Oh dear Scotty

Wow, that's standing up for your constituents isn't it. Does one thing and says another, whilst getting paid for it. Endemic of the current crop of political leaders, he's no better.
 
Scott Benton was actually on the BBC mid-day political programme today.
Of course it wasn't mentioned.
WHY Not?
 
Most of them are in it for themselves whether that be the ego trip or the financial rewards.

‘David Lammy's £200,000 pay from second jobs just 'part of the political process', says Keir Starmer​

Labour’s shadow foreign secretary has previously attacked other parliamentarians for lucrative second roles’.

Greedy hypocrite who should be putting more effort into his ‘day job’.

He’s just as bad as that Benton fella. I don’t trust any of them.
 
It’s really about time that this was so blatantly reported on a simple to read website.
I know I posted the latest Sky version they did with tortoise.

I have no issue with them being money makers for their interests, if they are 100% open about it and open to public scrutiny regularly.

If he just stood up and said I take big dollar to promote this company then you know it and you can decide if you want to vote for that person or not
 
Shearer9 said:
I think it’s been shown on here dozens of times how bad both sides of the political divide are with these types of behaviour. It’s not a one sided argument.
Click to expand...
That’s always your last line of defence. To be used to excuse every flagrant breach of acceptable standards when there’s clearly no justification.

“They are all as bad as each other”

They aren’t.
 
Malced said:
Most of them are in it for themselves whether that be the ego trip or the financial rewards.

‘David Lammy's £200,000 pay from second jobs just 'part of the political process', says Keir Starmer​

Labour’s shadow foreign secretary has previously attacked other parliamentarians for lucrative second roles’.

Greedy hypocrite who should be putting more effort into his ‘day job’.

He’s just as bad as that Benton fella. I don’t trust any of them
Click to expand...
There is no equivalence between the two.

The bulk of Lammy`s money (possibly all of it) comes from him presenting weekend phone-ins on LBC, whereby you can call in and talk about politics and challenge him on issues. It is an extension of his job, and done in his own time. Conservative MPs have done similar on LBC.

Scott Benton disingenuously gave his support to his constituents whilst his constituency office received donations from the company in question.

Lammy ain`t "just as bad as that Benton fella" on this one.

Whether MPs should have paid jobs outside of parliament is a different topic to what Scott Benton did...
 
Shearer9 said:
I think it’s been shown on here dozens of times how bad both sides of the political divide are with these types of behaviour. It’s not a one sided argument.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of the £17.2m earned from second jobs since the last general election in December 2019 – £15.2m – went to Tory MPs, analysis found, “dwarfing the combined income of politicians who represent other parties.
I think that’s fairly one sided.
 
He likes is breakfast/lunch/dinner at local establishments, do they give it him free for the advertisment. Nothing will come of the airport too.
 
spudgun said:
There is no equivalence between the two.

The bulk of Lammy`s money (possibly all of it) comes from him presenting weekend phone-ins on LBC, whereby you can call in and talk about politics and challenge him on issues. It is an extension of his job, and done in his own time. Conservative MPs have done similar on LBC.

Scott Benton disingenuously gave his support to his constituents whilst his constituency office received donations from the company in question.

Lammy ain`t "just as bad as that Benton fella" on this one.

Whether MPs should have paid jobs outside of parliament is a different topic to what Scott Benton did...
Click to expand...
spudgun said:
There is no equivalence between the two.

The bulk of Lammy`s money (possibly all of it) comes from him presenting weekend phone-ins on LBC, whereby you can call in and talk about politics and challenge him on issues. It is an extension of his job, and done in his own time. Conservative MPs have done similar on LBC.

Scott Benton disingenuously gave his support to his constituents whilst his constituency office received donations from the company in question.

Lammy ain`t "just as bad as that Benton fella" on this one.

Whether MPs should have paid jobs outside of parliament is a different topic to what Scott Benton did...
Click to expand...

I’m not saying there’s an equivalence but there is a comparison to be made. I’d much prefer it that MPs were restricted to their day job of being an MP.

As it is they use their position of privilege to go around snaffling up money from here, there, and everywhere - which:-

A) can lead to corruption
B) can often mean the MP isn’t giving full attention to their constituents.

Being an MP is a vocation, and a way of life, not just a job.

Too many MPs go missing from their constituencies because they’re courting publicity to further their careers, or they’re using their positions of influence in very questionable ways.

I’m all for politicians doing tv/radio work, but this should be ‘expenses only’ because they’re appearing purely because they’re an MP. So it’s part of being an MP - and part of their job. Why should they be paid additionally? I don’t see why they should.

If you want a more equivalent comparison to ‘Bentongate’, I’d suggest you take a look at Sir Starmer. He publicly condemns Just Stop Oil yet behind the scenes takes large party donations for those that fund the group. You can say this isn’t Kier’s earnings of course - and that’s true. But it’s all part of the same seedy underhand problem. Money is being exchanged for favours, for influence, for greed, for personal gain.

We need this complete transparency and I’d argue we need MP earnings to be restricted to their MP salary and nothing else.
 
Malced said:
I’m not saying there’s an equivalence but there is a comparison to be made. I’d much prefer it that MPs were restricted to their day job of being an MP.

As it is they use their position of privilege to go around snaffling up money from here, there, and everywhere - which:-

A) can lead to corruption
B) can often mean the MP isn’t giving full attention to their constituents.

Being an MP is a vocation, and a way of life, not just a job.

Too many MPs go missing from their constituencies because they’re courting publicity to further their careers, or they’re using their positions of influence in very questionable ways.

I’m all for politicians doing tv/radio work, but this should be ‘expenses only’ because they’re appearing purely because they’re an MP. So it’s part of being an MP - and part of their job. Why should they be paid additionally? I don’t see why they should.

If you want a more equivalent comparison to ‘Bentongate’, I’d suggest you take a look at Sir Starmer. He publicly condemns Just Stop Oil yet behind the scenes takes large party donations for those that fund the group. You can say this isn’t Kier’s earnings of course - and that’s true. But it’s all part of the same seedy underhand problem. Money is being exchanged for favours, for influence, for greed, for personal gain.

We need this complete transparency and I’d argue we need MP earnings to be restricted to their MP salary and nothing else.
Click to expand...

But this thread wasn`t about second jobs for MPs, which I said in my post is a separate topic.

Scott Benton (if taken at his word) denies that he benefitted directly from the donation as it went to his `constituency association, which is an entirely different entity`. He didn`t pocket any money, so your introduction of David Lammy pocketing money was irrelevant.

The O/P highlights Scott Benton`s hypocrisy in feigning to support his constituents whilst the Conservative party trousers donations from them. It is about Benton`s disingenuous behaviour towards the constituents he represents.

If you wish to discuss whether MPs should have paid second jobs, I would probably be on the same side as you. Although why you single out David Lammy (for pocketing £200,000), when some idiots are paying John Redwood nearly £700,000 is puzzling. At least Lammy is presenting a radio show....
 
spudgun said:
But this thread wasn`t about second jobs for MPs, which I said in my post is a separate topic.

Scott Benton (if taken at his word) denies that he benefitted directly from the donation as it went to his `constituency association, which is an entirely different entity`. He didn`t pocket any money, so your introduction of David Lammy pocketing money was irrelevant.

The O/P highlights Scott Benton`s hypocrisy in feigning to support his constituents whilst the Conservative party trousers donations from them. It is about Benton`s disingenuous behaviour towards the constituents he represents.

If you wish to discuss whether MPs should have paid second jobs, I would probably be on the same side as you. Although why you single out David Lammy (for pocketing £200,000), when some idiots are paying John Redwood nearly £700,000 is puzzling. At least Lammy is presenting a radio show....
Click to expand...

Threads often cover more than what the scope of the o/p was. Its inevitable discussions widen, because some topics are closely linked to other topics. So my comparisons are not a quantum leap. Nor is there any hard and fast rule about the scope of a thread.

My references to Lammy and Starmer are intentional as a means of introducing some political balance.
The same anti-government posters only ever raise such a thread when its a member of a political party they are ideologically opposed to. When its one of their own they are silent. They go missing. Perhaps they 'were on a break' to quote 'Friends'.

Its tiresome seeing left-leaning echo chamber type threads written not perhaps out of true concern, but primarily out of politcal bias (imho). If it was out of true concern there would be similar posts from the originators, which would cut across the political spectrum. But we don't see that.

I could name maybe half a dozen posters off the top of my head, that only ever post on a political matter when its an opportunity to criticise the Government or someone from the Tory party.
 
spudgun said:
There is no equivalence between the two.

The bulk of Lammy`s money (possibly all of it) comes from him presenting weekend phone-ins on LBC, whereby you can call in and talk about politics and challenge him on issues. It is an extension of his job, and done in his own time. Conservative MPs have done similar on LBC.

Scott Benton disingenuously gave his support to his constituents whilst his constituency office received donations from the company in question.

Lammy ain`t "just as bad as that Benton fella" on this one.

Whether MPs should have paid jobs outside of parliament is a different topic to what Scott Benton did...
Click to expand...
Benton's other main source of funding is from the gambling industry, the same industry that disproportionally damages poorer areas. As we all know, Blackpool is one of the poorest areas in the country.
 
T
Malced said:
I’m not saying there’s an equivalence but there is a comparison to be made. I’d much prefer it that MPs were restricted to their day job of being an MP.

As it is they use their position of privilege to go around snaffling up money from here, there, and everywhere - which:-

A) can lead to corruption
B) can often mean the MP isn’t giving full attention to their constituents.

Being an MP is a vocation, and a way of life, not just a job.

Too many MPs go missing from their constituencies because they’re courting publicity to further their careers, or they’re using their positions of influence in very questionable ways.

I’m all for politicians doing tv/radio work, but this should be ‘expenses only’ because they’re appearing purely because they’re an MP. So it’s part of being an MP - and part of their job. Why should they be paid additionally? I don’t see why they should.

If you want a more equivalent comparison to ‘Bentongate’, I’d suggest you take a look at Sir Starmer. He publicly condemns Just Stop Oil yet behind the scenes takes large party donations for those that fund the group. You can say this isn’t Kier’s earnings of course - and that’s true. But it’s all part of the same seedy underhand problem. Money is being exchanged for favours, for influence, for greed, for personal gain.

We need this complete transparency and I’d argue we need MP earnings to be restricted to their MP salary and nothing else.
Click to expand...
roub is they can earn huge sums outside of politics so if you restrict them to MP salaries only they will give up. Then there is a question about what quality of person will put themselves forward if the best can earn more money elsewhere.
 
Malced said:
My references to Lammy and Starmer are intentional as a means of introducing some political balance.
The same anti-government posters only ever raise such a thread when its a member of a political party they are ideologically opposed to. When its one of their own they are silent. They go missing. Perhaps they 'were on a break' to quote 'Friends'.

Its tiresome seeing left-leaning echo chamber type threads written not perhaps out of true concern, but primarily out of politcal bias (imho). If it was out of true concern there would be similar posts from the originators, which would cut across the political spectrum. But we don't see that.
Click to expand...

Yep, got it malc! Fair point.

Rather than discuss the issue raised on its merit, you see yourself as the self-appointed nemesis of the anti-government faction on here (lets call them `the Communist b***ards` - for we all know that is what they are), and you feel it is your self-appointed duty to dip into your `whataboutery bag` whenever these scum raise a political issue that you do not like, and throw any old shit about.

I think that`s it, if I understand you correctly. Obviously someone needs to do it. For the good of the Board.

Otherwise we may run the risk of having enlightened grown-up debates, with thoughtful views, critical thinking and objectivity.

And we wouldn`t want those Commie tropes on here, would we?....;)
 
Malced said:
I’m not saying there’s an equivalence but there is a comparison to be made. I’d much prefer it that MPs were restricted to their day job of being an MP.

As it is they use their position of privilege to go around snaffling up money from here, there, and everywhere - which:-

A) can lead to corruption
B) can often mean the MP isn’t giving full attention to their constituents.

Being an MP is a vocation, and a way of life, not just a job.

Too many MPs go missing from their constituencies because they’re courting publicity to further their careers, or they’re using their positions of influence in very questionable ways.

I’m all for politicians doing tv/radio work, but this should be ‘expenses only’ because they’re appearing purely because they’re an MP. So it’s part of being an MP - and part of their job. Why should they be paid additionally? I don’t see why they should.

If you want a more equivalent comparison to ‘Bentongate’, I’d suggest you take a look at Sir Starmer. He publicly condemns Just Stop Oil yet behind the scenes takes large party donations for those that fund the group. You can say this isn’t Kier’s earnings of course - and that’s true. But it’s all part of the same seedy underhand problem. Money is being exchanged for favours, for influence, for greed, for personal gain.

We need this complete transparency and I’d argue we need MP earnings to be restricted to their MP salary and nothing else.
Click to expand...
I agree with you in that MPs should treat their job as a full time occupation. In that respect though, speaking through the media is a part of that function. What is not legitimate is telling your constituents one thing whilst quietly taking the shilling from the source of their concerns.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
I agree with you in that MPs should treat their job as a full time occupation. In that respect though, speaking through the media is a part of that function. What is not legitimate is telling your constituents one thing whilst quietly taking the shilling from the source of their concerns.
Click to expand...
Especially when it's the MP for a significant number of the posters on here.
 
Wizaard said:
Benton's other main source of funding is from the gambling industry, the same industry that disproportionally damages poorer areas. As we all know, Blackpool is one of the poorest areas in the country.
Click to expand...
That’s despicable.
 
Wilburrabbit said:
roub is they can earn huge sums outside of politics so if you restrict them to MP salaries only they will give up. Then there is a question about what quality of person will put themselves forward if the best can earn more money elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I don’t buy that. We have some wonderfully talented people in public service and in the private sector. Many of them are on salaries well below a £100k.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
I agree with you in that MPs should treat their job as a full time occupation. In that respect though, speaking through the media is a part of that function. What is not legitimate is telling your constituents one thing whilst quietly taking the shilling from the source of their concerns.
Click to expand...
Agree.
 
spudgun said:
Yep, got it malc! Fair point.

Rather than discuss the issue raised on its merit, you see yourself as the self-appointed nemesis of the anti-government faction on here (lets call them `the Communist b***ards` - for we all know that is what they are), and you feel it is your self-appointed duty to dip into your `whataboutery bag` whenever these scum raise a political issue that you do not like, and throw any old shit about.

I think that`s it, if I understand you correctly. Obviously someone needs to do it. For the good of the Board.

Otherwise we may run the risk of having enlightened grown-up debates, with thoughtful views, critical thinking and objectivity.

And we wouldn`t want those Commie tropes on here, would we?....;)
Click to expand...
haha. Grown up debate? You’ve come to the wrong place. Especially when it comes to political issues. It’s childish polarised rubbish. You want a pile on when it’s a Tory transgressor but stay silent on others. What’s grown up about that?
 
Malced said:
haha. Grown up debate? You’ve come to the wrong place. Especially when it comes to political issues. It’s childish polarised rubbish. You want a pile on when it’s a Tory transgressor but stay silent on others. What’s grown up about that?
Click to expand...
You’re the one being childish!

People are discussing a local MP who may have been a bit naughty and all you can do is go “well this nasty Labour man did this and another did that”.

Classic childlike diversion tactics 🤣
 
TheRealKingKenny said:
You’re the one being childish!

People are discussing a local MP who may have been a bit naughty and all you can do is go “well this nasty Labour man did this and another did that”.

Classic childlike diversion tactics 🤣
Click to expand...

You’re blatantly misrepresenting my position on Benton. Not only have I stated I agree with those who have condemned him, I’ve also described his alleged actions as despicable. So you saying I can only adopt diversionary tactics is wrong. I’m sure you can read well, so I don’t know why you would misrepresent me that way.

Ps don’t call me childish you big poo poo face. 🤣
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Malced said:
I don’t buy that. We have some wonderfully talented people in public service and in the private sector. Many of them are on salaries well below a £100k.
Click to expand...
I think you will find they can command salaries well over £150,000 without much trouble but MPs are paid much less.
 
A lot of younger, new MPs earn nothing like that when elected. If they’re in it to pursue high earnings they’re in the wrong game. Being an MP is an honour and it requires dedication to public service.

There’s no need whatsoever to pay eye watering salaries.

I doubt Lammy et al need to earn £200k on top of the MP salary and in his case on top of the extra he gets for being in the shadow cabinet.

It’s only because he’s an MP that he’s getting the chance to earn these additional amounts. I very much doubt him and his ilk would generally be earning upwards of £300k a year doing something else.

These folk should not be chasing huge earnings from various sources when they’re being paid to be an MP first and foremost. It’s greedy. It’s self serving. It detracts and distracts from their primary role as an MP, and it can lead to corruption or conflicts of interest.
 
Malced said:
You’re blatantly misrepresenting my position on Benton. Not only have I stated I agree with those who have condemned him, I’ve also described his alleged actions as despicable. So you saying I can only adopt diversionary tactics is wrong. I’m sure you can read well, so I don’t know why you would misrepresent me that way.

Ps don’t call me childish you big poo poo face. 🤣
Click to expand...
Yeah fair enough you have condemned Benton. I still think there’s a bit of tit for tat going on with your responses though.
 
Malced said:
A lot of younger, new MPs earn nothing like that when elected. If they’re in it to pursue high earnings they’re in the wrong game. Being an MP is an honour and it requires dedication to public service.

There’s no need whatsoever to pay eye watering salaries.

I doubt Lammy et al need to earn £200k on top of the MP salary and in his case on top of the extra he gets for being in the shadow cabinet.

It’s only because he’s an MP that he’s getting the chance to earn these additional amounts. I very much doubt him and his ilk would generally be earning upwards of £300k a year doing something else.

These folk should not be chasing huge earnings from various sources when they’re being paid to be an MP first and foremost. It’s greedy. It’s self serving. It detracts and distracts from their primary role as an MP, and it can lead to corruption or conflicts of interest.
Click to expand...
Lammy presents a radio call-in show where politics are discussed and from what I have heard he is good at it - if he resigned as an MP I wouldn't be at all surprised if he continued his media career. It seems to be quite well aligned with his job as an MP, he is keeping abreast of what the public think. I don't think that Lammy has ever lobbied in favour of independent radio in the HoC (as opposed to say Owen Patterson), but please make us aware of the conflict of interest that you mention. Lammy is also a qualified barrister so would possibly (probably) be earning 300K + outside of politics. Not quite sure what you mean by 'him and his ilk'? Barristers? MPs? or something else?

It's quite important to get your facts straight before you shoot from the lip. You often seem to be badly informed on many of the subjects that you spout off about. However, when you are challenged on what you post, you start to name call or complain about being persecuted.

I am actually in favour of Starmer's proposal to ban second incomes for MPs, it would stop a lot of this needless mud-slinging (like on this thread) and of course some corrupt practices (like Patterson).
 
Last edited:
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Lammy presents a radio call-in show where politics are discussed and from what I have heard he is good at it - if he resigned as an MP I wouldn't be at all surprised if he continued his media career. It seems to be quite well aligned with his job as an MP, he is keeping abreast of what the public think. I don't think that Lammy has ever lobbied in favour of independent radio in the HoC (as opposed to say Owen Patterson), but please make us aware of the conflict of interest that you mention. Lammy is also a qualified barrister so would possibly (probably) be earning 300K + outside of politics. Not quite sure what you mean by 'him and his ilk'? Barristers? MPs? or something else?

It's quite important to get your facts straight before you shoot from the lip. You often seem to be badly informed on many of the subjects that you spout off about. However, when you are challenged on what you post, you start to name call or complain about being persecuted.

I am actually in favour of Starmer's proposal to ban second incomes for MPs, it would stop a lot of this needless mud-slinging (like on this thread) and of course some corrupt practices (like Patterson).
Click to expand...
You’re clearly a fan of Lammy. But whether you think Lammy is good at radio work is neither here nor there in the scheme of things. However, I respect your opinion. And I’m also entitled to mine. You call it spouting off, so I’m not sure you’re giving me, or anyone else you don’t agree with, mutual respect.

In my latest post which you replied to, I was stating that most MPs, choose to become MPs as a vocation due to a desire to help people and make the country a better place to live. So money won’t or shouldn’t be an overarching concern.

When I said his ilk, I meant MPs or those considering becoming an MP.
By all accounts, being an MP is an incredibly time consuming and demanding job. Even more so if one is in the cabinet or shadow cabinet. So it’s hard to comprehend how someone can fulfil their MP responsibilities (including giving plentiful time to their constituents) whilst doing gainful employment outside of the MP role. By the way, Lammy gets paid from various sources, not just LBC and not just for radio work. On the face of it, he surely could be giving much more time to his constituents rather than seeking additional time-consuming paid work.

But my concerns are much wider than Lammy. That’s why I generalised with points about conflict of interest and potential corruption. And that’s why I’m very happy to have the complete transparency that we’re now seeing.

As a further step I’d like to see such second, third, fourth etc., employments banned. Possibly we are on the same page here, along with Starmer. Or at least that’s what you finish up saying, but only after defending Lammy for having these multiple income sources. 🤷‍♂️

I’m not really bothered about how you judge my style of posting. I’m not here to make fans. I speak straight and give my opinion. You can characterise it how you like, but I suspect that’s more about you trying to defend someone from the Labour Party as opposed to anything sincere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Malced said:
You’re clearly a fan of Lammy. But whether you think Lammy is good at radio work is neither here nor there in the scheme of things. However, I respect your opinion. And I’m also entitled to mine. You call it spouting off, so I’m not sure you’re giving me, or anyone else you don’t agree with, mutual respect.

In my latest post which you replied to, I was stating that most MPs, choose to become MPs as a vocation due to a desire to help people and make the country a better place to live. So money won’t or shouldn’t be an overarching concern.

When I said his ilk, I meant MPs or those considering becoming an MP.
By all accounts, being an MP is an incredibly time consuming and demanding job. Even more so if one is in the cabinet or shadow cabinet. So it’s hard to comprehend how someone can fulfil their MP responsibilities (including giving time to their constituents) whilst doing gainful employment outside of the MP role. By the way, Lammy gets paid from various sources, not just LBC and not just for radio work. On the face of it, he could be giving much more time to his constituents rather than seeking additional time -consuming paid work.

But my concerns are much wider than Lammy. That’s why I generalised with points about conflict of interest and potential corruption. And that’s why I’m very happy to have the complete transparency that we’re now seeing.

As a further step I’d like to see such second, third, fourth etc employments banned. Possibly we are on the same page here, along with Starmer. Or at least that’s what you finish up saying, but after defending Lammy for having these multiple income sources. 🤷‍♂️

I’m not really bothered about how you judge my style of posting. I’m not here to make fans. I speak straight and give my opinion. You can characterise it how you like, but I suspect that’s more about you trying to defend someone from the Labour Party as opposed to anything sincere.
Click to expand...
I'm against MPs having second jobs.
Labour have said that they will introduce this although it's quite difficult to see how this will be done in practise and may in fact open the door to more corruption (concealed payments etc.).
I'm not particularly a Labour supporter or a fan of Lammy as you wrongly speculate (again making the wrong assumptions). I actually feel that the whole political class has let us down and we are now left with easily the worst government of my lifetime and public services in crisis.
2 of the top 20 extra curricular MP earners were from Labour the other 18 were from the Tories, therefore why didn't you highlight the case of a Tory MP with his or her snout in the trough? These are far more common in the scheme of things and some of them may actually have real conflicts of interest.
And then you go on to accuse me of having an agenda, it's laughable. It's like you are typing straight from the pages of the Daily Mail.
The thread is actually about Scott Benton a Conservative MP who, it would appear, has been shown to be a hypocrite.
 
If you care to read back on the thread, it’s clear why I raised the case of Lammy.

It’s for balance. And it was to make a point about political bias. We get polarised threads about a misbehaving or immoral Tory and all the usual suspects get involved.

You wouldn't get those usual suspects making such comments about a Labour politician no matter what they’d done. They stay silent and go missing.

So that’s why I mentioned Lammy rather than sit back and watch the ensuing politically biased usual crew do their stuff - as if straight from the pages of the Daily Mirror (you see it’s so easy to make these childish remarks eh?).

You commented about Lammy being good at his radio work in your opinion so that equates to being a fan. There’s no denying you were defending his right to earn this extra money but in the next breath you are against it. I’m not sure you know what you think.


Not particularly a supporter of labour isn’t exactly saying you’re not. 🤷‍♂️
 
Malced said:
If you care to read back on the thread, it’s clear why I raised the case of Lammy.

It’s for balance. And it was to make a point about political bias. We get polarised threads about a misbehaving or immoral Tory and all the usual suspects get involved.

You wouldn't get those usual suspects making such comments about a Labour politician no matter what they’d done. They stay silent and go missing.

So that’s why I mentioned Lammy rather than sit back and watch the ensuing politically biased usual crew do their stuff - as if straight from the pages of the Daily Mirror (you see it’s so easy to make these childish remarks eh?).

You commented about Lammy being good at his radio work in your opinion so that equates to being a fan. There’s no denying you were defending his right to earn this extra money but in the next breath you are against it. I’m not sure you know what you think.


Not particularly a supporter of labour isn’t exactly saying you’re not. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
What's political balance? The BBC and other broadcast media have to be balanced in their amount of coverage given to the mainstream parties but no-one else has to be. The print media go out of their way not to be balanced. I owe nothing to anyone in terms of political balance. Tories in Government who play fast and loose with the law deserve all the criticism they get. You quote Lammy as a way of balancing the debate. It doesn't stand up. He is being paid for broadcasting his political views by a media company. So be it. He's indulging in politics through a media outlet. What do you expect politicians to do? Boris Johnson had his Telegraph column. I don't decry him for that - as for his views, well that's a different matter. I've read articles in the Guardian by senior Tories. They will have been paid for having those published. Not a problem.
 
Malced said:
If you care to read back on the thread, it’s clear why I raised the case of Lammy.

It’s for balance. And it was to make a point about political bias. We get polarised threads about a misbehaving or immoral Tory and all the usual suspects get involved.

You wouldn't get those usual suspects making such comments about a Labour politician no matter what they’d done. They stay silent and go missing.

So that’s why I mentioned Lammy rather than sit back and watch the ensuing politically biased usual crew do their stuff - as if straight from the pages of the Daily Mirror (you see it’s so easy to make these childish remarks eh?).

You commented about Lammy being good at his radio work in your opinion so that equates to being a fan. There’s no denying you were defending his right to earn this extra money but in the next breath you are against it. I’m not sure you know what you think.


Not particularly a supporter of labour isn’t exactly saying you’re not. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
But it's not balance is it.
Eighteen of the top twenty earners are Tories and £15.4 million of £17.1 million total is earned by Tories . You want us to believe that 'they are all at it', 'they are all the same' but if you look at the facts, yes pesky facts again, the problem is very much with Conservative MPs one and a few exceptions. 90% of all the extra curricular money is earned by Tories and yet the only MP's name you have mentioned is Lammy - why would that be?

www.independent.co.uk

MPs make £17.1m from outside jobs since 2019

Labour leader Keir Starmer says he wants ‘stricter’ rules on second jobs
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
But it's not balance is it.
Eighteen of the top twenty earners are Tories and £15.4 million of £17.1 million total is earned by Tories . You want us to believe that 'they are all at it', 'they are all the same' but if you look at the facts, yes pesky facts again, the problem is very much with Conservative MPs one and a few exceptions. 90% of all the extra curricular money is earned by Tories and yet the only MP's name you have mentioned is Lammy - why would that be?

www.independent.co.uk

MPs make £17.1m from outside jobs since 2019

Labour leader Keir Starmer says he wants ‘stricter’ rules on second jobs
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...

It is balance as its a Labour MP I highlighted on the back of the thread about a Tory MP.

I've explained several times why I did that. You can take it or leave it.

But the wider point is that I think these second incomes shouldn't be allowed, and it seems Sir Kier and yourself agree. So I don't know quite why we're still debating.

By the way, yes I do accept there are many more with second incomes in the Tory party compared to Labour. But- the Tory's are the one's in power. So that's probably to be expected and could change, if and when Labour get into power. A government MP is much more of a catch than one in opposition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top