LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
TheBigBean said:
It is precisely this sort of gotcha that means most sensible people don't become MPs. Yet you celebrate the gotcha and bemoan the MPs.
What was wrong with his maths?
It would be easy to avoid, like all the MPs who declined the invitation. It's really not hard. Can you not see why I should be amused that it should be these two?
At least Hancock's pitch was clear, while Kwarteng couldn't be fussed whether it was dollars or pounds, then seemed hazy about whether his £12k pa or £10,000 per day would be the better option.0 -
Well, at least you can be outraged that Angela Rayner is outraged.
0 -
It's easy to avoid if you are not interested in the work. I occasionally talk to chancers.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:It is precisely this sort of gotcha that means most sensible people don't become MPs. Yet you celebrate the gotcha and bemoan the MPs.
What was wrong with his maths?
It would be easy to avoid, like all the MPs who declined the invitation. It's really not hard. Can you not see why I should be amused that it should be these two?
At least Hancock's pitch was clear, while Kwarteng couldn't be fussed whether it was dollars or pounds, then seemed hazy about whether his £12k pa or £10,000 per day would be the better option.
I thought Kwarteng stated a monthly figure based on six days of work a year. She then started quoting daily figures, so he swapped to those. All very tedious.
0 -
Pay them more and make it that they can only earn money via being an MP.
They can have some rule that any investments etc are locked up and frozen for the duration of their time as an MP, with reasonable exceptions that can be applied for and examined, to avoid any insider trading etc.0 -
We've discussed this before. If people want to elect a farmer/doctor/lawyer to represent them then I don't have a problem. It's also hard to argue that an MP can be in government and effectively represent their constituents, but that a backbench MP can't do anything elserick_chasey said:Pay them more and make it that they can only earn money via being an MP.
They can have some rule that any investments etc are locked up and frozen for the duration of their time as an MP, with reasonable exceptions that can be applied for and examined, to avoid any insider trading etc.
Where it is more problematic is when MPs are being paid to do something that that they wouldn't be if they weren't an MP.0 -
It's fairly clear that if you occupy one of the high ranking ministerial positions, you won't have time to do a lot of local MP gumpf.
Similarly if your local MP is the speaker, your representation is somewhat diminished.
I don't think the answer to these issues is more backbench MPs with second jobs.0 -
For the same reason we don’t have direct democracy, we can have sensible rules that reduce the ease of corruption.TheBigBean said:
We've discussed this before. If people want to elect a farmer/doctor/lawyer to represent them then I don't have a problem. It's also hard to argue that an MP can be in government and effectively represent their constituents, but that a backbench MP can't do anything elserick_chasey said:Pay them more and make it that they can only earn money via being an MP.
They can have some rule that any investments etc are locked up and frozen for the duration of their time as an MP, with reasonable exceptions that can be applied for and examined, to avoid any insider trading etc.
Where it is more problematic is when MPs are being paid to do something that that they wouldn't be if they weren't an MP.
I know you’re not fussed about corruption (your Brexit “honesty box”) but corruption erodes the foundation of democracy and go on for long enough and you end up in an authoritarian state. Plus it really wrecks a country and its economy.
So I think in order to avoid it even looking like MPs are behaving too self interestedly, it makes sense to deal with that sensibly.
It doesn’t work if the public don’t trust MPs and I think allowing other incomes does exactly that
0 -
Parliament doesn't sit on a Friday specifically to allow time for constituency issues. Granted ministers have a busier diary but they all have constituency office staff to assist them as well as Westminster staff. That said, some back benchers and even junior ministers plainly can't be arsed and would much rather be a telly celeb.Jezyboy said:It's fairly clear that if you occupy one of the high ranking ministerial positions, you won't have time to do a lot of local MP gumpf.
Similarly if your local MP is the speaker, your representation is somewhat diminished.
I don't think the answer to these issues is more backbench MPs with second jobs.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Still not listening to the experts.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65079772
I guess at least Gove is consistent in not listening to experts.
But ultimately this boils down to a new law to tackle a problem when there isn’t enough capacity in the police for enforcement of the laws we have.0 -
You always seem to miss the point of a post. I'm also against the erosion of democracy.rick_chasey said:
For the same reason we don’t have direct democracy, we can have sensible rules that reduce the ease of corruption.TheBigBean said:
We've discussed this before. If people want to elect a farmer/doctor/lawyer to represent them then I don't have a problem. It's also hard to argue that an MP can be in government and effectively represent their constituents, but that a backbench MP can't do anything elserick_chasey said:Pay them more and make it that they can only earn money via being an MP.
They can have some rule that any investments etc are locked up and frozen for the duration of their time as an MP, with reasonable exceptions that can be applied for and examined, to avoid any insider trading etc.
Where it is more problematic is when MPs are being paid to do something that that they wouldn't be if they weren't an MP.
I know you’re not fussed about corruption (your Brexit “honesty box”) but corruption erodes the foundation of democracy and go on for long enough and you end up in an authoritarian state. Plus it really wrecks a country and its economy.
So I think in order to avoid it even looking like MPs are behaving too self interestedly, it makes sense to deal with that sensibly.
It doesn’t work if the public don’t trust MPs and I think allowing other incomes does exactly that1 -
it's blatant rah rah distraction material for their chums in the press to pump out to the gullible, same with the other bilge about punishing anti-social behaviourmorstar said:Still not listening to the experts.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65079772
I guess at least Gove is consistent in not listening to experts.
But ultimately this boils down to a new law to tackle a problem when there isn’t enough capacity in the police for enforcement of the laws we have.
we already have laws for most of this, offenders know there's little chance of being caught
it'd need massive increases in police/equivalent on the streets together with resources to determine and enforce punishment
it's a societal problem, grown over decades, not an enforcement one
that's not wokery, they can birch the scumbags for all i care, but we need politicians willing/able to fix the causes, which is far harder than spouting drivel in a desperate attempt to garner votes
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Dan Hodges in the MoS finally catches up with (most) Cakestoppers in his loathing of Johnson.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11902875/DAN-HODGES-doesnt-matter-Harman-dons-executioners-cap-Boris.html
Just in case you don't want to feel dirty by clicking on a DM link...So what precisely is the point of Boris Johnson now?
He has no chance of replacing Rishi Sunak. He is supposed to be the man who can reach sections of the electorate other Tory politicians can only dream of reaching, yet is no longer confident he can even retain the support of his own constituents.
If Sunak miraculously manages to turn the political tide, there is no prospect of Johnson being offered a return to government. And if he can't, Johnson will have no stomach – nor the finances – for an extended spell in opposition.
Indeed, there is only one political role Boris Johnson could possibly perform with credibility now. Acting as a Fifth Columnist for Sir Keir Starmer. Sniping. Agitating. Undermining. Boris and his dwindling entourage could fulfil that function with aplomb. But handing Sir Keir the keys to No 10 is all they can achieve now, because their own chances of retaking ownership of them have gone.
There is only one good service Boris Johnson can render his party and his country. He shouldn't wait for the verdict of Harriet Harman. He shouldn't wait for the verdict of the House. He shouldn't wait for the verdict of the people of Uxbridge. He should just go.0 -
But having two jobs gives the impression of corruptionTheBigBean said:
You always seem to miss the point of a post. I'm also against the erosion of democracy.rick_chasey said:
For the same reason we don’t have direct democracy, we can have sensible rules that reduce the ease of corruption.TheBigBean said:
We've discussed this before. If people want to elect a farmer/doctor/lawyer to represent them then I don't have a problem. It's also hard to argue that an MP can be in government and effectively represent their constituents, but that a backbench MP can't do anything elserick_chasey said:Pay them more and make it that they can only earn money via being an MP.
They can have some rule that any investments etc are locked up and frozen for the duration of their time as an MP, with reasonable exceptions that can be applied for and examined, to avoid any insider trading etc.
Where it is more problematic is when MPs are being paid to do something that that they wouldn't be if they weren't an MP.
I know you’re not fussed about corruption (your Brexit “honesty box”) but corruption erodes the foundation of democracy and go on for long enough and you end up in an authoritarian state. Plus it really wrecks a country and its economy.
So I think in order to avoid it even looking like MPs are behaving too self interestedly, it makes sense to deal with that sensibly.
It doesn’t work if the public don’t trust MPs and I think allowing other incomes does exactly that
and gives lots of room for corruption, so why have it?
The days of gentlemen aristos opining on things now and then is long over.
0 -
rick_chasey said:
The days of gentlemen aristos opining on things now and then is long over.
Apart from the House of Lords (currently).0 -
Two jobs may mean less time for constituents but doesn't give the impression of corruption unless the job is only given to MPs.rick_chasey said:
But having two jobs gives the impression of corruptionTheBigBean said:
You always seem to miss the point of a post. I'm also against the erosion of democracy.rick_chasey said:
For the same reason we don’t have direct democracy, we can have sensible rules that reduce the ease of corruption.TheBigBean said:
We've discussed this before. If people want to elect a farmer/doctor/lawyer to represent them then I don't have a problem. It's also hard to argue that an MP can be in government and effectively represent their constituents, but that a backbench MP can't do anything elserick_chasey said:Pay them more and make it that they can only earn money via being an MP.
They can have some rule that any investments etc are locked up and frozen for the duration of their time as an MP, with reasonable exceptions that can be applied for and examined, to avoid any insider trading etc.
Where it is more problematic is when MPs are being paid to do something that that they wouldn't be if they weren't an MP.
I know you’re not fussed about corruption (your Brexit “honesty box”) but corruption erodes the foundation of democracy and go on for long enough and you end up in an authoritarian state. Plus it really wrecks a country and its economy.
So I think in order to avoid it even looking like MPs are behaving too self interestedly, it makes sense to deal with that sensibly.
It doesn’t work if the public don’t trust MPs and I think allowing other incomes does exactly that
and gives lots of room for corruption, so why have it?
The days of gentlemen aristos opining on things now and then is long over.0 -
Don't you see the inherent corruption illustrated by Led By Donkeys? Specifically targeting MPs, those apparent representatives of their constituents.TheBigBean said:
Two jobs may mean less time for constituents but doesn't give the impression of corruption unless the job is only given to MPs.rick_chasey said:
But having two jobs gives the impression of corruptionTheBigBean said:
You always seem to miss the point of a post. I'm also against the erosion of democracy.rick_chasey said:
For the same reason we don’t have direct democracy, we can have sensible rules that reduce the ease of corruption.TheBigBean said:
We've discussed this before. If people want to elect a farmer/doctor/lawyer to represent them then I don't have a problem. It's also hard to argue that an MP can be in government and effectively represent their constituents, but that a backbench MP can't do anything elserick_chasey said:Pay them more and make it that they can only earn money via being an MP.
They can have some rule that any investments etc are locked up and frozen for the duration of their time as an MP, with reasonable exceptions that can be applied for and examined, to avoid any insider trading etc.
Where it is more problematic is when MPs are being paid to do something that that they wouldn't be if they weren't an MP.
I know you’re not fussed about corruption (your Brexit “honesty box”) but corruption erodes the foundation of democracy and go on for long enough and you end up in an authoritarian state. Plus it really wrecks a country and its economy.
So I think in order to avoid it even looking like MPs are behaving too self interestedly, it makes sense to deal with that sensibly.
It doesn’t work if the public don’t trust MPs and I think allowing other incomes does exactly that
and gives lots of room for corruption, so why have it?
The days of gentlemen aristos opining on things now and then is long over.
It's almost like dUK needs a written constitution rather than some 'gentlemen's' handshake agreements to 'do what's right'.
Nah, f off and forelock tug you plebs, I've got stables to heat on expenses.
0 -
halve the number of members of parliament, pay the remainder as full time employees of the people (not the crown) and subject to criminal sanction for lying in public office
abolish the house of lords, including stripping titles and other ruritanian nonsense
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
orraloon said:
Don't you see the inherent corruption illustrated by Led By Donkeys? Specifically targeting MPs, those apparent representatives of their constituents.TheBigBean said:
Two jobs may mean less time for constituents but doesn't give the impression of corruption unless the job is only given to MPs.0 -
Disagree. If I’m running a water treatment company on the side and I’m voting on water pollution rules (to take an example) I can’t see how that isn’t corrupt?0
-
Do you think car owning MPs should be able to vote on rules for cars?rick_chasey said:Disagree. If I’m running a water treatment company on the side and I’m voting on water pollution rules (to take an example) I can’t see how that isn’t corrupt?
Should relatives of MPs also not be able to work?0 -
I think the jobs of relatives of MPs should be vetted periodically to make sure there is no conflict, yes. For sure. If I put someone onto a board, we need to declare what their other halves in case there is a conflict. If their other half works for a rival for example, the board would have to look at it in more detail and decide if it's a conflict or not.TheBigBean said:
Do you think car owning MPs should be able to vote on rules for cars?rick_chasey said:Disagree. If I’m running a water treatment company on the side and I’m voting on water pollution rules (to take an example) I can’t see how that isn’t corrupt?
Should relatives of MPs also not be able to work?
And I think being a board member of say, a "too big to fail" enterprise carries materially more opportunities for corruption and lining of one's own pockets than owning a type of transport.0 -
0
-
The problem is that everybody needs to lie and lure them into calling an early election.0
-
Strangely that cheers me up.briantrumpet said:Obviously too early to tell.
As you say it is too early to say so the only purpose would be to weed out badgeshaggers from future surveys0 -
Edited to clarify I was cheered up by how few people thought he had done well. The people who think he had done badly in the less than three months should be stripped of the votesurrey_commuter said:
Strangely that cheers me up.briantrumpet said:Obviously too early to tell.
As you say it is too early to say so the only purpose would be to weed out badgeshaggers from future surveys0 -
It feels so odd to me to see the small boats issue in that list.0
-
Jezyboy said:
It feels so odd to me to see the small boats issue in that list.
It's a topic that's been created by Tories' choices (Brexit, shutting off legal routes, and slow-walking dealing with claims), and now they've turned it into a slogan for Braverman. It has all the hallmarks of being chosen through focus groups, and amplified for pollitical gain (whilst ignoring the human cost).0 -
Amazed anyone takes the pledges seriously. They're not much more than promising to roll down hill.surrey_commuter said:
Strangely that cheers me up.briantrumpet said:Obviously too early to tell.
As you say it is too early to say so the only purpose would be to weed out badgeshaggers from future surveys1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
So it’s an issue they’ve deliberately made a political football and they are seen to be doing even worse at it than everything else. You’d think they’d make their big policy announcements on things they can actually deliver.briantrumpet said:Jezyboy said:It feels so odd to me to see the small boats issue in that list.
It's a topic that's been created by Tories' choices (Brexit, shutting off legal routes, and slow-walking dealing with claims), and now they've turned it into a slogan for Braverman. It has all the hallmarks of being chosen through focus groups, and amplified for pollitical gain (whilst ignoring the human cost).0 -
