The United Kingdom and the Death of Boris Johnson as we know it.

[Fan The Flames]

I think banning second jobs isn't needed, they should be contractually obliged to undertake x amount of hours a year as an MP and be available to local constituencies, unlike the legal luvvy Geoffrey Cox. No wonder he's hiding in the caribbean, he embarrassed himself during Brexit.

[badgerx16]

8 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

I think banning second jobs isn't needed, they should be contractually obliged to undertake x amount of hours a year as an MP and be available to local constituencies, unlike the legal luvvy Geoffrey Cox. No wonder he's hiding in the caribbean, he embarrassed himself during Brexit.

Pay them by the day, pro rata, for each time they attend a sitting in Westminster.

[revolution saint]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Pay them by the day, pro rata, for each time they attend a sitting in Westminster.

I'd treat them like paid employees (which they are).  They're obliged to attend each session just like everyone is obliged to attend work.  Obviously there's exceptions -  sickness, and other parliamentary work but they wouldn't be allowed to not attend without a decent reason.  Failure to attend a certain % without sufficient reason triggers a by election.  Same goes for constituency hours.  It makes a mockery of democracy when half of these buggers (from whichever side they're on) can't be arsed to attend.  It's their job and shouldn't be optional.

[Lord Duckhunter]

28 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

Failure to attend a certain % without sufficient reason triggers a by election.  

What happens if your proposal is granted and a by-election is triggered. If the bloke who failed to reach the required attendance %  wins, and then continues to not attend enough, do we have another by-election or does he get a pass? 

[Sheaf Saint]

33 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What happens if your proposal is granted and a by-election is triggered. If the bloke who failed to reach the required attendance %  wins, and then continues to not attend enough, do we have another by-election or does he get a pass? 

Pretty obvious the idea is that, having shown themselves unfit to act as MP, they would be barred from standing in the by-election and their party would be forced to select another candidate.

[egg]

1 hour ago, revolution saint said:

I'd treat them like paid employees (which they are).  They're obliged to attend each session just like everyone is obliged to attend work.  Obviously there's exceptions -  sickness, and other parliamentary work but they wouldn't be allowed to not attend without a decent reason.  Failure to attend a certain % without sufficient reason triggers a by election.  Same goes for constituency hours.  It makes a mockery of democracy when half of these buggers (from whichever side they're on) can't be arsed to attend.  It's their job and shouldn't be optional.

You can't judge MP's on parliament attendance alone. Spending time with constituents, lobbying and working on their behalf, supporting businesses in their communities, etc, is much more beneficial to those they represent than sitting in the back benches for PMQ's or a debate on something that they will support anyway. 

[revolution saint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

You can't judge MP's on parliament attendance alone. Spending time with constituents, lobbying and working on their behalf, supporting businesses in their communities, etc, is much more beneficial to those they represent than sitting in the back benches for PMQ's or a debate on something that they will support anyway. 

Granted there are other considerations which is why I mentioned other parliamentary business but if they've got time for second jobs then I suspect that certainly isn't representing their constituents interests.

[egg]

Just now, revolution saint said:

Granted there are other considerations which is why I mentioned other parliamentary business but if they've got time for second jobs then I suspect that certainly isn't representing their constituents interests.

I have no issue with second jobs. If I was elected an MP, I'd maintain my professional job and CPD as there's no guarantee of a continuing role as an MP. Where it becomes an issue is where the second job a) creates or potentially creates a conflict of interests, or b) it means that the MP role (in and out of Parliament) is not getting the time it needs. That's all aside of the facts that all ministers have ministerial jobs in addition to their MP role. 

[revolution saint]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

I have no issue with second jobs. If I was elected an MP, I'd maintain my professional job and CPD as there's no guarantee of a continuing role as an MP. Where it becomes an issue is where the second job a) creates or potentially creates a conflict of interests, or b) it means that the MP role (in and out of Parliament) is not getting the time it needs. That's all aside of the facts that all ministers have ministerial jobs in addition to their MP role. 

Exactly.  If you're claiming that parliamentary attendance is compromised by other more important parliamentary and constituency work then it doesn't really leave much time for anything else. 

[egg]

Just now, revolution saint said:

Exactly.  If you're claiming that parliamentary attendance is compromised by other more important parliamentary and constituency work then it doesn't really leave much time for anything else. 

That's a blanket statement. You're suggesting that parliamentary attendance, or lack of, is what mp's should be judged on. If the mp for hartlepool chooses to spend a day in the constituency working some with and for the constituents, and other time in another role, surely that's better than sitting on a train to London and back only to sit there heckling someone in pmq's? 

[revolution saint]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

That's a blanket statement. You're suggesting that parliamentary attendance, or lack of, is what mp's should be judged on. If the mp for hartlepool chooses to spend a day in the constituency working some with and for the constituents, and other time in another role, surely that's better than sitting on a train to London and back only to sit there heckling someone in pmq's? 

Never claimed they should be judged on purely parliamentary attendance.  I said they should attend unless there were other constituency or parliamentary business.  You appear to be arguing that they can't always attend because they have other business as stated above so we're not really in disagreement there.  What I do feel is that it's a full time job.  If they have time for a second job then they're not devoting enough time to their MP job.  If they miss parliamentary sessions without having constituency work etc reasons then they're again not doing their job (basically just skipping those sessions without anything more important with regard to their job as an MP replacing them).  As I said, fundamentally I think it's a full time job and not something they can pick and choose on.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Pretty obvious the idea is that, having shown themselves unfit to act as MP, they would be barred from standing in the by-election and their party would be forced to select another candidate.

 

It’s not up to you or other people to determine how long an MP needs to spend in Parliament. Or who can represent us.  If I stand as a candidate stating I’ll work 3 days as an MP and 2 as a Traffic warden and the good people of Poole return me as their representative, why should you or anyone else decide that the votes somehow invalid. Some of you really struggle with democracy. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, revolution saint said:

Never claimed they should be judged on purely parliamentary attendance.  I said they should attend unless there were other constituency or parliamentary business.  You appear to be arguing that they can't always attend because they have other business as stated above so we're not really in disagreement there.  What I do feel is that it's a full time job.  If they have time for a second job then they're not devoting enough time to their MP job.  If they miss parliamentary sessions without having constituency work etc reasons then they're again not doing their job (basically just skipping those sessions without anything more important with regard to their job as an MP replacing them).  As I said, fundamentally I think it's a full time job and not something they can pick and choose on.

You're focusing on parliamentary attendance on being the primary job of an mp. It isn't, and we'll plainly have to agree to differ on this. For me, an mp spending his / her time sat down travelling to then sit down heckling in parliament or listening to some debate that they won't be involved in is not serving his / her constituents. If that MP uses that time doing actual work in that constituency, or for the constituents do you not agree that (even if part of that day is spent doing another job) that the mp is not doing more for his/her constituents? 

[Lord Duckhunter]

5 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

Never claimed they should be judged on purely parliamentary attendance.  I said they should attend unless there were other constituency or parliamentary business.  You appear to be arguing that they can't always attend because they have other business as stated above so we're not really in disagreement there.  What I do feel is that it's a full time job.  If they have time for a second job then they're not devoting enough time to their MP job.  If they miss parliamentary sessions without having constituency work etc reasons then they're again not doing their job (basically just skipping those sessions without anything more important with regard to their job as an MP replacing them).  As I said, fundamentally I think it's a full time job and not something they can pick and choose on.

In the same post you originally made the statement, you said you’d treat them like paid employees. Employers decide if employees can have a second job. They work for their constituents, if they don’t like it they can sack them. 

[revolution saint]

Just now, egg said:

You're focusing on parliamentary attendance on being the primary job of an mp. It isn't, and we'll plainly have to agree to differ on this. For me, an mp spending his / her time sat down travelling to then sit down heckling in parliament or listening to some debate that they won't be involved in is not serving his / her constituents. If that MP uses that time doing actual work in that constituency, or for the constituents do you not agree that (even if part of that day is spent doing another job) that the mp is not doing more for his/her constituents? 

Jeez, we'll agree to agree.  I really can't see what you're finding to disagree with - we've agreed that parliamentary attendance can sometimes be put aside if other work as an MP takes precedence.  If they're skipping sessions because they can't be arsed or because they've got other jobs then sure we can agree to disagree if that's what you're advocating.  Anyway, I'm leaving it here because just like some MPs - I can't be arsed.

[revolution saint]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

In the same post you originally made the statement, you said you’d treat them like paid employees. Employers decide if employees can have a second job. They work for their constituents, if they don’t like it they can sack them. 

There are terms and conditions applied to all jobs - it's in yours and my contracts of employment.  I'd make it the same for MPs so it's part of the job description to attend unless of other business I've previously mentioned.  Since you're on the subject of democracy though I would also apply the same rule for votes in parliament as to unions when balloting for strike action - it doesn't pass unless they have have a certain % actually turn up and vote. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

7 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

There are terms and conditions applied to all jobs - it's in yours and my contracts of employment.  I'd make it the same for MPs so it's part of the job description to attend unless of other business I've previously mentioned.  Since you're on the subject of democracy though I would also apply the same rule for votes in parliament as to unions when balloting for strike action - it doesn't pass unless they have have a certain % actually turn up and vote. 

Surely it’s for the electorate to decide, not you. What if someone stated they would only be in Parliament for 50% of the time and get voted in, who are you to say they can’t 

[revolution saint]

Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

Surely it’s for the electorate to decide, not you. What if someone stated they would only be in Parliament for 50% of the time and get voted in, who are you to say they can’t 

You can't stand if you're not a British citizen or of the commonwealth or the ROI.  You can't stand if you're under 18.  The electoral commission prevents people doing the job as a job share.  There's already limits on who can and can't stand as an MP.  You're right that people are elected to the job but they're employed by the state - they should have a contract that stipulates what their responsibilities are and if they breach them then they're sacked.

[Sheaf Saint]

46 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Surely it’s for the electorate to decide, not you. What if someone stated they would only be in Parliament for 50% of the time and get voted in, who are you to say they can’t 

Do you think Geoffrey Cox told his constituents that he would be spending most of his time working as a lawyer during his election campaign then?

[Lord Duckhunter]

11 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Do you think Geoffrey Cox told his constituents that he would be spending most of his time working as a lawyer during his election campaign then?

I’ve no idea, but come the next election they’ll be able to decide whether they think  he was a good representative or not. Much better than somebody like you deciding who can and can’t represent them, and deciding how much time they need to devote to the job. 

 

 

[Sheaf Saint]

16 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I’ve no idea, but come the next election they’ll be able to decide whether they think  he was a good representative or not. Much better than somebody like you deciding who can and can’t represent them, and deciding how much time they need to devote to the job. 

 

 

And if they vote him back in, despite the publicity surrounding his aversion to doing any actual representing, they will be absolute mugs.

Why would anyone in their right mind vote for someone who has shown he would rather be engaging in corporate lobbying for his own benefit than bothering to represent the plebs that returned him to parliament?

The sad fact is, they probably will. And that's one of the serious flaws with our parliamentary system. If MPs consider their salary so low that they need to supplement their income that's fine, but there absolutely should be rules about minimum attendance and engagement with constituents to stop them taking the piss. I thought you of all people would be against public servants scamming the taxpayer by drawing a salary from the public purse but not doing the required level of work to earn it.

[egg]

7 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

And if they vote him back in, despite the publicity surrounding his aversion to doing any actual representing, they will be absolute mugs.

Why would anyone in their right mind vote for someone who has shown he would rather be engaging in corporate lobbying for his own benefit than bothering to represent the plebs that returned him to parliament?

The sad fact is, they probably will. And that's one of the serious flaws with our parliamentary system. If MPs consider their salary so low that they need to supplement their income that's fine, but there absolutely should be rules about minimum attendance and engagement with constituents to stop them taking the piss. I thought you of all people would be against public servants scamming the taxpayer by drawing a salary from the public purse but not doing the required level of work to earn it.

True, but that's on them, not you. That's the thing with democracy, we have to respect other people's votes and decisions. I can understand your annoyance, but I am struggling with your lack of respect for the democratic process. 

[Sheaf Saint]

57 minutes ago, egg said:

True, but that's on them, not you. That's the thing with democracy, we have to respect other people's votes and decisions. I can understand your annoyance, but I am struggling with your lack of respect for the democratic process. 

And I'm struggling with the lack of respect many MPs show to their constituents. I of course recognise people's rights to choose but there has to be some boundaries; some lines over which MPs should not be allowed to cross if they want to continue to serve, because they are public servants and if they're drawing a salary but not actually SERVing then that's surely a bigger problem with our democratic process.

I work in the public sector, and if my bosses found out I was shirking my duties and spending a large chunk of my work time doing private contract work instead, I would, quite rightly, be sacked and prevented from re-applying for the role. Why should it be any different for MPs? If anything they should be held to an even higher standard than the rest of us, because as legislators and law makers they are responsible for shaping the moral values of the country they serve and should be leading by example.

[revolution saint]

2 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

And I'm struggling with the lack of respect many MPs show to their constituents. I of course recognise people's rights to choose but there has to be some boundaries; some lines over which MPs should not be allowed to cross if they want to continue to serve, because they are public servants and if they're drawing a salary but not actually SERVing then that's surely a bigger problem with our democratic process.

I work in the public sector, and if my bosses found out I was shirking my duties and spending a large chunk of my work time doing private contract work instead, I would, quite rightly, be sacked and prevented from re-applying for the role. Why should it be any different for MPs? If anything they should be held to an even higher standard than the rest of us, because as legislators and law makers they are responsible for shaping the moral values of the country they serve and should be leading by example.

Exactly, this concern for democracy doesn't seem to extend to concern that elected representatives are actually participating in the democratic process.  There's issues with democracy as I've pointed out.  Not just anyone can stand but there's no concern about that.  Technically MPs can't sit in the House of Commons without taking the oath of allegiance to the Queen - not concerned about that.  The House of Lords is not directly elected - not bothered about that either.  All they seem to be concerned about is preserving the right of MPs to shirk their duties.  Being an MP is a privilege and there should be a check to ensure that democratically elected members actually do their job.

[moonraker]

It’s always fascinates me how certain people use “It’s Democracy” to defend positions that plainly fly in the face of common sense and good governance.  There are already restrictions on who can and can’t stand for parliament and on who can vote.  The self same “it’s democracy” brigade were I am sure against votes for the incarcerated, yet they remain citizens, they have a stake in the governance of the state but are denied a democratic voice.  Our current system was designed for a different era, it is outdated and unfit for purpose.  Yet the JRM cult continually defend an 18th century system.

Edited 10 November, 2021 by moonraker

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, egg said:

True, but that's on them, not you. That's the thing with democracy, we have to respect other people's votes and decisions. I can understand your annoyance, but I am struggling with your lack of respect for the democratic process. 

That's fine as long as all the voters are aware that the person they elect will be treating the job as a part-time hobby. None of his constituents interviewed on the news last night seemed to have been aware or be happy about it. 

 

[kwsaint]

It's all very well saying that it's up to the constituents to make a decision, but many of us treat general elections as an opinion poll on the main parties, rather than consider the individual candidates.  We had that nice Gerry Malone as MP in Winchester for five years in the nineties.  He rarely made an appearance in the constituency and continued to live in London with his family.  He didn't even vote in Winchester in 1997, choosing to make a postal vote in Aberdeen.  He lost by 2 votes in the General Election, but lost by over 21,000 in the subsequent by-election.  Which was when he really found out what we thought of him.

The vast majority of MPs do try to serve their constituents as best they can.  And having second jobs can be very useful, either for keeping skills current (eg medical skills) or for supporting legislation.  But there does need to be a better way of managing this (Independent panel?) so that MPs are not neglecting their primary purpose.  And to leave it to constituents is simply not enough.

The other issue to address is MP's pay.  They do need to be paid more.  I know that the current backbench MP's salary is healthy, but it is not enough to attract the really able.  Many can get much more in the private sector.  In my view, I would rather pay them considerably more, and put much tighter controls on secondary incomes.  Maybe that way we would get a better calibre of MPs who are actually focused on the job in hand

[ecuk268]

When you see that Chris (Failing) Grayling earns £110k a year for 7 hours a week as adviser to Hutchinson Ports, it makes you wonder why.

This was the guy who didn't seem to realise that ferry companies actually had to have ships.

[Golactico]

Speaking of Winchester, I contacted the current MP, Steve Brine, to ask him why he voted for the Standards amendment. I got some honesty in his reply that the Govt had made a mess of it, but also a whole load of twaddle about the Owen Paterson case being completely separate from the desire to reform the standards regime. Curiously, he also sought to completely distance himself from Paterson, saying that he didn't know him, so why would he want to get him off the hook?! 

A quick look at the members interests register told me all I needed to know really. Brine has 3 paid consultancies declared, paying a total of about £60k. Curiously, he has also declared relatively small amounts of income from completing a large number of surveys. Wish I had time to sit around filling out surveys to pull in a bit of extra dosh!

[sadoldgit]

22 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Question for you seeing as you mentioned MP's pay; what group of people do you think MPs should get parity with ? As an example, senior civil servants and local government departmental heads earn much more than an MP's basic salary.

Good question. I don’t know about comparable pay to other civil service jobs but MPs do have their salaries reviewed by an independent body and would assume they factor this stuff in.

I don’t think that the basic pay of £82k plus very healthy expenses is too bad. I also don’t think that not having a guaranteed job for life is a problem. No one does and they know what they are signing up for. Many people sign up for short term contracts not knowing exactly is going to happen at the end of them.

The issue of people voting for a part rather than a person is a big problem. There are many poor performing MPs who get elected in safe seats.

Unlike HGV drivers and nurses, there is never a shortage of people putting themselves forward as candidates. The pay and conditions can’t be that bad.

There is something seriously wrong with the system if people have got enough time on their hands to do two or more jobs. Either they are not doing what they are supposed to be doing or they don’t have enough work to do, in which case, we need to ensure that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing or give them bigger constituencies and more work.

I appreciate that many non ministerial MPs sit on lots of committees etc and that there is more to the job than just sitting in the chamber yelling here here now and again, but, for me, an MP’s job needs to be full time and well structured so that the people who vote for them get value for money. I have signed contracts before that prevent me from taking on another job. Why should this be any different? 
 

As for getting a better calibre of MP if you pay more, I don’t think that is necessarily the case. You are more likely to get someone who is just doing the job for the money. I would rather pay a reasonable wage (which I think they get) and appoint candidates who want to do it because they want to serve the electorate and want to make a difference. Parliament is full of career politicians. I want my MP to care about improving the lives of their constituents and not be more concerned with their bank balances and how they can use their positions to make more money.

The world is changing rapidly, we could do with a complete overhaul of or electoral processes and they way we run our Parliament so that it is a fit system for world which is very different now to the one this Parliament was designed for.

22 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Isn’t being an MP & Prime Minister two different jobs? 

 

I believe that his staff take care of his constituency matters so it isn’t an issue. They probably make a better job of it too.

[CB Fry]

5 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I’ve no idea, but come the next election they’ll be able to decide whether they think  he was a good representative or not. Much better than somebody like you deciding who can and can’t represent them, and deciding how much time they need to devote to the job. 

 

 

Disingenuous nonsense but you already know that.

Basically what you're saying is any MP in a safe seat can do whatever they hell they like and then at the end of a four/five year term take inivitable reelection as the public's blessing to carry on.

And even by some miracle they do lose their safe seat  well they've creamed it for four or five years anyway so whats the problem. Winning a seat is basically the starting pistol to fill your boots right up until the next election is called, no questions asked.

Great system.

Edited 10 November, 2021 by CB Fry

[moonraker]

22 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Disingenuous nonsense but you already know that.

Basically what you're saying is any MP in a safe seat can do whatever they hell they like and then at the end of a four/five year term take inivitable reelection as the public's blessing to carry on.

And even by some miracle they do lose their safe seat  well they've creamed it for four or five years anyway so whats the problem. Winning a seat is basically the starting pistol to fill your boots right up until the next election is called, no questions asked.

Great system.

For right leaning voters defending the indefensible is the norm.  No matter how obvious it may be that a particular position is untenable, denial, obfuscation, lies and deflection are well practised lines.  Trump and Johnson have won elections using this approach, the problem is that the electorate eventually wake up to it, unfortunately by the time they do a great deal of damage has been done.  The other sad fact is those who are ideologically hard wired can never acknowledge the corruption, as if admitting a mistake is a weakness and not as it is in reality a strength.

Edited 10 November, 2021 by moonraker

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

 

I believe that his staff take care of his constituency matters so it isn’t an issue. They probably make a better job of it too.

So an mp can have 2 jobs as long as their staff take care of constituency matters? Or does that apply only to Boris.

Could my snap dragon be an mp and continue to work 1 day a week in the hospital, with her staff looking after constituency matters on that day, is that ok or not?

What if she wanted to volunteer at the hospital 1 day, is that allowed or is it only paid work you’d ban

 

Are MP’s allowed to write books, are they allowed a radio show a couple of hours a week, can the referee lower league football matches, can they own a business? 

 

Typical leftie looking at how they want the world rather than as it is. You’re trying to legislate away bad behaviour, rather than let the voters decide. 

[sadoldgit]

8 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

So an mp can have 2 jobs as long as their staff take care of constituency matters? Or does that apply only to Boris.

Could my snap dragon be an mp and continue to work 1 day a week in the hospital, with her staff looking after constituency matters on that day, is that ok or not?

What if she wanted to volunteer at the hospital 1 day, is that allowed or is it only paid work you’d ban

 

Are MP’s allowed to write books, are they allowed a radio show a couple of hours a week, can the referee lower league football matches, can they own a business? 

 

Typical leftie looking at how they want the world rather than as it is. You’re trying to legislate away bad behaviour, rather than let the voters decide. 

Typical Duckie, just trying to find an argument with anyone left of Attila the Hun. The Prime Minister’s position is slightly different to other MP’s, wouldn’t you agree? Silly question really, of course you will find a reason to disagree.

If it were Labour or LibDem MPs involved you would be all over it like a rash.

if “bad behaviour” involves breaking the rules why should the voters decide? Why aren’t they just sacked as they would be in any other job. The problem is that you don’t have to do the job very well to keep it. Harold Shipman would probably have been elected in my constituency if he was a Tory.

“How the world is” is shit, so why not change it, or try and change it? Trouble is, this shit world suits you just fine doesn’t it Duckie.

 

[moonraker]

18 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

So an mp can have 2 jobs as long as their staff take care of constituency matters? Or does that apply only to Boris.

Could my snap dragon be an mp and continue to work 1 day a week in the hospital, with her staff looking after constituency matters on that day, is that ok or not?

What if she wanted to volunteer at the hospital 1 day, is that allowed or is it only paid work you’d ban

 

Are MP’s allowed to write books, are they allowed a radio show a couple of hours a week, can the referee lower league football matches, can they own a business? 

 

Typical leftie looking at how they want the world rather than as it is. You’re trying to legislate away bad behaviour, rather than let the voters decide. 

I rest my case reference the ideologically hard wired.

 

[Mystic Force]

I would have more sympathy for the second job if for example they worked the overnight shift at the petrol station or operated a forklift at a warehouse, but they are generally doing very little actual work. Need some extra dosh how about doing some landscaping as a contractor or dig some ditches, work at a call center. IF you are in a profession that requires continuous work to remain certified well that's seems okay to a limit, but you could not be a long haul airline pilot and expect to represent people.

I think it is time we realise that we have a democracy and therefore a choice and make some of these people a bit more accountable to their employers.

[ecuk268]

I didn't realise that some of these MPs are really struggling.

https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=6363414150395640

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Typical Duckie, just trying to find an argument with anyone left of Attila the Hun. The Prime Minister’s position is slightly different to other MP’s, wouldn’t you agree? Silly question really, of course you will find a reason to disagree.

If it were Labour or LibDem MPs involved you would be all over it like a rash.

if “bad behaviour” involves breaking the rules why should the voters decide? Why aren’t they just sacked as they would be in any other job. The problem is that you don’t have to do the job very well to keep it. Harold Shipman would probably have been elected in my constituency if he was a Tory.

“How the world is” is shit, so why not change it, or try and change it? Trouble is, this shit world suits you just fine doesn’t it Duckie.

 

Firstly, Labour and Lib Dem’s are involved. Lammy got paid for a radio show, Starmer worked for the Gib Government. This is not a party political debate, so stop with your pony on that score.

Secondly, why is the PM different, or the chancellor or the Foreign Sec, these people have 2 jobs. If they can do that and look after their constituents why can’t Lanny do his radio show and look after them? 
 

Thirdly, if Cox broke the rules, then he will be sanctioned. I was talking about behaviour within the rules. If Cox earns £5 million a year, doesn’t attend Parliament but doesn’t break the rules that’s between him and his electorate. That’s still bad behaviour IMO. 

Fourthly, it’s a bit classless bringing Shipman into it, but that tells me a lot about the type of person you are. 

 

[revolution saint]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Firstly, Labour and Lib Dem’s are involved. Lammy got paid for a radio show, Starmer worked for the Gib Government. This is not a party political debate, so stop with your pony on that score.

Secondly, why is the PM different, or the chancellor or the Foreign Sec, these people have 2 jobs. If they can do that and look after their constituents why can’t Lanny do his radio show and look after them? 
 

Thirdly, if Cox broke the rules, then he will be sanctioned. I was talking about behaviour within the rules. If Cox earns £5 million a year, doesn’t attend Parliament but doesn’t break the rules that’s between him and his electorate. That’s still bad behaviour IMO. 

Fourthly, it’s a bit classless bringing Shipman into it, but that tells me a lot about the type of person you are. 

 

OK, so here's how it works.  MPs have to clock so many parliamentary sessions, votes and constituency hours into each parliamentary year.  If they've got other parliamentary business like being a minister or prime minister, select committee member then that's fine - that's a valid reason for not attending and is taken into consideration.  Sickness and compassionate reasons are too cos I ain't a heartless bastard.  If you haven't clocked in your hours because you simply can't be arsed or you've got other outside jobs then you go before something like the standards committee to explain why.  It'll be cross party with a neutral chair.  If you fail to convince them then you're subject to a by election and barred from standing for the lifetime of the parliament.  It's a check see?  What it does is ensure that each constituency has a member who isn't just on one big old gravy train and couldn't give a toss.  In fact it's really not that different to the standards committee so I'm not sure why anyone would be particularly against it - all it would do is weed out those MPs who aren't devoting enough time to their main job.  Hopefully that's clear but if you've got any more questions then give me a shout and I'll see what I can do.

[egg]

9 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

And I'm struggling with the lack of respect many MPs show to their constituents. I of course recognise people's rights to choose but there has to be some boundaries; some lines over which MPs should not be allowed to cross if they want to continue to serve, because they are public servants and if they're drawing a salary but not actually SERVing then that's surely a bigger problem with our democratic process.

I work in the public sector, and if my bosses found out I was shirking my duties and spending a large chunk of my work time doing private contract work instead, I would, quite rightly, be sacked and prevented from re-applying for the role. Why should it be any different for MPs? If anything they should be held to an even higher standard than the rest of us, because as legislators and law makers they are responsible for shaping the moral values of the country they serve and should be leading by example.

You're missing your point that i was responding to. You said And if they vote him back in, despite the publicity surrounding his aversion to doing any actual representing, they will be absolute mugs.

If the public re - elect Cox knowing he's a lazy bastard, so be it. I agree that they'd be mugs, but it'd be their choice and like it or not, that's democracy. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

35 minutes ago, egg said:

 

If the public re - elect Cox knowing he's a lazy bastard, so be it. I agree that they'd be mugs, but it'd be their choice and like it or not, that's democracy. 

Spot on. 

[Sheaf Saint]

51 minutes ago, egg said:

You're missing your point that i was responding to. You said And if they vote him back in, despite the publicity surrounding his aversion to doing any actual representing, they will be absolute mugs.

If the public re - elect Cox knowing he's a lazy bastard, so be it. I agree that they'd be mugs, but it'd be their choice and like it or not, that's democracy. 

OK point taken, but let me ask you this... 

Imagine a scenario where your MP gets elected and proceeds to absolutely take the piss, barely ever turn up to debates/votes, never shows his face in his constituency and generally does nothing to earn his MP's salary. 

Are you telling me you're happy that there is no system in place to stop that from happening 'because democracy'? 

[Winnersaint]

8 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

OK point taken, but let me ask you this... 

Imagine a scenario where your MP gets elected and proceeds to absolutely take the piss, barely ever turn up to debates/votes, never shows his face in his constituency and generally does nothing to earn his MP's salary. 

Are you telling me you're happy that there is no system in place to stop that from happening 'because democracy'? 

John Redwood’s been doing it for years here.

[revolution saint]

I presume the 'democracy brigade' will be tackling the problems of an unelected head of state, the right to stand as an MP regardless of nationality, voting rights for under 18s, the right to share the job of MP, a directly elected house of lords, abolition of the 50%+1 anti union law and abolition of the oath of loyalty next.  They're all anti democratic.  Otherwise it's just an excuse to defend lazy, disinterested and incompetent MPs.

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Firstly, Labour and Lib Dem’s are involved. Lammy got paid for a radio show, Starmer worked for the Gib Government. This is not a party political debate, so stop with your pony on that score.

Secondly, why is the PM different, or the chancellor or the Foreign Sec, these people have 2 jobs. If they can do that and look after their constituents why can’t Lanny do his radio show and look after them? 
 

Thirdly, if Cox broke the rules, then he will be sanctioned. I was talking about behaviour within the rules. If Cox earns £5 million a year, doesn’t attend Parliament but doesn’t break the rules that’s between him and his electorate. That’s still bad behaviour IMO. 

Fourthly, it’s a bit classless bringing Shipman into it, but that tells me a lot about the type of person you are. 

 

Re your fourth comment Duckie, suddenly you are displaying previously unseen levels of sensitivy. Could it be that you are finally becoming “woke” 😳?

As for the PM having a second job as an MP, as you are fully aware, the two are inexorably linked. We are not talking about him about doing something completely different from his day job, but then you know that they are two different things don’t you and you are just looking to create an argument where one doesn’t exist.

[egg]

28 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

OK point taken, but let me ask you this... 

Imagine a scenario where your MP gets elected and proceeds to absolutely take the piss, barely ever turn up to debates/votes, never shows his face in his constituency and generally does nothing to earn his MP's salary. 

Are you telling me you're happy that there is no system in place to stop that from happening 'because democracy'? 

You're confusing your own argument. My point is a simple one - if the public re elect this idiot they are daft to do so, but they can. If your question is whether proven lazy MP's should be allowed to stand for election, yes, they should be able to. It is then the right of the parliamentary party to either put that lazy son forward or not, and if they do, then it is the right of the public to either select him or not. One would hope that the public would have sense to say no but it's a simple concept this democracy. 

[egg]

18 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

I presume the 'democracy brigade' will be tackling the problems of an unelected head of state, the right to stand as an MP regardless of nationality, voting rights for under 18s, the right to share the job of MP, a directly elected house of lords, abolition of the 50%+1 anti union law and abolition of the oath of loyalty next.  They're all anti democratic.  Otherwise it's just an excuse to defend lazy, disinterested and incompetent MPs.

Eh? What's that got to do with the public deciding whether or not to vote for a parliamentary candidate? Are you really advocating a system where lazy MP's can't stand for parliament? Why not leave the choice to the public, or is a nanny state your preference? 

[revolution saint]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

Eh? What's that got to do with the public deciding whether or not to vote for a parliamentary candidate? Are you really advocating a system where lazy MP's can't stand for parliament? Why not leave the choice to the public, or is a nanny state your preference? 

Pretty simple really. I listed a load of things that are without question undemocratic. As someone who believes in democracy in everything you must also be up for correcting those things as well. Didn’t really think that needed explaining. Maybe I phrased it wrong. As for what I was proposing see my earlier post where I go into a bit more detail.

[egg]

4 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

Pretty simple really. I listed a load of things that are without question undemocratic. As someone who believes in democracy in everything you must also be up for correcting those things as well. Didn’t really think that needed explaining. Maybe I phrased it wrong. As for what I was proposing see my earlier post where I go into a bit more detail.

I've read your earlier post. The linking of all manner of things to this issue takes the discussion nowhere. Leaving the public to decide whether they vote for lazy, disinterested and incompetent MP's is not "an excuse to defend lazy, disinterested and incompetent MPs". I'm not defending him, he's a disgrace and I wouldn't vote for him (I wouldn't vote any tory) but I'm saying the public can judge him if he's put forward as a candidate...yep, that's democracy. 

[revolution saint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

I've read your earlier post. The linking of all manner of things to this issue takes the discussion nowhere. Leaving the public to decide whether they vote for lazy, disinterested and incompetent MP's is not "an excuse to defend lazy, disinterested and incompetent MPs". I'm not defending him, he's a disgrace and I wouldn't vote for him (I wouldn't vote any tory) but I'm saying the public can judge him if he's put forward as a candidate...yep, that's democracy. 

It’s linked because it shows that there are plenty of things that are undemocratic. The fact is you seem to only be bothered about one element that would serve to protect lazy MPs. You also don’t seem much concerned with having a working democracy, one where everyone regardless of how they voted has a representative that works for them.