Mayb No need to apologise Goldy. Your analogy was nothing short of ridiculous and i just had to point that out. As for comparing someone who broke the rules and even stated he would again, to someone who didnt break the rules is really a strange one but nevermind.
Not for me, I have an intense dislike of being ‘represented’ rather than consulted. I’d vote for a delegate, perhaps. But I’m not trying to convert anyone to my position. I’d just like to point out that it’s not ‘not bothering’ it’s a thought through stance that I am comfortable with, and it’s not a retreat from engagement.
As I said in an earlier post to Watford, I'm not comparing Starmer with Patterson. My post about Starmer's attempts to get a consultancy contract was responding to the list that Strolls posted about (mostly) Tories with second jobs. It was the hypocrisy I was showing, and you've got the wrong end of the stick.
I didn’t say I have no issue with second jobs. There are some pretty basic criteria I mentioned that would have to be met for a second job to be acceptable to me. Starmer is/was an exceptional lawyer who would probably be far wealthier if he hadn’t chosen to go into politics. Random non-entities who get lucrative part-time contracts for little to no reason beyond who they can influence at taxpayers’ expense is a very different issue, IMO.
Fair enough, im all for any MP facing punishment for breaking the rules no matter the party. It was quite disgusting that the paterson case was such a farce, but we know who to blame for that.
Fair enough. I don't see how we get away from the current system, though, as it's self-perpetuating. I'd like to see some version of PR for Westminster elections, but we had a vote on that a few years back, didn't we?
We did. I have absolutely no recollection of it but I was mostly drinking VK Apples at £1 a go and trying to finger geography students on dancefloors at the time. More like £2.50 for a VK Apple these days.
You said you didn't have a problem with second jobs if there was no conflict of interest and they were done "outside day job hours". I'm sure all those on Stroll's list would say they comply with what you have said. There are plenty of other types of expertise other than legal. For example, MP's may sit on boards using their expertise in a field like banking or energy. They may give speeches for remuneration. That's what a lot of the Tory MP's do. I assume you have no problem if they have no conflict and continue to represent their constituents properly
I don’t think we will shift strongly from the current system unless it is in a horrible populist crypto authoritarian way, not towards a more direct democracy. It was a horrible compromise proposal in that referendum, single member seats with ‘alternative votes’. Do you remember the question? “At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be used instead?” Good luck explaining what that means to anyone without a strong interest in constitutional reform. As far as I remember it was still one constituency one MP, not necessarily an improvement in diversity of view or balance in Parliament. Even those supporting AV struggled to sell it with any clarity. 64% voted against on a 42% turn out.
Sitting on a board or giving a speech because you know your **** is absolutely fine. Sitting on a board and using that position to influence who gets awarded lucrative and often terribly inefficiently spent public contracts isn’t.
Blimey … haven’t been on here for ages. Still a lot of ‘he said’ ‘she said’ ‘you said’ ‘I didn’t say that’. On the second job discussion, I personally see that a second job ‘could’ be beneficial as MPs would also be seeing the real world first hand, outside of their offices and parliamentary roles. We have MPs who are barristers/lawyers, Doctors, why not also within business, ecology, IT. The key is having boundaries so that a little of something doesn’t hurt if done correctly and nothing untoward is done. I would prefer a politician to be aware of issues in the real world and not just what some civil servant (who is just as far away from the real world) tells him/her. Also it does mean MPs have a role outside of politics should they lose their seat.
That's logical in concept, although in practice, I suspect the paying party's desire to have an influential friend to lobby for them in Parliament is never far from the surface, whoever the MP is.
We have a form of PR in the Holyrood elections up here - this is from the Scottish Government website... Within the Scottish Parliament there are 129 elected members (MSPs) - 73 Constituency Members and 56 Regional Members. Elections to the Scottish Parliament are carried out using the Additional Member Voting system. This voting system combines the traditional First Past the Post system (FPP) and Proportional Representation (PR). Voters have 2 votes in these elections. The first vote is to elect a person to be their Constituency Member. The person who wins the most votes using the FPP voting system becomes the Constituency Member. The second vote is to elect Regional representatives. Voters can select a political party or an individual candidate (if there are any standing) for a seat in a Scottish Parliament Region. There are 7 MSPs for each of the 8 Scottish Parliament Regions. Candidates or parties are elected using a PR voting system and are called 'List' MSPs. It's stopped the SNP from getting an overall majority in the last two Holyrood elections, and has also given seats to fringe parties like the Greens, and prior to Brexit, UKIP. It makes for interesting campaigning as the lesser parties concentrate on the List votes as they know they have more chance of getting seats, and you do get a wider spectrum of political representatives in the house.
It's not that simple. I doubt Paterson set out to be corrupt. It started when he made a perfectly valid comment to Food Standards about antibiotics in milk. But then he couldn't resist recommending his clients as part of the solution, and so he crossed the line into lobbying.
Yeah, I remember what was put on offer being an unsatisfactory, watered down version. I think I'd be in favour of full PR, whereby parties are awarded seats in parliament according to the percentage of votes cast for them nationally. I can't see any way to get away from the party system entirely.
