Gransnet manifesto

Agree, eloethan about MPs and other work. An MP's job should be considered important enough to be full-time when they are in parliament. If they are as good as they think they are, there will be plenty of directorships when they leave.

I bought the Times this morning to read that article and it's very interesting durhamjen. I haven't had time to read it all as there are several pages inside and today was a busy day. I think it said it was series during the week. I was surprised to see it in the Times but really good to see some in depth reporting.

Anyone else think that recall of MPs is a good idea?
I have just had a message from 38degrees, asking me to meet my MP and find out what she thinks, but I already know that she has signed up to EDM 25 about recall.

I like a lot of what you said Granny 23, the climate is such a concern for the future of our children & grandchildren. It shouldn't be beyond us to run an economy that doesn't depend on growth. If all the world is trying to 'grow their economies' we're just going to consume even more of earth's precious resources and future wars will be over water and food.
I hate the idea of an almost compulsory 'wrap around' care for children, I think they should be spending less time in institutions and more time with their family.
I guess dementia care is a big issue too, for those of us who may suffer from it and those who have to care.

No more nuclear power or fuel.

Do we really want this?

click.mail.theguardian.com/?qs=f8cc1f80de1f90db70f0bb31ea0f856d119b9ebf28127859429e0d8298562378

This is what UKIP wants to do to the NHS.

nhaspace.wordpress.com/2014/10/31/ukips-nhs-privatisation-agenda/

Rail privatisation in the UK has been a disaster from the word go - the case for re-nationalisation has long since been proven.

We pay millions in subsidies to the so-called private businesses to run the "Train Operating Companies" - which indirectly means that as private businesses they are a failure, and would have gone bust years ago.

Even the OECD back in the 1990s produced a report that stated out of the approach to the requirement to introduce 'competition' into te industry, the UK approach was the worst model to choose.

In Germany, France, Spain, Sweden, Netherlands, and even Italy, a more rational - and manageable - two-tier approach, separating infrastructure from train operations has been successful.

All that has happened in the UK is that the rail industry has been fragmented, decimated, and what can be rescued by "foreign" owners such as DB and SNCF is a better way to go, and demonstrates perhaps that British business does not really have the expertise to run such an industry.

Apologies all - back off my soap box now.

I want anyone who becomes an MP to look upon it as a full time job, not do what this MP is doing.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mp-who-earned-450000-as-a-barrister-accused-of-bunking-off-9866432.html?origin=internalSearch

I think if he has enough time to do this much work on top of his MP's work, then he is shortchanging his constituents. Why is he not spending that extra 20 hours a week in his constituency?
Anyone live in Torridge and West Devon who can comment on how often he is there?

Problem is it isn't just a one party issue.

An example would be the late Stuart Bell who was a Labour M.P notorious for his non attendance in parliament and his constituency.

They are entitled to have another job and lot's do. Maybe that is through practicing law, doing the rounds on t.v and writing for the papers, being a director of this and that company or charity, continuing to practice as a doctor, the list goes on.

It could be argued that M.P's should not have a second job but I agree with that only as a principle not as a common sense approach. It is often said parliament is full of M.P's who have no idea about life outside of parliament, or what do they known they only know politics not real life. When they do have jobs they are castigated for doing so, can't win. Also being an M.P is not a guarantee of full employment is it.

I'm certainly not defending this MP's record just balancing the point a little.

I think most people are of the view that politicians should have had experience of a working life outside of politics before becoming MPs. However, I'm not sure that many people would agree that MPs should be working in other positions while they are employed as MPs. It is a full-time position with a full-time salary.

I agree that Labour MP Stuart Bell's record was very poor.

The case of the Conservative MP Geoffrey Cox working 1,000 hours (around 42 days) is equally disgraceful.

I think it is unacceptable that MPs of whatever political persuasion feel they have the right to treat their position as MP in such a cavalier way. The only way to stop it is either to have very strict limits as to how much outside work they may undertake or to stop them from taking up any other paid employment.

The outside work that Geoffrey Cox does is 20+ hours a week in London. If you look at his entry on www.theyworkforyou.com you will see that the outside payments are mostly given by London people.
He says he also does 50-60 hours a week for his constituency.
When does he ever get down there? If he is working in London at weekends, as he claims to be, saying that most of his advocacy work is done at weekends and during recess, then he is definitely not working in his constituency like most other MPs.

This thread is for the gransnet manifesto. In my manifesto I would like it to be written that no MP should have outside interests while he is an MP.

So a doctor would have to give up their job or not stand for election on that basis.

Some would have to give up their positions sitting on charity boards perhaps.

Surely that could stop good candidates from becoming MP's

The gene pool for MP selection could be diminished to a point where the career politicians get even bigger. That would be a bit of an own goal.

I do agree there is a point where certain MP's deserve to be taken to task over their responsibilities and I am not defending this MP or any other MP from the other parties. As we know parties of all colours have good and bad in their ranks.

If being an MP is to be a full time job, who are going to be ministers?

Liam Fox doesn't practice any longer so far as I'm aware?

Why would the gene pool diminish?
Are you saying that being an MP means you should be better than someone being on a jury?
There are far too many lawyers in Parliament as it is. I really do not want my laws to be made by someone who boasts that he pays more in tax from his outside interests than he is paid for being an MP, and therefore he is keeping others in work.

The NHA has just published its manifesto, although there may be minor changes. It would be interesting to ask them if they intend to keep outside jobs. One is an oncologist.

nhap.org/its-here-our-policy-framework/

Link for anyone interested.

Durhamjen

I have re-read my posts and at no time have I given the impression I feel the way you have portrayed my words trying to bring class /jobs or peoples worth into the equation.

I will put my point over without using the term 'gene pool' to clarify.

It is said that there are too many 'career politicians' and our MP's have no clue how people live because they have never had a job outside of politics. Meaning it would be better to have MP's who have /had employment outside of the political bubble standing as candidates for MP.

I am saying that if those candidates had to give up their employment to satisfy the criteria you suggest, ,No MP should have an outside interest'. whilst serving as an MP, then only the 'career politicians' will have no problem fulfilling that criteria as they don't have jobs to resign from/take a career break from etc. We could therefore have even more career politicians and not less because the number of people in work or have 'interests' would not enter into politics. The POOL of candidates which would be hoped for would possibly be diminished.

I do not see why a doctor for example should not be allowed to continue to practice whilst being an MP. Would he/she consider being an MP if he/she had to give up their job/take a career break. He/she would have to resign from their practice/hospital. Be an MP for possibly 5 years. Then possibly loose their job at the next election. Then, after 5 years of being out of the medical loop gain a new position. Wouldn't be worth it probably.

Here's a very interesting graphic to show how out of touch MPs are and why there should be a public service users bill.

weownit.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ef1f3f5b8067610251b19fb6c&id=cb2c06902e&e=e86ba43eff

Pogs, I think if Clive Peedell got elected, he would have to give up the day job. He is a consultant oncologist, at Middlesborough, and standing against Cameron. A big if.
Grumpa, being a minister is part of being an MP. Have you looked at how many committees there are in Parliament? I think even Mitchell is on a few, including the standards committee, which Geoffrey Cox is also on.

There have been surveys lately to show that many people change occupations every five years anyway. Do we want MPs who are not like the population as a whole? If they lost their jobs as MPs and had to claim benefits, it would make them think again about how they treat their constituents.

Durhamjen

I will possibly come back to you regarding your post when I have more time but I had to say I thought your last point that it would be good for MP's to loose their job and have to claim benefits quite ridiculous.

They do not have to claim benefits. I said "if". Most of them have consultancies. I think you will find it hard to find a poor MP. Even Andrew Mitchell will be able to pay his £1.5m bill, I bet.
I seem to recall that there is a redundancy scheme for MPs which is much better than you or I would get.