Geoffrey Cox

I have no problem with Starmer being a millionaire (if he is). I have no problem with Cox being a millionaire. (if he is).

I do have a problem with an MP swanning off to the Caribbean in the midst of a pandemic when the country is in crisis, thinking that his staff can deal with the little people and using Parliamentary resources to conduct his own private business.

I would never have voted for Sir David Amess but his priorities were clearly his constituency and the people who lived there, unlike some.

It seems people will vote for a Tory in some of these constituencies whatever the candidate's character is like.

Gordon Brown gives all his earnings from after dinner speeches etc to charity.

A man of integrity.

Germanshepherdsmum

Dinahmo QCs command very high fees. Starmer is a QC.

KS gave up his practicing certificate in 2019 when the LP decided that MPs shouldn't have second jobs. The £26000 that he declared was earned prior to him becoming party leader. He was DPP for 5 years. The highest salary for a DPP is £220k. Before that he specialised in human rights and public law and won an appeal in the ECHR acting on behalf of the 2 activisits involved in the McLibel case.

Surely you know most, if not all of this so why persist with your assumption that KS is a multi millionaire?

Surely you know most, if not all of this so why persist with your assumption that KS is a multi millionaire?

I think that Gsm might be remembering a smear attempt dating from Starmer becoming leader of the LP. One of the right wing Sundays reported that the field that he bought his mother, at the rear of his parents' house, for her donkeys could potentially be worth £2 or 3million with planning permission (which it doesn't have).

I am. as always, puzzled by the fact that it's assumed that people in the LP, particularly MPs, shouldn't have any money. As if having a bit more money than most of the electorate (which is not difficult) makes you greedy grasping and uncaring turn tory..

I think it is important that the Labour party don't start coming across as the party of envy here, the amount of money that Cox earned is not my concern as long as he paid the appropriate taxes. The amount of time he spent out of his constituency is a concern, but one that only the local party can deal with, the use of Parliamentary facilities is a breach of regulations. Knee jerk statements about no MP being permitted to work at a second job need to be reigned in, there are many people in HoC who are in professions which they may wish to continue, return to, need CPD hours and these are no less worthy than someone who earns a living as a director of a car spares company or as a farmer. Where the difference needs to be established is if the MPs parliamentary position, especially if in a ministerial role, could lead to allegations of unfairness, lobbying, effectively insider dealing. The salary paid to MPs in this country is not huge, although it puts them in the highest 5%, and if we wish to attract experienced, high calibre people with professional expertise which can contribute useful skills, we cannot then insist they drop all outside employment. We can insist though, that their priority is to their constituents rather than their outside career.

If only people like Cox gave 140 hours a month to their constituents, like they give to other ventures. As for swanning off to Virgin Islands, let him stay there he’s made his pile.
The rules need to be rewritten very clearly. Look at the House barely half people in it, bet they are not in constituency. Needs halving in number then perhaps some would show up.

Look at the House barely half people in it, bet they are not in constituency.

No, they are working in their offices, or in committee. They have showed up, they are just not involved in every single debate, every single day.

Alegrias1

I have no problem with Starmer being a millionaire (if he is). I have no problem with Cox being a millionaire. (if he is).

I do have a problem with an MP swanning off to the Caribbean in the midst of a pandemic when the country is in crisis, thinking that his staff can deal with the little people and using Parliamentary resources to conduct his own private business.

I would never have voted for Sir David Amess but his priorities were clearly his constituency and the people who lived there, unlike some.

It seems people will vote for a Tory in some of these constituencies whatever the candidate's character is like.

Spot on!

Absolutely, this!

Germanshepherdsmum

Geoffrey Cox was a QC long before he became an MP in 2005. His constituents must be satisfied with him or he wouldn’t still be their MP. If they feel he isn’t representing them properly they won’t vote for him at the next election, but the fact that they have been happy to keep him in post for sixteen years must be indicative of their satisfaction with him. Like all MPs he has assistants to deal with day to day matters and look after constituents.

He wouldn’t be involved in the BVI case if he had a professional conflict of interest. Lawyers do take conflicts of interest seriously I can assure you, which sometimes means turning away lucrative work. I’ve had to do it.

The virtual meeting held in his parliamentary office probably had to be conducted between his parliamentary work to fit in with other participants. Trying to use this as a hook to hang him on is really grasping at straws. He was in the House in order to be available for parliamentary business rather than sitting in the comparative luxury of his chambers and ignoring parliamentary responsibilities.

What really annoys people, let’s face it, is how much he earns from his work, let’s be honest. The nasty ‘snouts in the trough’ comments. But he’s a QC (as is the multi-millionaire Starmer whose wife is also a lawyer) and QCs command high fees. I know that doesn’t sit well with many but it’s a fact. If he doesn’t keep up his legal practice he has nothing to fall back on if and when he loses his seat. He chose to become an MP and it certainly wasn’t for the money, and it’s not against the rules for an MP to have another job. If it becomes so then many able MPs will be lost.

I thought the rule was he couldn't use public funded facilities for his private business? Not he couldn't use them if it was convenient but if he was squeezing in a bit of his MP duties between private work then he could use them?

The things that are coming out have happened since the last election so the approval or otherwise of his constituents will come at the next election.

Alegrias1

I have no problem with Starmer being a millionaire (if he is). I have no problem with Cox being a millionaire. (if he is).

I do have a problem with an MP swanning off to the Caribbean in the midst of a pandemic when the country is in crisis, thinking that his staff can deal with the little people and using Parliamentary resources to conduct his own private business.

I would never have voted for Sir David Amess but his priorities were clearly his constituency and the people who lived there, unlike some.

It seems people will vote for a Tory in some of these constituencies whatever the candidate's character is like.

Maybe not him next time. I'm not sure people are going to be very impressed.

In short, I think they will regret not accepting the findings on Paterson and trying to 'save him' - with a view of course, to saving Johnson when his holidays, flat refurb and Peerages for donations, etc- are investigating.

Oh they will wish they had kept quiet, taken the (ridiculously low) 30 day suspension quietly and discreetly. It will come back to bit a lot of them, big time. And I for one will not be sorry for them.

Rereading Gsm's post, this has made me laugh:

If he doesn’t keep up his legal practice he has nothing to fall back on if and when he loses his seat.

There is always Universal Credit, you know

But our first-past-the-post electoral system is also partly to blame for why misbehaving MPs feel free to act the way they do.

Politicians who do not need to fight for their seat are much more likely to become complacent about it. It’s very hard to imagine an MP with a knife-edge majority deciding to work in a sun-kissed island away from the constituency he represents. The fact that Cox could afford to do so speaks to the fact that he faces no realistic challenge to his incumbency.

There was a similar trend in 2009, when the MPs’ expenses scandal hit. At the time, political blogger Mark Thompson found a correlation between the safety of a seat and the likelihood of an MP being implicated.

This is what happens when you make an MP safe. They lose the incentive to do their job properly and ethically – precisely the democratic mechanism government ministers are currently holding up as a defence against corruption.

Ian Dunt writing in the "i"

inews.co.uk/opinion/the-most-concerning-thing-about-geoffrey-coxs-british-virgin-islands-job-is-that-there-is-no-rule-against-it-1293698

Thanks Varian, a very interesting article. I see the whole "using his office" as a bit like Al Capone, the police couldn't get him, the FBI couldn't get him, the tax man got him. Sometimes the "tax man" route is the sheriff in this sort of situation.

Breaking rules is interesting, I mean some things seem so obvious you don't think you need a rule, I never felt the need to tell my children not to swear at granny as it would never occur to me that they would. If they did I wouldn't have accepted "but there was no rule stopping us" as a reasonable defense.

Katie59

There are plenty of lawyers in parliament including Starmer and there is nothing wrong with them having another job, what matters is wether they give proper attention to their constituency.

With other jobs though, are they really giving their full attention to their constituency?
I would prefer their pay to be upped and no other jobs allowed....bar working for the NHS or lawyers doing pro bono work.

I don’t think Cox has broken any rules, but perhaps looking again at what a lot of MP’s on all sides of the house do as regards to jobs, needs overhauling asap.

lemongrove

I don’t think Cox has broken any rules, but perhaps looking again at what a lot of MP’s on all sides of the house do as regards to jobs, needs overhauling asap.

The difference needs to be defined between working at one's career, maybe running a family business or whatever, and being a paid lobbyist/director of a company with a vested interest in having someone inside, so to speak. Maybe simple timing is the answer? Nobody wants to offer me any directorships at present, but should I be elected to the house and then found myself as a minister in the Dept of Health and a local PPE supplier were to then employ me, surely that should be forbidden? Simplistic example, but hopefully illustrates my point. On a lighter note, just what kind of fool employs Grayling and pays him £100k? Maybe it is espionage by a competitor?

I remember a massive outcry in the media when Phillipa Whitford got paid by the NHS for doing CANCER operations during her Christmas break .She has to do a limited number of hours a year to keep her license to practice .That payment was shocking and she was vilified in the press and on TV .I can guarantee the people she operated on were very gratefulmsitting in the Caribbean is a very different thing ,but not to the media .There has to be rules and where, like Phillipa , the extra job is essential to keeping a professional license thats fine .Greed is not essential though to this Tory government is appears to be the norm!

From The Metro:

Most of the highest paid '2nd job' MPs are tories

Nearly all the MPs who work in 'consultancy' or 'advisory' roles (i.e. those most likely to lead to improper lobbying) are tories. One Lib Dem, Ed Davey, has a modestly paid consultancy role.

It does make one wonder at some MPs' motives for entering politics. Is it to serve constituents or is it to serve the industry they're aligned with?

metro.co.uk/2021/11/08/the-30-mps-who-rake-in-thousands-with-second-jobs-as-consultants-15561454/

For 'balance' , the Daily Mail is trying to slam David Lammy for earning £141,000 for something like 6 or 7 speaking jobs over the course of 3 years... (He's a barrister, too) Of course, that's directly comparable with a tory MP earning £1million in one year and spending 2 or 3 months in the Caribbean while earning it...

It's a crazy world...

Interesting letter in todays Times suggesting that health department ministers work once a week as hospital porters, Home Office ministers should pound the beat and the former attorney general could do pro bono work.This would give them insight, it would also help some of them to keep their hand in.

this

lemongrove

I don’t think Cox has broken any rules, but perhaps looking again at what a lot of MP’s on all sides of the house do as regards to jobs, needs overhauling asap.

It looks as though 'MPs on all sides of the house' is a bit of a sweeping statement which implies that it is commonly done in all the Parties.

This, from the Labour List newsletter but which can be checked in the MPs register of Interests if people want to verify it:

The parliamentary register of interests show that 90 out of 360 Conservative MPs have extra jobs, compared with just three from the Labour Party.

www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/registers-of-interests/register-of-members-financial-interests/

If anyone wants cheering up in all this, take a look at Pete Wishart's declarations.

A few thousand pounds worth of royalties from when he was the drummer with Runrig .

Or Phillipa Whitford's. Nil.

I met her once paddyann54. She's very impressive.

Tory MP Geoffrey Cox took a £3,900 taxpayer LOAN to pay for deposit on London flat he rents on expenses... while he leases out his own property 'for £1,000 a week' - amid claims he has been in MAURITIUS during the furore. Daily Mail today.

It just get worse.

It all turns on whether Cox has broken any rules. If he has, then he must expect consequences.
As to how much he has earned, it’s irrelevant.Unless rules on second jobs are changed then it’s entirely legal and above board for any MP to have one.There aren’t ‘set hours’ for constituency and Parliamentary work.Whether there should be is another matter.