Sir Geoffrey Cox

Avatar Image
andy-hughes | 15:37 Thu 11th Nov 2021 | News
40 Answers
The Mail has got its trolleys in robble over the 'sleaze' accusations regarding this politician.

I wonder whether the angst is caused less by the fact that Sir Geoffrey has a second job, or the fact that me makes a serious amount of money from doing it?

The Mail is making much of the fact that he works in 'dodgy tax havens' and makes millions doing it.

Sir Geoffrey advises he has not broken any rules, and it's difficult to see that he actually has.

Making millions may be something for the Mail to pump up their jealous small-minded readership about, but that does not make it illegal.

Your thoughts on this?


1 to 20 of 40rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Question Author
danny - Thanks for your link.

The Guardian manages to make the same points, although without all the bluster and harrumphing that the Mail loves so much.

If Sir Geoffrey is guilty of the misuse of his parliamentary office premises, he should be sanctioned accordingly.

But the rest of the Mail's nonsense is clearly routed in the notion that Sir Geoffrey is earning serious money but given that it's the results of his skill and experience, that is nothing more than petty jealousy.

Sir Geoffrey has been his constituency's MP for sixteen years, if they are unhappy with his input to his constituency work, they have the right to remove him at the time of the next election, but there is absolutely no sign of that happening at all.

Sleaze is wrong - legitimate employment within the rules, is not.
Isn't the Daily Mail owned by a non-dom who pays little or no UK tax ?
My thoughts?

Bloody good luck to him.

Just so long as he’s fulfilling his duties as an MP, I have zero issue with them earning on the side.
Seems like he is being begrudged earning money he seemingly works hard for. His constituents appear to be happy with him. I have no problem with that at all, fair play to him.
//Just so long as he’s fulfilling his duties as an MP//

The part I read said he isn't really doing his bit in this regard. Poor attendance, little or no speechifying.
Being an MP should be a full time job.
In the last 12 months in the register of interests he logged some 560 hours of external work which is roughly 14 40 hour weeks.
If he was my MP, I would not be happy.
Question Author
The Mail does seem incenced about the large sums of money Sir Geoffrey is earning.

It speaks to the famous story where Lord Beavbrook (ironically a newspaper magnate himself) speaking with an American actress and asking if she would 'live with' (these were more restricted times) a man for a million dollars. When she said she would, his lordship asked her if she would do the same for five dollars, the lady was angry and replied 'Five dollars? What sort of a woman do you think I am?' His lordship relplied 'We have already established what sort of a woman you are, we are just arguing about the degree'.

The Mail therefore leans leavily on the million-plus fees Sir Geoffrey is earning, and the territories in which he is earning them - but as I pointed out in my OP, he appears to be acting within regulations, notwithstanding using his parliamentary office for outside business, which is under investigation, and therefore an accusation of which he is innocent until proven guilty.
He may be acting within the regulations.

However I very much doubt the regulations were written with this level of outside activity in mind.

He is seriously taking the p***
He really isn’t taking the pee though.

He’s using his skill, undoubtable intelligence and acumen to earn money for what he trained for.

You mentioned the hours…he could well be, and mostly probably is, doing those hours outwith his hours as an MP.

Picking up on Andy’s point, would you have a problem with a call centre worker putting in their 8 hours a day, and then working a further 8 in a bar?

Let’s face it - it’s the amount of money isn’t it that’s annoying people.
As I said in another thread, and as has been stated here, I have no issue with any politician having a second job, as long as their elected position takes precedence. This fella seems to be concentrating on his more lucrative deal in the Caribbean, while completely neglecting his constituents.
Deskdiary, he isn't a barman. There is no comparison.
'Works hard' appears to have been redefined.
You are correct. The Mail gets jumped up on lots of things and Cox making money gets them all irritated. But if he ever has broken rules he should pay for it.
It’s the amount of money you’re annoyed about Hopkirk - I know it and you know it.

The analogy stands.
“Being an MP should be a full time job”

Full time varies, but let’s say “full time” is 37.5 hours a week on average. What business is it of anybody if MPs work outside those hours.

Or are you suggesting they should be working only as an MP?

Given the skill of many, on both sides of the house, if that’s the suggestion then they’re massively underpaid on £80 odd grand a year.

There are exceptions of course - Rayner, Abbott, Corbyn et al are overpaid, and in commercial enterprises would not be getting anything like £80k given their clear intellectual limitations, so they’re earning more than they should, and the clever ones are using their cleverness to their advantage. And good luck to them I say.
It's not the money that annoys me, it's the obvious fact that he cannot be putting full attention to being an MP.

1 to 20 of 40rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Sir Geoffrey Cox

Answer Question >>

Related Questions