bickster Posted November 10, 2021 Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2021 Just now, Genie said: Its probably another which looks completely wrong, but probably doesn’t break any rules. I'm not sure you understand the rules of how the legal profession and especially silks work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted November 10, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted November 10, 2021 While we are talking about additional earnings (and I know he’s not a Tory)… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted November 10, 2021 Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2021 34 minutes ago, bickster said: Nonsense. What if that business has been in the family for generations and employs a lot of your relatives and other people in your constituency? Should you be forced to sell it to become an MP? It really isn't as simple as you paint. If you have a job running a business, why are you looking for another job? No one gets forced to become an MP. If they had a job running a business, then took up a full time job as an accountant at a firm in London they'd be expected at work in London every day. Being an MP isn't a title, it's a job, you apply for it and if you get it it's your job. If you already have a job that's important to you, why the f*** would you be applying? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 10, 2021 Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2021 3 minutes ago, choffer said: While we are talking about additional earnings (and I know he’s not a Tory)… or even an MP 1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said: If you have a job running a business, why are you looking for another job? No one gets forced to become an MP. If they had a job running a business, then took up a full time job as an accountant at a firm in London they'd be expected at work in London every day. Being an MP isn't a title, it's a job, you apply for it and if you get it it's your job. If you already have a job that's important to you, why the f*** would you be applying? Have you seen how little actual talent there is in parliament? Banning 2nd incomes would result in even less talent being involved (on all sides) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted November 10, 2021 Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2021 Just now, bickster said: Have you seen how little actual talent there is in parliament? Banning 2nd incomes would result in even less talent being involved (on all sides) I dunno about that - I think it's indicative of how regular people don't get to be considered - there's a cabal of public schoolboys and people who already have positions in hedge funds, family business's and land ownership. Ruling out any kind of second "job" that makes being an MP a hobby might be a good step in the direction of a meritocracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 19 minutes ago, bickster said: I'm not sure where the clear and obvious conflicts of interest are. He's a QC, he presents a legal argument to a court as dictated by his clients wishes, which of course he can advise upon but in this instance his was presenting an argument AGAINST the UK Government of which he is a part of. If his clients had an issue with his impartiality, it is a concern for them not the British public. I'm also fairly sure that a practicing QC cannot actually turn down a client The conflict of interest is absolutely obvious, and if it is impossible for a practicing QC to turn down a job which contains a conflict of interest then that is an extremely good argument for making a rule that someone cannot be an MP and a practicing QC at the same time. QCs can take career breaks. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 18 minutes ago, bickster said: I'm not sure you understand the rules of how the legal profession and especially silks work I don’t understand how the legal profession works, but I do understand that if you’re working for and getting paid by both sides then it’s a problem. By all means do the legal stuff on the side, but if it’s directly connected to the government then he should pass the work up (or stand down). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 8 minutes ago, bickster said: Banning 2nd incomes would result in even less talent being involved (on all sides) I disagree, I think it would attract people to the job who are doing it for the right reasons (and the 80 odd grand salary). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 10, 2021 Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2021 2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: The conflict of interest is absolutely obvious, No, it really isn't. 2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: then that is an extremely good argument for making a rule that someone cannot be an MP and a practicing QC at the same time. Ah yes, that brings us to the posts of Attorney General and Solicitor General. You want people not up on current legal practices to take these jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 10, 2021 Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2021 1 minute ago, Genie said: I disagree, I think it would attract people to the job who are doing it for the right reasons (and the 80 odd grand salary). Seriously, I wouldn't be an MP for £80K a year 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 38 minutes ago, bickster said: If his clients had an issue with his impartiality, it is a concern for them not the British To be fair to them though, if you were a corrupt government looking to protect your own corrupt interests, there's probably nowhere better to go to for advice than people within the current Tory party. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 10, 2021 Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2021 44 minutes ago, ml1dch said: I broadly agree. There are always going to be exceptions, but if you want a broad line to divide along, "stuff you did before you became an MP = fine, stuff that you do because of your potential power and influence as an MP = not fine". Clearly this needs modification. Boris Johnson would still be allowed to write articles for publication .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 11 minutes ago, bickster said: No, it really isn't. Yes it is. 12 minutes ago, bickster said: Ah yes, that brings us to the posts of Attorney General and Solicitor General. You want people not up on current legal practices to take these jobs? Sure, why do they need to be currently practising QCs. It's not important for the job; they can and do keep up to date on law and have a department to advise them. They don't need to spend their spare time in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 Just the £32.4m of taxpayer money paid in commission to a former Government advisor for unusable masks. Nice work if you can get it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 1 minute ago, ml1dch said: Just the £32.4m of taxpayer money paid in commission to a former Government advisor for unusable masks. Nice work if you can get it. So “we” paid £252m for £64.6m worth of masks! Ludicrous waste of public money. Heads should roll as a minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 Remember health and care workers were forced to operate without PPE when these obscene arrangements were being made, and that companies at home that offered to step up and make the required kit were brushed aside. How many died whilst Hancock lied? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post HanoiVillan Posted November 11, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted November 11, 2021 The thing about saying discussions are not 'in public interest' is that it makes you wonder whose interests they *were* in. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 12, 2021 Moderator Share Posted November 12, 2021 17 hours ago, Wainy316 said: There's some interesting data in those poll results, particularly in relation to how those voters are changing their voting intentions since the 2019 Election (usual lying caveats to be inserted here) - Posting given previous discussion. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 Those 'Did Not Votes' could've saved us from a world of shit, judging by this and similar data in the Brexit thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts