Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

245

Comments

  • Jonathan 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.

    The problem with that is you can apply that logic to anything. Let them do whatever they want.
    Yet when I suggest that MPs need certification to show competence, somehow everyone gets all squeamish.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @DPJHodges: Labour car crash on NHS devolution. And Burnham says he opposes. Ed Balls says he'll role it out nationally.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    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
    He might have a case that they are entirely disproportionate.

    It is another point that, in my view, IPSA is a monstrosity.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    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.
    I believe she has an IQ of 138!!!!
  • antifrank 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?
    We should have a full cross-section of society, including morons.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    Johnson to stand in Kensington !

    What??
    Rachel - according to Evening Standard and Andrew Pierce..
    Gawd. Lucky Kensington. Not.
    If that's the alternative, I might even run myself!

    (if my wife is reading this - that was a joke. I'm not going to get involved in politics)
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    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.
    Surprised you don't recognise the style... Lets just say it's an old friend...
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    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.
    Wrong... Again
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

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

    Ukip the real nasty party.

    Ooh you fiend

    Wrong
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    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.
    I believe she has an IQ of 138!!!!
    That must have been measured under the pre-Gove Ofsted standards.

  • Mr. Owls, can't judge someone by their IQ.

    Well, you can but you really shouldn't.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    isam said:

    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.
    Surprised you don't recognise the style... Lets just say it's an old friend...
    Ah ha. PBUH.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    This is brilliant..'targeting ethnic minorities"

    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
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    I strongly object to MPs having second jobs.

    (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.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    Charles said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    Johnson to stand in Kensington !

    What??
    Rachel - according to Evening Standard and Andrew Pierce..
    Gawd. Lucky Kensington. Not.
    If that's the alternative, I might even run myself!

    (if my wife is reading this - that was a joke. I'm not going to get involved in politics)
    It's got to be Coleman for Kensington.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    isam said:

    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.
    Wrong... Again
    the tweeter not the tweet ? Looks like the Dastardly Dubai Drudger. Poster of the year candidate - I kids you not.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    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
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    edited February 2015
    Charles said:

    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
    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.
  • Roger said:

    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.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Anyone think this vote at 7pm tonight will be very close?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    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?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Sean_F said:

    Charles said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    Johnson to stand in Kensington !

    What??
    Rachel - according to Evening Standard and Andrew Pierce..
    Gawd. Lucky Kensington. Not.
    If that's the alternative, I might even run myself!

    (if my wife is reading this - that was a joke. I'm not going to get involved in politics)
    It's got to be Coleman for Kensington.
    Barnet suffered him for years, it's only fair he's shared around.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    Antifrank

    Britain's most wanted.....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA5QJS3paAo
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Yawn.

    Where do you stand on the Manc health devolution BJO - are you for it like Balls or against it like Burnham ?

  • Charles said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    Johnson to stand in Kensington !

    What??
    Rachel - according to Evening Standard and Andrew Pierce..
    Gawd. Lucky Kensington. Not.
    If that's the alternative, I might even run myself!

    (if my wife is reading this - that was a joke. I'm not going to get involved in politics)
    So your wife reads PB Charles? Interesting

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Matthew Goodwin UKIP GE prediction.

    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

  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Roger said:

    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 looks as if they're following your suggestion.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2968942/Historical-sex-offence-inquiry-Cliff-Richard-expanded-significantly-say-police.html
  • So your wife reads PB Charles? Interesting

    It's probably safest to work on the assumption that one's wife might read it..
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Has Geoffrey Cox managed to get any sleep over the last year ?

    1903 hours and a full time MP he's worked hard.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    TGOHF said:

    Yawn.

    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.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    So your wife reads PB Charles? Interesting

    It's probably safest to work on the assumption that one's wife might read it..
    Is it a blog you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    Just seen the Labour PPB. Strangely flat voice. No Ed which I suppose was to be expected and far too many messages. They're best with just one. 4/10
  • Neil said:

    So your wife reads PB Charles? Interesting

    It's probably safest to work on the assumption that one's wife might read it..
    Is it a blog you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?
    Not when TSE is around
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Scott_P said:

    @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.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Wonder if MPs will vote to restrict their earnings

    Have Turkeys ever voted for christmas

    I reckon this will run for the next 11 weeks though
  • The enormo-haddock enjoy pb.com, although they do think that Mr. Madasafish's username is a bit racist.
  • @Morris_Dance: 'piscist', surely
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    Anyone recognize the VO in Labour's broadcast?
  • antifrank said:

    antifrank 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?
    We should have a full cross-section of society, including morons.
    Jury system.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited February 2015
    Weaponising 'Director' - an interesting ploy.

    There are around 3 million companies registered in the UK, many of them small businesses. That's a lot of people to demonise.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    Scott_P said:

    @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.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    So Rifkind is gone, pity there won't be a byelection.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    @Morris_Dance: 'piscist', surely

    Cladist. Or, as we are talking about "fish", pseudocladist.

  • 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.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    edited February 2015
    ''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.
  • The enormo-haddock enjoy pb.com, although they do think that Mr. Madasafish's username is a bit racist.

    I was brought up to believe every fish has its plaice in society and it is wrong to speak eel of those floundering at the bottom...
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    ''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.

    I agree with that
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038

    Weaponising 'Director' - an interesting ploy.

    There are around 3 million companies registered in the UK, many of them small businesses. That's a lot of people to demonise.

    Plus several million partners and proprietors; i.e., unregistered businesses.
  • Roger said:

    Antifrank

    Britain's most wanted.....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA5QJS3paAo

    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.
  • Neil said:

    So your wife reads PB Charles? Interesting

    It's probably safest to work on the assumption that one's wife might read it..
    Is it a blog you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?
    Not when TSE is around
    He might give one's wife some interesting ideas.

  • Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: Labour car crash on NHS devolution. And Burnham says he opposes. Ed Balls says he'll role it out nationally.

    Roll or rule?

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Sean_F said:

    Charles said:

    TGOHF said:

    RobD said:

    TGOHF said:

    Johnson to stand in Kensington !

    What??
    Rachel - according to Evening Standard and Andrew Pierce..
    Gawd. Lucky Kensington. Not.
    If that's the alternative, I might even run myself!

    (if my wife is reading this - that was a joke. I'm not going to get involved in politics)
    It's got to be Coleman for Kensington.
    What did I ever do to you?
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262

    Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: Labour car crash on NHS devolution. And Burnham says he opposes. Ed Balls says he'll role it out nationally.

    Roll or rule?

    Balls is now so plump, he probably meant 'roll about nationally'.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: Labour car crash on NHS devolution. And Burnham says he opposes. Ed Balls says he'll role it out nationally.

    Roll or rule?

    Thats the issue. Labour dont know....
  • Jonathan said:

    I strongly object to MPs having second jobs.

    (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.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386
    Roger said:

    Antifrank

    Britain's most wanted.....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA5QJS3paAo

    Mothers very upset about the news Re. Sir Cliff...

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    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?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386
    edited February 2015
    Just For Fun:

    YouGov Prediction - Con Lead 1%
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    antifrank said:

    Roger said:

    Antifrank

    Britain's most wanted.....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA5QJS3paAo

    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.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    OSM

    "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?

    Is it wrong type of devolution or something?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706

    Jonathan said:

    I strongly object to MPs having second jobs.

    (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
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    South Yorkshire Police should probably just be disbanded and run by West Yorkshire or some such, it's a national embarrasment.
  • MrsBMrsB Posts: 574
    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
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,195
    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?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    antifrank said:

    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.

    Let me know if it's all about to go wrong :@)
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF 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

    ...

    "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

    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.

  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806

    Jonathan said:

    I strongly object to MPs having second jobs.

    (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.

  • MrsB said:

    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.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    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!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500
    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...


    mince
  • malcolmg 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...


    mince
    http://gawker.com/5855697/the-biological-reason-you-have-too-many-facebook-friends
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I strongly object to MPs having second jobs.

    (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
  • antifrank said:

    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.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,908
    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).



  • malcolmg 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...


    mince
    With or without Turnips?

  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I strongly object to MPs having second jobs.

    (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.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    GIN1138 said:

    Just For Fun:

    YouGov Prediction - Con Lead 1%

    Off to bed

    GIN is on a roll with his predictions. So Tory 1% lead nailed on.

    Or is it on a role could someone help please!!
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    perdix said:

    Jonathan said:

    I strongly object to MPs having second jobs.

    (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.

    ----

    US State systems.

    http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/full-and-part-time-legislatures.aspx
  • Poor Tim is losing his mind on twitter over Osborne's announcement. Politicos are getting all sorts of tweets fired at them.
  • antifrank said:

    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

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    MrsB said:

    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
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500
    antifrank said:

    malcolmg 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...


    mince
    http://gawker.com/5855697/the-biological-reason-you-have-too-many-facebook-friends
    nice one, and true
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    Poor Tim is losing his mind on twitter over Osborne's announcement. Politicos are getting all sorts of tweets fired at them.

    Which Tim ?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Poor Tim is losing his mind on twitter over Osborne's announcement. Politicos are getting all sorts of tweets fired at them.

    Link?
  • antifrank said:

    Roger said:

    Antifrank

    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.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500

    malcolmg 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...


    mince
    With or without Turnips?

    LOL, tatties and turnip
  • MrsB said:

    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.
  • Hengists_GiftHengists_Gift Posts: 628
    edited February 2015
    Jonathan said:

    I strongly object to MPs having second jobs.

    (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!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500

    antifrank said:

    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.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I strongly object to MPs having second jobs.

    (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.
  • malcolmg said:

    malcolmg 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...


    mince
    With or without Turnips?

    LOL, tatties and turnip
    The wifes father always called it tatties and neeps

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I strongly object to MPs having second jobs.

    (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.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg 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...


    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.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    MrsB said:

    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.
    I know Richard wasnt getting at you
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,636
    malcolmg said:

    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.
  • Apparently someone is setting up an owl-themed bar, with real owls. Is this something to do with Ed Miliband?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/11434508/Owl-themed-cocktail-bar-in-London-sparks-concerns-over-birds-welfare-as-thousands-sign-petition.html
This discussion has been closed.