Labour to ban external working MP’s?(35 Posts)
There is nothing like new Labour anti business, anti Conservative, Trade Union friendly ‘red meat’ policies to throw to the party faithful near election time – and this nothing like a new red meat policy.
New Labour thought of this under Brown in 2008 (see link further below) but Labour had many ex ministers now in ministry related private sector jobs AND in 2009 it was thought that at least 120 Labour MP’s were going to stand down at the 2010 General Election, but they had to hang around until then or not qualify for generous taxpayer pay offs.
“Labour MPs will be banned from receiving any income from corporations after 2015, one of Ed Miliband's key advisers has said.”
“Shadow cabinet minister Jon Trickett, a member of Miliband's inner circle, revealed Labour would legislate to apply this to MPs from all parties should it win the next election.”
“In an interview with The Huffington Post UK's Mehdi Hasan, Trickett said Labour wanted "to stop people from working for corporations, receiving money from corporations, as members of parliament."
“Trickett, who is also the deputy chair of the Labour Party, said: "If you stand as a Labour candidate at the next election you will not be allowed after that election to continue receiving money as an employee of a corporation."
“The Institute of Directors (IoD) condemned the plan as "ill-thought-through" and warned it would alienate MPs from the owners of small, medium-sized and family owned businesses.”
July 2008 – “New Labour plan will ban MPs from taking on lucrative second jobs.”
“A ban on MPs taking lucrative second jobs is under consideration by Gordon Brown.”
“The Prime Minister is looking at measures to rid the Commons of its 'snouts in the trough' image.”
“The move comes as the number of former ministers using their connections to secure private sector posts has surged to the highest level since 1997”.
Sooooo much 'class warrior' Labour energy is spent trying to attack the Conservatives directly and set policy traps, rather than come up with real policies for the people.
> In an interview with The Huffington Post UK's Mehdi Hasan, Trickett said Labour wanted "to stop people from working for corporations, receiving money from corporations, as members of parliament."
Sounds pro-democracy to me.
If it appears as 'anti-business' to you, maybe that just highlights how corporations have subverted any meaningful democracy in the West, and especially the US and UK.
ttosca….I believe Labour had over a 100-seat majority in parliament in 2008/9, democratically why did they not bring this policy in then – other than it would affect many the Labour Party both having lucrative side lines and looking to find new jobs before the 2010 election?
Chuka wots-his-face sez parliament need more people with business experience, I wonder if there is any danger of a joined-up-policy on this.
A simple question to YOUR "pre democracy" comment: if it was such a good idea in 2008, what happened?
Labour had already lost most of their Private Sector political party donors by then e.g. from the City, so was once again relying on trade union funding, that was what, covering around 90%?
Didn't they think it a good idea, then and now?
You don't think that the following 2008 quote was key - and the need to start new 'work experience' before leaving office with their pay offs?
“The move comes as the number of former ministers using their connections to secure private sector posts has surged to the highest level since 1997”
> A simple question to YOUR "pre democracy" comment:
You're so ideological you're babbling and incoherent.
Any law of this sort would affect all parties.
Corporate influence in politics is probably the number one problem that all Western Capitalist 'democracies' face at the moment. Any move to remove the influence of big money should be welcomed by the public.
ttosca....what bit of why didn't they carry out the policy in 2008 is "babbling and incoherent" when it clearly looks like hypocritical self interest by Labour grandees and others preparing and/or equipping their corporate life boats, to leave the rest of the Labour rats on the sinking ship of economic incompetence?
I thought you were bright, so I'll keep it simple why didn't they carry out this policy in 2008?
If you cannot answer, with a Labour parliamentary majority of over 100 seats parliamentary majority, then they had no excuse, so then we know it was typical self interest.
Would this policy affect all parties, or just the Tory scum, Isitmebut?
So how is it self-interest? Labour will more likely be in power the next election, and will almost certainly be in power at some point.
Simples, Labour by 2007/8 was still just fooling the country and the private sector contractors (PFI) that they were competent - and had far more MP’s, current and ex ministers looking for, or in, lucrative ‘new work’ , to compete with Blair’s new found private sector riches.
Now Labour have been rumbled as an incompetent party in government and looking at the current group of muppets that INCLUDE many of the ministers back then – in 2015 they know they haven’t got a rats chance of being offered a job outside parliament – it looks the perfect time to regurgitate some old ‘red meat’ that clearly would affect the Conservatives more than them.
Excuse me, I’d thought I’d included this link before.
Aug 2009: “120 Labour MPs plan to stand down at next general election”
“Many Labour MPs are concerned that their earnings will be pegged back severely if pressure mounts over coming months to stop them taking second jobs in order to supplement their £64,766 salaries.”
“One senior Labour figure said: "The total will go well over 100, probably to 120. After 12 years in power, Labour MPs do not want to be in opposition for a decade bound by rules that prevent them realising their earning potential." Andrew MacKinlay, a Labour backbencher who recently announced he was quitting, said: "A lot more will go, I am sure. It will probably reach 120. That should be the high-water mark."
You haven't made an argument, Isitmebut. In fact, you've provided evidence against your own argument.
You are so blinded by partisanship, you don't even realise what you're doing.
I'm sure that Labour will be affected by this legislation, and I'm glad.
I couldn't give a crap if Labour didn't bring it in back in 2007 or whenever. If the law is brought in now, it will reduce the influence of money on politics, and it will affect all parties.
This is not a partisan issue. It's a democracy issue.
Joka-ca-ca…….are you playing with a full deck?
Although for you to preach your version democracy and sneer and label any other poster on here “partisan” kinda answers that.
ttosca’s democracy; Labour need 35% of the vote for a Labour majority government in 2015, the Conservatives currently with just over 36% of the 2010 vote were 20 seats SHORT of a 326 seat majority of two.
ttosca’s democracy; Labour party funded over 80% by trade unions (often with militant influence), with Miliband and around 80% of the Shadow Cabinet directly receiving trade union funding and heaven knows how many other MP’s.
So whether outside jobs are a serious democracy issue or what, as arguably any policy past by a parliament elected by the people, surely has some democratic point – what you are clearly missing is that for the party in government allowing the expenses scandal, with 5 MP’s jailed and ex trade unionist Mick Martin the only Speaker of the House ever told to step down, for encouraging it – these are all certainly stark hypocrisy issues.
While I find it highly NON democratic that Labour has both waited until it hardly affects their pockets for any party to have non trade union outside interests, better known as “business”, while increasingly taking party and personal funds from a trade union.
Traditional business experience and business representation in a parliamentary melting pot of 650 MP’s is important as maybe if we had more business and non government funded job creation experience within the 1997 parliamentary party, instead of Brown surrounding himself with new financial advisors and old style trade unions – we wouldn’t have seen such lop sided growth of the financial and Public Sectors.
Democracy is not any perpetual UK political party needing only 35% of the vote to form a majority government, or less to form a socialist coalition, strongly influenced by a militant trade union movement and lacking business input to ensure a viable/sustainable Private Sector. In fact it is a recipe for national economic disaster, citing both 1979 and 2010 as proof.
Only says they will not be allowed to receive money but that doesn't stop them working for benefits or having a member of their family employed who will receive money.
MPs will always be on the make no matter what.
Unless they have made their money before becoming an MP, usually self-made, having taken risks to create a successful business over time, learn the importance of a balanced budget, pay taxes, employ people – and then they’re usually called Tories and ‘out of touch’ with the real world.
A serious point is an MP’s salary; I forget what is currently is, but without pre MP wealth, or a second income, I know that I could not run two homes (one in London) and raise a family of 5, on it - so testing the expenses ‘perks’ would be my plan B – even trying to improve juniors CV with parliamentary work experience.
I think you have me confused with a partisan Labour supporter.
> ttosca’s democracy; Labour need 35% of the vote for a Labour majority government in 2015, the Conservatives currently with just over 36% of the 2010 vote were 20 seats SHORT of a 326 seat majority of two.
How is this 'my' democracy?
> ttosca’s democracy; Labour party funded over 80% by trade unions (often with militant influence), with Miliband and around 80% of the Shadow Cabinet directly receiving trade union funding and heaven knows how many other MP’s.
How is this 'my' democracy?
And btw: the trade unions represent the working public, unlike businesses, so there is no philosophical or moral equivalence.
> Democracy is not any perpetual UK political party needing only 35% of the vote to form a majority government, or less to form a socialist coalition, strongly influenced by a militant trade union movement and lacking business input to ensure a viable/sustainable Private Sector. In fact it is a recipe for national economic disaster, citing both 1979 and 2010 as proof.
You're right. Democracy is when the public get to decide on what sort of political and economic system they want to live under. Democracy is when the public have a real choice of options in shaping their future.
Democracy is not having to choose between one of three main neo-liberal business parties which represent the interests of the ruling class, rather than the working public. That is the situation we have now.
ttosca…excuse me “for confusing you with a partisan Labour supporter” due to your daily balanced rhetoric, in a 2-main party system where one will be the next P.M., fairly understanding their records in power and why they introduced policies in fair economic times and foul – and the legacies they left. Hmmm.
On ‘balance’, I think that it is MORE than fair to say, based on your rhetoric, that your politics are far closer to Old Labour’s e.g. “And btw: the trade unions represent the working public, unlike businesses, so there is no philosophical or moral equivalence”.
And I can live with that statement, other than the shareholders that own those businesses and entrust the Directors to run a globally competitive company, ARE mainly “the working public” usually via their pension funds.
So moving this subject on, I think that we would both agree that WITHOUT BUSINESSES, there are no jobs, no salaries - so no “working public” pay rates versus inflation, or anything else to worry about, other than if businesses and workers aren’t paying taxes, there is no funding of JSA/Benefits/Welfare - WITHOUT perpetual higher national debt and ever higher taxes for those lucky enough to still be in work.
A perpetual socialist government/coalition in England enabled by non democratic boundaries, heavily influenced by relatively militant trade unions funding the party and individual MPs, where businesses do NOT feel represented in a UK government is therefore DEFINITELY NOT my idea of democracy – as we have been here before and it was not sustainable – but that is the direction Labour under Ed Miliband is clearly taking us.
When Labour & UK Trade Unions last ‘shared’ power and didn’t have the same priorities =Thatcher.
“The Winter of Discontent refers to the winter of 1978–79 in the United Kingdom, during which there were widespread strikes by public sector trade unions demanding larger pay rises, following the ongoing pay caps of the Labour Party government led by James Callaghan against Trades Union Congress opposition to control inflation, during the coldest winter for 16 years.”
“The strikes were a result of the Labour government's attempt to control inflation by a forced departure from their social contract with the unions by imposing rules on the public sector that pay rises be kept below 5%, to control inflation in itself and as an example to the private sector.”
When UK Trade Unions dictated to businesses and German & Japanese workers didn’t = mass producing British car companies decimated.
“British Leyland's Speke factory symbolised all that was wrong with UK car manufacturing in the dark days of the 1970s, a million miles away from the high performing plants of today at Ellesmere Port and Halewood.”
“In 1978 British Leyland's Speke Number Two plant was under threat of closure, afflicted by a series of crippling strikes, low sales of the TR7 it manufactured, and a history of poor industrial relations coupled with inefficiencies.”
“In 1970 British Leyland, who had taken over Triumph, spent £10.5 million building Speke Number Two plant, it was one of the most modern and best equipped plants in Europe designed to build 100,000 vehicles a year all under one roof.”
“When BBC Nationwide visited in February 1978 the plant only had a few months of life left.”
> ttosca…excuse me “for confusing you with a partisan Labour supporter” due to your daily balanced rhetoric, in a 2-main party system where one will be the next P.M., fairly understanding their records in power and why they introduced policies in fair economic times and foul – and the legacies they left. Hmmm.
I didn't say I was 'balanced'. I'm not 'balanced' at all, in the same way that I am not 'balanced' about rape.
Nor am I Labour supporter. I've said said this a million times. Stop playing the fool.
It doesn't matter if it's a 2 or 3 main party system. I'm not playing 'teams', and this approach to politics is part of the problem, as are people like you who play partisan politics all the time.
> On ‘balance’, I think that it is MORE than fair to say, based on your rhetoric, that your politics are far closer to Old Labour’s e.g. “And btw: the trade unions represent the working public, unlike businesses, so there is no philosophical or moral equivalence”.
Who cares? Old Labour doesn't exist anymore. I can't vote for them, nor can anyone else.
> And I can live with that statement, other than the shareholders that own those businesses and entrust the Directors to run a globally competitive company, ARE mainly “the working public” usually via their pension funds.
A small minority of the public hold shares in companies, and the vast majority will only see small dividends.
Company pension schemes are not usually predicated on the performance of a company, nor should an employee have to sacrifice wages and workers rights in order to keep a minority of shareholders happy with the profitability of a company.
> So moving this subject on, I think that we would both agree that WITHOUT BUSINESSES, there are no jobs, no salaries - so no “working public” pay rates versus inflation, or anything else to worry about, other than if businesses and workers aren’t paying taxes, there is no funding of JSA/Benefits/Welfare - WITHOUT perpetual higher national debt and ever higher taxes for those lucky enough to still be in work.
Calm down. There isn't a lack of businesses going around, or a lack of wealth. It's not like there is a dearth of Capitalism on this planet. The problem is that the wealth in concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority. The planet has never produced so much wealth. We have wealth in abundance.
The problem, again, is that corporations are paying less and less tax, people more and more. People are being paid less and less in wages, while at the same time producing more and more.
Three decades of corporate cock-sucking since the beginning of neo-liberalism hasn't succeeded in making the world a better, more prosperous place -- except for the top 5% of people at the top. And that is exactly how it was intended to work.
So please don't waste my time with more bullshit about how we need to suck even more corporate cock. Neo-liberalism is a failed economic experiment, as far as the puiblic is concerned.
ttosca...I won’t even bother to answer your last post/points in any depth, it is so full of denial, mistruths and ignorance.
Re the size of the £1.7 trillion UK Pension funds & the Public Sector final salary schemes needing excellent returns to save taxpayer contributions/money.
Re the relationship between government and international corporations = more private sector jobs, higher salaries as the labour market gets tighter, a larger tax take and a better funded Public Sector = better living standards for all.
“(Reuters) - British employers are raising the salaries they offer to new permanent staff at the fastest rate in nearly seven years as they struggle to fill vacancies, a survey showed on Tuesday.”
“The figures from the Recruitment and Employment Confederation suggest Britain's strong economic recovery last year is finally translating into higher pay.”
“The REC said its monthly survey showed that average salaries for permanent staff were up by the biggest amount since July 2007, though wage growth for temporary staff slowed slightly.”
"Worsening candidate shortages mean that the number of people available to fill both temporary and permanent jobs is falling at the sharpest rate in nearly a decade," he added.”
Capitalism is by no means perfect, but it has proven to be sustainable, fat unfunded by balanced economic growth government/Quangocracies aren’t and you end up with £1.5 tril of national debt.
I think that before anyone is allowed to stand as an MP they should have worked in a non political job for 5 years.
I think business is good. I think politicians having experience outside politics is good.
I think politicians having lucrative second jobs that lead to almost inevitable conflicts of interest is bad. It is one of the big problems with an unelected, undemocratic and unremunerated upper house. It is one of the problems of allowing elected MPs to have active outside interests. There are problems with blind trusts etc for the duration of a ministerial appointment but it's a damn sight better than second jobs.
I have a relatively sensitive job. I am prohibited from having a second job without express investigation and permission from my chief executive, were he to be convinced there was no conflict of interest. Such permission is rare - and rightly so. MPs have a lot more influence and power than I do, they should not be held to a lower standard of probity.
Quite aside from the conflict of interest point, being a good MP is a very time consuming job (my own MP is excellent and is very visible and active in the constituency including during the Parliamentary recesses some people insist on calling 'holidays'.
I also believe that as the leadership and composition of political parties change, so too do their policy platforms. Harking back to 'why didn't they do it under Brown/Blair/Major/Thatcher' is a ridicpus argument based on the idea that political platforms are set in aspic and that different leadership teams don't take their parties in different directions.
The way I look at it:
So, Mr/Ms Scroggins, you want me to vote for you, and you want to be an M.P.
Do you think it is a full-time job? Or part-time?
*ridiculous argument. Though I am taken with the 'ridicpus' alternative.
PigletJohn put it very well.
> “(Reuters) - British employers are raising the salaries they offer to new permanent staff at the fastest rate in nearly seven years as they struggle to fill vacancies, a survey showed on Tuesday.”
Again, you're misleading people. After the biggest fall in peace time living standards, it's not surprising that eventually there would be an upturn. However, there is still a very long way to go to recover to even pre-crisis levels.
"Looking forward, there is little reason to expect a strong recovery in living standards over the next few years” - Institute of Fiscal Studies (2014)
> Capitalism is by no means perfect, but it has proven to be sustainable, fat unfunded by balanced economic growth government/Quangocracies aren’t and you end up with £1.5 tril of national debt.
Capitalism and 'sustainable' are probable two words in the English language which should not be spoken together, unless they include the word 'not'.
A periodic crisis every 30 years, increasing wealth inequality, perpetual wars, and environmental disaster are among the things Capitalism has 'sustained' for humanity.
Yeah, we saw the real alternative in China and Russia, just how many tens of millions of 'the people', governed by the people in each one of those countries, died in that little experiment.
How are they both doing now with a healthy dose of capitalism - although Russia would still be in the dark ages without oil/gas.
Show me one current major industrial nation (with a well funded welfare/benefit system) without 'capitalism' i.e. a thriving private sector, a stock market, a domestic bond market, access/recycling of domestic and international funds, savings/pensions etc etc etc.
Your main century’s old bitch is that ‘the people’ are not paid enough, possibly in the unskilled sector, which gets worse in a recession – but there has never been a better time for people to focus on their own education/training/retraining, cradle to grave, to help themselves, with taxes kept as low as possible for lower paid people (rather than fat Quangocracies) to keep more of what they earn.
A capitalist funded welfare state is there to look after those that are truly poor/vulnerable, or have fallen on hard times and need help to get back on their feet – without capitalism the poor/vulnerable get State help Stalin & Chairman Mao style – again, tell me how’d that worked out for the 30-40 million plus that starved to death?
Capitalism, or should we call it the Private Sector cannot be ‘macro controlled’, especially in a global market place, where many can relocate within a year or so – especially in the UK where over 50% of the FTSE 100 companies ARE FOREIGN OWNED and should they want to move more jobs back home, their governments would welcome them with both open arms and incentives.
“French parliament passes law punishing plant closures” – Killing future inward investment?
“François Hollande admits French taxes are ‘too much’”
Governments control economies, so usually when we get major recessions, usually beginning with a ‘boom’ that governments did not want to take ‘the heat’ out of for self serving reasons, it ends in bust as the central banks put the inflationary fires out via hiking up interest rates.
Governments therefore have many options to control capitalism, and you know when they’ve made a COMPLETE PIGS EAR out of it, and that’s when in a massive recession, interest rates are put DOWN to all time lows to put ‘heat’ into the economy, rather than UP to take heat out.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.