This is an important step on the way towards winning a personal crusade of Vox Political – to clear corruption out of the House of Commons.
The Labour Party will change the law to ban MPs from having second jobs including corporate directorships, employment or consultancy work.
Think about it; this means MPs will no longer be allowed to have dangerous conflicts of interest between their positions as representatives of the electorate and any responsibilities to other employers.
It would go a long way towards meeting the terms of the Vox Political e-petition from last year, which called on Parliament to ban MPs from voting on matters in which they have a financial interest.
It would not help when MPs have shares in particular companies – but those should be declared in the register of members’ interests in any case, and neglect to mention such interests should lead to strict penalties.
I know. The Maria Miller case (to quote a recent example) isn’t going to fill anybody with hope, is it?
A Daily Mail report has stated that the move will infuriate many MPs on both sides of the House, and some Facebook commenters have already trotted out the now-tired line that they’ll believe it when they see it, or Labour won’t be able to push the measure through as MPs would oppose it.
That’s a mistake – a whipped vote in a House of Commons with a Labour majority means an automatic victory – in exactly the same way the Coalition government has continually won controversial votes in the current Parliament (against ardent Labour opposition that has subsequently gone unnoticed by the public – or at least, by many commenters on this site).
The Mail‘s article affected shock at Labour’s temerity in wanting to force this measure on members of other political parties, claiming it is likely to fuel claims that the party is anti-business.
This is, of course, poppycock. How is it anti-business to make sure serving members of Parliament concentrate on their jobs as public representatives, rather than trying to serve two masters at once? It seems more likely that business will revive without their over-rated expertise.
After all, look how well they’ve managed the nation’s finances!
The Mail also quoted some goon who said it meant the electorate would be lumbered with more career politicians who have worked as researchers and special advisors, when there need to be MPs in every party who have had “real world” professional experience.
This too is poppycock. There is no reason a person in any career cannot stand for election and, if returned to Parliament, take a sabbatical from their day job until they are voted out again or choose to return to their vocation.
Ah. I’ve just looked up the name of the goon who made this claim: Tory MP Andrew Bridgen. Need I say more?
Finally, the Mail turned to the Institute of Directors for support. It’s as if the paper really wanted to hammer home how corrupt the system has become, and will remain, if left as it is. Of course, the director general, Simon Walker, said MPs could better serve the public if they have “active links” with the business community.
Well, of course!
How could he influence Parliamentary decisions without a few directors in the Cabinet?
This is a policy that we should all support to the hilt.
I strongly advise you to contact your MP and seek their support for it.
Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
Vox Political supports any move to keep MPs out of the pockets of big business
… but we are a small business and we NEED your help.
This independent blog’s only funding comes from readers’ contributions.
Without YOUR help, we cannot keep going.
You can make a one-off donation here:
Alternatively, you can buy the first Vox Political book,
Strong Words and Hard Times
in either print or eBook format here:
Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog.
One can only keep one’s fingers well and truly crossed…
Reblogged this on Jay's Journal and commented:
And about time too, as long as they stuck to it…
Pingback: Labour will ban MPs from having second jobs &nd...
yes they say they will but can do a cams and delete all they promised but sadly labour who in labour said it and would they do it I hope so its becoming a joke in that house fiddling is the new game which they play at jeff3
Seems a perfectly reasonable stance to take, mp’s should be doing more for their constituents rather than spending their time as a director of a large company.
Most people can’t take a 5-year sabbatical from their regular job. And if they’ve previously worked in a low-level job they’ll find themselves severely overqualified at the end of the parliamentary term. But… I don’t think we need to be concerned about people keeping on jobs on the till at Tesco’s while in parliament – I can’t help wishing we were. More people in parliament with ordinary working experience is what we need! If the current lot don’t think they get paid enough then they should go away and be replaced with supermarket till-people, call-centre people, unemployed people: all of whom would be absolutely stunned by the salary available to MPs.
If you’re going away to be an MP, I think you’ll be amazed at how accommodating an employer will be.
I agree with your other points.
But I’m sure that your employer would be more accommodating if you were bringing contract’s back to the company that you were seconded from and still receiving your salary and bonuses. G.
Sure. All I’m saying is, if it’s all that’s on the table, a company will still jump at the chance to say an employee is currently serving as a member of Parliament. It’s still good for public relations and there doesn’t have to be any hint of corruption.
“Welcome to the Brave new world of the socialist Left”. I suspect that only a real Left winger could believe this “Clap Trap”. Do I have to remind the labour faithful that a General Election is planned for next year. This is the time for lie’s and inuendo to increase the chances of Labour to win?. I have heard some of Millistein’s weasel word’s recently, I’m not convinced by him anyway and never have been. In the unlikely event that Labour does win, what sort of a job would it be to check out every MP’s financial state, every and any company he may be connected to and receiving payment from and is he putting those companies forward for preferential treatment when contract’s are offered, and on and on. I think you will find that Millistein doesn’t do that sort of thing as it’s too difficult and it’s almost an impossible task. “Far easier to just Talk the talk”, and carry on regardless, and hope against hope that you don’t get caught out. “Don’t let the Jew sucker you again”, PM is a more important job than a Supermarket Owner. Trouble is that the money isn’t as good as that of the supermarket Owner. That is why I’m wondering why Millistein is going for the harder option and who’s told him to do it?. He’s no Human Dynamo is he? and should be known as the Indolent one in my opinion. Only time will tell?, Remember this, “you read it here first”. G.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is already charged with checking every MP’s financial state and pecuniary interests (it just doesn’t do a very good job). Making this organisation fit for purpose will be much easier than starting from scratch, though.
Your anti-Semitism is not welcome on this page.
Also, if you doubt Miliband but you dislike left-wingers anyway, wouldn’t you be getting another right-wing government if his Labour Party wins? You’d welcome that, wouldn’t you?
I think you’re a little confused.
After your comment, I know I am.
Reblogged this on sed30's Blog and commented:
Ha! ha! ha! Parliament is corruption. Labour will not outlaw second, third, fourth jobs, and when it comes to corruption it is there with the rest, because, again, parliament is corruption. Parliament was so in Cromwell’s time, and he denounced it, and what a speech he made against parliament before locking all MPs out.
IPSA a total waste of space, only goes after those whom it wishes to, having a political agenda, which is born out over the years.
Are you a leader of the Labour Party? If not, then why do you assume you know so much about them?
IPSA is a waste of space. We can agree on that because the evidence is available in its past behaviour.