It is not my idea of luxury. It is a deeply unpleasant society where rich tourists are allowed to drink alcohol and have premarital sex, while the workers live in overcrowded slums and are ferried in to serve the idle rich. In these slums they can be flogged for possession of alcohol, or fornication. This includes flogging for rape victims http://minivannews.com/politics/the-culture-of-flogging-in-the-maldives-a-systematic-abuse-of-human-rights-55092
I do not think I could enjoy champagne in that place, I would rather holiday in Majorca.
I mean, hey. It's tempting for even the most austere of self-deniers, such as me.
The off-ship stuff looks good - and actually the ship in that photo looks better than that ugly mega-cruiser in the other link. Plus I imagine hanging out with journos will be fun.
Very true. Happily, travel journalism is the last corner of the profession where you are EXPECTED to drink, indeed it is an integral part of the job.
Last year I did a tour of "the ten best hotels in the Maldives" where every single hotel gave me a free bottle of iced champagne, to start me off for the day. And that was literally the start. At one point I thought I was going to die from poisoning by Taittinger.
May be you should try and get someone to commission you to do a piece of the top 10 places to visit in Epernay?
If you do go, I'd strongly recommend you try Giesler & Cie - I don't believe they import to thr UK anymore (my Dad sold the exclusive importer to THF and Rocco tried to take them mass market).
Nowhere in the world can match the Maldives for luxury. The whole experience peaked when they flew me in by private seaplane to one isolated atoll just so I could have lobster and Petrus at an underwater restaurant patrolled by manta rays:
Just bet at 3/1 with Laddies that Maria Miler will be next out of cabinet
When do you think she'll go, or do you just suspect she'll be next whenever someone does? Cameron has practically defined himself in this area by rejecting reshuffles. I still reckon he can't go a full 12 months without losing someone though, and am on with William Hill that at least one person leaves by 2015.
Just bet at 3/1 with Laddies that Maria Miler will be next out of cabinet
When do you think she'll go, or do you just suspect she'll be next whenever someone does? Cameron has practically defined himself in this area by rejecting reshuffles. I still reckon he can't go a full 12 months without losing someone though, and am on with William Hill that at least one person leaves by 2015.
Me too. Can't remember the price but I think it was near EVS.
Has anyone ever done analysis of whether backing every horse at 100/1 or longer EW is profitable? It does seem that more often than you'd think a big outsider makes it to the top 5, and with EW deals so generous for the National I wonder if you could just aim for that to happen.
I have never, ever, been able to understand how MPs could JUSTIFY being treated in any way to the level of one penny more than ordinary civil servants, never mind behave in ways that would rightly have got me demoted, sacked and/or reported to the polis if I tried them on when in public service. If they are servants of the public then they should behave like them. If they are not then ...
For instance, TFS got a £12 bill knocked back because it had an alcoholic drink on it that he hadn't known to separate out . But MPs have bars at work! Similar points can be made about lunch and dinner, and accommodation. And there is all the additional work-related income from companies, unions, etc. which they receive just for doing their job, with absolutely prima facie conflicts of interest. By contrast when I was a writer in my spare time I had to report every penny I received. If a piece was in any way related to my employer (as opposed to being merely in the same subject field) I paid over every penny rather than avoid arguments.
[Edit: They have a better pension scheme than even the old civil service one. ]And when a MP - by definition - fails in his job, by being so incompetent as to lose an election, he's actually paid a bonus for leaving.
I appreciate NPXMP's point that there is some nonsense going around - but there's solid ore there under the pyrites in the heap of public resentment.
I'm not comparing them with corporate practice because it's up to commercial companies, within the wider law, what they do (even going to Stringfellows as noted by another PBer today or yesterday).
Agreed. I am bored of being ruled by self-serving c*nts (and that includes the SNP). Having an elitist and unequal society is tolerable if the elite is clever and brutally efficient, like, say the 18th century English imperialists.
Today's lot couldn't conquer Rockall. Imagine Ed Miliband trying to defeat the French in India. Jeez.
Two very interesting points you might want to consider:
1. the SNP don't give honours, and above all peerages (more precisely they delegate it to some civil servants). That is one reason, to my mind, the Labour Party becomes utterly demented when anyone mentions the SNP, who act as a standing moral reproach - to the LDs too.
2. the Scottish MSPs voted not to have a pay increase [edit: above civil service levels]. Personally, I'd rather see a root and branch review, pay them as civil servants on a decent salary and prevent any other troughing, but it is at least a start.
I'd happily let MPs' expenses, bars, second homes etc go if they were banned from having outside/conflict of interest posts.
Edited for hideous apostrophe error.
I assume that would include any links with trade unions, and especially some Labour MPs laughable links with the Co-op party?
If I was an MP, and a member of the board of my local Ramblers group (*), would that be an outside interest post? If I also supported the English Coastal Path (**), would that be a conflict of interest? Why is not okay just to have the interest registered so that is known and acknowledged?
True, it's a silly example, but there are plenty of less silly examples. I'm also not sure it's a good idea for MPs to be totally disconnected from the society they represent. Can an MP be in the TA? Can an MP practice the law?
It seems to me that the most egregious problems occur after they stop being MPs, and get on the lobbying bandwagon. For instance ex-defence secretaries going to work for firms in that area.
(*) It isn't going to happen ... (**) It isn't going to happen either.
Posts, not links. And banned from taking fat salaries for x years from organisations you've lobbied/whatever for.
Being on a board is a post. So: do you think that goes for the increasingly laughable links some Labour MPs have with the increasingly ludicrous Co-operative Party?
Why come back re Labour (as per)? Have i said, 'just Tories'? I (quite obviously I thought) meant the lot of them.
In 'Carola perfect world' they'd just represent the people who voted for them. And if there was a conflict of interest in their constituency they'd try to balance that rep.
Carola, you're public sector. It's guilt by association, you're expected to be a Labour supporter.
It was a genuine question. I'm sorry if you think that somehow I cannot ask anyone, yet alone a public sector worker, a question about his or her views.
If you do, that's your problem. Perhaps you should get it sorted.
Just bet at 3/1 with Laddies that Maria Miler will be next out of cabinet
When do you think she'll go, or do you just suspect she'll be next whenever someone does? Cameron has practically defined himself in this area by rejecting reshuffles. I still reckon he can't go a full 12 months without losing someone though, and am on with William Hill that at least one person leaves by 2015.
Me too. Can't remember the price but I think it was near EVS.
Pretty sure I got EVS exactly, but can't be bothered to check the spreadsheet until it happens or the New Year rolls around.
Has anyone ever done analysis of whether backing every horse at 100/1 or longer EW is profitable? It does seem that more often than you'd think a big outsider makes it to the top 5, and with EW deals so generous for the National I wonder if you could just aim for that to happen.
Has anyone ever done analysis of whether backing every horse at 100/1 or longer EW is profitable? It does seem that more often than you'd think a big outsider makes it to the top 5, and with EW deals so generous for the National I wonder if you could just aim for that to happen.
Don't know about horse racing but in political betting, long odds shots are invariably appalling odds. In many cases, they still wouldn't be value at ten times the price. There are, of course, exceptions.
@TimGattITV: I am just going to flag up this: Telegraph releases recorded conversation between its reporter and Culture Sec's aide http://t.co/zJRfLaasi3
Has anyone ever done analysis of whether backing every horse at 100/1 or longer EW is profitable? It does seem that more often than you'd think a big outsider makes it to the top 5, and with EW deals so generous for the National I wonder if you could just aim for that to happen.
Don't know about horse racing but in political betting, long odds shots are invariably appalling odds. In many cases, they still wouldn't be value at ten times the price. There are, of course, exceptions.
Agreed.
All those seats with LD at 100/1 are a good example. They would still be poor value at 1000/1.
My wife Jacky has been reading the names of the horses out to the cat to see if there was a reaction. The cat chose Colbert Station which I've just backed at 70 on Betfair
Grand National #Pricewise »Aintree 4.15 Big Shu + Burton Port. Already advised Teaforthree + Shakalakaboomboom.
Has anyone ever done analysis of whether backing every horse at 100/1 or longer EW is profitable? It does seem that more often than you'd think a big outsider makes it to the top 5, and with EW deals so generous for the National I wonder if you could just aim for that to happen.
Don't know about horse racing but in political betting, long odds shots are invariably appalling odds. In many cases, they still wouldn't be value at ten times the price. There are, of course, exceptions.
Agreed.
All those seats with LD at 100/1 are a good example. They would still be poor value at 1000/1.
Not piling on the 250/1 on the LDs winning the EP elections then? Fair point though, I will admit.
My wife Jacky has been reading the names of the horses out to the cat to see if there was a reaction. The cat chose Colbert Station which I've just backed at 70 on Betfair
Grand National #Pricewise »Aintree 4.15 Big Shu + Burton Port. Already advised Teaforthree + Shakalakaboomboom.
Dave seems spineless when it comes to justifiable sackings - Maria Miller should have resigned/been sacked months ago - shame on both her and Cameron that she's still in the Cabinet.
Latest weekly 2015 GE projection from Dr Stephen Fisher today, based on UKPR avrage polling shows: Tories ...... 308 (-5 from last week) Labour ..... 283 (+4 from last week) LibDems .... 31 (+1 from last week)
Btw - has anyone else invested £30 in a Chromecast dongle ( from Amazon & others) ? An absolute bargain and brilliant for streaming TV progs, Movies, YouTube, etc, etc. Has to be the best buy of the year!
Dave seems spineless when it comes to justifiable sackings - Maria Miller should have resigned/been sacked months ago - shame on both her and Cameron that she's still in the Cabinet.
Latest weekly 2015 GE projection from Dr Stephen Fisher today, based on UKPR avrage polling shows: Tories ...... 308 (-5 from last week) Labour ..... 283 (+4 from last week) LibDems .... 31 (+1 from last week)
Btw - has anyone else invested £30 in a Chromecast dongle ( from Amazon & others) ? An absolute bargain and brilliant for streaming TV progs, Movies, YouTube, etc, etc. Has to be the best buy of the year!
In a line or two - what does it do and why do I need it (the dongle)? Thank you in advance as I'm about to head off to bed but will pick this up tomorrow.
Oh and it horrifies me to be a Maria Miller defender but she didn't do anything wrong. Really she didn't, she over-claimed when interest rates dropped quickly (arguably this is indefensible) to the tune of £5,800 which she has been asked to pay back.
More than that she was obnoxious and arrogant and bullying and all round ghastly during the investigative process. This is why Cam should sack her but is it an egregious enough crime to be obnoxious and bullying? Perhaps
Evening all, just catching up on the threads since last night. Wish to record the sad loss of Margo MacDonald easily one of the best Scottish politicians of the last 50 years. She fought hard for the causes she supported and my memories of her are of her great humour and humanity.
I just hope Police Scotland doesn't go off on a faux outrage crackdown on the Edinburgh prostitutes because Margo is no longer around to call them the shower of "puddings" they are. I hope another MSP now takes over her campaign to pass assisted suicide legislation.
Incidentally what happens Mark Senior et al? Do we have a list by-election for Lothians because she didn't have a party list as far as I know given she was an independent.
Dave seems spineless when it comes to justifiable sackings - Maria Miller should have resigned/been sacked months ago - shame on both her and Cameron that she's still in the Cabinet.
Latest weekly 2015 GE projection from Dr Stephen Fisher today, based on UKPR avrage polling shows: Tories ...... 308 (-5 from last week) Labour ..... 283 (+4 from last week) LibDems .... 31 (+1 from last week)
Btw - has anyone else invested £30 in a Chromecast dongle ( from Amazon & others) ? An absolute bargain and brilliant for streaming TV progs, Movies, YouTube, etc, etc. Has to be the best buy of the year!
Oh and it horrifies me to be a Maria Miller defender but she didn't do anything wrong. Really she didn't, she over-claimed when interest rates dropped quickly (arguably this is indefensible) to the tune of £5,800 which she has been asked to pay back.
More than that she was obnoxious and arrogant and bullying and all round ghastly during the investigative process. This is why Cam should sack her but is it an egregious enough crime to be obnoxious and bullying? Perhaps
If I rob a bank, and the money is later recovered, I've still robbed a bank. I don't see how her repaying the money is relevant, if the investigators reasonably believe that the overclaiming wasn't a mistake but intentional fraud then that seems like reasonable grounds for being sacked.
I'd happily let MPs' expenses, bars, second homes etc go if they were banned from having outside/conflict of interest posts.
Edited for hideous apostrophe error.
I assume that would include any links with trade unions, and especially some Labour MPs laughable links with the Co-op party?
If I was an MP, and a member of the board of my local Ramblers group (*), would that be an outside interest post? If I also supported the English Coastal Path (**), would that be a conflict of interest? Why is not okay just to have the interest registered so that is known and acknowledged?
True, it's a silly example, but there are plenty of less silly examples. I'm also not sure it's a good idea for MPs to be totally disconnected from the society they represent. Can an MP be in the TA? Can an MP practice the law?
It seems to me that the most egregious problems occur after they stop being MPs, and get on the lobbying bandwagon. For instance ex-defence secretaries going to work for firms in that area.
(*) It isn't going to happen ... (**) It isn't going to happen either.
Posts, not links. And banned from taking fat salaries for x years from organisations you've lobbied/whatever for.
Being on a board is a post. So: do you think that goes for the increasingly laughable links some Labour MPs have with the increasingly ludicrous Co-operative Party?
Why come back re Labour (as per)? Have i said, 'just Tories'? I (quite obviously I thought) meant the lot of them.
In 'Carola perfect world' they'd just represent the people who voted for them. And if there was a conflict of interest in their constituency they'd try to balance that rep.
Carola, you're public sector. It's guilt by association, you're expected to be a Labour supporter.
It was a genuine question. I'm sorry if you think that somehow I cannot ask anyone, yet alone a public sector worker, a question about his or her views.
If you do, that's your problem. Perhaps you should get it sorted.
Josias, you were badgering her about the Co-Op, in my opinion because she's a public sector worker, therefore probably a Labour supporter. That's just my opinion, mind.
Has anyone ever done analysis of whether backing every horse at 100/1 or longer EW is profitable? It does seem that more often than you'd think a big outsider makes it to the top 5, and with EW deals so generous for the National I wonder if you could just aim for that to happen.
Don't know about horse racing but in political betting, long odds shots are invariably appalling odds. In many cases, they still wouldn't be value at ten times the price. There are, of course, exceptions.
A non-sequitur if we are talking about aggregating long shots rather than assessing them case by case. E.g. the chances of any given lottery punter winning are infinitesimal but the chances of one of them winning are 100%.
Incidentally what happens Mark Senior et al? Do we have a list by-election for Lothians because she didn't have a party list as far as I know given she was an independent.
Seat remains empty till next Holyrood GE. A fitting tribute in a way, as others have already noted.
Just saw on the 10 O'clock News that Cameron paid a special visit to Dawlish to open the rebuilt railway line. (I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that the local constituency has a Tory majority of 523 votes).
Just saw on the 10 O'clock News that Cameron paid a special visit to Dawlish to open the rebuilt railway line. (I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that the local constituency has a Tory majority of 523 votes).
Seeing Cameron in just shirtsleeves by a windswept coast, reminded me of the Keane video "Sovereign Light Cafe". He looks like a fatter, older Tom Chaplin!
Posts, not links. And banned from taking fat salaries for x years from organisations you've lobbied/whatever for.
Being on a board is a post. So: do you think that goes for the increasingly laughable links some Labour MPs have with the increasingly ludicrous Co-operative Party?
Why come back re Labour (as per)? Have i said, 'just Tories'? I (quite obviously I thought) meant the lot of them.
In 'Carola perfect world' they'd just represent the people who voted for them. And if there was a conflict of interest in their constituency they'd try to balance that rep.
Carola, you're public sector. It's guilt by association, you're expected to be a Labour supporter.
It was a genuine question. I'm sorry if you think that somehow I cannot ask anyone, yet alone a public sector worker, a question about his or her views.
If you do, that's your problem. Perhaps you should get it sorted.
Josias, you were badgering her about the Co-Op, in my opinion because she's a public sector worker, therefore probably a Labour supporter. That's just my opinion, mind.
As I said, it was a genuine question. I was trying to ascertain how she defined "outside/conflict of interest posts". The recent problems with the Co-op (both Group and Bank) show the potential conflicts well. When she ignored the question, I repeated it.
Her original comment was in my view fairly ludicrous for the reasons I've given in other posts (including my admittedly silly counter-example). This is especially so as apparently 'links' are fine, whereas 'posts' are not.
And I don't equate public sector with Labour voter; there are plenty of Lib Dem public sector workers as well. ;-)
Posts, not links. And banned from taking fat salaries for x years from organisations you've lobbied/whatever for.
Being on a board is a post. So: do you think that goes for the increasingly laughable links some Labour MPs have with the increasingly ludicrous Co-operative Party?
Why come back re Labour (as per)? Have i said, 'just Tories'? I (quite obviously I thought) meant the lot of them.
In 'Carola perfect world' they'd just represent the people who voted for them. And if there was a conflict of interest in their constituency they'd try to balance that rep.
Carola, you're public sector. It's guilt by association, you're expected to be a Labour supporter.
It was a genuine question. I'm sorry if you think that somehow I cannot ask anyone, yet alone a public sector worker, a question about his or her views.
If you do, that's your problem. Perhaps you should get it sorted.
Josias, you were badgering her about the Co-Op, in my opinion because she's a public sector worker, therefore probably a Labour supporter. That's just my opinion, mind.
As I said, it was a genuine question. I was trying to ascertain how she defined "outside/conflict of interest posts". The recent problems with the Co-op (both Group and Bank) show the potential conflicts well. When she ignored the question, I repeated it.
Her original comment was in my view fairly ludicrous for the reasons I've given in other posts (including my admittedly silly counter-example). This is especially so as apparently 'links' are fine, whereas 'posts' are not.
And I don't equate public sector with Labour voter; there are plenty of Lib Dem public sector workers as well. ;-)
I was talking about all politicians - clearly. So why counter with an irrelevant 'wha wha wha whaddabout Labour then?' response.
And ludicrous is your opinion. A 'bubble' opinion. And doubtless not the opinion of many disengaged voters.
Posts, not links. And banned from taking fat salaries for x years from organisations you've lobbied/whatever for.
Being on a board is a post. So: do you think that goes for the increasingly laughable links some Labour MPs have with the increasingly ludicrous Co-operative Party?
Why come back re Labour (as per)? Have i said, 'just Tories'? I (quite obviously I thought) meant the lot of them.
In 'Carola perfect world' they'd just represent the people who voted for them. And if there was a conflict of interest in their constituency they'd try to balance that rep.
Carola, you're public sector. It's guilt by association, you're expected to be a Labour supporter.
It was a genuine question. I'm sorry if you think that somehow I cannot ask anyone, yet alone a public sector worker, a question about his or her views.
If you do, that's your problem. Perhaps you should get it sorted.
Josias, you were badgering her about the Co-Op, in my opinion because she's a public sector worker, therefore probably a Labour supporter. That's just my opinion, mind.
As I said, it was a genuine question. I was trying to ascertain how she defined "outside/conflict of interest posts". The recent problems with the Co-op (both Group and Bank) show the potential conflicts well. When she ignored the question, I repeated it.
Her original comment was in my view fairly ludicrous for the reasons I've given in other posts (including my admittedly silly counter-example). This is especially so as apparently 'links' are fine, whereas 'posts' are not.
And I don't equate public sector with Labour voter; there are plenty of Lib Dem public sector workers as well. ;-)
I ignored the question because it was irrelevant, and therefore stupid.
Posts, not links. And banned from taking fat salaries for x years from organisations you've lobbied/whatever for.
Being on a board is a post. So: do you think that goes for the increasingly laughable links some Labour MPs have with the increasingly ludicrous Co-operative Party?
Why come back re Labour (as per)? Have i said, 'just Tories'? I (quite obviously I thought) meant the lot of them.
In 'Carola perfect world' they'd just represent the people who voted for them. And if there was a conflict of interest in their constituency they'd try to balance that rep.
Carola, you're public sector. It's guilt by association, you're expected to be a Labour supporter.
It was a genuine question. I'm sorry if you think that somehow I cannot ask anyone, yet alone a public sector worker, a question about his or her views.
If you do, that's your problem. Perhaps you should get it sorted.
Josias, you were badgering her about the Co-Op, in my opinion because she's a public sector worker, therefore probably a Labour supporter. That's just my opinion, mind.
As I said, it was a genuine question. I was trying to ascertain how she defined "outside/conflict of interest posts". The recent problems with the Co-op (both Group and Bank) show the potential conflicts well. When she ignored the question, I repeated it.
Her original comment was in my view fairly ludicrous for the reasons I've given in other posts (including my admittedly silly counter-example). This is especially so as apparently 'links' are fine, whereas 'posts' are not.
And I don't equate public sector with Labour voter; there are plenty of Lib Dem public sector workers as well. ;-)
And another thing... by 'links' I mean with local community groups, businesses - whatever. Not the sort where you can end up with a hundred grand directorship for going to a meeting every two months as a smokescreen for shoving your contact list the way of the CEO and putting a word in.
And another thing... by 'links' I mean with local community groups, businesses - whatever. Not the sort where you can end up with a hundred grand directorship for going to a meeting every two months as a smokescreen for shoving your contact list the way of the CEO and putting a word in.
I'm sorry, but I really need to come back to this. I'm really not sure that you've thought your idea through. May I suggest you picks some examples of the Register of Members Interests at random and see if: a) they could lead to corruption or just conflict of interest; b) they are good for the body politic; c) they could do any harm.
I ignored the question because it was irrelevant, and therefore stupid.
It was not irrelevant. It was very pertinent for the reasons I've given below. MPs earn money in many different ways; Hague wrote a scholarly book on Wilberforce, for instance. It's far from all being directorships. The Co-op links are ones where many MPs get money - and the group gets influence - for *no* work. I was making sure that you'd considered all the possibilities.
Which you clearly hadn't. Instead, you just want to target the directorships, which is rather one-sided and ill-thought. I guessed this when you posted your initial post, so asked the question.
I was talking about all politicians - clearly. So why counter with an irrelevant 'wha wha wha whaddabout Labour then?' response.
I have already given my reasons. I suggest you learn to read, and stop taking umbrage at the fact that someone asked you a question about a view you had stated.
And another thing... by 'links' I mean with local community groups, businesses - whatever. Not the sort where you can end up with a hundred grand directorship for going to a meeting every two months as a smokescreen for shoving your contact list the way of the CEO and putting a word in.
I'm sorry, but I really need to come back to this. I'm really not sure that you've thought your idea through. May I suggest you picks some examples of the Register of Members Interests at random and see if: a) they could lead to corruption or just conflict of interest; b) they are good for the body politic; c) they could do any harm.
I ignored the question because it was irrelevant, and therefore stupid.
It was not irrelevant. It was very pertinent for the reasons I've given below. MPs earn money in many different ways; Hague wrote a scholarly book on Wilberforce, for instance. It's far from all being directorships. The Co-op links are ones where many MPs get money - and the group gets influence - for *no* work. I was making sure that you'd considered all the possibilities.
Which you clearly hadn't. Instead, you just want to target the directorships, which is rather one-sided and ill-thought. I guessed this when you posted your initial post, so asked the question.
I was talking about all politicians - clearly. So why counter with an irrelevant 'wha wha wha whaddabout Labour then?' response.
I have already given my reasons. I suggest you learn to read, and stop taking umbrage at the fact that someone asked you a question about a view you had stated.
*sigh*
Here's my answer (again): I was talking about all politicians, including Labour.
'Directorships' was an example to illustrate my point.
If you want me to research all the ways that politicians make money for connections/influencing decisions and list them then I haven't the time - plus I gave an example so it isn't necessary (you'd think).
Anyone with sense could see that such things turn off the electorate and I'd have expected that politicians/those interested in politics would want to have a reasonable discussion about that.
As for taking 'umbrage' then maybe you should look at your tone/the language you use which you then try to dilute with a chirpy ';)' at the end of a later response. Tbh you're often the first to take over-sensitive offence.
Here's my answer (again): I was talking about all politicians, including Labour.
'Directorships' was an example to illustrate my point.
If you want me to research all the ways that politicians make money for connections/influencing decisions and list them then I haven't the time - plus I gave an example so it isn't necessary (you'd think).
Anyone with sense could see that such things turn off the electorate and I'd have expected that politicians/those interested in politics would want to have a reasonable discussion about that.
As for taking 'umbrage' then maybe you should look at your tone/the language you use which you then try to dilute with a chirpy ';)' at the end of a later response. Tbh you're often the first to take over-sensitive offence.
I never assumed you were not talking about all politicians; the issue is the source of the income and potential conflicts that can arise.
MPs earnings are a complex issue, and so I asked you about another less obvious example from what is generally the other side of the political spectrum. At which point you seemed to take offence rather than answer a simple question. It seemed particularly odd as I gave an utterly non-partisan and slightly silly example in the very next paragraph.
As for whether or not I take over-sensitive offence: I'll leave that to others to judge, and would love examples. I've (rather shockingly) made over 4,000 posts, so I'm bound to be irascible in some. Hopefully they're rather in the minority.
And BTW, a smiley indicates something is meant to be taken in a slightly, or fully, humorous tone. Perhaps you should read the comment - or at least the paragraph it is in - accordingly. Sometimes I try to use it in a sentence to lighten the mood. It obviously doesn't always work.
If you can fully explain what I am supposed to have said wrong last night, then I will offer you a fulsome apology. Is that okay?
Here's my answer (again): I was talking about all politicians, including Labour.
'Directorships' was an example to illustrate my point.
If you want me to research all the ways that politicians make money for connections/influencing decisions and list them then I haven't the time - plus I gave an example so it isn't necessary (you'd think).
Anyone with sense could see that such things turn off the electorate and I'd have expected that politicians/those interested in politics would want to have a reasonable discussion about that.
As for taking 'umbrage' then maybe you should look at your tone/the language you use which you then try to dilute with a chirpy ';)' at the end of a later response. Tbh you're often the first to take over-sensitive offence.
I never assumed you were not talking about all politicians; the issue is the source of the income and potential conflicts that can arise.
MPs earnings are a complex issue, and so I asked you about another less obvious example from what is generally the other side of the political spectrum. At which point you seemed to take offence rather than answer a simple question. It seemed particularly odd as I gave an utterly non-partisan and slightly silly example in the very next paragraph.
As for whether or not I take over-sensitive offence: I'll leave that to others to judge, and would love examples. I've (rather shockingly) made over 4,000 posts, so I'm bound to be irascible in some. Hopefully they're rather in the minority.
And BTW, a smiley indicates something is meant to be taken in a slightly, or fully, humorous tone. Perhaps you should read the comment - or at least the paragraph it is in - accordingly. Sometimes I try to use it in a sentence to lighten the mood. It obviously doesn't always work.
If you can fully explain what I am supposed to have said wrong last night, then I will offer you a fulsome apology. Is that okay?
Josias - I wasn't offended, so there's no need for an apology. I fully support your right to dismiss my points/views as 'ludicrous'.
I just tire of 'but what about what side B did?' responses during a discussion on general issues that arise as a result of something linked to side A. It's just a way to deflect/stymie discussion of something broader and isn't good for debate.
I never assumed you were not talking about all politicians; the issue is the source of the income and potential conflicts that can arise.
MPs earnings are a complex issue, and so I asked you about another less obvious example from what is generally the other side of the political spectrum. At which point you seemed to take offence rather than answer a simple question. It seemed particularly odd as I gave an utterly non-partisan and slightly silly example in the very next paragraph.
As for whether or not I take over-sensitive offence: I'll leave that to others to judge, and would love examples. I've (rather shockingly) made over 4,000 posts, so I'm bound to be irascible in some. Hopefully they're rather in the minority.
And BTW, a smiley indicates something is meant to be taken in a slightly, or fully, humorous tone. Perhaps you should read the comment - or at least the paragraph it is in - accordingly. Sometimes I try to use it in a sentence to lighten the mood. It obviously doesn't always work.
If you can fully explain what I am supposed to have said wrong last night, then I will offer you a fulsome apology. Is that okay?
Josias - I wasn't offended, so there's no need for an apology. I fully support your right to dismiss my points/views as 'ludicrous'.
I just tire of 'but what about what side B did?' responses during a discussion on general issues that arise as a result of something linked to side A. It's just a way to deflect/stymie discussion of something broader and isn't good for debate.
Outside earnings and potential conflicts of interest are not just linked to side 'A'. All parties can have problems with them from a variety of sources. Which was exactly my point in mentioning the Co-op's recent travails.
If you look at my initial post, I was expanding on your original post by asking questions, not deflecting or stymieing. If I was trying to do that I wouldn't have given the Ramblers' example in the next paragraph, or the Hague example in a later post.
I called your initial post 'ludicrous' *after* the discussion had got heated, and I withdraw that. It was not ludicrous. Sorry. But I do think you have't put enough thought into your position. You wrote: "if they were banned from having outside/conflict of interest posts", and I was trying to clarify what you meant. Sadly, I'm still no clearer.
I'm hardly an ardent supporter of the Conservative Party; I criticise them, and particularly individual MPs, often enough. Witness my post this morning about my local MP, Lansley (whom I have criticised many times in the past). And I didn't exactly support Miller last night.
I never assumed you were not talking about all politicians; the issue is the source of the income and potential conflicts that can arise.
MPs earnings are a complex issue, and so I asked you about another less obvious example from what is generally the other side of the political spectrum. At which point you seemed to take offence rather than answer a simple question. It seemed particularly odd as I gave an utterly non-partisan and slightly silly example in the very next paragraph.
As for whether or not I take over-sensitive offence: I'll leave that to others to judge, and would love examples. I've (rather shockingly) made over 4,000 posts, so I'm bound to be irascible in some. Hopefully they're rather in the minority.
And BTW, a smiley indicates something is meant to be taken in a slightly, or fully, humorous tone. Perhaps you should read the comment - or at least the paragraph it is in - accordingly. Sometimes I try to use it in a sentence to lighten the mood. It obviously doesn't always work.
If you can fully explain what I am supposed to have said wrong last night, then I will offer you a fulsome apology. Is that okay?
Josias - I wasn't offended, so there's no need for an apology. I fully support your right to dismiss my points/views as 'ludicrous'.
I just tire of 'but what about what side B did?' responses during a discussion on general issues that arise as a result of something linked to side A. It's just a way to deflect/stymie discussion of something broader and isn't good for debate.
Outside earnings and potential conflicts of interest are not just linked to side 'A'. All parties can have problems with them from a variety of sources. Which was exactly my point in mentioning the Co-op's recent travails.
If you look at my initial post, I was expanding on your original post by asking questions, not deflecting or stymieing. If I was trying to do that I wouldn't have given the Ramblers' example in the next paragraph, or the Hague example in a later post.
I called your initial post 'ludicrous' *after* the discussion had got heated, and I withdraw that. It was not ludicrous. Sorry. But I do think you have't put enough thought into your position. You wrote: "if they were banned from having outside/conflict of interest posts", and I was trying to clarify what you meant. Sadly, I'm still no clearer.
I'm hardly an ardent supporter of the Conservative Party; I criticise them, and particularly individual MPs, often enough. Witness my post this morning about my local MP, Lansley (whom I have criticised many times in the past). And I didn't exactly support Miller last night.
Comments
I do not think I could enjoy champagne in that place, I would rather holiday in Majorca.
National? Long odds? Golan Way.
The recent Co-op Group and Bank troubles shows the problems and dangers all too well.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-refusal-to-release-brian-souter-1118726
If you do, that's your problem. Perhaps you should get it sorted.
All those seats with LD at 100/1 are a good example. They would still be poor value at 1000/1.
Latest weekly 2015 GE projection from Dr Stephen Fisher today, based on UKPR avrage polling shows:
Tories ...... 308 (-5 from last week)
Labour ..... 283 (+4 from last week)
LibDems .... 31 (+1 from last week)
Btw - has anyone else invested £30 in a Chromecast dongle ( from Amazon & others) ?
An absolute bargain and brilliant for streaming TV progs, Movies, YouTube, etc, etc. Has to be the best buy of the year!
Oh and it horrifies me to be a Maria Miller defender but she didn't do anything wrong. Really she didn't, she over-claimed when interest rates dropped quickly (arguably this is indefensible) to the tune of £5,800 which she has been asked to pay back.
More than that she was obnoxious and arrogant and bullying and all round ghastly during the investigative process. This is why Cam should sack her but is it an egregious enough crime to be obnoxious and bullying? Perhaps
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article4055019.ece
I just hope Police Scotland doesn't go off on a faux outrage crackdown on the Edinburgh prostitutes because Margo is no longer around to call them the shower of "puddings" they are. I hope another MSP now takes over her campaign to pass assisted suicide legislation.
Incidentally what happens Mark Senior et al? Do we have a list by-election for Lothians because she didn't have a party list as far as I know given she was an independent.
Her original comment was in my view fairly ludicrous for the reasons I've given in other posts (including my admittedly silly counter-example). This is especially so as apparently 'links' are fine, whereas 'posts' are not.
And I don't equate public sector with Labour voter; there are plenty of Lib Dem public sector workers as well. ;-)
And ludicrous is your opinion. A 'bubble' opinion. And doubtless not the opinion of many disengaged voters.
a) they could lead to corruption or just conflict of interest;
b) they are good for the body politic;
c) they could do any harm.
You might learn something. It was not irrelevant. It was very pertinent for the reasons I've given below. MPs earn money in many different ways; Hague wrote a scholarly book on Wilberforce, for instance. It's far from all being directorships. The Co-op links are ones where many MPs get money - and the group gets influence - for *no* work. I was making sure that you'd considered all the possibilities.
Which you clearly hadn't. Instead, you just want to target the directorships, which is rather one-sided and ill-thought. I guessed this when you posted your initial post, so asked the question. I have already given my reasons. I suggest you learn to read, and stop taking umbrage at the fact that someone asked you a question about a view you had stated.
Here's my answer (again): I was talking about all politicians, including Labour.
'Directorships' was an example to illustrate my point.
If you want me to research all the ways that politicians make money for connections/influencing decisions and list them then I haven't the time - plus I gave an example so it isn't necessary (you'd think).
Anyone with sense could see that such things turn off the electorate and I'd have expected that politicians/those interested in politics would want to have a reasonable discussion about that.
As for taking 'umbrage' then maybe you should look at your tone/the language you use which you then try to dilute with a chirpy ';)' at the end of a later response. Tbh you're often the first to take over-sensitive offence.
MPs earnings are a complex issue, and so I asked you about another less obvious example from what is generally the other side of the political spectrum. At which point you seemed to take offence rather than answer a simple question. It seemed particularly odd as I gave an utterly non-partisan and slightly silly example in the very next paragraph.
As for whether or not I take over-sensitive offence: I'll leave that to others to judge, and would love examples. I've (rather shockingly) made over 4,000 posts, so I'm bound to be irascible in some. Hopefully they're rather in the minority.
And BTW, a smiley indicates something is meant to be taken in a slightly, or fully, humorous tone. Perhaps you should read the comment - or at least the paragraph it is in - accordingly. Sometimes I try to use it in a sentence to lighten the mood. It obviously doesn't always work.
If you can fully explain what I am supposed to have said wrong last night, then I will offer you a fulsome apology. Is that okay?
I just tire of 'but what about what side B did?' responses during a discussion on general issues that arise as a result of something linked to side A. It's just a way to deflect/stymie discussion of something broader and isn't good for debate.
If you look at my initial post, I was expanding on your original post by asking questions, not deflecting or stymieing. If I was trying to do that I wouldn't have given the Ramblers' example in the next paragraph, or the Hague example in a later post.
I called your initial post 'ludicrous' *after* the discussion had got heated, and I withdraw that. It was not ludicrous. Sorry. But I do think you have't put enough thought into your position. You wrote: "if they were banned from having outside/conflict of interest posts", and I was trying to clarify what you meant. Sadly, I'm still no clearer.
I'm hardly an ardent supporter of the Conservative Party; I criticise them, and particularly individual MPs, often enough. Witness my post this morning about my local MP, Lansley (whom I have criticised many times in the past). And I didn't exactly support Miller last night.