I got the impression at PMQs that EdM had just put the proposal re second jobs after he had entered the chamber..he probably hadn't,but that is how it looked .
What % of the population was impacted by his topic of choice ? 300 out of 65 million ?
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.
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.
Well it would help if you tried to be balanced rather than introducing words like "evil" and "hate" to make your point/criticise others... it turns every discussion here into partisan fan boy nonsense
I can see why taking on a directorship of a company whilst an MP could lead to a conflict of interests. I am sure there are numerous examples of companies financing MPs for influence which is a bad thing
So I wouldn't say Directors of companies are evil anymore than anyone else, but they just cant be MP's
Seems to me a lot of people on here cant grasp the idea that MP's don't have to be wealthy private businessmen as well.
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.
Well it would help if you tried to be balanced rather than introducing words like "evil" and "hate" to make your point/criticise others... it turns every discussion here into partisan fan boy nonsense
I can see why taking on a directorship of a company whilst an MP could lead to a conflict of interests. I am sure there are numerous examples of companies financing MPs for influence which is a bad thing
So I wouldn't say Directors of companies are evil anymore than anyone else, but they just cant be MP's
Seems to me a lot of people on here cant grasp the idea that MP's don't have to be wealthy private businessmen as well.
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.
Well it would help if you tried to be balanced rather than introducing words like "evil" and "hate" to make your point/criticise others... it turns every discussion here into partisan fan boy nonsense
I can see why taking on a directorship of a company whilst an MP could lead to a conflict of interests. I am sure there are numerous examples of companies financing MPs for influence which is a bad thing
So I wouldn't say Directors of companies are evil anymore than anyone else, but they just cant be MP's
Seems to me a lot of people on here cant grasp the idea that MP's don't have to be wealthy private businessmen as well.
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.
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.
Well it would help if you tried to be balanced rather than introducing words like "evil" and "hate" to make your point/criticise others... it turns every discussion here into partisan fan boy nonsense
I can see why taking on a directorship of a company whilst an MP could lead to a conflict of interests. I am sure there are numerous examples of companies financing MPs for influence which is a bad thing
So I wouldn't say Directors of companies are evil anymore than anyone else, but they just cant be MP's
Seems to me a lot of people on here cant grasp the idea that MP's don't have to be wealthy private businessmen as well.
My ire was more at Ed for singling out "directors" - he knows it stirs up feelings of envy and desire for retribution from parts of his core vote.
"All directors must be banned from being MPs" - is typical of the crass stupidity from Ed.
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
Goes very much hand in glove with party funding.
Cameron has again shown questionable judgment and a lack of political nous. Poor.
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.
'I can see why taking on a directorship of a company whilst an MP could lead to a conflict of interests. I am sure there are numerous examples of companies financing MPs for influence which is a bad thing'
And an MP sponsored by a Trade Union is not trying to have an influence ?
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.
If Miliband gets his way on this, will he immediately step down as PM to concentrate on his work as a constituency MP?
If MPs can take on second jobs as Ministers without it affecting their ability to serve their constituents - why can't those outside of the Government payroll also use their time to follow second careers?
Will MPs be denied the right to write books during their period of office?
Will MPs be banned from writing articles for newspapers? Or banned from appearing in the media?
It is ludicrous to have formal restrictions as to how MPs use their time. It is, however, quite correct to ensure that all activities that MPs undertake do not conflict with their role as elected representatives.
The fact that Miliband can't see this says a lot more about him than he would like to admit.
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.
The country has gone stark raving bonkers, it seems.
The UK faces many difficult issues. Whether MPs do or do not hold directorships (openly declared in the register of interests, like any other interest such as trade union sponsorship or income from TV shows) is not, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, one of them.
And if voters don't want MPs who have other interests, they can vote for professional politicians instead. It's not as though there is a shortage of the latter on offer.
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.
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.
If Miliband gets his way on this, will he immediately step down as PM to concentrate on his work as a constituency MP?
If MPs can take on second jobs as Ministers without it affecting their ability to serve their constituents - why can't those outside of the Government payroll also use their time to follow second careers?
Will MPs be denied the right to write books during their period of office?
Will MPs be banned from writing articles for newspapers? Or banned from appearing in the media?
It is ludicrous to have formal restrictions as to how MPs use their time. It is, however, quite correct to ensure that all activities that MPs undertake do not conflict with their role as elected representatives.
The fact that Miliband can't see this says a lot more about him than he would like to admit.
Labour's motion is about paid directorships and consultancies.
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.
Class War innit.
Tories hate working class people?
They hate them so much they cut their income taxes...
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.
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
If Miliband gets his way on this, will he immediately step down as PM to concentrate on his work as a constituency MP?
If MPs can take on second jobs as Ministers without it affecting their ability to serve their constituents - why can't those outside of the Government payroll also use their time to follow second careers?
Will MPs be denied the right to write books during their period of office?
Will MPs be banned from writing articles for newspapers? Or banned from appearing in the media?
It is ludicrous to have formal restrictions as to how MPs use their time. It is, however, quite correct to ensure that all activities that MPs undertake do not conflict with their role as elected representatives.
The fact that Miliband can't see this says a lot more about him than he would like to admit.
Labour's motion is about paid directorships and consultancies.
I doubt there's many people who will change their vote based on MP's having second jobs, though I suppose it's another day where the Tories and the media aren't discussing the economic miracle they're presiding over...
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.
Class War innit.
Tories hate working class people?
They hate them so much they cut their income taxes...
All a conspiracy to alleviate the bloody queues on the HMRC help line!
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.
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
Would charity directors and trustees be banned - or not because they are "nice directors" ?
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
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.
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
Would charity directors and trustees be banned - or not because they are "nice directors" ?
Labour are led by an sanctimonious ****.
Most directors of charitable companies are unpaid (I certainly am). If paid it would generally because they had a job, which would take up their time and skew their priorities, so yeah, I think that would be "banned" too.
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
And, of course, sitting on top of the external income tree is Mr G Brown. Though all of his extra income is paid into his charity... which hasn't actually done anything charitable and has massive running expenses. But it is all above board, honest McGuv.
Presumably, if Ed is PM after the election, he will restrict his salary as PM to £6,700 on the basis that this is 10% of his salary as an MP and he should not earn more than that from a second job?
Thought not.
This is the most ridiculous argument even he has come up with. Every minister has a second job for which they are paid. Are we really to have a Parliament full of unemployables who nobody else wants?
If Miliband gets his way on this, will he immediately step down as PM to concentrate on his work as a constituency MP?
If MPs can take on second jobs as Ministers without it affecting their ability to serve their constituents - why can't those outside of the Government payroll also use their time to follow second careers?
Will MPs be denied the right to write books during their period of office?
Will MPs be banned from writing articles for newspapers? Or banned from appearing in the media?
It is ludicrous to have formal restrictions as to how MPs use their time. It is, however, quite correct to ensure that all activities that MPs undertake do not conflict with their role as elected representatives.
The fact that Miliband can't see this says a lot more about him than he would like to admit.
Labour's motion is about paid directorships and consultancies.
But their rhetoric is all about second jobs.
Well "paid directorships and consultancies" is up there in the pithiness charts with "removal of the spare room subsidy" and "long term economic plan". Phrases like "double-jobbing" are also a reference to the fact that Cameron talked about this himself, then failed to act. All in all, I think it's been pretty clear what Labour is actually talking about, and proposing.
Of my group of 300 or so friends and acquaintances under 35 (mostly from state grammar school or Oxbridge colleges), 5 or 6 would entertain the idea of being an MP. 2 of them would be very good at it - one is a barrister, the other a teacher. Both would be a credit to the House, but like the majority of the other 298, would take a serious hourly pay cut. I can think of another couple of strategy consultants, who although they would be wonderful elected representatives, have never entertained the idea because of the constraints of the job, already be earning in excess of an MPs current pay level, because of numerous factors (intrusion on personal life, other career endangering etc)
I'd also entertain the idea of running, having a strong belief in public service at all levels (whether it is serving at Church, helping out at charity events or serving as an elected official). I run my own start-up, and although profits are up and down, the switch to PAYE means I would likely also lose out financially over the course of a parliament. I've always accepted that as a likelihood, but If there was a ban on second jobs, or taking any other directorships, I'd be very put off indeed. And no, not just because money is a personal motivator in and of itself, but more that it would seriously decrease the calibre of politics.
Stop these ridiculous comparisons to the average wage. Very, very few on an average wage would have the skill set required to hold down a job with terrible hours, lots of travel, which requires the PR capabilities of a savvy agent, the attention to detail of a decent corporate solicitor, the foresight of an entrepreneur or senior manager and the focus-flexibility of a management consultant working several projects simultaneously.
Just as there is now a creche/nursery in Westminster to help (mostly) increase the number of female MPs, lawmakers should be doing all they can to make it more attractive for the best and brightest of my generation to run, not less.
Are we really to have a Parliament full of unemployables who nobody else wants?
Inevitably, that is where we're going to end up. A House of SPADS, social workers, lobbyists and fruitcakes and loons and probably a smattering of idealistic lawyers...
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.
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
Indeed.
If you live in a flat in London, and hold a share of the Freehold, you're likely to be a Director of the company that owns it. I wonder how this will work for MPs?
Presumably it would also bar them from control of long established family businesses.
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
And, of course, sitting on top of the external income tree is Mr G Brown. Though all of his extra income is paid into his charity... which hasn't actually done anything charitable and has massive running expenses. But it is all above board, honest McGuv.
Have you seen the register of members' interest, he has that statement about the money being paid to the charity after each declaration.
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
You miss the point spectacularly, perhaps deliberately. 5 years ago Cameron said "we're all in this together" in that time Rifkind has earned as much as some will earn in their lifetime, assuming they left school 40 years ago.
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.
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
Would charity directors and trustees be banned - or not because they are "nice directors" ?
Labour are led by an sanctimonious ****.
Most directors of charitable companies are unpaid (I certainly am). If paid it would generally because they had a job, which would take up their time and skew their priorities, so yeah, I think that would be "banned" too.
Are we really to have a Parliament full of unemployables who nobody else wants?
Inevitably, that is where we're going to end up. A House of SPADS, social workers, lobbyists and fruitcakes and loons and probably a smattering of idealistic lawyers...
And lot of current MPs will feel even more at home then, without these awful people coming in from outside of the political bubble having spent years doing real world jobs...you know the ones where you have to deal with the great unwashed public every day.
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
And, of course, sitting on top of the external income tree is Mr G Brown. Though all of his extra income is paid into his charity... which hasn't actually done anything charitable and has massive running expenses. But it is all above board, honest McGuv.
Of my group of 300 or so friends and acquaintances under 35 (mostly from state grammar school or Oxbridge colleges), 5 or 6 would entertain the idea of being an MP.
You do not know 300 people's inclination to be an MP or 300 people's salary levels.
Seriously, who do you think you will kid with this nonsense?
"Stop these ridiculous comparisons to the average wage. Very, very few on an average wage would have the skill set required to hold down a job with terrible hours, lots of travel, which requires the PR capabilities of a savvy agent, the attention to detail of a decent corporate solicitor, the foresight of an entrepreneur or senior manager and the focus-flexibility of a management consultant working several projects simultaneously."
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
And, of course, sitting on top of the external income tree is Mr G Brown. Though all of his extra income is paid into his charity... which hasn't actually done anything charitable and has massive running expenses. But it is all above board, honest McGuv.
I'm not a huge fan, but you might be getting into slightly dangerous territory it of "not doing anything charitable" - unless you consider the list of activities here as not charitable
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
You miss the point spectacularly, perhaps deliberately. 5 years ago Cameron said "we're all in this together" in that time Rifkind has earned as much as some will earn in their lifetime, assuming they left school 40 years ago.
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
You miss the point spectacularly, perhaps deliberately. 5 years ago Cameron said "we're all in this together" in that time Rifkind has earned as much as some will earn in their lifetime, assuming they left school 40 years ago.
And he has paid a shed load of tax on it - think of the hospitals, skools n nurses that has funded.
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
You miss the point spectacularly, perhaps deliberately. 5 years ago Cameron said "we're all in this together" in that time Rifkind has earned as much as some will earn in their lifetime, assuming they left school 40 years ago.
He has earned and been taxed you twit. Where do you think the money comes from to pay nurses salaries?? So now we know - earning money is evil. Tell Mr Rooney and all his friends or Mr Redmayne. Or the director general of the BBC.
The wages of footballers - facilitated by the evil Mr Murdoch and paid for by the sweat of horny handed men of toil - has not yet been attacked by Ed. Only a matter of time ?
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
That makes no sense. MPs draw a very good salary, plus expenses.
I may be wrong, but I don't think Ed is proposing that people with jobs should not be allowed to run for Parliament, just that they give up their positions should they succeed.
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
You miss the point spectacularly, perhaps deliberately. 5 years ago Cameron said "we're all in this together" in that time Rifkind has earned as much as some will earn in their lifetime, assuming they left school 40 years ago.
If Miliband gets his way on this, will he immediately step down as PM to concentrate on his work as a constituency MP?
If MPs can take on second jobs as Ministers without it affecting their ability to serve their constituents - why can't those outside of the Government payroll also use their time to follow second careers?
Will MPs be denied the right to write books during their period of office?
Will MPs be banned from writing articles for newspapers? Or banned from appearing in the media?
It is ludicrous to have formal restrictions as to how MPs use their time. It is, however, quite correct to ensure that all activities that MPs undertake do not conflict with their role as elected representatives.
The fact that Miliband can't see this says a lot more about him than he would like to admit.
Labour's motion is about paid directorships and consultancies.
But their rhetoric is all about second jobs.
it's great and effective rhetoric.
To the average man (IQ = 104) just having one job is struggle enough. And at 1/3rd this fabulous £67k/year level. Now all of a sudden these b******ds have two jobs.
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
You miss the point spectacularly, perhaps deliberately. 5 years ago Cameron said "we're all in this together" in that time Rifkind has earned as much as some will earn in their lifetime, assuming they left school 40 years ago.
He has earned and been taxed you twit. Where do you think the money comes from to pay nurses salaries?? So now we know - earning money is evil. Tell Mr Rooney and all his friends or Mr Redmayne. Or the director general of the BBC.
I would say with some certainly that the GVA of Messrs Rooney and Redmayne is likely to be near 100%. I would not expect the GVA of Mr Rifkind's "external agency" work to be much above 0%. In fact, the GVA of Mr Rifkind's earnings could be highly negative.
It is certainly a good argument that he is in effect being paid reciprocation for his decisions as a parliamentarian. This is part of the core problem with how this country is governed. Removing it, even if it is only a perception, is nothing but good for the country.
Ideally the restrictions on MPs earnings should extend well beyond their time as a public servant (possibly for life).
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.
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
Indeed.
If you live in a flat in London, and hold a share of the Freehold, you're likely to be a Director of the company that owns it. I wonder how this will work for MPs?
Presumably it would also bar them from control of long established family businesses.
What is so bad about people having to make the choice between being an MP and having a directorship of a company?
You cant do both, as one might influence the other... wear it I say!
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
You miss the point spectacularly, perhaps deliberately. 5 years ago Cameron said "we're all in this together" in that time Rifkind has earned as much as some will earn in their lifetime, assuming they left school 40 years ago.
It's toxic and why the party is in the low 30s.
umm like labour is in the low 30s too?
But there are more people willing to consider voting Labour than are willing to ever consider voting Tory. That Miliband and the shadow cabinet are doing a woeful job of winning over a big bunch of those 'considerers' doesn't change that.
Maybe one answer (off the top of my head) is to say that outside interests which MPs had before becoming MPs are fine - e.g. if you have a family business then you can continue to have that but must make the appropriate declarations. Or if you are a doctor you can continue to practise.
But what you can't do is use your status as an MP to take on new interests - or only after a period of time or within certain boundaries. What irks is not MPs having outside interests because in a lot of cases this may be helpful or worthwhile but MPs using their status as MPs to make money for themselves as if the point of being an MP is purely self-enrichment e.g. a la Straw / Rifkind etc.
The wages of footballers - facilitated by the evil Mr Murdoch and paid for by the sweat of horny handed men of toil - has not yet been attacked by Ed. Only a matter of time ?
Never happen. They're all good working class boys.
It's all very well Milliband wanting to ban MP's holding Directorships and Consultancies, but lets face it the proposals should go further and include all second jobs, including those for Unions. A ban on paid TV work would be right too - can't have Broadcasters influencing law makers.
Indeed so, obesity is as you know a serious problem, and being stuck on benefits is a major risk factor for long-term mental and physical health problems. Of course Labour isn't worried about the effect on people's lives of these problems, as we saw when they were in government.
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
You miss the point spectacularly, perhaps deliberately. 5 years ago Cameron said "we're all in this together" in that time Rifkind has earned as much as some will earn in their lifetime, assuming they left school 40 years ago.
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
You miss the point spectacularly, perhaps deliberately. 5 years ago Cameron said "we're all in this together" in that time Rifkind has earned as much as some will earn in their lifetime, assuming they left school 40 years ago.
Are you really that much of a fecking thicko class-warrior that you cannot see the wider benefit of someone taking additional employment that gets taxed at higher rate tax that in turn helps fund the NHS? It appears you would rather he sat on his untaxed arse in his spare time.
Part of me really hopes Miliband wins and implements his lower sixth class-hatred politics. It will be a joy to watch his face as Ed Balls has to explain to him that because half a million of the highest tax-payers have now left the country, we can no longer afford the NHS. At all. Because they currently pay for it. All of it.
Why do Lefties like you hate cancer nurses so much that you want them to be laid off?
Your idea of "all in this together" is that we are all in the shit together. In thirteen years you went from a golden legacy economy to one trashed on all-time fecked up scale. And it is not hard to see why, when a man is reviled "for earning in five years what some will earn in their lifetime." In fact, it is bleeding obvious. Unless you really are so pig-shit dumb that you can't help miss the point.
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
You miss the point spectacularly, perhaps deliberately. 5 years ago Cameron said "we're all in this together" in that time Rifkind has earned as much as some will earn in their lifetime, assuming they left school 40 years ago.
"Perhaps I'm biased having seen at first hand the quality of SLab timeservers; dross pretty much covers it."
Perhaps you are but people who make sweeping generalizations like that don't usually have much to offer anyway. The only Scottish Labour MP I know works unbelievably hard and even just the travelling back and forward to Edinburgh would I suspect put him in a different bracket to you. Do YOU do anything useful?
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
You miss the point spectacularly, perhaps deliberately. 5 years ago Cameron said "we're all in this together" in that time Rifkind has earned as much as some will earn in their lifetime, assuming they left school 40 years ago.
He has earned and been taxed you twit. Where do you think the money comes from to pay nurses salaries?? So now we know - earning money is evil. Tell Mr Rooney and all his friends or Mr Redmayne. Or the director general of the BBC.
I would say with some certainly that the GVA of Messrs Rooney and Redmayne is likely to be near 100%. I would not expect the GVA of Mr Rifkind's "external agency" work to be much above 0%. In fact, the GVA of Mr Rifkind's earnings could be highly negative.
It is certainly a good argument that he is in effect being paid reciprocation for his decisions as a parliamentarian. This is part of the core problem with how this country is governed. Removing it, even if it is only a perception, is nothing but good for the country.
Ideally the restrictions on MPs earnings should extend well beyond their time as a public servant (possibly for life).
The gross value added only really matters to the company employing Rifkind. The HMRC doesn't care what work was require for him to be paid, only that it is taxed at the appropriate rate.
Indeed so, obesity is as you know a serious problem, and being stuck on benefits is a major risk factor for long-term mental and physical health problems. Of course Labour isn't worried about the effect on people's lives of these problems, as we saw when they were in government.
Indeed. Five years in and it is time to rein in our 1,780 feral fat.
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.
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
Indeed.
If you live in a flat in London, and hold a share of the Freehold, you're likely to be a Director of the company that owns it. I wonder how this will work for MPs?
Presumably it would also bar them from control of long established family businesses.
What is so bad about people having to make the choice between being an MP and having a directorship of a company?
You cant do both, as one might influence the other... wear it I say!
#prayforthedirectorswhocantbeMPs
Nigel Paul Farage, Director of Thorn in the Side Ltd, and The United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd.
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.
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
Indeed.
If you live in a flat in London, and hold a share of the Freehold, you're likely to be a Director of the company that owns it. I wonder how this will work for MPs?
Presumably it would also bar them from control of long established family businesses.
Don't worry - assuming this witch-hunt over nonsense on stilts is successful Ed will quietly forget it or water it down when in power. Anyway this is nothing new... absolutely nothing new. This line has been in the Labour/Socialist play book since the dawn of time. The only surprising thing is that some juveniles seem surprised. Trade Unions can sponsor MPs and indeed vote on Labour policy, can you imagine if Waitrose sponsored a Tory MP?
It's all very well Milliband wanting to ban MP's holding Directorships and Consultancies, but lets face it the proposals should go further and include all second jobs, including those for Unions. A ban on paid TV work would be right too - can't have Broadcasters influencing law makers.
I think they do - the offer at PMQs was to include acting as a union official, and I'm sure that paid TV work would count as a job. Surely MPs don't currently get paid for appearing as MPs, rather than doing "proper" gigs a la Portillo, so banning this doesn't seem a major issue.
I really don't think Parliament would be damaged that much if people who are only willing to work for more than £70,000 a year stop putting themselves forwards.
If anything, MPs' salaries should be cut a bit BUT with the money saved going to help new candidates with their election campaigns. THAT'S the problem that's making politics a rich man's profession, that you pretty much have to be wealthy to get into Parliament in the first place since usually to campaign successfully you will have to give up a "proper" job months/years in advance of the election, with no guarantee that you'll even get elected in the end anyway. But once you've actually got into Parliament, £67k is more than enough for anyone to live on.
@Richard_Nabavi The obese benefit claimants need disciplined, it is a major problem with the country. Tax evaders are just misunderstood and should not be talked about?
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
And, of course, sitting on top of the external income tree is Mr G Brown. Though all of his extra income is paid into his charity... which hasn't actually done anything charitable and has massive running expenses. But it is all above board, honest McGuv.
Have you seen the register of members' interest, he has that statement about the money being paid to the charity after each declaration.
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
And, of course, sitting on top of the external income tree is Mr G Brown. Though all of his extra income is paid into his charity... which hasn't actually done anything charitable and has massive running expenses. But it is all above board, honest McGuv.
Have you seen the register of members' interest, he has that statement about the money being paid to the charity after each declaration.
Who cares if its to 'charity'? he does the work as an MP and Labour are happy for him to do that and still be an MP. 5 years globetrotting between 5 star hotels is OK if you are a socialist MP.
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
You miss the point spectacularly, perhaps deliberately. 5 years ago Cameron said "we're all in this together" in that time Rifkind has earned as much as some will earn in their lifetime, assuming they left school 40 years ago.
He has earned and been taxed you twit. Where do you think the money comes from to pay nurses salaries?? So now we know - earning money is evil. Tell Mr Rooney and all his friends or Mr Redmayne. Or the director general of the BBC.
I would say with some certainly that the GVA of Messrs Rooney and Redmayne is likely to be near 100%. I would not expect the GVA of Mr Rifkind's "external agency" work to be much above 0%. In fact, the GVA of Mr Rifkind's earnings could be highly negative.
It is certainly a good argument that he is in effect being paid reciprocation for his decisions as a parliamentarian. This is part of the core problem with how this country is governed. Removing it, even if it is only a perception, is nothing but good for the country.
Ideally the restrictions on MPs earnings should extend well beyond their time as a public servant (possibly for life).
The gross value added only really matters to the company employing Rifkind. The HMRC doesn't care what work was require for him to be paid, only that it is taxed at the appropriate rate.
In effect you are arguing that it is fine and acceptable that political decisions may be bought and the decision makes can be motivated by external financial reward from interest groups. But that's FINE because they pay tax on what is, in the eyes of many, bribery.
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
And, of course, sitting on top of the external income tree is Mr G Brown. Though all of his extra income is paid into his charity... which hasn't actually done anything charitable and has massive running expenses. But it is all above board, honest McGuv.
Have you seen the register of members' interest, he has that statement about the money being paid to the charity after each declaration.
Who cares if its to 'charity'? he does the work as an MP and Labour are happy for him to do that and still be an MP. 5 years globetrotting between 5 star hotels is OK if you are a socialist MP.
Reading my comment back, it doesn't sounds as incredulous as I would have liked!
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.
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
Would charity directors and trustees be banned - or not because they are "nice directors" ?
Labour are led by an sanctimonious ****.
Most directors of charitable companies are unpaid (I certainly am). If paid it would generally because they had a job, which would take up their time and skew their priorities, so yeah, I think that would be "banned" too.
The country has gone stark raving bonkers, it seems.
The UK faces many difficult issues. Whether MPs do or do not hold directorships (openly declared in the register of interests, like any other interest such as trade union sponsorship or income from TV shows) is not, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, one of them.
And if voters don't want MPs who have other interests, they can vote for professional politicians instead. It's not as though there is a shortage of the latter on offer.
What a load of tripe. Arguably this could mitigate against career politicians. People do a 5/10 years stint as an MP as a public service and then go back to the day job. Quite a few dinosaurs would have moved on by now for sure if they couldn't moonlight.
Given the difficult issues you raise, when they are actually an MP we want them to concentrate on the job.
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.
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
Indeed.
If you live in a flat in London, and hold a share of the Freehold, you're likely to be a Director of the company that owns it. I wonder how this will work for MPs?
Presumably it would also bar them from control of long established family businesses.
Don't worry - assuming this witch-hunt over nonsense on stilts is successful Ed will quietly forget it or water it down when in power. Anyway this is nothing new... absolutely nothing new. This line has been in the Labour/Socialist play book since the dawn of time. The only surprising thing is that some juveniles seem surprised. Trade Unions can sponsor MPs and indeed vote on Labour policy, can you imagine if Waitrose sponsored a Tory MP?
Is Ed suggesting that companies cannot sponsor MPs?
The country has gone stark raving bonkers, it seems.
The UK faces many difficult issues. Whether MPs do or do not hold directorships (openly declared in the register of interests, like any other interest such as trade union sponsorship or income from TV shows) is not, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, one of them.
And if voters don't want MPs who have other interests, they can vote for professional politicians instead. It's not as though there is a shortage of the latter on offer.
What a load of tripe. Arguably this could mitigate against career politicians. People do a 5/10 years stint as an MP as a public service and then go back to the day job. Quite a few dinosaurs would have moved on by now for sure if they couldn't moonlight.
Given the difficult issues you raise, when they are actually an MP we want them to concentrate on the job.
There's rather issues with that as well, given that an awful lot of professions require you to maintain skills and knowledge which you can't do without maintaining a certain level of activity.
@Richard_Nabavi No, what is getting your "goat" is that you and your chums want to reprise the "benefits scum" meme, but you whine like whipped curs when your lifestyle choices are scrutinized.
No, they need to be helped to improve their health and their lives. You find this a difficult concept, I realise.
Spot on. After five years in power the Tories have sensitively raised the issue of depriving 1,780 obese people of some of their benefits. That we are just a couple of months from a general election is entirely coincidental.
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.
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
Indeed.
If you live in a flat in London, and hold a share of the Freehold, you're likely to be a Director of the company that owns it. I wonder how this will work for MPs?
Presumably it would also bar them from control of long established family businesses.
What is so bad about people having to make the choice between being an MP and having a directorship of a company?
You cant do both, as one might influence the other... wear it I say!
#prayforthedirectorswhocantbeMPs
Nigel Paul Farage, Director of Thorn in the Side Ltd, and The United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd.
Are we really to have a Parliament full of unemployables who nobody else wants?
Inevitably, that is where we're going to end up. A House of SPADS, social workers, lobbyists and fruitcakes and loons and probably a smattering of idealistic lawyers...
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.
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
Indeed.
If you live in a flat in London, and hold a share of the Freehold, you're likely to be a Director of the company that owns it. I wonder how this will work for MPs?
Presumably it would also bar them from control of long established family businesses.
What is so bad about people having to make the choice between being an MP and having a directorship of a company?
You cant do both, as one might influence the other... wear it I say!
#prayforthedirectorswhocantbeMPs
Nigel Paul Farage, Director of Thorn in the Side Ltd, and The United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd.
Quite a few dinosaurs would have moved on by now for sure if they couldn't moonlight.
And an even bigger number of the most talented MPs. After all, if they are talented, they'll soon be noticed by the head-hunters and enticed away. You'll soon be left only with the ones who are either mega-ambitious to become front-benchers, or who are so dull that no-one wants them. Just like a private firm which refuses pay rises to key staff.
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.
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
Indeed.
If you live in a flat in London, and hold a share of the Freehold, you're likely to be a Director of the company that owns it. I wonder how this will work for MPs?
Presumably it would also bar them from control of long established family businesses.
Don't worry - assuming this witch-hunt over nonsense on stilts is successful Ed will quietly forget it or water it down when in power. Anyway this is nothing new... absolutely nothing new. This line has been in the Labour/Socialist play book since the dawn of time. The only surprising thing is that some juveniles seem surprised. Trade Unions can sponsor MPs and indeed vote on Labour policy, can you imagine if Waitrose sponsored a Tory MP?
Is Ed suggesting that companies cannot sponsor MPs?
This Parliament is brought to you to by Gazprom - UEFA Champions League sponsors!
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.
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
Indeed.
If you live in a flat in London, and hold a share of the Freehold, you're likely to be a Director of the company that owns it. I wonder how this will work for MPs?
Presumably it would also bar them from control of long established family businesses.
What is so bad about people having to make the choice between being an MP and having a directorship of a company?
You cant do both, as one might influence the other... wear it I say!
#prayforthedirectorswhocantbeMPs
Nigel Paul Farage, Director of Thorn in the Side Ltd, and The United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd.
The country hasn't gone mad, it resents people like Rifkind in safe seats earning £800k over the last 5 years outside of parliament.
By the very nature of it being employment outside his salary as an MP, that 800k will all have been taxed at higher rate Income Tax. Rail agains the bastard all you like - but whilst doing it, tell the country how many nurses Rifkind paid for out of his tax on that 800k. Then see if folks still want to be herded onto the Outrage Bus....
You miss the point spectacularly, perhaps deliberately. 5 years ago Cameron said "we're all in this together" in that time Rifkind has earned as much as some will earn in their lifetime, assuming they left school 40 years ago.
He has earned and been taxed you twit. Where do you think the money comes from to pay nurses salaries?? So now we know - earning money is evil. Tell Mr Rooney and all his friends or Mr Redmayne. Or the director general of the BBC.
You twit?
This is so revealing, the absolute failure to grasp why Cameron's tories are so loathed outside of the home counties
@Richard_Nabavi No, what is getting your "goat" is that you and your chums want to reprise the "benefits scum" meme, but you whine like whipped curs when your lifestyle choices are scrutinized.
I fund my own lifestyle choices..so I control them. People whose lifestyleis funded by teh taxpayer always have a choice: choose their own lifestyle and pay for it themselves or have it funded with certain restrictions.
It's a matter of choice.
I recall going round a Manchester housing estate one spring three years ago and seeing all the drinking parties in gardens on working days.. paid for by the tax payers... And it was not a one off - went on for weeks...
I really don't think Parliament would be damaged that much if people who are only willing to work for more than £70,000 a year stop putting themselves forwards.
If anything, MPs' salaries should be cut a bit BUT with the money saved going to help new candidates with their election campaigns. THAT'S the problem that's making politics a rich man's profession, that you pretty much have to be wealthy to get into Parliament in the first place since usually to campaign successfully you will have to give up a "proper" job months/years in advance of the election, with no guarantee that you'll even get elected in the end anyway. But once you've actually got into Parliament, £67k is more than enough for anyone to live on.
The issue is not salaries, it is how putative MPs are selected. The games that are played make it very difficult for someone who has not spent many years in politics, or who is not very well connected, from becoming a candidate. There are many more than 650 talented, highly intelligent individuals out there who would sit in parliament for £67,000 plus expenses. Salary is no indicator of deep-seated wisdom.
Comments
Cretin.
https://targetjobs.co.uk/career-sectors/law-solicitors/310759-how-much-will-you-earn-as-a-trainee-solicitor
'No MP should have spare time if they do their job right.'
So if they are a minister they can't 'do their job right'
I can see why taking on a directorship of a company whilst an MP could lead to a conflict of interests. I am sure there are numerous examples of companies financing MPs for influence which is a bad thing
So I wouldn't say Directors of companies are evil anymore than anyone else, but they just cant be MP's
Seems to me a lot of people on here cant grasp the idea that MP's don't have to be wealthy private businessmen as well.
"All directors must be banned from being MPs" - is typical of the crass stupidity from Ed.
Cameron has again shown questionable judgment and a lack of political nous. Poor.
'I can see why taking on a directorship of a company whilst an MP could lead to a conflict of interests. I am sure there are numerous examples of companies financing MPs for influence which is a bad thing'
And an MP sponsored by a Trade Union is not trying to have an influence ?
If MPs can take on second jobs as Ministers without it affecting their ability to serve their constituents - why can't those outside of the Government payroll also use their time to follow second careers?
Will MPs be denied the right to write books during their period of office?
Will MPs be banned from writing articles for newspapers? Or banned from appearing in the media?
It is ludicrous to have formal restrictions as to how MPs use their time. It is, however, quite correct to ensure that all activities that MPs undertake do not conflict with their role as elected representatives.
The fact that Miliband can't see this says a lot more about him than he would like to admit.
You're both right, even though the link doesn't work... (SLackbladder)
Law pay varies. A LOT.
The UK faces many difficult issues. Whether MPs do or do not hold directorships (openly declared in the register of interests, like any other interest such as trade union sponsorship or income from TV shows) is not, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, one of them.
And if voters don't want MPs who have other interests, they can vote for professional politicians instead. It's not as though there is a shortage of the latter on offer.
There are plenty of good trainees and first year solicitors earning far more than that in London, regardless of 'family connections'.
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
Labour are led by an sanctimonious ****.
"The UK faces many difficult issues"
Obese people claiming benefits?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/02/boris-boards-plane-with-mysterious-blonde/
Thought not.
This is the most ridiculous argument even he has come up with. Every minister has a second job for which they are paid. Are we really to have a Parliament full of unemployables who nobody else wants?
I'd also entertain the idea of running, having a strong belief in public service at all levels (whether it is serving at Church, helping out at charity events or serving as an elected official). I run my own start-up, and although profits are up and down, the switch to PAYE means I would likely also lose out financially over the course of a parliament. I've always accepted that as a likelihood, but If there was a ban on second jobs, or taking any other directorships, I'd be very put off indeed. And no, not just because money is a personal motivator in and of itself, but more that it would seriously decrease the calibre of politics.
Stop these ridiculous comparisons to the average wage. Very, very few on an average wage would have the skill set required to hold down a job with terrible hours, lots of travel, which requires the PR capabilities of a savvy agent, the attention to detail of a decent corporate solicitor, the foresight of an entrepreneur or senior manager and the focus-flexibility of a management consultant working several projects simultaneously.
Just as there is now a creche/nursery in Westminster to help (mostly) increase the number of female MPs, lawmakers should be doing all they can to make it more attractive for the best and brightest of my generation to run, not less.
If you live in a flat in London, and hold a share of the Freehold, you're likely to be a Director of the company that owns it. I wonder how this will work for MPs?
Presumably it would also bar them from control of long established family businesses.
Seriously, who do you think you will kid with this nonsense?
"Stop these ridiculous comparisons to the average wage. Very, very few on an average wage would have the skill set required to hold down a job with terrible hours, lots of travel, which requires the PR capabilities of a savvy agent, the attention to detail of a decent corporate solicitor, the foresight of an entrepreneur or senior manager and the focus-flexibility of a management consultant working several projects simultaneously."
Have a word with yerself.
http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/office-of-gordon-sarah-brown/
Plus as far as I can see it's not a charity, but a company that pays tax on its profits.
So now we know - earning money is evil. Tell Mr Rooney and all his friends or Mr Redmayne. Or the director general of the BBC.
Only a matter of time ?
I may be wrong, but I don't think Ed is proposing that people with jobs should not be allowed to run for Parliament, just that they give up their positions should they succeed.
To the average man (IQ = 104) just having one job is struggle enough. And at 1/3rd this fabulous £67k/year level. Now all of a sudden these b******ds have two jobs.
I mean WTF???!!!
Great politics from Ed.
It is certainly a good argument that he is in effect being paid reciprocation for his decisions as a parliamentarian. This is part of the core problem with how this country is governed. Removing it, even if it is only a perception, is nothing but good for the country.
Ideally the restrictions on MPs earnings should extend well beyond their time as a public servant (possibly for life).
You cant do both, as one might influence the other... wear it I say!
#prayforthedirectorswhocantbeMPs
But what you can't do is use your status as an MP to take on new interests - or only after a period of time or within certain boundaries. What irks is not MPs having outside interests because in a lot of cases this may be helpful or worthwhile but MPs using their status as MPs to make money for themselves as if the point of being an MP is purely self-enrichment e.g. a la Straw / Rifkind etc.
It's all very well Milliband wanting to ban MP's holding Directorships and Consultancies, but lets face it the proposals should go further and include all second jobs, including those for Unions. A ban on paid TV work would be right too - can't have Broadcasters influencing law makers.
Con 32.5
in ELBOW so far this week (six polls).
(or 33.3 v 32.3 if you like simple averages).
Part of me really hopes Miliband wins and implements his lower sixth class-hatred politics. It will be a joy to watch his face as Ed Balls has to explain to him that because half a million of the highest tax-payers have now left the country, we can no longer afford the NHS. At all. Because they currently pay for it. All of it.
Why do Lefties like you hate cancer nurses so much that you want them to be laid off?
Your idea of "all in this together" is that we are all in the shit together. In thirteen years you went from a golden legacy economy to one trashed on all-time fecked up scale. And it is not hard to see why, when a man is reviled "for earning in five years what some will earn in their lifetime." In fact, it is bleeding obvious. Unless you really are so pig-shit dumb that you can't help miss the point.
"Perhaps I'm biased having seen at first hand the quality of SLab timeservers; dross pretty much covers it."
Perhaps you are but people who make sweeping generalizations like that don't usually have much to offer anyway. The only Scottish Labour MP I know works unbelievably hard and even just the travelling back and forward to Edinburgh would I suspect put him in a different bracket to you. Do YOU do anything useful?
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/02/15/tory-obesity-crackdown-would-hit-just-1-780-people
Nigel Paul Farage, Director of Thorn in the Side Ltd, and The United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd.
http://companycheck.co.uk/director/904320201
I guess he'll never be an MP, so it's irrelevant.
Anyway this is nothing new... absolutely nothing new. This line has been in the Labour/Socialist play book since the dawn of time. The only surprising thing is that some juveniles seem surprised. Trade Unions can sponsor MPs and indeed vote on Labour policy, can you imagine if Waitrose sponsored a Tory MP?
What about clappers and best boys ?
If anything, MPs' salaries should be cut a bit BUT with the money saved going to help new candidates with their election campaigns. THAT'S the problem that's making politics a rich man's profession, that you pretty much have to be wealthy to get into Parliament in the first place since usually to campaign successfully you will have to give up a "proper" job months/years in advance of the election, with no guarantee that you'll even get elected in the end anyway. But once you've actually got into Parliament, £67k is more than enough for anyone to live on.
The obese benefit claimants need disciplined, it is a major problem with the country.
Tax evaders are just misunderstood and should not be talked about?
Who cares if its to 'charity'? he does the work as an MP and Labour are happy for him to do that and still be an MP. 5 years globetrotting between 5 star hotels is OK if you are a socialist MP.
That's the reason we are in the mess we are.
"Dear old Glenda...completely bonkers...but we love her..."
Given the difficult issues you raise, when they are actually an MP we want them to concentrate on the job.
Austria bans foreign funding for imams and mosques:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31629543
No, what is getting your "goat" is that you and your chums want to reprise the "benefits scum" meme, but you whine like whipped curs when your lifestyle choices are scrutinized.
If he wants to be an MP, and he is big odds on to be one in May, then he cant be the director of a company in my book.. same for everyone
Aren't there any new polls we can talk about??
There is a wider issue about benefits and NHS spending on conditions caused by voluntary behaviour which is known to be harmful.
Pin head dancing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/04/nigel-farage-poor-ukip-_n_6267742.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/poor-nigel-farage-finds-it-hard-to-get-by-on-109000-a-year-plus-expenses-9901390.html
This has to be one of the most bravely mounted arguments on PB ever!
This is so revealing, the absolute failure to grasp why Cameron's tories are so loathed outside of the home counties
I fund my own lifestyle choices..so I control them. People whose lifestyleis funded by teh taxpayer always have a choice: choose their own lifestyle and pay for it themselves or have it funded with certain restrictions.
It's a matter of choice.
I recall going round a Manchester housing estate one spring three years ago and seeing all the drinking parties in gardens on working days.. paid for by the tax payers... And it was not a one off - went on for weeks...
For every £1 an MP earns beyond that their MPs salary is reduced by the same amount...
Happy Wednesdays