Bolitics The New Condem Government

[tonyh29]

On how many occasions did Blair, Major and Thatch speak in the house following their departures as PM?

Blair stood down as an MP didn't he ?

Thatcher stayed on for a few more years , not sure on attendance records though

[tonyh29]

Brown > Cameron

I know one has to keep up appearances for appearances sake but you can't seriously believe that

That's not an endorsement of Cameron's premiership , but Brown will go down / already has gone down as Britain's worse ever PM

Face it. A goldfish in a poly bag > Cameron.

Sadly not backed up by an opinion poll in the Sunday mirror and independent ( neither on your evil list I might add )

Which has Brown bottom of the post war PM list

Major 7th and Cameron and Callaghan joint 5th

Though tbf there is still time for Cameron to stake a claim with Major for 7th

Edited July 22, 2013 by tonyh29

[snowychap]

True. When Blair discovered he was going to be the latest obstacle to middle east peace (and all that went with the position) he thanked his constituents and bade them a fond farewell.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Blair wanted to stay on but they couldn't afford his appearance fee.

[chrisp65]

Jack Straw was on a radio talk show on R4 last week. With ref to Brown, he said he regretted that period and even though he had helped run Gordon Brown's campaign he didn't believe any of them had realised just how 'broken' a character Brown was. Their first realisation was the first cabinet meeting of Brown which went on for hours, saw everyone blamed for something and resolved nothing. He was described as a man convinced the rest of the world was out to get him and incapable of conclusively making any definitive decision on anything until after the event and then reinventing facts to suit.

[peterms]

Jack Straw was on a radio talk show on R4 last week. With ref to Brown, he said he regretted that period and even though he had helped run Gordon Brown's campaign he didn't believe any of them had realised just how 'broken' a character Brown was. Their first realisation was the first cabinet meeting of Brown which went on for hours, saw everyone blamed for something and resolved nothing. He was described as a man convinced the rest of the world was out to get him and incapable of conclusively making any definitive decision on anything until after the event and then reinventing facts to suit.

 

If Jack Straw accuses someone of inventing facts to suit themselves, we should accept that he knows what he's talking about.  He has some considerable expertise in the matter.

[peterms]

 

Former prime minister Gordon Brown is the member of parliament earning the most from work outside parliament, new data have revealed.

The Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, who has only spoken in the Commons on four occasions since May 2010, notched up £1.37 million in earnings outside his day job as a Labour backbencher during the last session of parliament.

Don't recall Ed mentioning him in his second jobs speech in HofC the other week

 

 

If you're going to quote the money made by Brown, it would seem only fair to mention also that it all goes to charity.  He also doesn't take the massive pension given to ex-PMs for having once been PM.

 

On both points, he stands in complete contrast to both Thatcher and Blair.

 

Which example is more worthy of praise or criticism, would you say?

[Awol]

 

 

Ridiculous comment awol. His job as mp is to deal with constituency issues not to tootle down to london to listen osborne abuse him etc. i would be interested to see evidence of his constituents being unhappy with his work as their mp. Any chance of showing us some, genuinely interested to see.

An MP that doesn't attend Parliament is not doing his job. The clue believe it or not is in the job title.

 

That's pretty simple stuff to wrap your head around to be honest.

 

EDIT: Are there any other MP's with Scottish constituencies who feel tootling down to London is beneath them? I thought they were called MSP's?

 

Conclusion?  Gordon is indeed, special.

the last bit you have added certainly indicates a lot

 

What's that then, the fact Gordon is the only MP from a Scottish constituency who feels that 50% of his job is optional? Yes, it does indicate a lot really, about his character and his fitness for public office. It also highlights the weakness of a Labour leadership that is happy to indulge his sulking and sense of exceptionalism, but then the most senior of them were his proteges, learning at the feet of a lunatic.

 

Before you try to swing this as Tory mocking mental illness (neither of which is true), it is fair to point out that 1) No 10 is not the place for a man or woman with paranoid delusional tendencies, and 2) the country would not be in a better place if he had been elected as PM.

[peterms]

What's that then, the fact Gordon is the only MP from a Scottish constituency who feels that 50% of his job is optional? Yes, it does indicate a lot really, about his character and his fitness for public office. It also highlights the weakness of a Labour leadership that is happy to indulge his sulking and sense of exceptionalism, but then the most senior of them were his proteges, learning at the feet of a lunatic.

 

Before you try to swing this as Tory mocking mental illness (neither of which is true), it is fair to point out that 1) No 10 is not the place for a man or woman with paranoid delusional tendencies, and 2) the country would not be in a better place if he had been elected as PM.

I think we all know that attendance at a workplace isn't the same as doing your job.  It's even more so in parliament, where the job is notionally representing constituents' interests (and those of the wider public), but in reality is more about doing as instructed by the party machine.

 

An MP can turn up every day, spend half the time stuffing subsidised food and booze and the other half asking a few questions planted by the whip's office, making a few token contributions to debates which change nothing and challenge nothing, and lobbing in a few token points about a handful of constituency issues, and the record and the stats will show them as doing a good job.

 

Most MPs do in fact play this role of pliant lobby fodder, doing what they are told in the hope of later preferment, and only taking a more independent line when repeatedly passed over for a job, or perhaps humiliated like Dorries.

 

In the debate on the bedroom tax, I gather that at points there were no tory MPs in the chamber.  But since they were down in one of the many bars, knocking back the cheap booze, they will claim to have been working hard in parliament.

[Awol]

 

What's that then, the fact Gordon is the only MP from a Scottish constituency who feels that 50% of his job is optional? Yes, it does indicate a lot really, about his character and his fitness for public office. It also highlights the weakness of a Labour leadership that is happy to indulge his sulking and sense of exceptionalism, but then the most senior of them were his proteges, learning at the feet of a lunatic.

 

Before you try to swing this as Tory mocking mental illness (neither of which is true), it is fair to point out that 1) No 10 is not the place for a man or woman with paranoid delusional tendencies, and 2) the country would not be in a better place if he had been elected as PM.

I think we all know that attendance at a workplace isn't the same as doing your job.  It's even more so in parliament, where the job is notionally representing constituents' interests (and those of the wider public), but in reality is more about doing as instructed by the party machine.

 

An MP can turn up every day, spend half the time stuffing subsidised food and booze and the other half asking a few questions planted by the whip's office, making a few token contributions to debates which change nothing and challenge nothing, and lobbing in a few token points about a handful of constituency issues, and the record and the stats will show them as doing a good job.

 

Most MPs do in fact play this role of pliant lobby fodder, doing what they are told in the hope of later preferment, and only taking a more independent line when repeatedly passed over for a job, or perhaps humiliated like Dorries.

 

In the debate on the bedroom tax, I gather that at points there were no tory MPs in the chamber.  But since they were down in one of the many bars, knocking back the cheap booze, they will claim to have been working hard in parliament.

 

I simply don't believe that if it was a Tory MP failing to attend his place of work and do the job he was paid for, (although according to Tony29's figure Brown appears to getting well paid for doing other things which may explain his reticence) the lefties on here would be trying to manufacture reasons explaining why that is actually okay. 

[peterms]

I simply don't believe that if it was a Tory MP failing to attend his place of work and do the job he was paid for, (although according to Tony29's figure Brown appears to getting well paid for doing other things which may explain his reticence) the lefties on here would be trying to manufacture reasons explaining why that is actually okay.

The better comparison would be with PMs, not MPs.  Ex-PMs have tended not to hang around parliament too much, whether from a sense of grandeur, or bitterness, or not wanting to be like Banquo's ghost, I couldn't say.  They don't do things like serve on committees, which is one of the things which actually represents something approaching work, rather than lounging in the tea room or being taken to lunch by lobbyists.

 

On the pay point, see my post above.  He doesn't keep the money, so any implication that he's not in parliament because it profits him not to be, if that's what you mean, is wrong.

[tonyh29]

 

 

Former prime minister Gordon Brown is the member of parliament earning the most from work outside parliament, new data have revealed.

The Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, who has only spoken in the Commons on four occasions since May 2010, notched up £1.37 million in earnings outside his day job as a Labour backbencher during the last session of parliament.

Don't recall Ed mentioning him in his second jobs speech in HofC the other week

 

 

If you're going to quote the money made by Brown, it would seem only fair to mention also that it all goes to charity.  He also doesn't take the massive pension given to ex-PMs for having once been PM.

 

On both points, he stands in complete contrast to both Thatcher and Blair.

 

Which example is more worthy of praise or criticism, would you say?

 

it doesn't ALL go to charity  ( his office deducts various "running costs " )  , so if you are going to quote the money donated by Brown it would only seem to fair mention this

 

having cost the British taxpayer around £100 bn with his pension raid , I should think the least Brown could do is leave his bit in the fund .. Cameron has already forgone his pension as well btw if you want to dish the praise about  ...

 

as for the criticism , the case put forward by Drat was that Brown was working hard for his constituency  , the evidence was posted to suggest his constituency may not be getting his full attention  , not to invoke Ahhh but Thatcher

[bickster]

...it would seem only fair to mention also that...

 

On both points, he stands in complete contrast to both Thatcher and Blair.

...not to invoke Ahhh but Thatcher

Conveniently missing son of Thatcher out there ;-)

[peterms]

it doesn't ALL go to charity  ( his office deducts various "running costs " )  , so if you are going to quote the money donated by Brown it would only seem to fair mention this

All charities deduct the administrative costs of running the charity, before making charitable donations. It doesn't need mentioning, because it is both obvious, and entirely standard across the whole charitable sector. These costs are only noteworthy when they are wholly disproportionate to any charitable use of funds, like with Atlantic Bridge.

 

having cost the British taxpayer around £100 bn with his pension raid , I should think the least Brown could do is leave his bit in the fund

You've mentioned this a few times, I think. It seems to be based on an uncritical acceptance of the line pushed by the Mail and Telegraph. There's a much more balanced summary of the many causes for pension funds being in a mess here. I'd quote it, but she asks people not to.

 

as for the criticism , the case put forward by Drat was that Brown was working hard for his constituency  , the evidence was posted to suggest his constituency may not be getting his full attention  , not to invoke Ahhh but Thatcher

Which gets you back to the point about whether his constituents are happy with Brown. From what I gather, they are. I expect his party are happy that he's not around the Commons much, as it's generally helpful to new leaders if the former leader isn't there. The charities will benefit, so I guess they're happy. Since the tories hate him so much, they must be happy too. But he does seem to be something of a hate figure in the right-wing blogosphere.

[tonyh29]

 

You've mentioned this a few times, I think. It seems to be based on an uncritical acceptance of the line pushed by the Mail and Telegraph. There's a much more balanced summary of the many causes for pension funds being in a mess here. I'd quote it, but she asks people not to.

 

 

ahh the old axis of evil newspaper list (funny how the Mirror never make your list despite their vile faking solders abusing pow's etc etc  )  .. but the 100bn figure is also banded about in those right wing hotbeds like the Guardian , along with countless other sources .. unless one of your conspiracies is how Tory HQ control the whole Interweb

 

 

 

Which gets you back to the point about whether his constituents are happy with Brown. From what I gather, they are. I expect his party are happy that he's not around the Commons much, as it's generally helpful to new leaders if the former leader isn't there. The charities will benefit, so I guess they're happy. Since the tories hate him so much, they must be happy too. But he does seem to be something of a hate figure in the right-wing blogosphere.

 

haven't you used the "right wing " argument  already in this post  ... I would say from his lowly position in a poll carried out for the Sunday Mirror that he isn't exactly popular with the left wingers either ...apart from the impartial Villatalk labour supporters in this thread    ...

 

From what you gather they are happy with him  .. could you tell me the sample size of his constituents you spoke to  ?

 

 

 

 

 

All charities deduct the administrative costs of running the charity, before making charitable donations. It doesn't need mentioning, because it is both obvious, and entirely standard across the whole charitable sector. These costs are only noteworthy when they are wholly disproportionate to any charitable use of funds, like with Atlantic Bridge.

 

 

so he hasn't given the entire 1.37 million to charity then ..thanks for confirming this

[peterms]

ahh the old axis of evil newspaper list (funny how the Mirror never make your list despite their vile faking solders abusing pow's etc etc  )  .. but the 100bn figure is also banded about in those right wing hotbeds like the Guardian , along with countless other sources .. unless one of your conspiracies is how Tory HQ control the whole Interweb

This is the Guardian comment on the issue. In summary, it's tory bullshit.

 

From what you gather they are happy with him  .. could you tell me the sample size of his constituents you spoke to  ?

 

Check his polling figures. Leave out the 1983 election, when Labour did badly everywhere, so you would expect his vote to have grown from that point. His vote in 2010, when Labour didn't do very well across the country, was higher in numbers and exactly the same in % as the 1997 election which represents Labour's best performance in recent years. His local vote has improved on what was achieved in Labour's best result.

 

so he hasn't given the entire 1.37 million to charity then ..thanks for confirming this

I can't tell if you think you're making a serious point here. On balance I suspect not, so I won't address it.

[drat01]

I wish there was a round of applause smiley for Peter's totally killing off both Tony's and AWOL's fairl weak arguments - worthy of more than just a like

 

So back to the Tory's and the lies and BS they seem to spout on a regular basis as they become more and more desperate. It seems that IDS has to now squirm and evade questions in respect to the charge of misuse of benefits statistics.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/confirmed-duncan-smith-will-be-grilled-mps-september-over-misuse-benefit-statistics

 

I wonder if he will use the Cameron line of answering questions that were not asked

[mjmooney]

I wish there was a round of applause smiley

 

[Risso]

Something doesn't smell quite right with those Brown figures.  If he gets £1.5m or however much from speaking etc, it then looks like it gets diverted to "The Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown Limited".  That company is then spending half a million on admin expenses.  On what?  The company itself isn't a charity that I can see.  How much does it cost to give a million pouns to other entities that ARE charities?  I might (and probably have) missed something from a quick perusal of his internet page, but surely the charities themselves will have the operating expenses?  He's already made the money, shouldn't it just be a case of handing it over?  What's "The Office of....." doing that a charity wouldn't be better at?

[drat01]

Something doesn't smell quite right with those Brown figures.  If he gets £1.5m or however much from speaking etc, it then looks like it gets diverted to "The Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown Limited".  That company is then spending half a million on admin expenses.  On what?  The company itself isn't a charity that I can see.  How much does it cost to give a million pouns to other entities that ARE charities?  I might (and probably have) missed something from a quick perusal of his internet page, but surely the charities themselves will have the operating expenses?  He's already made the money, shouldn't it just be a case of handing it over?  What's "The Office of....." doing that a charity wouldn't be better at?

I am sure if there was anything dodgy, the good folks at one of Murdoch's rags or the Mail etc would have investigated and Tony and AWOl would have been quoting in posts on here. I am still waiting for examples of where his constituents - you know the people he represents - are unhappy with his work as their MP. It could be a long wait ......