Howdy, Stranger!

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

The focus moves to ex-Tory leader and former A-G – politicalbetting.com

1246

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,568
    eek said:

    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's a thoroughly deserved pile on for the Tories

    Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
    Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
    Excuse me

    I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's

    The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias

    Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
    So £100,000 over 5 years when he could easily earn £10,000+ a month doing private work.

    Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
    I absolutely agree and this is why the debate has become so toxic

    He is leading the attacks on conservative second jobs, so it does not look good when he has earned from the same position himself

    He did look very awkward when quizzed about in on the media a couple of days ago

    It is time the heat was dialled down and rational was applied to just what is sensible and that which is unacceptable which was so obvious in the Paterson case

    I am sure that this what we all want and most certainly is the country's wish
    Yet you were quite happy to post the £100,000 figure without context in your previous post.

    So you are one of the people quite happy to post inflammatory data out of context and then calling for things to be calmed down when pulled up on it with the context that explains why your original attack was utterly invalid.

    The issue isn't MPs with second jobs based on their existing skillset it's MPs using their position to earn extra money.
    I think the press haven't got that particular memo, given the furore over Cox.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,820

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Here's another

    George Grylls
    @georgegrylls
    Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.

    He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.

    He denies any conflict of interest.

    Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
    If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.

    If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.

    Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
    Not very libertarian of you Philip. They are private businesses they can and should do what they like.
    Private businesses aren’t subject to the law ?
    They aren't and shouldn't be subject to the government telling them how to run their businesses.

    Go to Coutts earning the median wage with no assets and ask to become a customer.
    If Coutts say you can't be a customer because of your ethnicity that would be against the law, would it not?

    The issue is that bookies do accept people as customers, then cut them off because they're winning in order to more aggressively exploit those who are losing.
    Irrelevant about the race example why on earth did you bring it up.

    It is a commercial decision. They make money off richer people and simply don't allow poorer people to be clients.

    You are complaining because some firms are refusing people services for commercial reasons. Just like Coutts and many others do.
    The point is that the law already does get involved in saying firms can't discriminate.

    If the law were to say that licensed gambling firms are not permitted to discriminate against winning punters, as a condition of their licence, that'd be reasonable as far as I'm concerned. If firms don't want to honour that condition, they wouldn't have to get a licence if they didn't want one, but they wouldn't then be able to do anything that requires a licence.
    Absurd. Over what time period? A week? A year? Five years? The last race?

    Stop trying to get the state involved in the minutiae of private businesses.
  • kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's a thoroughly deserved pile on for the Tories

    Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
    Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
    So far the story is going in the opposite direction. "MP's Sleaze" has become "Tory sleaze". We know that coming down the runway we have covid contracts and the Downing Street flat refurb - those are exclusively Tory, as is Coxgate. It will take something massive, or realistically several massive somethings to swing the narrative.

    As I posted above, we will see a few opposition MPs taken down by this. But the tsunami wave is targeted on the government and attempts to deflect aren't working.
    Why should I want it deflected.

    Paterson was found guilty and should have served his penalty and would have but for Boris's idiotic actions, and so must each and every wrongdoer go before the Standards Commissioner and hopefully a better beefed up one and be cleared or if guilty take the consequences

    I would agree however there are far too many assuming guilt even before a hearing and that sits very uncomfortably with me.
    I don't think that *you* want it deflected. You suggested a few days ago that the story seemed to be moving onto something else - I don't think that was hopeful deflection just an observation.

    Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but we also are allowed to take into account statements and actions. Cox is shown on camera doing the thing he is accused of - the only defence is that "the rules don't cover zoom" which appears to be incorrect at a basic examination of those rules.

    That is the sideshow though, as was Boris shamefully not wearing a mask, dodging the debate with lies and then that fool Raab repeating the same lie as proof of the lie is repeated on screen.

    I and others are pulling at glaring holes in covid contracts, in peerage awards, in planning decisions, in the money only resting in various accounts before refitting Number 10 etc etc. It is entirely possible there is probity beneath the billowing smoke, but if so why is the government and Number 10 specifically acting in such a way?

    In titting about failing to remove the commissioner, dodging the debate and continuing to act in a "rules don't apply to me" way, the PM just keeps the story going and the longer it goes the deeper they dig.
    I do agree that Boris is his own worst enemy and many of the things you refer to may or may not have involved irregular practice, but until they have been reviewed by the appropriate authorities and conclusions drawn I am not entering into speculation on guilt
  • RogerRoger Posts: 15,225

    (From the Times article)

    ".....Javid said that second jobs in general are “good” for politics because MPs benefit from having external interests......"

    ......I'm sure Matt Hancock can vouch for that

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Heathener said:

    It's just that the Tories are the best at sleaze. Mainly because being capitalists they love nothing better than lining their own pockets.

    Labour are instinctively less motivated by personal gain so there are proportionately fewer with their hands in the till.

    ** raises eyebrow **

    I was told this week of a former Labour Minister now in the Lords who is so rich that he pays for his grandchildren to go to Eton.

    Greed cuts across party lines.
    Does paying for your grandchildren to go to Eton suggest he 'had his hands in the till'?
    No. And I am not suggesting that this person did anything illegal. Looking at their career they have done a lot of things which might have allowed them to accumulate the necessary wealth.

    I was merely pointing out that the assumption that Labour politicians are not interested in accumulating wealth is not a safe one to make.
    A lot of people accumulate wealth without being acquisitive
    Something only a rich person might say example 1?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,286

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's a thoroughly deserved pile on for the Tories

    Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
    Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
    Excuse me

    I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's

    The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias

    Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
    I wasn't having a go at you. But thank you for proving my point, anyway. For you, the guilt is spread across parties. For me, it's the Tories who own it. The emerging evidence is on my side at the moment.
    Why is it on one side?

    Is Keir Starmer a Tory? Is Ed Davey? Is Ian Blackford?

    And those are just the leaders of their respective parties [in Westminster for Blackford].

    If you want to make it party-partisan you can, but that's just through wilful disregard of what is going on elsewhere.
    We will see a couple of opposition MPs taken down by this. The problem for such attempted deflections is that it isn't the act of lobbying that is the problem, its what the lobbying results in.

    Even you can see the difference between Ed Davey and Iain Duncan Smith as two examples.
    If Labour does very well indeed but is a bit short, it might not need the SNP as a partner and would prefer the Lib Dems to c&s with their position on the union. If it comes to that, certainly Davey must give up the gig.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,466
    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    It will be dismissed as relatively minor, and certainly Cox seems to have been focused on because of the amount he has earned rather than any specific misbehaviour as this is the first actual such listed, but rules are rules, and parliamentary resources shouldn't be used for non parliamentary work. MPs get chided frequently about sending things on House of Commons letterhead which shouldn't be for example.

    But juicier meat will probably be needed to keep attention on this topic, which is very needed. IDS being a good example, as TimS notes.

    Stationary is trying to use the authority of the office for personal gain though. A VC from an office is convenience. I understand what the rules say but they were written with physical use in mind
    Sitting in an office using electronic kit and moving electrons around isn't physical?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    It will be dismissed as relatively minor, and certainly Cox seems to have been focused on because of the amount he has earned rather than any specific misbehaviour as this is the first actual such listed, but rules are rules, and parliamentary resources shouldn't be used for non parliamentary work. MPs get chided frequently about sending things on House of Commons letterhead which shouldn't be for example.

    But juicier meat will probably be needed to keep attention on this topic, which is very needed. IDS being a good example, as TimS notes.

    Stationary is trying to use the authority of the office for personal gain though. A VC from an office is convenience. I understand what the rules say but they were written with physical use in mind
    Which is why it may well be a breach but not massively interesting, unless he has House of Commons insignia in shot etc. Still a potential issue but so far it's not as interesting as the media attention it is getting compared to say IDS.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,820

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:
    Not valid. Who's the boss of the NHS? And who's the boss's boss?
    Ah yeah, coerced under threat of being fired. Seriously...
    Sorry but it's a bizarre bit of sycophancy from whoever is in charge of the Northumbria NHS twitter account, he's clearly in breach of the guidelines.

    Guidance: wear a face-covering at all times
    Tweet: in each clinical area
    Guidelines or law?

    If the law says clinical areas then that is what is required. People are not obligated to follow guidance.
    He's the Prime Minister, if he's not going to follow guidance then err...
    err... what?

    He should follow the law. That's what the PM is responsible for.
    Law is there for difficult cases & people. The PM isn't a staff member, he's not a patient, he's not visiting a patient. He's there for a photo OP. He is the perfect example of someone who should be going above the law and following all guidance.
    Even if the guidance is an ass?

    If the hospital wanted to tell him he had to meet the guidance, it could. It didn't.

    Guidance is not mandatory. I will not wear a mask unless its mandatory, "guidance" is not enough.
    May you have no need to go to a hospital but if you do, you will wear a facemask.

    I haven't worn a mask for weeks if not months but when I went to visit my relative in hospital over the weekend I wore one. Not on the train to get there, not in the cafe beforehand, but absolutely in there. (And I had to "borrow" one off a hospital porter as I had completely forgotten about them.)

    And, spoiler alert, I am not the PM.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,687
    I was looking forward to talking to students at the Cambridge Union this Friday, but I hear that someone there has been blacklisted for doing an impersonation of Hitler

    I regret that I did the same on a Monty Python show, so I am blacklisting myself before someone else does
    https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1458353535414833163?s=20

    I apologise to anyone at Cambridge who was hoping to talk with me, but perhaps some of you can find a venue where woke rules do not apply
    https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1458364710605180928?s=20
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:
    Not valid. Who's the boss of the NHS? And who's the boss's boss?
    Ah yeah, coerced under threat of being fired. Seriously...
    Sorry but it's a bizarre bit of sycophancy from whoever is in charge of the Northumbria NHS twitter account, he's clearly in breach of the guidelines.

    Guidance: wear a face-covering at all times
    Tweet: in each clinical area
    Guidelines or law?

    If the law says clinical areas then that is what is required. People are not obligated to follow guidance.
    He's the Prime Minister, if he's not going to follow guidance then err...
    err... what?

    He should follow the law. That's what the PM is responsible for.
    Law is there for difficult cases & people. The PM isn't a staff member, he's not a patient, he's not visiting a patient. He's there for a photo OP. He is the perfect example of someone who should be going above the law and following all guidance.
    Even if the guidance is an ass?

    If the hospital wanted to tell him he had to meet the guidance, it could. It didn't.

    Guidance is not mandatory. I will not wear a mask unless its mandatory, "guidance" is not enough.
    I think people are looking at this backwards.

    NHS Guidance to Trusts suggests that in order to meet their legal duties to staff and patients they should require the wearing of masks in both clinical and non-clinical areas of hospitals (and other healthcare settings).

    I am therefore unclear on why the Trust did not require Boris to wear a mask, as a matter of law. It is certainly not on the basis that the photo is in a 'non-clinical area'.

    Having given him the freedom, whether Boris wears a mask or not is not a legal question, but a moral and political one.

    Even better - Boris *did wear* a mask. There are multiple photos taken of him wearing one. He took it off when doing anything for the press - both early and late in the visit - then put it on in the middle.

    So its not as if he is some kind of libertarian champion as Philip suggested. Nor was "wear a mask" a suggestion - its a legal requirement in the hospital. Its also something that literally everyone knows - you *have* to wear a mask at all times. Once again it is Boris saying that the rules apply to everyone but him.
  • eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's a thoroughly deserved pile on for the Tories

    Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
    Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
    Excuse me

    I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's

    The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias

    Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
    So £100,000 over 5 years when he could easily earn £10,000+ a month doing private work.

    Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
    Or we could have parliament in session for a normal amount of time (some years they have 20+ weeks off!) and then reduce the amount of times bills fail not because there is no majority for them but simply because we ran out of time before the MPs swan off to the med on all expenses paid for holidays.
    Given the current standard of MPs parliament sitting for less time would be a good thing as they would have reduced opportunities to pass ill thought out futile or damaging laws.
    If I were in charge (fortunately I am not), I would also introduce a get rid of (at least) one old law for every two new ones to be introduced. So they could use the additional time either making the new laws better thought out, or getting rid of old unnecessary or damaging ones, but could not keep adding more and more new laws without constraints.
  • Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's a thoroughly deserved pile on for the Tories

    Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
    Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
    Excuse me

    I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's

    The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias

    Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
    I wasn't having a go at you. But thank you for proving my point, anyway. For you, the guilt is spread across parties. For me, it's the Tories who own it. The emerging evidence is on my side at the moment.
    Why is it on one side?

    Is Keir Starmer a Tory? Is Ed Davey? Is Ian Blackford?

    And those are just the leaders of their respective parties [in Westminster for Blackford].

    If you want to make it party-partisan you can, but that's just through wilful disregard of what is going on elsewhere.
    We will see a couple of opposition MPs taken down by this. The problem for such attempted deflections is that it isn't the act of lobbying that is the problem, its what the lobbying results in.

    Even you can see the difference between Ed Davey and Iain Duncan Smith as two examples.
    If Labour does very well indeed but is a bit short, it might not need the SNP as a partner and would prefer the Lib Dems to c&s with their position on the union. If it comes to that, certainly Davey must give up the gig.
    I expect that everyone is going to be told to "give up the gig" as you put it. Though to be fair to Davey as he is consulting on green energy and using the money to look after his disabled son its not quite the same as taking cash from the gambling industry to campaign for laxer rules for bookmakers...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,568
    edited November 2021

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    RobD said:
    Not valid. Who's the boss of the NHS? And who's the boss's boss?
    Ah yeah, coerced under threat of being fired. Seriously...
    Sorry but it's a bizarre bit of sycophancy from whoever is in charge of the Northumbria NHS twitter account, he's clearly in breach of the guidelines.

    Guidance: wear a face-covering at all times
    Tweet: in each clinical area
    Guidelines or law?

    If the law says clinical areas then that is what is required. People are not obligated to follow guidance.
    He's the Prime Minister, if he's not going to follow guidance then err...
    err... what?

    He should follow the law. That's what the PM is responsible for.
    Law is there for difficult cases & people. The PM isn't a staff member, he's not a patient, he's not visiting a patient. He's there for a photo OP. He is the perfect example of someone who should be going above the law and following all guidance.
    Even if the guidance is an ass?

    If the hospital wanted to tell him he had to meet the guidance, it could. It didn't.

    Guidance is not mandatory. I will not wear a mask unless its mandatory, "guidance" is not enough.
    I think people are looking at this backwards.

    NHS Guidance to Trusts suggests that in order to meet their legal duties to staff and patients they should require the wearing of masks in both clinical and non-clinical areas of hospitals (and other healthcare settings).

    I am therefore unclear on why the Trust did not require Boris to wear a mask, as a matter of law. It is certainly not on the basis that the photo is in a 'non-clinical area'.

    Having given him the freedom, whether Boris wears a mask or not is not a legal question, but a moral and political one.

    Even better - Boris *did wear* a mask. There are multiple photos taken of him wearing one. He took it off when doing anything for the press - both early and late in the visit - then put it on in the middle.

    So its not as if he is some kind of libertarian champion as Philip suggested. Nor was "wear a mask" a suggestion - its a legal requirement in the hospital. Its also something that literally everyone knows - you *have* to wear a mask at all times. Once again it is Boris saying that the rules apply to everyone but him.
    If you watch the video on the link posted earlier you'll see he actually wore one for everything but the first bit in the corridor. If he took it off for the press, there'd be no pictures/video of him wearing one.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's a thoroughly deserved pile on for the Tories

    Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
    Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
    Excuse me

    I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's

    The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias

    Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
    So £100,000 over 5 years when he could easily earn £10,000+ a month doing private work.

    Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
    I absolutely agree and this is why the debate has become so toxic

    He is leading the attacks on conservative second jobs, so it does not look good when he has earned from the same position himself

    He did look very awkward when quizzed about in on the media a couple of days ago

    It is time the heat was dialled down and rational was applied to just what is sensible and that which is unacceptable which was so obvious in the Paterson case

    I am sure that this what we all want and most certainly is the country's wish
    Yet you were quite happy to post the £100,000 figure without context in your previous post.

    So you are one of the people quite happy to post inflammatory data out of context and then calling for things to be calmed down when pulled up on it with the context that explains why your original attack was utterly invalid.

    The issue isn't MPs with second jobs based on their existing skillset it's MPs using their position to earn extra money.
    I do not understand the attempt to defend Starmer when he was openly cross examined on BBC about his second job earnings and it is context to the discussion

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    edited November 2021
    The government wants people to follow its guidance (and the police sometimes think people must do so), so its members should heed the guidance of other public bodies.

    It's not about setting moral example, but about practicalities - be casual about it and your own guidance compliance reduces.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,568

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's a thoroughly deserved pile on for the Tories

    Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
    Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
    Excuse me

    I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's

    The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias

    Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
    I wasn't having a go at you. But thank you for proving my point, anyway. For you, the guilt is spread across parties. For me, it's the Tories who own it. The emerging evidence is on my side at the moment.
    Why is it on one side?

    Is Keir Starmer a Tory? Is Ed Davey? Is Ian Blackford?

    And those are just the leaders of their respective parties [in Westminster for Blackford].

    If you want to make it party-partisan you can, but that's just through wilful disregard of what is going on elsewhere.
    We will see a couple of opposition MPs taken down by this. The problem for such attempted deflections is that it isn't the act of lobbying that is the problem, its what the lobbying results in.

    Even you can see the difference between Ed Davey and Iain Duncan Smith as two examples.
    If Labour does very well indeed but is a bit short, it might not need the SNP as a partner and would prefer the Lib Dems to c&s with their position on the union. If it comes to that, certainly Davey must give up the gig.
    I expect that everyone is going to be told to "give up the gig" as you put it. Though to be fair to Davey as he is consulting on green energy and using the money to look after his disabled son its not quite the same as taking cash from the gambling industry to campaign for laxer rules for bookmakers...
    I assume Ed Davey abstains from any vote on green energy/renewables as it's a conflict of interest? ;)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,286
    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's a thoroughly deserved pile on for the Tories

    Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
    Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
    Excuse me

    I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's

    The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias

    Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
    I wasn't having a go at you. But thank you for proving my point, anyway. For you, the guilt is spread across parties. For me, it's the Tories who own it. The emerging evidence is on my side at the moment.
    Why is it on one side?

    Is Keir Starmer a Tory? Is Ed Davey? Is Ian Blackford?

    And those are just the leaders of their respective parties [in Westminster for Blackford].

    If you want to make it party-partisan you can, but that's just through wilful disregard of what is going on elsewhere.
    We will see a couple of opposition MPs taken down by this. The problem for such attempted deflections is that it isn't the act of lobbying that is the problem, its what the lobbying results in.

    Even you can see the difference between Ed Davey and Iain Duncan Smith as two examples.
    If Labour does very well indeed but is a bit short, it might not need the SNP as a partner and would prefer the Lib Dems to c&s with their position on the union. If it comes to that, certainly Davey must give up the gig.
    I expect that everyone is going to be told to "give up the gig" as you put it. Though to be fair to Davey as he is consulting on green energy and using the money to look after his disabled son its not quite the same as taking cash from the gambling industry to campaign for laxer rules for bookmakers...
    I assume Ed Davey abstains from any vote on green energy/renewables as it's a conflict of interest? ;)
    He should, the same as the Rt Hon Member for Newcastle Under Lyme should recuse himself from anything consumer credit related.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,568
    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's a thoroughly deserved pile on for the Tories

    Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
    Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
    Excuse me

    I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's

    The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias

    Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
    I wasn't having a go at you. But thank you for proving my point, anyway. For you, the guilt is spread across parties. For me, it's the Tories who own it. The emerging evidence is on my side at the moment.
    Why is it on one side?

    Is Keir Starmer a Tory? Is Ed Davey? Is Ian Blackford?

    And those are just the leaders of their respective parties [in Westminster for Blackford].

    If you want to make it party-partisan you can, but that's just through wilful disregard of what is going on elsewhere.
    We will see a couple of opposition MPs taken down by this. The problem for such attempted deflections is that it isn't the act of lobbying that is the problem, its what the lobbying results in.

    Even you can see the difference between Ed Davey and Iain Duncan Smith as two examples.
    If Labour does very well indeed but is a bit short, it might not need the SNP as a partner and would prefer the Lib Dems to c&s with their position on the union. If it comes to that, certainly Davey must give up the gig.
    I expect that everyone is going to be told to "give up the gig" as you put it. Though to be fair to Davey as he is consulting on green energy and using the money to look after his disabled son its not quite the same as taking cash from the gambling industry to campaign for laxer rules for bookmakers...
    I assume Ed Davey abstains from any vote on green energy/renewables as it's a conflict of interest? ;)
    He should, the same as the Rt Hon Member for Newcastle Under Lyme should recuse himself from anything consumer credit related.
    I think these consultancy/directorship jobs stink. It doesn't make it better whether you are consulting for a gambling company or a green energy company, you are still influencing the development/passage of law to benefit your employer.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,643
    edited November 2021
    Off-topic but there’s case coming before the US Supreme Court this week that could have big implications for WH2024.

    A New York man of Puerto Rican origin became disabled and unable to work and successfully claimed the “supplementary security income” (SSI) benefit from the Social Security Administration (SSA). He later moved to Puerto Rico to be with his family When the SSA found out they ended his SSI payments and demanded $28,000 back.

    The reason? SSI is not funded by federal payroll taxes like “regular” SSA benefits such as retirement income (i.e old age pension in UK terms) but from general federal taxation, principally income tax. Puerto Ricans are not normally subject to federal taxes like income tax but they do pay the payroll taxes so while the do get social security retirement benefits they don’t get SSI.

    The basis of the claim is the “equal protection” clause of the 14th amendment which applies
    to states and has been deemed by SCOTUS to apply to the federal government through the “due process” clause of the 5th amendment. By extension that means these clauses apply to federal territories such as DC. DC residents do pay federal income tax and can claim SSI, as do the residents of the US territory the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. (The term “Commonwealth” hss no special meaning either for Puerto Rico or US states that use it like Virginia. It’s like a British district council being granted the appellation of “borough” or “city”.)

    So if SCOTUS rules in favour of the plaintiff then it will follow that not only will the residents of Puerto Rico be able to claim SSI, so will those of American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands That will have to be laid for, so inevitable full federal taxation including income tax will be heading their way. The territories will now have much fewer advantages from their current status, but the disadvantage of no representation in Washington other than non-voting “delegates” or “commissioners” in the House of Representatives. The argument for full statehood tor the territories will be much stronger and may be irresistible.

    That would be a Democrat wet-dream right? Well maybe, maybe not. While Puerto Ricans who move to the US proper have historically tended to favour the Democrats, Puerto Rico’s internal politics historically trends more to the right. Overall most of the territories would probably be swing states, excepting the US Virgin Islands which would probably be strongly Democratic and the Northern Marianas which would probably be heavily Republican.

    I understand that the US Army’s Bureau of Heraldry has flag designs ready for up to 56 stars. They may need them.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,568
    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's a thoroughly deserved pile on for the Tories

    Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
    Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
    Excuse me

    I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's

    The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias

    Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
    I wasn't having a go at you. But thank you for proving my point, anyway. For you, the guilt is spread across parties. For me, it's the Tories who own it. The emerging evidence is on my side at the moment.
    Why is it on one side?

    Is Keir Starmer a Tory? Is Ed Davey? Is Ian Blackford?

    And those are just the leaders of their respective parties [in Westminster for Blackford].

    If you want to make it party-partisan you can, but that's just through wilful disregard of what is going on elsewhere.
    We will see a couple of opposition MPs taken down by this. The problem for such attempted deflections is that it isn't the act of lobbying that is the problem, its what the lobbying results in.

    Even you can see the difference between Ed Davey and Iain Duncan Smith as two examples.
    If Labour does very well indeed but is a bit short, it might not need the SNP as a partner and would prefer the Lib Dems to c&s with their position on the union. If it comes to that, certainly Davey must give up the gig.
    I expect that everyone is going to be told to "give up the gig" as you put it. Though to be fair to Davey as he is consulting on green energy and using the money to look after his disabled son its not quite the same as taking cash from the gambling industry to campaign for laxer rules for bookmakers...
    I assume Ed Davey abstains from any vote on green energy/renewables as it's a conflict of interest? ;)
    He should, the same as the Rt Hon Member for Newcastle Under Lyme should recuse himself from anything consumer credit related.
    I think these consultancy/directorship jobs stink. It doesn't make it better whether you are consulting for a gambling company or a green energy company, you are still influencing the development/passage of law to benefit your employer.
    No problem with fat cat QCs though, Labour or Tory ;)
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Here's another

    George Grylls
    @georgegrylls
    Exclusive: Tory MP Laurence Robertson is paid £24,000 a year by the gambling industry.

    He regularly uses parliamentary questions to demand ministers scrap tough new laws on gambling.

    He denies any conflict of interest.

    Some of the proposed new laws on gambling do need to be challenged with industry voices. Unfortunately one group that will not be heard are winning punters!
    If there were to be one simple change I would make to the gambling industry, which would be hated by the gambling industry, it would be that the bookies would be forbidden from restricting stakes or restricting offers from winning punters.

    If the bookies want to offer "free bets" etc to entice people into gambling they should be forced to offer them to all who want to bet, not just those who bet and lose. If they want to offer stakes to losing punters, those same stakes should be available to winning punters. And if they're going to stake limit winning punters that's fine, so long as they stake limit the entire market including losing punters.

    Being able to fleece losing punters but closing the door on winning ones shouldn't be legal if you hold a gambling licence.
    Not very libertarian of you Philip. They are private businesses they can and should do what they like.
    Private businesses aren’t subject to the law ?
    They aren't and shouldn't be subject to the government telling them how to run their businesses.

    Go to Coutts earning the median wage with no assets and ask to become a customer.
    If Coutts say you can't be a customer because of your ethnicity that would be against the law, would it not?

    The issue is that bookies do accept people as customers, then cut them off because they're winning in order to more aggressively exploit those who are losing.
    Irrelevant about the race example why on earth did you bring it up.

    It is a commercial decision. They make money off richer people and simply don't allow poorer people to be clients.

    You are complaining because some firms are refusing people services for commercial reasons. Just like Coutts and many others do.
    The point is that the law already does get involved in saying firms can't discriminate.

    If the law were to say that licensed gambling firms are not permitted to discriminate against winning punters, as a condition of their licence, that'd be reasonable as far as I'm concerned. If firms don't want to honour that condition, they wouldn't have to get a licence if they didn't want one, but they wouldn't then be able to do anything that requires a licence.
    Absurd. Over what time period? A week? A year? Five years? The last race?

    Stop trying to get the state involved in the minutiae of private businesses.
    I'm not. The state should via its licensing set the criteria upon which the licence applies - and then that is that.

    If the firms are forbidden from discriminating against winning punters then there'd be no time period and no minutiae to worry about. I don't see what time has to do with it? If someone's been winning for 6 years then good for them! If the market is open and available then so be it.
  • I know it's Saint Nicola, but since "sleaze" is being bandied around:

    Police are investigating fraud allegations over £295,000 of taxpayers’ money given to the publisher of a book of Nicola Sturgeon’s speeches.

    Officers from the financial crimes unit are probing claims rules were broken when Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) awarded grants and loans to Sandstone Press of Inverness.

    The firm – run by ardent nationalist and SNP supporter Robert Davidson – was given £120,000 in the 12 months leading up to the publication of Women Hold Up Half the Sky: Selected Speeches of Nicola Sturgeon.

    The book – with a foreword by crime writer Val McDermid – was promoted in the run up to the Holyrood election in May and released four days later.


    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/nicola-sturgeons-book-publisher-probed-25397677
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,286
    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's a thoroughly deserved pile on for the Tories

    Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
    Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
    Excuse me

    I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's

    The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias

    Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
    I wasn't having a go at you. But thank you for proving my point, anyway. For you, the guilt is spread across parties. For me, it's the Tories who own it. The emerging evidence is on my side at the moment.
    Why is it on one side?

    Is Keir Starmer a Tory? Is Ed Davey? Is Ian Blackford?

    And those are just the leaders of their respective parties [in Westminster for Blackford].

    If you want to make it party-partisan you can, but that's just through wilful disregard of what is going on elsewhere.
    We will see a couple of opposition MPs taken down by this. The problem for such attempted deflections is that it isn't the act of lobbying that is the problem, its what the lobbying results in.

    Even you can see the difference between Ed Davey and Iain Duncan Smith as two examples.
    If Labour does very well indeed but is a bit short, it might not need the SNP as a partner and would prefer the Lib Dems to c&s with their position on the union. If it comes to that, certainly Davey must give up the gig.
    I expect that everyone is going to be told to "give up the gig" as you put it. Though to be fair to Davey as he is consulting on green energy and using the money to look after his disabled son its not quite the same as taking cash from the gambling industry to campaign for laxer rules for bookmakers...
    I assume Ed Davey abstains from any vote on green energy/renewables as it's a conflict of interest? ;)
    He should, the same as the Rt Hon Member for Newcastle Under Lyme should recuse himself from anything consumer credit related.
    I think these consultancy/directorship jobs stink. It doesn't make it better whether you are consulting for a gambling company or a green energy company, you are still influencing the development/passage of law to benefit your employer.
    Yep, and this is why the jobs will have to go.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190
    kle4 said:

    Personally I think Boris confected this whole affair because hes a secret fan of excoriating cyclefree headers and wanted to provoke some.

    😂!

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,119
    edited November 2021

    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's a thoroughly deserved pile on for the Tories

    Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
    Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
    Excuse me

    I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's

    The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias

    Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
    I wasn't having a go at you. But thank you for proving my point, anyway. For you, the guilt is spread across parties. For me, it's the Tories who own it. The emerging evidence is on my side at the moment.
    Why is it on one side?

    Is Keir Starmer a Tory? Is Ed Davey? Is Ian Blackford?

    And those are just the leaders of their respective parties [in Westminster for Blackford].

    If you want to make it party-partisan you can, but that's just through wilful disregard of what is going on elsewhere.
    We will see a couple of opposition MPs taken down by this. The problem for such attempted deflections is that it isn't the act of lobbying that is the problem, its what the lobbying results in.

    Even you can see the difference between Ed Davey and Iain Duncan Smith as two examples.
    If Labour does very well indeed but is a bit short, it might not need the SNP as a partner and would prefer the Lib Dems to c&s with their position on the union. If it comes to that, certainly Davey must give up the gig.
    I expect that everyone is going to be told to "give up the gig" as you put it. Though to be fair to Davey as he is consulting on green energy and using the money to look after his disabled son its not quite the same as taking cash from the gambling industry to campaign for laxer rules for bookmakers...
    A company can call itself "green" , but that does not mean it is immune to corruption.

    In fact, if I was a crooked businessman, I would be certainly looking to take some of the vast sums of public money that politicians are anxious to spend on being "green". It is a soft underbelly of public spending.

    Similarly, Davey's 'disabled son" is in the same category as Paterson's "wife who committed suicide". It is very sad, but it is also not very relevant.

    If consultancy is wrong, then Davey should give this up now.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,568
    edited November 2021
    @rpjs - interesting, what's the name of the court case so I can read more about it?
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,643
    RobD said:

    @rpjs - interesting, what's the name of the court case so I can read more about it?

    United States v. Vaello-Madero
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,173
    Geoffrey Cox was being paid to point out the downsides of MPs declaring outside earnings! “It is a profound invasion into a legislator's private life because what happens is… stories get written, minor infractions are written up to be morally shameful or even impute dishonesty.”
    https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1458392676747948037
    https://twitter.com/direthoughts/status/1458391539235893252
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,029
    HYUFD said:

    I was looking forward to talking to students at the Cambridge Union this Friday, but I hear that someone there has been blacklisted for doing an impersonation of Hitler

    I regret that I did the same on a Monty Python show, so I am blacklisting myself before someone else does
    https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1458353535414833163?s=20

    I apologise to anyone at Cambridge who was hoping to talk with me, but perhaps some of you can find a venue where woke rules do not apply
    https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1458364710605180928?s=20

    Isn’t it actually worse - Cleese is these days Z-listed.
  • kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Heathener said:

    It's just that the Tories are the best at sleaze. Mainly because being capitalists they love nothing better than lining their own pockets.

    Labour are instinctively less motivated by personal gain so there are proportionately fewer with their hands in the till.

    ** raises eyebrow **

    I was told this week of a former Labour Minister now in the Lords who is so rich that he pays for his grandchildren to go to Eton.

    Greed cuts across party lines.
    Does paying for your grandchildren to go to Eton suggest he 'had his hands in the till'?
    No. And I am not suggesting that this person did anything illegal. Looking at their career they have done a lot of things which might have allowed them to accumulate the necessary wealth.

    I was merely pointing out that the assumption that Labour politicians are not interested in accumulating wealth is not a safe one to make.
    A lot of people accumulate wealth without being acquisitive
    Something only a rich person might say example 1?
    Possibly, but I have some sympathy with this view. In some cases, the less greedy you are the more wealth you will accumulate. The truly greedy are usually motivated by a desire to support high levels of consumption - they then may struggle to find an income that can keep up and won't accumulate much wealth (eg Boris Johnson). Some people aren't motivated much by material stuff but end up earning a lot of money more or less by accident, and will find their savings increasing inexorably as their consumption fails to keep up.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,643
    HYUFD said:

    I was looking forward to talking to students at the Cambridge Union this Friday, but I hear that someone there has been blacklisted for doing an impersonation of Hitler

    I regret that I did the same on a Monty Python show, so I am blacklisting myself before someone else does
    https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1458353535414833163?s=20

    I apologise to anyone at Cambridge who was hoping to talk with me, but perhaps some of you can find a venue where woke rules do not apply
    https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1458364710605180928?s=20

    Ah, but were you impersonating Hitler or “Mr Hilter”? If the later I think you may got away with it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    rpjs said:

    Off-topic but there’s case coming before the US Supreme Court this week that could have big implications for WH2024.

    A New York man of Puerto Rican origin became disabled and unable to work and successfully claimed the “supplementary security income” (SSI) benefit from the Social Security Administration (SSA). He later moved to Puerto Rico to be with his family When the SSA found out they ended his SSI payments and demanded $28,000 back.

    The reason? SSI is not funded by federal payroll taxes like “regular” SSA benefits such as retirement income (i.e old age pension in UK terms) but from general federal taxation, principally income tax. Puerto Ricans are not normally subject to federal taxes like income tax but they do pay the payroll taxes so while the do get social security retirement benefits they don’t get SSI.

    The basis of the claim is the “equal protection” clause of the 14th amendment which applies
    to states and has been deemed by SCOTUS to apply to the federal government through the “due process” clause of the 5th amendment. By extension that means these clauses apply to federal territories such as DC. DC residents do pay federal income tax and can claim SSI, as do the residents of the US territory the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. (The term “Commonwealth” hss no special meaning either for Puerto Rico or US states that use it like Virginia. It’s like a British district council being granted the appellation of “borough” or “city”.)

    So if SCOTUS rules in favour of the plaintiff then it will follow that not only will the residents of Puerto Rico be able to claim SSI, so will those of American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands That will have to be laid for, so inevitable full federal taxation including income tax will be heading their way. The territories will now have much fewer advantages from their current status, but the disadvantage of no representation in Washington other than non-voting “delegates” or “commissioners” in the House of Representatives. The argument for full statehood tor the territories will be much stronger and may be irresistible.

    That would be a Democrat wet-dream right? Well maybe, maybe not. While Puerto Ricans who move to the US proper have historically tended to favour the Democrats, Puerto Rico’s internal politics historically trends more to the right. Overall most of the territories would probably be swing states, excepting the US Virgin Islands which would probably be strongly Democratic and the Northern Marianas which would probably be heavily Republican.

    I understand that the US Army’s Bureau of Heraldry has flag designs ready for up to 56 stars. They may need them.

    Love it. The more the merrier!

    No love for joining up some of the territories as one state?
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 1,110
    Andrew Bowie, the MP for West Aberdeenshire, is standing down as Conservative Vice-Chair. Not exactly ground-shaking but a sign of considerable unhappiness. He was Theresa May's PPS so am guessing not a big fan of Boris.

    https://reaction.life/tory-mps-say-vice-chairman-of-party-has-quit-unable-to-defend-government/

    I suspect Douglas Ross isn't a big fan either and think you may see the Scottish Tories putting as much distance between themselves and the Westminster establishment as possible. Ross resigned his ministerial position over Cummings and his trip. Very few of the MSPs at Holyrood were happy with Boris's accession in the first place.

    Ironic given that the SNP and its push towards Indy had become so becalmed of late.
  • There was some discussion of the ban of the sale of ICE-only cars in 2030 on the last thread (hybrids will still be allowed to be sold until 2035), and I found this page of interesting statistics on the switch that the RAC is keeping updated.

    https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/electric-cars/choosing/road-to-electric/

    I found separately that there are ~33 million registered cars in the UK, so about 1% of cars on the road are now battery-powered.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,687
    edited November 2021
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    I was looking forward to talking to students at the Cambridge Union this Friday, but I hear that someone there has been blacklisted for doing an impersonation of Hitler

    I regret that I did the same on a Monty Python show, so I am blacklisting myself before someone else does
    https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1458353535414833163?s=20

    I apologise to anyone at Cambridge who was hoping to talk with me, but perhaps some of you can find a venue where woke rules do not apply
    https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1458364710605180928?s=20

    Isn’t it actually worse - Cleese is these days Z-listed.
    Not exactly, Fawlty Towers and Monty Python were huge hits and even his recent BBC sitcom got 7.2 million viewers
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5410927/John-Cleeses-new-BBC-sitcom-attracts-7-2million-viewers.html

    Plus he was Q in 2 Bond films with Pierce Brosnan
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,639
    edited November 2021
    HYUFD said:

    I was looking forward to talking to students at the Cambridge Union this Friday, but I hear that someone there has been blacklisted for doing an impersonation of Hitler

    I regret that I did the same on a Monty Python show, so I am blacklisting myself before someone else does
    https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1458353535414833163?s=20

    I apologise to anyone at Cambridge who was hoping to talk with me, but perhaps some of you can find a venue where woke rules do not apply
    https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1458364710605180928?s=20

    Not just someone. Andrew Graham-Dixon is probably the best presenter of TV documentaries on art history. I've been watching his programmes for many years.
  • Selebian said:

    Sadly it seems I won't be able to use the headline 'Cox out!'

    Cox, who is the MP for Torridge & West Devon, is understood to be determined to fight his corner and has told friends that there is “nothing new” in the reports. He is said to have privately dismissed calls for him to resign.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/990b394c-41b0-11ec-96bf-de0821791f3f?shareToken=d93858f6b2ec431c7ad2c7dc8fbc737d

    Senior Tories insist they don't want to get Cox out?

    Opposition MPs unable to get Cox out?
    Cox stands firm.

    Cox left dangling.
    Cox left firmly lodged in place.

    Cox refusing to pull out.


  • Ironic given that the SNP and its push towards Indy had become so becalmed of late.

    Really??? Nippy and Co will be writing that sec 30 order letter in a few years - That's nailed on.

    And the division of this island straight across the middle will be at stake.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Heathener said:

    It's just that the Tories are the best at sleaze. Mainly because being capitalists they love nothing better than lining their own pockets.

    Labour are instinctively less motivated by personal gain so there are proportionately fewer with their hands in the till.

    ** raises eyebrow **

    I was told this week of a former Labour Minister now in the Lords who is so rich that he pays for his grandchildren to go to Eton.

    Greed cuts across party lines.
    Does paying for your grandchildren to go to Eton suggest he 'had his hands in the till'?
    No. And I am not suggesting that this person did anything illegal. Looking at their career they have done a lot of things which might have allowed them to accumulate the necessary wealth.

    I was merely pointing out that the assumption that Labour politicians are not interested in accumulating wealth is not a safe one to make.
    A lot of people accumulate wealth without being acquisitive
    Something only a rich person might say example 1?
    Possibly, but I have some sympathy with this view. In some cases, the less greedy you are the more wealth you will accumulate. The truly greedy are usually motivated by a desire to support high levels of consumption - they then may struggle to find an income that can keep up and won't accumulate much wealth (eg Boris Johnson). Some people aren't motivated much by material stuff but end up earning a lot of money more or less by accident, and will find their savings increasing inexorably as their consumption fails to keep up.
    In fairness I do agree that merely becoming wealthy is not enough in itself to suggest someone is especially greedy. Earning enough to be comfortable and then some is not a greedy motiviation.
  • Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    I was looking forward to talking to students at the Cambridge Union this Friday, but I hear that someone there has been blacklisted for doing an impersonation of Hitler

    I regret that I did the same on a Monty Python show, so I am blacklisting myself before someone else does
    https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1458353535414833163?s=20

    I apologise to anyone at Cambridge who was hoping to talk with me, but perhaps some of you can find a venue where woke rules do not apply
    https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1458364710605180928?s=20

    Not just someone. Andrew Graham-Dixon is probably the best presenter of TV documentaries on art history. I've been watching his programmes for many years.
    Has Charlie Chaplin been cancelled yet?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,125
    Joshua Rozenbergy offers a defence of Geoffery Cox.

    https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/1458351571046109184

  • Loving all the revelation of cretinous and shameless hubris, but when are we going to get some good, hot nemesis? Paterson for all his gormless egregiousness cuts a somewhat pathetic figure.

    On a related note, if BJ scuttles off under a shadow of incompetently managed sleaze will this damage Brand Boris and his ability to earn the big bucks? Here’s hoping.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 1,257
    edited November 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    On second jobs, we need to distinguish between 4 categories I think:-

    1. Maintaining professional qualifications eg lawyers, doctors, nurses and other professionals. I think it valuable for MPs to do this - not just because they will need it personally if they lose their seat - but because doing this and being up-to-date in such areas can be valuable for Parliament. I thought it was creditable of MPs like Nadine Dorries and Rosena Khan to use their medical skills during the pandemic, for instance. On lawyers, this article by Joshua Rosenberg is very good - https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-geoffrey-cox-should-stand-firm

    2. Advocating for/advising charities, pressure groups etc ie giving a voice to people, groups, opinions who might not otherwise be heard. Again this can be valuable and necessary.

    3. Having other part-time jobs. The issue here is the number of them some MPs have and, if the hours devoted to them are true, how they also do their work as MPs etc. Scrutiny and transparency and avoidance of actual and potential conflicts of interest are key.

    4. Using their role as MPs to make private gains. This is just an abuse of their office. The boundary between 3 and 4 is not always clear.

    Some part-time roles may be worthwhile. But the defences often used - "this keeps me in touch" are too often transparently self-serving. And MPs have a woeful understanding of what an actual or potential conflict of interest means. If you are paid or have any role at all with any other organisation you have an actual or potential conflict of interest and must reveal it. You should also recuse yourself when making a decision affecting that other body.

    The reason why some MPs don't do this - or affect not to understand this point - is because if they did they would be much less likely to get such roles. So they have a financial interest in pretending that these conflicts don't exist or that it is all for the greater good or to benefit their constituents. It is all self-serving nonsense.

    There are plenty of ways of staying in touch with your constituents and understanding their concerns. MPs like David Amess showed this, as no doubt others do too.

    Maybe the answer is not to ban all second jobs but to state that all such roles as consultants or advisors or directors can only be done on a "pro bono" basis. So constituents and Parliament get all the benefits of MPs "staying in touch" but MPs do not get any personal gain from doing the job they are paid to do by the taxpayer.

    Much rests on an assessment on whether or not there is a public interest in keeping people like IDS and Owen Patterson in the house of commons, such that would justify tolerating an ambiguous mix of points 3 and 4. My own opinion is that there is no overwhelming public interest in having them hang around; they should make way for a newer MP if they are not happy with the standard MP salary.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,717

    Selebian said:

    Sadly it seems I won't be able to use the headline 'Cox out!'

    Cox, who is the MP for Torridge & West Devon, is understood to be determined to fight his corner and has told friends that there is “nothing new” in the reports. He is said to have privately dismissed calls for him to resign.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/990b394c-41b0-11ec-96bf-de0821791f3f?shareToken=d93858f6b2ec431c7ad2c7dc8fbc737d

    Senior Tories insist they don't want to get Cox out?

    Opposition MPs unable to get Cox out?
    Cox stands firm.

    Cox left dangling.
    Cox left firmly lodged in place.

    Cox refusing to pull out.
    Cox up one minute, down the next.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    dr_spyn said:

    Joshua Rozenbergy offers a defence of Geoffery Cox.

    https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/1458351571046109184


    It's mostly persuasive. The post script in response to twitter comments particular. I think it does skirt over the office thing a bit, as produced below, though as others have noted it seems a bit of a distraction.

    And what paragraph of the MPs’ code of conduct is this said to have transgressed? This one:

    "Members are personally responsible and accountable for ensuring that their use of any expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided from the public purse is in accordance with the rules laid down on these matters. Members shall ensure that their use of public resources is always in support of their parliamentary duties. It should not confer any undue personal or financial benefit on themselves or anyone else, or confer undue advantage on a political organisation\".

    I will leave readers to decide whether doing paid work from a parliamentary office is a breach of this rule. If it is, then I suspect many other MPs must fall foul of it every day. Exploiting parliamentary facilities for personal gain is clearly improper. But nobody taking part in the video hearing would have known where Cox was.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 8,159

    Selebian said:

    Sadly it seems I won't be able to use the headline 'Cox out!'

    Cox, who is the MP for Torridge & West Devon, is understood to be determined to fight his corner and has told friends that there is “nothing new” in the reports. He is said to have privately dismissed calls for him to resign.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/990b394c-41b0-11ec-96bf-de0821791f3f?shareToken=d93858f6b2ec431c7ad2c7dc8fbc737d

    Senior Tories insist they don't want to get Cox out?

    Opposition MPs unable to get Cox out?
    Cox stands firm.

    Cox left dangling.
    Cox left firmly lodged in place.

    Cox refusing to pull out.
    British Virgin (Islands) pays a lot of money for Cox.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,643
    kle4 said:

    rpjs said:

    Off-topic but there’s case coming before the US Supreme Court this week that could have big implications for WH2024.

    A New York man of Puerto Rican origin became disabled and unable to work and successfully claimed the “supplementary security income” (SSI) benefit from the Social Security Administration (SSA). He later moved to Puerto Rico to be with his family When the SSA found out they ended his SSI payments and demanded $28,000 back.

    The reason? SSI is not funded by federal payroll taxes like “regular” SSA benefits such as retirement income (i.e old age pension in UK terms) but from general federal taxation, principally income tax. Puerto Ricans are not normally subject to federal taxes like income tax but they do pay the payroll taxes so while the do get social security retirement benefits they don’t get SSI.

    The basis of the claim is the “equal protection” clause of the 14th amendment which applies
    to states and has been deemed by SCOTUS to apply to the federal government through the “due process” clause of the 5th amendment. By extension that means these clauses apply to federal territories such as DC. DC residents do pay federal income tax and can claim SSI, as do the residents of the US territory the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. (The term “Commonwealth” hss no special meaning either for Puerto Rico or US states that use it like Virginia. It’s like a British district council being granted the appellation of “borough” or “city”.)

    So if SCOTUS rules in favour of the plaintiff then it will follow that not only will the residents of Puerto Rico be able to claim SSI, so will those of American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands That will have to be laid for, so inevitable full federal taxation including income tax will be heading their way. The territories will now have much fewer advantages from their current status, but the disadvantage of no representation in Washington other than non-voting “delegates” or “commissioners” in the House of Representatives. The argument for full statehood tor the territories will be much stronger and may be irresistible.

    That would be a Democrat wet-dream right? Well maybe, maybe not. While Puerto Ricans who move to the US proper have historically tended to favour the Democrats, Puerto Rico’s internal politics historically trends more to the right. Overall most of the territories would probably be swing states, excepting the US Virgin Islands which would probably be strongly Democratic and the Northern Marianas which would probably be heavily Republican.

    I understand that the US Army’s Bureau of Heraldry has flag designs ready for up to 56 stars. They may need them.

    Love it. The more the merrier!

    No love for joining up some of the territories as one state?
    The one that makes most sense would be Guam and the Northern Marianas which are both ethnically Chamorro for the most part. They’ve had quite divergent histories since 1898 though. Guam has been a US territory ever since, save for a typically brutal Japanese occupation during WW2. The Northern Marianas was successively part of a) a German protectorate, b) a League of Nations mandate under Japan and c) a UN trust territory under the US. When the trust territory was ended and broken up into four entities, the Northern Marianas was the only one to opt for US territory. The others opted for independence with “free association“ with the US (which amounts to the US influencing their foreign policy and having a privileged economic relationship with them in return for guaranteeing their defence and their citizens having some privileges wrt US immigration).

    The other neighbouring pair are Puerto Rico and the US Virign Islands, but they have no cultural affinity at all. Puerto Rico is obvioudly Hispanic, and while the USVI were Danish until purchased by the US in 1917 they spoke an English-based creole and were pretty culturally aligned to the British West Indies. They still drive on the left!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,814

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    I was looking forward to talking to students at the Cambridge Union this Friday, but I hear that someone there has been blacklisted for doing an impersonation of Hitler

    I regret that I did the same on a Monty Python show, so I am blacklisting myself before someone else does
    https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1458353535414833163?s=20

    I apologise to anyone at Cambridge who was hoping to talk with me, but perhaps some of you can find a venue where woke rules do not apply
    https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1458364710605180928?s=20

    Not just someone. Andrew Graham-Dixon is probably the best presenter of TV documentaries on art history. I've been watching his programmes for many years.
    Has Charlie Chaplin been cancelled yet?
    Has anyone asked Mel Brooks for his opinion?

    It is generally acknowledged that he owns the "Parodying Hitler Space"

    See his comments on "JoJo Rabbit"
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,639
    "Michael Vaughan shows we are now living in a ‘guilty until proven guilty’ Orwellian state
    Hang out the ex-England captain to dry over a couple of unsubstantiated claims? It’s just not cricket
    ALLISON PEARSON" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/11/10/michael-vaughan-shows-now-living-guilty-proven-guilty-orwellian/
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 12,500
    edited November 2021
    dr_spyn said:

    Joshua Rozenbergy offers a defence of Geoffery Cox.

    https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/1458351571046109184

    Cynical summary:

    1. We need experienced lawyers as attorney general, solicitor general and advocate general.
    2. In practice those roles are no longer legal but political.
    3. Regardless of 2, they should be legal, so experienced lawyer MPs can have outside jobs to maintain the illusion that those roles are legal, not political.

    Quids in for the boys all round, next.
  • glwglw Posts: 7,939
    Cyclefree said:

    On second jobs, we need to distinguish between 4 categories I think:-

    1. Maintaining professional qualifications eg lawyers, doctors, nurses and other professionals. I think it valuable for MPs to do this - not just because they will need it personally if they lose their seat - but because doing this and being up-to-date in such areas can be valuable for Parliament. I thought it was creditable of MPs like Nadine Dorries and Rosena Khan to use their medical skills during the pandemic, for instance. On lawyers, this article by Joshua Rosenberg is very good - https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-geoffrey-cox-should-stand-firm

    I totally disagree with that. I heard an ex-MP, Labour for what it is worth, make that arugment yesterday, he had been a part time GP whilst a serving MP, and he virtually said that he'd done it for the good of the nation unlike those filthy commercial types who do it to make money, as though being a GP is not a well paid career. Clearly the bloke is also something of a snob.

    If second jobs are banned it should apply to all professions. We can not have certain professions exempted as otherwise Parliament will become even more unrepresentative than it already is, and stuffed full of certain privileged professions, many of which are already over-represented such as lawyers.

    I also object to the notion that only certain professions require someone to keep one's hand in, this is true for all sorts of jobs in the modern world which changes very rapidly.

    I suspect though that Parliament will choose to go for a stitch-up that looks after the interests of the lawyers, medics, and that ilk, and we will end up with a worse crop of MPs.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,293
    edited November 2021
    Andy_JS said:

    "Michael Vaughan shows we are now living in a ‘guilty until proven guilty’ Orwellian state
    Hang out the ex-England captain to dry over a couple of unsubstantiated claims? It’s just not cricket
    ALLISON PEARSON" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/11/10/michael-vaughan-shows-now-living-guilty-proven-guilty-orwellian/

    Yet his tweets were very much the type where "if I heard him say that down the pub, I wouldn't be rushing to have chats with him in the future"

    He may not be 100% guilty but there is enough there for media companies to decide that further appearances may be unwise.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,766
    edited November 2021

    Andrew Bowie, the MP for West Aberdeenshire, is standing down as Conservative Vice-Chair. Not exactly ground-shaking but a sign of considerable unhappiness. He was Theresa May's PPS so am guessing not a big fan of Boris.

    https://reaction.life/tory-mps-say-vice-chairman-of-party-has-quit-unable-to-defend-government/

    I suspect Douglas Ross isn't a big fan either and think you may see the Scottish Tories putting as much distance between themselves and the Westminster establishment as possible. Ross resigned his ministerial position over Cummings and his trip. Very few of the MSPs at Holyrood were happy with Boris's accession in the first place.

    Ironic given that the SNP and its push towards Indy had become so becalmed of late.

    Those SCon mps that voted for BJ’s attempt to game the Westminster standards set up had a funny way of distancing themselves from BJ & the Westminster establishment. The ones that abstained (the rest of them) weren’t much better. Will be most entertained if this is the new line that SCons will be attempting to run though.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,029
    edited November 2021

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    I was looking forward to talking to students at the Cambridge Union this Friday, but I hear that someone there has been blacklisted for doing an impersonation of Hitler

    I regret that I did the same on a Monty Python show, so I am blacklisting myself before someone else does
    https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1458353535414833163?s=20

    I apologise to anyone at Cambridge who was hoping to talk with me, but perhaps some of you can find a venue where woke rules do not apply
    https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1458364710605180928?s=20

    Not just someone. Andrew Graham-Dixon is probably the best presenter of TV documentaries on art history. I've been watching his programmes for many years.
    Has Charlie Chaplin been cancelled yet?
    As long ago as 1948.
    Stopped his working in the US for decades.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,814
    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Roger said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Heathener said:

    It's just that the Tories are the best at sleaze. Mainly because being capitalists they love nothing better than lining their own pockets.

    Labour are instinctively less motivated by personal gain so there are proportionately fewer with their hands in the till.

    ** raises eyebrow **

    I was told this week of a former Labour Minister now in the Lords who is so rich that he pays for his grandchildren to go to Eton.

    Greed cuts across party lines.
    Does paying for your grandchildren to go to Eton suggest he 'had his hands in the till'?
    No. And I am not suggesting that this person did anything illegal. Looking at their career they have done a lot of things which might have allowed them to accumulate the necessary wealth.

    I was merely pointing out that the assumption that Labour politicians are not interested in accumulating wealth is not a safe one to make.
    A lot of people accumulate wealth without being acquisitive
    I drift through life accumulating wealth by accident
    You work
    He is a grubby little chiseler
  • eekeek Posts: 17,293

    eek said:

    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's a thoroughly deserved pile on for the Tories

    Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
    Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
    Excuse me

    I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's

    The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias

    Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
    So £100,000 over 5 years when he could easily earn £10,000+ a month doing private work.

    Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
    I absolutely agree and this is why the debate has become so toxic

    He is leading the attacks on conservative second jobs, so it does not look good when he has earned from the same position himself

    He did look very awkward when quizzed about in on the media a couple of days ago

    It is time the heat was dialled down and rational was applied to just what is sensible and that which is unacceptable which was so obvious in the Paterson case

    I am sure that this what we all want and most certainly is the country's wish
    Yet you were quite happy to post the £100,000 figure without context in your previous post.

    So you are one of the people quite happy to post inflammatory data out of context and then calling for things to be calmed down when pulled up on it with the context that explains why your original attack was utterly invalid.

    The issue isn't MPs with second jobs based on their existing skillset it's MPs using their position to earn extra money.
    I do not understand the attempt to defend Starmer when he was openly cross examined on BBC about his second job earnings and it is context to the discussion

    See Cyclefree's post earlier - some jobs are completely fine for an MP to do others are just abuse of their position.
  • Andrew Bowie, the MP for West Aberdeenshire, is standing down as Conservative Vice-Chair. Not exactly ground-shaking but a sign of considerable unhappiness. He was Theresa May's PPS so am guessing not a big fan of Boris.

    https://reaction.life/tory-mps-say-vice-chairman-of-party-has-quit-unable-to-defend-government/

    I suspect Douglas Ross isn't a big fan either and think you may see the Scottish Tories putting as much distance between themselves and the Westminster establishment as possible. Ross resigned his ministerial position over Cummings and his trip. Very few of the MSPs at Holyrood were happy with Boris's accession in the first place.

    Ironic given that the SNP and its push towards Indy had become so becalmed of late.

    Those SCon mps that voted for BJ’s attempt to game the Westminster standards set up had a funny way of distancing themselves from BJ & the Westminster establishment. The ones that abstained (the rest of them) weren’t much better. Will be most entertained if this is the new line that SCons will be attempting to run though.
    The only sleaze story in Scotland is Nippy's Book Deal. Although I must admit it will take a long time for Child Grooming to fade from my memory...
  • eekeek Posts: 17,293
    glw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On second jobs, we need to distinguish between 4 categories I think:-

    1. Maintaining professional qualifications eg lawyers, doctors, nurses and other professionals. I think it valuable for MPs to do this - not just because they will need it personally if they lose their seat - but because doing this and being up-to-date in such areas can be valuable for Parliament. I thought it was creditable of MPs like Nadine Dorries and Rosena Khan to use their medical skills during the pandemic, for instance. On lawyers, this article by Joshua Rosenberg is very good - https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-geoffrey-cox-should-stand-firm

    I totally disagree with that. I heard an ex-MP, Labour for what it is worth, make that arugment yesterday, he had been a part time GP whilst a serving MP, and he virtually said that he'd done it for the good of the nation unlike those filthy commercial types who do it to make money, as though being a GP is not a well paid career. Clearly the bloke is also something of a snob.

    If second jobs are banned it should apply to all professions. We can not have certain professions exempted as otherwise Parliament will become even more unrepresentative than it already is, and stuffed full of certain privileged professions, many of which are already over-represented such as lawyers.

    I also object to the notion that only certain professions require someone to keep one's hand in, this is true for all sorts of jobs in the modern world which changes very rapidly.

    I suspect though that Parliament will choose to go for a stitch-up that looks after the interests of the lawyers, medics, and that ilk, and we will end up with a worse crop of MPs.
    If you ban Doctors from keeping their hands in, they won't ever be a Doctor in the House of Commons because what would happen when they lost their seat.

    The entire point of that first list is that unless you allows these people to keep their practice and skills up to date, they won't be able to return to that job were they to lose a subsequent election.
  • If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,029
    edited November 2021
    glw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On second jobs, we need to distinguish between 4 categories I think:-

    1. Maintaining professional qualifications eg lawyers, doctors, nurses and other professionals. I think it valuable for MPs to do this - not just because they will need it personally if they lose their seat - but because doing this and being up-to-date in such areas can be valuable for Parliament. I thought it was creditable of MPs like Nadine Dorries and Rosena Khan to use their medical skills during the pandemic, for instance. On lawyers, this article by Joshua Rosenberg is very good - https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-geoffrey-cox-should-stand-firm

    I totally disagree with that. I heard an ex-MP, Labour for what it is worth, make that arugment yesterday, he had been a part time GP whilst a serving MP, and he virtually said that he'd done it for the good of the nation unlike those filthy commercial types who do it to make money, as though being a GP is not a well paid career. Clearly the bloke is also something of a snob.

    If second jobs are banned it should apply to all professions. We can not have certain professions exempted as otherwise Parliament will become even more unrepresentative than it already is, and stuffed full of certain privileged professions, many of which are already over-represented such as lawyers.

    I also object to the notion that only certain professions require someone to keep one's hand in, this is true for all sorts of jobs in the modern world which changes very rapidly.

    I suspect though that Parliament will choose to go for a stitch-up that looks after the interests of the lawyers, medics, and that ilk, and we will end up with a worse crop of MPs.
    You’ll note Cyclefree added “and other professions”, which renders your comment somewhat moot.
    I’m not sure having a paid consultancy, for which you have no obvious qualifications other than being an MP*, counts though.

    *True of both Paterson and IDS.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 1,110

    Andrew Bowie, the MP for West Aberdeenshire, is standing down as Conservative Vice-Chair. Not exactly ground-shaking but a sign of considerable unhappiness. He was Theresa May's PPS so am guessing not a big fan of Boris.

    https://reaction.life/tory-mps-say-vice-chairman-of-party-has-quit-unable-to-defend-government/

    I suspect Douglas Ross isn't a big fan either and think you may see the Scottish Tories putting as much distance between themselves and the Westminster establishment as possible. Ross resigned his ministerial position over Cummings and his trip. Very few of the MSPs at Holyrood were happy with Boris's accession in the first place.

    Ironic given that the SNP and its push towards Indy had become so becalmed of late.

    Those SCon mps that voted for BJ’s attempt to game the Westminster standards set up had a funny way of distancing themselves from BJ & the Westminster establishment. The ones that abstained (the rest of them) weren’t much better. Will be most entertained if this is the new line that SCons will be attempting to run though.
    It's a process, not an event, dear boy.
  • glw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On second jobs, we need to distinguish between 4 categories I think:-

    1. Maintaining professional qualifications eg lawyers, doctors, nurses and other professionals. I think it valuable for MPs to do this - not just because they will need it personally if they lose their seat - but because doing this and being up-to-date in such areas can be valuable for Parliament. I thought it was creditable of MPs like Nadine Dorries and Rosena Khan to use their medical skills during the pandemic, for instance. On lawyers, this article by Joshua Rosenberg is very good - https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-geoffrey-cox-should-stand-firm

    I totally disagree with that. I heard an ex-MP, Labour for what it is worth, make that arugment yesterday, he had been a part time GP whilst a serving MP, and he virtually said that he'd done it for the good of the nation unlike those filthy commercial types who do it to make money, as though being a GP is not a well paid career. Clearly the bloke is also something of a snob.

    If second jobs are banned it should apply to all professions. We can not have certain professions exempted as otherwise Parliament will become even more unrepresentative than it already is, and stuffed full of certain privileged professions, many of which are already over-represented such as lawyers.

    I also object to the notion that only certain professions require someone to keep one's hand in, this is true for all sorts of jobs in the modern world which changes very rapidly.

    I suspect though that Parliament will choose to go for a stitch-up that looks after the interests of the lawyers, medics, and that ilk, and we will end up with a worse crop of MPs.
    Are we talking Dr Paul Williams? He did shifts both as a GP and in the Urgent Care centre his GP's Collective set up but they were almost always out of hours.
  • glwglw Posts: 7,939
    eek said:

    glw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On second jobs, we need to distinguish between 4 categories I think:-

    1. Maintaining professional qualifications eg lawyers, doctors, nurses and other professionals. I think it valuable for MPs to do this - not just because they will need it personally if they lose their seat - but because doing this and being up-to-date in such areas can be valuable for Parliament. I thought it was creditable of MPs like Nadine Dorries and Rosena Khan to use their medical skills during the pandemic, for instance. On lawyers, this article by Joshua Rosenberg is very good - https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-geoffrey-cox-should-stand-firm

    I totally disagree with that. I heard an ex-MP, Labour for what it is worth, make that arugment yesterday, he had been a part time GP whilst a serving MP, and he virtually said that he'd done it for the good of the nation unlike those filthy commercial types who do it to make money, as though being a GP is not a well paid career. Clearly the bloke is also something of a snob.

    If second jobs are banned it should apply to all professions. We can not have certain professions exempted as otherwise Parliament will become even more unrepresentative than it already is, and stuffed full of certain privileged professions, many of which are already over-represented such as lawyers.

    I also object to the notion that only certain professions require someone to keep one's hand in, this is true for all sorts of jobs in the modern world which changes very rapidly.

    I suspect though that Parliament will choose to go for a stitch-up that looks after the interests of the lawyers, medics, and that ilk, and we will end up with a worse crop of MPs.
    If you ban Doctors from keeping their hands in, they won't ever be a Doctor in the House of Commons because what would happen when they lost their seat.

    The entire point of that first list is that unless you allows these people to keep their practice and skills up to date, they won't be able to return to that job were they to lose a subsequent election.
    That's my point, if you exempt some professions you are going to need to exempt almost all jobs. So either nobody can have a second job, or everybody can have a second job. But don't go for a stitch-up that suits the professions that are already too common in the House of Commons.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    In summary

    Para 1 - I'm a barrister

    Para 2 - I'm a barrister

    Para 3 - I work hard

    Para 4 - My voters don't mind

    Para 5 - You've made a single allegation of a breach, is that all you've got?
  • eek said:

    glw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On second jobs, we need to distinguish between 4 categories I think:-

    1. Maintaining professional qualifications eg lawyers, doctors, nurses and other professionals. I think it valuable for MPs to do this - not just because they will need it personally if they lose their seat - but because doing this and being up-to-date in such areas can be valuable for Parliament. I thought it was creditable of MPs like Nadine Dorries and Rosena Khan to use their medical skills during the pandemic, for instance. On lawyers, this article by Joshua Rosenberg is very good - https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-geoffrey-cox-should-stand-firm

    I totally disagree with that. I heard an ex-MP, Labour for what it is worth, make that arugment yesterday, he had been a part time GP whilst a serving MP, and he virtually said that he'd done it for the good of the nation unlike those filthy commercial types who do it to make money, as though being a GP is not a well paid career. Clearly the bloke is also something of a snob.

    If second jobs are banned it should apply to all professions. We can not have certain professions exempted as otherwise Parliament will become even more unrepresentative than it already is, and stuffed full of certain privileged professions, many of which are already over-represented such as lawyers.

    I also object to the notion that only certain professions require someone to keep one's hand in, this is true for all sorts of jobs in the modern world which changes very rapidly.

    I suspect though that Parliament will choose to go for a stitch-up that looks after the interests of the lawyers, medics, and that ilk, and we will end up with a worse crop of MPs.
    If you ban Doctors from keeping their hands in, they won't ever be a Doctor in the House of Commons because what would happen when they lost their seat.

    The entire point of that first list is that unless you allows these people to keep their practice and skills up to date, they won't be able to return to that job were they to lose a subsequent election.
    Then that should apply to all professions.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,687
    edited November 2021

    If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
    The problem is if we ban MPs from doing any secondary paid work then the Commons will no longer attract those who like Cox are comfortably in the top 1% of earners, high flying professionals and who would make top class ministers. Cox was of course a top QC and excellent AG despite recent events who really knew his stuff and advised on the law whatever the political implications.

    For those well within the top 1% even paying MPs £100k a year would be a substantial paycut for someone earning £500k - £1 million + a year if that is all the income they are allowed
  • PJHPJH Posts: 112
    glw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On second jobs, we need to distinguish between 4 categories I think:-

    1. Maintaining professional qualifications eg lawyers, doctors, nurses and other professionals. I think it valuable for MPs to do this - not just because they will need it personally if they lose their seat - but because doing this and being up-to-date in such areas can be valuable for Parliament. I thought it was creditable of MPs like Nadine Dorries and Rosena Khan to use their medical skills during the pandemic, for instance. On lawyers, this article by Joshua Rosenberg is very good - https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-geoffrey-cox-should-stand-firm

    I totally disagree with that. I heard an ex-MP, Labour for what it is worth, make that arugment yesterday, he had been a part time GP whilst a serving MP, and he virtually said that he'd done it for the good of the nation unlike those filthy commercial types who do it to make money, as though being a GP is not a well paid career. Clearly the bloke is also something of a snob.

    If second jobs are banned it should apply to all professions. We can not have certain professions exempted as otherwise Parliament will become even more unrepresentative than it already is, and stuffed full of certain privileged professions, many of which are already over-represented such as lawyers.

    I also object to the notion that only certain professions require someone to keep one's hand in, this is true for all sorts of jobs in the modern world which changes very rapidly.

    I suspect though that Parliament will choose to go for a stitch-up that looks after the interests of the lawyers, medics, and that ilk, and we will end up with a worse crop of MPs.
    I think somebody suggested capping the amount of outside earnings. That seems like a good idea, being an MP is clearly understood as being not quite a full time role so how about recognising that it is a good thing for MPs to be able to keep their hand in at their previous profession. If earnings were limited to 20 or 25% of an MP's salary then it would allow most people to do one day per week or odd weeks during recess to allow them to continue as GPs, teachers, lorry drivers or whatever they did before. Good for the country too to allow them to continue to see how things are first hand. And by capping it shows which is the 'main' job.

    Might be a problem for QCs though.
  • If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
    That is his statement

    I have no reason to believe he is lying and as he has said he will stand and accept the votes of his constituents which seems entirely fair and democratic
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,643
    glw said:

    eek said:

    glw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On second jobs, we need to distinguish between 4 categories I think:-

    1. Maintaining professional qualifications eg lawyers, doctors, nurses and other professionals. I think it valuable for MPs to do this - not just because they will need it personally if they lose their seat - but because doing this and being up-to-date in such areas can be valuable for Parliament. I thought it was creditable of MPs like Nadine Dorries and Rosena Khan to use their medical skills during the pandemic, for instance. On lawyers, this article by Joshua Rosenberg is very good - https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-geoffrey-cox-should-stand-firm

    I totally disagree with that. I heard an ex-MP, Labour for what it is worth, make that arugment yesterday, he had been a part time GP whilst a serving MP, and he virtually said that he'd done it for the good of the nation unlike those filthy commercial types who do it to make money, as though being a GP is not a well paid career. Clearly the bloke is also something of a snob.

    If second jobs are banned it should apply to all professions. We can not have certain professions exempted as otherwise Parliament will become even more unrepresentative than it already is, and stuffed full of certain privileged professions, many of which are already over-represented such as lawyers.

    I also object to the notion that only certain professions require someone to keep one's hand in, this is true for all sorts of jobs in the modern world which changes very rapidly.

    I suspect though that Parliament will choose to go for a stitch-up that looks after the interests of the lawyers, medics, and that ilk, and we will end up with a worse crop of MPs.
    If you ban Doctors from keeping their hands in, they won't ever be a Doctor in the House of Commons because what would happen when they lost their seat.

    The entire point of that first list is that unless you allows these people to keep their practice and skills up to date, they won't be able to return to that job were they to lose a subsequent election.
    That's my point, if you exempt some professions you are going to need to exempt almost all jobs. So either nobody can have a second job, or everybody can have a second job. But don't go for a stitch-up that suits the professions that are already too common in the House of Commons.
    One solution would be to allow MPs to “keep their skills fresh” by conducting unpaid pro bono work. That would soon filter out those for whom keeping up to date actually isn’t vital for them.
  • Are you an ex-squaddie traumatised by combat and deserted by the British state? Why not self medicate with Pull The Pin rum!

    https://twitter.com/giantpoppywatch/status/1458329829074481159?s=21
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's a thoroughly deserved pile on for the Tories

    Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
    Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
    Excuse me

    I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's

    The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias

    Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
    So £100,000 over 5 years when he could easily earn £10,000+ a month doing private work.

    Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
    I absolutely agree and this is why the debate has become so toxic

    He is leading the attacks on conservative second jobs, so it does not look good when he has earned from the same position himself

    He did look very awkward when quizzed about in on the media a couple of days ago

    It is time the heat was dialled down and rational was applied to just what is sensible and that which is unacceptable which was so obvious in the Paterson case

    I am sure that this what we all want and most certainly is the country's wish
    Yet you were quite happy to post the £100,000 figure without context in your previous post.

    So you are one of the people quite happy to post inflammatory data out of context and then calling for things to be calmed down when pulled up on it with the context that explains why your original attack was utterly invalid.

    The issue isn't MPs with second jobs based on their existing skillset it's MPs using their position to earn extra money.
    I do not understand the attempt to defend Starmer when he was openly cross examined on BBC about his second job earnings and it is context to the discussion

    See Cyclefree's post earlier - some jobs are completely fine for an MP to do others are just abuse of their position.
    I do not think any of us dispute that to be fair
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,079
    HYUFD said:

    If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
    The problem is if we ban MPs from doing any secondary paid work then the Commons will no longer attract those who like Cox are comfortably in the top 1% of earners, high flying professionals and who would make top class ministers. Cox was of course an excellent AG despite recent events who really knew his stuff and advised on the law whatever the political implications.

    For those well within the top 1% even paying MPs £100k a year would be substantial paycut for someone earning £500k - £1 million + a year
    And was therefore no longer of any use.
  • HYUFD said:

    If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
    The problem is if we ban MPs from doing any secondary paid work then the Commons will no longer attract those who like Cox who are comfortably in the top 1% of earners, high flying professionals and who would make top class ministers. Cox was of course an excellent AG despite recent events who really knew his stuff and advised on the law whatever the political implications.

    For those well within the top 1% even paying MPs £100k a year would be substantial paycut for someone earning £500k - £1 million + a year
    My point was simply that (a) he's a top barrister (b) he is spending significant time as a top barrister (c) his political career is over (d) he can work less hours for far more money on the thing he enjoys most be stepping down.

    Dunno about you lot but I have been very clear in the past when I reach the tipping point where the job isn't worth it any more.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190
    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On second jobs, we need to distinguish between 4 categories I think:-

    1. Maintaining professional qualifications eg lawyers, doctors, nurses and other professionals. I think it valuable for MPs to do this - not just because they will need it personally if they lose their seat - but because doing this and being up-to-date in such areas can be valuable for Parliament. I thought it was creditable of MPs like Nadine Dorries and Rosena Khan to use their medical skills during the pandemic, for instance. On lawyers, this article by Joshua Rosenberg is very good - https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-geoffrey-cox-should-stand-firm

    I totally disagree with that. I heard an ex-MP, Labour for what it is worth, make that arugment yesterday, he had been a part time GP whilst a serving MP, and he virtually said that he'd done it for the good of the nation unlike those filthy commercial types who do it to make money, as though being a GP is not a well paid career. Clearly the bloke is also something of a snob.

    If second jobs are banned it should apply to all professions. We can not have certain professions exempted as otherwise Parliament will become even more unrepresentative than it already is, and stuffed full of certain privileged professions, many of which are already over-represented such as lawyers.

    I also object to the notion that only certain professions require someone to keep one's hand in, this is true for all sorts of jobs in the modern world which changes very rapidly.

    I suspect though that Parliament will choose to go for a stitch-up that looks after the interests of the lawyers, medics, and that ilk, and we will end up with a worse crop of MPs.
    You’ll note Cyclefree added “and other professions”, which renders your comment somewhat moot.
    I’m not sure having a paid consultancy, for which you have no obvious qualifications other than being an MP*, counts though.

    *True of both Paterson and IDS.
    To remain a solicitor or a barrister you do need to keep your qualifications and practice up to date. Ditto for many other professions. Silly to prevent this. For instance, I would welcome practising teachers and scientists and IT people in the Commons.

    The real scandal is the misuse of public office for private gain. Not allowing the qualified to remain qualified.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 17,079
    PJH said:

    glw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On second jobs, we need to distinguish between 4 categories I think:-

    1. Maintaining professional qualifications eg lawyers, doctors, nurses and other professionals. I think it valuable for MPs to do this - not just because they will need it personally if they lose their seat - but because doing this and being up-to-date in such areas can be valuable for Parliament. I thought it was creditable of MPs like Nadine Dorries and Rosena Khan to use their medical skills during the pandemic, for instance. On lawyers, this article by Joshua Rosenberg is very good - https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-geoffrey-cox-should-stand-firm

    I totally disagree with that. I heard an ex-MP, Labour for what it is worth, make that arugment yesterday, he had been a part time GP whilst a serving MP, and he virtually said that he'd done it for the good of the nation unlike those filthy commercial types who do it to make money, as though being a GP is not a well paid career. Clearly the bloke is also something of a snob.

    If second jobs are banned it should apply to all professions. We can not have certain professions exempted as otherwise Parliament will become even more unrepresentative than it already is, and stuffed full of certain privileged professions, many of which are already over-represented such as lawyers.

    I also object to the notion that only certain professions require someone to keep one's hand in, this is true for all sorts of jobs in the modern world which changes very rapidly.

    I suspect though that Parliament will choose to go for a stitch-up that looks after the interests of the lawyers, medics, and that ilk, and we will end up with a worse crop of MPs.
    I think somebody suggested capping the amount of outside earnings. That seems like a good idea, being an MP is clearly understood as being not quite a full time role so how about recognising that it is a good thing for MPs to be able to keep their hand in at their previous profession. If earnings were limited to 20 or 25% of an MP's salary then it would allow most people to do one day per week or odd weeks during recess to allow them to continue as GPs, teachers, lorry drivers or whatever they did before. Good for the country too to allow them to continue to see how things are first hand. And by capping it shows which is the 'main' job.

    Might be a problem for QCs though.
    Pro bono does exist you know.
  • Frost speaking live in the HOL

  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,568
    .
    kle4 said:

    In summary

    Para 1 - I'm a barrister

    Para 2 - I'm a barrister

    Para 3 - I work hard

    Para 4 - My voters don't mind

    Para 5 - You've made a single allegation of a breach, is that all you've got?
    And a really weak one as well. Does anyone seriously think that he got undue influence because of the nondescript background on his zoom session? A better, but still very weak, argument would be that it was a misuse of power/wifi facilities (we're talking pennies worth of corruption here).
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,405

    If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
    People do work absurdly long hours at times. Horses for courses. I know many academics who have nothing outside of their research lives - no hobbies, no socialising etc, and they often work stupid hours. in academia it often leads to success (more papers published, more grants secured etc). I think its probably true in other spheres.
    There is colossal pushback about the long hours culture in research, notably, but not only, but women in academia, who have traditionally struggled to balance the academic career with child raising. Career breaks are hard to overcome - often looks bad on CV's etc. I fully support them in this, but its a hard culture to break.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,405
    kle4 said:

    In summary

    Para 1 - I'm a barrister

    Para 2 - I'm a barrister

    Para 3 - I work hard

    Para 4 - My voters don't mind

    Para 5 - You've made a single allegation of a breach, is that all you've got?
    I though the best barrister's were brief?
  • PJHPJH Posts: 112
    rpjs said:

    kle4 said:

    rpjs said:

    Off-topic but there’s case coming before the US Supreme Court this week that could have big implications for WH2024.

    A New York man of Puerto Rican origin became disabled and unable to work and successfully claimed the “supplementary security income” (SSI) benefit from the Social Security Administration (SSA). He later moved to Puerto Rico to be with his family When the SSA found out they ended his SSI payments and demanded $28,000 back.

    The reason? SSI is not funded by federal payroll taxes like “regular” SSA benefits such as retirement income (i.e old age pension in UK terms) but from general federal taxation, principally income tax. Puerto Ricans are not normally subject to federal taxes like income tax but they do pay the payroll taxes so while the do get social security retirement benefits they don’t get SSI.

    The basis of the claim is the “equal protection” clause of the 14th amendment which applies
    to states and has been deemed by SCOTUS to apply to the federal government through the “due process” clause of the 5th amendment. By extension that means these clauses apply to federal territories such as DC. DC residents do pay federal income tax and can claim SSI, as do the residents of the US territory the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. (The term “Commonwealth” hss no special meaning either for Puerto Rico or US states that use it like Virginia. It’s like a British district council being granted the appellation of “borough” or “city”.)

    So if SCOTUS rules in favour of the plaintiff then it will follow that not only will the residents of Puerto Rico be able to claim SSI, so will those of American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands That will have to be laid for, so inevitable full federal taxation including income tax will be heading their way. The territories will now have much fewer advantages from their current status, but the disadvantage of no representation in Washington other than non-voting “delegates” or “commissioners” in the House of Representatives. The argument for full statehood tor the territories will be much stronger and may be irresistible.

    That would be a Democrat wet-dream right? Well maybe, maybe not. While Puerto Ricans who move to the US proper have historically tended to favour the Democrats, Puerto Rico’s internal politics historically trends more to the right. Overall most of the territories would probably be swing states, excepting the US Virgin Islands which would probably be strongly Democratic and the Northern Marianas which would probably be heavily Republican.

    I understand that the US Army’s Bureau of Heraldry has flag designs ready for up to 56 stars. They may need them.

    Love it. The more the merrier!

    No love for joining up some of the territories as one state?
    The one that makes most sense would be Guam and the Northern Marianas which are both ethnically Chamorro for the most part. They’ve had quite divergent histories since 1898 though. Guam has been a US territory ever since, save for a typically brutal Japanese occupation during WW2. The Northern Marianas was successively part of a) a German protectorate, b) a League of Nations mandate under Japan and c) a UN trust territory under the US. When the trust territory was ended and broken up into four entities, the Northern Marianas was the only one to opt for US territory. The others opted for independence with “free association“ with the US (which amounts to the US influencing their foreign policy and having a privileged economic relationship with them in return for guaranteeing their defence and their citizens having some privileges wrt US immigration).

    The other neighbouring pair are Puerto Rico and the US Virign Islands, but they have no cultural affinity at all. Puerto Rico is obvioudly Hispanic, and while the USVI were Danish until purchased by the US in 1917 they spoke an English-based creole and were pretty culturally aligned to the British West Indies. They still drive on the left!
    I didn't know about the driving on the left. That sounds like a good quiz question.
  • Andrew Bowie, the MP for West Aberdeenshire, is standing down as Conservative Vice-Chair. Not exactly ground-shaking but a sign of considerable unhappiness. He was Theresa May's PPS so am guessing not a big fan of Boris.

    https://reaction.life/tory-mps-say-vice-chairman-of-party-has-quit-unable-to-defend-government/

    I suspect Douglas Ross isn't a big fan either and think you may see the Scottish Tories putting as much distance between themselves and the Westminster establishment as possible. Ross resigned his ministerial position over Cummings and his trip. Very few of the MSPs at Holyrood were happy with Boris's accession in the first place.

    Ironic given that the SNP and its push towards Indy had become so becalmed of late.

    Those SCon mps that voted for BJ’s attempt to game the Westminster standards set up had a funny way of distancing themselves from BJ & the Westminster establishment. The ones that abstained (the rest of them) weren’t much better. Will be most entertained if this is the new line that SCons will be attempting to run though.
    It's a process, not an event, dear boy.
    Since Operation Arse was first conceived of more than 3 years ago and appears to involve much grovelling to BJ, it’s a bloody glacial process.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 21,189
    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Michael Vaughan shows we are now living in a ‘guilty until proven guilty’ Orwellian state
    Hang out the ex-England captain to dry over a couple of unsubstantiated claims? It’s just not cricket
    ALLISON PEARSON" (£)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/11/10/michael-vaughan-shows-now-living-guilty-proven-guilty-orwellian/

    Yet his tweets were very much the type where "if I heard him say that down the pub, I wouldn't be rushing to have chats with him in the future"

    He may not be 100% guilty but there is enough there for media companies to decide that further appearances may be unwise.
    The amusing thing is that Fox Sports (host broadcaster of the Ashes) appear happy to have Vaughan as part of their commentary team and BT Sport will, presumably, being taking their commentary.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,473
    kle4 said:

    In summary

    Para 1 - I'm a barrister

    Para 2 - I'm a barrister

    Para 3 - I work hard

    Para 4 - My voters don't mind

    Para 5 - You've made a single allegation of a breach, is that all you've got?
    Forensic rebuttal, you could call it. Another reason why he was a crap target
  • eekeek Posts: 17,293
    edited November 2021

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's a thoroughly deserved pile on for the Tories

    Yep. This is a Tory issue not a general MP issue. Almost all of the MPs making big money off 2nd jobs and consultancy are Conservative MPs.
    Yes, and that's the challenge for Labour. The fightback has already started. The Daily Mail, HYUFD, PT and Big G have already joined forces to try to persuade voters (and some PB readers) that it's a plague on all MPs houses, that they're all at it, they're all the same. But they're not. It will be a test for Labour communicators to convince the voting public that this is a Tory MP issue, not a generic MP issue.
    Excuse me

    I have not said or done anything of the kind and if you follow my posts I have said for days the vast majority of MPS across the floor are decent hard working constituency MP's

    The fact is that I seek fairness and the idea conservative MPs are guilty and labour are innocent is simple political bias

    Keir Starmer has made over £100,000 in second jobs since being elected, and somehow pointing that out is trying to defend wayward conservatives is just silly
    So £100,000 over 5 years when he could easily earn £10,000+ a month doing private work.

    Given the vast periods of time when Parliament isn't in session that really isn't a problem.
    I absolutely agree and this is why the debate has become so toxic

    He is leading the attacks on conservative second jobs, so it does not look good when he has earned from the same position himself

    He did look very awkward when quizzed about in on the media a couple of days ago

    It is time the heat was dialled down and rational was applied to just what is sensible and that which is unacceptable which was so obvious in the Paterson case

    I am sure that this what we all want and most certainly is the country's wish
    Yet you were quite happy to post the £100,000 figure without context in your previous post.

    So you are one of the people quite happy to post inflammatory data out of context and then calling for things to be calmed down when pulled up on it with the context that explains why your original attack was utterly invalid.

    The issue isn't MPs with second jobs based on their existing skillset it's MPs using their position to earn extra money.
    I do not understand the attempt to defend Starmer when he was openly cross examined on BBC about his second job earnings and it is context to the discussion

    See Cyclefree's post earlier - some jobs are completely fine for an MP to do others are just abuse of their position.
    I do not think any of us dispute that to be fair
    So you've now

    1) attacked Starmer in a post,
    2) got pulled up for it -
    3) argued that Starmer was still in the wrong and then when pressed again
    4) agree that Starmer is doing nothing wrong (which you've done by agreeing with Cyclefree's post)
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 47,496
    edited November 2021
    Frost will not serve A16 at this time and will continue to work for agreement with the EU

    The negotiations have not reached their end

    He went on to say that if A16 were to be used he would set out the case
  • If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
    I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?

    Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,643
    edited November 2021
    PJH said:

    rpjs said:

    kle4 said:

    rpjs said:

    Off-topic but there’s case coming before the US Supreme Court this week that could have big implications for WH2024.

    A New York man of Puerto Rican origin became disabled and unable to work and successfully claimed the “supplementary security income” (SSI) benefit from the Social Security Administration (SSA). He later moved to Puerto Rico to be with his family When the SSA found out they ended his SSI payments and demanded $28,000 back.

    The reason? SSI is not funded by federal payroll taxes like “regular” SSA benefits such as retirement income (i.e old age pension in UK terms) but from general federal taxation, principally income tax. Puerto Ricans are not normally subject to federal taxes like income tax but they do pay the payroll taxes so while the do get social security retirement benefits they don’t get SSI.

    The basis of the claim is the “equal protection” clause of the 14th amendment which applies
    to states and has been deemed by SCOTUS to apply to the federal government through the “due process” clause of the 5th amendment. By extension that means these clauses apply to federal territories such as DC. DC residents do pay federal income tax and can claim SSI, as do the residents of the US territory the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. (The term “Commonwealth” hss no special meaning either for Puerto Rico or US states that use it like Virginia. It’s like a British district council being granted the appellation of “borough” or “city”.)

    So if SCOTUS rules in favour of the plaintiff then it will follow that not only will the residents of Puerto Rico be able to claim SSI, so will those of American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands That will have to be laid for, so inevitable full federal taxation including income tax will be heading their way. The territories will now have much fewer advantages from their current status, but the disadvantage of no representation in Washington other than non-voting “delegates” or “commissioners” in the House of Representatives. The argument for full statehood tor the territories will be much stronger and may be irresistible.

    That would be a Democrat wet-dream right? Well maybe, maybe not. While Puerto Ricans who move to the US proper have historically tended to favour the Democrats, Puerto Rico’s internal politics historically trends more to the right. Overall most of the territories would probably be swing states, excepting the US Virgin Islands which would probably be strongly Democratic and the Northern Marianas which would probably be heavily Republican.

    I understand that the US Army’s Bureau of Heraldry has flag designs ready for up to 56 stars. They may need them.

    Love it. The more the merrier!

    No love for joining up some of the territories as one state?
    The one that makes most sense would be Guam and the Northern Marianas which are both ethnically Chamorro for the most part. They’ve had quite divergent histories since 1898 though. Guam has been a US territory ever since, save for a typically brutal Japanese occupation during WW2. The Northern Marianas was successively part of a) a German protectorate, b) a League of Nations mandate under Japan and c) a UN trust territory under the US. When the trust territory was ended and broken up into four entities, the Northern Marianas was the only one to opt for US territory. The others opted for independence with “free association“ with the US (which amounts to the US influencing their foreign policy and having a privileged economic relationship with them in return for guaranteeing their defence and their citizens having some privileges wrt US immigration).

    The other neighbouring pair are Puerto Rico and the US Virign Islands, but they have no cultural affinity at all. Puerto Rico is obvioudly Hispanic, and while the USVI were Danish until purchased by the US in 1917 they spoke an English-based creole and were pretty culturally aligned to the British West Indies. They still drive on the left!
    I didn't know about the driving on the left. That sounds like a good quiz question.
    It’s definitely come up on the “Jeopardy” TV quiz show (American telly’s closest equivalent to “Mastermind”) in recent years.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 941

    If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
    People do work absurdly long hours at times. Horses for courses. I know many academics who have nothing outside of their research lives - no hobbies, no socialising etc, and they often work stupid hours. in academia it often leads to success (more papers published, more grants secured etc). I think its probably true in other spheres.
    There is colossal pushback about the long hours culture in research, notably, but not only, but women in academia, who have traditionally struggled to balance the academic career with child raising. Career breaks are hard to overcome - often looks bad on CV's etc. I fully support them in this, but its a hard culture to break.
    Especially so also in professions which charge by the hour, which the law largely still does. It's notable that in the wider consulting industry engagements have tended to move away from hourly time and materials on to fixed fees, and among the consequences of that I would include people working more reasonable hours than before, along with reduced word counts in reports.
  • glwglw Posts: 7,939
    Nigelb said:

    You’ll note Cyclefree added “and other professions”, which renders your comment somewhat moot.
    I’m not sure having a paid consultancy, for which you have no obvious qualifications other than being an MP*, counts though.

    *True of both Paterson and IDS.

    It's not just about "professions", essentially all jobs change rapidly nowadays. If you take five, ten, or more years out of any job going back to it will be difficult.

    If MPs from certain professions are approved for second jobs, but other MPs are told to resign and make do with their MPs salary, and have to let their skills wither, that will disadvantage the latter group. You would make being an MP less attractive to parts of society that are under-represented, and make over-represented parts of society more entrenched in Parliament.

    We really do not want a Parliament which has a list of approved second-jobs for MPs.
  • Are you an ex-squaddie traumatised by combat and deserted by the British state? Why not self medicate with Pull The Pin rum!

    https://twitter.com/giantpoppywatch/status/1458329829074481159?s=21

    Nice - sounds like fun (I'm not an ex-squaddie) - No surprise to me that you wanted to move on from the Child Grooming incident as quickly as possible.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,029
    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

    Cyclefree said:

    On second jobs, we need to distinguish between 4 categories I think:-

    1. Maintaining professional qualifications eg lawyers, doctors, nurses and other professionals. I think it valuable for MPs to do this - not just because they will need it personally if they lose their seat - but because doing this and being up-to-date in such areas can be valuable for Parliament. I thought it was creditable of MPs like Nadine Dorries and Rosena Khan to use their medical skills during the pandemic, for instance. On lawyers, this article by Joshua Rosenberg is very good - https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/why-geoffrey-cox-should-stand-firm

    I totally disagree with that. I heard an ex-MP, Labour for what it is worth, make that arugment yesterday, he had been a part time GP whilst a serving MP, and he virtually said that he'd done it for the good of the nation unlike those filthy commercial types who do it to make money, as though being a GP is not a well paid career. Clearly the bloke is also something of a snob.

    If second jobs are banned it should apply to all professions. We can not have certain professions exempted as otherwise Parliament will become even more unrepresentative than it already is, and stuffed full of certain privileged professions, many of which are already over-represented such as lawyers.

    I also object to the notion that only certain professions require someone to keep one's hand in, this is true for all sorts of jobs in the modern world which changes very rapidly.

    I suspect though that Parliament will choose to go for a stitch-up that looks after the interests of the lawyers, medics, and that ilk, and we will end up with a worse crop of MPs.
    You’ll note Cyclefree added “and other professions”, which renders your comment somewhat moot.
    I’m not sure having a paid consultancy, for which you have no obvious qualifications other than being an MP*, counts though.

    *True of both Paterson and IDS.
    To remain a solicitor or a barrister you do need to keep your qualifications and practice up to date. Ditto for many other professions. Silly to prevent this. For instance, I would welcome practising teachers and scientists and IT people in the Commons.

    The real scandal is the misuse of public office for private gain. Not allowing the qualified to remain qualified.
    Of course.
    As you say, it’s not complicated, and most people with a brain understand the difference.
    Codifying the rules is, of course, a little more so.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,293

    HYUFD said:

    If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
    The problem is if we ban MPs from doing any secondary paid work then the Commons will no longer attract those who like Cox who are comfortably in the top 1% of earners, high flying professionals and who would make top class ministers. Cox was of course an excellent AG despite recent events who really knew his stuff and advised on the law whatever the political implications.

    For those well within the top 1% even paying MPs £100k a year would be substantial paycut for someone earning £500k - £1 million + a year
    My point was simply that (a) he's a top barrister (b) he is spending significant time as a top barrister (c) his political career is over (d) he can work less hours for far more money on the thing he enjoys most be stepping down.

    Dunno about you lot but I have been very clear in the past when I reach the tipping point where the job isn't worth it any more.
    The bit you are missing is that I suspect the House of Commons / Parliament is a very convenient London base for multiple reasons including it's location and bars.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,643

    Frost will not serve A16 and will continue to work for agreement with the EU

    The negotiations have not reached their end

    He went on to say that if A16 were to be used he would set out the case

    Oh, and I thought we’d been assured by the PB Brexit loyalists that it was the EU that was about to blink first. Funny that.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,568
    edited November 2021

    If he is working a 70 hour week (really - 8 til 8 during the week and 8 til 6 on a Saturday with zero breaks...?) and his political career is effectively over, he'd probably be better to take the Chiltern Hundreds and spending less time earning crap money and more of the £100k a quarter stuff.
    I did average 70 hour weeks in my twenties. I genuinely couldn't concentrate long enough to do them now and a fair bit younger than Mr Cox. Does his 70 hour weeks include a significant proportion of lunches and dinners?

    Are there any 70 hour week averagers in their sixties on pb? And no, pb posting does not count.
    Yes, most people don't work 70 hours a week into their sixties. Most also don't earn millions a year as a leading QC. The two are probably related.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 941
    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    In summary

    Para 1 - I'm a barrister

    Para 2 - I'm a barrister

    Para 3 - I work hard

    Para 4 - My voters don't mind

    Para 5 - You've made a single allegation of a breach, is that all you've got?
    Forensic rebuttal, you could call it. Another reason why he was a crap target
    But a convenient target from the perspective of Boris and No.10. Well done Geoffrey, you've played your part brilliantly.

    Look how we're all talking about MPs' second jobs rather than state capture, paid-for peerages and free holidays.
This discussion has been closed.