politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on MPs with 2 jobs

SystemSystem Posts: 11,685
edited February 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on MPs with 2 jobs

Marf on 2 job MPs pic.twitter.com/90nvhU5cEI

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,312
    Nice cartoon, Marf!

    Wonder how many MPs could moonlight as cartoonists.... :)
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,822
    Just looking into the Runes for tonight's YouGov...
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Nice cartoon, Marf!

    Wonder how many MPs could moonlight as cartoonists.... :)

    At least one:

    http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/Cheltenham-MP-Martin-Horwood-pens-cartoon-Echo/story-25838165-detail/story.html
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,312
    GIN1138 said:

    Just looking into the Runes for tonight's YouGov...

    So what do we reckon? Tory lead? Tie? Labour lead?
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,312
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Nice cartoon, Marf!

    Wonder how many MPs could moonlight as cartoonists.... :)

    At least one:

    http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/Cheltenham-MP-Martin-Horwood-pens-cartoon-Echo/story-25838165-detail/story.html
    Not bad at all!
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,930
    edited February 2015
    When I was eating lentil soup at Brighton Uni the lecturers there told the students that the American politicians that decided to invade Iraq all got a massive earner out of it as they had shares in Army equipment and bombmaking companies etc.. any truth in this?!
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited February 2015
    isam said:

    When I was eating lentil soup at Brighton Uni the lecturers there told the students that the American politicians that decided to invade Iraq all got a massive earner out of it as they had shares in Army equipment and bombmaking companies etc.. any truth in this?!

    Shares? At one point Dick Cheney WAS the Military Industrial Complex. Ever heard of Halliburton?

    That's him that is.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wow. Are you seriously arguing that the Commons is currently stuffed full of talent that would otherwise be lured away?

    Yes, certainly I'm arguing that. I mean, you are clearly someone of great talent, but even you didn't make the grade!
    The idea that the current HOC represents the best this country has to offer or even just "great talent" is patently absurd.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,307
    Is there not an argument that MPs should be required to have a second job? Ministers etc could be exempt and so could Chairman of committees who want to be. Every other MP should be required to have some contact with the real world (and for the avoidance of doubt that would not include working for a political party). It would make the House a better place.

    My MP, Jim McGovern, has no entries in the Register of Members interests. Why am I not surprised?

    Also has Boris thought this through? If Ed actually brought this nonsense into force he could face a horrendous fall in his income.
  • Options
    richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Isam...you could afford soup at Uni...Luxury
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Nice cartoon, Marf!

    Wonder how many MPs could moonlight as cartoonists.... :)

    At least one:

    http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/Cheltenham-MP-Martin-Horwood-pens-cartoon-Echo/story-25838165-detail/story.html
    Hat off to Martin Horwood - he's really rather good.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    F1: Manor have named Will Stevens, British chap, as their first driver.

    Force India reveal first image of their new car:
    http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12477/9731509/force-india-belatedly-reveal-vjm08-car-ahead-of-debut-at-final-barcelona-test

    Livery's nice, but hard to tell what the front wing's like, or the width of the sidepods (Sauber's are a bit chunky, most others are slimmed down).
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,946
    FPT

    -
    Dair said:
    » show previous quotes
    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?
    -


    It is amazing what you emerges over a period of time in normal society if you:

    A) care about people and are able to talk to them and maintain friendships
    B)...no, just A)

  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    DavidL said:

    Is there not an argument that MPs should be required to have a second job? Ministers etc could be exempt and so could Chairman of committees who want to be. Every other MP should be required to have some contact with the real world (and for the avoidance of doubt that would not include working for a political party). It would make the House a better place.

    My MP, Jim McGovern, has no entries in the Register of Members interests. Why am I not surprised?

    Also has Boris thought this through? If Ed actually brought this nonsense into force he could face a horrendous fall in his income.

    How does Boris's job as a newspaper columnist give him contact with the real world?

    Diligent MPs who do regular surgeries and get out into their constituencies surely see a lot more of the real world than most of us on here.

  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    Jonathan said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wow. Are you seriously arguing that the Commons is currently stuffed full of talent that would otherwise be lured away?

    Yes, certainly I'm arguing that. I mean, you are clearly someone of great talent, but even you didn't make the grade!
    The idea that the current HOC represents the best this country has to offer or even just "great talent" is patently absurd.

    Of course it is. As is the idea that someone's salary is an indicator of their intelligence and wisdom.

  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    DavidL said:

    Is there not an argument that MPs should be required to have a second job? Ministers etc could be exempt and so could Chairman of committees who want to be. Every other MP should be required to have some contact with the real world (and for the avoidance of doubt that would not include working for a political party). It would make the House a better place.

    My MP, Jim McGovern, has no entries in the Register of Members interests. Why am I not surprised?

    Also has Boris thought this through? If Ed actually brought this nonsense into force he could face a horrendous fall in his income.

    From Wiki citingfrom the Telegraph: -

    "McGovern lost his appeal against the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority's rejection of a £23.90 single rail ticket from Dundee to Glasgow in April 2013.[3] The Sunday Herald reported that Parliamentary authorities determined that the detour was unconnected to McGovern's official work as an MP. He had been attending a Labour Party event in Glasgow. IPSA revealed that its bill for defending against McGovern's appeal was £27,000, to be met by the taxpayers."

    Cream of the crop.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    isam said:

    When I was eating lentil soup at Brighton Uni the lecturers there told the students that the American politicians that decided to invade Iraq all got a massive earner out of it as they had shares in Army equipment and bombmaking companies etc.. any truth in this?!

    I suspect that if you looked at the CVs of the lecturers you might find a slight left-wing bias. i.e. inherently against the USA.

    However we were all young once, so I assume you learned cynicism after leaving Uni.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Just looking into the Runes for tonight's YouGov...

    So what do we reckon? Tory lead? Tie? Labour lead?
    I am 100% certain that one of your options will be correct.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    edited February 2015
    F1: for those wondering, the enormo-haddock blog will roar back to life shortly after the final test, with a pre-season piece of pondering prior to the first pre-qualifying prognostications of the year.

    Be interesting to see how Manor and Force India get on.

    Edited extra bit: for those wanting a refresher, check my post-season review of 2014, including a lovely graph:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/2014-f1-season-review.html
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Dair said:

    DavidL said:

    Is there not an argument that MPs should be required to have a second job? Ministers etc could be exempt and so could Chairman of committees who want to be. Every other MP should be required to have some contact with the real world (and for the avoidance of doubt that would not include working for a political party). It would make the House a better place.

    My MP, Jim McGovern, has no entries in the Register of Members interests. Why am I not surprised?

    Also has Boris thought this through? If Ed actually brought this nonsense into force he could face a horrendous fall in his income.

    From Wiki citingfrom the Telegraph: -

    "McGovern lost his appeal against the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority's rejection of a £23.90 single rail ticket from Dundee to Glasgow in April 2013.[3] The Sunday Herald reported that Parliamentary authorities determined that the detour was unconnected to McGovern's official work as an MP. He had been attending a Labour Party event in Glasgow. IPSA revealed that its bill for defending against McGovern's appeal was £27,000, to be met by the taxpayers."

    Cream of the crop.
    Why didn't they charge him costs?

    And who the f*ck authorised that expenditure by IPSA's lawyers?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,311
    edited February 2015
    Jonathan said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wow. Are you seriously arguing that the Commons is currently stuffed full of talent that would otherwise be lured away?

    Yes, certainly I'm arguing that. I mean, you are clearly someone of great talent, but even you didn't make the grade!
    The idea that the current HOC represents the best this country has to offer or even just "great talent" is patently absurd.
    No but here's the thing.

    You could become an MP.

    Yes, you.

    It is one of the few professions where no formal qualifications are required. Just the intent.

    So if you (or anyone, Guardian blogger, Daily Mail commentator, Sun editorial writer) have a problem - then go for it. Get involved.

    Complaining about MPs is like that old joke about the guy who travels by train to see a friend. When he gets there the friend asks how the journey was and the guy says - dreadful I had to sit facing backwards the whole way and that always makes me feel sick. The friend asks why he didn't ask the person sitting opposite him facing forwards if they would mind swapping and the guy says - that was the worst bit...there was no one sitting opposite me...
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited February 2015
    Jonathan said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wow. Are you seriously arguing that the Commons is currently stuffed full of talent that would otherwise be lured away?

    Yes, certainly I'm arguing that. I mean, you are clearly someone of great talent, but even you didn't make the grade!
    The idea that the current HOC represents the best this country has to offer or even just "great talent" is patently absurd.
    Not quite as absurd as your comment the previous thread

    In any event i doubt the HOC has ever represented the best we have .
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Mortimer said:

    FPT

    -
    Dair said:
    » show previous quotes
    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?
    -


    It is amazing what you emerges over a period of time in normal society if you:

    A) care about people and are able to talk to them and maintain friendships
    B)...no, just A)

    Yet it is nonsense.

    There are plenty of studies which show the average peer group is less than 12 people. The idea anyone on earth has a peer group of 300 is completely ridiculous.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    weejonnie said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Just looking into the Runes for tonight's YouGov...

    So what do we reckon? Tory lead? Tie? Labour lead?
    I am 100% certain that one of your options will be correct.
    There's a small but non-zero chance that UKIP will be in the lead. So you shouldn't be ;)
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    SquareRoot said:

    Jonathan said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wow. Are you seriously arguing that the Commons is currently stuffed full of talent that would otherwise be lured away?

    Yes, certainly I'm arguing that. I mean, you are clearly someone of great talent, but even you didn't make the grade!
    The idea that the current HOC represents the best this country has to offer or even just "great talent" is patently absurd.
    Not quite as absurd as your comment the previous thread

    In any event i doubt the HOC has ever represented the best we have .
    Which is why RIchard's original point is so amazingly daft.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,930
    edited February 2015
    weejonnie said:

    isam said:

    When I was eating lentil soup at Brighton Uni the lecturers there told the students that the American politicians that decided to invade Iraq all got a massive earner out of it as they had shares in Army equipment and bombmaking companies etc.. any truth in this?!

    I suspect that if you looked at the CVs of the lecturers you might find a slight left-wing bias. i.e. inherently against the USA.

    However we were all young once, so I assume you learned cynicism after leaving Uni.
    I went when I was 35!

    Had a row, left after a year

    Went in a Labour voter, left a UKIP member.. the bias was so extreme as to be sickening
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    TOPPING said:

    Jonathan said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wow. Are you seriously arguing that the Commons is currently stuffed full of talent that would otherwise be lured away?

    Yes, certainly I'm arguing that. I mean, you are clearly someone of great talent, but even you didn't make the grade!
    The idea that the current HOC represents the best this country has to offer or even just "great talent" is patently absurd.
    No but here's the thing.

    You could become an MP.

    Yes, you.

    It is one of the few professions where no formal qualifications are required. Just the intent.

    So if you (or anyone, Guardian blogger, Daily Mail commentator, Sun editorial writer) have a problem - then go for it. Get involved.

    Complaining about MPs is like that old joke about the guy who travels by train to see a friend. When he gets there the friend asks how the journey was and the guy says - dreadful I had to sit facing backwards the whole way and that always makes me feel sick. The friend asks why he didn't ask the person sitting opposite him facing forwards if they would mind swapping and the guy says - that was the worst bit...there was no one sitting opposite me...
    Er, I wasn't complaining. I was just disagreeing with Richard's comment that the HOC is so stuffed full of talent that you need second salaries to ward off the endless queues of headhunters.
  • Options
    marf_the_cartoonistmarf_the_cartoonist Posts: 27
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Nice cartoon, Marf!

    Wonder how many MPs could moonlight as cartoonists.... :)

    At least one:

    http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/Cheltenham-MP-Martin-Horwood-pens-cartoon-Echo/story-25838165-detail/story.html
    Thank you for this link, Richard. I hadn't seen it. I think what he drew was very touching and original. I hope he goes back to cartooning one day. Funnily enough, I might be moving to a town near Cheltenham. So pleased my future local MP is a cartoonist! How perfect.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,946
    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:

    FPT

    -
    Dair said:
    » show previous quotes
    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?
    -


    It is amazing what you emerges over a period of time in normal society if you:

    A) care about people and are able to talk to them and maintain friendships
    B)...no, just A)

    Yet it is nonsense.

    There are plenty of studies which show the average peer group is less than 12 people. The idea anyone on earth has a peer group of 300 is completely ridiculous.
    What rot.

    I've worked on projects where I would daily talk, eat, have coffees, meet with at least 50 people of my age group, socio economic background and similar skill set.

    I studied at a college where I would on a daily basis work, eat, chat, have a beer with 100 or more people within 3 years of me.

    Facebook started in the UK about 6 months before I went to Oxford, and I'm therefore still decently in touch with just about anyone I ever had a meaningful conversation with whilst there. Add in linkedin and I have a decent idea of what they're earning...


  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Charles said:

    Dair said:

    DavidL said:

    Is there not an argument that MPs should be required to have a second job? Ministers etc could be exempt and so could Chairman of committees who want to be. Every other MP should be required to have some contact with the real world (and for the avoidance of doubt that would not include working for a political party). It would make the House a better place.

    My MP, Jim McGovern, has no entries in the Register of Members interests. Why am I not surprised?

    Also has Boris thought this through? If Ed actually brought this nonsense into force he could face a horrendous fall in his income.

    From Wiki citingfrom the Telegraph: -

    "McGovern lost his appeal against the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority's rejection of a £23.90 single rail ticket from Dundee to Glasgow in April 2013.[3] The Sunday Herald reported that Parliamentary authorities determined that the detour was unconnected to McGovern's official work as an MP. He had been attending a Labour Party event in Glasgow. IPSA revealed that its bill for defending against McGovern's appeal was £27,000, to be met by the taxpayers."

    Cream of the crop.
    Why didn't they charge him costs?

    And who the f*ck authorised that expenditure by IPSA's lawyers?
    The expenditure also points to the fact that MPs are not particularly over paid and that the IPSA's staff are rather under qualified with parhaps rather too much time on their hands.
    This issue is just another opportunity for another mindless anti politics rant from a bunch of people sadly in need of a life.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    isam said:

    weejonnie said:

    isam said:

    When I was eating lentil soup at Brighton Uni the lecturers there told the students that the American politicians that decided to invade Iraq all got a massive earner out of it as they had shares in Army equipment and bombmaking companies etc.. any truth in this?!

    I suspect that if you looked at the CVs of the lecturers you might find a slight left-wing bias. i.e. inherently against the USA.

    However we were all young once, so I assume you learned cynicism after leaving Uni.
    I went when I was 35!

    Had a row, left after a year

    Went in a Labour voter, left a UKIP member.. the bias was so extreme as to be sickening
    As a PB Tory in academia, I can confirm this!
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Looks like Andy Burnham isn't happy with Labour Manchester for teaming up with GO to devolve NHS affairs to Manchester...

    Popcorn.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,307
    Just watching William Hague demolish labours second job debate with enormous humour and incredulity.
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited February 2015
    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:

    FPT

    -
    Dair said:
    » show previous quotes
    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?
    -


    It is amazing what you emerges over a period of time in normal society if you:

    A) care about people and are able to talk to them and maintain friendships
    B)...no, just A)

    Yet it is nonsense.

    There are plenty of studies which show the average peer group is less than 12 people. The idea anyone on earth has a peer group of 300 is completely ridiculous.
    What rot.

    I've worked on projects where I would daily talk, eat, have coffees, meet with at least 50 people of my age group, socio economic background and similar skill set.

    I studied at a college where I would on a daily basis work, eat, chat, have a beer with 100 or more people within 3 years of me.

    Facebook started in the UK about 6 months before I went to Oxford, and I'm therefore still decently in touch with just about anyone I ever had a meaningful conversation with whilst there. Add in linkedin and I have a decent idea of what they're earning...
    Why continue the lie?

    I'm sure you felt it sounded quite impressive when you decided to invent the claim for your appeal to numbers. But it's still demonstrably false. You can meet thousands of people but your peer group at any one time will still never grow much higher than 20, and as stated, the average is below 12.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,358
    BBC headline news. Why is the government tinkering with the NHS barely 80 days from a general election?

    Regardless of its merits, it doesn't seem like smart politics to me.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31615218
  • Options
    Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    I see no votes on the 2x MP job .... navel gazing...
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Casino_Royale said:

    BBC headline news. Why is the government tinkering with the NHS barely 80 days from a general election?

    Regardless of its merits, it doesn't seem like smart politics to me.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31615218

    Not really - just the ownership of the budget being devolved.

    "Greater Manchester is to become the first English region to get full control of its health spending, as part of an extension of devolved powers.

    Chancellor George Osborne said the £6bn health and social care budget would be taken over by the region's councils and health groups."
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Casino_Royale said:

    BBC headline news. Why is the government tinkering with the NHS barely 80 days from a general election?

    Regardless of its merits, it doesn't seem like smart politics to me.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31615218

    The locals seem to like it -

    Councillor Mike Connolly, Labour leader of Bury Council, said: "Those decisions need to be made in Greater Manchester and not Westminster, and I welcome any form of devolution to the city region.

    "We are all agreed, certainly in the Labour Party, that health and social care must be integrated because it's about providing that primary care - and it can only be good for healthcare across Greater Manchester."
  • Options
    ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 896
    The locals in Manchester have been desperate for devolved powers on numerous issues, this will go down well here.

    Forget your EVEL stuff though, Manc MPs are now similar to Welsh and Scottish ones.
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Casino_Royale said:

    BBC headline news. Why is the government tinkering with the NHS barely 80 days from a general election?

    Regardless of its merits, it doesn't seem like smart politics to me.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31615218

    Just the Tories setting up another trap for Labour - not quite as good a trap as Better Together but still quite a nice one.

    You can just picture the local grandees of Manchester Labour salivating at all the committee and oversight jobs they can award to their members and family members on six figure sums.

    Meanwhile the Tories will get another Labour NHS to whack Andy Burnham over the head with "just LOOK at those appalling A&E times in Labour run Manchester NHS".
  • Options
    marf_the_cartoonistmarf_the_cartoonist Posts: 27
    Wish me luck.

    It's a fantastic film, by the way, if you get the chance to see it. I just watched it, and will see it again tonight.

    http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=312cf720117fac1051bd1afe6&id=3636363411&e=3a59b60940
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    "Political/social affairs editor for the Manchester Evening News" tweets :

    Jennifer Williams ‏@JenWilliamsMEN 8m8 minutes ago
    @davidottewell @DPJHodges but it seems to be Andy Burnham and Ed Balls who are upset. GM MPs perfectly happy

  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    TheWatcher said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    BBC headline news. Why is the government tinkering with the NHS barely 80 days from a general election?

    Regardless of its merits, it doesn't seem like smart politics to me.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31615218

    The locals seem to like it -

    Councillor Mike Connolly, Labour leader of Bury Council, said: "Those decisions need to be made in Greater Manchester and not Westminster, and I welcome any form of devolution to the city region.

    "We are all agreed, certainly in the Labour Party, that health and social care must be integrated because it's about providing that primary care - and it can only be good for healthcare across Greater Manchester."
    Did he add "and my wife needs a second part time job on £50k a year on the oversight committee" ?
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,946
    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:

    FPT

    -
    Dair said:
    » show previous quotes
    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?
    -


    It is amazing what you emerges over a period of time in normal society if you:

    A) care about people and are able to talk to them and maintain friendships
    B)...no, just A)

    Yet it is nonsense.

    There are plenty of studies which show the average peer group is less than 12 people. The idea anyone on earth has a peer group of 300 is completely ridiculous.
    What rot.

    I've worked on projects where I would daily talk, eat, have coffees, meet with at least 50 people of my age group, socio economic background and similar skill set.

    I studied at a college where I would on a daily basis work, eat, chat, have a beer with 100 or more people within 3 years of me.

    Facebook started in the UK about 6 months before I went to Oxford, and I'm therefore still decently in touch with just about anyone I ever had a meaningful conversation with whilst there. Add in linkedin and I have a decent idea of what they're earning...
    Why continue the lie?

    I'm sure you felt it sounded quite impressive when you decided to invent the claim for your appeal to numbers. But it's still demonstrably false. You can meet thousands of people but your peer group at any one time will still never grow much higher than 20, and as stated, the average is below 12.
    Why do you think you, and a study you've read (and potentially misunderstood or misapplied) know more about my friends and acquaintances than I do?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,358
    Dair said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    BBC headline news. Why is the government tinkering with the NHS barely 80 days from a general election?

    Regardless of its merits, it doesn't seem like smart politics to me.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31615218

    Just the Tories setting up another trap for Labour - not quite as good a trap as Better Together but still quite a nice one.

    You can just picture the local grandees of Manchester Labour salivating at all the committee and oversight jobs they can award to their members and family members on six figure sums.

    Meanwhile the Tories will get another Labour NHS to whack Andy Burnham over the head with "just LOOK at those appalling A&E times in Labour run Manchester NHS".
    No. The Tories never win on the NHS. When it's in the news, Labour benefit.

    The best they can do is neutralise it as an election issue.
  • Options
    ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 896
    Dair said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    BBC headline news. Why is the government tinkering with the NHS barely 80 days from a general election?

    Regardless of its merits, it doesn't seem like smart politics to me.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31615218

    Just the Tories setting up another trap for Labour - not quite as good a trap as Better Together but still quite a nice one.

    You can just picture the local grandees of Manchester Labour salivating at all the committee and oversight jobs they can award to their members and family members on six figure sums.

    Meanwhile the Tories will get another Labour NHS to whack Andy Burnham over the head with "just LOOK at those appalling A&E times in Labour run Manchester NHS".
    Think you're highlighting your total lack of awareness of how Greater Manchester local politics has worked for the last 25 years.

    This is the inevitable consequence of AGMA which dates back to 1986.
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:


    Why continue the lie?

    I'm sure you felt it sounded quite impressive when you decided to invent the claim for your appeal to numbers. But it's still demonstrably false. You can meet thousands of people but your peer group at any one time will still never grow much higher than 20, and as stated, the average is below 12.

    Why do you think you, and a study you've read (and potentially misunderstood or misapplied) know more about my friends and acquaintances than I do?
    Because empirical studies and human sociology are pretty well understood.

    Interestingly, another of the consistent results of peer group studies is that people massively over-estimate the size of their own peer group.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited February 2015
    Any ONLINE betting markets on Kensington selection ?

    can't find the ladbrokes one..
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,358
    TGOHF said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    BBC headline news. Why is the government tinkering with the NHS barely 80 days from a general election?

    Regardless of its merits, it doesn't seem like smart politics to me.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31615218

    Not really - just the ownership of the budget being devolved.

    "Greater Manchester is to become the first English region to get full control of its health spending, as part of an extension of devolved powers.

    Chancellor George Osborne said the £6bn health and social care budget would be taken over by the region's councils and health groups."
    Tories. Changing something about NHS. Headline news. Words like 'reorganisation' and 'big change' pop up in it. Labour will misrepresent and weaponise. Labour will win the politics. And may even increase poll share.

    Noone will care about or notice the details. The best thing the Tories can do is keep the NHS entirely out of the news and steer debate onto the economy. This is stupid.

    Unless of course Osborne has concluded he won't win anyway and is just trying to make as many reforms he can in the little time he has left before the election. Which is in itself interesting.
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:


    Why continue the lie?

    I'm sure you felt it sounded quite impressive when you decided to invent the claim for your appeal to numbers. But it's still demonstrably false. You can meet thousands of people but your peer group at any one time will still never grow much higher than 20, and as stated, the average is below 12.

    Why do you think you, and a study you've read (and potentially misunderstood or misapplied) know more about my friends and acquaintances than I do?
    Because empirical studies and human sociology are pretty well understood.

    Interestingly, another of the consistent results of peer group studies is that people massively over-estimate the size of their own peer group.

    You both probably need to provide your definition of "peer group".

  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    ManchesterKurt said:

    Dair said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    BBC headline news. Why is the government tinkering with the NHS barely 80 days from a general election?

    Regardless of its merits, it doesn't seem like smart politics to me.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31615218

    Just the Tories setting up another trap for Labour - not quite as good a trap as Better Together but still quite a nice one.

    You can just picture the local grandees of Manchester Labour salivating at all the committee and oversight jobs they can award to their members and family members on six figure sums.

    Meanwhile the Tories will get another Labour NHS to whack Andy Burnham over the head with "just LOOK at those appalling A&E times in Labour run Manchester NHS".
    Think you're highlighting your total lack of awareness of how Greater Manchester local politics has worked for the last 25 years.

    This is the inevitable consequence of AGMA which dates back to 1986.
    You mean the loose association of the successor councils to the former Unitary authority? This seems to be irrelevant.

    I'm basing it on how Labour treat their permanent fiefdoms as a local trough for party apparatchiks and family members. If I'm wrong feel free to correct me but I don't see any reason to see why Labour in Manchester would operate any differently to Labour in Glasgow.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Casino_Royale said:

    TGOHF said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    BBC headline news. Why is the government tinkering with the NHS barely 80 days from a general election?

    Regardless of its merits, it doesn't seem like smart politics to me.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31615218

    Not really - just the ownership of the budget being devolved.

    "Greater Manchester is to become the first English region to get full control of its health spending, as part of an extension of devolved powers.

    Chancellor George Osborne said the £6bn health and social care budget would be taken over by the region's councils and health groups."
    Tories. Changing something about NHS. Headline news. Words like 'reorganisation' and 'big change' pop up in it. Labour will misrepresent and weaponise. Labour will win the politics. And may even increase poll share.

    Noone will care about or notice the details. The best thing the Tories can do is keep the NHS entirely out of the news and steer debate onto the economy. This is stupid.

    Unless of course Osborne has concluded he won't win anyway and is just trying to make as many reforms he can in the little time he has left before the election. Which is in itself interesting.
    As the poster from Manchester said - it will be popular in Manchester - adjust your constituency voting appropriately.

    Plus Labour will have to come out and moan against regional devolution - their fix for EVEL lies in tatters.
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    MarkHopkins said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:


    Why continue the lie?

    I'm sure you felt it sounded quite impressive when you decided to invent the claim for your appeal to numbers. But it's still demonstrably false. You can meet thousands of people but your peer group at any one time will still never grow much higher than 20, and as stated, the average is below 12.

    Why do you think you, and a study you've read (and potentially misunderstood or misapplied) know more about my friends and acquaintances than I do?
    Because empirical studies and human sociology are pretty well understood.

    Interestingly, another of the consistent results of peer group studies is that people massively over-estimate the size of their own peer group.

    You both probably need to provide your definition of "peer group".

    A social peer group is the group of individuals to which you have a good degree of personal knowledge. His original claim was that he knew 300 peoples salary levels and inclination to be an MP. This would seem to fit well with the way a social peer group is defined (in terms of Salary level, it almost certainly goes well beyond the necessary definition).
  • Options
    ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 896
    Dair said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    BBC headline news. Why is the government tinkering with the NHS barely 80 days from a general election?

    Regardless of its merits, it doesn't seem like smart politics to me.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31615218

    Just the Tories setting up another trap for Labour - not quite as good a trap as Better Together but still quite a nice one.

    You can just picture the local grandees of Manchester Labour salivating at all the committee and oversight jobs they can award to their members and family members on six figure sums.

    Meanwhile the Tories will get another Labour NHS to whack Andy Burnham over the head with "just LOOK at those appalling A&E times in Labour run Manchester NHS".
    And do Tories salivate at the prospect of well paid jobs being carried out in the south east in their heart lands giving jobs to their public school chums so they can make all the decisions about northern cities hundreds of miles from those who know what's best for them?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    Just saw the point of order where one MP was recorded as voting 'No' despite being a teller for 'Aye'... a bit shocking!
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,930
    GOsborneGenius (@GOsborneGenius)
    25/02/2015 12:37
    @matthancockmp Look at yourself during PMQ's, ugliness personified
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    ManchesterKurt said:

    Dair said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    BBC headline news. Why is the government tinkering with the NHS barely 80 days from a general election?

    Regardless of its merits, it doesn't seem like smart politics to me.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31615218

    Just the Tories setting up another trap for Labour - not quite as good a trap as Better Together but still quite a nice one.

    You can just picture the local grandees of Manchester Labour salivating at all the committee and oversight jobs they can award to their members and family members on six figure sums.

    Meanwhile the Tories will get another Labour NHS to whack Andy Burnham over the head with "just LOOK at those appalling A&E times in Labour run Manchester NHS".
    And do Tories salivate at the prospect of well paid jobs being carried out in the south east in their heart lands giving jobs to their public school chums so they can make all the decisions about northern cities hundreds of miles from those who know what's best for them?
    In terms of screwing the system for all they can personally gain from it, I suspect the Tories sights are set much higher.
  • Options
    ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 896
    TGOHF said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    TGOHF said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    BBC headline news. Why is the government tinkering with the NHS barely 80 days from a general election?

    Regardless of its merits, it doesn't seem like smart politics to me.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31615218

    Not really - just the ownership of the budget being devolved.

    "Greater Manchester is to become the first English region to get full control of its health spending, as part of an extension of devolved powers.

    Chancellor George Osborne said the £6bn health and social care budget would be taken over by the region's councils and health groups."
    Tories. Changing something about NHS. Headline news. Words like 'reorganisation' and 'big change' pop up in it. Labour will misrepresent and weaponise. Labour will win the politics. And may even increase poll share.

    Noone will care about or notice the details. The best thing the Tories can do is keep the NHS entirely out of the news and steer debate onto the economy. This is stupid.

    Unless of course Osborne has concluded he won't win anyway and is just trying to make as many reforms he can in the little time he has left before the election. Which is in itself interesting.
    As the poster from Manchester said - it will be popular in Manchester - adjust your constituency voting appropriately.

    Plus Labour will have to come out and moan against regional devolution - their fix for EVEL lies in tatters.
    EVEL cannot work, Manchester and London MPs are akin to Scottish and Welsh MPs to varying degrees.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    edited February 2015
    isam said:

    GOsborneGenius (@GOsborneGenius)
    25/02/2015 12:37
    @matthancockmp Look at yourself during PMQ's, ugliness personified

    Why is this being posted here? It's only an insult about someones looks.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    RobD said:

    isam said:

    GOsborneGenius (@GOsborneGenius)
    25/02/2015 12:37
    @matthancockmp Look at yourself during PMQ's, ugliness personified

    Why is this being posted here? It's only an insult about someones looks.
    Kipper humour I think ? Dunno.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    isam said:

    GOsborneGenius (@GOsborneGenius)
    25/02/2015 12:37
    @matthancockmp Look at yourself during PMQ's, ugliness personified <

    Ukip the real nasty party.

  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,047
    SouthamObserver said:

    Jonathan said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wow. Are you seriously arguing that the Commons is currently stuffed full of talent that would otherwise be lured away?

    Yes, certainly I'm arguing that. I mean, you are clearly someone of great talent, but even you didn't make the grade!
    The idea that the current HOC represents the best this country has to offer or even just "great talent" is patently absurd.

    Of course it is. As is the idea that someone's salary is an indicator of their intelligence and wisdom.

    It would be interesting to know what the average salary is on pb. I get the feeling it's fairly high. If it's not intelligence or wisdom what is that leads someone to a high salary. Background will certainly play a part but some people just seem to have a drive to make money and be high earners in the way that others don't. And be happy with jobs that others might find boring. Maybe I'm just comforting myself as an underachiever that I could do it if I really wanted to.
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    isam said:

    GOsborneGenius (@GOsborneGenius)
    25/02/2015 12:37
    @matthancockmp Look at yourself during PMQ's, ugliness personified

    Why is this being posted here? It's only an insult about someones looks.
    Kipper humour I think ? Dunno.
    It's just a bit of banter.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @DPJHodges: Andy Burnham says he will scrap Manchester NHS devolution. http://t.co/cgmZFj50fg
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    ManchesterKurt said:

    TGOHF said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    TGOHF said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    BBC headline news. Why is the government tinkering with the NHS barely 80 days from a general election?

    Regardless of its merits, it doesn't seem like smart politics to me.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31615218

    Not really - just the ownership of the budget being devolved.

    "Greater Manchester is to become the first English region to get full control of its health spending, as part of an extension of devolved powers.

    Chancellor George Osborne said the £6bn health and social care budget would be taken over by the region's councils and health groups."
    Tories. Changing something about NHS. Headline news. Words like 'reorganisation' and 'big change' pop up in it. Labour will misrepresent and weaponise. Labour will win the politics. And may even increase poll share.

    Noone will care about or notice the details. The best thing the Tories can do is keep the NHS entirely out of the news and steer debate onto the economy. This is stupid.

    Unless of course Osborne has concluded he won't win anyway and is just trying to make as many reforms he can in the little time he has left before the election. Which is in itself interesting.
    As the poster from Manchester said - it will be popular in Manchester - adjust your constituency voting appropriately.

    Plus Labour will have to come out and moan against regional devolution - their fix for EVEL lies in tatters.
    EVEL cannot work, Manchester and London MPs are akin to Scottish and Welsh MPs to varying degrees.
    MEN now has Burnham saying he will scrap this devolution if Labour get in in May.

  • Options
    nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    isam said:

    weejonnie said:

    isam said:

    When I was eating lentil soup at Brighton Uni the lecturers there told the students that the American politicians that decided to invade Iraq all got a massive earner out of it as they had shares in Army equipment and bombmaking companies etc.. any truth in this?!

    I suspect that if you looked at the CVs of the lecturers you might find a slight left-wing bias. i.e. inherently against the USA.

    However we were all young once, so I assume you learned cynicism after leaving Uni.
    I went when I was 35!

    Had a row, left after a year

    Went in a Labour voter, left a UKIP member.. the bias was so extreme as to be sickening
    You are Micky Flanagan and I claim my £5
  • Options
    Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:


    Why continue the lie?

    I'm sure you felt it sounded quite impressive when you decided to invent the claim for your appeal to numbers. But it's still demonstrably false. You can meet thousands of people but your peer group at any one time will still never grow much higher than 20, and as stated, the average is below 12.

    Why do you think you, and a study you've read (and potentially misunderstood or misapplied) know more about my friends and acquaintances than I do?
    Because empirical studies and human sociology are pretty well understood.

    Interestingly, another of the consistent results of peer group studies is that people massively over-estimate the size of their own peer group.
    The claim was:

    "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."

    I find that entirely credible. I'd say 150 myself, but I don't get out much. I certainly wouldn't call the poster "a liar" if I thought it looked on the high side, nor make the ludicrous equation that peer group=people concerning whom one can estimate their likely wish to become an MP.

    I assume that you are a passionate warmist on the basis of Ther Science, and have fewer than 12 friends.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Apparently Ed Miliband has been airbrushed out of Labour's PPB tonight
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited February 2015
    Johnson to stand in Kensington !

  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited February 2015
    TGOHF said:

    ManchesterKurt said:

    TGOHF said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    TGOHF said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    BBC headline news. Why is the government tinkering with the NHS barely 80 days from a general election?

    Regardless of its merits, it doesn't seem like smart politics to me.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-31615218

    Not really - just the ownership of the budget being devolved.

    "Greater Manchester is to become the first English region to get full control of its health spending, as part of an extension of devolved powers.

    Chancellor George Osborne said the £6bn health and social care budget would be taken over by the region's councils and health groups."
    Tories. Changing something about NHS. Headline news. Words like 'reorganisation' and 'big change' pop up in it. Labour will misrepresent and weaponise. Labour will win the politics. And may even increase poll share.

    Noone will care about or notice the details. The best thing the Tories can do is keep the NHS entirely out of the news and steer debate onto the economy. This is stupid.

    Unless of course Osborne has concluded he won't win anyway and is just trying to make as many reforms he can in the little time he has left before the election. Which is in itself interesting.
    As the poster from Manchester said - it will be popular in Manchester - adjust your constituency voting appropriately.

    Plus Labour will have to come out and moan against regional devolution - their fix for EVEL lies in tatters.
    EVEL cannot work, Manchester and London MPs are akin to Scottish and Welsh MPs to varying degrees.
    MEN now has Burnham saying he will scrap this devolution if Labour get in in May.

    Oh dear.

    Labour don't want anyone to have local control over health budgets.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    TGOHF said:

    Johnson to stand in Kensington !

    What??
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    Johnson to stand in Kensington !

    What??
    I suspect that the denouement is going to involve a first name that is not Boris.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    Johnson to stand in Kensington !

    What??
    Rachel - according to Evening Standard and Andrew Pierce..
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Charles said:

    Dair said:

    DavidL said:

    Is there not an argument that MPs should be required to have a second job? Ministers etc could be exempt and so could Chairman of committees who want to be. Every other MP should be required to have some contact with the real world (and for the avoidance of doubt that would not include working for a political party). It would make the House a better place.

    My MP, Jim McGovern, has no entries in the Register of Members interests. Why am I not surprised?

    Also has Boris thought this through? If Ed actually brought this nonsense into force he could face a horrendous fall in his income.

    From Wiki citingfrom the Telegraph: -

    "McGovern lost his appeal against the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority's rejection of a £23.90 single rail ticket from Dundee to Glasgow in April 2013.[3] The Sunday Herald reported that Parliamentary authorities determined that the detour was unconnected to McGovern's official work as an MP. He had been attending a Labour Party event in Glasgow. IPSA revealed that its bill for defending against McGovern's appeal was £27,000, to be met by the taxpayers."

    Cream of the crop.
    Why didn't they charge him costs?

    And who the f*ck authorised that expenditure by IPSA's lawyers?
    McGovern should pay for costs
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    antifrank said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    Johnson to stand in Kensington !

    What??
    I suspect that the denouement is going to involve a first name that is not Boris.
    TGOHF - what an utter bastard. ;)
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    antifrank said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    Johnson to stand in Kensington !

    What??
    I suspect that the denouement is going to involve a first name that is not Boris.
    Please let it be Stanley.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    Pulpstar said:

    Charles said:

    Dair said:

    DavidL said:

    Is there not an argument that MPs should be required to have a second job? Ministers etc could be exempt and so could Chairman of committees who want to be. Every other MP should be required to have some contact with the real world (and for the avoidance of doubt that would not include working for a political party). It would make the House a better place.

    My MP, Jim McGovern, has no entries in the Register of Members interests. Why am I not surprised?

    Also has Boris thought this through? If Ed actually brought this nonsense into force he could face a horrendous fall in his income.

    From Wiki citingfrom the Telegraph: -

    "McGovern lost his appeal against the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority's rejection of a £23.90 single rail ticket from Dundee to Glasgow in April 2013.[3] The Sunday Herald reported that Parliamentary authorities determined that the detour was unconnected to McGovern's official work as an MP. He had been attending a Labour Party event in Glasgow. IPSA revealed that its bill for defending against McGovern's appeal was £27,000, to be met by the taxpayers."

    Cream of the crop.
    Why didn't they charge him costs?

    And who the f*ck authorised that expenditure by IPSA's lawyers?
    McGovern should pay for costs
    Given that he lost, you'd expect so.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,312
    Boris is in Uxbridge, surely?
  • Options
    Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    TGOHF said:

    Dan Hodges @DPJHodges · 8m 8 minutes ago

    Guardian on Bradford: "It was claimed the clan elders were unhappy their favoured candidate had not made the shortlist". 2015. Clan elders.

    PBtory shows sign of Getting It shock.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    RobD said:

    antifrank said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    Johnson to stand in Kensington !

    What??
    I suspect that the denouement is going to involve a first name that is not Boris.
    TGOHF - what an utter bastard. ;)
    Did she go to Eton ? We must be told..
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited February 2015
    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    Johnson to stand in Kensington !

    What??
    Rachel - according to Evening Standard and Andrew Pierce..
    Gawd. Lucky Kensington. Not.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,869
    281 MPs have 2 or more jobs.

    Wonder what the party split is?
  • Options
    ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 896
    The Andy Burnham MEN article
    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/health/andy-burnhams-warning-over-swiss-cheese-8721228

    Note he doesn't say he would scrap, rather he would not have offered it.

    Far from the same thing.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    ManchesterKurt said:

    The Andy Burnham MEN article
    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/health/andy-burnhams-warning-over-swiss-cheese-8721228

    Note he doesn't say he would scrap, rather he would not have offered it.

    Far from the same thing.

    Article appears to have changed - "would not be on the table" was the previous quote.
  • Options
    ManchesterKurtManchesterKurt Posts: 896
    TGOHF said:

    ManchesterKurt said:

    The Andy Burnham MEN article
    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/health/andy-burnhams-warning-over-swiss-cheese-8721228

    Note he doesn't say he would scrap, rather he would not have offered it.

    Far from the same thing.

    Article appears to have changed - "would not be on the table" was the previous quote.
    Still has would not be in table in article, point is though it will not need to be in table as well have already been assigned up to and agreed.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,869
    281 MPs earned over £7m

    So thats £25k on average.

    Tessa Munt giving a good speech about being an MP is a F/T job full stop.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,869
    Can the Lab. motion get passed tonight?

    Seems LDs appear to be in favour.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Mr. Owls, really? How can some people be MPs and also Cabinet ministers if they have no time left after their MP duties?

    Mr. X, well, quite. It's horrendously backward, if accurate.
  • Options
    DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Out of interest in terms of the "exceptions for doctors and lawyers", have these professions not been required to instigate Returners courses to allow easier access for women to return to their respective professions after some years out for starting families?
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I'm strongly opposed to MPs being banned from taking second jobs on two grounds:

    1) The decision should be left to their electorate. If they don't like their MP having a second job, they have the option of booting that MP out.

    2) A House of Commons that had no one with any current experience of life outside the House would be even fuller of out-of-touch weirdos.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,984
    Indeed, Mr. Antifrank.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    bigjohnowls said:

    Tessa Munt giving a good speech about being an MP is a F/T job full stop.

    That's the Tessa Munt who's a school governor, right?
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    antifrank said:

    I'm strongly opposed to MPs being banned from taking second jobs on two grounds:

    1) The decision should be left to their electorate. If they don't like their MP having a second job, they have the option of booting that MP out.

    2) A House of Commons that had no one with any current experience of life outside the House would be even fuller of out-of-touch weirdos.

    There's a stronger argument that MP's *should* have second jobs, for the latter reason.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,869
    What is wrong with a cap on outside earnings?
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Tessa Munt giving a good speech about being an MP is a F/T job full stop.

    That's the Tessa Munt who's a school governor, right?
    Not very bright, is she.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    TheWatcher said:

    antifrank said:

    I'm strongly opposed to MPs being banned from taking second jobs on two grounds:

    1) The decision should be left to their electorate. If they don't like their MP having a second job, they have the option of booting that MP out.

    2) A House of Commons that had no one with any current experience of life outside the House would be even fuller of out-of-touch weirdos.

    There's a stronger argument that MP's *should* have second jobs, for the latter reason.
    That's going a bit too far. Some of them seem otherwise unemployable, and I'm not in favour of a jobs guarantee.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    antifrank said:

    I'm strongly opposed to MPs being banned from taking second jobs on two grounds:

    1) The decision should be left to their electorate. If they don't like their MP having a second job, they have the option of booting that MP out.

    The problem with that is you can apply that logic to anything. Let them do whatever they want.
    antifrank said:


    2) A House of Commons that had no one with any current experience of life outside the House would be even fuller of out-of-touch weirdos.

    (2) That is pure speculation. The only thing we know for sure is that the status-quo, where MPs can have second jobs, does not solve that problem.
  • Options
    FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    ManchesterKurt said:

    The locals in Manchester have been desperate for devolved powers on numerous issues, this will go down well here.

    Forget your EVEL stuff though, Manc MPs are now similar to Welsh and Scottish ones.

    Parasites...?
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited February 2015
    bigjohnowls said:

    What is wrong with a cap on outside earnings?

    Would rule out boxers as MPs - one fight a year would put them over the limit.

    Oh wait - boxers are "working class" - so no issue - move on..
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    antifrank said:

    TheWatcher said:

    antifrank said:

    I'm strongly opposed to MPs being banned from taking second jobs on two grounds:

    1) The decision should be left to their electorate. If they don't like their MP having a second job, they have the option of booting that MP out.

    2) A House of Commons that had no one with any current experience of life outside the House would be even fuller of out-of-touch weirdos.

    There's a stronger argument that MP's *should* have second jobs, for the latter reason.
    That's going a bit too far. Some of them seem otherwise unemployable, and I'm not in favour of a jobs guarantee.
    It's a good way of rooting out the deadwood, and downright crap ones then. If they're incapable of getting a job outside the HoC, do we really want them passing legislation etc?
This discussion has been closed.