Totally O/T but i notice that BBC people onTV are all wearing poppies, but I haven’t seen any for sale yet.
Rather like Christmas, they’re starting earlier every year. Surely 1st November is a fair starting point?
Living abroad in a city full of British expats, it’s amazing how many conversations in early November start with the poppy. It’s the same one I’ve had for three years now, I just make sure it gets put away in a safe place.
Halloween first, then Bonfire Night, then poppies and Remembrance Sunday, then Advent, then Christmas, in that order.
You missed out Black Friday....
*shudder*
A bit of a damp squib here compared to the USA as it is meant to be the day after Thanksgiving which we don't have here.
The shops really seemed to be getting into it 2 or 3 years ago but it was notably more muted last year. The last thing we need is yet another sale date.
So even though the Catalan leader who organised the last unofficial referendum was barred from office for, iirc, misuse of public funds, Madrid says the Catalan leader who literally declared independence is welcome to stand again - olive branch, or cynical concession as they figure he won't restand?
We always had turnips as kids but Tescos seem to sell nothing but pumpkins at this time of year now. I can't remember when it changed but it was a part of the increasing commercialisation of Halloween maybe 20 years ago. When my kids were younger we would have 40-80 kids from the village at the door supposedly trick or treating but the tradition here was you still had to tell a joke or sing a song for a sweet.
Likewise we always used turnips ( swede to the heathen southerners )
but as the comments in the article say, it wasnt half hard work hollowing them out !
When I was a lad, Halloween involved chucking a couple of eggs at houses of a few people we didn't like, a bit of hedge jumping and the closest we got to knocking on doors was a bit of knock and run. How the heck has Halloween become so commercialised today?
Not sure. American TV shows making it seem such a big deal?
Totally O/T but i notice that BBC people onTV are all wearing poppies, but I haven’t seen any for sale yet.
Rather like Christmas, they’re starting earlier every year. Surely 1st November is a fair starting point?
Living abroad in a city full of British expats, it’s amazing how many conversations in early November start with the poppy. It’s the same one I’ve had for three years now, I just make sure it gets put away in a safe place.
Halloween first, then Bonfire Night, then poppies and Remembrance Sunday, then Advent, then Christmas, in that order.
You missed out Black Friday....
*shudder*
A bit of a damp squib here compared to the USA as it is meant to be the day after Thanksgiving which we don't have here.
The shops really seemed to be getting into it 2 or 3 years ago but it was notably more muted last year. The last thing we need is yet another sale date.
Yes, I am sure most people can wait until Boxing Day which the USA does not have.
Owen Jones is so uncool he's difficult to like and so predictable he's difficult to find interesting.
Does anyone know how he managed to become so popular with the media?
He has a point of view that previously wasn’t much expressed. I used to find him a bit unlikable and unthinking but I think his output has improved a lot and he researches issues much more now.
His series of YouTube interviews with people he disagrees with were very good I think (Douglas Carswell, JRM, Daniel Hanan, Liz Kendall, Alistair Campbell).
When he gets on his high horse it becomes tiresome - but some of his analysis is very good. Unusually for a media commentator he is actually aware of what is happening in European politics and draws parallels between there and here.
We always had turnips as kids but Tescos seem to sell nothing but pumpkins at this time of year now. I can't remember when it changed but it was a part of the increasing commercialisation of Halloween maybe 20 years ago. When my kids were younger we would have 40-80 kids from the village at the door supposedly trick or treating but the tradition here was you still had to tell a joke or sing a song for a sweet.
Likewise we always used turnips ( swede to the heathen southerners )
but as the comments in the article say, it wasnt half hard work hollowing them out !
When I was a lad, Halloween involved chucking a couple of eggs at houses of a few people we didn't like, a bit of hedge jumping and the closest we got to knocking on doors was a bit of knock and run. How the heck has Halloween become so commercialised today?
Not sure. American TV shows making it seem such a big deal?
Yep, and not just with respect to Halloween. Proms are all the rage I gather, and a friend told me last week about his sister's plans for a Baby Shower.
A very interesting exchange between SeanT and Cyclefree at the end of the last thread, if anyone missed it.
Allegations against named MPs in the Sundays look relatively minor so far, those looking for a couple more Harvey Weinsteins are going to be disappointed. Out of order and deserving of censure certainly, but I’m not sure what’s written so far is going to produce any by-elections.
I do wonder if this might lead to MPs’ staff being employed by Parliament directly, with an HR structure in place that might allow such incidents to be dealt with more appropriately?
Aren't they already directly employed?
MPs would really not like it, as it's much nicer to appoint people you know and trust than have some random civil servant assigned to you, and implementation would be a nightmare, as thousands of existing staff would be at risk of losing jobs, but it could be phased in over 15 years, say.
What is also needed is someone independent to whom staff can whistleblow in confidence and who has the strength, integrity and independence to investigate such allegations. Without that such behaviour will always go under the radar. Not at all convinced that MPs would welcome this, though.
Men who gave the type of workplace harassment described in the papers have no place in Parliament. It shows a basic lack of respect for others in a power relationship.
It shows a basic lack of respect for others.
I am aware of one very senior female executive in a largely male dominated institution who would say wholly inappropriate things to more junior men, in one case to someone who was seeking promotion from her. The men felt very very uncomfortable but did not speak up. The executive also bullied her female staff, at least one of whom left as a result. This sort of behaviour is not limited to men but it is wrong whoever does it.
Such sexual bullying is it seems often part of other bullying and lack of respect for boundaries. It would raise concern in me about whether other rules were being broken. Lack of character is rarely domain specific.
I have done some official work investigating dodgy behaviour (clinical, bullying, financial), and often uncover other issues.
After a lot of struggling to find anything, came up with two bets. Agree with Mr. Sandpit about backing Hamilton to lead lap 1, and also decided to back Vandoorne against Alonso. On pace, Alonso has it. But the Spaniard has something like a 67% DNF rate in recent races.
That's 9 for Hamilton, on Betfair, and 3.5 for Vandoorne, on Ladbrokes.
We always had turnips as kids but Tescos seem to sell nothing but pumpkins at this time of year now. I can't remember when it changed but it was a part of the increasing commercialisation of Halloween maybe 20 years ago. When my kids were younger we would have 40-80 kids from the village at the door supposedly trick or treating but the tradition here was you still had to tell a joke or sing a song for a sweet.
Likewise we always used turnips ( swede to the heathen southerners )
but as the comments in the article say, it wasnt half hard work hollowing them out !
When I was a lad, Halloween involved chucking a couple of eggs at houses of a few people we didn't like, a bit of hedge jumping and the closest we got to knocking on doors was a bit of knock and run. How the heck has Halloween become so commercialised today?
Not sure. American TV shows making it seem such a big deal?
Yep, and not just with respect to Halloween. Proms are all the rage I gather, and a friend told me last week about his sister's plans for a Baby Shower.
Not related to tv culture, I don't think, but I recall similar talk on bachelor and bachelorette parties. Im only 30 and I'm sure I don't recall it being fairly common for them to be weekend or even week long junkets involving a flight to Newcastle or Amsterdam or whatever. Very extravagant.
I don't think that working away from home is the usual reason. The objective case for MPs employing spouses for 1-2 days a week is that you're expected to be able to respond to 100ish emails a day 7*24, some of them quite desperate, and you really need an assistant to avoid keeping people waiting; that ideally means someone who shares your home. But I think the more usual reason is simply the level of trust involved (I don't think the pay is a big factor - an assistant will IIRC typically get maybe £4000/year for 1 day/week). The comparison is more with small businesses, where spouse partnerships are common and it would be odd to require by law that you replace your spouse with a stranger.
Lots of jobs require the employment of someone you can trust and 24/7 coverage and may even involve working from home. With all the technology that permits instant coverage and connection remotely, the argument that only a spouse can do it is less and less plausible, frankly. A spouse may be the best person for the job but only if they really are and not just because they are married to the MP.
There is far too much rationalisation going on, by MPs, by oafish sexual predators, by fraudsters and the rest seeking to justify by whatever peg they can hang their threadbare argument on behaviour that they want to do.
Whilst I agree with you the converse is also true. As a happily married man I have always been careful not to put myself in positions where temptation and opportunity combine, especially where drink is involved. If I was to be working in such a scenario I would very much prefer it was with my wife or, frankly, another bloke.
Or a woman older than you. PA’s don’t have to be young girls. Some of the best ones I know haven’t been.
A very interesting exchange between SeanT and Cyclefree at the end of the last thread, if anyone missed it.
Allegations against named MPs in the Sundays look relatively minor so far, those looking for a couple more Harvey Weinsteins are going to be disappointed. Out of order and deserving of censure certainly, but I’m not sure what’s written so far is going to produce any by-elections.
I do wonder if this might lead to MPs’ staff being employed by Parliament directly, with an HR structure in place that might allow such incidents to be dealt with more appropriately?
Aren't they already directly employed?
MPs would really not like it, as it's much nicer to appoint people you know and trust than have some random civil servant assigned to you, and implementation would be a nightmare, as thousands of existing staff would be at risk of losing jobs, but it could be phased in over 15 years, say.
What is also needed is someone independent to whom staff can whistleblow in confidence and who has the strength, integrity and independence to investigate such allegations. Without that such behaviour will always go under the radar. Not at all convinced that MPs would welcome this, though.
Men who gave the type of workplace harassment described in the papers have no place in Parliament. It shows a basic lack of respect for others in a power relationship.
It shows a basic lack of respect for others.
I am aware of one very senior female executive in a largely male dominated institution who would say wholly inappropriate things to more junior men, in one case to someone who was seeking promotion from her. The men felt very very uncomfortable but did not speak up. The executive also bullied her female staff, at least one of whom left as a result. This sort of behaviour is not limited to men but it is wrong whoever does it.
Such sexual bullying is it seems often part of other bullying and lack of respect for boundaries. It would raise concern in me about whether other rules were being broken. Lack of character is rarely domain specific.
I have done some official work investigating dodgy behaviour (clinical, bullying, financial), and often uncover other issues.
Very true. And worrying when the person concerned is meant to be one of those setting an example to others......
I don't think that working away from home is the usual reason. The objective case for MPs employing spouses for 1-2 days a week is that you're expected to be able to respond to 100ish emails a day 7*24, some of them quite desperate, and you really need an assistant to avoid keeping people waiting; that ideally means someone who shares your home. But I think the more usual reason is simply the level of trust involved (I don't think the pay is a big factor - an assistant will IIRC typically get maybe £4000/year for 1 day/week). The comparison is more with small businesses, where spouse partnerships are common and it would be odd to require by law that you replace your spouse with a stranger.
Lots of jobs require the employment of someone you can trust and 24/7 coverage and may even involve working from home. With all the technology that permits instant coverage and connection remotely, the argument that only a spouse can do it is less and less plausible, frankly. A spouse may be the best person for the job but only if they really are and not just because they are married to the MP.
There is far too much rationalisation going on, by MPs, by oafish sexual predators, by fraudsters and the rest seeking to justify by whatever peg they can hang their threadbare argument on behaviour that they want to do.
Whilst I agree with you the converse is also true. As a happily married man I have always been careful not to put myself in positions where temptation and opportunity combine, especially where drink is involved. If I was to be working in such a scenario I would very much prefer it was with my wife or, frankly, another bloke.
Or a woman older than you. PA’s don’t have to be young girls. Some of the best ones I know haven’t been.
You don't think older woman can't be seriously attractive? My wife's a year older than me for a start!
But a bit of maturity and self respect is indeed helpful. It is the inequality of power that makes it troubling.
I don't think that working away from home is the usual reason. The objective case for MPs employing spouses for 1-2 days a week is that you're expected to be able to respond to 100ish emails a day 7*24, some of them quite desperate, and you really need an assistant to avoid keeping people waiting; that ideally means someone who shares your home. But I think the more usual reason is simply the level of trust involved (I don't think the pay is a big factor - an assistant will IIRC typically get maybe £4000/year for 1 day/week). The comparison is more with small businesses, where spouse partnerships are common and it would be odd to require by law that you replace your spouse with a stranger.
Lots of jobs require the employment of someone you can trust and 24/7 coverage and may even involve working from home. With all the technology that permits instant coverage and connection remotely, the argument that only a spouse can do it is less and less plausible, frankly. A spouse may be the best person for the job but only if they really are and not just because they are married to the MP.
There is far too much rationalisation going on, by MPs, by oafish sexual predators, by fraudsters and the rest seeking to justify by whatever peg they can hang their threadbare argument on behaviour that they want to do.
Whilst I agree with you the converse is also true. As a happily married man I have always been careful not to put myself in positions where temptation and opportunity combine, especially where drink is involved. If I was to be working in such a scenario I would very much prefer it was with my wife or, frankly, another bloke.
Or a woman older than you. PA’s don’t have to be young girls. Some of the best ones I know haven’t been.
Being a good pa is harder than people think, experience can be very necessary - most I know are older women.
Hunt on Marr says investigations will be made as to whether Garnier broke the Ministerial Code.
Not sure that is really the point. I trust he is spending the day clearing out his office (including any remaining sex toys).
Eh? Is there a link to this?
The story is linked to downthread in the Mail. He has admitted asking his assistant to buy 2 vibrators, one for his wife and one for "someone in his constituency office". A bit of reflection might have resulted in him concluding (a) this was extremely unwise and (b) not necessarily particularly flattering about his own abilities!
We always had turnips as kids but Tescos seem to sell nothing but pumpkins at this time of year now. I can't remember when it changed but it was a part of the increasing commercialisation of Halloween maybe 20 years ago. When my kids were younger we would have 40-80 kids from the village at the door supposedly trick or treating but the tradition here was you still had to tell a joke or sing a song for a sweet.
Likewise we always used turnips ( swede to the heathen southerners )
but as the comments in the article say, it wasnt half hard work hollowing them out !
When I was a lad, Halloween involved chucking a couple of eggs at houses of a few people we didn't like, a bit of hedge jumping and the closest we got to knocking on doors was a bit of knock and run. How the heck has Halloween become so commercialised today?
I was listening to R4 in the car last week where the presenter claimed Halloween has now become the biggest retail event in the year after Christmas
They start selling Halloween products in some shops the week after the August bank holiday - it's a near two month retail fest. Of course come 2 January the shops will start selling Easter eggs and hot cross buns - over 3 months before Easter.
Hunt on Marr says investigations will be made as to whether Garnier broke the Ministerial Code.
Not sure that is really the point. I trust he is spending the day clearing out his office (including any remaining sex toys).
Eh? Is there a link to this?
The story is linked to downthread in the Mail. He has admitted asking his assistant to buy 2 vibrators, one for his wife and one for "someone in his constituency office". A bit of reflection might have resulted in him concluding (a) this was extremely unwise and (b) not necessarily particularly flattering about his own abilities!
Indie has a summary of today's two casualties. I doubt Crabb will running for leadership in near future. But basically, all relatively small potatoes so far.
Hunt on Marr says investigations will be made as to whether Garnier broke the Ministerial Code.
Not sure that is really the point. I trust he is spending the day clearing out his office (including any remaining sex toys).
Eh? Is there a link to this?
The story is linked to downthread in the Mail. He has admitted asking his assistant to buy 2 vibrators, one for his wife and one for "someone in his constituency office". A bit of reflection might have resulted in him concluding (a) this was extremely unwise and (b) not necessarily particularly flattering about his own abilities!
It's great to see the tories bang on form with the sex shenanigans again. They've had a bit of a barren spell and not provided us with many laughs since that one topped himself in a wanking frenzy.
I don't think that working away from home is the usual reason. The objective case for MPs employing spouses for 1-2 days a week is that you're expected to be able to respond to 100ish emails a day 7*24, some of them quite desperate, and you really need an assistant to avoid keeping people waiting; that ideally means someone who shares your home. But I think the more usual reason is simply the level of trust involved (I don't think the pay is a big factor - an assistant will IIRC typically get maybe £4000/year for 1 day/week). The comparison is more with small businesses, where spouse partnerships are common and it would be odd to require by law that you replace your spouse with a stranger.
Lots of jobs require the employment of someone you can trust and 24/7 coverage and may even involve working from home. With all the technology that permits instant coverage and connection remotely, the argument that only a spouse can do it is less and less plausible, frankly. A spouse may be the best person for the job but only if they really are and not just because they are married to the MP.
There is far too much rationalisation going on, by MPs, by oafish sexual predators, by fraudsters and the rest seeking to justify by whatever peg they can hang their threadbare argument on behaviour that they want to do.
Whilst I agree with you the converse is also true. As a happily married man I have always been careful not to put myself in positions where temptation and opportunity combine, especially where drink is involved. If I was to be working in such a scenario I would very much prefer it was with my wife or, frankly, another bloke.
Or a woman older than you. PA’s don’t have to be young girls. Some of the best ones I know haven’t been.
You don't think older woman can't be seriously attractive? My wife's a year older than me for a start!
But a bit of maturity and self respect is indeed helpful. It is the inequality of power that makes it troubling.
Of course I do. I am older than my husband. But older women have courage and won’t generally stand for any nonsense and, unfair as this may be, in an environment dominated by a lot of young men (such as the City) can often be seen by those young men as sexually invisible. But they still have eyes to see and can be a source of guidance for younger women ( and not just them, of course.....)
Plus when they go on the warpath, well, God help anyone in their way........
I don't think that working away from home is the usual reason. The objective case for MPs employing spouses for 1-2 days a week is that you're expected to be able to respond to 100ish emails a day 7*24, some of them quite desperate, and you really need an assistant to avoid keeping people waiting; that ideally means someone who shares your home. But I think the more usual reason is simply the level of trust involved (I don't think the pay is a big factor - an assistant will IIRC typically get maybe £4000/year for 1 day/week). The comparison is more with small businesses, where spouse partnerships are common and it would be odd to require by law that you replace your spouse with a stranger.
Lots of jobs require the employment of someone you can trust and 24/7 coverage and may even involve working from home. With all the technology that permits instant coverage and connection remotely, the argument that only a spouse can do it is less and less plausible, frankly. A spouse may be the best person for the job but only if they really are and not just because they are married to the MP.
There is far too much rationalisation going on, by MPs, by oafish sexual predators, by fraudsters and the rest seeking to justify by whatever peg they can hang their threadbare argument on behaviour that they want to do.
Whilst I agree with you the converse is also true. As a happily married man I have always been careful not to put myself in positions where temptation and opportunity combine, especially where drink is involved. If I was to be working in such a scenario I would very much prefer it was with my wife or, frankly, another bloke.
Or a woman older than you. PA’s don’t have to be young girls. Some of the best ones I know haven’t been.
Being a good pa is harder than people think, experience can be very necessary - most I know are older women.
I think that reflects a time when there was much greater inequality of opportunity. Like you I have had the benefit of secretaries/paralegals who these days would (rightly) have been encouraged to go and get degrees and careers of their own instead of covering up my incompetence.
Such people are no longer available in large numbers but are indeed worth their weight in gold. I would go so far as to say it is almost impossible for someone in a senior position to perform at their best without one. It just removes so much of what would otherwise bog them down and distract them.
So, she does trust him to drive her home after a party now?
More just she really wants to leave the shitty party so is willing to take the risk I guess.
Seems to be a pitch to be CoE under Boris, whilst accepting at the same time that a Remainer wont win a leadership bid this side of Brexit.
Given the EU hate Boris I would rather keep May until it is done personally, she is at least making some progress on moves towards a FTA, failing that Davis.
As a Tory member I would only consider Boris once we are out of the EU and FTA talks are well under way with the UK already in the transition period.
So even though the Catalan leader who organised the last unofficial referendum was barred from office for, iirc, misuse of public funds, Madrid says the Catalan leader who literally declared independence is welcome to stand again - olive branch, or cynical concession as they figure he won't restand?
Presumably he believes he is still in power and therefore the new elections are invalid - cynical gesture by Madrid
The witch-hunt has moved to parliament. It should produce some unpredictable betting opportunities. One wayward comment in Hansard in the last twenty years should do it. Or perhaps just a whisper heard in a tearoom.
Tony Blair used to have a female minister (Ruth somebody) who couldn't answer a parliamentary question without her dress sense being ridiculed. It'll be interesting to see where they set the bar. Does it have be be an actual grope or will simple sexism be enough?
Hunt on Marr says investigations will be made as to whether Garnier broke the Ministerial Code.
Not sure that is really the point. I trust he is spending the day clearing out his office (including any remaining sex toys).
Eh? Is there a link to this?
The story is linked to downthread in the Mail. He has admitted asking his assistant to buy 2 vibrators, one for his wife and one for "someone in his constituency office". A bit of reflection might have resulted in him concluding (a) this was extremely unwise and (b) not necessarily particularly flattering about his own abilities!
It's great to see the tories bang on form with the sex shenanigans again. They've had a bit of a barren spell and not provided us with many laughs since that one topped himself in a wanking frenzy.
I seriously hope you did not find the latter event a source of amusement. But laughing at the absurdities of our "betters" in whatever party is some repayment for what they do to us.
So even though the Catalan leader who organised the last unofficial referendum was barred from office for, iirc, misuse of public funds, Madrid says the Catalan leader who literally declared independence is welcome to stand again - olive branch, or cynical concession as they figure he won't restand?
Presumably he believes he is still in power and therefore the new elections are invalid - cynical gesture by Madrid
That was my thinking - if Artur Mas was barred, how could Puigdemont possibly not be, but having made the UDI, well, how can one then say 'No, it's good, I'll stand for the regional parliament and agree to be a good boy?
But who knows with this situation. With the separatists not being an overwhelming majority, and unwilling (happily) or unable to use force to maintain a separate state, perhaps things will die down a little into a sullen acceptance - best that can be hoped for?
They are learning the old lesson that if someone won't agree to give you something, you do have to take it if you expect to get it.
Hunt on Marr says investigations will be made as to whether Garnier broke the Ministerial Code.
'Theresa May has ordered an investigation into allegations about the conduct of minister Mark Garnier. Mr Garnier admitted asking his secretary to buy sex toys for him and calling her "sugar tits," according to the Mail on Sunday. The PM has asked the Cabinet Office to look at whether his reported actions broke the ministerial code, Jeremy Hunt told the Andrew Marr show. Mr Garnier did not respond to requests for a comment. The prime minister is also writing to the Speaker of the House of Commons, calling for a new contractually-binding grievance procedure to be set up for all MPs and their staff, said the health secretary.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41794625
The witch-hunt has moved to parliament. It should produce some unpredictable betting opportunities. One wayward comment in Hansard in the last twenty years should do it. Or perhaps just a whisper heard in a tearoom.
Tony Blair used to have a female minister (Ruth somebody) who couldn't answer a parliamentary question without her dress sense being ridiculed. It'll be interesting to see where they set the bar. Does it have be be an actual grope or will simple sexism be enough?
It's not an unreasonable question. I think it quite possible a focus on poor behaviour which is trivial but easier to find and prove might distract from cases of greater concern and seriousness.
Hunt on Marr says investigations will be made as to whether Garnier broke the Ministerial Code.
If he was outside the store then probably not (marginal use of time assuming they were in Soho anyway). A little bit sad though - presumably too embarrassed to go in himself.
The "sugar tits" allegation is more serious. As a one off - and assuming not part of a pattern - you might get away with the claim it was a reference to Gavin and Stacey (never watched so don't know the context) but if it was an repeated occasions then, in my view, it would constitute harassment
Edit: and for @foxinsoxuk this is more like the O'Mara case than the Govd situation. Party has nothing to do with an assessment of the facts
Hunt on Marr says investigations will be made as to whether Garnier broke the Ministerial Code.
If he was outside the store then probably not (marginal use of time assuming they were in Soho anyway). A little bit sad though - presumably too embarrassed to go in himself.
The "sugar tits" allegation is more serious. As a one off - and assuming not part of a pattern - you might get away with the claim it was a reference to Gavin and Stacey (never watched so don't know the context) but if it was an repeated occasions then, in my view, it would constitute harassment
I am sure there will be close examination of the precise context in which the term was used.
Hunt on Marr says investigations will be made as to whether Garnier broke the Ministerial Code.
If he was outside the store then probably not (marginal use of time assuming they were in Soho anyway). A little bit sad though - presumably too embarrassed to go in himself.
The "sugar tits" allegation is more serious. As a one off - and assuming not part of a pattern - you might get away with the claim it was a reference to Gavin and Stacey (never watched so don't know the context) but if it was an repeated occasions then, in my view, it would constitute harassment
Mel Gibson shows the way on 'sugar tits' remarks - lay low for a few years, start directing, and you're back in business.
Hunt on Marr says investigations will be made as to whether Garnier broke the Ministerial Code.
Not sure that is really the point. I trust he is spending the day clearing out his office (including any remaining sex toys).
Eh? Is there a link to this?
The story is linked to downthread in the Mail. He has admitted asking his assistant to buy 2 vibrators, one for his wife and one for "someone in his constituency office". A bit of reflection might have resulted in him concluding (a) this was extremely unwise and (b) not necessarily particularly flattering about his own abilities!
It's great to see the tories bang on form with the sex shenanigans again. They've had a bit of a barren spell and not provided us with many laughs since that one topped himself in a wanking frenzy.
Your comment in your last sentence is unbelievably crass and unacceptable. Since when has it been funny when someone commits suicide
The witch-hunt has moved to parliament. It should produce some unpredictable betting opportunities. One wayward comment in Hansard in the last twenty years should do it. Or perhaps just a whisper heard in a tearoom.
Tony Blair used to have a female minister (Ruth somebody) who couldn't answer a parliamentary question without her dress sense being ridiculed. It'll be interesting to see where they set the bar. Does it have be be an actual grope or will simple sexism be enough?
Hunt on Marr says investigations will be made as to whether Garnier broke the Ministerial Code.
Not sure that is really the point. I trust he is spending the day clearing out his office (including any remaining sex toys).
Eh? Is there a link to this?
The story is linked to downthread in the Mail. He has admitted asking his assistant to buy 2 vibrators, one for his wife and one for "someone in his constituency office". A bit of reflection might have resulted in him concluding (a) this was extremely unwise and (b) not necessarily particularly flattering about his own abilities!
It's great to see the tories bang on form with the sex shenanigans again. They've had a bit of a barren spell and not provided us with many laughs since that one topped himself in a wanking frenzy.
Classy as ever.
Of course, he didn't commit suicide. He was murdered, but it was made to look as tacky a death as possible. So twats like you would keep bringing it up....
Hunt on Marr says investigations will be made as to whether Garnier broke the Ministerial Code.
Not sure that is really the point. I trust he is spending the day clearing out his office (including any remaining sex toys).
Eh? Is there a link to this?
The story is linked to downthread in the Mail. He has admitted asking his assistant to buy 2 vibrators, one for his wife and one for "someone in his constituency office". A bit of reflection might have resulted in him concluding (a) this was extremely unwise and (b) not necessarily particularly flattering about his own abilities!
It's great to see the tories bang on form with the sex shenanigans again. They've had a bit of a barren spell and not provided us with many laughs since that one topped himself in a wanking frenzy.
Your comment in your last sentence is unbelievably crass and unacceptable. Since when has it been funny when someone commits suicide
Hunt on Marr says investigations will be made as to whether Garnier broke the Ministerial Code.
Not sure that is really the point. I trust he is spending the day clearing out his office (including any remaining sex toys).
Eh? Is there a link to this?
The story is linked to downthread in the Mail. He has admitted asking his assistant to buy 2 vibrators, one for his wife and one for "someone in his constituency office". A bit of reflection might have resulted in him concluding (a) this was extremely unwise and (b) not necessarily particularly flattering about his own abilities!
It's great to see the tories bang on form with the sex shenanigans again. They've had a bit of a barren spell and not provided us with many laughs since that one topped himself in a wanking frenzy.
Your comment in your last sentence is unbelievably crass and unacceptable. Since when has it been funny when someone commits suicide
Apart from the obvious trauma and upset caused to the victims, the other thing that bothers me about this whole discussion about sex harassment is the implicit idea that it is a normal way for men to behave. Yesterday evening there was a long discussion on here abut factors which lead to sexual harassment - primarily being in a position of power - and the idea that men who are in positions of power are more likely to abuse their female staff. But again the implication seems to be that the majority of men are ignorant asshats who are just waiting for the opportunity to abuse a woman in some way.
Sexual harassment is not normal male behaviour. There are millions and millions of men who have been brought up to respect their family, friends and colleagues and not to behave in such an unacceptable manner. They go to work every day, work with female staff, both higher and lower than them on the organisational ladder and would not for a moment think of abusing them or in any way making them feel uncomfortable at work. More than that if they do see such behaviour they are right there making it clear it is unacceptable and doing what they can to put it right.
Sexual harassment is the work of individuals too infantile or obnoxious to know the difference between right and wrong. That goes for Hollywood, Parliament and any other walk of life where they appear. But claiming it is the result of being in positions of power implies that all men would behave that way were they only in a similar position. For the vast majority of men they would not.
Apart from the obvious trauma and upset caused to the victims, the other thing that bothers me about this whole discussion about sex harassment is the implicit idea that it is a normal way for men to behave. Yesterday evening there was a long discussion on here abut factors which lead to sexual harassment - primarily being in a position of power - and the idea that men who are in positions of power are more likely to abuse their female staff. But again the implication seems to be that the majority of men are ignorant asshats who are just waiting for the opportunity to abuse a woman in some way.
Sexual harassment is not normal male behaviour. There are millions and millions of men who have been brought up to respect their family, friends and colleagues and not to behave in such an unacceptable manner. They go to work every day, work with female staff, both higher and lower than them on the organisational ladder and would not for a moment think of abusing them or in any way making them feel uncomfortable at work. More than that if they do see such behaviour they are right there making it clear it is unacceptable and doing what they can to put it right.
Sexual harassment is the work of individuals too infantile or obnoxious to know the difference between right and wrong. That goes for Hollywood, Parliament and any other walk of life where they appear. But claiming it is the result of being in positions of power implies that all men would behave that way were they only in a similar position. For the vast majority of men they would not.
So even though the Catalan leader who organised the last unofficial referendum was barred from office for, iirc, misuse of public funds, Madrid says the Catalan leader who literally declared independence is welcome to stand again - olive branch, or cynical concession as they figure he won't restand?
Presumably he believes he is still in power and therefore the new elections are invalid - cynical gesture by Madrid
That was my thinking - if Artur Mas was barred, how could Puigdemont possibly not be, but having made the UDI, well, how can one then say 'No, it's good, I'll stand for the regional parliament and agree to be a good boy?
But who knows with this situation. With the separatists not being an overwhelming majority, and unwilling (happily) or unable to use force to maintain a separate state, perhaps things will die down a little into a sullen acceptance - best that can be hoped for?
They are learning the old lesson that if someone won't agree to give you something, you do have to take it if you expect to get it.
I expect him to turn up to work tomorrow as if he was still in power. Then it will be up to Spain whether they prevent him acting or not
Apart from the obvious trauma and upset caused to the victims, the other thing that bothers me about this whole discussion about sex harassment is the implicit idea that it is a normal way for men to behave. Yesterday evening there was a long discussion on here abut factors which lead to sexual harassment - primarily being in a position of power - and the idea that men who are in positions of power are more likely to abuse their female staff. But again the implication seems to be that the majority of men are ignorant asshats who are just waiting for the opportunity to abuse a woman in some way.
Sexual harassment is not normal male behaviour. There are millions and millions of men who have been brought up to respect their family, friends and colleagues and not to behave in such an unacceptable manner. They go to work every day, work with female staff, both higher and lower than them on the organisational ladder and would not for a moment think of abusing them or in any way making them feel uncomfortable at work. More than that if they do see such behaviour they are right there making it clear it is unacceptable and doing what they can to put it right.
Sexual harassment is the work of individuals too infantile or obnoxious to know the difference between right and wrong. That goes for Hollywood, Parliament and any other walk of life where they appear. But claiming it is the result of being in positions of power implies that all men would behave that way were they only in a similar position. For the vast majority of men they would not.
Well said. The lats bit particularly, as that explanation is about making it seem normal.
So even though the Catalan leader who organised the last unofficial referendum was barred from office for, iirc, misuse of public funds, Madrid says the Catalan leader who literally declared independence is welcome to stand again - olive branch, or cynical concession as they figure he won't restand?
Presumably he believes he is still in power and therefore the new elections are invalid - cynical gesture by Madrid
That was my thinking - if Artur Mas was barred, how could Puigdemont possibly not be, but having made the UDI, well, how can one then say 'No, it's good, I'll stand for the regional parliament and agree to be a good boy?
But who knows with this situation. With the separatists not being an overwhelming majority, and unwilling (happily) or unable to use force to maintain a separate state, perhaps things will die down a little into a sullen acceptance - best that can be hoped for?
They are learning the old lesson that if someone won't agree to give you something, you do have to take it if you expect to get it.
I expect him to turn up to work tomorrow as if he was still in power. Then it will be up to Spain whether they prevent him acting or not
I agree with that. I thought your government in exile comment a little premature. At the moment we don't know who the civil service, the local police and even the local judiciary are going to take their instructions from. Lots of people are going to face difficult decisions tomorrow.
"he might start pardoning people before the normal criminal routes have been completed, which might cause Trump even more problems"
What do we reckon would happen specifically? I mean, his stated position is that the whole thing is a politically-motivated witch-hunt and something something Hillary Clinton. It seems consistent with that to just aggressively pardon everybody. So if he does this, what's anybody going to do about it? I mean, maybe we could try to sue the incompetent cretins who wrote the US constitution, but they're all dead, so what's the next move?
I was thinking electoral problems/perceptions, they say Ford lost the 1976 election the moment he pardoned Nixon.
The witch-hunt has moved to parliament. It should produce some unpredictable betting opportunities. One wayward comment in Hansard in the last twenty years should do it. Or perhaps just a whisper heard in a tearoom.
Tony Blair used to have a female minister (Ruth somebody) who couldn't answer a parliamentary question without her dress sense being ridiculed. It'll be interesting to see where they set the bar. Does it have be be an actual grope or will simple sexism be enough?
Ruth Kelly? Was she not the one in Opus Dei?
Yes it was Ruth Kelly. The amount of sexism poured over that poor lady was something to behold.
So even though the Catalan leader who organised the last unofficial referendum was barred from office for, iirc, misuse of public funds, Madrid says the Catalan leader who literally declared independence is welcome to stand again - olive branch, or cynical concession as they figure he won't restand?
Presumably he believes he is still in power and therefore the new elections are invalid - cynical gesture by Madrid
That was my thinking - if Artur Mas was barred, how could Puigdemont possibly not be, but having made the UDI, well, how can one then say 'No, it's good, I'll stand for the regional parliament and agree to be a good boy?
But who knows with this situation. With the separatists not being an overwhelming majority, and unwilling (happily) or unable to use force to maintain a separate state, perhaps things will die down a little into a sullen acceptance - best that can be hoped for?
They are learning the old lesson that if someone won't agree to give you something, you do have to take it if you expect to get it.
I expect him to turn up to work tomorrow as if he was still in power. Then it will be up to Spain whether they prevent him acting or not
I agree with that. I thought your government in exile comment a little premature. At the moment we don't know who the civil service, the local police and even the local judiciary are going to take their instructions from. Lots of people are going to face difficult decisions tomorrow.
I wonder if anyone was smart enough to book a couple of weeks' leave. Though I suppose police would have been recalled.
Mr. HYUFD, well, yesterday I was thrown out of PB Tory Club, but, for what it's worth, I'd sooner see Boris made ambassador to North Korea than PM.
Given the current appetite for exposing sexual shenanigans, the chances of Boris getting near the party leadership is pretty much dead. He had way too many skeletons a decade ago, let alone now
The witch-hunt has moved to parliament. It should produce some unpredictable betting opportunities. One wayward comment in Hansard in the last twenty years should do it. Or perhaps just a whisper heard in a tearoom.
Tony Blair used to have a female minister (Ruth somebody) who couldn't answer a parliamentary question without her dress sense being ridiculed. It'll be interesting to see where they set the bar. Does it have be be an actual grope or will simple sexism be enough?
Ruth Kelly? Was she not the one in Opus Dei?
Yes it was Ruth Kelly. The amount of sexism poured over that poor lady was something to behold.
You sure it was sexism? She was the one who thought it ok for a chap who had been cautioned by the police for having child pornography to work in a school. Who approved a teacher who had been convicted of a sexual assault of a minor for work. Who was quite incredibly the Minister for Equality when completely opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds. She made JRM look like some wishy washy CoE liberal.
These things are always easier much in theory than in practice, where as you say there are thousands of people employed by MPs.
I can easily understand why an MP might appoint their spouse as a PA, for example, given the need for being away from home in London most weeks. I’m fine with that provided that they are actually working as the MP’s PA and not just banking the salary.
How many caseworkers and researchers in Westminster (as opposed to constituency offices) are looking for a career in casework or research, and how many see the job as a stepping stone to a further career? In my industry precisely no-one goes into IT to work on the helpdesk all their life - but the vast majority start there, if only as an introduction to understanding the customer.
Maybe the parties can have a pool of Parliamentary staff that can move around, so that as an MP your staffers are ‘from’ your party and believe in the same things you do? I’ve always thought of it as particularly bad when an MP retires or is defeated and takes a very nice pay-off, while their young researcher gets redundancy pay and told to go and find someone else to work for (I exaggerate a little, but you know what I mean).
Why is an MP working away in London any different from an oil rig worker, a Day Crewing Plus firefighter or any other poor sap who has to work away? I don't get to employ my wife on the tax payer's quid just because I spend up to 5 x 24h days a week at a fire station. MPs need to stop thinking they are above us all.
I don't think that working away from home is the usual reason. The objective case for MPs employing spouses for 1-2 days a week is that you're expected to be able to respond to 100ish emails a day 7*24, some of them quite desperate, and you really need an assistant to avoid keeping people waiting; that ideally means someone who shares your home. But I think the more usual reason is simply the level of trust involved (I don't think the pay is a big factor - an assistant will IIRC typically get maybe £4000/year for 1 day/week). The comparison is more with small businesses, where spouse partnerships are common and it would be odd to require by law that you replace your spouse with a stranger.
I know you were not in Parliament at the time but until 20 years ago e-mails had a very minor role in communication.Surely MPs are not obliged to provide an e-mail address or be required to adjust their working patterns to new technology! How did MPs back in the 1950s and 1960s manage to function effectively?
After a lot of struggling to find anything, came up with two bets. Agree with Mr. Sandpit about backing Hamilton to lead lap 1, and also decided to back Vandoorne against Alonso. On pace, Alonso has it. But the Spaniard has something like a 67% DNF rate in recent races.
That's 9 for Hamilton, on Betfair, and 3.5 for Vandoorne, on Ladbrokes.
Almost tempted to put a couple of quid on Vandoorne for fastest lap at 95. The Mclaren appears to have some pace here, and you do get some odd fastest laps on occasion. Thoughts ?
I think there's a case to be made that the nature of the role and expectations are different and an email address would be expected to be required, however I do not believe anyone could reasonably say an MP should be publicly accessible 24 hours a day - yes, some will be emails sent in desperation,but in a genuine emergency your MP is not really able to assist in most instances, and if they receive it at midnight they certainly cannot. It could wait for a normal assistant arriving first thing in the morning at the office.
So even though the Catalan leader who organised the last unofficial referendum was barred from office for, iirc, misuse of public funds, Madrid says the Catalan leader who literally declared independence is welcome to stand again - olive branch, or cynical concession as they figure he won't restand?
Presumably he believes he is still in power and therefore the new elections are invalid - cynical gesture by Madrid
That was my thinking - if Artur Mas was barred, how could Puigdemont possibly not be, but having made the UDI, well, how can one then say 'No, it's good, I'll stand for the regional parliament and agree to be a good boy?
But who knows with this situation. With the separatists not being an overwhelming majority, and unwilling (happily) or unable to use force to maintain a separate state, perhaps things will die down a little into a sullen acceptance - best that can be hoped for?
They are learning the old lesson that if someone won't agree to give you something, you do have to take it if you expect to get it.
I expect him to turn up to work tomorrow as if he was still in power. Then it will be up to Spain whether they prevent him acting or not
I agree with that. I thought your government in exile comment a little premature. At the moment we don't know who the civil service, the local police and even the local judiciary are going to take their instructions from. Lots of people are going to face difficult decisions tomorrow.
Yes, but hasn't the head of the police been replaced? In that case Madrid has the truncheon hand. I doubt that there are many civil service or judiciary decisions that can't be deferred - I expect lots of people to keep their heads down
Indie has a summary of today's two casualties. I doubt Crabb will running for leadership in near future. But basically, all relatively small potatoes so far.
Bloody hell. I remember feeling embarrassed about asking my secretary to make a cup of coffee for a visitor, and wondering if I should have made it myself. Anyway, I know MPs are busy, but really if you want to buy sex toys, isn'i the fun in choosing them, ideally with your partner(s!)? "My secretary got this for you, darling" doesn't have quite the right ring.
The other allegaiton against him is actually a lot nastier, though - that sounds a very clear case of bullying.
MPs are not emergency services. They are your last point of escalation. As such, there is very little in this country that shouldn't be dealt with in office hours.
After a lot of struggling to find anything, came up with two bets. Agree with Mr. Sandpit about backing Hamilton to lead lap 1, and also decided to back Vandoorne against Alonso. On pace, Alonso has it. But the Spaniard has something like a 67% DNF rate in recent races.
That's 9 for Hamilton, on Betfair, and 3.5 for Vandoorne, on Ladbrokes.
Almost tempted to put a couple of quid on Vandoorne for fastest lap at 95. The Mclaren appears to have some pace here, and you do get some odd fastest laps on occasion. Thoughts ?
Well Alonso’s Q1 time was within a couple of tenths of Lewis’ leading time in that session.
Fastest lap will, like last week, go to someone who decides on the two stop strategy. No bet in this market for me.
These things are always easier much in theory than in practice, where as you say there are thousands of people employed by MPs.
I can easily understand why an MP might appoint their spouse as a PA, for example, given the need for being away from home in London most weeks. I’m fine with that provided that they are actually working as the MP’s PA and not just banking the salary.
How many caseworkers and researchers in Westminster (as opposed to constituency offices) are looking for a career in casework or research, and how many see the job as a stepping stone to a further career? In my industry precisely no-one goes into IT to work on the helpdesk all their life - but the vast majority start there, if only as an introduction to understanding the customer.
Maybe the parties can have a pool of Parliamentary staff that can move around, so that as an MP your staffers are ‘from’ your party and believe in the same things you do? I’ve always thought of it as particularly bad when an MP retires or is defeated and takes a very nice pay-off, while their young researcher gets redundancy pay and told to go and find someone else to work for (I exaggerate a little, but you know what I mean).
snip.
I don't think that working away from home is the usual reason. The objective case for MPs employing spouses for 1-2 days a week is that you're expected to be able to respond to 100ish emails a day 7*24, some of them quite desperate, and you really need an assistant to avoid keeping people waiting; that ideally means someone who shares your home. But I think the more usual reason is simply the level of trust involved (I don't think the pay is a big factor - an assistant will IIRC typically get maybe £4000/year for 1 day/week). The comparison is more with small businesses, where spouse partnerships are common and it would be odd to require by law that you replace your spouse with a stranger.
I know you were not in Parliament at the time but until 20 years ago e-mails had a very minor role in communication.Surely MPs are not obliged to provide an e-mail address or be required to adjust their working patterns to new technology! How did MPs back in the 1950s and 1960s manage to function effectively?
Hard to get re-elected, certainly in a non-safe seat, if you don't deal with modern comms.
People's expectations of MPs are off the scale these days. I know Nick has said in the past about the case work load. Personally I think this a bit bad for democracy. I want MPs who are focussed on holding the executive to account, drafting laws etc, not acting as full time social workers.
The witch-hunt has moved to parliament. It should produce some unpredictable betting opportunities. One wayward comment in Hansard in the last twenty years should do it. Or perhaps just a whisper heard in a tearoom.
Tony Blair used to have a female minister (Ruth somebody) who couldn't answer a parliamentary question without her dress sense being ridiculed. It'll be interesting to see where they set the bar. Does it have be be an actual grope or will simple sexism be enough?
Ruth Kelly? Was she not the one in Opus Dei?
Yes it was Ruth Kelly. The amount of sexism poured over that poor lady was something to behold.
You sure it was sexism? She was the one who thought it ok for a chap who had been cautioned by the police for having child pornography to work in a school. Who approved a teacher who had been convicted of a sexual assault of a minor for work. Who was quite incredibly the Minister for Equality when completely opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds. She made JRM look like some wishy washy CoE liberal.
...really if you want to buy sex toys, isn'i the fun in choosing them, ideally with your partner(s!)? "My secretary got this for you, darling" doesn't have quite the right ring.
Indie has a summary of today's two casualties. I doubt Crabb will running for leadership in near future. But basically, all relatively small potatoes so far.
Bloody hell. I remember feeling embarrassed about asking my secretary to make a cup of coffee for a visitor, and wondering if I should have made it myself. .
Even that is a minefield, I would say. I'm pretty lowly and am happy to fetch a round of drinks before a meeting, but occasionally someone pretty senior does it themselves rather than their PA, and I know people sometimes feel awkward when their boss's boss's boss is making them a coffee. ("Should I tell them I ordered tea? It's far too milky, do I just drink it down?")
It wasn't quite as awkward as the time I met my then boss's boss's boss's boss for the first time at the urinals, and they introduced themselves - I felt like it could have waited a minute or two.
Indie has a summary of today's two casualties. I doubt Crabb will running for leadership in near future. But basically, all relatively small potatoes so far.
Bloody hell. I remember feeling embarrassed about asking my secretary to make a cup of coffee for a visitor, and wondering if I should have made it myself. .
Even that is a minefield, I would say. I'm pretty lowly and am happy to fetch a round of drinks before a meeting, but occasionally someone pretty senior does it themselves rather than their PA, and I know people sometimes feel awkward when their boss's boss's boss is making them a coffee. ("Should I tell them I ordered tea? It's far too milky, do I just drink it down?")
It wasn't quite as awkward as the time I met my then boss's boss's boss's boss for the first time at the urinals, and they introduced themselves - I felt like it could have waited a minute or two.
At least until he'd washed his hands!
(Not a sexist assumption that your Boss was a male - just an assumption that the anecdote might have been extended further if a female boss was using the urinals....)
I don't think that working away from home is the usual reason. The objective case for MPs employing spouses for 1-2 days a week is that you're expected to be able to respond to 100ish emails a day 7*24, some of them quite desperate, and you really need an assistant to avoid keeping people waiting; that ideally means someone who shares your home. But I think the more usual reason is simply the level of trust involved (I don't think the pay is a big factor - an assistant will IIRC typically get maybe £4000/year for 1 day/week). The comparison is more with small businesses, where spouse partnerships are common and it would be odd to require by law that you replace your spouse with a stranger.
I know you were not in Parliament at the time but until 20 years ago e-mails had a very minor role in communication.Surely MPs are not obliged to provide an e-mail address or be required to adjust their working patterns to new technology! How did MPs back in the 1950s and 1960s manage to function effectively?
Hard to get re-elected, certainly in a non-safe seat, if you don't deal with modern comms.
People's expectations of MPs are off the scale these days. I know Nick has said in the past about the case work load. Personally I think this a bit bad for democracy. I want MPs who are focussed on holding the executive to account, drafting laws etc, not acting as full time social workers.
I rather agree.Personally I am not at all inclined to keep up with new technology beyond a 'needs must' basis. I do not carry mobile phones and restrict their use to guarding against mechanical breakdowns on long car journeys. I have a PC - but no interest in later devices such as Tablets or Apps etc. Had I been an MP first elected in the 1950s or 1960s , I would have spurned any attempts to add further functions to my role and the technology required to do so.
I agree on the McLaren pace being surprisingly good, but Vandoorne appears to be a long way off Alonso. Maybe Alonso for fastest lap, but the odds, obviously, would have to be right.
Edited extra bit: it must be said my recent tips have been so wrong he'll probably win the race now...
Hunt on Marr says investigations will be made as to whether Garnier broke the Ministerial Code.
Not sure that is really the point. I trust he is spending the day clearing out his office (including any remaining sex toys).
Eh? Is there a link to this?
The story is linked to downthread in the Mail. He has admitted asking his assistant to buy 2 vibrators, one for his wife and one for "someone in his constituency office". A bit of reflection might have resulted in him concluding (a) this was extremely unwise and (b) not necessarily particularly flattering about his own abilities!
It's great to see the tories bang on form with the sex shenanigans again. They've had a bit of a barren spell and not provided us with many laughs since that one topped himself in a wanking frenzy.
MPs are not emergency services. They are your last point of escalation. As such, there is very little in this country that shouldn't be dealt with in office hours.
Well, what do you do if you are treated as such? I was emailed by a constituent at 11pm because he was unable to leave hospital as the hospital pharmacy didn't want to issue his medication till the morning - would I mind speaking to them, ideally at once if I happened to be online? I did, reasoned with them that it would free up the bed, and they issued it. He was happy, it saved a hospital bed, good result. Of course it shouldn't have needed me, but that's real life for MPs. Should I have told him to get lost when a few minutes' conversation would sort it out?
On Justin's question, I was told by older MPs that the volume of correspondence had vastly increased, not least because email made it easier. A few MPs don't do email but are regarded as eccentric old buffers. In a marginal seat, you can't afford to do anything that annoys people unless you feel some great point of princpile is involved. Anyway, I liked the direct contact, though I regretted publishing my private number - there is one apparently mad constituent who continues 7 years later to ring me every couple of weeks (I know her number and never take the call now).
MPs are not emergency services. They are your last point of escalation. As such, there is very little in this country that shouldn't be dealt with in office hours.
Well, what do you do if you are treated as such?
The solution is that which we are always told is most important - education. People need to know that in an emergency the MP is not the best of call. An out of office email for instance directing someone to standard emergency lines. Impersonal? Perhaps, but better than a 24 hour service which is not possible.
In your example you were online, so didn't say just get lost, but the point is surely was there a reasonable expectation that you should be online at that hour? The answer has to be no, even if it is not going to be uncommon for people in senior positions to check their inbox before they go to bed. Your job was very important, and your were there because you wanted to help people, but while I think it is reasonable that an MPs job will involve a lot more non traditional hours than most jobs, and that higher expectations from the public will be a part of that, there are limits - not only because it will keep you from other aspects of your job, but because it could well be in an attempt to be helpful, an MP in such a scenario will do something unhelpful.
These things are always easier much in theory than in practice, where as you say there are thousands of people employed by MPs.
I can easily understand why an MP might appoint their spouse as a PA, for example, given the need for being away from home in London most weeks. I’m fine with that provided that they are actually working as the MP’s PA and not just banking the salary.
How many caseworkers and researchers in Westminster (as opposed to constituency offices) are looking for a career in casework or research, and how many see the job as a stepping stone to a further career? In my industry precisely no-one goes into IT to work on the helpdesk all their life - but the vast majority start there, if only as an introduction to understanding the customer.
Maybe the parties can have a pool of Parliamentary staff that can move around, .
snip.
I don't think that working away from home is the usual reason. The objective case for MPs employing spouses for 1-2 days a week is that you're expected to be able to respond to 100ish emails a day .
Hard to get re-elected, certainly in a non-safe seat, if you don't deal with modern comms.
People's expectations of MPs are off the scale these days. I know Nick has said in the past about the case work load. Personally I think this a bit bad for democracy. I want MPs who are focussed on holding the executive to account, drafting laws etc, not acting as full time social workers.
Three points, firstly all messages should be responded to, even just for politeness, that everyone and their grandparents can set up a email list means that a lot of emails are spam or a rented email list for some pressure group or other. Then there are the requests/demands for help, sent by constituents, which should be handled by the local council or relevant government department. Only a very few are actually relevant to the MP. However, because MP's have too much spare time to fill (and to be relevant to the voters) they become over paid social workers.
One argument for reducing the number of MP's, increase the staff for each, increase the importance of local government and allow them to react, within guidelines, to local priorities.
Saw a snippet of the Sunday Politics. Apparently Theresa May is thinking of giving some prisoners the vote.
.....
She's bloody daft, if that's true.
What? Is this part of what I assume was an ECHR judgement a few years back we kept delaying over?
Never had a problem denying prisoners the vote, frankly. Prison is not only about punishment, but we deny people freedom of assembly and many other rights and freedoms during their period of incarceration, it seems reasonable to me a suspension of voting rights is one of them and they can vote when they get out. Unless you go the full Norway route, where apparently you should have access to everything you could have out of prison, except your liberty, it becomes a debate over where you draw the line.
MPs are not emergency services. They are your last point of escalation. As such, there is very little in this country that shouldn't be dealt with in office hours.
Well, what do you do if you are treated as such? I was emailed by a constituent at 11pm because he was unable to leave hospital as the hospital pharmacy didn't want to issue his medication till the morning - would I mind speaking to them, ideally at once if I happened to be online? I did, reasoned with them that it would free up the bed, and they issued it. He was happy, it saved a hospital bed, good result. Of course it shouldn't have needed me, but that's real life for MPs. Should I have told him to get lost when a few minutes' conversation would sort it out?
Bizarre misuse of your time. I'd probably have got involved and complained to the chief executive.
Saw a snippet of the Sunday Politics. Apparently Theresa May is thinking of giving some prisoners the vote.
.....
She's bloody daft, if that's true.
Prison removes liberty. It doesn’t remove all their rights.
No it doesn't, nor should it, but it currently removes or curtails more rights than merely liberty. Which ones are reasonable to suspend during incarceration? Some nations say none. Others continue to restrict rights on the convicted long after prison even for non serious offences. If we gave some prisoners the vote or continued not to, we'd be somewhere inbetween.
MPs are not emergency services. They are your last point of escalation. As such, there is very little in this country that shouldn't be dealt with in office hours.
Well, what do you do if you are treated as such? I was emailed by a constituent at 11pm because he was unable to leave hospital as the hospital pharmacy didn't want to issue his medication till the morning - would I mind speaking to them, ideally at once if I happened to be online? I did, reasoned with them that it would free up the bed, and they issued it. He was happy, it saved a hospital bed, good result. Of course it shouldn't have needed me, but that's real life for MPs. Should I have told him to get lost when a few minutes' conversation would sort it out?
On Justin's question, I was told by older MPs that the volume of correspondence had vastly increased, not least because email made it easier. A few MPs don't do email but are regarded as eccentric old buffers. In a marginal seat, you can't afford to do anything that annoys people unless you feel some great point of princpile is involved. Anyway, I liked the direct contact, though I regretted publishing my private number - there is one apparently mad constituent who continues 7 years later to ring me every couple of weeks (I know her number and never take the call now).
Thanks for that. I am pleased to hear that some older MPs have resisted the obsessive reliance on e-mail.They can always claim to be continuing to provide the service which has served their constituents well over time , and ,by so doing, free themselves from acting as Social Workers.
MPs are not emergency services. They are your last point of escalation. As such, there is very little in this country that shouldn't be dealt with in office hours.
Well, what do you do if you are treated as such? I was emailed by a constituent at 11pm because he
On Justin's question, I was told by older MPs that the volume of correspondence had vastly increased, not least because email made it easier. A few MPs don't do email but are regarded as eccentric old buffers. In a marginal seat, you can't afford to do anything that annoys people unless you feel some great point of princpile is involved. Anyway, I liked the direct contact, though I regretted publishing my private number - there is one apparently mad constituent who continues 7 years later to ring me every couple of weeks (I know her number and never take the call now).
Thanks for that. I am pleased to hear that some older MPs have resisted the obsessive reliance on e-mail.They can always claim to be continuing to provide the service which has served their constituents well over time , and ,by so doing, free themselves from acting as Social Workers.
It's not about obsessive reliance on email - not having one closes off a very convenient method of people to contact their MP for no reason other than allowing the MP to have a more convenient time (say someone lacks much mobility, and has no stamps but their internet still works - well tough, you cannot write up your concerns to the MP, mate, better hope it can all be explained on the phone, and that you both have time to do that). Now, it does come with the disadvantage that you will get a lot of trivial stuff sent your way too, but is avoiding that a fair trade off for limiting the means by which people can get in touch? As people are fond of saying, it is not the 50s anymore, and I'll bet those MPs who avoid using it have staff who use it to contact most colleagues and other organisations, rather than insist that sending letters, phoning and going face to face is the only way to do things.
Getting them to stop acting like social workers need not mean not using email - it means informing MPs what is their job, what is not, and letting them decide how much they want to take the sometimes difficult option of explaining that to the public, or not. Ones in marginal seats would always have to work their area damn hard regardless.
These things are always easier much in theory than in practice, where as you say there are thousands of people employed by MPs.
I can easily understand why an MP might appoint their spouse as a PA, for example, given the need for being away from home in London most weeks. I’m fine with that provided that they are actually working as the MP’s PA and not just banking the salary.
How many caseworkers and researchers in Westminster (as opposed to constituency offices) are looking for a career in casework or research, and how many see the job as a stepping stone to a further career? In my industry precisely no-one goes into IT to work on the helpdesk all their life - but the vast majority start there, if only as an introduction to understanding the customer.
Maybe the parties can have a pool of Parliamentary staff that can move around, so that as an MP your staffers are ‘from’ your party and believe in the same things you do? I’ve always thought of it as particularly bad when an MP retires or is defeated and takes a very nice pay-off, while their young researcher gets redundancy pay and told to go and find someone else to work for (I exaggerate a little, but you know what I mean).
Why is an MP working away in London any different from an oil rig worker, a Day Crewing Plus firefighter or any other poor sap who has to work away? I don't get to employ my wife on the tax payer's quid just because I spend up to 5 x 24h days a week at a fire station. MPs need to stop thinking they are above us all.
I understand your point but will disagree with it. The job of an MP is quite different from the job of an oil rig worker or firefighter. It’s not particularly uncommon in business to travel with your spouse if there are functions to attend, and while these things are gradually changing there’s still a long way to go.
As I understand it MPs also have much higher divorce rates than the general population, if travelling with their wife rather than their secretary keeps their eyes on the job, then all the better for everyone. Providing of course that the spouse is actually doing the job for which she’s being paid.
We'll have to disagree. If MPs can't keep it in their trousers unless their wife is working for them, then they clearly are unemployable and shouldn't be anywhere near normal human beings.
Agree, greedy troughing sexual predators, who would have thought. Yet they vote for laws to prevent the plebs being able to get the same advantages. Bunch of greedy scumbags.
We always had turnips as kids but Tescos seem to sell nothing but pumpkins at this time of year now. I can't remember when it changed but it was a part of the increasing commercialisation of Halloween maybe 20 years ago. When my kids were younger we would have 40-80 kids from the village at the door supposedly trick or treating but the tradition here was you still had to tell a joke or sing a song for a sweet.
Likewise we always used turnips ( swede to the heathen southerners )
but as the comments in the article say, it wasnt half hard work hollowing them out !
A swede is the basis for Neeps, which I tend to only eat on Burns night. It has softer skin. I wouldn't fancy trying to make a lantern out of that.
We always used turnips for making lanterns, pumpkins were totally unknown and unconnected with halloween. We did real guising etc , none of your pathetic imported American tat.
Saw a snippet of the Sunday Politics. Apparently Theresa May is thinking of giving some prisoners the vote.
.....
She's bloody daft, if that's true.
Prison removes liberty. It doesn’t remove all their rights.
Let us consider a hypothetical, albeit absurd situation where prisoners retain the right to vote.
Murder goes mainstream. Half the population are at it. Killing,stabbing, shooting, poisoning, and so on. (I told you the example was absurd). Those people are then incarcerated.
A spivvy type enters politics and says it is a disgrace that people are being incarcerated for a crime that's really a social norm (speeding, smoking marijuana, etc, would fall into this category). He stands on a "make murder legal" platform. Now, said spiv doesn't have to become PM and legalise killing, he just has to worry the MPs in marginal constituencies enough that the murderer vote is going to go the other way and suddenly we get a referendum on murder, or vastly reduced lenient sentencing, or whatever.
The point is that voting is effectively _the very first part_ of making the law, therefore those who transgress it should have no part in it. I am against giving prisoners any voting rights for that reason. Once they are out and have served their time, different story. But those being punished for the breaking of the law should have no part in the making of it.
Saw a snippet of the Sunday Politics. Apparently Theresa May is thinking of giving some prisoners the vote.
.....
She's bloody daft, if that's true.
What? Is this part of what I assume was an ECHR judgement a few years back we kept delaying over?
Never had a problem denying prisoners the vote, frankly. Prison is not only about punishment, but we deny people freedom of assembly and many other rights and freedoms during their period of incarceration, it seems reasonable to me a suspension of voting rights is one of them and they can vote when they get out. Unless you go the full Norway route, where apparently you should have access to everything you could have out of prison, except your liberty, it becomes a debate over where you draw the line.
I liked Alistair Meeks' (I think) suggestion that this punishment should be reserved for people who have fraudulently voted in the names of others, on the grounds that they've had quite enough votes already.
But I think that MP' minds would usefully be concentrated by the fact that they have 10,000 voting prisoners. At present, most MPs don't give a toss about the conditions in local prisons, until there's a riot.
On our long-debated issue of "MPs as social workers":
1. MPs in marginal seats simply have to try to meet expectations, no matter how unreasonable, unless it's illegal or disgusting. Merely saying they shouldn't won't make any difference.
2. In about half the cases, you are in fact able to help, mainly because you have an overview of all aspects of the system that constituents do not as well as access to media etc. if unreasonable employers, landlords etc. try to evade their responsibilities. Social workers and the CAB can be shrugged off by the unscrupulous, but "I am thinking of writing an article about your business for the local paper" works. It's a rewarding part of the job, so long as you try to use it responsibly.
Comments
I used to find him a bit unlikable and unthinking but I think his output has improved a lot and he researches issues much more now.
His series of YouTube interviews with people he disagrees with were very good I think (Douglas Carswell, JRM, Daniel Hanan, Liz Kendall, Alistair Campbell).
When he gets on his high horse it becomes tiresome - but some of his analysis is very good. Unusually for a media commentator he is actually aware of what is happening in European politics and draws parallels between there and here.
I have done some official work investigating dodgy behaviour (clinical, bullying, financial), and often uncover other issues.
Betting PostF1: pre-race ramble up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/mexico-pre-race-2017.html
After a lot of struggling to find anything, came up with two bets. Agree with Mr. Sandpit about backing Hamilton to lead lap 1, and also decided to back Vandoorne against Alonso. On pace, Alonso has it. But the Spaniard has something like a 67% DNF rate in recent races.
That's 9 for Hamilton, on Betfair, and 3.5 for Vandoorne, on Ladbrokes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/28/terrible-brexit-prophecy-ivan-rogers-coming-true-should-have/
But a bit of maturity and self respect is indeed helpful. It is the inequality of power that makes it troubling.
Still roll on Spring and evening daylight!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/stephen-crabb-mark-garnier-westminster-harassment-claims-sex-toy-text-messages-a8025351.html
Plus when they go on the warpath, well, God help anyone in their way........
Such people are no longer available in large numbers but are indeed worth their weight in gold. I would go so far as to say it is almost impossible for someone in a senior position to perform at their best without one. It just removes so much of what would otherwise bog them down and distract them.
As a Tory member I would only consider Boris once we are out of the EU and FTA talks are well under way with the UK already in the transition period.
Next step Catalan government in exile?
Tony Blair used to have a female minister (Ruth somebody) who couldn't answer a parliamentary question without her dress sense being ridiculed. It'll be interesting to see where they set the bar. Does it have be be an actual grope or will simple sexism be enough?
But who knows with this situation. With the separatists not being an overwhelming majority, and unwilling (happily) or unable to use force to maintain a separate state, perhaps things will die down a little into a sullen acceptance - best that can be hoped for?
They are learning the old lesson that if someone won't agree to give you something, you do have to take it if you expect to get it.
Mr Garnier admitted asking his secretary to buy sex toys for him and calling her "sugar tits," according to the Mail on Sunday.
The PM has asked the Cabinet Office to look at whether his reported actions broke the ministerial code, Jeremy Hunt told the Andrew Marr show.
Mr Garnier did not respond to requests for a comment.
The prime minister is also writing to the Speaker of the House of Commons, calling for a new contractually-binding grievance procedure to be set up for all MPs and their staff, said the health secretary.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41794625
The "sugar tits" allegation is more serious. As a one off - and assuming not part of a pattern - you might get away with the claim it was a reference to Gavin and Stacey (never watched so don't know the context) but if it was an repeated occasions then, in my view, it would constitute harassment
Edit: and for @foxinsoxuk this is more like the O'Mara case than the Govd situation. Party has nothing to do with an assessment of the facts
Of course, he didn't commit suicide. He was murdered, but it was made to look as tacky a death as possible. So twats like you would keep bringing it up....
Sexual harassment is not normal male behaviour. There are millions and millions of men who have been brought up to respect their family, friends and colleagues and not to behave in such an unacceptable manner. They go to work every day, work with female staff, both higher and lower than them on the organisational ladder and would not for a moment think of abusing them or in any way making them feel uncomfortable at work. More than that if they do see such behaviour they are right there making it clear it is unacceptable and doing what they can to put it right.
Sexual harassment is the work of individuals too infantile or obnoxious to know the difference between right and wrong. That goes for Hollywood, Parliament and any other walk of life where they appear. But claiming it is the result of being in positions of power implies that all men would behave that way were they only in a similar position. For the vast majority of men they would not.
While in this case, it's a federal grand jury, any attempt by Trump to pre-emptively pardon is highly likely to see criminal charges issued at the state level - and investigations have already been set up in a couple of states: for example
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-y-attorney-general-joins-investigation-paul-manafort-article-1.3455936
Mr. kle4, yep. Something can be amusing but still unwise for a certain person to say (Boris' Yemenis comment also springs to mind).
Thoughts ?
https://twitter.com/shippersunbound/status/924574885027991553
The other allegaiton against him is actually a lot nastier, though - that sounds a very clear case of bullying.
Fastest lap will, like last week, go to someone who decides on the two stop strategy. No bet in this market for me.
People's expectations of MPs are off the scale these days. I know Nick has said in the past about the case work load. Personally I think this a bit bad for democracy. I want MPs who are focussed on holding the executive to account, drafting laws etc, not acting as full time social workers.
Fnaaar!
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/924594161092841472
It wasn't quite as awkward as the time I met my then boss's boss's boss's boss for the first time at the urinals, and they introduced themselves - I felt like it could have waited a minute or two.
(Not a sexist assumption that your Boss was a male - just an assumption that the anecdote might have been extended further if a female boss was using the urinals....)
I agree on the McLaren pace being surprisingly good, but Vandoorne appears to be a long way off Alonso. Maybe Alonso for fastest lap, but the odds, obviously, would have to be right.
Edited extra bit: it must be said my recent tips have been so wrong he'll probably win the race now...
a bit rich coming from the Royal Navy atm
what's your line Captain Pugwash ?
On Justin's question, I was told by older MPs that the volume of correspondence had vastly increased, not least because email made it easier. A few MPs don't do email but are regarded as eccentric old buffers. In a marginal seat, you can't afford to do anything that annoys people unless you feel some great point of princpile is involved. Anyway, I liked the direct contact, though I regretted publishing my private number - there is one apparently mad constituent who continues 7 years later to ring me every couple of weeks (I know her number and never take the call now).
.....
She's bloody daft, if that's true.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-russia-dossier-latest-hillary-clinton-dnc-democratic-national-committee-funding-fusion-gps-a8018306.html
In your example you were online, so didn't say just get lost, but the point is surely was there a reasonable expectation that you should be online at that hour? The answer has to be no, even if it is not going to be uncommon for people in senior positions to check their inbox before they go to bed. Your job was very important, and your were there because you wanted to help people, but while I think it is reasonable that an MPs job will involve a lot more non traditional hours than most jobs, and that higher expectations from the public will be a part of that, there are limits - not only because it will keep you from other aspects of your job, but because it could well be in an attempt to be helpful, an MP in such a scenario will do something unhelpful.
One argument for reducing the number of MP's, increase the staff for each, increase the importance of local government and allow them to react, within guidelines, to local priorities.
Never had a problem denying prisoners the vote, frankly. Prison is not only about punishment, but we deny people freedom of assembly and many other rights and freedoms during their period of incarceration, it seems reasonable to me a suspension of voting rights is one of them and they can vote when they get out. Unless you go the full Norway route, where apparently you should have access to everything you could have out of prison, except your liberty, it becomes a debate over where you draw the line.
Getting them to stop acting like social workers need not mean not using email - it means informing MPs what is their job, what is not, and letting them decide how much they want to take the sometimes difficult option of explaining that to the public, or not. Ones in marginal seats would always have to work their area damn hard regardless.
https://twitter.com/GeoffShadbold/status/924595202005913600
Murder goes mainstream. Half the population are at it. Killing,stabbing, shooting, poisoning, and so on. (I told you the example was absurd). Those people are then incarcerated.
A spivvy type enters politics and says it is a disgrace that people are being incarcerated for a crime that's really a social norm (speeding, smoking marijuana, etc, would fall into this category). He stands on a "make murder legal" platform. Now, said spiv doesn't have to become PM and legalise killing, he just has to worry the MPs in marginal constituencies enough that the murderer vote is going to go the other way and suddenly we get a referendum on murder, or vastly reduced lenient sentencing, or whatever.
The point is that voting is effectively _the very first part_ of making the law, therefore those who transgress it should have no part in it. I am against giving prisoners any voting rights for that reason. Once they are out and have served their time, different story. But those being punished for the breaking of the law should have no part in the making of it.
But I think that MP' minds would usefully be concentrated by the fact that they have 10,000 voting prisoners. At present, most MPs don't give a toss about the conditions in local prisons, until there's a riot.
On our long-debated issue of "MPs as social workers":
1. MPs in marginal seats simply have to try to meet expectations, no matter how unreasonable, unless it's illegal or disgusting. Merely saying they shouldn't won't make any difference.
2. In about half the cases, you are in fact able to help, mainly because you have an overview of all aspects of the system that constituents do not as well as access to media etc. if unreasonable employers, landlords etc. try to evade their responsibilities. Social workers and the CAB can be shrugged off by the unscrupulous, but "I am thinking of writing an article about your business for the local paper" works. It's a rewarding part of the job, so long as you try to use it responsibly.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/924599050015567872