Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Alf Bentley]

8 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

This is a classic case of how disorganised the Labour party were (would say are but since the GE, they do seem to be a bit more streamlined).  They didn’t think they’d win the seat so just shoved any old cvnt there.  It would be interesting to see the backgrounds of the MP’s who also won seemingly unobtainable seats.

 

On Newsnight the other night they reckoned that Labour didn't use selection interviews for any seats that were not already held by Labour. So, O'Mara was selected purely by local officials going through a pile of CVs.

If true, that is extraordinary - and presumably applies to all other seats taken by Labour. You'd think they'd at least stage a thorough selection process in any seat they had any chance of taking (and Hallam was always possible, if a long shot).

 

In many seats, no doubt the candidate selected would already be very well known locally - and there would have been sensible people making decisions and excluding anyone a bit dodgy, even if they'd done a lot of work for the local party.

Apparently not in every seat, though....

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

On Newsnight the other night they reckoned that Labour didn't use selection interviews for any seats that were not already held by Labour. So, O'Mara was selected purely by local officials going through a pile of CVs.

If true, that is extraordinary - and presumably applies to all other seats taken by Labour. You'd think they'd at least stage a thorough selection process in any seat they had any chance of taking (and Hallam was always possible, if a long shot).

 

In many seats, no doubt the candidate selected would already be very well known locally - and there would have been sensible people making decisions and excluding anyone a bit dodgy, even if they'd done a lot of work for the local party.

Apparently not in every seat, though....

Labour were actually slight favourites to win the seat (I think it was Labout 4/6 and Lib Dems 11/10 from my own memory) giving them around a 60% chance of winning it.

 

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article59247.html

 

Quote

 

Well clearly the bookies think so given that Labour are the marginal favourites though the race is tight. Hence the frenzy of Labour and Lib Dem leaflets flooding into peoples letter boxes across the constituency.

Clearly Labour are banking on the students remembering Nick Clegg's 2010 betrayal over tuition fees, for which the Lib Dems paid a heavy price in 2015. Remember Sheffield IS a University city with as many as 60,000 students at peak term time. Though, many if not most will likely have gone home for the summer for the June 8th vote, so a sliver of hope for Nick Clegg retaining his seat as there 'should' be fewer student voters.

 

 

Which makes it even stranger that they weren't strongly vetting this. According to the Daily Politics yesterday O' Mara was actually thrust upon them by the Labour NEC rather than the local branch deciding, probably due to the fact Jared is a loyal Corbyn supporter.

 https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/10/how-could-labour-allow-jared-o-mara-scandal-happen

 

[Alf Bentley]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

Labour were actually slight favourites to win the seat (I think it was Labout 4/6 and Lib Dems 11/10 from my own memory) giving them around a 60% chance of winning it.

 

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article59247.html

 

 

Which makes it even stranger that they weren't strongly vetting this. According to the Daily Politics yesterday O' Mara was actually thrust upon them by the Labour NEC rather than the local branch deciding, probably due to the fact Jared is a loyal Corbyn supporter.

 https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/10/how-could-labour-allow-jared-o-mara-scandal-happen

 

 

I'm surprised at all that.

 

With hindsight, the rise in Labour's vote nationally - particularly the big youth vote - did for Clegg. But I'm surprised that the bookies thought it likely beforehand as Labour had made a big but unsuccessful effort to topple Clegg in 2015, when memories of Lib Dems in government and tuition fee promises were fresher. Also, Hallam (my grandparents' old constituency) had never before been Labour and was usually Tory before Clegg, as I recall.

 

The disparity between Newsnight's explanation and the Daily Politics is surprising, too. Maybe the local party made some sort of recommendation or shortlist and the NEC, under Corbynite influence, selected O'Mara? Certainly, the local party normally selects a candidate, but the NEC does so in emergencies, I think.

 

It's also surprising - and incompetent - that a better system wasn't in place. I know that the election was unexpected, but all parties should have a candidate selection system in place for an election at any time. Because one can happen any time under our system, even after the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. Your New Statesman article suggests that the Tories had some idiots lined up, too, but their idiots didn't get elected (in the main) due to Labour doing better than expected. There's a lot more incompetence in the world than we generally recognise!

[Guest MattP]

24 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I'm surprised at all that.

 

With hindsight, the rise in Labour's vote nationally - particularly the big youth vote - did for Clegg. But I'm surprised that the bookies thought it likely beforehand as Labour had made a big but unsuccessful effort to topple Clegg in 2015, when memories of Lib Dems in government and tuition fee promises were fresher. Also, Hallam (my grandparents' old constituency) had never before been Labour and was usually Tory before Clegg, as I recall.

 

The disparity between Newsnight's explanation and the Daily Politics is surprising, too. Maybe the local party made some sort of recommendation or shortlist and the NEC, under Corbynite influence, selected O'Mara? Certainly, the local party normally selects a candidate, but the NEC does so in emergencies, I think.

 

It's also surprising - and incompetent - that a better system wasn't in place. I know that the election was unexpected, but all parties should have a candidate selection system in place for an election at any time. Because one can happen any time under our system, even after the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. Your New Statesman article suggests that the Tories had some idiots lined up, too, but their idiots didn't get elected (in the main) due to Labour doing better than expected. There's a lot more incompetence in the world than we generally recognise!

Not just the youth vote that did for Clegg, also he lost the borrowed Tory votes that went to him in 2015 (possibly because of his anti-Brexit stance) - The Tories got 7,500 in 2015 (local Tories realised they might need him for another coalition) and jumped to 13,500 in 2017. Labour picked up another 2,000 and that ensured it was enough.

 

I didn't see Newsnight so I'll give it a watch, they went to speak to Momentum members on DP and they were blaming the NEC and saying this is why mandatory reselection is needed and local parties should then decide.

 

This really should be quite easy to sort out though, if O'Mara wasn't asked the question about his past and potential to embarrass the party then procedure was appalling and has to change, if they did and he lied then he's the one at fault.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Not just the youth vote that did for Clegg, also he lost the borrowed Tory votes that went to him in 2015 (possibly because of his anti-Brexit stance) - The Tories got 7,500 in 2015 (local Tories realised they might need him for another coalition) and jumped to 13,500 in 2017. Labour picked up another 2,000 and that ensured it was enough.

 

I didn't see Newsnight so I'll give it a watch, they went to speak to Momentum members on DP and they were blaming the NEC and saying this is why mandatory reselection is needed and local parties should then decide.

 

This really should be quite easy to sort out though, if O'Mara wasn't asked the question about his past and potential to embarrass the party then procedure was appalling and has to change, if they did and he lied then he's the one at fault.

 

Cheers for the explanation.

 

The Newsnight broadcast that I saw about this was about 2-3 nights ago.

 

On the substance of the O'Mara case, I agree with what Jonthehat implied a few days back: it would be harsh to disqualify him for his stupid comments 15 years ago, when he was a young man. If everyone who does or says something stupid in their early 20s is disqualified from office, we'll have a very small pool of potential MPs. If there's any truth in the allegations of him abusing a woman earlier this year, that would be a different matter - and that's what Labour has suspended him for and is investigating.

 

Mind you, I remember watching on election night, seeing the O'Mara result announced, and my first reaction was: he looks an unlikely MP - and an utter prat! Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh. Parliament would be better for having a few more MPs who weren't dull, middle-aged and middle-class....but preferably of a better calibre than O'Mara seems to be.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

On the substance of the O'Mara case, I agree with what Jonthehat implied a few days back: it would be harsh to disqualify him for his stupid comments 15 years ago, when he was a young man. If everyone who does or says something stupid in their early 20s is disqualified from office, we'll have a very small pool of potential MPs. If there's any truth in the allegations of him abusing a woman earlier this year, that would be a different matter - and that's what Labour has suspended him for and is investigating.

 

Mind you, I remember watching on election night, seeing the O'Mara result announced, and my first reaction was: he looks an unlikely MP - and an utter prat! Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh. Parliament would be better for having a few more MPs who weren't dull, middle-aged and middle-class....but preferably of a better calibre than O'Mara seems to be.

Fully agree, things said in late teens and early 20's, we've all said and done stupid things back then, shouldn't be judged them by decades later.

 

The guy does appear to be an idiot and this might actually be the perfect opportunity to rectify a mistake and get rid of him, here's that interview where he went full Harry Enfield.

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/family/2015/02/couples-now-able-to-register-to-shift-unused-tax-allowance-between-spouses

Looks like tax avoidance is available to all.

To be clear: utilising loopholes in the law or tax allowances is legal. Dependant on the loophole they are variable morally justifiable.

 

Competing a tax return that doesn't include cash income or which designates wages that have not been paid to a real employee is fraud.

 

Some of you are talking about avoidance, some of you are not.

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

To be clear: utilising loopholes in the law or tax allowances is legal. Dependant on the loophole they are variable morally justifiable.

 

Competing a tax return that doesn't include cash income or which designates wages that have not been paid to a real employee is fraud.

 

Some of you are talking about avoidance, some of you are not.

I never said whether i declared it or not.

Back to the point.

Why are you victimising the self employed, when you have been championing workers get a fair deal.

Are you upset they get benefits that paye earners don't or do you not think they should be allowed tax relief/benefits, regardless of the disadvantages in rights and protection they receive?

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I never said whether i declared it or not.

Back to the point.

Why are you victimising the self employed, when you have been championing workers get a fair deal.

Are you upset they get benefits that paye earners don't or do you not think they should be allowed tax relief/benefits, regardless of the disadvantages in rights and protection they receive?

I don't have problem with them having allowances etc. 

I have a problem with cash on hand non-declaration which you were more than hinting at. I have a problem with somebody saying they're going to change the country to whom they pay their taxes purely to reduce the tax rate - despite us all complaining about multinationals doing exactly that - and I have a problem with spouses being designated as employees when they're not.

I have no problem with self employment, it must be an empowering thing brimming your own boss, but you simply cannot invent your own rules. 

Do a good job, charge what you need to do you earn a decent living. Don't act immorally to make a free more quid on the side and starve our nation of its proper tax income. I work hard, get paid a wage and pay my taxes. I'm only asking for the same from you.

[Strokes]

17 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I don't have problem with them having allowances etc. 

I have a problem with cash on hand non-declaration which you were more than hinting at. I have a problem with somebody saying they're going to change the country to whom they pay their taxes purely to reduce the tax rate - despite us all complaining about multinationals doing exactly that - and I have a problem with spouses being designated as employees when they're not.

I have no problem with self employment, it must be an empowering thing brimming your own boss, but you simply cannot invent your own rules. 

Do a good job, charge what you need to do you earn a decent living. Don't act immorally to make a free more quid on the side and starve our nation of its proper tax income. I work hard, get paid a wage and pay my taxes. I'm only asking for the same from you.

Who says the partners are doing nothing to earn the money? You claimed earlier more than 6 million are scamming this way. Have you got figures to back it up? Most people are self employed to get hours to fit around their lives, you seem to be on a mission to call all of them fraudsters and you have provided no evidence that they are not entitled to what they claim.

Training courses, christmas parties, sick pay, holiday pay, state pension, company pension, eligibility for jsa, working tax credits, job security are all things that you get over a self emplyed person. And on average you earn more, get off your high horse, i thought you wanted people to be happy and comfortable in work. Not taxed to the point of poverty.

[Sampson]

Not to mention the huge rise in self-employment since 2000 has been the major story of the 21st Century economy and much like how the Industrial Revolution was the story of workers going from agriculture to manufacturing to cope with the technological changes, it looks like the modern technological revolution of the internet, computers and AI since the turn of the century looks to be the story of people moving into self-employment and freelance work.

 

It's tough work and often requires much longer hours than a secure employed job to keep going - the government doesn't want to discourage this when this is undoubtedly the future of employment for so many. Trying to make some extra money for your partner, children and/or grandchildren isn't immoral, in fact it's the single greatest motivator to do well and to work long hours to contribute more to the economy there is (same reason inheritance tax is nonsense - you're cutting down people's #1 motivation to go further and work harder and to contribute more than they need to just get by) - this tax isn't just going to them so they can live more - it's going directly to the people they love - and there's no greater motivation to working harder, making more money and contributing more to society than that.

 

Besides, where is the line drawn? If you talk through things with your partner in the evening and they help give you motivation or support which maybe make you push further or slightly change one of your decisions, how are they not an advisor at that point, who is making a positive affect on the business? If they support the household while you work at home, relieving the huge opportunity cost of the things around the house you'd have to do otherwise then how are they not also contributing then to? What's the difference between that or an office hiring a cleaner so the people in sales and marketing can concentrate on their jobs in a clean and motivating environment?

 

It's not a loophole, you really think the government doesn't know about the possibility for abuse? If they knew about it they wouldn't they just close it? Of course not, because people would be rightly livid that they're kicking people trying to get by in the teeth just because they want to provide for their families, which makes people happier to work harder and contribute more.

[Buce]

7 hours ago, Strokes said:

So whats your take on all this? Do you have an accountant helping you minimise your tax payments?

 

Ha! Fvck you and your divide-the-left tactics!

 

No, I do my own returns - my tax affairs are relatively simple - and as my affairs are transparent with a well-defined paper trail, there is no scope for evasion. I use tax avoidance to my benefit (phone, WiFi, transport costs are all deductible, plus I claim for using my home as an office), all perfectly legitimate.

 

Would I evade tax, if I could? That would depend, tbh. As things stand, no, it wouldn't enhance my life beyond a standard I currently enjoy, and I would feel a moral imperative to contribute to Society; but if it meant the difference between feeding my family, paying the rent, putting shoes on my daughter's feet - even having a holiday or not - then, yes, I probably would.

 

While we live in a society as unfair and unequal as ours, I won't condemn anyone who bends the rules a bit to give themselves a half-decent life; the idea that a tradesman like yourself is immoral if he does a bit of cash in hand work for a neighbour, and doesn't tell the taxman, is ludicrous.

 

Personally, I'd abolish the tax system altogether and just make @Jon the Hat pay for everything.

 

Edited 27 October 2017 by Buce

[Sampson]

25 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Ha! Fvck you and your divide-the-left tactics!

 

No, I do my own returns - my tax affairs are relatively simple - and as my affairs are transparent with a well-defined paper trail, there is no scope for evasion. I use tax avoidance to my benefit (phone, WiFi, transport costs are all deductible, plus I claim for using my home as an office), all perfectly legitimate.

 

Would I evade tax, if I could? That would depend, tbh. As things stand, no, it wouldn't enhance my life beyond a standard I currently enjoy, and I would feel a moral imperative to contribute to Society; but if it meant the difference between feeding my family, paying the rent, putting shoes on my daughter's feet - even having a holiday or not - then, yes, I probably would.

 

While we live in a society as unfair and unequal as ours, I won't condemn anyone who bends the rules a bit to give themselves a half-decent life; the idea that a tradesman like yourself is immoral if he does a bit of cash in hand work for a neighbour, and doesn't tell the taxman, is ludicrous.

 

Personally, I'd abolish the tax system altogether and just make @Jon the Hat pay for everything.

 

If you're using that money to pay for your daughter's shoes then you're still giving the shoeshop money which allows that shoesalesman and the cashier in the shop a chance to earn their living. You're still contributing to society, it doesn't matter whether it's gone through the State or not. You'd have absolutely nothing to feel guilty about, as long as it's perfectly within the law.

Edited 27 October 2017 by Sampson

[Strokes]

25 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Ha! Fvck you and your divide-the-left tactics!

 

No, I do my own returns - my tax affairs are relatively simple - and as my affairs are transparent with a well-defined paper trail, there is no scope for evasion. I use tax avoidance to my benefit (phone, WiFi, transport costs are all deductible, plus I claim for using my home as an office), all perfectly legitimate.

 

Would I evade tax, if I could? That would depend, tbh. As things stand, no, it wouldn't enhance my life beyond a standard I currently enjoy, and I would feel a moral imperative to contribute to Society; but if it meant the difference between feeding my family, paying the rent, putting shoes on my daughter's feet - even having a holiday or not - then, yes, I probably would.

 

While we live in a society as unfair and unequal as ours, I won't condemn anyone who bends the rules a bit to give themselves a half-decent life; the idea that a tradesman like yourself is immoral if he does a bit of cash in hand work for a neighbour, and doesn't tell the taxman, is ludicrous.

 

Personally, I'd abolish the tax system altogether and just make @Jon the Hat pay for everything.

 

How about this then, would you pay for some work to be done in cash for a 10% discount?

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

 

It's not a loophole, you really think the government doesn't know about the possibility for abuse? If they knew about it they wouldn't they just close it? Of course not, because people would be rightly livid that they're kicking people trying to get by in the teeth just because they want to provide for their families, which makes people happier to work harder and contribute more.

Only a few months ago Philip Hammond did try to raise NIC's on the self employed. He u-turned at the first sign of resistance, naturally, but there is a desire within the Tory government to 'level the playing field' somewhat as regards to employed vs self employed taxation, despite their usual aspirational propaganda.

 

Personally I think if you're taking risks then there should be a reward, so I'm not against people working without the security of employment getting a financial reward. But shouldn't it be the market that determines this? If an employer, client or customer values the fact that you are self-employed then will they not pay a premium? I know in my industry if you're willing to go self-employed or ltd you'll be rewarded with an increase of at least 50% to your pre-tax earnings. There's the reward for your risk, why do you require further reward in the form of tax advantages?

[Guest]

Some food for thought

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1579663/Middle-class-criminals-cost-millions-in-taxes.html

 

[Guest]

Tax rates for self employed better than for the employed (ifs)

 

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8873

 

[Guest MattP]

28 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Some food for thought

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1579663/Middle-class-criminals-cost-millions-in-taxes.html

 

That's from 2008. 

[Buce]

3 hours ago, Strokes said:

How about this then, would you pay for some work to be done in cash for a 10% discount?

 

Absolutely, and have many times.

 

His tax returns are not my responsibility.

 

 

 

[The Doctor]

6 hours ago, Buce said:

While we live in a society as unfair and unequal as ours, I won't condemn anyone who bends the rules a bit to give themselves a half-decent life;

But the likes of Messi, jimmy carr and countless other celebrities who've avoided tax, not to mention the big multinationals (more dividends for their shareholders) could argue the same thing. This is akin to saying "everyone else bends the rules, why shouldn't I?", but that just creates more problems because of people bending the rules - be the change you want to see and all that.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

But the likes of Messi, jimmy carr and countless other celebrities who've avoided tax, not to mention the big multinationals (more dividends for their shareholders) could argue the same thing. This is akin to saying "everyone else bends the rules, why shouldn't I?", but that just creates more problems because of people bending the rules - be the change you want to see and all that.

There is no moral amout to pay, they invoice you and its your job to haggle/worm your way out of it and pay as little as possible. Its no different to purchasing, really. Paye is no different, you can counter claim for somethings still.

[ajthefox]

2 hours ago, The Doctor said:

But the likes of Messi, jimmy carr and countless other celebrities who've avoided tax, not to mention the big multinationals (more dividends for their shareholders) could argue the same thing. This is akin to saying "everyone else bends the rules, why shouldn't I?", but that just creates more problems because of people bending the rules - be the change you want to see and all that.

It's an interesting point and a very grey area. For me though, someone earning 30k a year taking a few hundred quid a year in cash that HMRC doesn't get it's hand on is simply not equivocal to Messi or Jimmy Carr saving themselves 50k on their millions per years earnings. The percentage may be the same, but the situations are entirely different.  

[The Doctor]

5 hours ago, ajthefox said:

It's an interesting point and a very grey area. For me though, someone earning 30k a year taking a few hundred quid a year in cash that HMRC doesn't get it's hand on is simply not equivocal to Messi or Jimmy Carr saving themselves 50k on their millions per years earnings. The percentage may be the same, but the situations are entirely different.  

The scale in terms of lost revenue for hmrc may be wildly different, but I think you've got to ask then where the line is drawn - what amount is it acceptable to bend the rules to keep? To me any level would be completely arbitrary, it's better to take the position that you've got a responsibility to contribute your fair share for the upkeep of the society you're benefiting from.

[Buce]

 

Sexual harassment claims still not being taken seriously, say MPs

Several parliamentarians believe staff members are set to go public, which could lead to ‘number of resignations’

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/27/mps-complain-sexual-harassment-claims-still-not-being-taken-seriously

 

Senior MPs have raised complaints that allegations of sexual harassment are still not being taken seriously enough by their parties and whips despite years of warnings about inappropriate behaviour in Westminster, the Guardian has learned.

MPs made their fears known to their parties after the Labour MP Jared O’Mara was suspended over allegations of misogynistic abuse, and parliamentary staff aired allegations of sexual harassment and assault on a private WhatsApp messaging group.

 

Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn called on Friday for any staff members who have experienced sexual harassment or abuse to contact the House of Commons authorities or police to make formal reports.

The decision by women in Westminster to share information comes in a new atmosphere of open revulsion at sexual misconduct following the allegations of assault and rape against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein.

Several parliamentarians said they believed staff members were set to go public over the coming days about their experiences working in Westminster, which could lead to “a number of resignations”.

The allegations are across party political lines. The Guardian has been made aware of a number of complaints against MPs and other senior figures that have not yet been made public, including:

• Allegations about inappropriate sexual behaviour of a Conservative former minister.
• A Labour MP described as “incredibly predatory”.
• A backbencher where an allegation of inappropriate behaviour was made on a trip abroad earlier this year.
• An MP who allegedly left a parliamentary delegation after allegations about their conduct.

Separately, Adrian Bailey, a Labour MP, accused his party of failing to deal properly with allegations that a colleague in a position of authority sent messages of a “sexually degrading nature” that were “humiliating and personally abusive” about two female members of his local party.

“I have shown the evidence to senior female Labour MPs and they agree with me that they are every bit as serious as the allegations against Jared O’Mara which have resulted in his suspension,” he said.

 

 

“If the Labour party is to convince the public that it is serious enough about dealing with bullying and misogynistic behaviour, then it needs to act consistently and immediately.”

Labour MP John Mann, who has raised concerns in parliament about channels for staff to report information about MPs, said he believed it was not appropriate for victims to have to report harassment to the party whips or central office.

“Staff employed in parliament have no effective and credible reporting lines if they are experiencing harassment. It should not be a matter for the party whips, it’s an issue of safeguarding,” he said. “There’s no system of reporting allegations – and if an allegation is made against one MP via one channel, others will not know.”

He has asked John Bercow, the speaker, for clarification over what happens when an MP is “elected by parliament to represent us on a foreign delegation and is subsequently sent home from that delegation for inappropriate behaviour”. Bercow said it was a matter for the MP’s political party in the first instance.

Until recently, staff working in the Houses of Parliament had been members of the same trade union branch as the MPs they worked for, a situation one MP described as dangerous.

Another MP said they had been trying to get an official sexual harassment policy in place within their party for three years.

A Labour compliance official has emailed a circular to constituency parties this week setting out its policy of “zero tolerance for sexual harassment” giving guidance for dealing with allegations.

But one Labour MP said there was a “willingness to make the right noises and write the right policies but a complete indifference to seeing them through” when it came to allegations about sexual harassment.

“The hierarchy of the party, shall we say, puts political considerations above the rights of individuals,” the MP said. “If it’s politically convenient for them to take action they will do it very quickly. But if it isn’t, then they don’t. You can tie up any process in hearings and representations and spin it out until it loses any impetus or relevance. That is what I think they do.”

Another Labour MP said they had presented a wealth of evidence to the party that women’s allegations of “sex harassment, intimidation and sexual abuse” are going uninvestigated while the male subjects of the accusations are continuing to rise in the party.

The MP said the new sexual harassment policy was a lot better than nothing but still was not good enough, and parties need to deal with the issue of MPs being self-employed, so their young female staff “have to tolerate whatever is thrown at them or their career is over”.

The Guardian contacted a number of Conservative MPs but none were willing to speak on the record.

Concerns have been raised in the past over the fact that MPs in effect employ their staff directly, in Westminster and in their constituencies. Although MPs are paid with public funds, there is no formal, equal HR system for those staff to access should they be concerned about an MP’s behaviour towards them, and no dedicated grievance procedure, other than approaching House of Commons authorities, their party’s headquarters or whips.

Parliament launched a confidential hotline for staff to report incidents of harassment and bullying in 2014, after a series of complaints about Westminster’s working environment by current and former employees of MPs.

No 10 said on Friday that parties and House of Commons authorities must take any formal complaints seriously. “Any allegations that may come to light will be taken extremely seriously and we would advise people to contact the police if there is such an allegation, so it can be fully investigated,” a spokeswoman said.

“All parties, all employers in any walk of life, must take this seriously and make sure their staff are protected or looked after. No industry is immune from this, including politics.”

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, told an LBC radio phone-in with the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, that people should report their allegations. “Where there is an unequal power relationship in the workplace and women become vulnerable because of it, they have to be supported and they have to be protected,” he said.

“I say this to any employer who is listening: make sure you have processes in place that any of your staff who feel they are being abused by a more powerful colleague, then you have to have a process for dealing with it.”

Corbyn will address the subject at Unite’s Scottish policy conference on Saturday, where he will say that there is “a culture where the abuse of women has often been accepted and normalised”.

The Labour leader will say: “[Sexual harassment] is a warped and degrading culture that also exists and thrives in the corridors of power, including in Westminster. This needs to be a turning point. Any members of Parliament who have engaged in this sort of behaviour must be held to account.”

[Dr The Singh]

8 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 “In Foxestalk a culture where the abuse of Dr The Singh has often been accepted and normalised”.

The Labour leader will say: “[Sexual harassment] is a warped and degrading culture that also exists and thrives in the corridors of power, including in Foxestalk. This needs to be a turning point. Any members of Foxestalk who have engaged in this sort of behaviour must be held to account.”

Totally agree, it should start with you Buce, I've seen you way you look at me.