« 'Rules are rules' - Newport Tory | Main | Mrs Avery beats the bullies »

June 30, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul Flynn

That is fascinating Paul W. This ssems toi be the csae. It will interesting to see which Rules are Rules.

Paul W

I have just read through the allotment agreement from Rogerstone and the only thing I can see they may claim she is in breach of is section 1(b): To use the Allotment garden as an Allotment garden and for no other purpose.

Now, under the Town and Country planning act an allotment is the use of any land for the purposes of agriculture which includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing . . . the . . . keeping of live stock . . .
(source: http://www.nsalg.org.uk/uploads/article547/Allotments%20-%20The%20Basics.pdf)

Later they do exclude live stock but don't mention flowers. I cannot see the rule she is breaking.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer just a thicko IT guy

Kay Tie

"He has his own company and pays himself £200,000 a year at a rate of £4,000 an hour. He obviously has a good trade union."

Nice to see that you recognise trade unions are capable of extracting unsustainable amounts of money from companies. The UAW must be so proud of what they've done for their members at GM.

Back to the topic: moonlighting. I think you should read Paul Goodman's words in the debate:

“It is evident that there are two conflicting ideas of what an MP is. The first is that we are elected representatives—citizen legislators who are free to earn outside this place. The second is that we are professional politicians funded exclusively by the taxpayer and therefore members of a political class, distinct and thus separate from those whom we represent. Elected representatives must, almost by definition, represent a multiplicity of interests—the interests of capital, the interests of labour, and so on. Under our present constitutional arrangements and cultural conditions, however, most professional politicians will, I am afraid, ultimately represent only one interest—namely, that of the Executive whom they wish to serve as members, or that of the Executive-to-be. So, the movement in recent years from the MP as elected representative to the MP as professional politician—first under John Major and Nolan, then under Tony Blair and Nolan’s successors—suits the Executive very nicely. It is no wonder that, by means of the Bill, the ceiling that has for years been descending on private interests will be ratcheted down still further.”

Surely you recognise the disease? Supine career politicians who will do the bidding of the executive. Is making politics even more of an entrenched career going to strengthen Parliament over the executive?

Kay Tie

"He has his own company and pays himself £200,000 a year at a rate of £4,000 an hour. He obviously has a good trade union."

Nice to see that you recognise trade unions are capable of extracting unsustainable amounts of money from companies. The UAW must be so proud of what they've done for their members at GM.

Back to the topic: moonlighting. I think you should read Paul Goodman's words in the debate:

“It is evident that there are two conflicting ideas of what an MP is. The first is that we are elected representatives—citizen legislators who are free to earn outside this place. The second is that we are professional politicians funded exclusively by the taxpayer and therefore members of a political class, distinct and thus separate from those whom we represent. Elected representatives must, almost by definition, represent a multiplicity of interests—the interests of capital, the interests of labour, and so on. Under our present constitutional arrangements and cultural conditions, however, most professional politicians will, I am afraid, ultimately represent only one interest—namely, that of the Executive whom they wish to serve as members, or that of the Executive-to-be. So, the movement in recent years from the MP as elected representative to the MP as professional politician—first under John Major and Nolan, then under Tony Blair and Nolan’s successors—suits the Executive very nicely. It is no wonder that, by means of the Bill, the ceiling that has for years been descending on private interests will be ratcheted down still further.”

Surely you recognise the disease? Supine career politicians who will do the bidding of the executive. Is making politics even more of an entrenched career going to strengthen Parliament over the executive?

Kay Tie

"He has his own company and pays himself £200,000 a year at a rate of £4,000 an hour. He obviously has a good trade union."

Nice to see that you recognise trade unions are capable of extracting unsustainable amounts of money from companies. The UAW must be so proud of what they've done for their members at GM.

Back to the topic: moonlighting. I think you should read Paul Goodman's words in the debate:

“It is evident that there are two conflicting ideas of what an MP is. The first is that we are elected representatives—citizen legislators who are free to earn outside this place. The second is that we are professional politicians funded exclusively by the taxpayer and therefore members of a political class, distinct and thus separate from those whom we represent. Elected representatives must, almost by definition, represent a multiplicity of interests—the interests of capital, the interests of labour, and so on. Under our present constitutional arrangements and cultural conditions, however, most professional politicians will, I am afraid, ultimately represent only one interest—namely, that of the Executive whom they wish to serve as members, or that of the Executive-to-be. So, the movement in recent years from the MP as elected representative to the MP as professional politician—first under John Major and Nolan, then under Tony Blair and Nolan’s successors—suits the Executive very nicely. It is no wonder that, by means of the Bill, the ceiling that has for years been descending on private interests will be ratcheted down still further.”

Surely you recognise the disease? Supine career politicians who will do the bidding of the executive. Is making politics even more of an entrenched career going to strengthen Parliament over the executive?

Kay Tie

"He has his own company and pays himself £200,000 a year at a rate of £4,000 an hour. He obviously has a good trade union."

Nice to see that you recognise trade unions are capable of extracting unsustainable amounts of money from companies. The UAW must be so proud of what they've done for their members at GM.

Back to the topic: moonlighting. I think you should read Paul Goodman's words in the debate:

“It is evident that there are two conflicting ideas of what an MP is. The first is that we are elected representatives—citizen legislators who are free to earn outside this place. The second is that we are professional politicians funded exclusively by the taxpayer and therefore members of a political class, distinct and thus separate from those whom we represent. Elected representatives must, almost by definition, represent a multiplicity of interests—the interests of capital, the interests of labour, and so on. Under our present constitutional arrangements and cultural conditions, however, most professional politicians will, I am afraid, ultimately represent only one interest—namely, that of the Executive whom they wish to serve as members, or that of the Executive-to-be. So, the movement in recent years from the MP as elected representative to the MP as professional politician—first under John Major and Nolan, then under Tony Blair and Nolan’s successors—suits the Executive very nicely. It is no wonder that, by means of the Bill, the ceiling that has for years been descending on private interests will be ratcheted down still further.”

Surely you recognise the disease? Supine career politicians who will do the bidding of the executive. Is making politics even more of an entrenched career going to strengthen Parliament over the executive?

The comments to this entry are closed.