[mrjonathanr]

Succinct overview of pros and cons of MPs having second/third/fourth.. jobs.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/14/only-people-mps-should-be-hustling-for-are-their-constituents

[Oldmanmatt]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/sack-jacob-rees-mogg-scandal-301121/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=sfeu&fbclid=IwAR2CFDr7b4ZFOBKVqZAihSuy1hdYumjNqXR7yISQwVdHlkofB5XLdcJP1LU

 

Even the Mail has turned on him.

[mrjonathanr]

Regarding the fairness with disabled support payments.
12000 winning appeals against DWP per month can’t be right, can it?
https://mobile.twitter.com/sourchimp/status/1459878278844624899

[TobyD]

Succinct overview of pros and cons of MPs having second/third/fourth.. jobs.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/14/only-people-mps-should-be-hustling-for-are-their-constituents

An interesting alternative solution mentioned that MPs should be allowed to take any second job they wish, but that it must be voted on by their constituents first.  This would mean anything they can't justify to the electorate would be effectively eliminated. 

[Johnny Brown]

No it wouldn't. It would mean Tory MPs in safe seats could do anything they wanted.

[ali k]

The best thing would be to just ban all consultancy / advisory type roles altogether (paid or otherwise).

Allow the type of jobs that need qualifications to be maintained (e.g. medical professionals) but limit the amount of time they can spend in that role to the minimum required, so they can concentrate on their constituents. And obviously allow stuff like volunteering (third sector) or reserve military.

But then as Alastair Campbell suggested in that QT have to pre-emptively seek approval for any of the above second jobs via an independent body so they can’t argue ignorance after the fact.

[TobyD]

No it wouldn't. It would mean Tory MPs in safe seats could do anything they wanted.

I'd thought of that but actually I disagree,  the idea of even the safest MP of any party having to openly ask their constituents if it would be ok with them if they spent say 10 hours a week as a consultant for an oil company,  and then campaigned against fuel tax in parliament,  just isn't very likely.  The entire press would have them for breakfast. 

I'm not sure if it was an entirely serious suggestion but it would increase transparency; currently the main shield for the blatant lobbyists is the fact that most people don't read parliamentary registers of interest.

[Johnny Brown]

I suspect you haven't lived in a safe tory seat.

as Alastair Campbell suggested in that QT have to pre-emptively seek approval for any of the above second jobs via an independent body so they can’t argue ignorance after the fact.

This seems far more sensible. Democracy has its limits, not least where expertise is helpful.

[mrjonathanr]

Another option for those who assert that second jobs enrich the commons, is to make them compulsory. Those from gilded backgrounds would have to work with common people.

Jacob Rees-Mogg in a Salford chippy would be an excellent place to start.

[Oldmanmatt]

Another option for those who assert that second jobs enrich the commons, is to make them compulsory. Those from gilded backgrounds would have to work with common people.

Jacob Rees-Mogg in a Salford chippy would be an excellent place to start.

I’d rather see him delivering bed pans on a Covid ward.

[mrjonathanr]

Priti Patel as an NHS chiropodist? The possibilities are endless.

[seankenny]

Priti Patel as an NHS chiropodist? The possibilities are endless.

Threading would be more Priti’s thing I think; by all accounts it’s quite painful.

[Oldmanmatt]

Priti Patel as an NHS chiropodist? The possibilities are endless.

Threading would be more Priti’s thing I think; by all accounts it’s quite painful.

I think she’d enjoy being a dentist.

But I think she’d be better suited to slopping out after the fish market.

[TobyD]

During the BSE debacle,  a mate of mine  got a job hosing down the incinerators after they'd burnt all the possibly infected animals.  He managed one shift and left; perhaps George Eustice would appreciate doing that?

More usefully, perhaps Boris Johnson could take up a second job and have a go at being prime minister? I'm not exactly sure what the f*** hes doing most of the time,  but it certainly doesn't seem to be that. 

[TobyD]

If anyone wants to know what their MP does outside constituency and parliament work,  all available here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/contents2122.htm

This is a good summary of the government proposals from Politico:
The next key question … is the one on the lips of several dozen double-jobbing MPs: which second jobs will actually be banned? The 2018 committee on standards in public life report referred to by Johnson talked of “any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant.” The key word here is “parliamentary.” As the Telegraph’s Ben Riley-Smith notes, the language appears to suggest banning consultancy or advisory roles that specifically relate to parliament, for example “advising on parliamentary affairs.” This would actually be a very weak reform and not include the vast majority of the consultancy work that has hit the headlines in recent weeks, which are ostensibly jobs on non-parliamentary matters even though many do create conflicts of interest. The committee on standards in public life report admits this reform would only impact “a handful” of MPs.

How many? If *all* outside consultancy work was banned, then around 30 MPs would have to give up outside jobs. The Guardian had a useful list the other day — the MPs working as consultants are: Andrew Mitchell … Julian Smith … Chris Grayling … Mark Garnier … Alun Cairns … Ruth Edwards … Stephen Hammond … Steve Brine … David Davis … John Hayes … Iain Duncan Smith … Damian Green … Tim Loughton … Daniel Kawczynski … Andrew Percy … Khalid Mahmood … Laurence Robertson … Richard Fuller … Bob Neill … Royston Smith … Greg Knight … Ben Everitt … Andrew Bridgen … Philip Davies … Graham Brady … Chris Skidmore … Paul Maynard … John Redwood … Andrew Lewer and Dean Russell. Lib Dem leader Ed Davey also worked as a consultant for two companies to benefit his disabled son, though he said yesterday he’d give up the jobs.

Yet if only explicitly ‘parliamentary’ consultancy was banned … many of these 30 may be able to keep their jobs. So it’s now over to the standards committee to come up with a much tighter definition of exactly which consultancy jobs won’t be allowed. Then it’s up to Downing Street whether they agree when it comes to a vote in parliament.

[BrutusTheBear]

Of course a loophole big enough to accommodate the 'needs' of those riding first class on the gravy train will be left wide open.  Just call it something other than consultant or advisor and it becomes a harmless second job that doesn't contravene the rules.

Lib Dem leader Ed Davey also worked as a consultant for two companies to benefit his disabled son, though he said yesterday he’d give up the jobs.

Speaking as the husband of a disabled woman and father of 2 children, living on a single salary around half of that of an MP and on behalf of anyone caring for anyone with a disability....  I find Ed Davey's justification for his corporate sponsorship particularly offensive, self entitled and lacking awareness of the harsh reality that I'm sure many of his constituents feel.  Imagine being unable to work because of caring responsibilities, living on the pittance that is given to people in these circumstances and then hearing this **** playing the 'disabled child card' to justify his greed. 

[battery]

How many? If *all* outside consultancy work was banned, then around 30 MPs would have to give up outside jobs. The Guardian had a useful list the other day — the MPs working as consultants are: Andrew Mitchell … Julian Smith … Chris Grayling … Mark Garnier … Alun Cairns … Ruth Edwards … Stephen Hammond … Steve Brine … David Davis … John Hayes … Iain Duncan Smith … Damian Green … Tim Loughton … Daniel Kawczynski … Andrew Percy … Khalid Mahmood … Laurence Robertson … Richard Fuller … Bob Neill … Royston Smith … Greg Knight … Ben Everitt … Andrew Bridgen … Philip Davies … Graham Brady … Chris Skidmore … Paul Maynard … John Redwood … Andrew Lewer and Dean Russell. Lib Dem leader Ed Davey also worked as a consultant for two companies to benefit his disabled son, though he said yesterday he’d give up the jobs.

Very interesting that that lost is all male... Do the females have more scrupels? Are they not in demand? Or are they busy doing unpaid work in the home/care giving in line with stats around women taking on the majority of those responsibilities?

On the question of what is BoJo doing - it takes a lot of time to come up with four or five slightly incoherent round the houses sentences instead of simply saying 'i was wrong'.

[TobyD]

How many? If *all* outside consultancy work was banned, then around 30 MPs would have to give up outside jobs. The Guardian had a useful list the other day — the MPs working as consultants are: Andrew Mitchell … Julian Smith … Chris Grayling … Mark Garnier … Alun Cairns … Ruth Edwards … Stephen Hammond … Steve Brine … David Davis … John Hayes … Iain Duncan Smith … Damian Green … Tim Loughton … Daniel Kawczynski … Andrew Percy … Khalid Mahmood … Laurence Robertson … Richard Fuller … Bob Neill … Royston Smith … Greg Knight … Ben Everitt … Andrew Bridgen … Philip Davies … Graham Brady … Chris Skidmore … Paul Maynard … John Redwood … Andrew Lewer and Dean Russell. Lib Dem leader Ed Davey also worked as a consultant for two companies to benefit his disabled son, though he said yesterday he’d give up the jobs.

Very interesting that that lost is all male... Do the females have more scrupels? Are they not in demand? Or are they busy doing unpaid work in the home/care giving in line with stats around women taking on the majority of those responsibilities?

On the question of what is BoJo doing - it takes a lot of time to come up with four or five slightly incoherent round the houses sentences instead of simply saying 'i was wrong'.

Interesting question,  although a quick look through the register of interests would tell you that some certainly have outside interests,  just not consulting.

The issue that is most concerning about the current arguments isn't the actual jobs that MPs have,  or indeed how long they spend on them. This is all easily accessible information to anyone who wants to know. 
The worrying thing is that the government tried to change both the rules and their arbiters to save someone's political skin.
Its deeply wrong and slightly reminiscent of the sort of politics that now seems commonplace in the US,  to deny reality when it's not convenient. 

[mrjonathanr]

[q
The issue that is most concerning about the current arguments isn't the actual jobs that MPs have,  or indeed how long they spend on them. This is all easily accessible information to anyone who wants to know

Not sure about that. Firstly, the actual roles can be opaque. Secondly, MPs are supposed to be public servants. After all, what is Hansard online called?
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/

If they are taking money from external sources, you have to ask what’s in it for the employer?

[TobyD]

[q
The issue that is most concerning about the current arguments isn't the actual jobs that MPs have,  or indeed how long they spend on them. This is all easily accessible information to anyone who wants to know

Not sure about that. Firstly, the actual roles can be opaque. Secondly, MPs are supposed to be public servants. After all, what is Hansard online called?
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/

If they are taking money from external sources, you have to ask what’s in it for the employer?

While MPs are definitely public servants, they should be primarily legislators, and scrutinising legislation and government decisions. While some of the jobs look pretty dubious, and ought to be regulated, I still think it's an awful lot more worrying that the government tries to change rules and laws just to suit any old whim. The first might be corrupt, the second is definitely corrupt and borderline autocratic.

[mrjonathanr]

Legislators? Absolutely, that’s the heart of the matter. Private employers spend money on MPs precisely because they are legislators and whether it is to gain knowledge of legislation or to influence it, neither is healthy in a democracy.

MPs should not have two masters.

As to this administration’s desire to tear down any obstacles in its path, we agree on the danger there.

[TobyD]

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/james-ball-boris-johnson-tory-sleaze/

The scene could hardly have been less conducive to confidentiality; a dinner with the prime minister and a number of executives from a friendly national newspaper. At the dinner, hosted by Daily Telegraph columnist Charles Moore at the all-male Garrick Club, Johnson appears to have made the grave error of assuming all those gathered at the table were friends whose discretion could be depended on. For a journalist to make such a mistake demonstrates a worrying lack of judgment.

The New European has been told that the prime minister was asked how family life with his new wife and mother to his child Carrie Symonds was going. His reported answer, that he was experiencing “buyer’s remorse” over the union, astonished some of those present.

Around thirty current and former journalists from the Telegraph were present at the Garrick Club dinner. While many found the Prime Minister’s remark amusing, others were uncomfortable and astonished he should be so indiscreet in such broad company. One dinner guest told The New European: “Clearly he just assumed he was amongst friends, but it was a remarkable thing to say and there were a number of raised eyebrows around the table.”

It is, of course, possible that the remark was made in jest. But even if so, it is yet another display of callous disregard for common decency.

The sense of buyer’s remorse is something plenty of Tory voters and even some Tory MPs are having right now about Boris Johnson, as he fails to stem a tide of sleaze coming from deep inside his party.

I would have assumed that this is made up,  except that number 10 told them not to publish,  but then reneged on an initial threat to sue them for libel.  Its tittle tattle really,  but maybe it just goes to show how cruel and nasty he really is. 

[James Malloch]

Tomorrow it’s the North Yorkshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner election following the recent resignation of Phillip Allott.

Candidate summary is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-59052185

Before I get lost in a rabbit hole trying to work out what the role really is, how much power they have to do what they say they are going to do (one want’s to eliminate county lines drug trafficking, for example, which seems bold but is it really possible?), who to vote for etc. Can anyone provide a bit of an overview?

[battery]

Tomorrow it’s the North Yorkshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner election following the recent resignation of Phillip Allott.

Candidate summary is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-59052185

Before I get lost in a rabbit hole trying to work out what the role really is, how much power they have to do what they say they are going to do (one want’s to eliminate county lines drug trafficking, for example, which seems bold but is it really possible?), who to vote for etc. Can anyone provide a bit of an overview?

Would be interested to know the answer to this myself, out of interest.

Had a quick read of the summaries and they seem much of a muchness except the student paramedic who stood out for the wrong reasons for me - county lines is one very small part of a complex national picture of identification and grooming of children and young people for exploitation. If you want to eliminate county lines then you either go from the top which means eradicating the drugs trade or any illegal trade for that matter because let's face it, some people will always find something to sell! Or you work upwards from the bottom which is about ensuring that children are not living in poverty, they don't experience trauma and adverse childhood experiences, you completely overhall the care system and the education system and ensure that children are not vulnerable to exploitation (and entering the criminal justice system) in the first place.

That statement also states that they want to represent the views of the workforce but given the issues that are beginning to be uncovered within the workforce that ambition makes me uncomfortable.   

[Paul B]

Tomorrow it’s the North Yorkshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner election following the recent resignation of Phillip Allott.

The role is described here:
https://www.apccs.police.uk/role-of-the-pcc/

Personally I'd be considering that the exiting PCC wasn't removed by his party.

I'm currently giving mine quite a hard time asking why the Lancs traffic police seemingly doesn't give a sh*t if you try to squish a cyclist after two very near misses (one involving a car ending up parked in a tree, the other where the driver parked up got out and came looking for a fight  ).