Categories
Honourable Members? – politicalbetting.com
Honourable Members? – politicalbetting.com
“The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons“. Such might be the reaction to the Prime Minister’s assertion this week that Britain was “not remotely a corrupt country” and that he did not believe that “our institutions are corrupt“. Mandy Rice-Davies’ response comes to mind. Still, there is something impressive in the way he asserted that MPs breaking the rules should be investigated and punished barely days after having whipped his MPs into voting for the precise opposite for the errant Mr Paterson. That really is taking his famous lack of attention to detail to another level. But here we are. Less than a month after the murder of Sir David Amess, an MP whose hard work, openness and devotion to his constituents reminded us both of the price of public service and the good it can do, the Tory party is once again facing accusations of sleaze, corruption, favours for money, using public office for private gain and a de haut en bas disregard for the rules. It is all wearily familiar. How can we be going through this again despite all the changes in rules, the Nolan Principles for public life, the Commissioners, the Registers etc?
Comments
I had to look up the quote - Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay 'Worship'.
"See what allowance vice finds in the respectable and wellconditioned class. If a pickpocket intrude into the society of gentlemen, they exert what moral force they have, and he finds himself uncomfortable, and glad to get away. But if an adventurer go through all the forms, procure himself to be elected to a post of trust, as of senator, or president,—though by the same arts as we detest in the house-thief,—the same gentlemen who agree to discountenance the private rogue will be forward to show civilities and marks of respect to the public one: and no amount of evidence of his crimes will prevent them giving him ovations, complimentary dinners, opening their own houses to him, and priding themselves on his acquaintance. We were not deceived by the professions of the private adventurer,the louder he talked of his honour the faster we counted our spoons; but we appeal to the sanctified preamble of the messages and proclamations of the public sinner, as the proof of sincerity. It must be that they who pay this homage have said to themselves, On the whole, we don't know about this that you call honesty; a bird in the hand is better."
"No pre-approval; no job. Doing it without approval means instant referral to the Commissioner for Standards with the usual penalty being return of the gross amount received."
🙏
I wonder who she had in mind for the role of the independent Commissioner, who “…will need steel, good judgment, courage and a rhino’s hide”..?
Occasionally a virtuous one pops up (Rosena Allin-Khan's doctoring springs to mind) but I'm afraid the vast majority have poisoned the well.
No second jobs full stop, we'll probably lose a few MPs but like the IRA getting rid of bins in train stations it's casualties we'll have to take.
"The obvious button to press to bring this story to an end is a ban on outside consultancies and sharp limits on second jobs full stop - something that would hit a lot of Conservative MPs in their wallets and be a particular source of resentment given his [BJ's] own record.[...]
But what would worry me in their shoes is the story that might well blow second jobs off the agenda: inflation. Even if the spike in inflation does prove to be transient, a painful 2022 may well be on the way for most households: and if the average voter finds themselves struggling to make ends meet while second-jobbing and other side-hustles continue unabated in Parliament, the political pain of the Paterson fiasco may have longer to run than Johnson and his associates believe."
I though the implied comparison of MPs to Herdwicks a slur on a blameless and noble breed.
Happier days.
Excellent thread header btw
The interesting thing about the debate on second jobs for MPs is that there is one profession that gets away with being paid handsomely by the state and also is able to do additional work at eye watering rates and yet is held in such high esteem and public deference that MPs could only dream about.
That profession is the medical profession. Around £120k, uber-job security and gold plated pensions at the taxpayers expense is clearly not good enough for those hard-working hospital consultants. Many have an additional incomes from private practice, company consultancies and royalties on patents. A few would easily rival Geoffrey Cox in income. Does the public care? Do the politicians dare raise it. Answer no! It doesn't excuse MPs excesses, but it is certainly something that should also be addressed.
Though spraying MPs with an anti-parasite dip may be worth considering ......
When people are determined to find sinners, they'll find sin in all of us.
I also don't like the idea that some jobs should be 'acceptable' whilst others are not, everything else being the same.
Having said that, I don't know what the answer is.
TBF however, there is more to a constituency office than somewhere to admit the schemies, Multrees Walk matrons, and other hoi polloi. You need somewhere to put the bod who answers the phone and the emails.
The test in the header is a good one, is this person being employed *because* they are an MP?
This applies to all these non-exec directorships, government relations, advisor, political consultant etc jobs. There’s plenty of former MPs who can do those, for companies or organisations who need political advise.
The edge cases will be such advisor positions for non-profit organisations, or trades unions, media work, or where the MP was already a political advisor or lobbyist before entering Parliament.
£50,000 for X days work...£1m per year...£35,000 for....
This will make people sit up and take note as it brings the reality closer to home.
Someone the other day made similar remarks about MPs and the London housing market.
The fact that an MP earns extra money from being a doctor or a solicitor is not inherently wrong. It might raise questions about time spent on Commons business but that's for the electorate to decide. Who can say whether Geoffrey Cox is less effective for his constituents than an MP who spends all day dozing on the back benches.
What stinks is using the prestige and access of being an MP to further the interests of a particular firm or body. Tighten up the rules and actually enforce them and then MPs can work whatever job they like.
But being a paid lobbyist should very obviously be on the wrong side.
I'm not averse to paying MPs more, should the case be made.
It you want to make an exception for altruism, i.e Allin -Khan and other clinical practitioners through the pandemic, they could do it gratis.
What I find more troubling is members of the Monetary Policy Committee having an interest in house prices and mortgages rates.
Honestly, this is not hard. We had just such a policy at my last employers. Everyone had to sign up to it and declare any interest, save those that were permitted (a v small list) and get approval in writing. If that approval was not given or given wrongly then there would be disciplinary proceedings. For both the person taking the job and the person wrongly approving it.
It reverses the assumption that as soon as you get a well paid and prestigious job, you immediately start looking for other even more lucrative sources of income which risk undermining your ability to do your main job and the trust voters have placed in you.
It's absurd. It wouldn't be tolerated elsewhere. It shouldn't be tolerated for MPs.
PS And a Commissioner with integrity would not leak.
Dear BillyBlueWATP1690,
I quite agree that there should be no second indy referendum even if the divisive nationalists would be bound to lose it. Please rest assured I will be making this case. Repeatedly.
Yours etc
As an example: someone might correct me, but ISTR that ten or so years ago, we went around this rodeo before. Labour wanted all second jobs banned - including book writing, seemingly to get at Hague. However, Abbott's paid appearances on TV would be fine.
That seemed utterly wrong to me: Hague might earn an advance and income from his book, but it would not have much impact on his political life. TV appearances, and especially regular ones, do.
But, if they have to wait 10 years there's at least a good chance the politician will get stiffed by the company, and that may make it less likely such arrangements will exist ... vs a scenario where you can be openly paid in real time.
The Commissioner will have a team around them, and there would be far too much temptation to leak against people you did not like, for reason of their political position or anything else.
The fuckwits have no idea what they want.
As a random example, with no aspersions cast, Matt Hancock's relatives (when he was Health Secretary) engaging in medical PPE provision to the NHS would cause me a problem.
It does not occur to them - but is pretty obvious to me - that the only reason they get all these offers is because they are MPs. And it is precisely because this is so that they should not take them up.
But leaving it to them to police themselves after the event is too late and too feeble. Hence my suggestion of a tightly defined list of exceptions to the general presumption of no outside business interests coupled with a system of external independent pre-approval.
MPs will moan but they've brought this on themselves. Self-regulation has not worked. So something tougher is needed.
They are much like bankers in this regard.
I'm wondering how many of the 35% approving actually know of an HGV driver who'd they'd want as their MP.
The obvious reason for doing this, is so the current Congresscritters think, without anything being said, that they will be next. 99% of the time, they’re right.
For instance in a past incarnation I wrote for some popular journals etc in my spare time - on themes completely irrelevant to my employer's policy, or very carefully checked with them when they might be (for instance, when I wrote on the law and ethics of my profession). The employers saw it as a useful extension of my day job and one that didn't impinge on it in any negative way. And I was not well paid - used the money for professional subs, decent IT kit and funding my research.
Maybe it's the money that is the issue.
Or the subject. If Mr Hague was writing about, say, the design of British tanks in the Great War, versus politics?
And where does that leave Mr Johnson on Churchill WS, given his obvious subliminal message?
Someone with ill intent could easily 'arrange' things indirectly through other family members - and we've seen stories about 'MP x's wife works as a ....' story before.
This whole thing is a minefield.
There would be a lot to be said also for MPs to be part time, unpaid, and the funding go to constituency offices where MPs paid assistants/support workers can organise the case work on an expert basis.
Would that leave them with much?
The issue starts, I think with the idea that being an MP is part time.
In the beginning, MP was something that gentlemen did, whenever the king could be bothered to summon parliament. The outside interests were what they were representing, not the people as such. The idea that that the chap backed by the City of London wasn't representing the City of London (and being rewarded for same) would have seemed strange in 1675.....
By modern standards, this is corrupt.
So, firstly - is being an MP a full time or part time job?
If full time, then fairly standard employment contracts would exclude the vast majority of other jobs.
Previously, he could have been getting a far bit of work.
Obviously, MP on his business card will get him some work.
But how do you tell which work he got for being an MP and which he didn't?
My comments:
- How do we take this out of Parliament's hands entirely, and is that desirable? And if we do how do we hold such a regulatory office itself to account?
Removing MPs from direct influence in Expenses was a key aim in the last reform in 2010, and achieved that to a significant extent, and we have a much improved system. Though we still have the bizarre arguments about MPs needing more money, and MPs expenses should pay mortages, which effectively gives them a free capital gain on the public purse.
The current setup is well isolated, in that the Commissioner makes the decisions, and there is no right to appeal when a case is taken up or when it gives an answer - and with some strange processes around punishments.
The impression I have is that Filkin and Stone have been stringent, and Mawer was quite compliant.
But how far do we want to allow the Commissioner effectively to overrule the results of an election?
- What about the question of unpaid positions? And, for example, access provided by MPs and Lords to Parliament for lobbyists?
A former HoL list for these is here:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/apr/10/parliamentary-pass-members-house-of-lords
- Why do former politicians get access to the Estate for life? And how is that used?
Do we need the narrower issue, or the wider, addressed?
I can't get too worked up about all this to be honest. Except when it is to do with lobbying.
Part of their job as non-exec would be talking to current MPs about which way they should vote. Carefully trailing the rewards for being the "right sort".
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/95jmaq/popularbest_selling_artists_by_english_county_of/
When you read about a big company proclaiming their commitment to equality and diversity, Pride, sustainable development, corporate social responsibility, treat them in the same light you would a televangelist denouncing unnatural sexual practices. And remember Christopher Hitchens' comment that he'd make a note in his diary, and a few years down the line, the man would be found on his weary old knees, in some motel room or latrine, doing the very things he so denounced.
Assume that any big business that claims to be ethical is making use of slave labour in China and routing its profits through a tax haven, and you'll not often be wrong.
Edit: Great minds, @dixiedean
OK. Eric Idle is from Worcs.
(Actually I see that Sting and I attended the same university, he to do teacher training, me to do my CIPD).
Make it a full time with the leave entitlement of a normal job and sanction them if they don't turn up to the HoC or their constituency offices.
Why would we ban MPs from doing secondary jobs and then allow them to work for the Government, which is a clear conflict of interest?
Plumbers in government might help fix the leaks.