Howdy, Stranger!

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

A potentially awkward start for the new Tory leader – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,158
edited November 7 in General
A potentially awkward start for the new Tory leader – politicalbetting.com

Tory MPs consider resigning over Labour’s second job crackdown https://t.co/tXcdt1xpjX pic.twitter.com/JoesZIJOVy

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,543
    First
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,615
    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,541
    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    Last time this was proposed was pre-2010, I think? And Hague writing books was going to be banned as a 'second job', whilst Labour MPs could continue appearing on TV shows for moolah.

    So I'd hope that the second job ban proposals are both well considered and fair.
  • Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    The thing is with the high risk you could lose your job for reasons outside of your control and with some requiring annual CPD you'll get fewer lawyers/accountants etc becoming MPs.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,171

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,207
    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    Agree about it being a racket, especially when it's £large for not very much work advising BigCorp.

    On the other hand, being an opposition MP is a pretty rubbish job, especially if you're not particularly into all the community advice stuff. Even more so when the government majority is well into three figures. And the contrast between being a minister and being an opposition backbencher is the coldest of cold baths.

    But there's a reason that very few Conservative MPs ran with this story- it's been almost entirely the baby of the commentators. That's because MPs could see where it would end up.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,541
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
  • tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
    MPs like Farage not holding surgeries but presenting shows on GB News.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    Most large employers including the civil service have rules on outside interests. In general you can hold another job as long as you declare it, it doesn't introduce a conflict of interest and the hours don't detract from your main employment.

    I think something similar could work for MPs but as with all these things they need to submit to robust oversight, which seems to be a problem for them.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,615

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    The thing is with the high risk you could lose your job for reasons outside of your control and with some requiring annual CPD you'll get fewer lawyers/accountants etc becoming MPs.
    Medicine has "return to medicine" type programmes for those returning from career breaks. I am sure other professions could do the same. It's something that all jobs require in the modern age. I don't think paid media appearances should be allowed either.

    Geoffrey Cox working on a legal case in Mauritius during the vote on WFA for example, clearly was his second job interfering with his elected role.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/11/geoffrey-cox-missed-winter-fuel-votes-working-abroad-second-job-tories
  • tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
    MPs like Farage not holding surgeries but presenting shows on GB News.
    MP’s don’t technically have to do anything. It’s up to the electorate to decide whether he has done a good job, and our Nigel thinks he can do literally nothing and will still get reelected. We will see!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,011

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    Last time this was proposed was pre-2010, I think? And Hague writing books was going to be banned as a 'second job', whilst Labour MPs could continue appearing on TV shows for moolah.

    So I'd hope that the second job ban proposals are both well considered and fair.
    It's not.
    Whoever writes it.

    It should be entirely up to an MP's constituents whether or not they want to elect a part timer.

    There's plenty of stuff I disapprove of that I wouldn't ban. This is just more legislation for virtue signalling; balls to it.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,207
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    Two possible answers to the genuine problem of people needing to do some work to maintain their profession.

    1 For jobs where some ongoing work is required to maintain professional registration, MPs can do that work pro bono.

    2 If that is seen as excessively puritan, do a survey of the professional bodies to find out what "ongoing registration" work looks like and would be paid. Find the highest income from that, double that, and set the cap on outside income there.

    Unfortunately, the feedback loop of "bad MPs suffer reputational damage at the next election" is too slow and too weak to work in any but the very worst cases.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,828
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    The second jobs list can't be all or nothing, or rather it can't be nothing since the most prominent second jobs are as government ministers. Our system depends on MPs having second jobs. We are not like America where the Cabinet is appointed from outside Congress.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,541

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
    MPs like Farage not holding surgeries but presenting shows on GB News.
    Playing devil's advocate: why is that a problem, if it is fully registered and his constituents know it is going on? And would it be any better if it was BBC News?

    (I dislike Farage, and think many MPs hold far too few surgeries - albeit sometimes with good reasons. But don't expect him to automagically start holding surgeries if he is banned from TV.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,011
    .
    FF43 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    Most large employers including the civil service have rules on outside interests. In general you can hold another job as long as you declare it, it doesn't introduce a conflict of interest and the hours don't detract from your main employment.

    I think something similar could work for MPs but as with all these things they need to submit to robust oversight, which seems to be a problem for them.
    Other jobs come with protections form dismissal with a few days notice. MPs are elected, not appointed.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,828

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
    MPs like Farage not holding surgeries but presenting shows on GB News.
    Yes it's a disgrace but if the good burghers of Clacton are sufficiently aggrieved by Nigel Farage's absence, they can vote him out at the next election.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,282

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    The thing is with the high risk you could lose your job for reasons outside of your control and with some requiring annual CPD you'll get fewer lawyers/accountants etc becoming MPs.
    Fewer lawyers? What's not to like?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,011

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
    MPs like Farage not holding surgeries but presenting shows on GB News.
    You can't legislate away people electing arseholes.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    That would scupper a Johnson comeback.

    At just £80k a year with his needy young wife and manifold children, Johnson would struggle. Lady Bamford would have the Daylesford Organics van on call 24/7!
  • PJHPJH Posts: 643

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    Two possible answers to the genuine problem of people needing to do some work to maintain their profession.

    1 For jobs where some ongoing work is required to maintain professional registration, MPs can do that work pro bono.

    2 If that is seen as excessively puritan, do a survey of the professional bodies to find out what "ongoing registration" work looks like and would be paid. Find the highest income from that, double that, and set the cap on outside income there.

    Unfortunately, the feedback loop of "bad MPs suffer reputational damage at the next election" is too slow and too weak to work in any but the very worst cases.
    That's similar to my thinking. Agree that being an MP isn't a full time job (as Ministers seems to be able to combine it OK), allowing for long recesses etc maybe it's 60% FTE. Then allow MPs to earn the other 40% up to FTE but not more. That ought to be enough to maintain professional registrations and knowledge, and actually I think it's useful to the body politic if MPs are retaining links outside politics.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,011
    Lengthy, but very good post.

    ...let's dispense with the misty-eyed absurdity that you can vote for an openly racist Trump, but you'd like it known that you don't support racism. ..
    https://x.com/stuartpstevens/status/1845640785833714002
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,541

    That would scupper a Johnson comeback.

    At just £80k a year with his needy young wife and manifold children, Johnson would struggle. Lady Bamford would have the Daylesford Organics van on call 24/7!

    It's funny that you're so obsessed with Johnson that your first contribution on this story is about someone who is no longer an MP, and has shown few signs of wanting to become one again!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569
    A difficult line to draw, but it’s clear that there are three particularly contentious professions - writing, speaking, and lawyering. So start with banning these three and take it from there.

    Writing and speaking are the job of an MP, not something he or she should be doing on the side. If an MP wants to write a piece, and a newspaper publish it, then fine, but there’s no need for there to be a financial incentive to the MP. It’s a severe blurring of the already very blurred lines between politics and journalism.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
    MPs like Farage not holding surgeries but presenting shows on GB News.
    Playing devil's advocate: why is that a problem, if it is fully registered and his constituents know it is going on? And would it be any better if it was BBC News?

    (I dislike Farage, and think many MPs hold far too few surgeries - albeit sometimes with good reasons. But don't expect him to automagically start holding surgeries if he is banned from TV.)
    All that proves is Farage is unfit for public office. His job is to represent the people of Clacton and resolve their mundane problems. If he wants to talk Trumpian bollocks on GeeBeebies he can do it for free.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,541
    Sandpit said:

    A difficult line to draw, but it’s clear that there are three particularly contentious professions - writing, speaking, and lawyering. So start with banning these three and take it from there.

    Writing and speaking are the job of an MP, not something he or she should be doing on the side. If an MP wants to write a piece, and a newspaper publish it, then fine, but there’s no need for there to be a financial incentive to the MP. It’s a severe blurring of the already very blurred lines between politics and journalism.

    How about writing a non-fiction book about a historical figure? That comes under 'writing'.

    As an aside, MPs should be able to have hobbies, and should be able to earn a little from those hobbies if they want or can. In fact, I'd argue that may make them more well-rounded.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    edited October 14
    Nigelb said:

    .

    FF43 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    Most large employers including the civil service have rules on outside interests. In general you can hold another job as long as you declare it, it doesn't introduce a conflict of interest and the hours don't detract from your main employment.

    I think something similar could work for MPs but as with all these things they need to submit to robust oversight, which seems to be a problem for them.
    Other jobs come with protections form dismissal with a few days notice. MPs are elected, not appointed.
    This theory is MPs are only accountable to their electors but it doesn't really work and I think it is better, including for the MPs themselves, to treat member of parliament as a paid job. Everyone thinks it is a paid job. In which case it comes with the normal constraints of employment including HR rules.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,338

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    I think, in general, this is something for voters to judge on at election time - but it would be easier for them to do so with STV, instead of FPTP.

    The best way I can think of to implement the change is to cap the hours and pay for second jobs. No more than 10 hours a week for no more than 25% of the MP's salary, something like that, but exact figures could be whatever. That would allow someone to do enough to keep a skill alive, but would put a stop to most of the piss-taking.

    But then, what would the sanction be? Suspension from the Commons? That feels draconian and unnecessary. So I would leave it to the voters.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,541

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
    MPs like Farage not holding surgeries but presenting shows on GB News.
    Playing devil's advocate: why is that a problem, if it is fully registered and his constituents know it is going on? And would it be any better if it was BBC News?

    (I dislike Farage, and think many MPs hold far too few surgeries - albeit sometimes with good reasons. But don't expect him to automagically start holding surgeries if he is banned from TV.)
    All that proves is Farage is unfit for public office. His job is to represent the people of Clacton and resolve their mundane problems. If he wants to talk Trumpian bollocks on GeeBeebies he can do it for free.
    Would you say the same for an MP who never held constituency surgeries, lived much of the year in France, yet was always available to be a talking head on TV?

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/no-surgeries-for-14-years-is-sir-stuart-bell-britain-s-laziest-mp-2350953.html
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,011
    TimS said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
    MPs like Farage not holding surgeries but presenting shows on GB News.
    Playing devil's advocate: why is that a problem, if it is fully registered and his constituents know it is going on? And would it be any better if it was BBC News?

    (I dislike Farage, and think many MPs hold far too few surgeries - albeit sometimes with good reasons. But don't expect him to automagically start holding surgeries if he is banned from TV.)
    All that proves is Farage is unfit for public office. His job is to represent the people of Clacton and resolve their mundane problems. If he wants to talk Trumpian bollocks on GeeBeebies he can do it for free.
    This is another example of where multi member STV would help.

    If you have a choice of say 3 Reform MPS in your enlarged constituency alongside various other parties, you can vote for the hardworking one and withhold your vote from the lazy or distracted one, and still get a Reform MP into parliament.

    It removes the dilemma of voting for an arse or lazybones because otherwise you’d let in the other lot.
    Agreed.

    The principle of legislating to ban lazy MPs isn't rationally defensible. If the electorate are going to subcontract their choices back to the legislature, then they're not interested in democracy.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,207
    PJH said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    Two possible answers to the genuine problem of people needing to do some work to maintain their profession.

    1 For jobs where some ongoing work is required to maintain professional registration, MPs can do that work pro bono.

    2 If that is seen as excessively puritan, do a survey of the professional bodies to find out what "ongoing registration" work looks like and would be paid. Find the highest income from that, double that, and set the cap on outside income there.

    Unfortunately, the feedback loop of "bad MPs suffer reputational damage at the next election" is too slow and too weak to work in any but the very worst cases.
    That's similar to my thinking. Agree that being an MP isn't a full time job (as Ministers seems to be able to combine it OK), allowing for long recesses etc maybe it's 60% FTE. Then allow MPs to earn the other 40% up to FTE but not more. That ought to be enough to maintain professional registrations and knowledge, and actually I think it's useful to the body politic if MPs are retaining links outside politics.
    There's a definite problem, but it's some extreme version of the 80:20 thing. So yes, the line can be drawn pretty generously.

    But the bottom line is simple. If a snazzy makeover is enough to buy an MP (and some people seem convinced that it is), what does £large for appearing on a loss-making TV station, or offering advice to whoevercorp get you?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,764
    Nigelb said:

    Lengthy, but very good post.

    ...let's dispense with the misty-eyed absurdity that you can vote for an openly racist Trump, but you'd like it known that you don't support racism. ..
    https://x.com/stuartpstevens/status/1845640785833714002

    No, that's daft. In a binary choice there will be all sorts of things about your preferred candidate which you don't like. You just dislike the other one more.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,011
    Cookie said:

    Nigelb said:

    Lengthy, but very good post.

    ...let's dispense with the misty-eyed absurdity that you can vote for an openly racist Trump, but you'd like it known that you don't support racism. ..
    https://x.com/stuartpstevens/status/1845640785833714002

    No, that's daft. In a binary choice there will be all sorts of things about your preferred candidate which you don't like. You just dislike the other one more.
    Sure.
    But this is pretty well definitional of Trump; treating it as just one of "all sorts of things" isn't so much daft, as delusional.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,502

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
    MPs like Farage not holding surgeries but presenting shows on GB News.
    Playing devil's advocate: why is that a problem, if it is fully registered and his constituents know it is going on? And would it be any better if it was BBC News?

    (I dislike Farage, and think many MPs hold far too few surgeries - albeit sometimes with good reasons. But don't expect him to automagically start holding surgeries if he is banned from TV.)
    It is amusing that a certain section of the PB commentariate are so unhappy about Farage and his media appearences when none of them seem to have ever said a word about Diane Abbott and her regular appearences on Weekly Politics.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,011
    Cookie said:

    Nigelb said:

    Lengthy, but very good post.

    ...let's dispense with the misty-eyed absurdity that you can vote for an openly racist Trump, but you'd like it known that you don't support racism. ..
    https://x.com/stuartpstevens/status/1845640785833714002

    No, that's daft. In a binary choice there will be all sorts of things about your preferred candidate which you don't like. You just dislike the other one more.
    Or perhaps his economic grasp persuades you the racism, and plans to use the military to round up and deport millions don't matter ?

    Trump: I’ll put a 100%, 200%, or 500% tax on imported goods. I don’t care
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1845475375196811744
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,171

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    The second jobs list can't be all or nothing, or rather it can't be nothing since the most prominent second jobs are as government ministers. Our system depends on MPs having second jobs. We are not like America where the Cabinet is appointed from outside Congress.
    I was going to go back and caveat my post but assumed everyone on here would know that government posts would have to be exempt.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,392
    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    Nigelb said:

    Lengthy, but very good post.

    ...let's dispense with the misty-eyed absurdity that you can vote for an openly racist Trump, but you'd like it known that you don't support racism. ..
    https://x.com/stuartpstevens/status/1845640785833714002

    No, that's daft. In a binary choice there will be all sorts of things about your preferred candidate which you don't like. You just dislike the other one more.
    Or perhaps his economic grasp persuades you the racism, and plans to use the military to round up and deport millions don't matter ?

    Trump: I’ll put a 100%, 200%, or 500% tax on imported goods. I don’t care
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1845475375196811744
    And yet more blacks and hispanics appear to be prepared to vote for Trump this time around.

    Wouldnt they be in a better position to answer to answer the question than a middle aged white bloke 3500 miles away who cant vote ?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
    MPs like Farage not holding surgeries but presenting shows on GB News.
    Playing devil's advocate: why is that a problem, if it is fully registered and his constituents know it is going on? And would it be any better if it was BBC News?

    (I dislike Farage, and think many MPs hold far too few surgeries - albeit sometimes with good reasons. But don't expect him to automagically start holding surgeries if he is banned from TV.)
    It is amusing that a certain section of the PB commentariate are so unhappy about Farage and his media appearences when none of them seem to have ever said a word about Diane Abbott and her regular appearences on Weekly Politics.
    MPs should be free to make as many media appearances as they wish. But ‘free’ needs to be on both sides and cover both meanings of the word.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,541
    If this is true, it'll be interesting to see if it continues. And why.

    "For the first time in the last 48 (!) days, the night passed without "Shaheds" in Ukraine."

    https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1845710271001624924
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,011
    .

    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    Nigelb said:

    Lengthy, but very good post.

    ...let's dispense with the misty-eyed absurdity that you can vote for an openly racist Trump, but you'd like it known that you don't support racism. ..
    https://x.com/stuartpstevens/status/1845640785833714002

    No, that's daft. In a binary choice there will be all sorts of things about your preferred candidate which you don't like. You just dislike the other one more.
    Or perhaps his economic grasp persuades you the racism, and plans to use the military to round up and deport millions don't matter ?

    Trump: I’ll put a 100%, 200%, or 500% tax on imported goods. I don’t care
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1845475375196811744
    And yet more blacks and hispanics appear to be prepared to vote for Trump this time around.

    Wouldnt they be in a better position to answer to answer the question than a middle aged white bloke 3500 miles away who cant vote ?
    Someone has keen to subcontract his opinions.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569

    If this is true, it'll be interesting to see if it continues. And why.

    "For the first time in the last 48 (!) days, the night passed without "Shaheds" in Ukraine."

    https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1845710271001624924

    Have the Russkis run out, and the Iranians won’t sell them any more until Iran has finished with their own messy little local conflict?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,171
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
    MPs like Farage not holding surgeries but presenting shows on GB News.
    Playing devil's advocate: why is that a problem, if it is fully registered and his constituents know it is going on? And would it be any better if it was BBC News?

    (I dislike Farage, and think many MPs hold far too few surgeries - albeit sometimes with good reasons. But don't expect him to automagically start holding surgeries if he is banned from TV.)
    It is amusing that a certain section of the PB commentariate are so unhappy about Farage and his media appearences when none of them seem to have ever said a word about Diane Abbott and her regular appearences on Weekly Politics.
    MPs should be free to make as many media appearances as they wish. But ‘free’ needs to be on both sides and cover both meanings of the word.
    The former MP Caroline Flint was on Sky a few weeks ago arguing against MPs being paid to go on TV (because of, you guessed it, Farage). Problem is, she herself took money for going on This Week.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,392
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    Nigelb said:

    Lengthy, but very good post.

    ...let's dispense with the misty-eyed absurdity that you can vote for an openly racist Trump, but you'd like it known that you don't support racism. ..
    https://x.com/stuartpstevens/status/1845640785833714002

    No, that's daft. In a binary choice there will be all sorts of things about your preferred candidate which you don't like. You just dislike the other one more.
    Or perhaps his economic grasp persuades you the racism, and plans to use the military to round up and deport millions don't matter ?

    Trump: I’ll put a 100%, 200%, or 500% tax on imported goods. I don’t care
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1845475375196811744
    And yet more blacks and hispanics appear to be prepared to vote for Trump this time around.

    Wouldnt they be in a better position to answer to answer the question than a middle aged white bloke 3500 miles away who cant vote ?
    Someone has keen to subcontract his opinions.
    Well you just troll out the latest Dem attack lines. It doesnt really tell us anything.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,681
    The former Tory chancellor George Osborne has thrown his weight behind a proposal nicknamed “HS2 light” that would deliver new high-speed train links between Manchester and Birmingham.

    Osborne said the worst thing Rishi Sunak did as prime minister was cancelling the northern arm of HS2. “It was an act of infrastructure vandalism,” he said

    Guardian
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    If this is true, it'll be interesting to see if it continues. And why.

    "For the first time in the last 48 (!) days, the night passed without "Shaheds" in Ukraine."

    https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1845710271001624924

    IIUC Ukraine had some success attacking their storage facilities:
    https://bsky.app/profile/pravda.ua/post/3l64eax2zd324
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    I think, in general, this is something for voters to judge on at election time - but it would be easier for them to do so with STV, instead of FPTP.

    The best way I can think of to implement the change is to cap the hours and pay for second jobs. No more than 10 hours a week for no more than 25% of the MP's salary, something like that, but exact figures could be whatever. That would allow someone to do enough to keep a skill alive, but would put a stop to most of the piss-taking.

    But then, what would the sanction be? Suspension from the Commons? That feels draconian and unnecessary. So I would leave it to the voters.
    A cap on hours is hard to police. The MP will just claim the same pay for fewer recorded hours in some cases.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569
    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
    MPs like Farage not holding surgeries but presenting shows on GB News.
    Playing devil's advocate: why is that a problem, if it is fully registered and his constituents know it is going on? And would it be any better if it was BBC News?

    (I dislike Farage, and think many MPs hold far too few surgeries - albeit sometimes with good reasons. But don't expect him to automagically start holding surgeries if he is banned from TV.)
    It is amusing that a certain section of the PB commentariate are so unhappy about Farage and his media appearences when none of them seem to have ever said a word about Diane Abbott and her regular appearences on Weekly Politics.
    MPs should be free to make as many media appearances as they wish. But ‘free’ needs to be on both sides and cover both meanings of the word.
    The former MP Caroline Flint was on Sky a few weeks ago arguing against MPs being paid to go on TV (because of, you guessed it, Farage). Problem is, she herself took money for going on This Week.
    I’ll guess that half the MPs have some media income, and probably 10% have a ‘regular’ media gig for a TV station or newspaper. They can boost their profile and earn money, it’s a win-win for a backbench MP.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,541
    Sandpit said:

    If this is true, it'll be interesting to see if it continues. And why.

    "For the first time in the last 48 (!) days, the night passed without "Shaheds" in Ukraine."

    https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1845710271001624924

    Have the Russkis run out, and the Iranians won’t sell them any more until Iran has finished with their own messy little local conflict?
    That's what I hope. The vatniks say they're just storing them up for a mass assault in the future.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
    MPs like Farage not holding surgeries but presenting shows on GB News.
    Playing devil's advocate: why is that a problem, if it is fully registered and his constituents know it is going on? And would it be any better if it was BBC News?

    (I dislike Farage, and think many MPs hold far too few surgeries - albeit sometimes with good reasons. But don't expect him to automagically start holding surgeries if he is banned from TV.)
    It is amusing that a certain section of the PB commentariate are so unhappy about Farage and his media appearences when none of them seem to have ever said a word about Diane Abbott and her regular appearences on Weekly Politics.
    MPs should be free to make as many media appearances as they wish. But ‘free’ needs to be on both sides and cover both meanings of the word.
    The former MP Caroline Flint was on Sky a few weeks ago arguing against MPs being paid to go on TV (because of, you guessed it, Farage). Problem is, she herself took money for going on This Week.
    I’ll guess that half the MPs have some media income, and probably 10% have a ‘regular’ media gig for a TV station or newspaper. They can boost their profile and earn money, it’s a win-win for a backbench MP.
    You can read the Register of Interests. I’ve not been through it systematically, but I’ve browsed and only a small proportion of MPs have any media income.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,629
    edited October 14
    There is a bit of a difference between MPs anchoring daily one hour news and comment shows and MPs appearing as guests on political programmes challenged by a journalist.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,129

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    I think, in general, this is something for voters to judge on at election time - but it would be easier for them to do so with STV, instead of FPTP.

    The best way I can think of to implement the change is to cap the hours and pay for second jobs. No more than 10 hours a week for no more than 25% of the MP's salary, something like that, but exact figures could be whatever. That would allow someone to do enough to keep a skill alive, but would put a stop to most of the piss-taking.

    But then, what would the sanction be? Suspension from the Commons? That feels draconian and unnecessary. So I would leave it to the voters.
    I think that if you have set clear rules like that for external income then it is fine for the punsihment to be something like suspension. You're not punishing the having of an external income but the wilful disregard for rules. If you set no punishment at all then you might as well not have the rule.

    There would still be awkward corner cases under your proposal -- how do you account for e.g. getting royalties off writing a book, where the income arriving is disconnected in time from the time when you did the work and the amount of income is unpredictable?
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,129

    The former Tory chancellor George Osborne has thrown his weight behind a proposal nicknamed “HS2 light” that would deliver new high-speed train links between Manchester and Birmingham.

    Osborne said the worst thing Rishi Sunak did as prime minister was cancelling the northern arm of HS2. “It was an act of infrastructure vandalism,” he said

    I was just listening to that bit of the Osborne/Balls podcast this morning too...

    HS2 has been a "how many ways can you screw this up" smorgasbord of government infrastructure investment failure -- sensible idea massively mismanaged and messed about with by civil service and politicians. If the government are serious about investing for growth they need to look at how to avoid repeats...

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,874
    Ahead of the visit of the King and Queen to Australia, a new poll of Australians finds 45% want to keep the monarchy and a mere 33% a republic
    "Australia does not want to become a republic under King Charles, poll suggests" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2024/10/13/australia-not-want-to-become-republic-under-king-charles/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569
    edited October 14
    pm215 said:

    The former Tory chancellor George Osborne has thrown his weight behind a proposal nicknamed “HS2 light” that would deliver new high-speed train links between Manchester and Birmingham.

    Osborne said the worst thing Rishi Sunak did as prime minister was cancelling the northern arm of HS2. “It was an act of infrastructure vandalism,” he said

    I was just listening to that bit of the Osborne/Balls podcast this morning too...

    HS2 has been a "how many ways can you screw this up" smorgasbord of government infrastructure investment failure -- sensible idea massively mismanaged and messed about with by civil service and politicians. If the government are serious about investing for growth they need to look at how to avoid repeats...

    The whole lot of them are scared of the political backlash for taking any affirmative decision that involves spending money.

    HS2 should have been open by now. As should Heathrow’s new runway, the Stonehenge Tunnel, Brylglas Tunnel bypass, A9 dualling etc etc. the Crossrail team should have moved straight from that project to the next Crossrail project, and have been digging tunnels for the past two years.

    As the famous saying goes, take a decision then just f……. do it! Have one decision, one vote in Parliament on the whole project, then turn up again when the King cuts the ribbon.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,032
    edited October 14
    HYUFD said:

    If making money is more important to these Tory MPs than serving their party and constituency then off they go. They can be replaced by good local candidates and councillors of the type Rishi tried to keep off candidate shortlists in favour of careerist loyalists to him

    Then all you get is mediocrities who know nothing about business, or indeed anything beyond activist politics, their local council and Westminster. Labour can get away with thinly disguised bribery in the form of trade union "sponsorship" of MPs, but the Conservatives don't have that route open to them.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
    MPs like Farage not holding surgeries but presenting shows on GB News.
    Playing devil's advocate: why is that a problem, if it is fully registered and his constituents know it is going on? And would it be any better if it was BBC News?

    (I dislike Farage, and think many MPs hold far too few surgeries - albeit sometimes with good reasons. But don't expect him to automagically start holding surgeries if he is banned from TV.)
    It is amusing that a certain section of the PB commentariate are so unhappy about Farage and his media appearences when none of them seem to have ever said a word about Diane Abbott and her regular appearences on Weekly Politics.
    With Farage it's more a case of not taking the supposed first job than anything about second jobs. I don't see why I should pay him for doing nothing.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 643

    PJH said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    Two possible answers to the genuine problem of people needing to do some work to maintain their profession.

    1 For jobs where some ongoing work is required to maintain professional registration, MPs can do that work pro bono.

    2 If that is seen as excessively puritan, do a survey of the professional bodies to find out what "ongoing registration" work looks like and would be paid. Find the highest income from that, double that, and set the cap on outside income there.

    Unfortunately, the feedback loop of "bad MPs suffer reputational damage at the next election" is too slow and too weak to work in any but the very worst cases.
    That's similar to my thinking. Agree that being an MP isn't a full time job (as Ministers seems to be able to combine it OK), allowing for long recesses etc maybe it's 60% FTE. Then allow MPs to earn the other 40% up to FTE but not more. That ought to be enough to maintain professional registrations and knowledge, and actually I think it's useful to the body politic if MPs are retaining links outside politics.
    There's a definite problem, but it's some extreme version of the 80:20 thing. So yes, the line can be drawn pretty generously.

    But the bottom line is simple. If a snazzy makeover is enough to buy an MP (and some people seem convinced that it is), what does £large for appearing on a loss-making TV station, or offering advice to whoevercorp get you?
    Back after getting drenched with the dog...

    Perhaps it's a blend of the two, like in employment I can do outside work paid or unpaid as long as I declare it and it isn't in conflict with my day job. That ought to rule out "consultancy" but shouldn't rule out the sort of IT Consultancy I do if the aim is to keep au fait with the latest developments in the sector.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,764
    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    Nigelb said:

    Lengthy, but very good post.

    ...let's dispense with the misty-eyed absurdity that you can vote for an openly racist Trump, but you'd like it known that you don't support racism. ..
    https://x.com/stuartpstevens/status/1845640785833714002

    No, that's daft. In a binary choice there will be all sorts of things about your preferred candidate which you don't like. You just dislike the other one more.
    Or perhaps his economic grasp persuades you the racism, and plans to use the military to round up and deport millions don't matter ?

    Trump: I’ll put a 100%, 200%, or 500% tax on imported goods. I don’t care
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1845475375196811744
    To be clear, I'm not saying I'd vote for Trump. I'd vote for Harris. And I'd vote for her despite lots of issues where I don't support her, because I think Trump is far worse. I'm just making the point that voting for candidate or party x in a binary system cannot mean support for every aspect of that candidate or party.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,176
    The first thing, is that personally rich people will have a massive advantage in a brave new world of no second jobs.

    Gifts will become ever more popular. Wonder how long before utility companies start giving free water and gas to MPs....

    Hours alone won't be the issue - otherwise you will find that the 6 hour a year, non executive directorships will be brought forward to while people are MPs. In the old days, IIRC, unions used to directly pay Labour MPs.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    edited October 14
    This is very much like freebies....the odd freebie, no big deal, constantly at the races in the private box of a gambling company when you are select committee, well that looks problematic.

    Doing the odd media appearance, or a few hours here and there keeping up with the profession you were trained in, no big deal...doing more hours on your "second" job then your first job, well we have a problem.

    The problem is every bodies situation is different. How and where do you draw the line.

    It is also like donations to politician parties, the unpalatable option is we just pay MPs a lot more and say no paid seconds. If you need to do a few hours to keep up with your professional status, its unpaid.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,883
    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
    MPs like Farage not holding surgeries but presenting shows on GB News.
    Playing devil's advocate: why is that a problem, if it is fully registered and his constituents know it is going on? And would it be any better if it was BBC News?

    (I dislike Farage, and think many MPs hold far too few surgeries - albeit sometimes with good reasons. But don't expect him to automagically start holding surgeries if he is banned from TV.)
    It is amusing that a certain section of the PB commentariate are so unhappy about Farage and his media appearences when none of them seem to have ever said a word about Diane Abbott and her regular appearences on Weekly Politics.
    MPs should be free to make as many media appearances as they wish. But ‘free’ needs to be on both sides and cover both meanings of the word.
    The former MP Caroline Flint was on Sky a few weeks ago arguing against MPs being paid to go on TV (because of, you guessed it, Farage). Problem is, she herself took money for going on This Week.
    But she isn't an MP so she can earn what she wants wherever.
  • DeclanFDeclanF Posts: 42

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    Last time this was proposed was pre-2010, I think? And Hague writing books was going to be banned as a 'second job', whilst Labour MPs could continue appearing on TV shows for moolah.

    So I'd hope that the second job ban proposals are both well considered and fair.
    They won't be. But this suggestion might work.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/11/12/honourable-members/

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    edited October 14
    I would turn several comments on this thread round. If we are unable to attract MPs of a sufficient calibre without them having second jobs during their time in parliament, they should be paid more.

    I'm not sure this is the case by the way. I suspect it's just special pleading. But the principle applies. MPs have going rates, like the rest of us
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    edited October 14
    I wonder how you protect yourself against this? Other than never use a QR code ever.

    Be careful everyone, this happened in greystones. The lady's daughter was scammed out of €1000, using a QR code that she scanned to pay for parking.

    https://x.com/lozzylozboz/status/1845542609281818925
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,129
    Sandpit said:

    pm215 said:

    The former Tory chancellor George Osborne has thrown his weight behind a proposal nicknamed “HS2 light” that would deliver new high-speed train links between Manchester and Birmingham.

    Osborne said the worst thing Rishi Sunak did as prime minister was cancelling the northern arm of HS2. “It was an act of infrastructure vandalism,” he said

    I was just listening to that bit of the Osborne/Balls podcast this morning too...

    HS2 has been a "how many ways can you screw this up" smorgasbord of government infrastructure investment failure -- sensible idea massively mismanaged and messed about with by civil service and politicians. If the government are serious about investing for growth they need to look at how to avoid repeats...

    The whole lot of them are scared of the political backlash for taking any affirmative decision that involves spending money.

    HS2 should have been open by now. As should Heathrow’s new runway, the Stonehenge Tunnel, Brylglas Tunnel bypass, A9 dualling etc etc. the Crossrail team should have moved straight from that project to the next Crossrail project, and have been digging tunnels for the past two years.

    As the famous saying goes, take a decision then just f……. do it! Have one decision, one vote in Parliament on the whole project, then turn up again when the King cuts the ribbon.
    Agreed with all that (one or two of the items on your list I'm not personally enthusiastic about but I'll take them in exchange for having a government that can actually do stuff effectively). Also for HS2 the desire to offload all the project risk to the private sector I think is another error driven by fear of political backlash that has had negative consequences. The government in this kind of deal is well placed to accept and absorb a reasonable amount of project risk and would get on average better outcomes if it did.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,807
    HYUFD said:

    Ahead of the visit of the King and Queen to Australia, a new poll of Australians finds 45% want to keep the monarchy and a mere 33% a republic
    "Australia does not want to become a republic under King Charles, poll suggests" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2024/10/13/australia-not-want-to-become-republic-under-king-charles/

    I think for a lot of countries, ours included, it’s essentially a collective shrug and a “if it isn’t broke don’t try to fix it” position.

    We’ve all got far more pressing issues.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    edited October 14
    FF43 said:

    I would turn several comments on this thread round. If we are unable to attract MPs of a sufficient calibre without them having second jobs during their time in parliament, they should be paid more.

    I'm not sure this is the case by the way. I suspect it's just special pleading. But the principle applies. MPs have going rates, like the rest of us

    The quality of MPs is piss poor. The question is would more pay solve that. I think a big issue is that now with social media, basically your whole life can be under the spotlight 24/7, most high calibre people can earn a lot more money and be totally anonymous to the world.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 643

    The first thing, is that personally rich people will have a massive advantage in a brave new world of no second jobs.

    Gifts will become ever more popular. Wonder how long before utility companies start giving free water and gas to MPs....

    Hours alone won't be the issue - otherwise you will find that the 6 hour a year, non executive directorships will be brought forward to while people are MPs. In the old days, IIRC, unions used to directly pay Labour MPs.

    Which is why you have to look at value, not time. I hadn't thought about gifts which are a separate issue but perhaps overlap.

    You've also reminded me that privately rich people would be at an advantage in that they won't have to worry about any of this if they want to be an MP, which might skew the balance of people who want to do the job.

    And now I'm beginning to realise the flaws of my own simplistic populist solution once faced with reality :smile:
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,129
    Cookie said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    Nigelb said:

    Lengthy, but very good post.

    ...let's dispense with the misty-eyed absurdity that you can vote for an openly racist Trump, but you'd like it known that you don't support racism. ..
    https://x.com/stuartpstevens/status/1845640785833714002

    No, that's daft. In a binary choice there will be all sorts of things about your preferred candidate which you don't like. You just dislike the other one more.
    Or perhaps his economic grasp persuades you the racism, and plans to use the military to round up and deport millions don't matter ?

    Trump: I’ll put a 100%, 200%, or 500% tax on imported goods. I don’t care
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1845475375196811744
    To be clear, I'm not saying I'd vote for Trump. I'd vote for Harris. And I'd vote for her despite lots of issues where I don't support her, because I think Trump is far worse. I'm just making the point that voting for candidate or party x in a binary system cannot mean support for every aspect of that candidate or party.
    True, but it's also the case that there may be some aspects of a candidate that are deal-breakers for you, where no matter how good the rest of the platform they have is you still can't vote for somebody who supports something you are vehemently opposed to. The quoted tweet is essentially saying "you should consider open racism to be a deal-breaker, and if you do not then other people will judge you accordingly".
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,768
    All this is going to do is narrow the field of candidates down to career politicians, I'm not sure that reducing the life and career experience of the HoC is the intended effect of the policy yet that is what will end up happening.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    edited October 14
    High up on the dry brush hills that rise steadily from the Israeli border, the UN watchtower surveys southern Lebanon and the plains below as far as the eye can see.

    But no more than 100 metres from the blast walls below the tower, a rusty metal trapdoor swings open to reveal a tunnel cut deep into the rock. This, the Israeli military says, is the entrance to a Hezbollah attack position. It is one of two within a stone’s throw of a UN base where international soldiers have for years rotated in and out to prevent another war breaking out.

    “To build a tunnel like this you need a lot of equipment. You can’t hide it. It’s very odd to us that the UN didn’t see these activities,” General Yiftach, whose division now controls the area, added.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/13/the-un-keeps-peace-in-southern-lebanon-hezbollah-tunnel/

    Sounds like they are about as observant as the prison guards looking after Epstein.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,582
    pm215 said:

    The former Tory chancellor George Osborne has thrown his weight behind a proposal nicknamed “HS2 light” that would deliver new high-speed train links between Manchester and Birmingham.

    Osborne said the worst thing Rishi Sunak did as prime minister was cancelling the northern arm of HS2. “It was an act of infrastructure vandalism,” he said

    I was just listening to that bit of the Osborne/Balls podcast this morning too...

    HS2 has been a "how many ways can you screw this up" smorgasbord of government infrastructure investment failure -- sensible idea massively mismanaged and messed about with by civil service and politicians. If the government are serious about investing for growth they need to look at how to avoid repeats...

    The way to avoid repeats is to never again attempt anything which is described as 'world leading' or 'biggest in Europe'.

    Instead build small, build often, build plentiful, build cheap, build wanted, build useful.

    Go to every place in the country and ask local people what transport improvements they need.

    Not what politicians, bureaucrats and the whole 'process' sector wants.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,011
    Sandpit said:

    pm215 said:

    The former Tory chancellor George Osborne has thrown his weight behind a proposal nicknamed “HS2 light” that would deliver new high-speed train links between Manchester and Birmingham.

    Osborne said the worst thing Rishi Sunak did as prime minister was cancelling the northern arm of HS2. “It was an act of infrastructure vandalism,” he said

    I was just listening to that bit of the Osborne/Balls podcast this morning too...

    HS2 has been a "how many ways can you screw this up" smorgasbord of government infrastructure investment failure -- sensible idea massively mismanaged and messed about with by civil service and politicians. If the government are serious about investing for growth they need to look at how to avoid repeats...

    The whole lot of them are scared of the political backlash for taking any affirmative decision that involves spending money.

    HS2 should have been open by now. As should Heathrow’s new runway, the Stonehenge Tunnel, Brylglas Tunnel bypass, A9 dualling etc etc. the Crossrail team should have moved straight from that project to the next Crossrail project, and have been digging tunnels for the past two years.

    As the famous saying goes, take a decision then just f……. do it! Have one decision, one vote in Parliament on the whole project, then turn up again when the King cuts the ribbon.
    That, of course, applies to the East Anglia grid upgrade.

    The bullshit story in the Telegraph about pylons vs buried cables ignored the real point of the report they misquoted - which is that the relative cost of the schemes is mostly determined by how quickly they proceed.

    The attempt to turn it into a political argument is very likely to increase any delays.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,768

    pm215 said:

    The former Tory chancellor George Osborne has thrown his weight behind a proposal nicknamed “HS2 light” that would deliver new high-speed train links between Manchester and Birmingham.

    Osborne said the worst thing Rishi Sunak did as prime minister was cancelling the northern arm of HS2. “It was an act of infrastructure vandalism,” he said

    I was just listening to that bit of the Osborne/Balls podcast this morning too...

    HS2 has been a "how many ways can you screw this up" smorgasbord of government infrastructure investment failure -- sensible idea massively mismanaged and messed about with by civil service and politicians. If the government are serious about investing for growth they need to look at how to avoid repeats...

    The way to avoid repeats is to never again attempt anything which is described as 'world leading' or 'biggest in Europe'.

    Instead build small, build often, build plentiful, build cheap, build wanted, build useful.

    Go to every place in the country and ask local people what transport improvements they need.

    Not what politicians, bureaucrats and the whole 'process' sector wants.
    Politicians like big ticket items they can put into GE campaigns, they don't particularly care about making small incremental improvements to services or infrastructure because it's not something that works in a national campaign and local parties might end up getting the credit for it.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,076
    Good morning, everybody.

    AIUI, this proposal is out of line with the times. It seems that lots of ordinary people are obliged to earn their living through a portfolio of jobs.

    Also, every minister has a second job, which distracts them from their job as an ordinary MP and for which they get paid.

    So 2nd jobs work at both ends.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,541
    DeclanF said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    Last time this was proposed was pre-2010, I think? And Hague writing books was going to be banned as a 'second job', whilst Labour MPs could continue appearing on TV shows for moolah.

    So I'd hope that the second job ban proposals are both well considered and fair.
    They won't be. But this suggestion might work.

    https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/11/12/honourable-members/

    I just saw the last comment on that thread, from an illustrious poster who said: "Also, if you like numbers, the Georgian war was in 2008. Six years later, in 2014, he invaded the Crimea. 2020 was taken up with Covid. Will Russia go to war in 2021?"

    That wise sage was only two months out in his prediction...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,541

    pm215 said:

    The former Tory chancellor George Osborne has thrown his weight behind a proposal nicknamed “HS2 light” that would deliver new high-speed train links between Manchester and Birmingham.

    Osborne said the worst thing Rishi Sunak did as prime minister was cancelling the northern arm of HS2. “It was an act of infrastructure vandalism,” he said

    I was just listening to that bit of the Osborne/Balls podcast this morning too...

    HS2 has been a "how many ways can you screw this up" smorgasbord of government infrastructure investment failure -- sensible idea massively mismanaged and messed about with by civil service and politicians. If the government are serious about investing for growth they need to look at how to avoid repeats...

    The way to avoid repeats is to never again attempt anything which is described as 'world leading' or 'biggest in Europe'.

    Instead build small, build often, build plentiful, build cheap, build wanted, build useful.

    Go to every place in the country and ask local people what transport improvements they need.

    Not what politicians, bureaucrats and the whole 'process' sector wants.
    If you ask locals what they need, you wouldn't have any motorways...
  • Interesting article. Personally, I can't wait for the first few Parliamentary by elections - they could prove to be very interesting.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,011
    pm215 said:

    Sandpit said:

    pm215 said:

    The former Tory chancellor George Osborne has thrown his weight behind a proposal nicknamed “HS2 light” that would deliver new high-speed train links between Manchester and Birmingham.

    Osborne said the worst thing Rishi Sunak did as prime minister was cancelling the northern arm of HS2. “It was an act of infrastructure vandalism,” he said

    I was just listening to that bit of the Osborne/Balls podcast this morning too...

    HS2 has been a "how many ways can you screw this up" smorgasbord of government infrastructure investment failure -- sensible idea massively mismanaged and messed about with by civil service and politicians. If the government are serious about investing for growth they need to look at how to avoid repeats...

    The whole lot of them are scared of the political backlash for taking any affirmative decision that involves spending money.

    HS2 should have been open by now. As should Heathrow’s new runway, the Stonehenge Tunnel, Brylglas Tunnel bypass, A9 dualling etc etc. the Crossrail team should have moved straight from that project to the next Crossrail project, and have been digging tunnels for the past two years.

    As the famous saying goes, take a decision then just f……. do it! Have one decision, one vote in Parliament on the whole project, then turn up again when the King cuts the ribbon.
    Agreed with all that (one or two of the items on your list I'm not personally enthusiastic about but I'll take them in exchange for having a government that can actually do stuff effectively). Also for HS2 the desire to offload all the project risk to the private sector I think is another error driven by fear of political backlash that has had negative consequences. The government in this kind of deal is well placed to accept and absorb a reasonable amount of project risk and would get on average better outcomes if it did.
    Agreed; delay costs.
    If we'd simply gone ahead with HS2 when it was originally proposed, it would be near completion, probably for not a lot more than we've already spent on it.

    A government not making infrastructure decisions is probably worse than one which quickly makes a mixture of good and bad decisions. We can't expect governments to be infallible, but we should expect them to get stuff done.

    The last decade and a half have been pretty poor in that respect.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    Starmer pledges to scrap red tape to boost UK investment
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e9yk24w3eo

    While at the same time introducing a load of new red tape on workers rights...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,097
    Good morning everyone.

    Do we have any markets on this yet? Though they will be driven by insiders, of course.

    It sounds as if Reform need to get the "build like the Lib Dems" programme off it's backside PDQ, or their window of opportunity may close surprisingly quickly.

    4 ranting heads in Parliament, 0.14% of Local Councillors and a couple of self-debased media outlets aren't going to win many seats for them.

    Plus will any Reform MPs throw in the towel?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,176
    edited October 14
    PJH said:

    The first thing, is that personally rich people will have a massive advantage in a brave new world of no second jobs.

    Gifts will become ever more popular. Wonder how long before utility companies start giving free water and gas to MPs....

    Hours alone won't be the issue - otherwise you will find that the 6 hour a year, non executive directorships will be brought forward to while people are MPs. In the old days, IIRC, unions used to directly pay Labour MPs.

    Which is why you have to look at value, not time. I hadn't thought about gifts which are a separate issue but perhaps overlap.

    You've also reminded me that privately rich people would be at an advantage in that they won't have to worry about any of this if they want to be an MP, which might skew the balance of people who want to do the job.

    And now I'm beginning to realise the flaws of my own simplistic populist solution once faced with reality :smile:
    In the age of Expenses, Second Jobs, Gifts etc, the high end millionaire who can laughingly never claim a thing, has six houses already etc will be untouchable.

    "No, I didn't have a job with X Corp. They just gave me a gift of £1million pounds each Christmas. Because they like me."

    "No, I don't work for UNITE. They just send me a pile of cash every now and then because they like me."

    EDIT: In the US, the short time between elections for congress mean that most are trying to raise cash non-stop. There was a documentary a little while back - one startling thing was that many congress people spend most of their time in custom offices for their party. Set up for non-stop calling potential donors. Yes, they are telephone salespeople.....

    The ultra wealthy congress people who fund their own campaigns are hated by their fellows to an extreme degree....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,011
    Cookie said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    Nigelb said:

    Lengthy, but very good post.

    ...let's dispense with the misty-eyed absurdity that you can vote for an openly racist Trump, but you'd like it known that you don't support racism. ..
    https://x.com/stuartpstevens/status/1845640785833714002

    No, that's daft. In a binary choice there will be all sorts of things about your preferred candidate which you don't like. You just dislike the other one more.
    Or perhaps his economic grasp persuades you the racism, and plans to use the military to round up and deport millions don't matter ?

    Trump: I’ll put a 100%, 200%, or 500% tax on imported goods. I don’t care
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1845475375196811744
    To be clear, I'm not saying I'd vote for Trump. I'd vote for Harris. And I'd vote for her despite lots of issues where I don't support her, because I think Trump is far worse. I'm just making the point that voting for candidate or party x in a binary system cannot mean support for every aspect of that candidate or party.
    I don't disagree with you there.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
    MPs like Farage not holding surgeries but presenting shows on GB News.
    Playing devil's advocate: why is that a problem, if it is fully registered and his constituents know it is going on? And would it be any better if it was BBC News?

    (I dislike Farage, and think many MPs hold far too few surgeries - albeit sometimes with good reasons. But don't expect him to automagically start holding surgeries if he is banned from TV.)
    All that proves is Farage is unfit for public office. His job is to represent the people of Clacton and resolve their mundane problems. If he wants to talk Trumpian bollocks on GeeBeebies he can do it for free.
    Would you say the same for an MP who never held constituency surgeries, lived much of the year in France, yet was always available to be a talking head on TV?

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/no-surgeries-for-14-years-is-sir-stuart-bell-britain-s-laziest-mp-2350953.html
    Yes
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,207

    Starmer pledges to scrap red tape to boost UK investment
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e9yk24w3eo

    While at the same time introducing a load of new red tape on workers rights...

    Well, I think most people agree that one of the symptoms of the British Disease is that, when we have a problem, we seek to solve it by throwing cheap bodies at it. Whereas the smart thing to do would be to build, rebuild and automate. Commerce does it, the government does it.

    So maybe tightening the restrictions on jobs and loosening them elsewhere is a good plan.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,097

    High up on the dry brush hills that rise steadily from the Israeli border, the UN watchtower surveys southern Lebanon and the plains below as far as the eye can see.

    But no more than 100 metres from the blast walls below the tower, a rusty metal trapdoor swings open to reveal a tunnel cut deep into the rock. This, the Israeli military says, is the entrance to a Hezbollah attack position. It is one of two within a stone’s throw of a UN base where international soldiers have for years rotated in and out to prevent another war breaking out.

    “To build a tunnel like this you need a lot of equipment. You can’t hide it. It’s very odd to us that the UN didn’t see these activities,” General Yiftach, whose division now controls the area, added.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/13/the-un-keeps-peace-in-southern-lebanon-hezbollah-tunnel/

    Sounds like they are about as observant as the prison guards looking after Epstein.

    Very much like a repeat of the PLO setup from the early 1980s afaics.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,864

    pm215 said:

    The former Tory chancellor George Osborne has thrown his weight behind a proposal nicknamed “HS2 light” that would deliver new high-speed train links between Manchester and Birmingham.

    Osborne said the worst thing Rishi Sunak did as prime minister was cancelling the northern arm of HS2. “It was an act of infrastructure vandalism,” he said

    I was just listening to that bit of the Osborne/Balls podcast this morning too...

    HS2 has been a "how many ways can you screw this up" smorgasbord of government infrastructure investment failure -- sensible idea massively mismanaged and messed about with by civil service and politicians. If the government are serious about investing for growth they need to look at how to avoid repeats...

    The way to avoid repeats is to never again attempt anything which is described as 'world leading' or 'biggest in Europe'.

    Instead build small, build often, build plentiful, build cheap, build wanted, build useful.

    Go to every place in the country and ask local people what transport improvements they need.

    Not what politicians, bureaucrats and the whole 'process' sector wants.
    There is a local planning process in place - local plans are a requirement for every principal authority outlining the numbers of houses and the densities and where they should be built.

    The Local Plans go through an intense public consultation process with meetings and roadshows so it's not as though people don't have the opportunity to have their say if they want it. I'm not sure I know what this "process" sector is you mention but the Local Plan finally has to be approved by the local elected representatives but said representatives are hamstrung by Government housebuilding quotas.

    The Local Plans are often the political faultline - councils of whatever stripe (or none) trying to create plans to meet national housebuilding targets find local opposition from those of all political colours (despite what some on here would have you believe) opposed to further development in their area.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,775

    I wonder how you protect yourself against this? Other than never use a QR code ever.

    Be careful everyone, this happened in greystones. The lady's daughter was scammed out of €1000, using a QR code that she scanned to pay for parking.

    https://x.com/lozzylozboz/status/1845542609281818925

    At work, one of our security people stuck up some QR codes around nearby bus shelters etc with out branding on them and some sort of 'remember to claim your free travel pass!' schtick. Took people to a page with our logo (but deliberately scammy URL) and asked them to log in with their work credentials to get their goodies.

    A distressing number of people did it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,093
    edited October 14
    pm215 said:

    Cookie said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cookie said:

    Nigelb said:

    Lengthy, but very good post.

    ...let's dispense with the misty-eyed absurdity that you can vote for an openly racist Trump, but you'd like it known that you don't support racism. ..
    https://x.com/stuartpstevens/status/1845640785833714002

    No, that's daft. In a binary choice there will be all sorts of things about your preferred candidate which you don't like. You just dislike the other one more.
    Or perhaps his economic grasp persuades you the racism, and plans to use the military to round up and deport millions don't matter ?

    Trump: I’ll put a 100%, 200%, or 500% tax on imported goods. I don’t care
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1845475375196811744
    To be clear, I'm not saying I'd vote for Trump. I'd vote for Harris. And I'd vote for her despite lots of issues where I don't support her, because I think Trump is far worse. I'm just making the point that voting for candidate or party x in a binary system cannot mean support for every aspect of that candidate or party.
    True, but it's also the case that there may be some aspects of a candidate that are deal-breakers for you, where no matter how good the rest of the platform they have is you still can't vote for somebody who supports something you are vehemently opposed to. The quoted tweet is essentially saying "you should consider open racism to be a deal-breaker, and if you do not then other people will judge you accordingly".
    Bigger than racism even. It's a Demagogue v Democracy choice.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,176

    High up on the dry brush hills that rise steadily from the Israeli border, the UN watchtower surveys southern Lebanon and the plains below as far as the eye can see.

    But no more than 100 metres from the blast walls below the tower, a rusty metal trapdoor swings open to reveal a tunnel cut deep into the rock. This, the Israeli military says, is the entrance to a Hezbollah attack position. It is one of two within a stone’s throw of a UN base where international soldiers have for years rotated in and out to prevent another war breaking out.

    “To build a tunnel like this you need a lot of equipment. You can’t hide it. It’s very odd to us that the UN didn’t see these activities,” General Yiftach, whose division now controls the area, added.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/13/the-un-keeps-peace-in-southern-lebanon-hezbollah-tunnel/

    Sounds like they are about as observant as the prison guards looking after Epstein.

    If they tried to stop it, that would become UN vs Hezbollah. Which is strictly against UN orders. Pretty standard for peace keeping.

    See the Balkan wars for peacekeepers not noticing geonicde*. Even when the blood was betting on their uniforms.

    *Often of Muslims. But all ethnicities were at both ends of the gun for this....
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,338
    Sandpit said:

    If this is true, it'll be interesting to see if it continues. And why.

    "For the first time in the last 48 (!) days, the night passed without "Shaheds" in Ukraine."

    https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1845710271001624924

    Have the Russkis run out, and the Iranians won’t sell them any more until Iran has finished with their own messy little local conflict?
    The Russians have largely localised production, but the Ukrainians did destroy a number in a warehouse recently with one of their long-range strikes into Russia.

    But according to the White House, hitting targets in Russia is ineffective. Twats.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,097

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    About time the second jobs racket was stopped.

    I’m a little ambivalent on this - it depends on the job and the circumstances. Being a member of parliament is not a job - it’s holding an office. And office holders often have other jobs or roles - government ministers, opposition spokespeople, party officials.

    Where MPs want to retain professional standards in areas such as law or medicine I see no real issue. If their additional income is corrupting then we have a problem. But the problem is that we will just get a ban on “second jobs” without much rationale or detailed thinking as to what that means in practice.
    Coming up with an approved list of second jobs is bound to be contentious. It simply has to be all or nothing.
    What problem is this change designed to solve?
    MPs like Farage not holding surgeries but presenting shows on GB News.
    Playing devil's advocate: why is that a problem, if it is fully registered and his constituents know it is going on? And would it be any better if it was BBC News?

    (I dislike Farage, and think many MPs hold far too few surgeries - albeit sometimes with good reasons. But don't expect him to automagically start holding surgeries if he is banned from TV.)
    All that proves is Farage is unfit for public office. His job is to represent the people of Clacton and resolve their mundane problems. If he wants to talk Trumpian bollocks on GeeBeebies he can do it for free.
    Would you say the same for an MP who never held constituency surgeries, lived much of the year in France, yet was always available to be a talking head on TV?

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/no-surgeries-for-14-years-is-sir-stuart-bell-britain-s-laziest-mp-2350953.html
    Yes
    Let me give a miniplug to an enjoyable little documentary made by the young Conservative candidate who competed against him in 2010, John Walsh. Former Labour supporter turned Cameroon.

    It was framed as an expedition in search of Sir Stuart Bell.

    Viewable on Amazon Prime:
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/ToryBoy-Movie-DVD-John-Walsh/dp/B008XXVVH2

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,579

    High up on the dry brush hills that rise steadily from the Israeli border, the UN watchtower surveys southern Lebanon and the plains below as far as the eye can see.

    But no more than 100 metres from the blast walls below the tower, a rusty metal trapdoor swings open to reveal a tunnel cut deep into the rock. This, the Israeli military says, is the entrance to a Hezbollah attack position. It is one of two within a stone’s throw of a UN base where international soldiers have for years rotated in and out to prevent another war breaking out.

    “To build a tunnel like this you need a lot of equipment. You can’t hide it. It’s very odd to us that the UN didn’t see these activities,” General Yiftach, whose division now controls the area, added.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/13/the-un-keeps-peace-in-southern-lebanon-hezbollah-tunnel/

    Sounds like they are about as observant as the prison guards looking after Epstein.

    Or the IDF guarding the Gaza border on 7th October.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,343

    Starmer pledges to scrap red tape to boost UK investment
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e9yk24w3eo

    While at the same time introducing a load of new red tape on workers rights...

    You couldn't make it up.

    Also yet another politician, in a long line of them, promising to scrap red tape. It won't happen
  • stodge said:

    pm215 said:

    The former Tory chancellor George Osborne has thrown his weight behind a proposal nicknamed “HS2 light” that would deliver new high-speed train links between Manchester and Birmingham.

    Osborne said the worst thing Rishi Sunak did as prime minister was cancelling the northern arm of HS2. “It was an act of infrastructure vandalism,” he said

    I was just listening to that bit of the Osborne/Balls podcast this morning too...

    HS2 has been a "how many ways can you screw this up" smorgasbord of government infrastructure investment failure -- sensible idea massively mismanaged and messed about with by civil service and politicians. If the government are serious about investing for growth they need to look at how to avoid repeats...

    The way to avoid repeats is to never again attempt anything which is described as 'world leading' or 'biggest in Europe'.

    Instead build small, build often, build plentiful, build cheap, build wanted, build useful.

    Go to every place in the country and ask local people what transport improvements they need.

    Not what politicians, bureaucrats and the whole 'process' sector wants.
    There is a local planning process in place - local plans are a requirement for every principal authority outlining the numbers of houses and the densities and where they should be built.

    The Local Plans go through an intense public consultation process with meetings and roadshows so it's not as though people don't have the opportunity to have their say if they want it. I'm not sure I know what this "process" sector is you mention but the Local Plan finally has to be approved by the local elected representatives but said representatives are hamstrung by Government housebuilding quotas.

    The Local Plans are often the political faultline - councils of whatever stripe (or none) trying to create plans to meet national housebuilding targets find local opposition from those of all political colours (despite what some on here would have you believe) opposed to further development in their area.
    In the village where I grew up, they’d have not built a single house since 1975 if many had their way. The excuses are “we don’t want people from London living here”, “the housing will ruin the village”, “it will make house prices go down”. The result is barely anything has been built and everyone who wasn’t already here or is rich can afford to move in. This is the sort of nonsense the government just need to overrule.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    edited October 14

    FF43 said:

    I would turn several comments on this thread round. If we are unable to attract MPs of a sufficient calibre without them having second jobs during their time in parliament, they should be paid more.

    I'm not sure this is the case by the way. I suspect it's just special pleading. But the principle applies. MPs have going rates, like the rest of us

    The quality of MPs is piss poor. The question is would more pay solve that. I think a big issue is that now with social media, basically your whole life can be under the spotlight 24/7, most high calibre people can earn a lot more money and be totally anonymous to the world.
    I think you need to look in to all aspects of the MP role to attract candidates with calibre, not just pay. But the assumption you should need a second job is wrong IMO. This is a full time role.
This discussion has been closed.