And whether an MP has enough surgeries for constituents is for their voters decide - if no, they will get booted out.
I wonder what proportion of MPs actually win or lose an election based on whether they did enough for their constituents. I know it makes a difference at the margins, but most constituencies aren't marginal...
As Austin Mitchell made clear earlier in the week, a donkey wearing a party rosette could win in many constituencies regardless of how many surgeries it attended.
I detect a certain spiteful tone in the response of voters. They don't want MPs to have a full-time job. They want them to have an all-time job, on call 24 hours a day.
As long as MPs are available to meet all their voting and committee obligations, that should be our primary concern. MPs sloping off to have a meeting as a no-exec director for their #25k a year, instead of ironing the wrinkles out of a piece of complex tax legislation, that is clearly wrong. But if they go for meetings that means they catch a later train back to their constituency - is that so bad? In my book no, if we get a better all-round MP from it.
And whether an MP has enough surgeries for constituents is for their voters decide - if no, they will get booted out.
A lot of people in small organisations, or at the top of big ones, are on call 24 hours a day.
It really is opening a can of worms when a lot of the public assume that MPs work full time, but find out that they are in fact getting 60k a year for a "part time" job.
The calibre of MP argument isn't going to wash either as there isn't a standout example of an MP who combines a high status job with being MP, not one that the public will recognise anyway.
And whether an MP has enough surgeries for constituents is for their voters decide - if no, they will get booted out.
I wonder what proportion of MPs actually win or lose an election based on whether they did enough for their constituents. I know it makes a difference at the margins, but most constituencies aren't marginal...
It is a gradual thing. I have certainly heard it said that the Tories lost a number of their safe seats in the SW because incumbents did little or nothing by way of surgeries. If your opponent is busy holding them, that should be a wake-up call...
It really is opening a can of worms when a lot of the public assume that MPs work full time, but find out that they are in fact getting 60k a year for a "part time" job.
The calibre of MP argument isn't going to wash either as there isn't a standout example of an MP who combines a high status job with being MP, not one that the public will recognise anyway.
A novel excuse to end a political career, ""I am the mother of two children and, despite my best efforts to make arrangements to bring them to Bradford for the next 70 days, particularly as one of them is doing her GCSEs, this would have caused massive disruption at a critical time."
The tricky bit to negotiate is if we force MPs to give up their current position, will many of them be able to get back into their chosen profession 5-10 years later when their party next gets kicked out ? If people think they wont be able to get back into their job, they wont leave in the first place. We whine from time to time about the lack of scientific and technical knowledge in the Commons, and yet scientific and tech skills, especially IT skills, will be totally obsolete after being out of the field for 5 years.
Maybe Nick Palmer can comment but given that parliamentary experience is quite unusual and reasonably valuable, I'd be surprised if most people coming from these fields would want to go back to exactly the same kind of job anyhow.
This brings us to a different problem which is that the obvious thing is for everyone to leave parliament become a lobbyist in their field, which potentially produces seriously bad incentives affecting what they do as an MP, but I doubt that keeping a part-time job while they were an MP would really help with it.
Name of donor: Lord Oakeshott Address of donor: private Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: conducting a local opinion poll, value £6,000 Donor status: individual (Registered 5 June 2014)
No money from Oakeshott for Clegg though.
In fact it looks to me like Clegg has himself given £5000 to his MP capacities !
And whether an MP has enough surgeries for constituents is for their voters decide - if no, they will get booted out.
I wonder what proportion of MPs actually win or lose an election based on whether they did enough for their constituents. I know it makes a difference at the margins, but most constituencies aren't marginal...
My current MP is Lansley, and I've been saying for as long as I've been on PB that I could never vote for him due to the fact he is rarely seen or heard from in the constituency. In comparison to my old constituency Romsey, where both Gidley and her successor Nokes had big presences, with well-advertised surgeries, at least until I left.
Thankfully, he's removed that problem by standing down, and has been replaced by a candidate who is quite interesting (tm).
Then again, I'm possibly unusual in the fact that I'm rather interested in politics ...
Seriously this is the kind of issue of no consequence that a party utterly discredited retreats to focus on to hide its failings elsewhere.
Labour are a special interest group for public sector workers - their manifesto for government is a mixture of nothing and picking on choice sectors who the proles like to see getting beaten up.
I fear the election campaign is going to be fought on these sub sub sub issues.
Another ill-thought through Labour policy. Why, oh, why. Are they trying to lose?
It does feed into the Labour = anti-business meme. Labour seem to be happy peddling this now. It is a 180 degree turn from the days of New Labour. I seem to recall it did OK back in those days....
I want to know what genius persuaded the press to call these jobs "outside interests", as if they're going to painting classes or something. It has to be the greatest British euphemism since "powder my nose".
"It's divisive, populist, ill-thought-out shit like this which really, really, REALLY makes me despise Miliband and all his greasy-pole cimbing ilk."
Apparently only 10% of the population make £60,000 or above. So the first thing posters on here better do is start trying to see the world as the overwhelming 90% of the population see it. What's more thinking about these slightly surprising figures I now understand why Cameron and his mob are so unpopular. They're seen as living on a different planet
Yes this is the issue that the Cons can't square away.
For many Lab MPs (and supporters, save those in Islington), perhaps from working class backgrounds who would otherwise have taken working class jobs, £60k is a hell of a lot of money. For many Cons MPs (and supporters), aspiring to the professional classes, £60k doesn't get you very far at all.
There is no coherent Cons response to this issue as the two parties are addressing two different constituencies both as voters and PPCs.
Loans and other controlled transactions Name of lender: David Alliance Address of donor: private Amount of loan: £20,000 Date the loan was entered into: 27 June 2014 Date the loan is due to be repaid: indefinite Rate of interest: 0%
Is that a loan :P ?
Nice of PWC to pay for Tristram Hunt's intern - no possible future conflict of interest there...
You only had to listen to a snippet of Natalie Bennett's performance yesterday (and I felt a bit sorry for her) to understand the gulf in class between inexperienced politicians like her and the premier league bunch in the Commons.
Cameron and Miliband barely ever put a foot wrong. And look at Blair under the most menacing pressure over Iraq; he was - whether you agree with him or not - faultless in defence of his actions.
Imagine how clever, quick-witted and abreast of detail the top politicians are, compared to the average Joe. If I were an MP Youtube would be filled with my gaffes and people would be laughing at me. Yet I could earn £60k if I dragged a few big commissions in. And politicians are worth more than I am.
How much of today's lobby fodder do you think approach a Blair, or even a Dave'n'Ed standard?
Off the top of my head, at GE2010 Tory newcomers included Sarah Woolaston, Dominic Raab, Savid Javid, Liz Truss and Anna "san*timonious" Soubry. These people are fecking quality.
Labour took in Stella Creasy and Chuka Umunna (I'm not so up with Labour MPs), again, quality people.
I doubt, percentage-wise, there is much dross in parliament, though I might be wrong.
I suspect if I tried to become an MP for a top party I wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance. Just not good enough.
ps - have you ever read Alan Clark's books? On becoming a minister he describes the mind-bending workload, portentously questioning whether it would lead him to a brain tumour. It's very off-putting for anybody who fancies entering parliament. For £60k too?! Screw that.
Perhaps I'm biased having seen at first hand the quality of SLab timeservers; dross pretty much covers it.
Yep, I've read Clark's books & his biography, and for all his manifest faults he was an extraordinary personality - I doubt he'd make the K&C candidates' list today. For every Clark there have been hundreds of mediocrities.
Btw, everyone from Rifkind down keeps saying £60k a year - it's £67k (plus more than double that in expenses). I'd love a £7k pay rise!
The tricky bit to negotiate is if we force MPs to give up their current position, will many of them be able to get back into their chosen profession 5-10 years later when their party next gets kicked out ? If people think they wont be able to get back into their job, they wont leave in the first place. We whine from time to time about the lack of scientific and technical knowledge in the Commons, and yet scientific and tech skills, especially IT skills, will be totally obsolete after being out of the field for 5 years.
Maybe Nick Palmer can comment but given that parliamentary experience is quite unusual and reasonably valuable, I'd be surprised if most people coming from these fields would want to go back to exactly the same kind of job anyhow.
This brings us to a different problem which is that the obvious thing is for everyone to leave parliament become a lobbyist in their field, which potentially produces seriously bad incentives affecting what they do as an MP, but I doubt that keeping a part-time job while they were an MP would really help with it.
Good points. After 13 years in Parliament my experience in IT was wildly outdated, and the only plausible jobs were in NGOs. By chance an NGO that I'd helped some years earlier because I supported it happened to have a vacancy, and I jumped at it. I regard myself as very lucky, and know lots of ex-MPs who semiretired into vague consultancy. The basic problem is that if you lose an IT job there are other IT jobs galore, but there's only one Parliament.
I'm guessing £60,000 is "chicken-feed" (TM) to the more, er, radicalised PB Tories on here?
Working and living in London four days a week, away from the family? Coming home and working all day Saturday in constituency surgeries? Heavy workload? Heavy scrutiny? Public loathing? A Sunday press wanting to know when you last smoked dope or popped a pill? Former girlfriends and one night stand's tracked-down for gossip? All for a take-home of about £3400 a month.
No chance.
Having to work and live in London would put me off in itself.
I'm off to walk the dog in the hills in the beautiful, spring sunshine.
So if MP's can't have second jobs do they have to stand down when they are ministers, does it include trade union work, writing books, paid Newspaper articles,media appearances ?
The basic problem is that if you lose an IT job there are other IT jobs galore, but there's only one Parliament.
This is the problem with all these parochial political systems. We shouldn't really be electing people to run large countries until they've proved that they know what they're doing spending a few years running a smaller one.
And whether an MP has enough surgeries for constituents is for their voters decide - if no, they will get booted out.
I wonder what proportion of MPs actually win or lose an election based on whether they did enough for their constituents. I know it makes a difference at the margins, but most constituencies aren't marginal...
And whether an MP has enough surgeries for constituents is for their voters decide - if no, they will get booted out.
I wonder what proportion of MPs actually win or lose an election based on whether they did enough for their constituents. I know it makes a difference at the margins, but most constituencies aren't marginal...
It is about to happen big time in Scotland.
I don't know much about Scotland but I don't think that's what's happening. I think what's happening is that the independence referendum has moved the main political fault lines with the result that a bunch of people who were on the right side of the main political arguments are now on the wrong side of them, and those unlucky people going to get swept away whether they were doing a bunch of surgeries or not.
What I suppose is true is that even if you're not in a marginal, you should pay a bit of attention in case you suddenly find yourself in one, but statistically that probably doesn't happen very often to the average MP, and when it does it's most likely to be from boundary changes, which will mean that a lot of the people you were paying attention to aren't your constituents any more anyhow.
And whether an MP has enough surgeries for constituents is for their voters decide - if no, they will get booted out.
I wonder what proportion of MPs actually win or lose an election based on whether they did enough for their constituents. I know it makes a difference at the margins, but most constituencies aren't marginal...
It is about to happen big time in Scotland.
What I suppose is true is that even if you're not in a marginal, you should pay a bit of attention in case you suddenly find yourself in one, but statistically that probably doesn't happen very often to the average MP, and when it does it's most likely to be from boundary changes.
Or, when it does happen, it's due to events entirely out of your control....
@Pulpstar Did supplying researchers to the Conservatives and Libdem's by PwC cause them a conflict of interest as well?
No, all the Conservative interests seem good and proper to me, we simply must keep up good business relations with waste paper recycling in Kazakhstan and various business in Uzbekistan.
Good point. I'm parroting what Sir Malcolm said and it is wrong to swat away £7k!
And I'm only playing Devil's Advocate. £67k is a lot of money and it must a great privilege to be an MP and to work in the great Westminster Palace, but it's a job for a particular (quite special, I think) type of person.
The public may rage at MPs and the expenses etc but I doubt many of them would actually want to do it.
You are right about SLAB MPs though. The quality heydays of great Scottish Labour figures seems to have plummeted in recent years. Labour of the early 80s had Brown, Reid, Darling, Galloway, Dewar, Smith etc etc.
What on earth happened?!
ps - agree on Clark too. Extraordinary character. He'd be front page of the Sunday's every week these days
According to the poll, I’m a 26%er – can’t think of anything worse than a house full of professionalised MPs, with zero life experience outside of Westminster or the party machine.
Didn’t Gordon Brown raise the issue of 2nd Jobs whilst PM, then drop it when there was a backlash from his own side?
Depends what we want from our MPs really, are they glorified/super social workers, or are they people to review and ammend laws?
The two are totally different skill-sets and totally different demands.
Yup - I reckon the way to fix British democracy is to flip the Commons and Lords around again. Start by putting in some more sensible proportional system for the Lords, that doesn't do the kinds of crazy wacky things that FPTP is going to do as the Lab/Con duopoly fades into history. Gradually they'll accrue power because they're the ones with the most democratic accountability.
Meanwhile in the FPTP Commons, you've got a bunch of individuals whose parties get maybe 25% support locally, and who work the constituency hard to generate strong "Conservatives for Palmer"-style incumbency. Eventually these people end up finding the party brands are a liability, and start running as independents, so you end up with an elected non-partisan social worker, but sitting in the Commons which also has some residual powers, giving them the ability to gang up with a bunch of other non-partisan social workers to revise and block things the elected government want to do that a lot of local people have been bending their ears over.
According to the poll, I’m a 26%er – can’t think of anything worse than a house full of professionalised MPs, with zero life experience outside of Westminster or the party machine.
Didn’t Gordon Brown raise the issue of 2nd Jobs whilst PM, then drop it when there was a backlash from his own side?
Gordon more likely dropped it when somebody quietly took him to one side and explained how much dosh was to be made when he lost in 2010.....
Isn;t banning jobs an example of labour pulling up the ladder to social mobility? Only very wealthy people would be able to become MPs in the first place
On the issue of pay surely the problem is that you have a small number of people with truly remarkable salaries. Executive pay in the UK is I believe the highest in the world relative to turnover. It would be interesting to see some figures on where 69k comes in terms of the distribution of incomes. It's about 3 times the median. Outside the south east I wonder what percentage of the population earns above that? If being an MP is a full time job then you could make a case for paying them a bit more. If it is a part time job I think most people would be of the view that 69k is rather a lot.
It's that many of them have never had a First one!
Since, you must admit, for many MPs job security as an MP is not exactly a 'given' surely it makes sense for them to keep their current job so that they remain in the loop and can then devote themselves once they leave parliament to their other job - without spending months, or years, getting re-acquainted with the changes in the industry since they became an MP.
Isn;t banning jobs an example of labour pulling up the ladder to social mobility? Only very wealthy people would be able to become MPs in the first place
Why? £67,000 is a lot of money... a good teacher/nurse should be able to make a good MP and they don't get paid £67,000
They don't all have to be highly paid people trained in arguing things they don't believe in
On the issue of pay surely the problem is that you have a small number of people with truly remarkable salaries. Executive pay in the UK is I believe the highest in the world relative to turnover. It would be interesting to see some figures on where 69k comes in terms of the distribution of incomes. It's about 3 times the median. Outside the south east I wonder what percentage of the population earns above that? If being an MP is a full time job then you could make a case for paying them a bit more. If it is a part time job I think most people would be of the view that 69k is rather a lot.
Median is about £19,000ish
Mean is £26,000ish
It is much more than the average, no doubt about that, but then we wouldn't expect our MPs to be average people. We would expect/want them to be well educated, to be professional (at mostly at least), to be akin to lawyers, or doctors, or accountants, or some other white collar profession.
Once you are there, and once you consider working in london,. 60/67k is not a lot when you compare with with similar roles.
Isn;t banning jobs an example of labour pulling up the ladder to social mobility? Only very wealthy people would be able to become MPs in the first place
Why? £67,000 is a lot of money... a good teacher/nurse should be able to make a good MP and they don't get paid £67,000
They don't all have to be highly paid people trained in arguing things they don't believe in
Headteachers and senior nurses do though. Remember we're talking about people coming into the role in their 40s ish....
On the issue of pay surely the problem is that you have a small number of people with truly remarkable salaries. Executive pay in the UK is I believe the highest in the world relative to turnover. It would be interesting to see some figures on where 69k comes in terms of the distribution of incomes. It's about 3 times the median. Outside the south east I wonder what percentage of the population earns above that? If being an MP is a full time job then you could make a case for paying them a bit more. If it is a part time job I think most people would be of the view that 69k is rather a lot.
Median is about £19,000ish
Mean is £26,000ish
It is much more than the average, no doubt about that, but then we wouldn't expect our MPs to be average people. We would expect/want them to be well educated, to be professional (at mostly at least), to be akin to lawyers, or doctors, or accountants, or some other white collar profession.
Once you are there, and once you consider working in london,. 60/67k is not a lot when you compare with with similar roles.
I'd quite like to see some "average people" in there tbh.
The basic problem is that if you lose an IT job there are other IT jobs galore, but there's only one Parliament.
This is the problem with all these parochial political systems. We shouldn't really be electing people to run large countries until they've proved that they know what they're doing spending a few years running a smaller one.
Actually no joke. If Westminster devolved menaningful powers to cities, counties, etc then there would be a base of mayors, councillors etc that could demonstrate some competence to be MPs - in much the same way that it is usually Governors not Senators who get the US presidency. (Senators make shit leaders).
On the issue of pay surely the problem is that you have a small number of people with truly remarkable salaries. Executive pay in the UK is I believe the highest in the world relative to turnover. It would be interesting to see some figures on where 69k comes in terms of the distribution of incomes. It's about 3 times the median. Outside the south east I wonder what percentage of the population earns above that? If being an MP is a full time job then you could make a case for paying them a bit more. If it is a part time job I think most people would be of the view that 69k is rather a lot.
Median is about £19,000ish
Mean is £26,000ish
It is much more than the average, no doubt about that, but then we wouldn't expect our MPs to be average people. We would expect/want them to be well educated, to be professional (at mostly at least), to be akin to lawyers, or doctors, or accountants, or some other white collar profession.
Once you are there, and once you consider working in london,. 60/67k is not a lot when you compare with with similar roles.
I'd quite like to see some "average people" in there tbh.
Have you seen an 'average person'. Thats a person with an IQ of 100....
On the issue of pay surely the problem is that you have a small number of people with truly remarkable salaries. Executive pay in the UK is I believe the highest in the world relative to turnover. It would be interesting to see some figures on where 69k comes in terms of the distribution of incomes. It's about 3 times the median. Outside the south east I wonder what percentage of the population earns above that? If being an MP is a full time job then you could make a case for paying them a bit more. If it is a part time job I think most people would be of the view that 69k is rather a lot.
Median is about £19,000ish
Mean is £26,000ish
It is much more than the average, no doubt about that, but then we wouldn't expect our MPs to be average people. We would expect/want them to be well educated, to be professional (at mostly at least), to be akin to lawyers, or doctors, or accountants, or some other white collar profession.
Once you are there, and once you consider working in london,. 60/67k is not a lot when you compare with with similar roles.
I'd quite like to see some "average people" in there tbh.
Have you seen an 'average person'. Thats a person with an IQ of 100....
Thinking about it, £1 per year, per constituent would get you £75k or more as an MP. Assuming they actually bother representing you (and my MP does), that's pretty good valuef for money. [yeah, yeah, expenses, etc].
On the issue of pay surely the problem is that you have a small number of people with truly remarkable salaries. Executive pay in the UK is I believe the highest in the world relative to turnover. It would be interesting to see some figures on where 69k comes in terms of the distribution of incomes. It's about 3 times the median. Outside the south east I wonder what percentage of the population earns above that? If being an MP is a full time job then you could make a case for paying them a bit more. If it is a part time job I think most people would be of the view that 69k is rather a lot.
Median is about £19,000ish
Mean is £26,000ish
It is much more than the average, no doubt about that, but then we wouldn't expect our MPs to be average people. We would expect/want them to be well educated, to be professional (at mostly at least), to be akin to lawyers, or doctors, or accountants, or some other white collar profession.
Once you are there, and once you consider working in london,. 60/67k is not a lot when you compare with with similar roles.
I'd quite like to see some "average people" in there tbh.
Have you seen an 'average person'. Thats a person with an IQ of 100....
Reminds me of the timeless George Carlin quote: 'Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that'
On the issue of pay surely the problem is that you have a small number of people with truly remarkable salaries. Executive pay in the UK is I believe the highest in the world relative to turnover. It would be interesting to see some figures on where 69k comes in terms of the distribution of incomes. It's about 3 times the median. Outside the south east I wonder what percentage of the population earns above that? If being an MP is a full time job then you could make a case for paying them a bit more. If it is a part time job I think most people would be of the view that 69k is rather a lot.
Median is about £19,000ish
Mean is £26,000ish
It is much more than the average, no doubt about that, but then we wouldn't expect our MPs to be average people. We would expect/want them to be well educated, to be professional (at mostly at least), to be akin to lawyers, or doctors, or accountants, or some other white collar profession.
Once you are there, and once you consider working in london,. 60/67k is not a lot when you compare with with similar roles.
I'd quite like to see some "average people" in there tbh.
Have you seen an 'average person'. Thats a person with an IQ of 100....
Yep, you're right we should probably have MPs in the house who know the probability of two heads in a row... Oh wait.
Actually what we have is MPs in there who *think* they're above average, when alot of them really probably are not
The basic problem is that if you lose an IT job there are other IT jobs galore, but there's only one Parliament.
This is the problem with all these parochial political systems. We shouldn't really be electing people to run large countries until they've proved that they know what they're doing spending a few years running a smaller one.
Actually no joke. If Westminster devolved menaningful powers to cities, counties, etc then there would be a base of mayors, councillors etc that could demonstrate some competence to be MPs - in much the same way that it is usually Governors not Senators who get the US presidency. (Senators make shit leaders).
That would make the professional politician aspect even worse, they'd have to start at the bottom at a young age in order to get to the top before dying!
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 18s19 seconds ago Sky Sources: No charges to be laid against #Glasgow City Council or driver of bin lorry following crash in December in which six people died.
Nick Robinson made a good point on Daily Politics.. the real concern ISNT Mp's having two jobs, but having two masters
Labour are proposing to stop MP's taking directorships etc I can see why that is liable to lead to conflict of interests.. they aren't trying to stop MP's also being Doctors/Lawyers etc
Totally in agreement with you Mike, banning second jobs would be the triumph of mediocrity.
One or two senior Tories who had successful careers before coming to the House (Hammond? Gove? Boris?) should probably slip in one or two jibes about Labour MPs 'only wanting to ban second jobs because they worry they couldn't get one'. Should be enough to move the conversation on...
You only had to listen to a snippet of Natalie Bennett's performance yesterday (and I felt a bit sorry for her) to understand the gulf in class between inexperienced politicians like her and the premier league bunch in the Commons.
Cameron and Miliband barely ever put a foot wrong. And look at Blair under the most menacing pressure over Iraq; he was - whether you agree with him or not - faultless in defence of his actions.
Imagine how clever, quick-witted and abreast of detail the top politicians are, compared to the average Joe. If I were an MP Youtube would be filled with my gaffes and people would be laughing at me. Yet I could earn £60k if I dragged a few big commissions in. And politicians are worth more than I am.
How much of today's lobby fodder do you think approach a Blair, or even a Dave'n'Ed standard?
Off the top of my head, at GE2010 Tory newcomers included Sarah Woolaston, Dominic Raab, Savid Javid, Liz Truss and Anna "san*timonious" Soubry. These people are fecking quality.
Labour took in Stella Creasy and Chuka Umunna (I'm not so up with Labour MPs), again, quality people.
I doubt, percentage-wise, there is much dross in parliament, though I might be wrong.
I suspect if I tried to become an MP for a top party I wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance. Just not good enough.
ps - have you ever read Alan Clark's books? On becoming a minister he describes the mind-bending workload, portentously questioning whether it would lead him to a brain tumour. It's very off-putting for anybody who fancies entering parliament. For £60k too?! Screw that.
Perhaps I'm biased having seen at first hand the quality of SLab timeservers; dross pretty much covers it.
Yep, I've read Clark's books & his biography, and for all his manifest faults he was an extraordinary personality - I doubt he'd make the K&C candidates' list today. For every Clark there have been hundreds of mediocrities.
Btw, everyone from Rifkind down keeps saying £60k a year - it's £67k (plus more than double that in expenses). I'd love a £7k pay rise!
Quite important because that £7k makes MPs 4th percentile not 10th percentile. They earn more than 96% of the population with no accounting for committee or cabinet increments, no accounting for family member staff, no accounting for expenses, no accounting for post parliament earnings (would Mr Palmer earn the same he does today as he would continuing in programming which is generally paid less today than 20 years ago) and no account for the gilt edges 1/40th pension on a Final Salary basis today's working population can only dream of.
Nick Robinson made a good point on Daily Politics.. the real concern ISNT Mp's having two jobs, but having two masters
Labour are proposing to stop MP's taking directorships etc I can see why that is liable to lead to conflict of interests.. they aren't trying to stop MP's also being Doctors/Lawyers etc
Um, with any sort of salary cap that is exactly what Labour are proposing to stop...
Perhaps he should pass such a ridiculously facile, ill-thought through rule within his own party, and thus restrict any Labour MP from ever taking up a government position again because the salary would exceed the self-imposed salary cap.
Nick Robinson made a good point on Daily Politics.. the real concern ISNT Mp's having two jobs, but having two masters
Labour are proposing to stop MP's taking directorships etc I can see why that is liable to lead to conflict of interests.. they aren't trying to stop MP's also being Doctors/Lawyers etc
What is so evil about being a director ? Labour just hate business and enterprise.
Nick Robinson made a good point on Daily Politics.. the real concern ISNT Mp's having two jobs, but having two masters
Labour are proposing to stop MP's taking directorships etc I can see why that is liable to lead to conflict of interests.. they aren't trying to stop MP's also being Doctors/Lawyers etc
Um, with any sort of salary cap that is exactly what Labour are proposing to stop...
Perhaps he should pass such a ridiculously facile, ill-thought through rule within his own party, and thus restrict any Labour MP from ever taking up a government position again because the salary would exceed the self-imposed salary cap.
It's a daft idea. An MP who is also a doctor or teacher is an asset and should not be prevented from keeping up their profession. Ditto journalism, writing books, owning or running a company or being involved with a charity etc.
If the issue is having two masters, then no MP should be sponsored by a trade union because there is a potential or actual conflict of interest just as there would be with an MP paid by a company to advance their case.
Out of interest I looked at Malcolm Rifkind's history.
He has been an MP since 1974, therefore when he was first elected to office he would be a 28yo Barrister, with at most 3 years experience after becoming an Advocate.
Today, I would expect a Barrister at 3 years post-qual to be earning somewhere around £25k to £30k inside or outside London. Or in my sister's case, 3 years post qual she is earning £22k in London as a Solicitor because she didn't have the family connections to get pupilage.
It would seem to me that £67k as an MP (plus significant benefits package) is a very attractive offer to the most intelligent Barristers with 3 years experience, given they have no guarantees of progression to the top tier of Barristers and the likely future for a profession where most of its lucrative public funding is being removed.
I got the impression at PMQs that EdM had just put the proposal together after he had entered the chamber..he probably hadn't,but that is how it looked .It had all the depth of thought that went into Blairs ..We will march the felon to a cash machine..and Browns.. Gulags for slags.
Nowt wrong with second jobs, it's not illegal to work for a living in this country yet, as long as you don't take the pish, or let the second job overtake the first. I just think it should be policed a bit more stringently for MPs, as they are in positions of influence. And any fool saying that 60+ grand a year, plus expenses isn't good money needs to have a word with themselves. Most of us in the actual world, rather than PB world, would be more than happy. I don't think you can bleat and moan about the hours, or the stress, or being away from family, either. Plenty of jobs bring that, on far, far less.
I'm no fan of Miliband but he skewered Cameron today. The wider electorate, not the politicos on here, will see this as Cameron protecting his own interests again.
Cameron couldn't beat Brown and he won't beat Ed, under pressure he folds too easily which is why he's dodging the debates.
Comments
Blowback, US and Israeli lobbying to stop this will fall on deaf ears unlike 2010.
I've been thinking about getting one of these antique servant's bell boards and hooking it up to my server monitoring software.
https://twitter.com/edmundedgar/status/333928327435915266
The calibre of MP argument isn't going to wash either as there isn't a standout example of an MP who combines a high status job with being MP, not one that the public will recognise anyway.
Everything Counts in large amounts"
Apparently, the last time they reached this level was 1975, a year before we went cap in hand to the IMF.
Not that I'm predicting that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-31619663
Will she ever cut the mustard again?
You offering to lay the 250/1 I spotted? Yes please!
This brings us to a different problem which is that the obvious thing is for everyone to leave parliament become a lobbyist in their field, which potentially produces seriously bad incentives affecting what they do as an MP, but I doubt that keeping a part-time job while they were an MP would really help with it.
Ho hum
Uncle Vince:
Name of donor: Lord Oakeshott
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation
in kind: conducting a local opinion
poll, value £6,000
Donor status: individual
(Registered 5 June 2014)
No money from Oakeshott for Clegg though.
In fact it looks to me like Clegg has himself given £5000 to his MP capacities !
Thankfully, he's removed that problem by standing down, and has been replaced by a candidate who is quite interesting (tm).
Then again, I'm possibly unusual in the fact that I'm rather interested in politics ...
Labour are a special interest group for public sector workers - their manifesto for government is a mixture of nothing and picking on choice sectors who the proles like to see getting beaten up.
I fear the election campaign is going to be fought on these sub sub sub issues.
Blah.
For many Lab MPs (and supporters, save those in Islington), perhaps from working class backgrounds who would otherwise have taken working class jobs, £60k is a hell of a lot of money. For many Cons MPs (and supporters), aspiring to the professional classes, £60k doesn't get you very far at all.
There is no coherent Cons response to this issue as the two parties are addressing two different constituencies both as voters and PPCs.
Loans and other controlled transactions
Name of lender: David Alliance
Address of donor: private
Amount of loan: £20,000
Date the loan was entered into: 27 June 2014
Date the loan is due to be repaid: indefinite
Rate of interest: 0%
Is that a loan :P ?
Nice of PWC to pay for Tristram Hunt's intern - no possible future conflict of interest there...
No chance.
Yep, I've read Clark's books & his biography, and for all his manifest faults he was an extraordinary personality - I doubt he'd make the K&C candidates' list today. For every Clark there have been hundreds of mediocrities.
Btw, everyone from Rifkind down keeps saying £60k a year - it's £67k (plus more than double that in expenses). I'd love a £7k pay rise!
Did supplying researchers to the Conservatives and Libdem's by PwC cause them a conflict of interest as well?
Coming home and working all day Saturday in constituency surgeries?
Heavy workload?
Heavy scrutiny?
Public loathing?
A Sunday press wanting to know when you last smoked dope or popped a pill?
Former girlfriends and one night stand's tracked-down for gossip?
All for a take-home of about £3400 a month.
No chance.
Having to work and live in London would put me off in itself.
I'm off to walk the dog in the hills in the beautiful, spring sunshine.
The two are totally different skill-sets and totally different demands.
What I suppose is true is that even if you're not in a marginal, you should pay a bit of attention in case you suddenly find yourself in one, but statistically that probably doesn't happen very often to the average MP, and when it does it's most likely to be from boundary changes, which will mean that a lot of the people you were paying attention to aren't your constituents any more anyhow.
A £7k pay rise!
Good point. I'm parroting what Sir Malcolm said and it is wrong to swat away £7k!
And I'm only playing Devil's Advocate. £67k is a lot of money and it must a great privilege to be an MP and to work in the great Westminster Palace, but it's a job for a particular (quite special, I think) type of person.
The public may rage at MPs and the expenses etc but I doubt many of them would actually want to do it.
You are right about SLAB MPs though. The quality heydays of great Scottish Labour figures seems to have plummeted in recent years. Labour of the early 80s had Brown, Reid, Darling, Galloway, Dewar, Smith etc etc.
What on earth happened?!
ps - agree on Clark too. Extraordinary character. He'd be front page of the Sunday's every week these days
According to the poll, I’m a 26%er – can’t think of anything worse than a house full of professionalised MPs, with zero life experience outside of Westminster or the party machine.
Didn’t Gordon Brown raise the issue of 2nd Jobs whilst PM, then drop it when there was a backlash from his own side?
On a purely personal basis, I would ban Diane Abbott, full stop.
Meanwhile in the FPTP Commons, you've got a bunch of individuals whose parties get maybe 25% support locally, and who work the constituency hard to generate strong "Conservatives for Palmer"-style incumbency. Eventually these people end up finding the party brands are a liability, and start running as independents, so you end up with an elected non-partisan social worker, but sitting in the Commons which also has some residual powers, giving them the ability to gang up with a bunch of other non-partisan social workers to revise and block things the elected government want to do that a lot of local people have been bending their ears over.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown/10083547/Gordon-Brown-tops-list-of-MPs-with-extra-earnings.html
I'm guessing £67,000 (plus expenses) is "chicken-feed" (TM) to the more, er, radicalised PB Tories on here?
(BTW in case you haven't guessed by now, that's my attempt at trolling!
For legal reasons no discussion at the moment on the Survation/LD polling
Mean is £26,000ish
out the hypocritical bullshiners..and she happens to be at the very top of the list..
It's that many of them have never had a First one!
Since, you must admit, for many MPs job security as an MP is not exactly a 'given' surely it makes sense for them to keep their current job so that they remain in the loop and can then devote themselves once they leave parliament to their other job - without spending months, or years, getting re-acquainted with the changes in the industry since they became an MP.
Why Panama?
That was simply the nominee entity that our Swiss bank advised, Gulliver says.
Makes you wonder how they cope with the daily event of the Sun going down.
Seeing a proper night sky is priceless.
They don't all have to be highly paid people trained in arguing things they don't believe in
Once you are there, and once you consider working in london,. 60/67k is not a lot when you compare with with similar roles.
No MP should have spare time if they do their job right.
Oh. Silly me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/11434508/Owl-themed-cocktail-bar-in-London-sparks-concerns-over-birds-welfare-as-thousands-sign-petition.html
Man apologizing for misdeeds in a Swiss bank tells the committee he only did it on the recommendation of.....a Swiss bank?
Actually what we have is MPs in there who *think* they're above average, when alot of them really probably are not
I quite like her for comedy value.
Sky Sources: No charges to be laid against #Glasgow City Council or driver of bin lorry following crash in December in which six people died.
Probably why us PAYErs always "pay our share"
Labour are proposing to stop MP's taking directorships etc I can see why that is liable to lead to conflict of interests.. they aren't trying to stop MP's also being Doctors/Lawyers etc
One or two senior Tories who had successful careers before coming to the House (Hammond? Gove? Boris?) should probably slip in one or two jibes about Labour MPs 'only wanting to ban second jobs because they worry they couldn't get one'. Should be enough to move the conversation on...
Perhaps he should pass such a ridiculously facile, ill-thought through rule within his own party, and thus restrict any Labour MP from ever taking up a government position again because the salary would exceed the self-imposed salary cap.
If the issue is having two masters, then no MP should be sponsored by a trade union because there is a potential or actual conflict of interest just as there would be with an MP paid by a company to advance their case.
He has been an MP since 1974, therefore when he was first elected to office he would be a 28yo Barrister, with at most 3 years experience after becoming an Advocate.
Today, I would expect a Barrister at 3 years post-qual to be earning somewhere around £25k to £30k inside or outside London. Or in my sister's case, 3 years post qual she is earning £22k in London as a Solicitor because she didn't have the family connections to get pupilage.
It would seem to me that £67k as an MP (plus significant benefits package) is a very attractive offer to the most intelligent Barristers with 3 years experience, given they have no guarantees of progression to the top tier of Barristers and the likely future for a profession where most of its lucrative public funding is being removed.
I just think it should be policed a bit more stringently for MPs, as they are in positions of influence.
And any fool saying that 60+ grand a year, plus expenses isn't good money needs to have a word with themselves. Most of us in the actual world, rather than PB world, would be more than happy.
I don't think you can bleat and moan about the hours, or the stress, or being away from family, either. Plenty of jobs bring that, on far, far less.
Cameron couldn't beat Brown and he won't beat Ed, under pressure he folds too easily which is why he's dodging the debates.
He is vacuous