Forum menu
I’d like to see MP’s position have a maximum career length,
Good idea. Maybe 8 years to see them though around 2-3 elections. Would at least remove the incumbent safe seat can do what they bloody want MPs.
Interestingly I think now this is going to be a major theme for the media for a while yet, as there's just so much of it. Stories that were passed over before are now "News-worthy" to add to the overall rolling story, so all the other stories are being printed and discussed in a way that they probably wouldn't have been, and all self inflicted by Johnson inept handling of the Patterson suspension.
Probably got told about it by Chris Bryant
10 years later... loophole still open.
I don’t have a problem with it
I do. Someone here suggested that the state provide the London accommodation. Seems sound to me. Remove the "investment decision" from the individual MP.
To be fair the less time a Tory backbencher spends being a Tory MP the happier I am.
Fair point
With the traction this is getting with even their usually loyal press lap-dogs they must be getting pretty twitchy about the enquiry into the snouts-in-the-trough free for all that was the Covid contracts.
I expect they’ll now be franticly trying to hobble that before it starts
Time to drop another tenner at the GLP.
I like the concept of the Red Wall intake contributing to the demise of the Tories in their current form. Unintended consequences.
It’s simple self-preservation. They are all sat on paper-thin majorities (my new Tory MP has a majority of 100 votes)
A few people yesterday were commenting that an 80 grand salary isn’t that unusual. That may be the case In Surrey, in Burnley… not so much
The new intake are astute enough to realise that in these ‘left behind’ places who are still only flirting with voting Tory, MP Barristers earning a million quid for their extracurricular activities is about as far removed from day to day reality as it’s possible to get. And it is not playing well
Remove the “investment decision” from the individual MP.
So the MP just continues to rent it out, so nothing is achieved, yep that sounds llke the dumb sort of policy you would get behind.
ernielynch
Free Member
To be fair the less time a Tory backbencher spends being a Tory MP the happier I am.
Good point!
Im betting that Tories will be a point or 2 behind in the next few polls, whether that will last, Im not so sure
weve becme numb to 200+ dying every day from covid so endless tory sleaze wont change much
Polls are a barometer of public feeling, not voting intentions.
I do understand that 80k is a hell of a lot of money in Dyche land but down in the SE it just isn't. Different country almost.
Anyhow, my concept of paying MP's a higher salary whilst removing expenses wasn't meant to make them richer, just more open to scrutiny.
If the proletariat are outraged at MP's wages at the moment they would be apoplectic with rage at the thought of them earning double (Even though in real terms this would not be the case). If they could translate that rage into holding their local MP to greater scrutiny rather than chiming along with a bit of tabloid rage that wouldn't be a bad thing would it?
Another perk loophole, now closed to new MPs, is the appointment of family members as staff. There are a number of MPs paying spouse £50k a year as secretarial staff.
So the MP just continues to rent it out, so nothing is achieved, yep that sounds llke the dumb sort of policy you would get behind.
If they can’t claim rent, instead they are offered a London home provided for them to use, then they can’t find ways for that rent money to be turned into an “investment”. Same goes for offices. Remove the chance for individual MPs to decided how the money is spent. If we are providing them with accommodation, and I think we should, the only benefit they should get from that is the use of the accommodation, not the chance to direct the money to where/who they see fit.
You can’t do anything about money given to them to choose to spend (on their own mortgage payments, or rental payments to a contact) in the past. But you can reduce the opportunities for any more “expenses” being “invested” by MPs in the future.
Anyhow, my concept of paying MP’s a higher salary whilst removing expenses wasn’t meant to make them richer, just more open to scrutiny.
So you'll be offering different salaries to MP's of near/far constituencies?
The last time I heard this, I used the analogy of 2 Salesmen, one who lived in London and who's patch was inside the M25, the other lived in Glasgow and their patch was the Scotland (smaller population). Salaries the same but the one in Glasgow would have vastly greater expenses, for doing the same job. Daft.
Who an MP pays rent to is an irrelevance where there is an open market which there is. State provided accommodation is a dreadful idea, it would like much state housing be expensive and shoddy, and pretty inhumane, unless very generous, as it essentially deprives MPs of the opportunity to have a weekday family life.
Im betting that Tories will be a point or 2 behind in the next few polls, whether that will last, Im not so sure
If I were a betting man, i'd put money on Cox still being my constituency MP for the foreseeable, and getting another thumping majority at the next GE.
Inhumane?
I wasn’t suggesting making MPs live in the shoddy homes that millions of normal Brits do. I meant very nice and convenient for parliament family homes that would be maintained and held by the state. But now you’ve mentioned it… weekday accommodation akin to the small low quality accommodation many people have to use as their only home might be a bit of a learning experience…
I do understand that 80k is a hell of a lot of money . . . but down in the SE it just isn’t.
It is and you appear to be really out of touch with those of us that earn significantly less than £30k a year and live in the SE. If £80k means one has to live in a Southall Terrace for housing because a Surrey 4 bed is not affordable that's what one does. One does not bellyache that you wage is too small and you are owed a bigger house.
very nice and convenient for parliament family homes that would be maintained and held by the state.
Which would cost multiples of what they are presently entitled to, their present rent allowance gets them a two bed flat reasonably close to parliament.
would cost multiples of what they are presently entitled to
I wasn’t claiming the idea would be any cheaper (in the short term), I was agreeing with the idea of supporting MPs to do their work directly, rather than letting them choose where their expenses money goes. If we want our MPs to be able to perform their roles AND we want them not to personally profit through their expenses, then direct support (state supplied and owed accommodation near Parliament and constituency offices) is a way that could be delivered. Keep the “investment decisions” in the hands of MPs, and they will try to make sure that money designed to support them in their work makes them money.
Are you going to put microphones into the walls too?
That video’s pretty funny.
Work should reimburse ANY costs that are spent to do a job, but the problem we have is a system that for lots of these ‘expenses’ they shouldn’t be lumped in with MP Expenses. Offices, staff, infrastructure – these should be provided by the State and used by whoever is the MP at the time.
I agree about things like offices not being a sensible "expense" (rather than just a fixed infrastructure cost) and staff clearly aren't and shouldn't be labelled as such but I think if you have a major political swing there would be some difficulty in staff switching over. Interestingly some (or maybe all) of the SNP candidates use a shared pool of staff - that seems a much more logical solution. You have holiday, illness, ma/paternity cover, when someone loses an election good people don't automatically need to be made redundant etc. And looking at the local MP those costs seem to be a fraction of what would be paid for a full time staff member.
Are you going to put microphones into the walls too?
Yes, because any changes to restrict opportunities for MPs making extra money is akin to something the soviets would do, isn’t it.
Building Government apartment blocks is pretty Eaastern Bloc like, I remember seeing them when I visited East Berlin.
I am yet to see a case of an MP making money through the "new" expense scheme.
Who said apartment blocks? Who said build something new? Who said have the MPs living together? The only thing that was said is the government owns the buildings, to be used by future MPs as well as current ones, rather than leaving it to the MPs to make “investment decisions”. Grace and favour homes for ministers aren’t “soviet”, are they.
Who an MP pays rent to is an irrelevance where there is an open market which there is.
It's not entirely an irrlevance - I doubt there is any scrutiny that you are paying fair market rate. e.g. if you pay £2000 a month (which is probably not unusual for someone in London with a nice family sized pad) but are actually renting somewhere smaller from an associate where you benefit long term. At the very least renting from anyone linked to you creates an air of impropriety, and that's the sort of thing people get upset about, and anyone capable of being elected should have enough intelligence and foresight to ask themselves - how will it appear if I rent a flat from my sister-in-law rather than rent an identical property from a stranger.
State provided accommodation is a dreadful idea, it would like much state housing be expensive and shoddy, and pretty inhumane, unless very generous, as it essentially deprives MPs of the opportunity to have a weekday family life.
Well it doesn't need to be, Her Majesty and her offspring seem to have very comfortable state-provided accommodation and much of the cabinet have state-provided accommodation that whilst hideously decorated seems to be humane and able to support family life. However I'm quite sure if they had to live in a high rise with shoddy cladding they'd all be a bit more motivated to get it fixed!
I don't know if it no longer happens but they used to run a nice scam where two mps would each buy a house and rent it to the other and inflated rents - so they still get their house paid for and trouser a nice profit off expenses.
Mefty - you really think they are not abusing the current scheme ( apologies for forgetting it changed)
So you are going to buy houses now, so how much are you setting aside - I reckon £1 billion should do it.
Grace and favour homes for ministers aren’t “soviet”, are they.
There are only 5 of them in London.
Sandwich,
I earn less than 30k a year myself. I'm not out of touch, I'm just not presumptuous like you are.
If you want to earn more then you can throw your hat in the ring and stand in your local election.
I see no one here has said they'd be happy to be an MP for 30k a year or so.
I see no one here has said they’d be happy to be an MP for 30k a year or so.
I would be. Its my belief that we would actually get a better standard of MPS if the remuneration was cut and all the absurd expenses and legalised bribes. We would get folk with a public service ethos not snouts in troughs
Even in the south east £80 000 is a lot of money.
I would vote for you TJ!
(well if I lived in Leith I would, but lets not revisit that conversation)
🙂
Sweden has state accomodation for MPs who live more than 30 miles from paliament - and a very tight and transparent system of expenses. The MPs get a free use of a moderate sized flat - but they are only there to sleep on weekdays ( like our mps) as they eat and work in th parliament building and go to constituencies at weekends
They seem to have a very well functioning and respected system.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8339465.stm
Whereas our system is well open to abuse, its full of MPs with snouts in troughs and taking bribes ( yes thats exactly what IDS, Kwateng and loads of others did)
Its astonishing the contortions people go to to defend the indefensible around westminster. FFS they get cheap food and booze on our money!
First Labour Lead in Voting Intention in a Year.
Might be for Redfield & Wilton Strategies. But otherwise not true.
And it seems a bit bizarre that Redfield & Wilton Strategies should release this poll only 2 days after releasing another one which gave a Tory lead. General speaking pollsters wait a lot longer than 2 days between their national polls.
Anyway that's the third poll since January to give Labour a lead. Which seems a small price, so far at least, for such a huge blunder.
it would like much state housing be expensive and shoddy,
State housing is typically cheaper and better quality than the private rented sector.
Cox not just rich but greedy & milking the system it seems
https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1458777200128311296?t=QJS4-acXlB6eEc8t7iw0Mg&s=19
It’s all rather funny, the attempt to save guilty Paterson from the terrible 30 days suspension suddenly explodes and sucks the innocent but greedy Cox into the arena and all the stories that the byline times have been running for yonks suddenly get legs.
It’s a stellar F Up.
State housing is typically cheaper and better quality than the private rented sector.
Not in my experience.
Posh git
the attempt to save guilty Paterson from the terrible 30 days suspension suddenly explodes and sucks the innocent but greedy Cox into the arena and all the stories that the byline times have been running for yonks suddenly get legs.
It’s a stellar F Up.
This is why quite a few MP’s -of all parties but in particular a lot of tories-are seriously pissed off with Paterson and Boris. Oh, actually I don’t think Cox is completely innocent tbh although a small slap on the wrist is the likely outcome of using his office for private work. I’m sure that my MP is not at all pleased about being named in the Independent amongst other places for his other jobs for companies in the Caribbean
Not in my experience.
We can all cherry pick examples to suit our biases.
We can all cherry pick examples to suit our biases.
I am not sure it is cherry picking, the NAO has been pretty scathing about military housing.
It’s a stellar F Up.
A lot of Tory MPs are rightly absolutely apoplectic that Boris chose this particular hill for them to die on.
I think that it’s pretty obvious that this is exactly the one he would inevitably choose. They should have known this would be where he would lead them. Defending the indefensible
I am not sure it is cherry picking, the NAO has been pretty scathing about military housing.
Compared to what?
BTW I have access to average thermal comfort and rents for council houses vs private rented. What do you think it shows?
NAO has been pretty scathing about military housing
I grew up in military housing. It was pretty much equivalent to the home I live in now as it happens, built at the same time with the same construction methods with the same benefits and drawbacks, but then this was public housing back when I was a kid as well. What’s the relevance as regards housing individual MPs without them deciding where/who the money goes to? Could they live like me in the week? Yes… but I’d be happy if they had much higher standards, while an MP, and that their successors also got to have somewhere good to stay in London as well. I just don’t want a system they can game to “invest”.
I think that it’s pretty obvious that this is exactly the one he would inevitably choose.
Agreed.
I am not sure it is cherry picking, the NAO has been pretty scathing about military housing.
That would be the military housing sold off on the cheap and then rented back?
Possibly not the best example to use as why public housing is bad. Perhaps if the MPs had to use it they might be a tad more motivated not to do bad deals.
I am not sure it is cherry picking, the NAO has been pretty scathing about military housing.
I'd be willing to bet that if MPs had to live in state housing that the situation would suddenly improve
Absolute ****ing mic drop by Alastair Campbell on Question Time there
The Tory’s have put up…. *checks notes*… who? To defend the indefensible
Some junior bag-carrier who really got the short straw today
That would be the military housing sold off on the cheap and then rented back?
With the benefit of hindsight it looked cheap but my colleague who sat next to me and led our bidding consortium thought we had put in a very punchy bid at about £1.45 billion and none of the team could work out how Nomura could get their numbers to work, that was the reality at the time. Nomura did get a windfall because the MOD hadn't thought through all the consequences but no one was aware of that at the time of the bids.
But the gripe with military housing is that it simply wasn't maintained properly at all, this applies to both barracks of which 30% are rated as poor according to the NAO and married quarters which despite the influx of cash were never upgraded as intended. They weren't up to much when I was brought up in them and they have deteriorated significantly since then. Central government's history with property management is pretty poor, councils may be better, although there are obviously dreadful examples like Croydon.
I just don’t want a system they can game to “invest”.
How can they game the present system?
Central government’s history with property management is pretty poor, councils may be better, although there are obviously dreadful examples like Croydon.
You started off challenging the idea that the state provided "better quality" housing than the rented private sector but now appear to be referring to "property management". The two are not the same.
I have no doubt that the build quality of Buckingham Palace is excellent, however if a leak were to develop above the Queen's bedroom and no one did anything about it for 4 years eventually Her Majesty's [Gawd bless 'er] bedroom would become unfit for human habitation.
There was nothing wrong with Croydon's housing stock. The problem was that the incompetent right-wing Labour council couldn't give a toss about its tenants for whom they had no respect and simply ignored for years, until an ITN camera crew turned up one day.
Had Croydon Council been under the control of a different administration there is no reason to assume that there would have been any problems at all.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-57020176
The report says that residents in four properties alerted the authority to leaks, but their concerns were "left unresolved" for four years.
Among their key findings, Ark Consultancy said that there was “a poor operating culture with a lack of care and respect for tenants”
To damn state housing provisions because of the behaviour of a corrupt Blairite council is like damning the NHS because of Matt Hancock's corrupt Covid contracts.
You started off challenging the idea that the state provided “better quality” housing
A function of imprecise wording, Central Government's record with housing, particularly military which I was brought up in, and property generally was what I was thinking about. I don't have any experience of council housing and wasn't thinking about that.
How can they game the present system?
They choose who their rent money goes to. Another MP. A company ultimately owned by an associate or family member. The history of MPs finding ways to use expenses to add to their income, rather than to just cover costs, means that some of us little people would like all MPs to be provided for where possible, rather than allowed to spend expenses money how they see fit. No “investment decisions” should be made by them with expenses paid to them. The trust just isn’t there, so remove the temptation. Here’s your salary (I’m happy for it to be higher as it happens), here’s your London accommodation, here’s your constituency office, here’s your rail season ticket. Get on with the job…
If the accommodation turns out to be sub-standard… then the inhabitants in this case are in a position to be listened to and to push for better upkeep or whatever. Something many private rental and social housing tenants are not in such a strong position to do.
I don’t have any experience of council housing and wasn’t thinking about that.
So you personally brought up Croydon without thinking about it?
Well okay but if you bring it up again, whilst thinking about something else, don't be surprised if I respond.
It's not really possible for me to know when you do it without thinking!
"Absolute ****ing mic drop by Alastair Campbell on Question Time there"
Thought Lucy Powell (my local MP) was going to jump over the screen and start eating Tory boy alive.
It was like watching a blood sport.
Another MP. A company ultimately owned by an associate or family member.
Against the rules in the case of family members - but paying rent to a fellow MP is only an optical issue - there is no room for malfeasance.
No “investment decisions” should be made by them
You keep on going on about this - it seems to be completely meaningless guff .
So you personally brought up Croydon without thinking about it?
Obviously Ransos had brought it - council housing - up by then and I mentioned Croydon just for you - I am nice like that.
I would
That's a little disingenuous - just a few pages back I asked it you would come out of retirement for 80K and all the travel and hassle involved and you said you wouldn't. What you mean is - "Hypothetically I would do it for 30K if I wasn't retired". Your are still younger than MANY MPs.
Its my belief that we would actually get a better standard of MPS if the remuneration was cut
I'm sceptical. Are local councillors better quality than MPs or MSPs? Are MSPs better than MPs? I think you might get rid of some of those who see it as a career which may be no bad thing - but I'm not convinced their replacements will be better. I mean at least a rich tory you can understand protecting their own - but a tory on median wage?
I mentioned Croydon just for you – I am nice like that.
Thanks. Few things wind me up, I really couldn't give a toss about Owen Paterson, but now you've got wound up about the truly disgusting scandal of a Labour council, which over many years I played a small part in helping achieve power, forcing low income tenants to live in flats dripping with water, forced to turn off their electricity supplies, and unable sleep on their sopping wet beds, all because the Labour Council couldn't give a toss about them. And most of them aren't white anyway.
Do you know that not one single person has been expelled from the the Labour Party in Croydon because of that scandal.
Presumably it isn't considered serious enough ..... they didn't "bring the party into disrepute".
Although Starmer has thrown someone out of the party in Croydon recently, but for being in a longtime supporter of the Palestinian people. Apparently that is more serious than condemning vulnerable people to live on conditions not fit for animals.
https://insidecroydon.com/2021/09/24/beyond-farce-as-labour-purges-veteran-croydon-official/
Sources within the Croydon Central CLP have told Inside Croydon that White’s suspension is based on a handful of tweets supportive of the Palestinian cause, in some cases going back seven years.
Now I'm proper wound up. Git
Sorry but you are good value when you come off your long run.
Against the rules in the case of family members – but paying rent to a fellow MP is only an optical issue – there is no room for malfeasance.
Anyone who is smart enough to be an MP is smart enough to forsee the "optical issue" and should therefore avoid it to protect their reputation, the party and the institution of parliament. However the rules explicitly allow it - its not a case of 'well nobody said we shouldn't' the rules explicitly say you can!
I'm sure there's room for malfeasance - you obviously aren't creative enough:
MP-A buys a property in London with a mortgage that costs £1800 a month. He rents it to MP-B for £1949 a month which just so happens to be the maximum permitted. Meanwhile MP-B also buys a property which he rents to MP-A. At the end of the day both have effectively had the properties bought for them by the taxpayer something the new rules specifically tried to stop. You could further exploit the system by either (i) renting a property to your fellow MP at above market rate (say it would only rent for £1400 a month and you get £1949 for it) and/or (ii) renting a property which is provided with a cleaner, tv subscription services and gardener for the £1949 (and would otherwise be much cheaper) when those add ons were banned from being claimed. I think IPSA do ask for the rental agreement but these things might not always be documented if it's a gentleman agreement, and I don't know if they assess true value for money. Not saying it is happening - but if I can dream it up in 2 mins I'm sure some of them have considered it.
(Note the £1949/m is for those living "alone" - you can claim an extra £450 for each of your children - and you can claim their travel as well as your spouse's which I think would be considered very generous by most employers etc)
From The Times, so much wrong with the "unfairness" angle. But to start with. If you could afford it before becoming an MP you surely looked at earnings before applying so knew if you could afford it after. Secondly don't be parachuted into a safe seat if you don't live there. Our politics is a chuffing mess.
To simplify the system, Ipsa said it would pay only the cost of renting a property in the capital. But a number of MPs who already had London properties said the rule was unfair because it forced them to subsidise the cost of a second home, which the job required them to have because they had to spend time in both London and their constituencies.
I’d be willing to bet that if MPs had to live in state housing that the situation would suddenly improve
Same goes if they had to live on Universal Credit, live on minimum wage and so on but they don't have to and they don't care but that doesn't matter as they get voted in every time so only have to look like they care about the 'right' things.
. I don’t have any experience of council housing and wasn’t thinking about that.
Ah right. So when you were criticising state housing you were excluding most of it.
FWIW the military house I lived in was very nice.
Same here, I grew up in Military houses and they were all perfectly fine.
Performance related pay for MPs could be linked to the minimum wage. Maybe a multiple? Or is that a multiple of 1?
Or average wage or something?
Would encourage them to improve wages for people.
Same here, I grew up in Military houses and they were all perfectly fine.
Going back to the 70s RAF bases we lived on, the married quarters were, and had to be kept, immaculate. I believe issues have got much worse since though.
Worked with social housing over much of the last 15 years and the vast majority are in "good" condition. The ones that aren't are probably 50/50 poor tenants and poor design.
About 5-6 years ago I went to look at some new build HA stuff in Stoke, and they were stunning quality. The team from the HA told me that they invest upfront in durable, quality fixtures and fittings as some tenants don't care, so buy cheap, buy twice was their warning.
If only the government would properly invest in providing it where its needed. Like pretty much everywhere.
Lots of really good questions here about how can MP's have the time to do a second / third job. I think that is a good question. However, is that challenge not undermined by the ministerial appointment system? We say it is fine for the PM, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Minister for Health etc. to all do those jobs whilst still being a constituency MP. Surely if they have the time for that combination of work, then the Right Hon Member for Chizzlewick and Bumble**** also has the time to do a few hours consultancy for his local sausage factory?
*clearly it is the case that in every example I have given, the current post holder is not displaying any actual competence to do either job.
Understanding and overseeing new legislation is the job of all MPs. Back benchers and ministers are just coming at it from different directions, and the ministers have far more people helping them. Personally, I'm fed up with MPs, whether in government or not, nodding thorough legislation they simply have not digested or understood the significance of. It's one of the reasons my "abolish the House of Lords" absolutist desires have waned a bit, and I'd rather a second house that is reformed and more accountable rather than done away with. So much poor/worse legislation would be in place without a handful of hard working members of the Lords.
Ministers (and PM) can perfectly well handle both their roles, as there should be so much crossover. Of course, if they are part time like Johnson, then I doubt they can really perform either role competently. When's his next holiday...? Is the book finished yet...?
Personally, I’m fed up with MPs, whether in government or not, nodding thorough legislation they simply have not digested or understood the significance of.
It’s glaringly obvious that none of the Brexiteer MPs actually bothered to read the withdrawal agreement they voted through, including the Prime Minister
It’s a good job it’s nothing important eh?
So Johnsons u-turn will be letting IDS, Cox etc off the hook after all
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1460713384823898112?t=7lUl7GJuOoiAz4k5HSLIkw&s=19
Johnson will just do what he always does.
Give the big bold announcement that grabs all the headlines and makes it look like he’s going to do something
Then he’ll gradually water it down and scrap bits here and there, kick other bits into the long grass, until in the end it’s business as usual and nothing changes at all
Personally, I’m fed up with MPs, whether in government or not, nodding thorough legislation they simply have not digested or understood the significance of.
The amount of legislation seems to be increasing year on year, and this is pretty much the same across the world not just in the UK. It is impossible for MP's to have any kind of expert grasp on all the legislation that is passed, and it does come down to trust of the system and party to vote through the bills that they are asked to do so.
The question is, is all this legislation a necessary reaction to the modern world, or is it a symptom of a failed and frequently corrupt system. Either way I don't see how our current parliamentary system can cope without serious reform.
PM questions earlier t'day, Boris doing what he does best, disruption and obfuscation
its not going well for bozo
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1460974952081993728
https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1460973859172229129
How did he think he’d get away with trying to retrospectively change the rules and oversight to exonerate Paterson?
https://twitter.com/bestforbritain/status/1460993624569794562?s=21
With Johnson the line between lies and the truth is the same as the line between dreams and reality with Dougal
Lots of really good questions here about how can MP’s have the time to do a second / third job. I think that is a good question. However, is that challenge not undermined by the ministerial appointment system? We say it is fine for the PM, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Minister for Health etc. to all do those jobs whilst still being a constituency MP. Surely if they have the time for that combination of work, then the Right Hon Member for Chizzlewick and Bumble**** also has the time to do a few hours consultancy for his local sausage factory?
I suppose its a question of whether theres enough of those parliamentary jobs to go round. there are 650 MPs and over over 100 paid ministerial positions (there are also a few unpaid ones too - but they occupy those MP's time whether its paid for or not). The are also all around 100 shadow ministerial positions for the official opposition which aren't paid but which do occupy time. And there are of course other parties, all with leaders, deputies and other roles. So over 200 MPs have significant government and opposition roles to play in addition to being a constituency MP, but over 400 don't.
Johnson has spent the afternoon being grilled by various parliamentary committees - I don't know how many Parliamentary committees there are or how many people sit on them in total but the people who chair those committees have the time to do so and are paid to do it and the people who sit on those committees at least have time to take part in those activities all in addition to their constituency work.
But if there aren't enough of those roles for everyone in parliament should have as much to occupy them as a minister does then I don't really know what the rationale is for preventing MP's from doing something else with that time. The should maybe be limits on the quantity of time they spend on other pursuits and a minimum expectation on how present an MP should be in their role - in the sense of being physically present, but also present in the sense of being engaged and active in the business of parliament.
(Hansard apparently records that George Cox said something a while ago. It doesnt really give a record of anything Nadine Dorries said while she was on I'm a Celebrity. I think you have to check through back copies of Heat for that)
"Lucky Boris" still had a way to go but his star is waning. '21 is going to be a tough year for him. Not as tough as it will be for much of the UK because of him though.
As usual with the Tories, it probably won't be the public that ends his leadership but his own party.
The knives are being sharpened I suspect. Metaphorically,I should add.