Mr. Eagles, you're confusing morality and competence.
I'm not, competence begets good morals.
If you're incompetent, you're having to live with the consequences of your mistakes, which leads to you comprising your morals to get you out of the hole you find yourself in.
I'm not at all convinced. The world is full of incompetent people who are good, and competent people who are bad.
Perhaps I'm engaging in confirmation bias.
I'm highly competent with high standards of moral hygiene.
The Tories are going to be judged in the court of public opinion on this one. Guilty as sin to be honest
The Tories are ALWAYS assumed to be low-life, lying, cheating scum by "the court of public opinion". It's priced in.
Labour, on the other hand, are supposed to offer this wonderful new view, sat up their on their high horse, surveying the moral high ground....
You are right that the allegations against Labour are extremely serious, whereas the issues relating to the Conservatives are nothing more than recycled fluff -at the moment. The fact that the Conservatives are taking the sting is a drawback of incumbency.
The 'expenses scandal', duck house aside was viewed largely as a Labour scandal, and let's be honest, then as now, a lot from all sides were at it.
"The 'expenses scandal', duck house aside was viewed largely as a Labour scandal," Is that the case? The guy with the moat wasn't Labour was he?
In the end, the expenses scandal hurt all sides equally.
I don't think the public were particularly fussed about who got banged up for it in the end; they probably regarded the whole process as tainted anyway and to the extent that Labour were worse, I wouldn't be surprised if that was put down to Tory MPs being better at paperwork and setting the rules (which given that Labour had been in power for over a decade at the time would be wrong but it's all about impressions and beliefs).
As far as the public were concerned, the whole scandal was taking the public for a ride and claims for cleaning moats or for duck houses were morally as bad as fiddling the figures. That the duck house claim was denied even under the lax rules of the time is beside the point; the point being that the MP thought it worth claiming for in the first place.
Bit late to this but on topic, claims of knee-touching a decade or more ago and a possibly (as yet unverified) dodgy text message seem pretty thin grounds on which to disrupt a political career.
Parliament needs to get its act together. There is undoubtedly in it a structure that makes sexual harassment and worse more likely: significant power imbalances and a culture of corporate self-protection (both within parties and as a whole). These things cannot be ignored and any remedies need to take them into account. Nor can those factors easily be changed; they are intrinsic to what parliamentary politics is.
So how to deal with it? One part of it is culture change. It should not be difficult to create a culture where you simply do not ask your office staff to buy sex toys. But dealing with behaviour that demeans is on thing; the covering up of more serious cases, another. I'm not at all sure how you do deal with that. Transparency and independent complaints routes are the theoretical answer but these already exist and don't work well. Victims can already go to the police or press but they don't because of the nature of their career aspirations and the pressures of the system. Any internal process, whether within parties or parliament, is unlikely to have the teeth to operate effectively because to have those teeth would imply either intolerable restrictions on MPs independence, or giving the body the powers of the police - in which case, why not leave it to the police?
The danger of over-reaction is also present: alleged victims need to be taken seriously but an unsubstantiated allegation cannot be allowed to bring a politician down, otherwise the incentive exists for opponents or, more likely, lone riders with an eye to a payout and publicity, and perhaps with a perceived grievance settle, to do so.
Getting the balance right will be difficult if not impossible. For now, taking steps in the right direction would be a good start.
Having a complaints procedure that isn't a joke would be a useful first step.
As it is, aggrieved parties with anything short of a criminal complaint have little recourse except the press - which is no good for MPs, either.
But how do you have a complaints procedure that isn't a joke? There is a reason why it's ended up as a joke; it wasn't deliberately designed as such.
Mr. City, indeed. Suddenly "The worst thing I ever did was run through a wheat field" sounds rather better than it did.
I touched a woman's leg or I ran the worst campaign in history and lost Dave's majority to an economically illiterate, terrorist sympathising Trot?
Yet still got more seats than any other Tory leader in the past 25 years apart from Dave in 2015 (including Dave in 2010)
Dave in 2010 gained 96 seats (on a notional basis, after boundary reviews - or 108 if you use the raw figure from 2005). That's more than any other party leader at any other election since WWII, apart from Blair in 1997.
Theresa May lost seats. In an election she didn't need to call and did so principally to capitalise on what at the time was a commanding lead in the polls.
Seat gains are irrelevant, otherwise Hague in 2001 did better then Major in 1992 or Kinnock in 1992 better than Blair in 2005, it is actual seat numbers which counts
Counts for what? Surely what counts is a working majority in the House of Commons.
The Tories are going to be judged in the court of public opinion on this one. Guilty as sin to be honest
The Tories are ALWAYS assumed to be low-life, lying, cheating scum by "the court of public opinion". It's priced in.
Labour, on the other hand, are supposed to offer this wonderful new view, sat up their on their high horse, surveying the moral high ground....
You are right that the allegations against Labour are extremely serious, whereas the issues relating to the Conservatives are nothing more than recycled fluff -at the moment. The fact that the Conservatives are taking the sting is a drawback of incumbency.
The 'expenses scandal', duck house aside was viewed largely as a Labour scandal, and let's be honest, then as now, a lot from all sides were at it.
My recollection of expenses scandal was that public blamed all sides pretty evenly. But relatively few big scalps came unstuck over it?
Several Labour MPs served custodial sentences. No Conservatives did.
I don't think the Green revelations will affect May's position too much, she is still likely to depart soon after the Brexit negotiations are complete. However the chances of David Davis succeeding her as leader have increased as we know he has not been named on the spreadsheet and nor was Jacob Rees Mogg, so the latter's chances have also improved.
It looks like TM needs to conduct a cabinet reshuffle once the extent of issues are out in the open and hopefully she will bring in new faces and give an opportunity to others to shine.
I do not see David Davis as PM but JRM could come through but expect it will be someone off the radar at present
Davis is the most likely next PM at the moment in my view, JRM could be a future Tory opposition leader but not next PM.
Given May will likely depart in under 2 years this 'someone off the radar' better enter the Cabinet and come on the radar pretty soon.
The way things are going I doubt TM will resign within the next two years
The way things are going the next PM will be from a very short list of people who only have sex with their partners, don’t try to fondle others or send them creepy emails and don’t abuse their staff.
JR-M it is then!
It just shows how out of control this debate is that a discussion on Victoria Derbyshire is now blaming zero hour contracts
When I worked in a fast food restaurant 30 years ago, the manager used to oblige certain staff with favourable shifts, in return for reciprocal favours. It was a pretty raunchy workplace. I think everything was consensual.
I can see how ZHC could allow for the same, but in a more abusive way. Power is relative, and even an office manager has status.
Fleas have smaller fleas, on their backs, to bite 'em, They, in turn, have smaller fleas, and so on, ad finitum.
That last line doesn't scan (or make logical sense). Shouldn't it be something like
"They, in turn, have smaller fleas, unto infinitum"
Mr. City, indeed. Suddenly "The worst thing I ever did was run through a wheat field" sounds rather better than it did.
I touched a woman's leg or I ran the worst campaign in history and lost Dave's majority to an economically illiterate, terrorist sympathising Trot?
Yet still got more seats than any other Tory leader in the past 25 years apart from Dave in 2015 (including Dave in 2010)
Dave in 2010 gained 96 seats (on a notional basis, after boundary reviews - or 108 if you use the raw figure from 2005). That's more than any other party leader at any other election since WWII, apart from Blair in 1997.
Theresa May lost seats. In an election she didn't need to call and did so principally to capitalise on what at the time was a commanding lead in the polls.
Seat gains are irrelevant, otherwise Hague in 2001 did better then Major in 1992 or Kinnock in 1992 better than Blair in 2005, it is actual seat numbers which counts
Counts for what? Surely what counts is a working majority in the House of Commons.
Which Major got in 1992 despite losing seats. Yet if seat gains were what counted Major did worse in 1992 than Hague in 2001 because Hague gained 1 seat despite losing by a landslide.
The Tories are going to be judged in the court of public opinion on this one. Guilty as sin to be honest
The Tories are ALWAYS assumed to be low-life, lying, cheating scum by "the court of public opinion". It's priced in.
Labour, on the other hand, are supposed to offer this wonderful new view, sat up their on their high horse, surveying the moral high ground....
You are right that the allegations against Labour are extremely serious, whereas the issues relating to the Conservatives are nothing more than recycled fluff -at the moment. The fact that the Conservatives are taking the sting is a drawback of incumbency.
The 'expenses scandal', duck house aside was viewed largely as a Labour scandal, and let's be honest, then as now, a lot from all sides were at it.
My recollection of expenses scandal was that public blamed all sides pretty evenly. But relatively few big scalps came unstuck over it?
Several Labour MPs served custodial sentences. No Conservatives did.
I don't think the Green revelations will affect May's position too much, she is still likely to depart soon after the Brexit negotiations are complete. However the chances of David Davis succeeding her as leader have increased as we know he has not been named on the spreadsheet and nor was Jacob Rees Mogg, so the latter's chances have also improved.
It looks like TM needs to conduct a cabinet reshuffle once the extent of issues are out in the open and hopefully she will bring in new faces and give an opportunity to others to shine.
I do not see David Davis as PM but JRM could come through but expect it will be someone off the radar at present
Davis is the most likely next PM at the moment in my view, JRM could be a future Tory opposition leader but not next PM.
Given May will likely depart in under 2 years this 'someone off the radar' better enter the Cabinet and come on the radar pretty soon.
The way things are going I doubt TM will resign within the next two years
The way things are going the next PM will be from a very short list of people who only have sex with their partners, don’t try to fondle others or send them creepy emails and don’t abuse their staff.
JR-M it is then!
It just shows how out of control this debate is that a discussion on Victoria Derbyshire is now blaming zero hour contracts
When I worked in a fast food restaurant 30 years ago, the manager used to oblige certain staff with favourable shifts, in return for reciprocal favours. It was a pretty raunchy workplace. I think everything was consensual.
I can see how ZHC could allow for the same, but in a more abusive way. Power is relative, and even an office manager has status.
Fleas have smaller fleas, on their backs, to bite 'em, They, in turn, have smaller fleas, and so on, ad finitum.
That last line doesn't scan (or make logical sense). Shouldn't it be something like
"They, in turn, have smaller fleas, unto infinitum"
From Swift's "On Poetry"
The vermin only teaze and pinch Their foes superior by an inch. So, naturalists observe, a flea Has smaller fleas that on him prey; And these have smaller still to bite 'em, And so proceed ad infinitum.
Spacey hung himself. "I don't remember" trying to sexually assault a 14 year old "but its ok as I'm now coming out". A world of fail. If he genuinely has no recollection of the incident then "I absolutely have no knowledge of what is being alleged" was all that was needed.
And then the real damage. "Its ok, I can defend behaviour I don't remember, now is the right time to come out". Because confirming the idiot prejudice that gay men are predators trying to subvert teenage boys is obviously the right way to defend.
I genuinely love him as an actor. And love House of Cards (not as much as our FU of course). But you wonder if the hiatus in production now becomes permanent.
The discussion of sexual etiquette in this era does sometimes make me feel like a total dinosaur. It seems every approach is a potential harassment situation, ignoring the fact that gaining any consent for anything in life starts, by very definition, as a non consensual action. How one gains consent is important, how one defers if consent is not granted perhaps even moreso. "Feeling awkward" after a misjudged approach perhaps isn't the most reliable measure that harassment has taken place. Hell, I'd hate to judge my own youth by that measure.
My eldest son is now 13 and I wish there was more discussion on what is objectively allowed when making an approach in this era rather than just what is not.
This is not, I fear, simply a man whinge. If the etiquette becomes too restricted, too exclusively verbal, and the nervous vacate the field even for a time, there remain mainly chancers, and how does that make women safer? I don't necessarily see greater female safety in evidence in modern life. Perhaps chart music reflects quite well how a very verbal etiquette around consent can actually be good for the players.
My hope is that the airing of what, on current facts, seem like the more minor matters in this sleaze wave (Green particularly), permits at least some discussion to be had on what actually IS allowable today.
It is simply a matter of good manners. If an approach is made and the other person does not respond as hoped, then simply apologise and assure them that you have misread them or misunderstood them and then do not repeat the behaviour. This is not rocket science.
No it isn't.
How many couples do you know where the first response was No? I suspect a lot of successful relationships start with a No.
It is all about how (and if) you follow up. About the power in the relationship, about common shared intentions - a one night stand or a long term relationship?
Honesty is required, so I guess Parliament will be full of problems!
Other than mrs green, in a weeks time would anybody really care if green had sent a flirty text message? Getting the lawyers involved seems PR mistakes 101.
I think you're right. The only person to have got his response right so far is Kevin Spacey despite how it looks at the moment
Other than mrs green, in a weeks time would anybody really care if green had sent a flirty text message? Getting the lawyers involved seems PR mistakes 101.
I think you're right. The only person to have got his response right so far is Kevin Spacey despite how it looks at the moment
I think you mistyped there, I think you meant to say Michael Fallon...As Kevin has managed to do so much damage with his response he has not only caused the cancellation of Netflix biggest show they are also having to stop production of the current season....
........... when the self righteous have retreated to their monasteries and the villains have gone to jail Kev will be no more than a self confessed shameless rake. A couple of TV cancellations will be no more than than a footnote in his best selling autobiography
Bit late to this but on topic, claims of knee-touching a decade or more ago and a possibly (as yet unverified) dodgy text message seem pretty thin grounds on which to disrupt a political career.
Parliament needs to get its act together. There is undoubtedly in it a structure that makes sexual harassment and worse more likely: significant power imbalances and a culture of corporate self-protection (both within parties and as a whole). These things cannot be ignored and any remedies need to take them into account. Nor can those factors easily be changed; they are intrinsic to what parliamentary politics is.
So how to deal with it? One part of it is culture change. It should not be difficult to create a culture where you simply do not ask your office staff to buy sex toys. But dealing with behaviour that demeans is on thing; the covering up of more serious cases, another. I'm not at all sure how you do deal with that. Transparency and independent complaints routes are the theoretical answer but these already exist and don't work well. Victims can already go to the police or press but they don't because of the nature of their career aspirations and the pressures of the system. Any internal process, whether within parties or parliament, is unlikely to have the teeth to operate effectively because to have those teeth would imply either intolerable restrictions on MPs independence, or giving the body the powers of the police - in which case, why not leave it to the police?
The danger of over-reaction is also present: alleged victims need to be taken seriously but an unsubstantiated allegation cannot be allowed to bring a politician down, otherwise the incentive exists for opponents or, more likely, lone riders with an eye to a payout and publicity, and perhaps with a perceived grievance settle, to do so.
Getting the balance right will be difficult if not impossible. For now, taking steps in the right direction would be a good start.
Having a complaints procedure that isn't a joke would be a useful first step.
As it is, aggrieved parties with anything short of a criminal complaint have little recourse except the press - which is no good for MPs, either.
Agreed. This is precisely the sort of thing that someone like the Speaker should be arranging: an independent investigations route with integrity which would protect people and the reputation of Parliament by showing that it has standards and will take action when its members fall below them.
Bit late to this but on topic, claims of knee-touching a decade or more ago and a possibly (as yet unverified) dodgy text message seem pretty thin grounds on which to disrupt a political career.
Parliament needs to get its act together. There is undoubtedly in it a structure that makes sexual harassment and worse more likely: significant power imbalances and a culture of corporate self-protection (both within parties and as a whole). These things cannot be ignored and any remedies need to take them into account. Nor can those factors easily be changed; they are intrinsic to what parliamentary politics is.
....
Getting the balance right will be difficult if not impossible. For now, taking steps in the right direction would be a good start.
Having a complaints procedure that isn't a joke would be a useful first step.
As it is, aggrieved parties with anything short of a criminal complaint have little recourse except the press - which is no good for MPs, either.
But how do you have a complaints procedure that isn't a joke? There is a reason why it's ended up as a joke; it wasn't deliberately designed as such.
By having it independent of party - and getting the parties to sign up to it. Cameron attempted something along these lines, but failed.
Sexual offences by UK nationals committed abroad can be prosecuted in the UK. So the police could act if the matter was reported to them.
They certainly can now Alastair but I am struggling to recall when that was changed. It might depend when this was. My recollection is that this was changed so the likes of Gary Glitter could be prosecuted for his appalling behaviour in the far east. If so that was a while ago.
The Guardian article, which I've just looked at, says the alleged assault was last year. Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 seems to have been overlooked by everyone.
If it was last year then there is certainly no bar to prosecution. In such circumstances I think a Party would have to be very careful about any investigation because it would be a police matter.
Yes, there is a bar to prosecution. Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act only allows child sex offences committed overseas to be prosecuted in the UK (the list of offences subject to Section 72 can be found in Schedule 2). Rape of an adult overseas cannot be prosecuted in the UK.
That's right. schedule 2 only allows rape to be prosecuted if the victim was under 18 at the time. It fits with my recollection that this was about Gary Glitter and other paedophiles who were going abroad to commit their crimes.
True the UK also does not have the power to stop registered sex offenders from travelling abroad.However under their conditions they have to inform their local police of their travel arrangements .
Actually, unpaid internships may make things worse. If you’re unpaid, you’re pretty keen to get a paid job and not rock the boat or be seen as a trouble-maker. So it may, at the margins, make junior staff feel more vulnerable, more unwilling to speak up and increases the power imbalance.
Viewing people as disposable is not likely to engender respect for them, particularly if you’re the sort of person who takes a droit de seigneur approach to all females within reach.
Why are unpaid internships even legal in the first place? A person ought to be paid for doing a job.
I agree when people are doing a job. There is a case for them when you are giving students some experience in a job over the holidays, as I have done. There the amount of actual work someone can do is limited and there is quite a lot of training involved or programmes designed to give students an insight into how to present, do interviews, prepare a CV and so forth.
Unpaid jobs are also tough on people who do not have family resources to help them survive...
Time limiting unpaid internships would be a decent compromise.
Mr. City, indeed. Suddenly "The worst thing I ever did was run through a wheat field" sounds rather better than it did.
I touched a woman's leg or I ran the worst campaign in history and lost Dave's majority to an economically illiterate, terrorist sympathising Trot?
Yet still got more seats than any other Tory leader in the past 25 years apart from Dave in 2015 (including Dave in 2010)
Dave in 2010 gained 96 seats (on a notional basis, after boundary reviews - or 108 if you use the raw figure from 2005). That's more than any other party leader at any other election since WWII, apart from Blair in 1997.
Theresa May lost seats. In an election she didn't need to call and did so principally to capitalise on what at the time was a commanding lead in the polls.
Seat gains are irrelevant, otherwise Hague in 2001 did better then Major in 1992 or Kinnock in 1992 better than Blair in 2005, it is actual seat numbers which counts
They're not irrelevant but nor are they the whole story. The quality of a result has to be taken in the context of both the starting point and also what it means in practical terms: ending in office, a workable majority etc.
What can't be denied is that May called an election with the explicit aim of increasing her majority and then lost it. Yes, she managed to hang on to office, so it wasn't a complete disaster, but given that she'd have hung onto office without the election, that's no great achievement.
I don't think the Green revelations will affect May's position too much, she is still likely to depart soon after the Brexit negotiations are complete. However the chances of David Davis succeeding her as leader have increased as we know he has not been named on the spreadsheet and nor was Jacob Rees Mogg, so the latter's chances have also improved.
It looks like TM needs to conduct a cabinet reshuffle once the extent of issues are out in the open and hopefully she will bring in new faces and give an opportunity to others to shine.
I do not see David Davis as PM but JRM could come through but expect it will be someone off the radar at present
Davis is the most likely next PM at the moment in my view, JRM could be a future Tory opposition leader but not next PM.
Given May will likely depart in under 2 years this 'someone off the radar' better enter the Cabinet and come on the radar pretty soon.
The way things are going I doubt TM will resign within the next two years
The way things are going the next PM will be from a very short list of people who only have sex with their partners, don’t try to fondle others or send them creepy emails and don’t abuse their staff.
JR-M it is then!
It just shows how out of control this debate is that a discussion on Victoria Derbyshire is now blaming zero hour contracts
When I worked in a fast food restaurant 30 years ago, the manager used to oblige certain staff with favourable shifts, in return for reciprocal favours. It was a pretty raunchy workplace. I think everything was consensual.
I can see how ZHC could allow for the same, but in a more abusive way. Power is relative, and even an office manager has status.
Fleas have smaller fleas, on their backs, to bite 'em, They, in turn, have smaller fleas, and so on, ad finitum.
That last line doesn't scan (or make logical sense). Shouldn't it be something like
"They, in turn, have smaller fleas, unto infinitum"
I was quoting from memory, so apologies!
The point is that the further down the foodchain, the same happens, and probably with even less scrutiny. Who cares about a sleazy foreman?
Actually, unpaid internships may make things worse. If you’re unpaid, you’re pretty keen to get a paid job and not rock the boat or be seen as a trouble-maker. So it may, at the margins, make junior staff feel more vulnerable, more unwilling to speak up and increases the power imbalance.
Viewing people as disposable is not likely to engender respect for them, particularly if you’re the sort of person who takes a droit de seigneur approach to all females within reach.
Why are unpaid internships even legal in the first place? A person ought to be paid for doing a job.
I agree when people are doing a job. There is a case for them when you are giving students some experience in a job over the holidays, as I have done. There the amount of actual work someone can do is limited and there is quite a lot of training involved or programmes designed to give students an insight into how to present, do interviews, prepare a CV and so forth.
Unpaid jobs are also tough on people who do not have family resources to help them survive...
Time limiting unpaid internships would be a decent compromise.
Cyclefree nails in there. The main problem with unpaid internships, and there are many, is that they in effect restrict certain professions to the middle classes - those with connections and resources who have the ability to work without pay for a year or more (yes, I've see it happen) thanks to the bank of mum and dad.
Time limiting unpaid internships would just have the effect of creating a merry-go-round where you do your month at one place then move on to the next, if anything it would make interns even easier to exploit as they never have time to prove their usefulness and move up to a paid job. The game would then be even more about 'who you know'.
Actually, unpaid internships may make things worse. If you’re unpaid, you’re pretty keen to get a paid job and not rock the boat or be seen as a trouble-maker. So it may, at the margins, make junior staff feel more vulnerable, more unwilling to speak up and increases the power imbalance.
Viewing people as disposable is not likely to engender respect for them, particularly if you’re the sort of person who takes a droit de seigneur approach to all females within reach.
Why are unpaid internships even legal in the first place? A person ought to be paid for doing a job.
I agree when people are doing a job. There is a case for them when you are giving students some experience in a job over the holidays, as I have done. There the amount of actual work someone can do is limited and there is quite a lot of training involved or programmes designed to give students an insight into how to present, do interviews, prepare a CV and so forth.
Unpaid jobs are also tough on people who do not have family resources to help them survive...
Time limiting unpaid internships would be a decent compromise.
Cyclefree nails in there. The main problem with unpaid internships, and there are many, is that they in effect restrict certain professions to the middle classes - those with connections and resources who have the ability to work without pay for a year or more (yes, I've see it happen) thanks to the bank of mum and dad.
Time limiting unpaid internships would just have the effect of creating a merry-go-round where you do your month at one place then move on to the next, if anything it would make interns even easier to exploit as they never have time to prove their usefulness and move up to a paid job. The game would then be even more about 'who you know'.
Actually, unpaid internships may make things worse. If you’re unpaid, you’re pretty keen to get a paid job and not rock the boat or be seen as a trouble-maker. So it may, at the margins, make junior staff feel more vulnerable, more unwilling to speak up and increases the power imbalance.
Viewing people as disposable is not likely to engender respect for them, particularly if you’re the sort of person who takes a droit de seigneur approach to all females within reach.
Why are unpaid internships even legal in the first place? A person ought to be paid for doing a job.
I agree when people are doing a job. There is a case for them when you are giving students some experience in a job over the holidays, as I have done. There the amount of actual work someone can do is limited and there is quite a lot of training involved or programmes designed to give students an insight into how to present, do interviews, prepare a CV and so forth.
Unpaid jobs are also tough on people who do not have family resources to help them survive...
Time limiting unpaid internships would be a decent compromise.
Cyclefree nails in there. The main problem with unpaid internships, and there are many, is that they in effect restrict certain professions to the middle classes - those with connections and resources who have the ability to work without pay for a year or more (yes, I've see it happen) thanks to the bank of mum and dad.
Time limiting unpaid internships would just have the effect of creating a merry-go-round where you do your month at one place then move on to the next, if anything it would make interns even easier to exploit as they never have time to prove their usefulness and move up to a paid job. The game would then be even more about 'who you know'.
The public sector should get its house in order by only providing paid internships.
In my experience unpaid internships are often a waste of time for one or both parties.
But if we accept that they have value - then perhaps students/young people should be able to top up their student loans with a living cost loan for a year after graduation to seek unpaid experience.
The Tories are going to be judged in the court of public opinion on this one. Guilty as sin to be honest
The Tories are ALWAYS assumed to be low-life, lying, cheating scum by "the court of public opinion". It's priced in.
Labour, on the other hand, are supposed to offer this wonderful new view, sat up their on their high horse, surveying the moral high ground....
You are right that the allegations against Labour are extremely serious, whereas the issues relating to the Conservatives are nothing more than recycled fluff -at the moment. The fact that the Conservatives are taking the sting is a drawback of incumbency.
The 'expenses scandal', duck house aside was viewed largely as a Labour scandal, and let's be honest, then as now, a lot from all sides were at it.
My recollection of expenses scandal was that public blamed all sides pretty evenly. But relatively few big scalps came unstuck over it?
The party in office tends to suffer more. Labour - as the incumbents - was more damaged by the Expenses scandal despite the fact that many of the more colourful and extreme examples related to Tories.
Actually, unpaid internships may make things worse. If you’re unpaid, you’re pretty keen to get a paid job and not rock the boat or be seen as a trouble-maker. So it may, at the margins, make junior staff feel more vulnerable, more unwilling to speak up and increases the power imbalance.
Viewing people as disposable is not likely to engender respect for them, particularly if you’re the sort of person who takes a droit de seigneur approach to all females within reach.
Why are unpaid internships even legal in the first place? A person ought to be paid for doing a job.
I agree when people are doing a job. There is a case for them when you are giving students some experience in a job over the holidays, as I have done. There the amount of actual work someone can do is limited and there is quite a lot of training involved or programmes designed to give students an insight into how to present, do interviews, prepare a CV and so forth.
Unpaid jobs are also tough on people who do not have family resources to help them survive...
Time limiting unpaid internships would be a decent compromise.
Cyclefree nails in there. The main problem with unpaid internships, and there are many, is that they in effect restrict certain professions to the middle classes - those with connections and resources who have the ability to work without pay for a year or more (yes, I've see it happen) thanks to the bank of mum and dad.
Time limiting unpaid internships would just have the effect of creating a merry-go-round where you do your month at one place then move on to the next, if anything it would make interns even easier to exploit as they never have time to prove their usefulness and move up to a paid job. The game would then be even more about 'who you know'.
I've seen it happen too. I was the bank!
I think it's very common in many sectors - arts, charities, journalism, media/tv/film to have unpaid internships everyone does when they get started.
Spacey hung himself. "I don't remember" trying to sexually assault a 14 year old "but its ok as I'm now coming out". A world of fail. If he genuinely has no recollection of the incident then "I absolutely have no knowledge of what is being alleged" was all that was needed.
And then the real damage. "Its ok, I can defend behaviour I don't remember, now is the right time to come out". Because confirming the idiot prejudice that gay men are predators trying to subvert teenage boys is obviously the right way to defend.
I genuinely love him as an actor. And love House of Cards (not as much as our FU of course). But you wonder if the hiatus in production now becomes permanent.
This is quite an easy one to solve, plot-wise. F.U. is assassinated and the final season focuses on the power vacuum that creates.
And of course for that to happen the plot line wouldn't have to stray too far from the final season of our own House of Cards.
I genuinely love Kevin Spacey as an actor and think it's important to distinguish the work from the artist. If you've ever used Gill Sans the font, or admired the front of Broadcasting House, I suggest taking a look at the personal life of Eric Gill.
While I am not in any way trying to defend the (alleged) actions, the hypocrisy of the new prudery is quite something to behold. This is an industry that has feted Roman Polanski with countless awards for decades after he pleaded guilty to having sex with a thirteen year old girl.
Confession time: I met Boris Johnson at a conference in the 80s. He did not make a pass at me. In the light of recent scandals, I now feel deeply offended. Where can I get counselling and how can I claim compensation?
Spacey hung himself. "I don't remember" trying to sexually assault a 14 year old "but its ok as I'm now coming out". A world of fail. If he genuinely has no recollection of the incident then "I absolutely have no knowledge of what is being alleged" was all that was needed.
And then the real damage. "Its ok, I can defend behaviour I don't remember, now is the right time to come out". Because confirming the idiot prejudice that gay men are predators trying to subvert teenage boys is obviously the right way to defend.
I genuinely love him as an actor. And love House of Cards (not as much as our FU of course). But you wonder if the hiatus in production now becomes permanent.
This is quite an easy one to solve, plot-wise. F.U. is assassinated and the final season focuses on the power vacuum that creates.
And of course for that to happen the plot line wouldn't have to stray too far from the final season of our own House of Cards.
I genuinely love Kevin Spacey as an actor and think it's important to distinguish the work from the artist. If you've ever used Gill Sans the font, or admired the front of Broadcasting House, I suggest taking a look at the personal life of Eric Gill.
While I am not in any way trying to defend the (alleged) actions, the hypocrisy of the new prudery is quite something to behold. This is an industry that has feted Roman Polanski with countless awards for decades after he pleaded guilty to having sex with a thirteen year old girl.
Heads to the safety of Chez FU Trumpian Bomb Shelter...
Actually, unpaid internships may make things worse. If you’re unpaid, you’re pretty keen to get a paid job and not rock the boat or be seen as a trouble-maker. So it may, at the margins, make junior staff feel more vulnerable, more unwilling to speak up and increases the power imbalance.
Viewing people as disposable is not likely to engender respect for them, particularly if you’re the sort of person who takes a droit de seigneur approach to all females within reach.
Why are unpaid internships even legal in the first place? A person ought to be paid for doing a job.
I agree when people are doing a job. There is a case for them when you are giving students some experience in a job over the holidays, as I have done. There the amount of actual work someone can do is limited and there is quite a lot of training involved or programmes designed to give students an insight into how to present, do interviews, prepare a CV and so forth.
Unpaid jobs are also tough on people who do not have family resources to help them survive...
Time limiting unpaid internships would be a decent compromise.
Cyclefree nails in there. The main problem with unpaid internships, and there are many, is that they in effect restrict certain professions to the middle classes - those with connections and resources who have the ability to work without pay for a year or more (yes, I've see it happen) thanks to the bank of mum and dad.
Time limiting unpaid internships would just have the effect of creating a merry-go-round where you do your month at one place then move on to the next, if anything it would make interns even easier to exploit as they never have time to prove their usefulness and move up to a paid job. The game would then be even more about 'who you know'.
I've seen it happen too. I was the bank!
I think it's very common in many sectors - arts, charities, journalism, media/tv/film to have unpaid internships everyone does when they get started.
Why is it so common?
When did this practice start?
Why does it have to be so common?
How can there be any social mobility if you can only get on by working for free?
Actually, unpaid internships may make things worse. If you’re unpaid, you’re pretty keen to get a paid job and not rock the boat or be seen as a trouble-maker. So it may, at the margins, make junior staff feel more vulnerable, more unwilling to speak up and increases the power imbalance.
Viewing people as disposable is not likely to engender respect for them, particularly if you’re the sort of person who takes a droit de seigneur approach to all females within reach.
Why are unpaid internships even legal in the first place? A person ought to be paid for doing a job.
I agree when people are doing a job. There is a case for them when you are giving students some experience in a job over the holidays, as I have done. There the amount of actual work someone can do is limited and there is quite a lot of training involved or programmes designed to give students an insight into how to present, do interviews, prepare a CV and so forth.
Unpaid jobs are also tough on people who do not have family resources to help them survive...
Time limiting unpaid internships would be a decent compromise.
Cyclefree nails in there. The main problem with unpaid internships, and there are many, is that they in effect restrict certain professions to the middle classes - those with connections and resources who have the ability to work without pay for a year or more (yes, I've see it happen) thanks to the bank of mum and dad.
Time limiting unpaid internships would just have the effect of creating a merry-go-round where you do your month at one place then move on to the next, if anything it would make interns even easier to exploit as they never have time to prove their usefulness and move up to a paid job. The game would then be even more about 'who you know'.
I've seen it happen too. I was the bank!
I think it's very common in many sectors - arts, charities, journalism, media/tv/film to have unpaid internships everyone does when they get started.
It's universal in my son's line of work. And there's no way he would be able to do it or pursue his chosen career (falconry) without the bank of M&D (to say nothing of the Taxi Service of M&D, at least until the M&D Driving School has produced a result!)
Why are unpaid internships even legal in the first place? A person ought to be paid for doing a job.
I agree when people are doing a job. There is a case for them when you are giving students some experience in a job over the holidays, as I have done. There the amount of actual work someone can do is limited and there is quite a lot of training involved or programmes designed to give students an insight into how to present, do interviews, prepare a CV and so forth.
Unpaid jobs are also tough on people who do not have family resources to help them survive...
Time limiting unpaid internships would be a decent compromise.
Cyclefree nails in there. The main problem with unpaid internships, and there are many, is that they in effect restrict certain professions to the middle classes - those with connections and resources who have the ability to work without pay for a year or more (yes, I've see it happen) thanks to the bank of mum and dad.
Time limiting unpaid internships would just have the effect of creating a merry-go-round where you do your month at one place then move on to the next, if anything it would make interns even easier to exploit as they never have time to prove their usefulness and move up to a paid job. The game would then be even more about 'who you know'.
I've seen it happen too. I was the bank!
I think it's very common in many sectors - arts, charities, journalism, media/tv/film to have unpaid internships everyone does when they get started.
Indeed.
At a management meeting at a former employer, the issue of diversity was raised. Everyone was focusing on ideas for to get more ethnic minorities and women into the company.
I, meanwhile, suggested everyone at the meeting take a 10% pay cut so we could pay our interns full stop, and pay our juniors a living wage. Then the industry might not be as full of quite so many clueless plummy-accented public school types.
That went down like a bucket of the proverbial poo, I can assure you.
But as I said then, what does it matter if you raise your "diversity quota" by hiring a token black / female / trans / etc person who went to a top public school and has exactly the same outlook on life as you because of their background and education?
Having a complaints procedure that isn't a joke would be a useful first step.
As it is, aggrieved parties with anything short of a criminal complaint have little recourse except the press - which is no good for MPs, either.
Agreed. This is precisely the sort of thing that someone like the Speaker should be arranging: an independent investigations route with integrity which would protect people and the reputation of Parliament by showing that it has standards and will take action when its members fall below them.
This would be good. But, as ever, it's not really rules and structures that need the most change, it's principles and culture. Which has already been happening - compare the Commons today to 10/20/30 years ago - but at a relatively glacial pace.
The coming mega-reckoning will speed things up, though I do fear for the collateral damage on all sides.
The Tories are going to be judged in the court of public opinion on this one. Guilty as sin to be honest
The Tories are ALWAYS assumed to be low-life, lying, cheating scum by "the court of public opinion". It's priced in.
Labour, on the other hand, are supposed to offer this wonderful new view, sat up their on their high horse, surveying the moral high ground....
You are right that the allegations against Labour are extremely serious, whereas the issues relating to the Conservatives are nothing more than recycled fluff -at the moment. The fact that the Conservatives are taking the sting is a drawback of incumbency.
The 'expenses scandal', duck house aside was viewed largely as a Labour scandal, and let's be honest, then as now, a lot from all sides were at it.
My recollection of expenses scandal was that public blamed all sides pretty evenly. But relatively few big scalps came unstuck over it?
The party in office tends to suffer more. Labour - as the incumbents - was more damaged by the Expenses scandal despite the fact that many of the more colourful and extreme examples related to Tories.
Funny how "colourful" and "extreme" top trumps the clearly criminal, where ex-Labour MPs went to jail.....
Snip There is undoubtedly in it a structure that makes sexual harassment and worse more likely: significant power imbalances and a culture of corporate self-protection... These things cannot be ignored and any remedies need to take them into account. Nor can those factors easily be changed; they are intrinsic to what parliamentary politics is.
So how to deal with it? One part of it is culture change. It should not be difficult to create a culture where you simply do not ask your office staff to buy sex toys. But dealing with behaviour that demeans is on thing; the covering up of more serious cases, another. I'm not at all sure how you do deal with that. Transparency and independent complaints routes are the theoretical answer but these already exist and don't work well. Victims can already go to the police or press but they don't because of the nature of their career aspirations and the pressures of the system. Any internal process, whether within parties or parliament, is unlikely to have the teeth to operate effectively because to have those teeth would imply either intolerable restrictions on MPs independence, or giving the body the powers of the police - in which case, why not leave it to the police?
Snip
Getting the balance right will be difficult if not impossible. For now, taking steps in the right direction would be a good start.
Having a complaints procedure that isn't a joke would be a useful first step.
As it is, aggrieved parties with anything short of a criminal complaint have little recourse except the press - which is no good for MPs, either.
Agreed. This is precisely the sort of thing that someone like the Speaker should be arranging: an independent investigations route with integrity which would protect people and the reputation of Parliament by showing that it has standards and will take action when its members fall below them.
It occurs to me that for a lot of these types of workplace allegations, there is nothing that exists between a full on complaint / grievance / (or even) police report (including willingness to proceed as a lone voice) on one hand and just keeping stum on the other. A quiet word in such circumstances has little standing. I wonder if better halfway house options are what is missing here, the ability to put things properly on file without immediate expectation of taking the matter forward. I'm sure this is fraught with all sorts of issues, but by hopefully increasing levels of reporting and maintaining anonymity until a pattern is established there are also advantages.
Many types of statutory reporting, of possible fraud and bribery, for instance, already demand a similar 'piecing the jigsaw' approach to uncovering wrongdoing.
None of this is parliament or sexual harassment specific.
Actually, unpaid internships may make things worse. If you’re unpaid, you’re pretty keen to get a paid job and not rock the boat or be seen as a trouble-maker. So it may, at the margins, make junior staff feel more vulnerable, more unwilling to speak up and increases the power imbalance.
Viewing people as disposable is not likely to engender respect for them, particularly if you’re the sort of person who takes a droit de seigneur approach to all females within reach.
Why are unpaid internships even legal in the first place? A person ought to be paid for doing a job.
I agree when people are doing a job. There is a case for them when you are giving students some experience in a job over the holidays, as I have done. There the amount of actual work someone can do is limited and there is quite a lot of training involved or programmes designed to give students an insight into how to present, do interviews, prepare a CV and so forth.
Unpaid jobs are also tough on people who do not have family resources to help them survive...
Time limiting unpaid internships would be a decent compromise.
Cyclefree nails in there. The main problem with unpaid internships, and there are many, is that they in effect restrict certain professions to the middle classes - those with connections and resources who have the ability to work without pay for a year or more (yes, I've see it happen) thanks to the bank of mum and dad.
Time limiting unpaid internships would just have the effect of creating a merry-go-round where you do your month at one place then move on to the next, if anything it would make interns even easier to exploit as they never have time to prove their usefulness and move up to a paid job. The game would then be even more about 'who you know'.
I've seen it happen too. I was the bank!
I think it's very common in many sectors - arts, charities, journalism, media/tv/film to have unpaid internships everyone does when they get started.
Why is it so common?
When did this practice start?
Why does it have to be so common?
How can there be any social mobility if you can only get on by working for free?
Cheap Labour Lots of young people looking to get into the sector (Fashion, Journalism, Politics)
Not sure when it started It shouldn't be common it is reprehensible in every way (and I say that as the Bank for one of the few successful interns, she went on to employment and is now on over 75k pa).
Why are unpaid internships even legal in the first place? A person ought to be paid for doing a job.
I agree when people are doing a job. There is a case for them when you are giving students some experience in a job over the holidays, as I have done. There the amount of actual work someone can do is limited and there is quite a lot of training involved or programmes designed to give students an insight into how to present, do interviews, prepare a CV and so forth.
Unpaid jobs are also tough on people who do not have family resources to help them survive...
Time limiting unpaid internships would be a decent compromise.
Cyclefree nails in there. The main problem with unpaid internships, and there are many, is that they in effect restrict certain professions to the middle classes - those with connections and resources who have the ability to work without pay for a year or more (yes, I've see it happen) thanks to the bank of mum and dad.
Time limiting unpaid internships would just have the effect of creating a merry-go-round where you do your month at one place then move on to the next, if anything it would make interns even easier to exploit as they never have time to prove their usefulness and move up to a paid job. The game would then be even more about 'who you know'.
I've seen it happen too. I was the bank!
I think it's very common in many sectors - arts, charities, journalism, media/tv/film to have unpaid internships everyone does when they get started.
Indeed.
At a management meeting at a former employer, the issue of diversity was raised. Everyone was focusing on ideas for to get more ethnic minorities and women into the company.
I, meanwhile, suggested everyone at the meeting take a 10% pay cut so we could pay our interns full stop, and pay our juniors a living wage. Then the industry might not be as full of quite so many clueless plummy-accented public school types.
That went down like a bucket of the proverbial poo, I can assure you.
But as I said then, what does it matter if you raise your "diversity quota" by hiring a token black / female / trans / etc person who went to a top public school and has exactly the same outlook on life as you because of their background and education?
I see absolutely no reason in the modern workplace for interns who are not at least on the minimum wage. End of. No debate. No exceptions.
The Tories are going to be judged in the court of public opinion on this one. Guilty as sin to be honest
The Tories are ALWAYS assumed to be low-life, lying, cheating scum by "the court of public opinion". It's priced in.
Labour, on the other hand, are supposed to offer this wonderful new view, sat up their on their high horse, surveying the moral high ground....
You are right that the allegations against Labour are extremely serious, whereas the issues relating to the Conservatives are nothing more than recycled fluff -at the moment. The fact that the Conservatives are taking the sting is a drawback of incumbency.
The 'expenses scandal', duck house aside was viewed largely as a Labour scandal, and let's be honest, then as now, a lot from all sides were at it.
My recollection of expenses scandal was that public blamed all sides pretty evenly. But relatively few big scalps came unstuck over it?
The party in office tends to suffer more. Labour - as the incumbents - was more damaged by the Expenses scandal despite the fact that many of the more colourful and extreme examples related to Tories.
Funny how "colourful" and "extreme" top trumps the clearly criminal, where ex-Labour MPs went to jail.....
@Slackbladder and @Sandpit What I find shocking is the degree to which this reveals that so many in politics have no principles, no values, no ethics. In order to be an abuser you literally have to go against the principles and values of your political party. The only principle many seem to have is the pursuit of power.
It was also very saddening to read re young people’s safety. I would have never have thought before that it would be that bad.
Theres something serious rotten in the state of Westminster. Who would want to be there in their right mind.
No wonder politicians are so disliked.
It's not just Westminster, reading those tweets. We are talking about the pol parties in general, political events, canvassing days, conferences etc by sounds of it. Not a surprise frankly.
I was told many, many years ago by a friend who worked for a union that the annual conference was something to behold.
Why are unpaid internships even legal in the first place? A person ought to be paid for doing a job.
I agree when people are doing a job. There is a case for them when you are giving students some experience in a job over the holidays, as I have done. There the amount of actual work someone can do is limited and there is quite a lot of training involved or programmes designed to give students an insight into how to present, do interviews, prepare a CV and so forth.
Unpaid jobs are also tough on people who do not have family resources to help them survive...
Time limiting unpaid internships would be a decent compromise.
Cyclefree nails in there. The main problem with unpaid internships, and there are many, is that they in effect restrict certain professions to the middle classes - those with connections and resources who have the ability to work without pay for a year or more (yes, I've see it happen) thanks to the bank of mum and dad.
Time limiting unpaid internships would just have the effect of creating a merry-go-round where you do your month at one place then move on to the next, if anything it would make interns even easier to exploit as they never have time to prove their usefulness and move up to a paid job. The game would then be even more about 'who you know'.
I've seen it happen too. I was the bank!
I think it's very common in many sectors - arts, charities, journalism, media/tv/film to have unpaid internships everyone does when they get started.
Indeed.
At a management meeting at a former employer, the issue of diversity was raised. Everyone was focusing on ideas for to get more ethnic minorities and women into the company.
I, meanwhile, suggested everyone at the meeting take a 10% pay cut so we could pay our interns full stop, and pay our juniors a living wage. Then the industry might not be as full of quite so many clueless plummy-accented public school types.
That went down like a bucket of the proverbial poo, I can assure you.
But as I said then, what does it matter if you raise your "diversity quota" by hiring a token black / female / trans / etc person who went to a top public school and has exactly the same outlook on life as you because of their background and education?
I see absolutely no reason in the modern workplace for interns who are not at least on the minimum wage. End of. No debate. No exceptions.
Absolutely. The minimum wage is the minimum wage, there shouldn’t be any exceptions to it.
I think it's very common in many sectors - arts, charities, journalism, media/tv/film to have unpaid internships everyone does when they get started.
Why is it so common?
When did this practice start?
Why does it have to be so common?
How can there be any social mobility if you can only get on by working for free?
I agree that it's unfair. I don't know what to do about it.
The charities sector is the one I know best - and there it's a combination of high numbers of idealistic young people who want to make a difference + charities not having very much money (and to a certain extent - misguided emphasis on reducing overheads).
The sad thing is many of these people work very hard doing relatively menial work that actually isn't particularly good for their career. They'd be better off getting a normal job and then switching across in a few years time.
I think it's very common in many sectors - arts, charities, journalism, media/tv/film to have unpaid internships everyone does when they get started.
Why is it so common?
When did this practice start?
Why does it have to be so common?
How can there be any social mobility if you can only get on by working for free?
I agree that it's unfair. I don't know what to do about it.
The charities sector is the one I know best - and there it's a combination of high numbers of idealistic young people who want to make a difference + charities not having very much money (and to a certain extent - misguided emphasis on reducing overheads).
The sad thing is many of these people work very hard doing relatively menial work that actually isn't particularly good for their career. They'd be better off getting a normal job and then switching across in a few years time.
I hope I am not being naieve here but I am a little puzzled why there were few reports of MPs treating their staff in this way back in the 1950s & 1960s - and indeed earlier than that! I can only assume that Westminster was so much more male-dominated in that era.
Time limiting unpaid internships would be a decent compromise.
Cyclefree nails in there. The main problem with unpaid internships, and there are many, is that they in effect restrict certain professions to the middle classes - those with connections and resources who have the ability to work without pay for a year or more (yes, I've see it happen) thanks to the bank of mum and dad.
Time limiting unpaid internships would just have the effect of creating a merry-go-round where you do your month at one place then move on to the next, if anything it would make interns even easier to exploit as they never have time to prove their usefulness and move up to a paid job. The game would then be even more about 'who you know'.
I've seen it happen too. I was the bank!
I think it's very common in many sectors - arts, charities, journalism, media/tv/film to have unpaid internships everyone does when they get started.
Indeed.
At a management meeting at a former employer, the issue of diversity was raised. Everyone was focusing on ideas for to get more ethnic minorities and women into the company.
I, meanwhile, suggested everyone at the meeting take a 10% pay cut so we could pay our interns full stop, and pay our juniors a living wage. Then the industry might not be as full of quite so many clueless plummy-accented public school types.
That went down like a bucket of the proverbial poo, I can assure you.
But as I said then, what does it matter if you raise your "diversity quota" by hiring a token black / female / trans / etc person who went to a top public school and has exactly the same outlook on life as you because of their background and education?
I see absolutely no reason in the modern workplace for interns who are not at least on the minimum wage. End of. No debate. No exceptions.
Agreed. I'd put it on the statute books that you could face an unlimited fine and / or a custodial sentence for paying staff below the minimum wage - we are heading back to a Dickensian era of exploitation and what is a government for, if not to protect the most vulnerable?
Failure to nip it in the bud now will lead to ever more radical solutions - whoever comes after Corbyn may make him look positively right wing!
Its not getting closer to Theresa May is it? Its not like Watergate. Theresa May is not going to be accused of sexual harrassment. No one is indispensable and if Damien Green went -well so what? I remember Thatcher losing her beloved Cecil Parkinson back in 83.... Yesterday we were treated to the absurd spectacle of a cabinet minister being put on trial by the media for putting his hand on a journalists knee 15 years ago, with the victim of this monstrous assault herself stating that dredging it all up was ridiculous.
I hope I am not being naieve here but I am a little puzzled why there were few reports of MPs treating their staff in this way back in the 1950s & 1960s - and indeed earlier than that! I can only assume that Westminster was so much more male-dominated in that era.
There were only about 20 female MPs at each election until 1987. When Mrs Thatcher became PM in 1979 the number dropped to just 19, lower than 1945.
I hope I am not being naieve here but I am a little puzzled why there were few reports of MPs treating their staff in this way back in the 1950s & 1960s - and indeed earlier than that! I can only assume that Westminster was so much more male-dominated in that era.
Probably pretty much the only ladies in politics would have been secretaries, rather than 'activists'. Although i'm sure plenty of stuff went on there.
Also politics 'as a career' seemed to not exist, so probably less bright young things of all genders around.
I hope I am not being naieve here but I am a little puzzled why there were few reports of MPs treating their staff in this way back in the 1950s & 1960s - and indeed earlier than that! I can only assume that Westminster was so much more male-dominated in that era.
The zeitgeist has changed.
Churchill was known to shout abuse at underlings, and would sometimes work half-naked and occasionally completely so. We are all horrified by the revelations from Hollywood but we have all heard of the casting couch. And if there was any scandal in the 50s and 60s, the whips would have hushed it up. At a more mundane level, most MPs did not have staff as such.
I hope I am not being naieve here but I am a little puzzled why there were few reports of MPs treating their staff in this way back in the 1950s & 1960s - and indeed earlier than that! I can only assume that Westminster was so much more male-dominated in that era.
There were only about 20 female MPs at each election until 1987. When Mrs Thatcher became PM in 1979 the number dropped to just 19, lower than 1945.
I hope I am not being naieve here but I am a little puzzled why there were few reports of MPs treating their staff in this way back in the 1950s & 1960s - and indeed earlier than that! I can only assume that Westminster was so much more male-dominated in that era.
There were only about 20 female MPs at each election until 1987. When Mrs Thatcher became PM in 1979 the number dropped to just 19, lower than 1945.
Time limiting unpaid internships would be a decent compromise.
Cyclefree nails in there. The main problem with unpaid internships, and there are many, is that they in effect restrict certain professions to the middle classes - those with connections and resources who have the ability to work without pay for a year or more (yes, I've see it happen) thanks to the bank of mum and dad.
Time limiting unpaid internships would just have the effect of creating a merry-go-round where you do your month at one place then move on to the next, if anything it would make interns even easier to exploit as they never have time to prove their usefulness and move up to a paid job. The game would then be even more about 'who you know'.
I've seen it happen too. I was the bank!
I think it's very common in many sectors - arts, charities, journalism, media/tv/film to have unpaid internships everyone does when they get started.
Indeed.
At a management meeting at a former employer, the issue of diversity was raised. Everyone was focusing on ideas for to get more ethnic minorities and women into the company.
I, meanwhile, suggested everyone at the meeting take a 10% pay cut so we could pay our interns full stop, and pay our juniors a living wage. Then the industry might not be as full of quite so many clueless plummy-accented public school types.
That went down like a bucket of the proverbial poo, I can assure you.
But as I said then, what does it matter if you raise your "diversity quota" by hiring a token black / female / trans / etc person who went to a top public school and has exactly the same outlook on life as you because of their background and education?
I see absolutely no reason in the modern workplace for interns who are not at least on the minimum wage. End of. No debate. No exceptions.
Agreed. I'd put it on the statute books that you could face an unlimited fine and / or a custodial sentence for paying staff below the minimum wage - we are heading back to a Dickensian era of exploitation and what is a government for, if not to protect the most vulnerable?
Failure to nip it in the bud now will lead to ever more radical solutions - whoever comes after Corbyn may make him look positively right wing!
I host one or two undergraduates every summer doing small research projects in my group. I can't afford to pay them - there really isn't the funding for it, and what there is, is competitive. They are happy to gain the experience.
Win-win, no?
I will happily give you my address so you can come and slap me in irons.
I hope I am not being naieve here but I am a little puzzled why there were few reports of MPs treating their staff in this way back in the 1950s & 1960s - and indeed earlier than that! I can only assume that Westminster was so much more male-dominated in that era.
The zeitgeist has changed.
Churchill was known to shout abuse at underlings, and would sometimes work half-naked and occasionally completely so. We are all horrified by the revelations from Hollywood but we have all heard of the casting couch. And if there was any scandal in the 50s and 60s, the whips would have hushed it up. At a more mundane level, most MPs did not have staff as such.
Churchill was never accused of sexual abuse though - or indeed anything even vaguely close to that! Surely MPs needed secretaries even before World War 2?
Bit late to this but on topic, claims of knee-touching a decade or more ago and a possibly (as yet unverified) dodgy text message seem pretty thin grounds on which to disrupt a political career.
Parliament needs to get its act together. There is undoubtedly in it a structure that makes sexual harassment and worse more likely: significant power imbalances and a culture of corporate self-protection (both within parties and as a whole). These things cannot be ignored and any remedies need to take them into account. Nor can those factors easily be changed; they are intrinsic to what parliamentary politics is.
....
Getting the balance right will be difficult if not impossible. For now, taking steps in the right direction would be a good start.
Having a complaints procedure that isn't a joke would be a useful first step.
As it is, aggrieved parties with anything short of a criminal complaint have little recourse except the press - which is no good for MPs, either.
But how do you have a complaints procedure that isn't a joke? There is a reason why it's ended up as a joke; it wasn't deliberately designed as such.
By having it independent of party - and getting the parties to sign up to it. Cameron attempted something along these lines, but failed.
That's fine in theory but (1) how do you genuinely have it being independent - who appoints the members, on what basis and on what accountability? (2) Even being independent of party is not sufficient when parliament as a whole has an interest in not opening the can of worms when there are bad apples on all sides. See Expenses. (3) What powers would the complaints body have? (4) What happens if a party or an individual MP chooses not to sign up?
None of which is to say that something shouldn't be done, never mind that it can't be. But designing a system that will work in everyone's interests will be extremely difficult; far more so than in most places of work because of the unique nature of parliament.
If an MP, or a significant supporter, is found to have broken the election expenses rules during the election, the next question is ‘how far', with a possible secondary question of ‘did it affect the result?” If the answer is, effectively ‘drove a coach and horses through them’ and ‘quite probably yes’ then the election is overturned, the ‘MP' is penalised and the election is re-run.
I hope I am not being naieve here but I am a little puzzled why there were few reports of MPs treating their staff in this way back in the 1950s & 1960s - and indeed earlier than that! I can only assume that Westminster was so much more male-dominated in that era.
The zeitgeist has changed.
Churchill was known to shout abuse at underlings, and would sometimes work half-naked and occasionally completely so. We are all horrified by the revelations from Hollywood but we have all heard of the casting couch. And if there was any scandal in the 50s and 60s, the whips would have hushed it up. At a more mundane level, most MPs did not have staff as such.
Churchill was never accused of sexual abuse though - or indeed anything even vaguely close to that! Surely MPs needed secretaries even before World War 2?
It was once pointed out to Churchill that his flies were undone. "Dead birds don't fall out their nests...." was his lagubrious response.
I think it's very common in many sectors - arts, charities, journalism, media/tv/film to have unpaid internships everyone does when they get started.
Indeed.
At a management meeting at a former employer, the issue of diversity was raised. Everyone was focusing on ideas for to get more ethnic minorities and women into the company.
I, meanwhile, suggested everyone at the meeting take a 10% pay cut so we could pay our interns full stop, and pay our juniors a living wage. Then the industry might not be as full of quite so many clueless plummy-accented public school types.
That went down like a bucket of the proverbial poo, I can assure you.
But as I said then, what does it matter if you raise your "diversity quota" by hiring a token black / female / trans / etc person who went to a top public school and has exactly the same outlook on life as you because of their background and education?
I see absolutely no reason in the modern workplace for interns who are not at least on the minimum wage. End of. No debate. No exceptions.
Agreed. I'd put it on the statute books that you could face an unlimited fine and / or a custodial sentence for paying staff below the minimum wage - we are heading back to a Dickensian era of exploitation and what is a government for, if not to protect the most vulnerable?
Failure to nip it in the bud now will lead to ever more radical solutions - whoever comes after Corbyn may make him look positively right wing!
I host one or two undergraduates every summer doing small research projects in my group. I can't afford to pay them - there really isn't the funding for it, and what there is, is competitive. They are happy to gain the experience.
Win-win, no?
I will happily give you my address so you can come and slap me in irons.
Last time I checked, you can't pay your rent with experience. I went into Tesco the other day and did my weekly shop. They turfed me out when I tried to pay them with all the valuable experience I had.
While I am not accusing you of this personally, and I do understand that experience has value in terms of your career, "We can't afford to pay you, but this will be wonderful experience for you!" is one of the oldest and most used lines in the game.
I hope I am not being naieve here but I am a little puzzled why there were few reports of MPs treating their staff in this way back in the 1950s & 1960s - and indeed earlier than that! I can only assume that Westminster was so much more male-dominated in that era.
The zeitgeist has changed.
Churchill was known to shout abuse at underlings, and would sometimes work half-naked and occasionally completely so. We are all horrified by the revelations from Hollywood but we have all heard of the casting couch. And if there was any scandal in the 50s and 60s, the whips would have hushed it up. At a more mundane level, most MPs did not have staff as such.
Churchill was never accused of sexual abuse though - or indeed anything even vaguely close to that! Surely MPs needed secretaries even before World War 2?
It was once pointed out to Churchill that his flies were undone. "Dead birds don't fall out their nests...." was his lagubrious response.
If you want an historical example I give you the late David Lloyd George,
@Slackbladder and @Sandpit What I find shocking is the degree to which this reveals that so many in politics have no principles, no values, no ethics. In order to be an abuser you literally have to go against the principles and values of your political party. The only principle many seem to have is the pursuit of power.
It was also very saddening to read re young people’s safety. I would have never have thought before that it would be that bad.
I've never worked at Westminster, where things may be different.
My experience of Conservative student politics and the Young Conservatives from 1984-1990 was that such abusive behaviour did exist, but was not widespread. I was warned by a regional agent never to be on my own with Peter Morrison. I did have a friend who felt someone fondling his backside, and turned round to discover that it was a minister. And, there was a female politician who enjoyed seducing male students (entirely consensually). But, in my experience, most MPs and officials I encountered were quite professional.
At a management meeting at a former employer, the issue of diversity was raised. Everyone was focusing on ideas for to get more ethnic minorities and women into the company.
I, meanwhile, suggested everyone at the meeting take a 10% pay cut so we could pay our interns full stop, and pay our juniors a living wage. Then the industry might not be as full of quite so many clueless plummy-accented public school types.
That went down like a bucket of the proverbial poo, I can assure you.
But as I said then, what does it matter if you raise your "diversity quota" by hiring a token black / female / trans / etc person who went to a top public school and has exactly the same outlook on life as you because of their background and education?
I did much the same at a similar meeting years ago. The focus was all on sex, religion, race etc and when I mentioned class, the room went quiet and there was a lot of embarrassed shuffling by the facilitators.
Years later when I tried to hire into my team someone who, according to my boss, was of the wrong class, did not speak RP and, the horror!, shaved his head, you'd have thought I was trying to hire an orang-utan. The fact that he was indubitably the best person for the job was an irrelevance. My boss could not conceive of someone working in a legal team who did not fit into an identikit model of what such a person should be. He rather ignored the fact that I did not fit that model either. Anyway I dug my heels in and got my way. My boss left. And that person ended up as my Deputy, is now doing a very senior job at another institution and will go far. He is one of the best investigators around and, also, one of the nicest and most decent people you could hope to meet.
For all the focus on diversity and different perspectives, too many people refuse or are unable to see past superficial characteristics to the person within and their potential.
And, incidentally, it is often how fraudsters get away with it. They appear to fit and do the right things and be "one of us" and so people don't ask the questions they should and ignore small (or even big) warning signs.
Alan Bennett in his play about Blunt and the Queen has a very interesting exchange between them, ostensibly about art and fakes, which is spot on about this very point.
Having a complaints procedure that isn't a joke would be a useful first step.
As it is, aggrieved parties with anything short of a criminal complaint have little recourse except the press - which is no good for MPs, either.
Agreed. This is precisely the sort of thing that someone like the Speaker should be arranging: an independent investigations route with integrity which would protect people and the reputation of Parliament by showing that it has standards and will take action when its members fall below them.
This would be good. But, as ever, it's not really rules and structures that need the most change, it's principles and culture. Which has already been happening - compare the Commons today to 10/20/30 years ago - but at a relatively glacial pace.
The coming mega-reckoning will speed things up, though I do fear for the collateral damage on all sides.
Oh I quite agree. Procedures are not enough. Behaviour needs to change. But what a proper complaints route would provide is confidence to those who are abused that someone will listen and they won't suffer in silence. It sends a signal to them that they should not have to put up with this sort of behaviour. It means that there is a chance that those who misbehave are exposed and it sets out a strong signal about what our expectations are about the standards to be followed. And if it is taken out of the hands of the parties it avoids the apparent conflict of interest which leads people to say that someone should keep something quiet for the good of the party. And once one or two miscreants have been hanged, metaphorically, pour encourager les autres, this will help reinforce the change of behaviour that is needed.
Silence and brushing it under the carpet allows bad behaviour to flourish. Silence means betrayal - of our principles, of the requirements of the law, of our young and of those people in Parliament who do behave well, who are tarred by the bad behaviour of the scumbags.
Bit late to this but on topic, claims of knee-touching a decade or more ago and a possibly (as yet unverified) dodgy text message seem pretty thin grounds on which to disrupt a political career.
Parliament needs to get its act together. There is undoubtedly in it a structure that makes sexual harassment and worse more likely: significant power imbalances and a culture of corporate self-protection (both within parties and as a whole). These things cannot be ignored and any remedies need to take them into account. Nor can those factors easily be changed; they are intrinsic to what parliamentary politics is.
....
Getting the balance right will be difficult if not impossible. For now, taking steps in the right direction would be a good start.
Having a complaints procedure that isn't a joke would be a useful first step.
As it is, aggrieved parties with anything short of a criminal complaint have little recourse except the press - which is no good for MPs, either.
But how do you have a complaints procedure that isn't a joke? There is a reason why it's ended up as a joke; it wasn't deliberately designed as such.
By having it independent of party - and getting the parties to sign up to it. Cameron attempted something along these lines, but failed.
That's fine in theory but (1) how do you genuinely have it being independent - who appoints the members, on what basis and on what accountability? (2) Even being independent of party is not sufficient when parliament as a whole has an interest in not opening the can of worms when there are bad apples on all sides. See Expenses. (3) What powers would the complaints body have? (4) What happens if a party or an individual MP chooses not to sign up?
None of which is to say that something shouldn't be done, never mind that it can't be. But designing a system that will work in everyone's interests will be extremely difficult; far more so than in most places of work because of the unique nature of parliament.
All good questions. But. You can always find reasons not to do things, especially when tackling those in a position of power. I think we do need to do something rather than allow people in a position of power to abuse that power at the expense of the young, particularly if doing nothing permits crimes to be committed by our legislators.
One of Philby’s references was, IIRC, that the referee ‘knew his people’!
To link your comment and one by CycleFree, Kim Philby said in the 1980s that the reason he wasn't unmasked was the British class system, it was inconceivable that one "born into the ruling class of the British Empire" would be a traitor.
I think it's very common in many sectors - arts, charities, journalism, media/tv/film to have unpaid internships everyone does when they get started.
Indeed.
At a management meeting at a former employer, the issue of diversity was raised. Everyone was focusing on ideas for to get more ethnic minorities and women into the company.
I, meanwhile, suggested everyone at the meeting take a 10% pay cut so we could pay our interns full stop, and pay our juniors a living wage. Then the industry might not be as full of quite so many clueless plummy-accented public school types.
That went down like a bucket of the proverbial poo, I can assure you.
But as I said then, what does it matter if you raise your "diversity quota" by hiring a token black / female / trans / etc person who went to a top public school and has exactly the same outlook on life as you because of their background and education?
I see absolutely no reason in the modern workplace for interns who are not at least on the minimum wage. End of. No debate. No exceptions.
Agreed. I'd put it on the statute books that you could face an unlimited fine and / or a custodial sentence for paying staff below the minimum wage - we are heading back to a Dickensian era of exploitation and what is a government for, if not to protect the most vulnerable?
Failure to nip it in the bud now will lead to ever more radical solutions - whoever comes after Corbyn may make him look positively right wing!
I host one or two undergraduates every summer doing small research projects in my group. I can't afford to pay them - there really isn't the funding for it, and what there is, is competitive. They are happy to gain the experience.
Win-win, no?
I will happily give you my address so you can come and slap me in irons.
Last time I checked, you can't pay your rent with experience. I went into Tesco the other day and did my weekly shop. They turfed me out when I tried to pay them with all the valuable experience I had.
While I am not accusing you of this personally, and I do understand that experience has value in terms of your career, "We can't afford to pay you, but this will be wonderful experience for you!" is one of the oldest and most used lines in the game.
Having internships while you are a student seems to me fair enough, with appropriate safeguards. It's once people have stopped being a student that I see a big problem.
Time limiting unpaid internships would be a decent compromise.
Cyclefree nails in there. The main problem with unpaid internships, and there are many, is that they in effect restrict certain professions to the middle classes - those with connections and resources who have the ability to work without pay for a year or more (yes, I've see it happen) thanks to the bank of mum and dad.
Time limiting unpaid internships would just have the effect of creating a merry-go-round where you do your month at one place then move on to the next, if anything it would make interns even easier to exploit as they never have time to prove their usefulness and move up to a paid job. The game would then be even more about 'who you know'.
I've seen it happen too. I was the bank!
I think it's very common in many sectors - arts, charities, journalism, media/tv/film to have unpaid internships everyone does when they get started.
I see absolutely no reason in the modern workplace for interns who are not at least on the minimum wage. End of. No debate. No exceptions.
Agreed. I'd put it on the statute books that you could face an unlimited fine and / or a custodial sentence for paying staff below the minimum wage - we are heading back to a Dickensian era of exploitation and what is a government for, if not to protect the most vulnerable?
Failure to nip it in the bud now will lead to ever more radical solutions - whoever comes after Corbyn may make him look positively right wing!
I host one or two undergraduates every summer doing small research projects in my group. I can't afford to pay them - there really isn't the funding for it, and what there is, is competitive. They are happy to gain the experience.
Win-win, no?
I will happily give you my address so you can come and slap me in irons.
Is that a UK institution? One of those that charges massive tuition fees to build lovely boutique buildings? One where PDRA contracts now complete with and often outstrip equivalent industry posts? And then asks the person who pays for that lovely building and their supervising PDRA, on tic mind you, to work there for free?
It's an old practice I'll grant but:
If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor
It's not your doing, but at an institutional level, it sucks.
At a management meeting at a former employer, the issue of diversity was raised. Everyone was focusing on ideas for to get more ethnic minorities and women into the company.
I, meanwhile, suggested everyone at the meeting take a 10% pay cut so we could pay our interns full stop, and pay our juniors a living wage. Then the industry might not be as full of quite so many clueless plummy-accented public school types.
That went down like a bucket of the proverbial poo, I can assure you.
But as I said then, what does it matter if you raise your "diversity quota" by hiring a token black / female / trans / etc person who went to a top public school and has exactly the same outlook on life as you because of their background and education?
I did much the same at a similar meeting years ago. The focus was all on sex, religion, race etc and when I mentioned class, the room went quiet and there was a lot of embarrassed shuffling by the facilitators.
Years later when I tried to hire into my team someone who, according to my boss, was of the wrong class, did not speak RP and, the horror!, shaved his head, you'd have thought I was trying to hire an orang-utan. The fact that he was indubitably the best person for the job was an irrelevance. My boss could not conceive of someone working in a legal team who did not fit into an identikit model of what such a person should be. He rather ignored the fact that I did not fit that model either. Anyway I dug my heels in and got my way. My boss left. And that person ended up as my Deputy, is now doing a very senior job at another institution and will go far. He is one of the best investigators around and, also, one of the nicest and most decent people you could hope to meet.
For all the focus on diversity and different perspectives, too many people refuse or are unable to see past superficial characteristics to the person within and their potential.
And, incidentally, it is often how fraudsters get away with it. They appear to fit and do the right things and be "one of us" and so people don't ask the questions they should and ignore small (or even big) warning signs.
Alan Bennett in his play about Blunt and the Queen has a very interesting exchange between them, ostensibly about art and fakes, which is spot on about this very point.
At a management meeting at a former employer, the issue of diversity was raised. Everyone was focusing on ideas for to get more ethnic minorities and women into the company.
I, meanwhile, suggested everyone at the meeting take a 10% pay cut so we could pay our interns full stop, and pay our juniors a living wage. Then the industry might not be as full of quite so many clueless plummy-accented public school types.
That went down like a bucket of the proverbial poo, I can assure you.
But as I said then, what does it matter if you raise your "diversity quota" by hiring a token black / female / trans / etc person who went to a top public school and has exactly the same outlook on life as you because of their background and education?
I did much the same at a similar meeting years ago. The focus was all on sex, religion, race etc and when I mentioned class, the room went quiet and there was a lot of embarrassed shuffling by the facilitators.
Years later when I tried to hire into my team someone who, according to my boss, was of the wrong class, did not speak RP and, the horror!, shaved his head, you'd have thought I was trying to hire an orang-utan. The fact that he was indubitably the best person for the job was an irrelevance. My boss could not conceive of someone working in a legal team who did not fit into an identikit model of what such a person should be. He rather ignored the fact that I did not fit that model either. Anyway I dug my heels in and got my way. My boss left. And that person ended up as my Deputy, is now doing a very senior job at another institution and will go far. He is one of the best investigators around and, also, one of the nicest and most decent people you could hope to meet.
For all the focus on diversity and different perspectives, too many people refuse or are unable to see past superficial characteristics to the person within and their potential.
And, incidentally, it is often how fraudsters get away with it. They appear to fit and do the right things and be "one of us" and so people don't ask the questions they should and ignore small (or even big) warning signs.
Alan Bennett in his play about Blunt and the Queen has a very interesting exchange between them, ostensibly about art and fakes, which is spot on about this very point.
One of Philby’s references was, IIRC, that the referee ‘knew his people’!
To link your comment and one by CycleFree, Kim Philby said in the 1980s that the reason he wasn't unmasked was the British class system, it was inconceivable that one "born into the ruling class of the British Empire" would be a traitor.
Indeed. My reading notes from Ben MacIntyre's, 'A Spy Among Friends’ include 'Class loyalty was so strong that the traditionally upper class MI6 couldn’t believe that the middle class MI5 could have have identified a traitor amongst them. Nicholas Elliott’s feeling of betrayal was obvious. Elliott was Philby’s innocent friend, and often, effectively, protector.'
I think it's very common in many sectors - arts, charities, journalism, media/tv/film to have unpaid internships everyone does when they get started.
Indeed.
At a management meeting at a former employer, the issue of diversity was raised. Everyone was focusing on ideas for to get more ethnic minorities and women into the company.
I, meanwhile, suggested everyone at the meeting take a 10% pay cut so we could pay our interns full stop, and pay our juniors a living wage. Then the industry might not be as full of quite so many clueless plummy-accented public school types.
That went down like a bucket of the proverbial poo, I can assure you.
But as I said then, what does it matter if you raise your "diversity quota" by hiring a token black / female / trans / etc person who went to a top public school and has exactly the same outlook on life as you because of their background and education?
I see absolutely no reason in the modern workplace for interns who are not at least on the minimum wage. End of. No debate. No exceptions.
Agreed. I'd put it on the statute books that you could face an unlimited fine and / or a custodial sentence for paying staff below the minimum wage - we are heading back to a Dickensian era of exploitation and what is a government for, if not to protect the most vulnerable?
Failure to nip it in the bud now will lead to ever more radical solutions - whoever comes after Corbyn may make him look positively right wing!
I host one or two undergraduates every summer doing small research projects in my group. I can't afford to pay them - there really isn't the funding for it, and what there is, is competitive. They are happy to gain the experience.
Win-win, no?
I will happily give you my address so you can come and slap me in irons.
Last time I checked, you can't pay your rent with experience. I went into Tesco the other day and did my weekly shop. They turfed me out when I tried to pay them with all the valuable experience I had.
While I am not accusing you of this personally, and I do understand that experience has value in terms of your career, "We can't afford to pay you, but this will be wonderful experience for you!" is one of the oldest and most used lines in the game.
Having internships while you are a student seems to me fair enough, with appropriate safeguards. It's once people have stopped being a student that I see a big problem.
Comments
I'm highly competent with high standards of moral hygiene.
As far as the public were concerned, the whole scandal was taking the public for a ride and claims for cleaning moats or for duck houses were morally as bad as fiddling the figures. That the duck house claim was denied even under the lax rules of the time is beside the point; the point being that the MP thought it worth claiming for in the first place.
https://twitter.com/jerryhayes1/status/925666957118136321
"They, in turn, have smaller fleas, unto infinitum"
The vermin only teaze and pinch
Their foes superior by an inch.
So, naturalists observe, a flea
Has smaller fleas that on him prey;
And these have smaller still to bite 'em,
And so proceed ad infinitum.
And then the real damage. "Its ok, I can defend behaviour I don't remember, now is the right time to come out". Because confirming the idiot prejudice that gay men are predators trying to subvert teenage boys is obviously the right way to defend.
I genuinely love him as an actor. And love House of Cards (not as much as our FU of course). But you wonder if the hiatus in production now becomes permanent.
How many couples do you know where the first response was No? I suspect a lot of successful relationships start with a No.
It is all about how (and if) you follow up. About the power in the relationship, about common shared intentions - a one night stand or a long term relationship?
Honesty is required, so I guess Parliament will be full of problems!
Cameron attempted something along these lines, but failed.
What can't be denied is that May called an election with the explicit aim of increasing her majority and then lost it. Yes, she managed to hang on to office, so it wasn't a complete disaster, but given that she'd have hung onto office without the election, that's no great achievement.
The point is that the further down the foodchain, the same happens, and probably with even less scrutiny. Who cares about a sleazy foreman?
Well at least we're not quite Dubai...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/23/briton-jailed-dubai-touching-mans-hip-freed-campaigners-say/
Time limiting unpaid internships would just have the effect of creating a merry-go-round where you do your month at one place then move on to the next, if anything it would make interns even easier to exploit as they never have time to prove their usefulness and move up to a paid job. The game would then be even more about 'who you know'.
So May to go soon and replaced by Hammond/Rudd/Green?!
https://twitter.com/jonnelledge/status/925668252709253120
In my experience unpaid internships are often a waste of time for one or both parties.
But if we accept that they have value - then perhaps students/young people should be able to top up their student loans with a living cost loan for a year after graduation to seek unpaid experience.
No wonder politicians are so disliked.
And of course for that to happen the plot line wouldn't have to stray too far from the final season of our own House of Cards.
I genuinely love Kevin Spacey as an actor and think it's important to distinguish the work from the artist. If you've ever used Gill Sans the font, or admired the front of Broadcasting House, I suggest taking a look at the personal life of Eric Gill.
While I am not in any way trying to defend the (alleged) actions, the hypocrisy of the new prudery is quite something to behold. This is an industry that has feted Roman Polanski with countless awards for decades after he pleaded guilty to having sex with a thirteen year old girl.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/mp-nadine-dorries-faces-backlash-over-window-licking-tweet-a3673366.html
When did this practice start?
Why does it have to be so common?
How can there be any social mobility if you can only get on by working for free?
Edit: forgot to mention M&D's boarding house....
https://twitter.com/skysarahjane/status/925674420571705345
At a management meeting at a former employer, the issue of diversity was raised. Everyone was focusing on ideas for to get more ethnic minorities and women into the company.
I, meanwhile, suggested everyone at the meeting take a 10% pay cut so we could pay our interns full stop, and pay our juniors a living wage. Then the industry might not be as full of quite so many clueless plummy-accented public school types.
That went down like a bucket of the proverbial poo, I can assure you.
But as I said then, what does it matter if you raise your "diversity quota" by hiring a token black / female / trans / etc person who went to a top public school and has exactly the same outlook on life as you because of their background and education?
The coming mega-reckoning will speed things up, though I do fear for the collateral damage on all sides.
Uber just can't catch a break when it comes to bad publicity at the moment.
Nice try though.
Many types of statutory reporting, of possible fraud and bribery, for instance, already demand a similar 'piecing the jigsaw' approach to uncovering wrongdoing.
None of this is parliament or sexual harassment specific.
Lots of young people looking to get into the sector (Fashion, Journalism, Politics)
Not sure when it started
It shouldn't be common it is reprehensible in every way (and I say that as the Bank for one of the few successful interns, she went on to employment and is now on over 75k pa).
Former minister warns of 'profound failings' to deal with harassment and abuse within all political parties"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mp-anna-soubry-sexual-assault-victims-conservative-party-parliament-commons-allegations-a8030761.html
What I find shocking is the degree to which this reveals that so many in politics have no principles, no values, no ethics. In order to be an abuser you literally have to go against the principles and values of your political party. The only principle many seem to have is the pursuit of power.
It was also very saddening to read re young people’s safety. I would have never have thought before that it would be that bad.
I was told many, many years ago by a friend who worked for a union that the annual conference was something to behold.
The charities sector is the one I know best - and there it's a combination of high numbers of idealistic young people who want to make a difference + charities not having very much money (and to a certain extent - misguided emphasis on reducing overheads).
The sad thing is many of these people work very hard doing relatively menial work that actually isn't particularly good for their career. They'd be better off getting a normal job and then switching across in a few years time.
Failure to nip it in the bud now will lead to ever more radical solutions - whoever comes after Corbyn may make him look positively right wing!
Its not like Watergate. Theresa May is not going to be accused of sexual harrassment. No one is indispensable and if Damien Green went -well so what?
I remember Thatcher losing her beloved Cecil Parkinson back in 83....
Yesterday we were treated to the absurd spectacle of a cabinet minister being put on trial by the media for putting his hand on a journalists knee 15 years ago, with the victim of this monstrous assault herself stating that dredging it all up was ridiculous.
http://www.ukpolitical.info/FemaleMPs.htm
Also politics 'as a career' seemed to not exist, so probably less bright young things of all genders around.
Churchill was known to shout abuse at underlings, and would sometimes work half-naked and occasionally completely so. We are all horrified by the revelations from Hollywood but we have all heard of the casting couch. And if there was any scandal in the 50s and 60s, the whips would have hushed it up. At a more mundane level, most MPs did not have staff as such.
I can't afford to pay them - there really isn't the funding for it, and what there is, is competitive.
They are happy to gain the experience.
Win-win, no?
I will happily give you my address so you can come and slap me in irons.
None of which is to say that something shouldn't be done, never mind that it can't be. But designing a system that will work in everyone's interests will be extremely difficult; far more so than in most places of work because of the unique nature of parliament.
What happens in the case of a referendum?
While I am not accusing you of this personally, and I do understand that experience has value in terms of your career, "We can't afford to pay you, but this will be wonderful experience for you!" is one of the oldest and most used lines in the game.
Any who don't deny/clarify, will be assumed to be guilty.
Might as well start accusing political foes of gnome-shagging, just so they have to deny it.
[NB don't make up allegations].
My experience of Conservative student politics and the Young Conservatives from 1984-1990 was that such abusive behaviour did exist, but was not widespread. I was warned by a regional agent never to be on my own with Peter Morrison. I did have a friend who felt someone fondling his backside, and turned round to discover that it was a minister. And, there was a female politician who enjoyed seducing male students (entirely consensually). But, in my experience, most MPs and officials I encountered were quite professional.
Years later when I tried to hire into my team someone who, according to my boss, was of the wrong class, did not speak RP and, the horror!, shaved his head, you'd have thought I was trying to hire an orang-utan. The fact that he was indubitably the best person for the job was an irrelevance. My boss could not conceive of someone working in a legal team who did not fit into an identikit model of what such a person should be. He rather ignored the fact that I did not fit that model either. Anyway I dug my heels in and got my way. My boss left. And that person ended up as my Deputy, is now doing a very senior job at another institution and will go far. He is one of the best investigators around and, also, one of the nicest and most decent people you could hope to meet.
For all the focus on diversity and different perspectives, too many people refuse or are unable to see past superficial characteristics to the person within and their potential.
And, incidentally, it is often how fraudsters get away with it. They appear to fit and do the right things and be "one of us" and so people don't ask the questions they should and ignore small (or even big) warning signs.
Alan Bennett in his play about Blunt and the Queen has a very interesting exchange between them, ostensibly about art and fakes, which is spot on about this very point.
It used to be more exciting in the good old days.
Silence and brushing it under the carpet allows bad behaviour to flourish. Silence means betrayal - of our principles, of the requirements of the law, of our young and of those people in Parliament who do behave well, who are tarred by the bad behaviour of the scumbags.
https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/925672078652727296
All good questions. But. You can always find reasons not to do things, especially when tackling those in a position of power. I think we do need to do something rather than allow people in a position of power to abuse that power at the expense of the young, particularly if doing nothing permits crimes to be committed by our legislators.
It's an old practice I'll grant but:
If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor
It's not your doing, but at an institutional level, it sucks.
Interesting but when is he going to lead on Brexit question