Geoffrey Cox

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely, this!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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..

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?

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

A man of integrity.

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.

See Dinahmo’s post above. And yes I am, I have absolutely no problem with it.

Just what is your point germanshepherdsmum, apart from pointing out something we all know, namely that some QCs can command very high fees? You are not trying to defend Cox's behaviour are you?

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

The complaint is that he undertook his private work using his parliamentary office for that purpose. I have just read the letter sent to the commissioner from Angela Rayner, Labour shadow 1st minister, in which she raises the complaint. Javid has also agreed. This is not about a minister having two jobs but about doing his private business using parliamentary resources. No doubt Javid would agree as the private case he worked on was defending BVI against allegations of corruption by the British Government.

Germanshepherdsmum

Perhaps you could explain how KS became a multimillionaire?

I've tried to find out but the only reference to large sums is
$11 million on a website called net idol which doesn't give an explanation.

The only fact I learned (from a different source) was that he and his wife bought their house for £640,000 back in 2004 and that it is now worth £1.8million - and that's in Kentish Town. Not the most salubrious of places (or it wasn't when I lived in London)

We bought our former home in Brixton back in 1979 for £18,500 and it's now worth £1.5 million. It's no longer mine unfortunately, nor am I a millionaire.

There is a world of difference between earning £20k and 1 million a year. John Redwood works 50 hours a month on his second job - Duncan Smith also earns several grand a year on the side and was the architect of Universal Credit - funny that money gets knocked off UC if you earn any extra. If MPs were limited to, say earning no more than £30k a year in addition to their MPs salary I wonder how m any would crawl out of the woodwork.

That's the first time that I've heard that Starmer's wife is a lawyer. She now works for the NHS so a) she's no longer practising and b) her occupation is completely irrelevant to the subject of this thread anyway.

The thing that is amusing me is the claim that an MP having a second job like Cox's means that they're more connected to the 'real world'. Like the world of their constituents on some £80 pw Universal Credit?

Someone is removing the Michael with a vengeance, aren't they?

So presumably for those defending thus action, the work of an MP is easily done part time? No wonder they are working for a paltry £89k, plus expenses.

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.

Just so that we don't waste any more time suggesting that sometimes MPs behave badly, I have used this excellent post to create a form that will help you forgive any behaviour. It will work for any MP and any behaviour and shows conclusively that MPs never do anything wrong:

<Insert name of MP> was a <insert occupation> long before he/she became an MP in <insert year of first election>. His/her constituents must be satisfied with him/her or he/she wouldn’t still be their MP. If they feel he/she isn’t representing them properly they won’t vote for him/her at the next election, but the fact that they have been happy to keep him/her in post for <insert number> years must be indicative of their satisfaction with him/her. Like all MPs he/she has assistants to deal with day to day matters and look after constituents.

He/she wouldn’t be involved in <insert name of today’s scandal> if he/she had a professional conflict of interest. <Insert name of occupation> do take conflicts of interest seriously I can assure you, which sometimes means turning away lucrative work.

But he’s a QC (as is the multi-millionaire Starmer whose wife is also a lawyer) and QCs command high fees.

I believe Starmer does some work to keep his hand in as a lawyer.

Last year he earned about £20k and managed to do it from his constituency.

Petera

Sarnia

What I find amusing is Chris Grayling being paid £100.000 a year as advisor to Hutchison Ports Europe. I wonder anybody lets him loose near boats. He masterminded the plan to award a £13m contract to Seaborne Freight to transport goods across the Channel and mitigate any issues should there be a no-deal Brexit. One snag. Seaborne Freight didn't have any ships!

From Marina Hyde

^Good to know that ongoing performance art piece Chris Grayling takes a full £100,000 a year from Hutchison Ports Europe, where I imagine his advice runs to “Quick one: did you remember to acquire some ports? Seems obvious but I once ballsed up on this front with ferries.”^

Like it.