Part Time MPs? Maybe Not For Much Longer

#1
Cyclops is considering stopping MPs carrying out anything other than parliamentary work, as well as the US system where politicians can only earn 15% of their wage outside government and a partial ban in which some jobs will be allowed whilst others will be banned.

From the Independent Link
 
#2
I would like to see this but i suspect its only Cyclops engaging with the common man spin...

If parliment were to implement this idea then i suspect the stampede too get out of the Palace of Westminster would leave it more like the NAAFI on a saturday night after payday.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
Sounds good in principle
It kind of mirrors getting the workshy of their arrses and back to work
MP's are so used to the money and lifestyle they have they willl never vote for anything like this
Be prepared for a lot of "You'll have to treble my wages if I have to give up my second job - afterall I have 6 houses and three mistress's to fund"
 
#4
As most of the NuLiebor cnuts will be looking for new jobs soon,this will not bother either Cyclops or his arrse licking sycophants.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
halo_jones said:
....would leave it more like the NAAFI on a saturday night after payday.
What full of birds in ron hills and white stilleto's trying to get a bit of cokc whilst the old man is on tour? :D
 
#6
the_boy_syrup said:
Sounds good in principle
It kind of mirrors getting the workshy of their arrses and back to work
MP's are so used to the money and lifestyle they have they willl never vote for anything like this
Be prepared for a lot of "You'll have to treble my wages if I have to give up my second job - afterall I have 6 houses and three mistress's to fund"[/quote]

Or boyfriends - and I'm not talking about the female MP's :twisted:
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
vvaannmmaann said:
As most of the NuLiebor cnuts will be looking for new jobs soon,this will not bother either Cyclops or his arrse licking sycophants.
Quite - another grenade handshake waiting for call-me-dave.

Mind you, I wonder if this is the final death-knell for cyclops - they'll be sure to get rid of him now - if they get rid of him, they can quietly shelve this idea, blame the recession on him (it's his fault after all), and carry on ripping us off.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#8
An interesting comment in last weeks shooting times about why labour must win the Glasgow By election guaranteeing Broon his job and ensuring that they will be defeated in the upcoming General Election, personally I selected military coup as my choice but I see his point!
 
#9
If you read the article Biped you would see that less Labour Mps have second jobs than any other of the 'big three'.

Do you think that the Lib Dems or the Tories will be supporting this move if it happens?
 
#10

Am I the only one who thinks this is a bad idea?

60k p/a is not to be sniffed at, but it still won't get you very far living in London. If politicians feel unjustly (and I'm not sure there's more justice in public support of this than there is vengeance) deprived of legal external income then there is no reason why - in tandem with politicians in other countries where secondary incomes are banned - they will not grow corrupt on levels we are not used to in order to sustain an income comparable to others in the nation with similar responsibility.

Certainly, there should be legal restrictions on the number of hours devoted to non-parliamentary work, and to prevent conflicts of interest arising, but there appears very little to recommend such a drastic change as this.

After all, it's being done to 'restore trust'. I see equal or greater mistrust over US officials, so I don't see that this would change anything. A far greater improvement would be to stop forcing us to choose between a confused person in blue, a social worker/teacher/union official with a chip of their shoulder in red, or some sort of lost cause when it comes to elections. The fact of the matter is, we have very few good MPs, and if there were more good ones we'd be less likely to begrudge them a column in The Times or the occasional directorship.
 
#12
Well a lot of labour MP's are going to be very upset at losing their union sponsorship then, a lot of them are in Parliament as a result of unions paying for their campaigns!
 
#13
It seems gone is the time that MP's regardless of which side enetered parliment to make a difference, or too serve society.

Second jobs be they, non executive board posistions or union sponsorship be a conflict of interest.

I dont wish to see parliment become just for the rich however it should not be a place to become rich. Yes cutting their money will no doubt make some leave and they are IMHO those we need the least.
 
#14
Enter the 'loss of potential earnings' compensation allowance, on top of the others allowances? :roll: ( I can almost hear their accountants racking up the 'estimates' now )
 
#15
Can anyone tell me which Labour MPs have their salary augmented by union sponsorship. I have heard of party sponsorship and sponsorship of election campaigns but never of wage sponsorship.
 
#16
ugly said:
An interesting comment in last weeks Shooting Times about why Labour must win the Glasgow By-Election guaranteeing Brown his job and ensuring that they will be defeated in the upcoming General Election, personally I selected military coup as my choice but I see his point!
For all the hoopla surrounding the whole Glasgow by-election how important is it really? Seems like a lot of the so-called significance of the event is being hyped up by the press/commentariat simply for the sake of it. I read an article today that summed up my feelings on the situation much more succinctly than I probably could.


From The Times, July 24, 2008

Warwick, not Glasgow, can hurt Brown

Peter Riddell, Political Briefing

Win or lose in Glasgow, Mr Brown will remain Prime Minister and Alex Salmond will retain the initiative in Scottish politics. But what is being called Warwick 2, after the original deal with the unions there in 2004, will have a crucial bearing on Labour's future. This is less about immediate policies than what is said at the next election and, even more crucially, afterwards, especially if Labour loses. Mr Brown will want to avoid a row by seeking agreement on “family-friendly” policies (though business will watch the costs), on making the economy greener and on improving skills. Mr Brown has opposed any return to the past on union rights and John Hutton, the Business Secretary, is strongly resisting changes to labour laws and regulations that would threaten the competitive position of British business.

There have been two big changes since 2004. First, the Labour leadership is much weaker, politically and financially. The party has huge debts, and has become dependent once again on the unions for the vast bulk of its funding. Secondly, the government side is not united. While there is agreement that no ground should be given on labour laws, there is pressure from some advisers to compromise with the unions on other issues. The key ministerial figures are Pat McFadden, who managed liaison with the unions for Tony Blair, and Ed Miliband, the Cabinet Office Minister who is in charge of Labour's manifesto preparations.

There have been tensions between the officials and ministers friendly to the unions, and Mr McFadden and departmental ministers, keen to ensure no dilution of their reforms. Union leaders do not want to push the Government too far in public for fear of weakening Labour and strengthening the Tories.

The stakes are high for Mr Brown. First, any policies that increase regulations or costs will aggravate relations between the Government and business. Secondly, any impression of giving in to the unions would be immensely damaging to Labour's image and prospects. Expect plenty of fudging, but watch for a shift in the balance of power.
Now that the Labour are in debt up to their eyeballs and pretty much owned financially by the unions it's going to be something like Warwick 2 that ends up destroying Brown and the Labour Party. That and the resulting infighting from something like this or losing the general election in my opinion.
 
#17
The thing about being an MP is that it's a stepping stone to larger salaries and paydays. for 5 years they get to work closely with companies, have a say in their business and make a name for themselves in certain industries.

They'll more than likely also get a government position after their term in one of the quangos or boards, plus they get a very nice pension.

As for everyone running away if this came about, believe me, there will still be thousands wanting these positions due to the benefits and furthering their careers.
 
#18
I have lurked on this site for some time now, but this is the first topic that has caused me to respond.

Far rather than banning MPs from having a second job, Mr Broon should be insisting that only those who have succeeded in a first career should be allowed to stand for Parliament; then at least we would have some people who knew something about the subject they chose to spout forth about, cf Patrick Mercer.
 
#19
Well said Millhouse41 - Far too many MP's and indeed ministers are professional politicians with little or no experience of the real world. They live work and eat together and when they go back to their constituencies they are surrounded by fawning sycophants.

It's not a career path in the Army for someone to get a job as a Generals aid and then become a General without ever going through Sandhurst and twenty years of work experience, yet this is exactly what is happening in parliament.

MP's should have other jobs if only to keep them in touch with what's going on.
 
#20
Invictus_88 said:

Am I the only one who thinks this is a bad idea?

60k p/a is not to be sniffed at, but it still won't get you very far living in London. If politicians feel unjustly (and I'm not sure there's more justice in public support of this than there is vengeance) deprived of legal external income then there is no reason why - in tandem with politicians in other countries where secondary incomes are banned - they will not grow corrupt on levels we are not used to in order to sustain an income comparable to others in the nation with similar responsibility.

Certainly, there should be legal restrictions on the number of hours devoted to non-parliamentary work, and to prevent conflicts of interest arising, but there appears very little to recommend such a drastic change as this.

After all, it's being done to 'restore trust'. I see equal or greater mistrust over US officials, so I don't see that this would change anything. A far greater improvement would be to stop forcing us to choose between a confused person in blue, a social worker/teacher/union official with a chip of their shoulder in red, or some sort of lost cause when it comes to elections. The fact of the matter is, we have very few good MPs, and if there were more good ones we'd be less likely to begrudge them a column in The Times or the occasional directorship.
Plenty of people living and working in the Smoke for a fcuk sight less than £60k per anum.

If they want sympathy, I have a dictionary they can borrow... :roll:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top