Skip to main content

Who are the puppet masters?

Members of Parliament are supposed to represent our interests. We elect them, and we hold them to account at general elections. Many MPs have outside 'interests', and some get paid handsomely for them. This inevitably creates a conflict of interest.  It begs the question: whose interests do they serve?

The former cabinet minister Owen Paterson has declared that he receives a total of £112,000 a year from two firms, on top of his parliamentary salary of £79,000.

Owen Paterson charges them £500 an hour.

Let's put that into perspective. The national 'living' wage is just over £8 an hour.  The 'living' wage is what Mr Paterson receives for each minute he is advising these companies!  I wonder to whom he gives priority time: to a constituent on a living wage or the company that pays him so handsomely for that time.

Whether or not Mr Paterson has ever misbehaved regarding these interests is not a question we can answer.  But what we do know is that a conflict exists. 

Boris Johnson is paid well for the column he writes for The Daily Telegraph.  Not only does he get paid well for it, but it serves as a political platform.  

Now, it is good that MPs do have lives outside parliament.  We need to encourage more representatives with experience outside politics.   But where is the balance between personal pecuniary interest and public interest?  

Simply declaring such interests does not solve the problem.  On the contrary, it seems that declaring them sometimes gives questionable relationships and conflicts of interest a cloak of respectability as if the very act of declaring their interest absolves any problem.  But it doesn't.  The conflict of interests remains: who does the MP serve? 

There are rules, of course, governing the conduct of MPs and their interests.  One such rule is that House of Commons headed notepaper must not be used in representing any case to government for a firm for which the MP acts as an adviser.   Headed notepaper? As if nobody knows that the Member of Parliament is a Member of Parliament? 

It seems it is acceptable if an MP writes on behalf of a company he or she represents as long as he doesn't do so in their role as MP.   This is nonsense, of course.  Does he really put aside his interest depending on which headed notepaper he uses?  

This is not a trivial problem.   It is a significant problem in political representation. 

Who are the puppet masters of our MPs?  








Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As