George Osborne new editor of Evening Standard

So George Osborne is to be the editor of the London Evening Standard for 4 days a week and on the books of Blackrock for one day a week and its thought that he will remain as MP ??? Hows that work then??

So George Osborne is to be the editor of the London Evening Standard for 4 days a week and on the books of Blackrock for one day a week and its thought that he will remain as MP ??? Hows that work then??

The same way it always has - people can do more than one job. Unless he holds an Crown office of profit that MP's are banned from (eg Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds or the Manor of Northstead) then it's perfectly legal.

its ok neither job will see him doing 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for a pittance like the rest of us

The same way it always has - people can do more than one job. Unless he holds an Crown office of profit that MP's are banned from (eg Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds or the Manor of Northstead) then it's perfectly legal.

And that's the problem. MPs salary should be increased to that of an average board member (they do a very important job and should be rewarded for it) but they should be absolutely banned from holding any position or receiving any other income of any kind whilst serving as an MP as any other income including rental property or share ownership might put them in a conflict of interests (a la the MP with the massive housing portfolio who attempts to block any attempts to tighten landlord regs...) Also, any revenue generated after they quit being an MP but can be directly linked to their time as an MP should be taxed at higher rates. Second point is proably controversial and would be hard to implement.

The way they are speaking on BBC news, he has no journalistic background. If so, it seems an odd choice.

Being an MP and representing your constituents properly should be a full time job.

Second jobs for MPs were allowed purely to 'keep them in touch' with the real world.

In which case why don't they work at the sticky end of jobs in hospitals, the police, schools, social work/care etc rather than cushy, and highly lucrative bank directorships.

And that's the problem. MPs salary should be increased to that of an average board member (they do a very important job and should be rewarded for it) but they should be absolutely banned from holding any position or receiving any other income of any kind whilst serving as an MP as any other income including rental property or share ownership might put them in a conflict of interests (a la the MP with the massive housing portfolio who attempts to block any attempts to tighten landlord regs...) Also, any revenue generated after they quit being an MP but can be directly linked to their time as an MP should be taxed at higher rates. Second point is proably controversial and would be hard to implement.

So you are simply going to stop many people from being an MP if you do that - the number of people who can do the job well who also own shares for example is probably close to 100%.

Going to stop them from getting savings interest as well? As for the idea that they should have to pay more tax afterwards, it's utterly unworkable and would just be used by people with a vendetta against them for years to come afterwards.

---------- Post added 17-03-2017 at 13:38 ----------

Being an MP and representing your constituents properly should be a full time job.

 

Second jobs for MPs were allowed purely to 'keep them in touch' with the real world.

In which case why don't they work at the sticky end of jobs in hospitals, the police, schools, social work/care etc rather than cushy, and highly lucrative bank directorships.

IF he can hold down being an MP and being chancellor, then I suspect he can be an MP and other things as well....

Your post as ever reeks of jealousy Anna that someones managed to get a better job than you have.

So you are simply going to stop many people from being an MP if you do that - the number of people who can do the job well who also own shares for example is probably close to 100%.

Thinking about it you are right about the shares thing, perhaps all shares must be transferred to 'blind' management companies and trusts so the management is done with no knowledge of the holder and therefore cannot be seen as a conflict of interest. I've heard this mentioned somewhere lately, I think to do with Theresa May (might have made that up)

Thinking about it you are right about the shares thing, perhaps all shares must be transferred to 'blind' management companies and trusts so the management is done with no knowledge of the holder and therefore cannot be seen as a conflict of interest. I've heard this mentioned somewhere lately, I think to do with Theresa May (might have made that up)

I think it was to do with Donald Trump. he was meant to put all his business activities into a blind trust but instead his sons are running them.

Thinking about it you are right about the shares thing, perhaps all shares must be transferred to 'blind' management companies and trusts so the management is done with no knowledge of the holder and therefore cannot be seen as a conflict of interest. I've heard this mentioned somewhere lately, I think to do with Theresa May (might have made that up)

Most people will buy and hold shares for a long period of time - I've not for example traded any of my shares in the last eight years.... just added to the holdings so a blind trust isn't really going to work as they will still know exactly what they have in the holdings...

So you are simply going to stop many people from being an MP if you do that - the number of people who can do the job well who also own shares for example is probably close to 100%.

 

Going to stop them from getting savings interest as well? As for the idea that they should have to pay more tax afterwards, it's utterly unworkable and would just be used by people with a vendetta against them for years to come afterwards.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2017 at 13:38 ----------

 

 

IF he can hold down being an MP and being chancellor, then I suspect he can be an MP and other things as well....

 

Your post as ever reeks of jealousy Anna that someones managed to get a better job than you have.

Oh give it a rest. You might be motivated by nothing but money, but I am not.

Apart from his debatable ability to do several jobs at once, newspapers are supposed to be unbiased reporters of news ..(yes, I know..) but, as has been said, this just gives him a political power base to blatantly promote his conservative anti-Brexit views.

I'm glad I don't live in Tatton

Oh give it a rest. You might be motivated by nothing but money, but I am not.

 

Apart from his debatable ability to do several jobs at once, newspapers are supposed to be unbiased reporters of news ..(yes, I know..) but, as has been said, this just gives him a political power base to blatantly promote his conservative anti-Brexit views.

 

I'm glad I don't live in Tatton

Newspapers are not obliged to be unbiased. They should be factual, but that's not the same thing. Who decides what the correct interpretation of events is, or what the most likely unknowns are? It just doesn't work that way.

You know I'm a fanatical leave supporter, but there's nothing really wrong with Osbourne taking this job and also nothing wrong with him using it to argue against Brexit.

Also. If it were not for people like Obelix who generate wealth for the economy, there'd be no money for us public servants. Stop taking half the money he earns to spend on the public sector, then you can tell him he's wrong to make money.