Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Labour to ban external working MP’s?

34 replies

Isitmebut · 05/04/2014 01:20

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.”
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/03/jon-trickett-labour-second-jobs_n_5082727.html

“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.”

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038310/Labour-plan-ban-MPs-taking-lucrative-second-jobs.html

“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.

OP posts:
Original poster
Isitmebut · 07/04/2014 14:16

Excuse me, I’d thought I’d included this link before.

Aug 2009: “120 Labour MPs plan to stand down at next general election”

www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/aug/09/labour-mps-quit-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."

OP posts:
Original poster
Isitmebut · 07/04/2014 13:39

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.

OP posts:
ttosca · 06/04/2014 21:12

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.

Original poster
Isitmebut · 06/04/2014 14:54

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.

OP posts:
ttosca · 06/04/2014 12:39

A simple question to YOUR "pre democracy" comment:

'PRO democracy'

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.

Original poster
Isitmebut · 06/04/2014 12:33

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”

OP posts:
ttosca · 06/04/2014 12:15

Oh, get a real job.

Original poster
Isitmebut · 06/04/2014 03:14

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.

OP posts:
ttosca · 05/04/2014 12:06

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.

Swipe left for the next trending thread