You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
W⚓s, the bunch of them.
Seems fair.
To get the best you have to pay for the best.
Just think how much Kwartengs advice is worth. Just ask him if something is a good plan and then do the opposite of his recommendation.
Hancock is a bit more difficult to argue for admittedly since "should you hand all your covid 19 texts to a nutter who was opposed to any measures" isnt a difficult thing to answer and hence casts doubts on the "do the opposite" approach.
Its nice to get such confirmation of how money grubbing these barstards are.
Sure, we all knew it, but so much better to get it all on vid.Especially Kwasi Kwarteng. His 5 minutes in the spotlight ands he breaks the UK economy costing many families extra thousands of pounds per year. Then has the arrogance and audacity to think he's qualified enough to charge a high fee consultancy.
Unbelievable.
Not a peep about this on the BBC News website
Considering the damage these people cause when they are doing their actual jobs isn't it better they concentrate on personal greed?
Surely kwarteng must have been struck off from ever touching money again?
Surely kwarteng must have been struck off from ever touching money again?
He's allowed to touch it if it's coming his way...
Just seen the video on Twitter and had to turn it off at the point that Kwarteng was talking for fear of having an aneurysm.
Absolute scum of the earth, bunch of utterly corrupt ****ers.
To be fair - if a company approached me wanting advice for £10k a day, I'd likely engage with it also.
Have they broken any laws here?
Or just people don't like them earning extra money and the whole anti political agenda playing into it?
@jake123 quite frankly, if you can’t see what is wrong here then you are part of the problem.
I don't know why it's such a surprise, politicians around the world have had offers made since the dawn of politics.
Here's a Guardian article from 20 years ago https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/feb/17/labour.politicalcolumnists
Have they broken any laws? No, it is easy to not break laws when you are in the group that creates the laws that legalise the corruption and selling of power and influence that you practise.
I have said many times, corruption and immorality at "the top" of society is legalised even encouraged by law, while poverty is being criminalised.
No one said it was a surprise, but it is a good thing to see it exposed so starkly.
One of the good things about led by donkeys and the good law project, is that I believe they would also hold a labour government to account, I don't see them as "party" political.
One of the good things about led by donkeys and the good law project, is that I believe they would also hold a labour government to account, I don’t see them as “party” political
I think that they're as tired by politicians of all parties and countries as I am
"To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” Douglas Adams The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I hate the fact a serving MP can take part in "lobbying" or get a 2nd job or be a paid consultant to get round the rules. No wonder gambling laws never get brought in.
How do they know the company paying them isn't sponsored by Russia or China and is sitting behind a sham company?
The way they know what daily rate is acceptable, almost like the boys club has set the price and it's an open secret.
But if you are a serving civil servant you cant receive gifts becuase it could question your integrity? What a joke!
I'd completely ban it and make them wear a microphone and have all their conversations recorded or have a civil servant follow them and be present at all conversations. How many of them would end up in jail?
If you can't trust them to put the people before their pockets then get rid of them. Design a safe and secure system where the people can vote through their phones. Can't be any worse than what we've had for the last how ever many years.
It’s good to read in the article that Labour has pledged to ban second jobs should it win the next election.
Which then begs the rather obvious question - why are Labour’s current MPs still working in second jobs and why has Sir Keir happily taken tens of £thousands in second income and corporate hospitality since becoming party leader?
If the point is one of ethics, surely it’s worse to continue doing something you say you’ll stop in the future.
Akin to “yes I do continue to beat my wife regularly but after the next election we promise to pass a law to make it illegal”. A more authentic demonstration of personal ethics is to not do the thing you say is wrong.
Someone, somewhere, once said they should be made to go to work wearing a jacket with all their various outside interests and sources of funding emblazoned on it like sponsorship on football shirts. I think it’s a great idea.
I've got mixed feelings here. Technically they aren't doing anything wrong (labour have indicated they will stop second jobs except in cases where necessary - eg: a nurse that needs to maintain some hours to retain 'currency' and not lose their licence) - and so it's a relatively easy defence to say they aren't doing anything wrong.
In addition some have the defence that they are not standing to be MPs again, don't know when that will be, and of course need their future options open.
Which then enables the victimisation card to be played, and bolsters those that feel there is a LW MSM conspiracy.
Morally of course - once again fails to pass the sniff test, and again I'm astounded by the inability to check if it's even a real company. Don't they have staff to do that? - or are they avoiding disclosing to anyone half aware because they know they'd probably raise a warning flag on the trough snouting.
Lastly - some are wondering why the split was more Tories than all the others? It's in the reports, they selected their targets based on a review of the Members register of interests for those who seem to do the most of this type of work. The fact there are more tories than all the rest - draw your conclusions from that.
@cheddarchallenged - broadly agree but note as per post above, some MPs second jobs are in occupations that require them to work a certain number of hours or whatever otherwise their registrations lapse.
What did Starmer do - report I read https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/uk-news/956861/the-mps-earning-the-most-from-second-jobs seems to suggest that he hasn't for quite a while, and what he did earn was before he became leader and was for legal work which I think falls into the above?
But if you are a serving civil servant you cant receive gifts becuase it could question your integrity?
Civil servants may accept gifts. They may not accept gifts "whuch might be seen to compromise their personal judgement or integrity." Still much tighter than the position for MPs, obviously
Not a peep about this on the BBC News website
it’s on their news app.
like many I just don’t think they should have second jobs or influential positions in companies they set up. They are allegedly full time MPs who should be working in the interests of the country and their constituents. Not this personal gain
...(labour have indicated they will stop second jobs except in cases where necessary – eg: a nurse that needs to maintain some hours to retain ‘currency’ and not lose their licence)...
Bring it on. Basic pay for an MP is £84k + expenses, they don't need the extra
And you just know that if it was made illegal. These bastards would spend a fortune trying to find loopholes. Or install get out clauses in the legislation.
The fact that what they have done (or wanted to do) is legal and within the rules AND the knowledge to any sensible thinking person that they are very far from unique (thinking back to Cameron's texts a few months back) is what revolts me the most. And it won't just be tories. Scum will be scum if given the chance. The fact that elected representatives of the people can legitimately take what is in effect bribes to 'legally' abuse their positions to advise and influence cannot be allowed to continue if we ever want governance of the nation to have a shred of credibility. Remove the known loopholes and lines of 'renumeration' and there is a slim chance we might get people who want to be mps for the right reasons to the front of the queue to be mps not the sharts who float to the tops of toilet bowl of government currently.
And yet, we attempt to lecture other nations about the way they govern their country. The double standards is stupifying.
Not a peep about this on the BBC News website
I suspect Led By Donkeys gave the Observer an exclusive. Other news providers have probably had to play catch-up. It is covered by everyone now including the Daily Mail. The Sky News coverage of this only dates from 9.37 this morning.
But yeah let's not focus solely on what Matt Hancock and Kwasi Kwarteng did but also use the opportunity to have a dig at the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65077273
2nd jobs in political office should be illegal and assets should be managed by a blind trust in order to qualify for office. <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">No gifts, no family employment.
</span>
I want people in politics who want to make a difference for society not themselves.
I'm more jealous of the fact that in the last 2 years SKS has made £27 in interest on savings. I can't afford to have savings, and in the year before that I think I made 2.7p at most. The world is so unfair 😉
jake123
Free Member
To be fair – if a company approached me wanting advice for £10k a day, I’d likely engage with it also.
Have they broken any laws here?
I think the issue is that anyone with an ounce of sense knows that for the £10k the "consulting" is all flowing one way, and it's not Hancock and Kwarteg advising them how to fill in some paperwork.
I would quite happily see MP's salary increased, but the loopholes and integrity of those should be under a much stricter regime so there is none of this lobbying for cash.
Bring them in line with other roles, drinking at work would be gross misconduct, abusing staff would be dismissal. Accomodation in London should be in "halls of residence" and holiday leave should be limited to 28 days.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Let's face it, there are plenty of folk on £84k plus on this forum and they aren't putting themselves out for daily abuse by the public.</span>
To put things into perspective, football players on £400k a week, what the hell is that all about?
To put things into perspective, football players on £400k a week, what the hell is that all about?
Why benchmark them against a minority of unusually high paid individuals. They are meant to be representatives of everyone, it would be far better to benchmark them against the minimum wage and average wages, which they already compare very favourably to.
Let’s face it, there are plenty of folk on £84k plus on this forum
There might be afew, but I recon only 1 or 2% of contributors are on that or more, so hardly as normal a salary as you seam to think.
To put things into perspective, football players on £400k a week, what the hell is that all about?
Capitalism and meritocracy.
I would wager that almost every male alive in the UK, has at some point played a game of football. (Although some of "wendyball" lot on here will probably deny it.) So it's basically open to all.
A tiny percentage of that number will earn money from doing so and a even smaller will play at the highest level and earn millions.
The EPL is some of the most popular TV in the World, why shouldn't the players take a share of the revenue?
To be fair – if a company approached me wanting advice for £10k a day, I’d likely engage with it also.
Have they broken any laws here?
Or just people don’t like them earning extra money and the whole anti political agenda playing into it?
I’ve got mixed feelings here. Technically they aren’t doing anything wrong (labour have indicated they will stop second jobs except in cases where necessary – eg: a nurse that needs to maintain some hours to retain ‘currency’ and not lose their licence) – and so it’s a relatively easy defence to say they aren’t doing anything wrong.
Whilst it is within parliamentary rules, if I were to take money from a company to make introductions relating to my full time employment, I would be fired for gross misconduct. Also, if I were to take money relating to my unpaid role as a school governor is would be asked to step down. As it is I have to declare an interest as the school purchases from the company I work for.
This makes no sense in the ethical framework used my most employers.
There might be afew, but I recon only 1 or 2% of contributors are on that or more, so hardly as normal a salary as you seam to think.
Based off that survey last year, about 10% have a household income over £150k.
I also can’t imagine doing half the things that MPs get away with in my job. I’d be fired immediately. Rules need to be tightened, loopholes removed, and some proper ethical requirements introduced. By all means increase their pay if there is merit, but they should all be held accountable and should face proportionate disciplinary action when they behave badly.
I honestly think we should see some MPs go to prison for their behaviour. And that is all parties, not just the Tories. Too many snouts in the trough. As has already been said though, the problem is that they make the rules.
I also can’t imagine doing half the things that MPs get away with in my job. I’d be fired immediately.
This.
Drinking at work would have been instant dismissal. Having another job would certainly be grounds for serious concerns if not outright dismissal.
Lying, cronyism, bullying...
All of those you'd be up in front of HR, not just told not to come in for a few days. We couldn't even accept gifts if more than a pen or notepad without it being scrutinised.
The pekblw
I honestly think we should see some MPs go to prison for their behaviour.
To be fair, the UK does have a relatively good record of convicting and banging up bent MPs. Jonathan Aitkin, Imran Ahmed Khan, Chris Davies, Jared O'Mara... I think at one point 8% of the MP "workforce" was under criminal investigation. Imagine that anywhere else!
Of course, what would be even better is if there weren't any bent MPs at all.
Having another job would certainly be grounds for serious concerns if not outright dismissal.
I'm pretty certain that most contracts for management and "professional" positions have clauses that you can't work for anyone else while employed.
Drinking at work would have been instant dismissal.
It depends where you work. I've had a few workplaces with an onsite bar, as Parliament does. A big problem with the booze and harassment culture is that often votes are scheduled for 8pm or 10pm, so the "staff" are hanging around the workplace bar after proper working hours, getting soused and too close to their co-workers. At least in other places if people were getting sozzled after work they'd be safely dispersed away from the office...
I don't think halls of residence are the answer. If anything you want these people to be more spread out, not concentrated. I don't like the shady property arrangements.
How do they know the company paying them isn’t sponsored by Russia or China and is sitting behind a sham company?
That's part of the alarming thing about this, how easy it was to snare them.
They're supposed to have parliamentary staff and advisors and surely the first thing you'd say to one of your minions is "do a thorough investigation into this company, tell me what you find..."
But no, their staff are family members who are "employed" for the sole purpose of getting free cash and are obviously not doing any sort of due diligence.
I mean, that in itself is catastrophic stupidity and just shows the greed and avarice that overrules any sort of common sense or "hmm, something doesn't sit right about this..."
Yeah the whole "no rules were broken..." schtick is simply saying "we made the rules so that we can get away with this" and this has just exposed once again how criminally stupid and greedy they actually are.
I’m pretty certain that most contracts for management and “professional” positions have clauses that you can’t work for anyone else while employed.
Pretty much every company i've worked for, in whatever role, has had a clause saying i'm either forbidden from working for others, or it's got to be cleared by HR, Legal and my director.
One role i had to cleared by MoD and DoD as well...
Even to work for 10-15 hours a month in a bike shop.
Or to receive sponsorship from the team i was riding for.