled to rent for property in London. He is rich and has a range of investments. Is he really not allowed to invest in the London property market just because he’s an MP? Is the market to be left exclusively to Russian oligarchs and money laundering?
  • Inflation could do for Johnson, far more than seems likely for Second-Jobs Gate.

    Biden firefighting 6% inflation in US.

    Meanwhile: "official figures from Chinese factories on Wednesday pointed to producer prices climbing at their fastest pace in 26 years amid elevated raw material costs and power shortages.

    Chinese factory gate prices jumped 13.5pc year-on-year in October"
    (Telegraph)

    If China continues its zero covid strategy there could be long term economic disruption there and a steady shift of supply chains away from it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,477
    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?

    And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?

    I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
    What on earth are you on about?

    MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.

    MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
    Indeed. The problem is MPs' buying flats and houses and us paying for it; meanwhile the MP enjoys the capital gain, charges us for all sorts of home improvements, flips their properties about so that their designated actual home is forever changing, and then ends up renting out the property we have mostly paid for and spending the rent themselves.
    Yes. This actually has a lot more cut-through with me than any 2nd job stuff.

    Why am I paying for the London home of a wealthy MP if they own ANOTHER London property they are renting to someone else? That’s blatant graft. I naively thought all this had been sorted with the expenses scandal, yet not?

    Many will feel similarly
    This is a legacy of switching to a better system since 2012, though.

    Chris Bryant is on the list of MPs who made money renting out flats previously purchased with mortgage interest paid by MP Expenses, according to the Mirror.
    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/scandal-mps-claiming-cash-rent-14277665

    The line from the Mirror this morning will help diffuse the story.
    An MP with any sense would have sold the flat back then, and cut loose from any ties with public-funded property
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,936
    Interestingly the BBC didn't name the Labour MP "for legal reasons" who got drunk on the flight to Gibraltar while naming the SNP MPs- like the Sun:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16697509/mps-drinking-armistice-day-flight-lack-of-respect/

    While the Telegraph treats us to a photo of her, as well as her name:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/11/10/labour-snp-mps-criticised-drinking-heavily-official-flight-gibraltar/

    Wonder what the "legal reasons" could be?

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,636

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
    If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
    Being an MP is a Part Time job. Every single Minister in Parliament has a Second Job - being a Minister.
    Nope being a minister is a promotion not a second job - I refuse to engage with your convenient fiction.
    No, its a second job. Hence why they can be a Minister and not an MP by joining the Lords - and nobody would claim being a Lord is a Full Time job, hence why they get an attendance allowance instead.

    In most of the world Ministers are not members of the legislature and are a full time job. Do you really think that being Foreign Secretary is "just a promotion" and not a job in its own right? Why isn't her counterpart Blinken in the US Congress?
    Ministers having too much to do under our system is a completely different debate to whether MPs have enough to do.

    They’re supposed to be full-time legislators ffs.
    No they're not supposed to be full-time legislators.

    The Commons doesn't even sit full-time so who ever said they're "supposed" to be that?
    Most people would consider 80k a year to be a handsome full time salary. The fact they’re lazy af is another debate entirely.
    That's the point though, it is a handsome salary - its an even more handsome salary when you realise its for a part time job.

    Being an MP has never been full time. It can't be either until we scrap Ministers being MPs.
    Are you suggesting a Politburo of highly paid party-hack Civil Servants?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,262
    DavidL said:

    I suggested at the end of the last thread that we should be congratulating Cox on both his contributions to the trade deficit and the fiscal deficit. The man will be paying enough tax to cover his MP salary several times over. So the Commons and his constituents get the benefits of his considerable knowledge and expertise for free.

    MPs who hang around Westminster all the time as unqualified but seriously overpaid social workers contributing nothing to the public good should really stand in awe and hang their heads in shame.

    Well I agree with you on the social worker point. Too many on our side of the house would appear to see that as their role.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
    The imagery of him going to and from the Caribbean while everyone else was told not to leave their homes isn't good.

    I'm not sure of the timescales but it fits into a 'one rule for them ...' meme.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,187

    Interestingly the BBC didn't name the Labour MP "for legal reasons" who got drunk on the flight to Gibraltar while naming the SNP MPs- like the Sun:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16697509/mps-drinking-armistice-day-flight-lack-of-respect/

    While the Telegraph treats us to a photo of her, as well as her name:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/11/10/labour-snp-mps-criticised-drinking-heavily-official-flight-gibraltar/

    Wonder what the "legal reasons" could be?

    The most obvious is that he has actually been charged with something.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,754
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
    If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
    Until the middle of the last century most MPs worked in the day at their previous profession, often in the city or the law courts and then debated and voted in the evening when Commons sittings began
    The 20th century was pretty much a disaster for the UK. Maybe if they had committed to the job we might have faired a bit better.

  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
    If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
    Being an MP is a Part Time job. Every single Minister in Parliament has a Second Job - being a Minister.
    Nope being a minister is a promotion not a second job - I refuse to engage with your convenient fiction.
    No, its a second job. Hence why they can be a Minister and not an MP by joining the Lords - and nobody would claim being a Lord is a Full Time job, hence why they get an attendance allowance instead.

    In most of the world Ministers are not members of the legislature and are a full time job. Do you really think that being Foreign Secretary is "just a promotion" and not a job in its own right? Why isn't her counterpart Blinken in the US Congress?
    Ministers having too much to do under our system is a completely different debate to whether MPs have enough to do.

    They’re supposed to be full-time legislators ffs.
    No they're not supposed to be full-time legislators.

    The Commons doesn't even sit full-time so who ever said they're "supposed" to be that?
    Most people would consider 80k a year to be a handsome full time salary. The fact they’re lazy af is another debate entirely.
    That's the point though, it is a handsome salary - its an even more handsome salary when you realise its for a part time job.

    Being an MP has never been full time. It can't be either until we scrap Ministers being MPs.
    Of course we can. Ministers are MPs who make laws and Backbench MPs are MPs who scrutinise laws. They’re two sides of the same coin. It’s the same job just one is more senior and therefore is paid more.

    Like I said I refuse to engage with your fiction that being a minister is a second job.

    Ministers in the Lords are analogous to contractors.
    The problem being that, almost uniquely, the one of the jobs of the Junior MP (The backbencher in your example) is, to quite some extent, to act against the best interests and wishes of their boss, the Senior MP (The Minister). This is the problem with making Ministerial posts a position with increased monetary value. It tempts MPs into serving one master (the Government) against the best interests of their other master (the electorate).
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,128

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I'm probably alone in thinking it'd be better if MPs all had second jobs (remembering that Ministers etc is a second job) and that MPs were paid as the part-timers they are for the MP job.

    It would keep MPs more in touch with the real world, if they were all connected more with the real world instead of being career politicians.

    Yes, Dan Hannan has a good article on this in ConHome.

    If MPs can be full time Ministers as well, no reason why backbench MPs cannot also have second jobs in their previous profession too they still devote some time to

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2021/11/daniel-hannan-proposals-to-restrict-mps-outside-work-run-up-against-the-same-problem-what-are-good-and-bad-jobs.html
    Being a minister is analogous to a promotion rather than a second job. Pretending its a second job is just a convenient fiction to justify the gravy train.
    In Cox's case there is no gravy train.

    He is not claiming a penny in extra expenses from taxpayers or is the work he is getting because he is an MP, it is instead earnings from his private legal practice as he had before election
    If he's got so little to do as an MP that he can effectively do his job on a fraction of full time hours then we need less MPs as they are clearly not fully utilised.
    Being an MP is a Part Time job. Every single Minister in Parliament has a Second Job - being a Minister.
    Nope being a minister is a promotion not a second job - I refuse to engage with your convenient fiction.
    No, its a second job. Hence why they can be a Minister and not an MP by joining the Lords - and nobody would claim being a Lord is a Full Time job, hence why they get an attendance allowance instead.

    In most of the world Ministers are not members of the legislature and are a full time job. Do you really think that being Foreign Secretary is "just a promotion" and not a job in its own right? Why isn't her counterpart Blinken in the US Congress?
    Ministers having too much to do under our system is a completely different debate to whether MPs have enough to do.

    They’re supposed to be full-time legislators ffs.
    No they're not supposed to be full-time legislators.

    The Commons doesn't even sit full-time so who ever said they're "supposed" to be that?
    Most people would consider 80k a year to be a handsome full time salary. The fact they’re lazy af is another debate entirely.
    That's the point though, it is a handsome salary - its an even more handsome salary when you realise its for a part time job.

    Being an MP has never been full time. It can't be either until we scrap Ministers being MPs.
    Of course we can. Ministers are MPs who make laws and Backbench MPs are MPs who scrutinise laws. They’re two sides of the same coin. It’s the same job just one is more senior and therefore is paid more.

    Like I said I refuse to engage with your fiction that being a minister is a second job.

    Ministers in the Lords are analogous to contractors.
    I was going to write something disagreeing with you, but this is very well put.

    There is certainly more than enough legislation, select committees, constituency work to keep any MP busy full-time, should they want to do that. Then there are think tanks, mountains of research produced in areas of interest etc.

    But since MPs are their own bosses, they can obviously opt to do less if they want (and it seems many choose to do so). I am certainly naive, but it seems to me an extraordinary privilege to be able to do that work on behalf of your country. And personally I think it's very disappointing that many seem to take that for granted.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 179
    I don’t know if this is an epically stupid idea as I haven’t really thought it through fully but is there any benefit in the following change to the role of MP.

    Firstly the number of MPs is reduced and constituencies enlarged. Then at each election potential MPs stand as a “pair” from the same party.

    Of this pair one is the designated representative of the constituency in parliament and one is the “stay at home” constituency MP.

    The stay at home MP gets office expenses and a sensible budget for travel and overnight stay in London for official constituency business with the parliamentary rep.

    The parliamentary rep gets the full time use of a designated property based on their family (or not) needs but they are moving to London to work full time so no need for dual homes - up to them if they want to keep or rent out their home in their constituency.

    The parliamentary MP has more time to focus on parliamentary matters and as fewer MPs more will be in govt roles or shadow govt roles.

    The constituency MP is able to fully focus on seeing constituents and relaying the issues to their “pair” in parliament.

    It’s not going to solve second jobs issue but removes the issue where an MP gets “lost” between their constituency and parliament…. People can see easier what they are actually up to each day so if working on second jobs too much it’s going to be noticed as parliament MP isn’t checked into parliament and constituency MO isn’t in office or visiting somewhere in constituency.

    Haven’t though about the vote yet - does the parliament MP take vote instruction from constituency MP as they are closer to the action?

    Sorry if this is total bollocks but won’t be the first time!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931
    Why are we still obsessing about Cox ?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,128
    Nigelb said:

    Why are we still obsessing about Cox ?

    I think it's that phenomenon where the edge case/emotional impact generates a lot of debate, whilst clear cut examples of corruption don't, because they are obvious so little to discuss.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    Listening to the radio this morning the second job controversy was not mentioned or referenced

    Indeed the news stories seem largely to have moved on even on BBC and Sky

    Actually it seems Megan Markle has dominated the news this morning and not in a good way for her

    I wonder if the Mirror's Cox story might have more cut-through. It smacks more of plain old-fashioned greed rather than Cox being good at his job, and has echoes of the expenses scandal.

    Tory MP Geoffrey Cox’s two homes greed exposed as he rents out taxpayer-funded flat
    MP Geoffrey Cox rents out London flat you helped fund; he then claims more for a second home in the capital; he even received £3,800 for two months he was in the Caribbean

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-geoffrey-coxs-two-25429742
    It is unreasonable though? If his colleagues are entitled to rent a flat on expenses why should he not?
    No-one should be allowed to do that.

    Expenses and public money should never have got involved in helping to fund MPs' property speculation.

    Those that need accommodation in London should be covered the costs of their rent. End of.
    So because he owns a flat in London he should be “paid” less?

    And if he sells his Battersea flat and invests the money elsewhere his compensation should go up?

    I agree that the previous system was wrong, but it’s inequitable to treat people today differently.
    What on earth are you on about?

    MP1 already owns a flat in London, so they live in it, zero loss zero gain.

    MP2 doesn’t own a flat in London so they rent one and the exact cost of the rent is covered as an expense, zero loss zero gain.
    Indeed. The problem is MPs' buying flats and houses and us paying for it; meanwhile the MP enjoys the capital gain, charges us for all sorts of home improvements, flips their properties about so that their designated actual home is forever changing, and then ends up renting out the property we have mostly paid for and spending the rent themselves.
    Yes. This actually has a lot more cut-through with me than any 2nd job stuff.

    Why am I paying for the London home of a wealthy MP if they own ANOTHER London property they are renting to someone else? That’s blatant graft. I naively thought all this had been sorted with the expenses scandal, yet not?

    Many will feel similarly
    As an MP he is entitled to rent for property in London. He is rich and has a range of investments. Is he really not allowed to invest in the London property market just because he’s an MP? Is the market to be left exclusively to Russian oligarchs and money laundering?
    If you own a property in London, suitable to live in, you should not be allowed to claim the rent on a different property in London, in which to live.

    The expenses are there to help you do the job, not to fund your property investments. That’s it. It’s that basic
This discussion has been closed.