[mrjonathanr]

You’re thinking of the BMC, am I right?

Whilst not the rule, I imagine that prerequisites include a strong political knowledge, knowledge of past/current affairs, probably having worked for local government or been on advisory boards/school boards, time to campaign, time to raise  funding for said campaign (if you don’t have the spare cash), lots of time to visit local businesses etc.

I wonder if you are confusing ‘desirable’ with ‘essential’?

MPs who don’t know that NI nationalists and unionists tend not to vote for each other? Karen Bradley, for example https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/ni-secretary-didn-t-realise-nationalists-don-t-vote-for-unionists-1.3621561

MPs who don’t know that Dover is a vital port, such as Dominic Raab? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46142188

Or even those unable to distinguish ports from pizza contracts? https://www.bebconsultancy.co.uk/why-you-should-never-copy-and-paste-your-tcs-like-seaborne-freight/

Truly, we are spoiled.

[AJM]

As the saying kind of goes.. many of the people who have the desire to become an MP should be barred on the grounds of having the desire to become an MP.

I've got a lot of sympathy for that.

I look at our current MPs and I'm sure there are some good ones - and maybe even some who have the sort of qualities James describes. There's a lot of lobby fodder, who contribute fairly little and whose loyalty is to party first and foremost. There are a bunch who are self serving and power hungry. There are several who are just corrupt.

I tend to think that for a lot of MPs the salary isn't all they get from it: some are motivated by wanting to do good things, some are motivated by the opportunities for self enrichment either on the job or after, and some are motivated by a desire for power. There's probably plenty of easier ways to earn the money, if it's only about the money, or at least have a better work life balance whilst doing so.

I also tend to think that done properly it's a very important job and that probably the people we elect to do it ought to be in some nebulous way amongst the best of us, or at least the better of us. I'm far from convinced that's the case under the current system - if paying double or more got to a point where the MPs were all top calibre people (again, by some imprecise definition) motivated to do their best by people I'd support it in a heartbeat, but I don't really believe it because whilst those are good qualities in being an MP I'm not sure they're particularly essential in the current world for getting chosen as a candidate or elected as an MP.

[seankenny]

Interesting counter-argument in the New Statesman here:
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2021/11/banning-mps-second-jobs-would-weaken-parliament-not-strengthen-it

I don't agree with it, but it's worth a read. I'm not of the same political persausion of the author, but I don't think he's out to lunch.

[James Malloch]

You’re thinking of the BMC, am I right?

Whilst not the rule, I imagine that prerequisites include a strong political knowledge, knowledge of past/current affairs, probably having worked for local government or been on advisory boards/school boards, time to campaign, time to raise  funding for said campaign (if you don’t have the spare cash), lots of time to visit local businesses etc.

I wonder if you are confusing ‘desirable’ with ‘essential’?

MPs who don’t know that NI nationalists and unionists tend not to vote for each other? Karen Bradley, for example https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/ni-secretary-didn-t-realise-nationalists-don-t-vote-for-unionists-1.3621561

MPs who don’t know that Dover is a vital port, such as Dominic Raab? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46142188

Or even those unable to distinguish ports from pizza contracts? https://www.bebconsultancy.co.uk/why-you-should-never-copy-and-paste-your-tcs-like-seaborne-freight/

Truly, we are spoiled.

Of course, they are desirable traits.

But I imagine that most MP’s will have (what most would consider) a decent understanding of how parliament works, a reasonable understanding of some political history, and have the will/clout to put in the time to becoming known/up for selection.

Doesn’t mean there aren’t also some fools in there 

[mrjonathanr]

Interesting counter-argument in the New Statesman here:
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2021/11/banning-mps-second-jobs-would-weaken-parliament-not-strengthen-it

I don't agree with it, but it's worth a read. I'm not of the same political persausion of the author, but I don't think he's out to lunch.

Unless someone else is paying.


Gauke has more integrity than some MPs in his party, certainly. (Odd for a solicitor to misuse ‘dependant’ ). It’s all a very one sided argument though.

It is theoretically possible for parliament to be enriched by ministers with active outside interests. There may be other ways to gain that knowledge of the wider world. It is also possible that candidates who would enrich parliamentary life will not do so, feeling restricted if second jobs are not permitted.

The elephant in the room is the pernicious effect of greed and divided loyalties. He summarily dismisses these points. I don’t think that is correct either in view of the danger that parliament, lacking robust safeguards, might become increasingly corrupt and unable to fairly represent the interests of constituents, nor that MPs of poor character are occupying seats that would be better served by people with a modicum of integrity.

When the risk is that many parliamentarians as a cohort may be, or are perceived to be, lacking the integrity to fairly fulfill their roles….. saying ‘I doubt it’ just doesn’t hack it.

What is needed now is to protect the system. It is currently too weak to prevent abuse and risks further decline. Balancing that against the possibility that a few good folk might not contribute where so many rogues currently prosper, I think we should take the hit.

Edit- conclusion

[TobyD]

There seems to be an understandable cynicism in how most people view MPs. While there are a few who seem to be milking it for personal advancement or gain, I strongly believe that most of them are basically decent people even the ones I disagree with.
There is an argument that the people get the politicians they deserve, after all they do vote for them.

It's very unfortunate that our current PM is aspiring to be an autocrat and seems to have little or no interest in any aspect of policy only his own personal advancement.

[mrjonathanr]

I do agree with you, but the problem is twofold. One, that the system is vulnerable to abuse which damages parliament’s ability to function. Two, that this tarnishes its reputation, leading to a loss of confidence and growing public cynicism. Which will damage democracy.

[Somebody's Fool]

Sounds like it’s time to bring out the ‘a bag of porridge only costs a pound’ types who were all over radio 4 the week they cut UC uplift.

With a bit of thriftiness they might still be able to afford their childcare* on £82k.


*Eton

[mrjonathanr]

https://twitter.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1458804387439128581

It is clearly lazy and wrong to tar all MPs with the same brush. The behaviour of high ranking Tories does cause alarm though.

[Nigel]

With a bit of thriftiness they might still be able to afford their childcare* on £82k.

Or their own wallpaper / holidays. On twice that amount.

[TobyD]

I do agree with you, but the problem is twofold. One, that the system is vulnerable to abuse which damages parliament’s ability to function. Two, that this tarnishes its reputation, leading to a loss of confidence and growing public cynicism. Which will damage democracy.

I totally agree that the system is vulnerable to abuse - it works fine if the pm is a person of any morals whatsoever. Ours isn't.

It's been said a lot but he just doesn't think that rules apply to him. John Major was quite right to say "there is a general whiff of we are the masters now".

Stories of our Times podcast worth a listen - excellent investigation into how the conservative party abuse the house of lords appointments.

[SA Chris]

It's a sign of the times that Majors is looked back at as a level headed and sensible leader. At the time I thought he was a spineless wimp. I blame Spitting Image.

[Neil F]

Last night’s Question Time was one of the first times it felt like some of this Tory corruption was starting to break through to the electorate. Whatever you may have thought of Alastair Campbell when Labour was in power, he certainly seems to be a credible and effective communicator nowadays, and last night he was on fire - as was Lucy Powell.

Lee Rowley (Govt whip) was comprehensively outgunned and made little attempt to defend the indefensible.

Well worth a watch - it was the best QT I’ve seen in ages…

Neil

[TobyD]

... Whatever you may have thought of Alastair Campbell when Labour was in power, he certainly seems to be a credible and effective communicator nowadays, ...

His writing on depression is moving and insightful. 


This is a link to the podcast I mentioned above https://open.spotify.com/episode/2TON2PVRCMcxQE2VADgFtj?si=-4SqLy5zQ4CICS_QW-Sv8w&utm_source=copy-link

It's a really good investigation,  basically every one of the last 16 conservative party treasurers who has donated £3 million to the party gets a peerage,  just after the threshold amount is reached,  and then the donations stop, mysteriously. 

[Oldmanmatt]

It's a sign of the times that Majors is looked back at as a level headed and sensible leader. At the time I thought he was a spineless wimp. I blame Spitting Image.

I think you are quite right.
Politically, he was one of those proverbial “little old men” of classic marshal art movie fame, though.
His demise marks the start of the Tory party decline (well, Thatcher set it off and the level heads managed to depose her, failed to maintain control (in the form of Major) and lost out to the “Puppet Masters” who managed to instal their first “useful idiot” at the head of the party (Hague)).
I think you can plot a couple of curves on the inversion of Tory party policy’s utility to the people of Britain and the rise/increase in wealth and power (and “non-dom” status) of the Grandees and achieve a greatly unpleasing symmetry…

[TobyD]

It's a sign of the times that Majors is looked back at as a level headed and sensible leader. At the time I thought he was a spineless wimp. I blame Spitting Image.

I think you can plot a couple of curves on the inversion of Tory party policy’s utility to the people of Britain and the rise/increase in wealth and power (and “non-dom” status) of the Grandees and achieve a greatly unpleasing symmetry…

At times, I wonder if the whole object behind Brexit was simply to make it much more difficult and expensive to travel abroad, so that wealthy old men could enjoy their mansions and villas around Europe free from any bother from the riff raff.
It doesn't have any other tangible benefit to anyone other than enabling Johnson to win an election. Everyone else got f****d.

[ali k]

It doesn't have any other tangible benefit to anyone other than enabling Johnson to win an election. Everyone else got f****d.

Pete should be along any time now to explain why you’re wrong about that 

[BrutusTheBear]

With a bit of thriftiness they might still be able to afford their childcare* on £82k.

Or their own wallpaper / holidays. On twice that amount.

Yep. They need to learn 'to manage their money and budget better', maybe 'drop the subscription to Sky, cut back on booze and fags'.    Would love to see a journalist that has access to these people throw their rhetoric back at them.

Until second jobs, political donations and paid lobbying by/for corporate interests ends our democracy will remain undemocratic and corrupt.

[mrjonathanr]

Until second jobs, political donations and paid lobbying by/for corporate interests ends our democracy will remain undemocratic and corrupt.

Aye to that Brutus, they are all just ways of buying influence, with the occasional honourable exception of registered professions.

[TobyD]

Until second jobs, political donations and paid lobbying by/for corporate interests ends our democracy will remain undemocratic and corrupt.

Aye to that Brutus, they are all just ways of buying influence, with the occasional honourable exception of registered professions.

Mostly, yes, although I don't have any problems with Ed Davey having outside employment as he's very transparent about what he does, and it all funds the 24/7 care that his disabled son needs.

[mrjonathanr]

 Underfunding of social care and support for the disabled as well a SEND in schools has been getting worse and worse since 2010, by design.

[Oldmanmatt]

Underfunding of social care and support for the disabled as well a SEND in schools has been getting worse and worse since 2010, by design.

Yes.
I find it hard to see it any other way. Strong whiff of “put the Plebs back in their box”, I fancy.
It’s something I’ve heard discussed, many years ago.
An argument to create an underclass, specifically for carrying out menial work etc. It was that aspect of the Tory party that pushed me away from it, however, I didn’t give it much credence. Not really a logical proposition, even setting aside the morality of it. The social unrest and agitation that brought about the changes of the late 19th and early 20th centuries being rather obvious indicators of the likely outcome of such a plan. The more so, that such examples of “people power” are so readily available and documented.
Not to mention, anyone with half a wit, would recoil at the crime/violence/murder rates of a 19th century British city, look at the vastly increased population and sophistication of a modern city and begin advocating a universal income, PDQ.

Possibly, though, the Tits that have bubbled to the top, of late, really believe they can get their servants back and jolly Jim Commoner doffing his cap and holding doors open for them in return for a sixpence and a condescending smile.
Perhaps, they think that keeping the plebs out of university, will reduce their own offspring’s risk of actually having to compete, on merit, for plum employment etc etc.
Maybe, keeping people sick and otherwise distracted, is supposed to keep them in check.

I expect that the reality is a lot more along the lines of incompetence and self interest driving unintended consequences, though I’m sure there are those that think as I’ve written above. I’ve met and spoken with them.

[mrjonathanr]

I really do think it’s by design. The Osborne-Cameron state trimming policy specifically targeted local government, cutting funding and ensuring that care needs, removed from NHS and allocated to LG, could not be met. Every pound spent on social care by LG is a pound not spent elsewhere on the community. People blame left leaning LG that provides a poor service. And where then do they turn when it is time to vote?

There are also more votes gained in demonising the weak than supporting them properly. Throw in a free market ideology and people who were able to manage with dignity can no longer do so. The cavalier way Atos rejected disabled people via government ‘fit to work’ assessments is an abomination. That circa 2 thirds of appeals against its decisions were upheld (!) tell you all you need to know. And we aren’t talking people who are sitting comfortably in the meantime. These are dependent and often desperate people without options.

[Nigel]

MP's salaries, I am in the 95% of the population who earn a salary less (much less!) than £82K/year. From that skewed viewpoint I have to say it looks OK, given the subsidised house in London, food, travel, office costs etc. Their salary has also gone up by 24% since 2010. You won't find a similarly blessed frontline public sector worker. However it is obviously more debateable than I thought, given the comments on this thread! We must have a lot of London professionals on here!

In general I think any so-called politician who argues for more salary so they aren't tempted to earn some dodgy money on the side hasn't quite grasped the "politics thing".

Two things grate on this. First is the obviousness of it. In the main these "second" jobs are declared on the register of interests and so, in the immortal words of press legalese that always preface these things - "there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing". Well my British common sense (TM) says that actually taking £3000 per hour for advising a firm on Hydrogen distribution when you have no known knowledge on the subject of the distribution of hydrogen looks fishy. Especially when the company is Northern Ireland based and you used to be NI secretary very shortly before the "consultancies" started. And funnily enough you also started advising other NI based firms around the same time, who somehow also found your expertise in the totally unrelated area of cruise ship renovation worthy of £2000/hr??

I would say it is genuinely rare to find someone who is such an invaluable expert in both hydrogen distribution, and the totally distinct subject of cruise ship renovation, that they can command a rate of thousands per hour (equivalent of over £5million / year) for consulting on both totally disparate things simultaneously. But somehow such a person exists, whilst also being an MP full time. Genuinely multi-talented. I note they didn't do these roles either before being an MP, or while being NI secretary (i.e. that would be too obvious).

I think it looks like totally in your face quid pro quo wrongdoing without a shadow of a doubt. There are numerous other similar examples to the above. The dogs in the street can see that the companies are paying "cash for access / questions / influence / insider info". But its declared so what can you do....? As usual our lawmakers have access to defences which the man in the street doesn't.

Keeping professional qualifications current in a job you held prior to politics e.g. medicine, accounting, law etc. is fine and not the same as the above "advising".

Second irritant is the "outrage" from Tory MPs who are furious that once the u-turn happened they were made to look fools because they'd already followed orders to vote to let Paterson off in the first place. Of course if they had simply done the right thing in the first place and voted against, they'd have nothing to be miffed about. As clear an admission of the pointlessness the lobby-fodder charade nature of our democracy you will struggle to find. Its this sort of rubbish that makes the £82K look very poor value. These people are not scrutinising legislation, they are nodding donkeys.

As mentioned Private Eye has been all over this (and ACOBA) in every issue for years, to the extent that it will actually seem old news to readers. Its weird that the papers have only just caught on....

Not sure where to start on the Geoffrey Cox thing as it such a parody of itself that I'm not yet convinced its not a spoof.

[TobyD]

It doesn't have any other tangible benefit to anyone other than enabling Johnson to win an election. Everyone else got f****d.

Pete should be along any time now to explain why you’re wrong about that 

Tell that to a fisherman or a farmer right now:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-turns-europes-biggest-fish-23346030?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar