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
He might have a case that they are entirely disproportionate.
It is another point that, in my view, IPSA is a monstrosity.
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?
We should have a full cross-section of society, including morons.
Christopher Snowdon (@cjsnowdon) 25/02/2015 18:02 Desperate PR non-story of the day - > Betting chain that Farage once represented is targeting immigrants i100.io/C5gudGF
(1) Legislation does not get enough scrutiny, it is a full-time, often boring, job.* (2) It actively encourages conflicts of interests (3) It enables individuals to stay in Parliament when they are no longer interested in the work of an MP.
We could let MP's do second jobs as members of the crown prosecution service. Though an extra 650 working on the case against Cliff Richard is beginning to sound inadequate
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
He might have a case that they are entirely disproportionate.
It is another point that, in my view, IPSA is a monstrosity.
I'd like to see the breakdown of both the detail of McGovern's appeal and the IPSA costs. If he's made a completely frivolous appeal and lawyered it up to the eyeballs Damn right he should pay. But would like to see what precisely the case put for and against was.
We could let MP's do second jobs as members of the crown prosecution service. Though an extra 650 working on the case against Cliff Richard is beginning to sound inadequate
It shouldn't take too many man hours to decide that Millennium Prayer was a crime against music.
Maybe if MPS have enough time to do other jobs they should have less staff/SPADs and do more of their own paper work and get the salary of those they replace?
We could let MP's do second jobs as members of the crown prosecution service. Though an extra 650 working on the case against Cliff Richard is beginning to sound inadequate
Where do you stand on the Manc health devolution BJO - are you for it like Balls or against it like Burnham ?
I think like the Better Care Fund it is potentially a way of stealing NHS money to give to hard pressed councils, unless unlike the BCF it is ring fenced for care
No doubt that the integration of care is good for the patient but if the person who decides how the money is spent has a conflict of interest (as looks to me to be the case with this scheme) then that will not result in the best use of health resource. and the patient will not get bettercare.
In summary I reckon it is not the best way to integrate care. But integrating care is important going forward.
@DPJHodges: Labour car crash on NHS devolution. And Burnham says he opposes. Ed Balls says he'll role it out nationally.
A real policy aimed at trying to join up health and social care and to devolve not create top down reform. It part of a real policy to allow the Manchester area for starters to evolve their services infrastructure and local government. Meantime the steady dribble from sad inadequates continues with their pretend affront at politicians.
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?
We should have a full cross-section of society, including morons.
@DPJHodges: Labour car crash on NHS devolution. And Burnham says he opposes. Ed Balls says he'll role it out nationally.
A real policy aimed at trying to join up health and social care and to devolve not create top down reform. It part of a real policy to allow the Manchester area for starters to evolve their services infrastructure and local government. Meantime the steady dribble from sad inadequates continues with their pretend affront at politicians.
If the main social care provider is also the Commissioner. It creates a huge conflict of interest It has exactly the same flaw as per the Health and Social Care Act and the BCF IMO.
I agree with antifrank that MPs should not be banned from second jobs, as it's the sort of thing that voters should have the final say on, rather than creating a variety of bureaucratic means by which an MP can be harassed by the Executive.
I also agree with Jonathan, that MPs don't spend enough time as it is scrutinising legislation, and I find it hard to imagine how they would be able to do their job of holding the Executive to account properly at the same time as holding down a second job.
''Forget your EVEL stuff though, Manc MPs are now similar to Welsh and Scottish ones.''
How? NW MPs are English and vote on the English NHS budget. They vote on the overall budget like all MPs. The NW MPs would have a duty to see the local devolved authority spends wisely and responsibly but the money one assumes would be spent with local responsibilities in mind. We should bear in mind though that some services are national commissioned ones because of the nature of the service, so it may be that not all services ought to be devolved either to trusts or wider groups like this.
''Forget your EVEL stuff though, Manc MPs are now similar to Welsh and Scottish ones.''
How? NW MPs are English and vote on the English NHS budget. They vote on the overall budget like all MPs. The NW MPs would have a duty to see the local devolved authority spends wisely and responsibly but the money one assumes would be spent with local responsibilities in mind. We should bear in mind though that some services are national commissioned ones because of the nature of the service, so it may be that not all services ought to be devolved either to trusts or wider groups like this.
It is shocking that a criminal investigation is being played out in the media before any arrest has taken place. I have no idea whether Cliff Richard has committed any crime. I do know that he should not have his reputation dragged through the gutter without having any way of answering the accusations which have apparently been made against him.
I agree with antifrank that MPs should not be banned from second jobs, as it's the sort of thing that voters should have the final say on, rather than creating a variety of bureaucratic means by which an MP can be harassed by the Executive.
I also agree with Jonathan, that MPs don't spend enough time as it is scrutinising legislation, and I find it hard to imagine how they would be able to do their job of holding the Executive to account properly at the same time as holding down a second job.
They could spend more time scrutinising legislation if we didn't have successive governments who create huge reams of unnecessary legislation.
(1) Legislation does not get enough scrutiny, it is a full-time, often boring, job.* (2) It actively encourages conflicts of interests (3) It enables individuals to stay in Parliament when they are no longer interested in the work of an MP.
* If they have spare time, repeal outdated laws.
(1) We need less legislation, not more. Being an MP should be a part time job*. Alternatively, It should be easier for MPs to pass their own legislation without it being Government sponsored.
(2) Our constitution allows, even demands, MPs to be Government ministers, which is clearly the biggest conflict of interest there is. And many second jobs will not be conflicts of interest.
(3) it allows good people to not have to leave Parliament to make decent money. Thus saving the taxpayer money.
* as is shown by the fact that you can be a Government minister and an MP at the same time.
The two Labour PPCs who suddenly stepped down this week, were councillors. If they had been successful in May 2015, would they have resigned their posts as councillors?
It is shocking that a criminal investigation is being played out in the media before any arrest has taken place. I have no idea whether Cliff Richard has committed any crime. I do know that he should not have his reputation dragged through the gutter without having any way of answering the accusations which have apparently been made against him.
He's not been arrested or charged. For the police to make such a noise about it, tipping off journalists etc to the raid shows a remarkable lack of forsight as to how cases can be dismissed from the courts etc.
"I also agree with Jonathan, that MPs don't spend enough time as it is scrutinising legislation, and I find it hard to imagine how they would be able to do their job of holding the Executive to account properly at the same time as holding down a second job."
I've just seen Tom Bradbury try to explain why stopping MP's having second jobs is impossible "What happens if they are running a family business do they have to sell it and what if they reinvest the money and it makes a profit" Sometimes you see someone and genuinely wonder what sort of nepotism got them the job.
Think Tom if your full time researcher wanted to moonlight working as Sylvester Stallone's driver. How would you deal with it? I never watch ITV. It's news for morons....
I'm a bit confused, I thought Labour were all for devolution of power to places like Manchester and also the combining of health and social care, but I read Burnham will now cancel this?
(1) Legislation does not get enough scrutiny, it is a full-time, often boring, job.* (2) It actively encourages conflicts of interests (3) It enables individuals to stay in Parliament when they are no longer interested in the work of an MP.
* If they have spare time, repeal outdated laws.
(1) We need less legislation, not more. Being an MP should be a part time job*. Alternatively, It should be easier for MPs to pass their own legislation without it being Government sponsored.
(2) Our constitution allows, even demands, MPs to be Government ministers, which is clearly the biggest conflict of interest there is. And many second jobs will not be conflicts of interest.
(3) it allows good people to not have to leave Parliament to make decent money. Thus saving the taxpayer money.
* as is shown by the fact that you can be a Government minister and an MP at the same time.
(1) We need better legislation (2) A combined executive means more work for other MPs and reliance on whips. We need full time MPs to hold the executive to account. (3) £67,000 is decent money
ok, here's a thing I do not understand about this Manchester health announcement. BBC are presenting as if Greater Manchester is getting control of the WHOLE NHS budget. But then they refer to "health and social care". So is this actually about joining up the NHS and council parts of health and social care i.e. the Better Care Fund? If it is, then this is a non-story surely, as some form of joining up health and social care is due in every area of England.
Neat twitter fact (I have no idea whether it's true, but what the hell):
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers · 1m1 minute ago 1/50 adult Scots has joined SNP since referendum. Party has more members than British army has soldiers. @alexmassie in @spectator #GE2015
Why is Osborne talking about health and social care instead of apologising for failing to meet his promise of eliminating the deficit by the end of this parliament?
Neat twitter fact (I have no idea whether it's true, but what the hell):
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers · 1m1 minute ago 1/50 adult Scots has joined SNP since referendum. Party has more members than British army has soldiers. @alexmassie in @spectator #GE2015
Along with now regularly reading Wings over Scotland and ScotgoesPop and keeping a close eye on Yougov subsamples this is the sort of fact I like to hear.
"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.
Plus its called 'government'. Its what politicians do. And its a fairly wise policy. it is allowing powers to evolve. its allowing local ;powers to evolve, not be imposed. It may not work, certainly not straight out of the box - but given the need, the common sense in liking health and social care, it makes sense to roll it out on a limited scale and learn from the experience. And it would make sense to do it locally.
I have to say I find it pretty disgusting that the people who decry politicians for dissembling and deviousness and avoiding problems and being self serving blah blah blah... are the same people who suggest they should in fact shut up and say and do nothing... because it might make life difficult.
The devolution of powers to places like Manchester and the creation of a regional Manchester-Leeds 'powerhouse' has been on Osborne idea for some time. This is just a continuation of it. He has gone on record about devolving things like business rates as well. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30730632
(1) Legislation does not get enough scrutiny, it is a full-time, often boring, job.* (2) It actively encourages conflicts of interests (3) It enables individuals to stay in Parliament when they are no longer interested in the work of an MP.
* If they have spare time, repeal outdated laws.
(1) We need less legislation, not more. Being an MP should be a part time job*. Alternatively, It should be easier for MPs to pass their own legislation without it being Government sponsored.
(2) Our constitution allows, even demands, MPs to be Government ministers, which is clearly the biggest conflict of interest there is. And many second jobs will not be conflicts of interest.
(3) it allows good people to not have to leave Parliament to make decent money. Thus saving the taxpayer money.
* as is shown by the fact that you can be a Government minister and an MP at the same time.
Years ago I heard it said that the Texas Legislature sits for no more than 6 weeks each year so that the legislators get up to the minimum interference in citizens' lives. No idea of the truth of this.
ok, here's a thing I do not understand about this Manchester health announcement. BBC are presenting as if Greater Manchester is getting control of the WHOLE NHS budget. But then they refer to "health and social care". So is this actually about joining up the NHS and council parts of health and social care i.e. the Better Care Fund? If it is, then this is a non-story surely, as some form of joining up health and social care is due in every area of England.
Watching Channel 4 it appears that it is indeed the whole of the NHS budget for the area and they already have control over the Social Care budget at a local level. So it is far more than the Better Care Fund, it is the NHS budget in total which will then be combined with te eSocial Care budget. Channel 4 are quoting £6 billion of spending moving under local control.
Good evening all from Tel-Aviv. I'm spending a few days here - back next week - on an early spring holiday. Pleased to be spending a few days away from the eabating heat. Politics here is as lunatic as normal - for a system dreampt up in pre-war eastern europe - and I couldn't care less.
I wont be contacting PB unless something exciting happens while I'm here. Cheers!
- 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 ...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...
- 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 ...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...
(1) Legislation does not get enough scrutiny, it is a full-time, often boring, job.* (2) It actively encourages conflicts of interests (3) It enables individuals to stay in Parliament when they are no longer interested in the work of an MP.
* If they have spare time, repeal outdated laws.
(1) We need less legislation, not more. Being an MP should be a part time job*. Alternatively, It should be easier for MPs to pass their own legislation without it being Government sponsored.
(2) Our constitution allows, even demands, MPs to be Government ministers, which is clearly the biggest conflict of interest there is. And many second jobs will not be conflicts of interest.
(3) it allows good people to not have to leave Parliament to make decent money. Thus saving the taxpayer money.
* as is shown by the fact that you can be a Government minister and an MP at the same time.
(1) We need better legislation (2) A combined executive means more work for other MPs and reliance on whips. We need full time MPs to hold the executive to account. (3) £67,000 is decent money
(1) hard to disagree with that, although I think less = better. (2) are you saying we should have separation of powers as in the USA? If so I agree with you. (3) a lot of people can earn a lot more than that, and assuming they are in some way good, competent people, we would be in danger of losing them from politics
Neat twitter fact (I have no idea whether it's true, but what the hell):
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers · 1m1 minute ago 1/50 adult Scots has joined SNP since referendum. Party has more members than British army has soldiers. @alexmassie in @spectator #GE2015
Shit, that probably means invasion is out of the question.
MPs having employment outside of their role is I think, on balance, something that we should avoid. What ever that employment may be there is the potential for a conflict of interest. Sponsorship by trade unions counts in this, and is actually even more ugly than most of the cases of company employment.
It seems to me that if a candidate wishes to stand as a "Tory, but paid by MegaCo" then that tells the voters where he stands - and equally if a Labour candidate stood as "Labour but paid by Unite".
Now there's an argument that if you don't allow people these outside interests then you'll fail to get the best people in parliament. It's just not true though - the best people aren't in parliament in the first place, and outside interests (such as second jobs) earn MPs so little as to be worthless. (Well, so they claim).
Allegedly the real benefits come from writing newspaper articles and books and the like. Perhaps speaking at events too. Mandelson (for example) seems to have turned this route into an astonishing pile of cash with no apparent effort whatsoever. (Not that many speeches, risible books, and trashy newspaper articles).
- 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 ...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...
(1) Legislation does not get enough scrutiny, it is a full-time, often boring, job.* (2) It actively encourages conflicts of interests (3) It enables individuals to stay in Parliament when they are no longer interested in the work of an MP.
* If they have spare time, repeal outdated laws.
(1) We need less legislation, not more. Being an MP should be a part time job*. Alternatively, It should be easier for MPs to pass their own legislation without it being Government sponsored.
(2) Our constitution allows, even demands, MPs to be Government ministers, which is clearly the biggest conflict of interest there is. And many second jobs will not be conflicts of interest.
(3) it allows good people to not have to leave Parliament to make decent money. Thus saving the taxpayer money.
* as is shown by the fact that you can be a Government minister and an MP at the same time.
(1) We need better legislation (2) A combined executive means more work for other MPs and reliance on whips. We need full time MPs to hold the executive to account. (3) £67,000 is decent money
I agree that £67,000 is a decent wage. I am not so convinced it is the sort of money we should be paying to the people whose job is to govern our country.
What I am really not convinced of is that 5 years earnings of £67,000 is sufficient incentive for those following a career path or running their own businesses to give that all up and effectively throw it away (if you are going to ban second jobs) which is what you are asking them to do when they become an MP.
(1) Legislation does not get enough scrutiny, it is a full-time, often boring, job.* (2) It actively encourages conflicts of interests (3) It enables individuals to stay in Parliament when they are no longer interested in the work of an MP.
* If they have spare time, repeal outdated laws.
(1) We need less legislation, not more. Being an MP should be a part time job*. Alternatively, It should be easier for MPs to pass their own legislation without it being Government sponsored.
(2) Our constitution allows, even demands, MPs to be Government ministers, which is clearly the biggest conflict of interest there is. And many second jobs will not be conflicts of interest.
(3) it allows good people to not have to leave Parliament to make decent money. Thus saving the taxpayer money.
* as is shown by the fact that you can be a Government minister and an MP at the same time.
Years ago I heard it said that the Texas Legislature sits for no more than 6 weeks each year so that the legislators get up to the minimum interference in citizens' lives. No idea of the truth of this.
I think being a Westminster MP was unpaid until ~1911. Minsters were paid though.
Neat twitter fact (I have no idea whether it's true, but what the hell):
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers · 1m1 minute ago 1/50 adult Scots has joined SNP since referendum. Party has more members than British army has soldiers. @alexmassie in @spectator #GE2015
Shit, that probably means invasion is out of the question.
ok, here's a thing I do not understand about this Manchester health announcement. BBC are presenting as if Greater Manchester is getting control of the WHOLE NHS budget. But then they refer to "health and social care". So is this actually about joining up the NHS and council parts of health and social care i.e. the Better Care Fund? If it is, then this is a non-story surely, as some form of joining up health and social care is due in every area of England.
Watching Channel 4 it appears that it is indeed the whole of the NHS budget for the area and they already have control over the Social Care budget at a local level. So it is far more than the Better Care Fund, it is the NHS budget in total which will then be combined with te eSocial Care budget. Channel 4 are quoting £6 billion of spending moving under local control.
The provider of part of that care is now the Commissioner of all of it.
- 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 ...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...
It is shocking that a criminal investigation is being played out in the media before any arrest has taken place. I have no idea whether Cliff Richard has committed any crime. I do know that he should not have his reputation dragged through the gutter without having any way of answering the accusations which have apparently been made against him.
Quite so - Today, South Yorkshire Police have announced via Aunty that the investigation has "increased significantly in size" and involves "more than one allegation" – a meaningless announcement imho.
No doubt SYP and Aunty are still smarting from yesterday’s scathing report into Sir Cliff’s privacy violation.
- 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 ...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...
ok, here's a thing I do not understand about this Manchester health announcement. BBC are presenting as if Greater Manchester is getting control of the WHOLE NHS budget. But then they refer to "health and social care". So is this actually about joining up the NHS and council parts of health and social care i.e. the Better Care Fund? If it is, then this is a non-story surely, as some form of joining up health and social care is due in every area of England.
Watching Channel 4 it appears that it is indeed the whole of the NHS budget for the area and they already have control over the Social Care budget at a local level. So it is far more than the Better Care Fund, it is the NHS budget in total which will then be combined with te eSocial Care budget. Channel 4 are quoting £6 billion of spending moving under local control.
The provider of part of that care is now the Commissioner of all of it.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
To be honest John I have no idea if this is a good idea or not as I have not looked at the details and don't have any experience in healthcare or social service provision. All I was doing was pointing out what had been said on C4.
(1) Legislation does not get enough scrutiny, it is a full-time, often boring, job.* (2) It actively encourages conflicts of interests (3) It enables individuals to stay in Parliament when they are no longer interested in the work of an MP.
* If they have spare time, repeal outdated laws.
(1) That is most often because the government manipulates the timetable to avoid it. The Blair and Brown governments were as guilty as any refusing to allow Parliament to debate issues properly. (2) There is no greater conflict of interest than the party leadership of the Governing party using jobs in government as motivation to MP's to toe the Government line. (3) Utter nonsense. If MPs are not doing their jobs surely their voters would get rid of them. Why would they stay in Parliament when likely they can earn a better living outside. If anything the only reason to remain in Parliament once you've lost interest is the soon to be £75,000k pocket money, the subsidised bars and restaurants, the access Westminster provides, the gold plated pension arrangements, the lavish tax free expenses and the cushy conditions of work which as Rifkind pointed out allows an MP plenty of free time.
However, all this taken into consideration there is one reason above all others why we must have diversity in Westminster and allow 2nd jobs. The thought of having 650 short sighted narrow minded intolerant self serving narcissistic Ed Miliband clones who have never had a real job in their lives is utterly terrifying and a recipe for disaster!
Neat twitter fact (I have no idea whether it's true, but what the hell):
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers · 1m1 minute ago 1/50 adult Scots has joined SNP since referendum. Party has more members than British army has soldiers. @alexmassie in @spectator #GE2015
Shit, that probably means invasion is out of the question.
You can join the SNP for precisely £1
Bit economical there Mike, minimum is £1 per month , perhaps you were thinking of Scottish Labour offer recently.
(1) Legislation does not get enough scrutiny, it is a full-time, often boring, job.* (2) It actively encourages conflicts of interests (3) It enables individuals to stay in Parliament when they are no longer interested in the work of an MP.
* If they have spare time, repeal outdated laws.
(1) We need less legislation, not more. Being an MP should be a part time job*. Alternatively, It should be easier for MPs to pass their own legislation without it being Government sponsored.
(2) Our constitution allows, even demands, MPs to be Government ministers, which is clearly the biggest conflict of interest there is. And many second jobs will not be conflicts of interest.
(3) it allows good people to not have to leave Parliament to make decent money. Thus saving the taxpayer money.
* as is shown by the fact that you can be a Government minister and an MP at the same time.
(1) We need better legislation (2) A combined executive means more work for other MPs and reliance on whips. We need full time MPs to hold the executive to account. (3) £67,000 is decent money
(1) hard to disagree with that, although I think less = better. (2) are you saying we should have separation of powers as in the USA? If so I agree with you. (3) a lot of people can earn a lot more than that, and assuming they are in some way good, competent people, we would be in danger of losing them from politics
(1) In my experience, you need to work harder to be more concise. Verbose legislation is the result of weak scrutiny. If MPs were forced to read the stuff, it would be better written.
(2) I am not against it in principle, but can't see us getting smoothly from here to there.
(3) Yes, some people can earn more than an MP. I doubt they get there paying their staff a full-time wage for part-time work. There is nothing to bar them earning money, just not doing it at the same time. Arguably we would benefit from some becoming MPs after they had earned their money. They would certainly be more vocal and independent.
- 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 ...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...
mince
With or without Turnips?
LOL, tatties and turnip
The wifes father always called it tatties and neeps
(1) Legislation does not get enough scrutiny, it is a full-time, often boring, job.* (2) It actively encourages conflicts of interests (3) It enables individuals to stay in Parliament when they are no longer interested in the work of an MP.
* If they have spare time, repeal outdated laws.
(1) We need less legislation, not more. Being an MP should be a part time job*. Alternatively, It should be easier for MPs to pass their own legislation without it being Government sponsored.
(2) Our constitution allows, even demands, MPs to be Government ministers, which is clearly the biggest conflict of interest there is. And many second jobs will not be conflicts of interest.
(3) it allows good people to not have to leave Parliament to make decent money. Thus saving the taxpayer money.
* as is shown by the fact that you can be a Government minister and an MP at the same time.
(1) We need better legislation (2) A combined executive means more work for other MPs and reliance on whips. We need full time MPs to hold the executive to account. (3) £67,000 is decent money
I agree that £67,000 is a decent wage. I am not so convinced it is the sort of money we should be paying to the people whose job is to govern our country.
What I am really not convinced of is that 5 years earnings of £67,000 is sufficient incentive for those following a career path or running their own businesses to give that all up and effectively throw it away (if you are going to ban second jobs) which is what you are asking them to do when they become an MP.
you forget the £175K averag eexpenses for your wife and family and paper clips etc. Rifkind charge for paper clips , 5p , 5p and 8p. They are extremely well rewarded and are unlikely to need to touch their salary given the generous unlimited expenses.
- 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 ...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...
mince
With or without Turnips?
LOL, tatties and turnip
The wifes father always called it tatties and neeps
He is correct, I merely used turnip as it was in previous post, I stand very corrected.
ok, here's a thing I do not understand about this Manchester health announcement. BBC are presenting as if Greater Manchester is getting control of the WHOLE NHS budget. But then they refer to "health and social care". So is this actually about joining up the NHS and council parts of health and social care i.e. the Better Care Fund? If it is, then this is a non-story surely, as some form of joining up health and social care is due in every area of England.
Watching Channel 4 it appears that it is indeed the whole of the NHS budget for the area and they already have control over the Social Care budget at a local level. So it is far more than the Better Care Fund, it is the NHS budget in total which will then be combined with te eSocial Care budget. Channel 4 are quoting £6 billion of spending moving under local control.
The provider of part of that care is now the Commissioner of all of it.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
To be honest John I have no idea if this is a good idea or not as I have not looked at the details and don't have any experience in healthcare or social service provision. All I was doing was pointing out what had been said on C4.
you forget the £175K averag eexpenses for your wife and family and paper clips etc. Rifkind charge for paper clips , 5p , 5p and 8p. They are extremely well rewarded and are unlikely to need to touch their salary given the generous unlimited expenses.
Yes: but charging paperclips doesn't pay the gas bill or for your bottle of Chateau Thames Embankment.
Take me or Richard Tyndall or any number of PBers. We have our own small businesses. Would the businesses survive our absence for 5 years?
So, if we were to decide to enter politics, and take a pay cut, we also have to factor in that our businesses probably won't be around on the far side of it. (Especially if 'outside interests' were severely proscribed.
Comments
It is another point that, in my view, IPSA is a monstrosity.
(if my wife is reading this - that was a joke. I'm not going to get involved in politics)
Well, you can but you really shouldn't.
Haha could they be more wrong????
Christopher Snowdon (@cjsnowdon)
25/02/2015 18:02
Desperate PR non-story of the day - > Betting chain that Farage once represented is targeting immigrants i100.io/C5gudGF
(1) Legislation does not get enough scrutiny, it is a full-time, often boring, job.*
(2) It actively encourages conflicts of interests
(3) It enables individuals to stay in Parliament when they are no longer interested in the work of an MP.
* If they have spare time, repeal outdated laws.
Britain's most wanted.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA5QJS3paAo
Where do you stand on the Manc health devolution BJO - are you for it like Balls or against it like Burnham ?
On an average day...
Vote share: 10.5-11%
Seats: Clacton, Rochester and Strood, Thanet South, Thurrock, Castle Point, and either Great Grimsby or Boston and Skegness.
on a good day...
Dudley North, Rotherham
2nd place in 70-ish seats in the North.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/redbox/topic/2015-election-campaign/watch-isabel-hardman-lindsay-mcintosh-matthew-goodwin-and-sean-kemp-debate-minority-parties/summary
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2968942/Historical-sex-offence-inquiry-Cliff-Richard-expanded-significantly-say-police.html
1903 hours and a full time MP he's worked hard.
No doubt that the integration of care is good for the patient but if the person who decides how the money is spent has a conflict of interest (as looks to me to be the case with this scheme) then that will not result in the best use of health resource. and the patient will not get bettercare.
In summary I reckon it is not the best way to integrate care. But integrating care is important going forward.
It part of a real policy to allow the Manchester area for starters to evolve their services infrastructure and local government.
Meantime the steady dribble from sad inadequates continues with their pretend affront at politicians.
Have Turkeys ever voted for christmas
I reckon this will run for the next 11 weeks though
There are around 3 million companies registered in the UK, many of them small businesses. That's a lot of people to demonise.
I also agree with Jonathan, that MPs don't spend enough time as it is scrutinising legislation, and I find it hard to imagine how they would be able to do their job of holding the Executive to account properly at the same time as holding down a second job.
How? NW MPs are English and vote on the English NHS budget. They vote on the overall budget like all MPs. The NW MPs would have a duty to see the local devolved authority spends wisely and responsibly but the money one assumes would be spent with local responsibilities in mind.
We should bear in mind though that some services are national commissioned ones because of the nature of the service, so it may be that not all services ought to be devolved either to trusts or wider groups like this.
(2) Our constitution allows, even demands, MPs to be Government ministers, which is clearly the biggest conflict of interest there is. And many second jobs will not be conflicts of interest.
(3) it allows good people to not have to leave Parliament to make decent money. Thus saving the taxpayer money.
* as is shown by the fact that you can be a Government minister and an MP at the same time.
YouGov Prediction - Con Lead 1%
"I also agree with Jonathan, that MPs don't spend enough time as it is scrutinising legislation, and I find it hard to imagine how they would be able to do their job of holding the Executive to account properly at the same time as holding down a second job."
I've just seen Tom Bradbury try to explain why stopping MP's having second jobs is impossible "What happens if they are running a family business do they have to sell it and what if they reinvest the money and it makes a profit" Sometimes you see someone and genuinely wonder what sort of nepotism got them the job.
Think Tom if your full time researcher wanted to moonlight working as Sylvester Stallone's driver. How would you deal with it? I never watch ITV. It's news for morons....
Is it wrong type of devolution or something?
(2) A combined executive means more work for other MPs and reliance on whips. We need full time MPs to hold the executive to account.
(3) £67,000 is decent money
BBC are presenting as if Greater Manchester is getting control of the WHOLE NHS budget. But then they refer to "health and social care". So is this actually about joining up the NHS and council parts of health and social care i.e. the Better Care Fund? If it is, then this is a non-story surely, as some form of joining up health and social care is due in every area of England.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers · 1m1 minute ago
1/50 adult Scots has joined SNP since referendum. Party has more members than British army has soldiers. @alexmassie in @spectator #GE2015
Let me know if it's all about to go wrong :@)
I have to say I find it pretty disgusting that the people who decry politicians for dissembling and deviousness and avoiding problems and being self serving blah blah blah... are the same people who suggest they should in fact shut up and say and do nothing... because it might make life difficult.
The devolution of powers to places like Manchester and the creation of a regional Manchester-Leeds 'powerhouse' has been on Osborne idea for some time. This is just a continuation of it. He has gone on record about devolving things like business rates as well.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30730632
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/04/george-osborne-northern-powerhouse-2015-election-devolution
The Guardian is suspicious but thinks the idea is a good one. Certainly far from being desperate it makes good politics (if we want to think about base things like politics) for the Conservative Party in the North.
I'm spending a few days here - back next week - on an early spring holiday.
Pleased to be spending a few days away from the eabating heat. Politics here is as lunatic as normal - for a system dreampt up in pre-war eastern europe - and I couldn't care less.
I wont be contacting PB unless something exciting happens while I'm here. Cheers!
(2) are you saying we should have separation of powers as in the USA? If so I agree with you.
(3) a lot of people can earn a lot more than that, and assuming they are in some way good, competent people, we would be in danger of losing them from politics
It seems to me that if a candidate wishes to stand as a "Tory, but paid by MegaCo" then that tells the voters where he stands - and equally if a Labour candidate stood as "Labour but paid by Unite".
Now there's an argument that if you don't allow people these outside interests then you'll fail to get the best people in parliament. It's just not true though - the best people aren't in parliament in the first place, and outside interests (such as second jobs) earn MPs so little as to be worthless. (Well, so they claim).
Allegedly the real benefits come from writing newspaper articles and books and the like. Perhaps speaking at events too. Mandelson (for example) seems to have turned this route into an astonishing pile of cash with no apparent effort whatsoever. (Not that many speeches, risible books, and trashy newspaper articles).
What I am really not convinced of is that 5 years earnings of £67,000 is sufficient incentive for those following a career path or running their own businesses to give that all up and effectively throw it away (if you are going to ban second jobs) which is what you are asking them to do when they become an MP.
GIN is on a roll with his predictions. So Tory 1% lead nailed on.
Or is it on a role could someone help please!!
----
US State systems.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/full-and-part-time-legislatures.aspx
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No doubt SYP and Aunty are still smarting from yesterday’s scathing report into Sir Cliff’s privacy violation.
(2) There is no greater conflict of interest than the party leadership of the Governing party using jobs in government as motivation to MP's to toe the Government line.
(3) Utter nonsense. If MPs are not doing their jobs surely their voters would get rid of them. Why would they stay in Parliament when likely they can earn a better living outside. If anything the only reason to remain in Parliament once you've lost interest is the soon to be £75,000k pocket money, the subsidised bars and restaurants, the access Westminster provides, the gold plated pension arrangements, the lavish tax free expenses and the cushy conditions of work which as Rifkind pointed out allows an MP plenty of free time.
However, all this taken into consideration there is one reason above all others why we must have diversity in Westminster and allow 2nd jobs. The thought of having 650 short sighted narrow minded intolerant self serving narcissistic Ed Miliband clones who have never had a real job in their lives is utterly terrifying and a recipe for disaster!
(2) I am not against it in principle, but can't see us getting smoothly from here to there.
(3) Yes, some people can earn more than an MP. I doubt they get there paying their staff a full-time wage for part-time work. There is nothing to bar them earning money, just not doing it at the same time. Arguably we would benefit from some becoming MPs after they had earned their money. They would certainly be more vocal and independent.
Take me or Richard Tyndall or any number of PBers. We have our own small businesses. Would the businesses survive our absence for 5 years?
So, if we were to decide to enter politics, and take a pay cut, we also have to factor in that our businesses probably won't be around on the far side of it. (Especially if 'outside interests' were severely proscribed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/11434508/Owl-themed-cocktail-bar-in-London-sparks-concerns-over-birds-welfare-as-thousands-sign-petition.html