politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The MPs second job issue could have salience
Comments
-
o/t - the National now has its website at last. Partial paywall though.
http://www.thenational.scot/
Lead story, http://www.thenational.scot/news/westminsters-delay-over-north-sea-could-be-fatal-says-expert.514
I see SLAB folk are now advocating not only voting for Tories but a Westminster coalition with them ...
http://www.thenational.scot/politics/peer-inflames-row-after-saying-labour-better-off-with-conservatives-than-snp-in-coalition.503
0 -
My Dads bigger than your DadTheWatcher said:
I'm praying hard for Nigel. He's already commented on how tough things are on his current income. £67K pa is going to hurt.isam said:
Honestly that is so pathetic, you really are incapable of seeing anything without a partisan hueTheWatcher said:isam said:
What is so bad about people having to make the choice between being an MP and having a directorship of a company?TheWatcher said:
Indeed.MarqueeMark said:
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".TGOHF said:
What is so evil about being a director ? Labour just hate business and enterprise.isam said:Nick Robinson made a good point on Daily Politics.. the real concern ISNT Mp's having two jobs, but having two masters
Labour are proposing to stop MP's taking directorships etc I can see why that is liable to lead to conflict of interests.. they aren't trying to stop MP's also being Doctors/Lawyers etc
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
If you live in a flat in London, and hold a share of the Freehold, you're likely to be a Director of the company that owns it. I wonder how this will work for MPs?
Presumably it would also bar them from control of long established family businesses.
You cant do both, as one might influence the other... wear it I say!
#prayforthedirectorswhocantbeMPs
Nigel Paul Farage, Director of Thorn in the Side Ltd, and The United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd.
http://companycheck.co.uk/director/904320201
I guess he'll never be an MP, so it's irrelevant.
If he wants to be an MP, and he is big odds on to be one in May, then he cant be the director of a company in my book.. same for everyone
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/04/nigel-farage-poor-ukip-_n_6267742.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/poor-nigel-farage-finds-it-hard-to-get-by-on-109000-a-year-plus-expenses-9901390.html0 -
NEW JOB I mean THREAD!0
-
Yes, certainly I'm arguing that. I mean, you are clearly someone of great talent, but even you didn't make the grade!Jonathan said:Wow. Are you seriously arguing that the Commons is currently stuffed full of talent that would otherwise be lured away?
0 -
Salary ? Sorry no I'm an MP - but what ? 1p share options exercisable in 5 years time ? Well don't mind if I do...
Unworkable and probably breaks EU law on restriction of trade.
0 -
Wont matter when we leave the EUTGOHF said:
But he can be a MEP and a director ?isam said:
Honestly that is so pathetic, you really are incapable of seeing anything without a partisan hueTheWatcher said:isam said:
What is so bad about people having to make the choice between being an MP and having a directorship of a company?TheWatcher said:
Indeed.MarqueeMark said:
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".TGOHF said:
What is so evil about being a director ? Labour just hate business and enterprise.isam said:Nick Robinson made a good point on Daily Politics.. the real concern ISNT Mp's having two jobs, but having two masters
Labour are proposing to stop MP's taking directorships etc I can see why that is liable to lead to conflict of interests.. they aren't trying to stop MP's also being Doctors/Lawyers etc
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
If you live in a flat in London, and hold a share of the Freehold, you're likely to be a Director of the company that owns it. I wonder how this will work for MPs?
Presumably it would also bar them from control of long established family businesses.
You cant do both, as one might influence the other... wear it I say!
#prayforthedirectorswhocantbeMPs
Nigel Paul Farage, Director of Thorn in the Side Ltd, and The United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd.
http://companycheck.co.uk/director/904320201
I guess he'll never be an MP, so it's irrelevant.
If he wants to be an MP, and he is big odds on to be one in May, then he cant be the director of a company in my book.. same for everyone
Pin head dancing.
Same rule fr everyone, why you have to make this a partisan fight by bringing Farage into it I don't know. I couldn't care less about the European parliament so if people are fleecing it good on them, but in our parliament its a honour and a calling to be an MP not an earner0 -
Good PlanRodCrosby said:What I would do would be be to set a modest cap on outside earnings, say £15k.
For every £1 an MP earns beyond that their MPs salary is reduced by the same amount...0 -
Some of the most fervent kippers I know are owners of small businesses who don't export (mostly tradesmen/motor trade) - they will almost certainly be directors. Can't imagine your party ever adopting such a policy.isam said:
Honestly that is so pathetic, you really are incapable of seeing anything without a partisan hueTheWatcher said:isam said:
What is so bad about people having to make the choice between being an MP and having a directorship of a company?TheWatcher said:
Indeed.MarqueeMark said:
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".TGOHF said:
What is so evil about being a director ? Labour just hate business and enterprise.isam said:Nick Robinson made a good point on Daily Politics.. the real concern ISNT Mp's having two jobs, but having two masters
Labour are proposing to stop MP's taking directorships etc I can see why that is liable to lead to conflict of interests.. they aren't trying to stop MP's also being Doctors/Lawyers etc
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
If you live in a flat in London, and hold a share of the Freehold, you're likely to be a Director of the company that owns it. I wonder how this will work for MPs?
Presumably it would also bar them from control of long established family businesses.
You cant do both, as one might influence the other... wear it I say!
#prayforthedirectorswhocantbeMPs
Nigel Paul Farage, Director of Thorn in the Side Ltd, and The United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd.
http://companycheck.co.uk/director/904320201
I guess he'll never be an MP, so it's irrelevant.
If he wants to be an MP, and he is big odds on to be one in May, then he cant be the director of a company in my book.. same for everyone
0 -
@madasafish
Ahhh, ...how many of those were doing shift work?
It may come as a surprise to you, but there are fewer and fewer jobs where you can pick and choose your hours to suit yourself, and working any 5 from 7 is demanded.
You did ask? Or did you just assume that your prejudices were being confirmed?
0 -
Which moves you on to the real elephant in the room, Political Parties wielding too much power are the root cause of the problems.SouthamObserver said:
The issue is not salaries, it is how putative MPs are selected. The games that are played make it very difficult for someone who has not spent many years in politics, or who is not very well connected, from becoming a candidate. There are many more than 650 talented, highly intelligent individuals out there who would sit in parliament for £67,000 plus expenses. Salary is no indicator of deep-seated wisdom.Danny565 said:I really don't think Parliament would be damaged that much if people who are only willing to work for more than £70,000 a year stop putting themselves forwards.
If anything, MPs' salaries should be cut a bit BUT with the money saved going to help new candidates with their election campaigns. THAT'S the problem that's making politics a rich man's profession, that you pretty much have to be wealthy to get into Parliament in the first place since usually to campaign successfully you will have to give up a "proper" job months/years in advance of the election, with no guarantee that you'll even get elected in the end anyway. But once you've actually got into Parliament, £67k is more than enough for anyone to live on.
Defenestrate the parties.0 -
Couldn't agree more. We have a parliament of clones, who all make the identical "right noises" to get selected and elected as gratuitously-paid lobby-fodder.SouthamObserver said:
The issue is not salaries, it is how putative MPs are selected. The games that are played make it very difficult for someone who has not spent many years in politics, or who is not very well connected, from becoming a candidate. There are many more than 650 talented, highly intelligent individuals out there who would sit in parliament for £67,000 plus expenses. Salary is no indicator of deep-seated wisdom.Danny565 said:I really don't think Parliament would be damaged that much if people who are only willing to work for more than £70,000 a year stop putting themselves forwards.
If anything, MPs' salaries should be cut a bit BUT with the money saved going to help new candidates with their election campaigns. THAT'S the problem that's making politics a rich man's profession, that you pretty much have to be wealthy to get into Parliament in the first place since usually to campaign successfully you will have to give up a "proper" job months/years in advance of the election, with no guarantee that you'll even get elected in the end anyway. But once you've actually got into Parliament, £67k is more than enough for anyone to live on.0 -
We won't be leaving under "champion of ejecting directors" Ed.isam said:
Wont matter when we leave the EUTGOHF said:
But he can be a MEP and a director ?isam said:
Honestly that is so pathetic, you really are incapable of seeing anything without a partisan hueTheWatcher said:isam said:
What is so bad about people having to make the choice between being an MP and having a directorship of a company?TheWatcher said:
Indeed.MarqueeMark said:
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".TGOHF said:
What is so evil about being a director ? Labour just hate business and enterprise.isam said:Nick Robinson made a good point on Daily Politics.. the real concern ISNT Mp's having two jobs, but having two masters
Labour are proposing to stop MP's taking directorships etc I can see why that is liable to lead to conflict of interests.. they aren't trying to stop MP's also being Doctors/Lawyers etc
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
If you live in a flat in London, and hold a share of the Freehold, you're likely to be a Director of the company that owns it. I wonder how this will work for MPs?
Presumably it would also bar them from control of long established family businesses.
You cant do both, as one might influence the other... wear it I say!
#prayforthedirectorswhocantbeMPs
Nigel Paul Farage, Director of Thorn in the Side Ltd, and The United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd.
http://companycheck.co.uk/director/904320201
I guess he'll never be an MP, so it's irrelevant.
If he wants to be an MP, and he is big odds on to be one in May, then he cant be the director of a company in my book.. same for everyone
Pin head dancing.
0 -
As mentioned earlier, for the typical Lab (voter, PPC) constituency, £67k is very well off; for the typical Cons (voter, PPC) constituency it is a starting salary.SouthamObserver said:
The issue is not salaries, it is how putative MPs are selected. The games that are played make it very difficult for someone who has not spent many years in politics, or who is not very well connected, from becoming a candidate. There are many more than 650 talented, highly intelligent individuals out there who would sit in parliament for £67,000 plus expenses. Salary is no indicator of deep-seated wisdom.Danny565 said:I really don't think Parliament would be damaged that much if people who are only willing to work for more than £70,000 a year stop putting themselves forwards.
If anything, MPs' salaries should be cut a bit BUT with the money saved going to help new candidates with their election campaigns. THAT'S the problem that's making politics a rich man's profession, that you pretty much have to be wealthy to get into Parliament in the first place since usually to campaign successfully you will have to give up a "proper" job months/years in advance of the election, with no guarantee that you'll even get elected in the end anyway. But once you've actually got into Parliament, £67k is more than enough for anyone to live on.
That is something the Cons will struggle to address or acknowledge.0 -
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges · 8m 8 minutes ago
Guardian on Bradford: "It was claimed the clan elders were unhappy their favoured candidate had not made the shortlist". 2015. Clan elders.0 -
He says making a sweeping generalization. Well done on the tacit admission of your own meagre offerings to the world.Roger said:Divvie
"Perhaps I'm biased having seen at first hand the quality of SLab timeservers; dross pretty much covers it."
Perhaps you are but people who make sweeping generalizations like that don't usually have much to offer anyway.
Plenty, but I don't feel any need for it to be validated on an anonymous website. If I ever require a proxy hug from a shallow luvvie I'll get back to you.Roger said:Divvie
The only Scottish Labour MP I know works unbelievably hard and even just the travelling back and forward to Edinburgh would I suspect put him in a different bracket to you. Do YOU do anything useful?
0 -
It is amazing what you emerges over a period of time in normal society if you:Dair said:
You do not know 300 people's inclination to be an MP or 300 people's salary levels.Mortimer said:Of my group of 300 or so friends and acquaintances under 35 (mostly from state grammar school or Oxbridge colleges), 5 or 6 would entertain the idea of being an MP.
Seriously, who do you think you will kid with this nonsense?
A) care about people and are able to talk to them and maintain friendships
...no, just A)
0 -
'Phew' thinks Nigel.TGOHF said:
We won't be leaving under "champion of ejecting directors" Ed.isam said:
Wont matter when we leave the EUTGOHF said:
But he can be a MEP and a director ?isam said:
Honestly that is so pathetic, you really are incapable of seeing anything without a partisan hueTheWatcher said:isam said:
What is so bad about people having to make the choice between being an MP and having a directorship of a company?TheWatcher said:
Indeed.MarqueeMark said:
Labour are trying to weaponise the word "director" to be an equivalent to the reviled "banker".TGOHF said:
What is so evil about being a director ? Labour just hate business and enterprise.isam said:Nick Robinson made a good point on Daily Politics.. the real concern ISNT Mp's having two jobs, but having two masters
Labour are proposing to stop MP's taking directorships etc I can see why that is liable to lead to conflict of interests.. they aren't trying to stop MP's also being Doctors/Lawyers etc
This is not going to end well. There are all manner of "directorships", very many of them having little or no opportunity to be the tax-evading baby-eating bastards Ed wants to imply across the, er, Board...
If you live in a flat in London, and hold a share of the Freehold, you're likely to be a Director of the company that owns it. I wonder how this will work for MPs?
Presumably it would also bar them from control of long established family businesses.
You cant do both, as one might influence the other... wear it I say!
#prayforthedirectorswhocantbeMPs
Nigel Paul Farage, Director of Thorn in the Side Ltd, and The United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd.
http://companycheck.co.uk/director/904320201
I guess he'll never be an MP, so it's irrelevant.
If he wants to be an MP, and he is big odds on to be one in May, then he cant be the director of a company in my book.. same for everyone
Pin head dancing.0 -
No, it's not.Mortimer said:
It is amazing what you emerges over a period of time in normal society if you:Dair said:
You do not know 300 people's inclination to be an MP or 300 people's salary levels.Mortimer said:Of my group of 300 or so friends and acquaintances under 35 (mostly from state grammar school or Oxbridge colleges), 5 or 6 would entertain the idea of being an MP.
Seriously, who do you think you will kid with this nonsense?
A) care about people and are able to talk to them and maintain friendships...no, just A)
There is extensive study of peer groups, the average is below 12 people. Twelve. No-one on earth has a peer group of 300.0 -
A few clarifications may be helpful. Dair thinks MPs will get a final salary pension on a 1/40th basis. They won't - that's been abolished. He asks me if I'd earn as much today if I'd not been in Parliament - yes, I was on £95K in 1997, and colleagues who stayed on in the company at the same level are now on £150K. Going into politics was my choice, but not a lucrative one. Flightpath thinks that unions sponsor MPs. They don't - they support constituency parties, and (in the cases that I'm aware of) the MP gets none of it. Various people think MPs shouldn't be allowed to have paid union jobs. Are there any who do? - don't think so.
It's interesting that Tories are so annoyed by all this. The political point is that the Government is on the back foot on this, as they were last week on tax avoidance. With two months to go, the Government needs some sort of narrative, and fulminating about it being so unfair that they can't also be directors of XYZ Ltd on £100K/year probably isn't it.0 -
On Topic - URGH and bollocks.
I'd be amazed if anyone shifted their vote on this issue. We've seen much worse a la Smeargate have no impact. I pop into PB every other day and haven't noticed a convincing argument in ages to shift anything. With 71 days to go = we need a game changing Whiskey Tango Foxtrot0 -
How much tax has Ed Miliband paid when he was employed in the private sector? Is it nil or very little for this country? Has Ed Miliband been a net drain on the countries public sector finances throughout his life and only temporarily stopped hurting public finances when he worked in USA academia?0
-
These are the topics you want to fight the election on ? Rock and Roll..NickPalmer said:
It's interesting that Tories are so annoyed by all this. The political point is that the Government is on the back foot on this, as they were last week on tax avoidance. With two months to go, the Government needs some sort of narrative, and fulminating about it being so unfair that they can't also be directors of XYZ Ltd on £100K/year probably isn't it.0 -
As I said this is nothing new - its the usual labour politics of envy. Sponsoring an MPs constituency is no different from sponsoring an MP. The constituency gets all the money from a Union to work for its MP. If a Union does not like a sitting MP, then the pressure of its sponsorship works just the same if not better if it wants to deselect him.NickPalmer said:A few clarifications may be helpful. Dair thinks MPs will get a final salary pension on a 1/40th basis. They won't - that's been abolished. He asks me if I'd earn as much today if I'd not been in Parliament - yes, I was on £95K in 1997, and colleagues who stayed on in the company at the same level are now on £150K. Going into politics was my choice, but not a lucrative one. Flightpath thinks that unions sponsor MPs. They don't - they support constituency parties, and (in the cases that I'm aware of) the MP gets none of it. Various people think MPs shouldn't be allowed to have paid union jobs. Are there any who do? - don't think so.
It's interesting that Tories are so annoyed by all this. The political point is that the Government is on the back foot on this, as they were last week on tax avoidance. With two months to go, the Government needs some sort of narrative, and fulminating about it being so unfair that they can't also be directors of XYZ Ltd on £100K/year probably isn't it.
After 13 years of power Labour did nothing about outside interests and it left office in a position where its ejected leader has spent 5 years globetrotting the world earing money for his pet charity (and paying for an expansive and expensive retinue of courtiers, whilst at the same time drawing his MPs salary. Earning money for his pet charity still gives him a cosy expensive self serving lifestyle, but a Tory earning money for the economy is sneered at by Mr Palmer.
0 -
Are some Labour MPs so annoyed at other MPs earning lots of money because they are incapable of earning such high wages? It would explain a lot... ;-)
It seems there are two things they are pretending to be worried about: undue influence and earnings (the 'it should be a full time job' line).
If 'undue influence', then would that also apply if the wife held a directorship with a company? Or a child? And why would union-sponsored MPs not be covered under this?
If earnings, then why should it bother others as long as the MP also represent their constituents? After all, it is easily possible not to represent your constituents (ref Stuart Bell RIP) and still be an MP.
Let it all be open, and let the constituents decide if the MP is working hard enough for them.
We need better people in parliament, and such restrictions will only get more Eds and Daves.0 -
It would be interesting to see how such a rule would apply to expenses paid by "charitable" foundations such as Gordon Brown's one. Not salary but an awful lot of luxury travel.JosiasJessop said:Are some Labour MPs so annoyed at other MPs earning lots of money because they are incapable of earning such high wages? It would explain a lot... ;-)
It seems there are two things they are pretending to be worried about: undue influence and earnings (the 'it should be a full time job' line).
If 'undue influence', then would that also apply if the wife held a directorship with a company? Or a child? And why would union-sponsored MPs not be covered under this?
If earnings, then why should it bother others as long as the MP also represent their constituents? After all, it is easily possible not to represent your constituents (ref Stuart Bell RIP) and still be an MP.
Let it all be open, and let the constituents decide if the MP is working hard enough for them.
We need better people in parliament, and such restrictions will only get more Eds and Daves.
And there should be a ban on the revolving door where the wicked witch of Leicester West goes from being Minister of Health to the lucrative work for Boots and Cinvin (owners of private hospitals).0 -
But the second job they should 'suspend' during the time they are in the public office of elected representative of the constituency. They ought to have their time and attention given over to constituency and parliamentary duties ( plus travel time). Moreover we need to get a wider diversity of people into parliament of different class, ethnicity, age and gender etc., The Victorian wealthy gent as part-time MP is 250 years ago.0
