MPs still on the make - Despite the expenses scandal, 136 MPs still employ family members

[ttosca]

MPs are still paying nearly £3m of public money to family members despite attempts by the new expenses watchdog to tighten up the system, research for The Independent has found.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/despite-the-expenses-scandal-136-mps-still-employ-family-members-2350952.html

You are very rude ttosca. Presumably you posted here to start a discussion. That incolves an exchange of views, some of which may be different to yours. Please show a little respect.

they have to spend the money they re saving cutting benefits for truants - i mean come on ttosca, this is a careful calculation

take from poor

give to rich

thats the tories - that;s always the tories

You are very rude ttosca. Presumably you posted here to start a discussion. That incolves an exchange of views, some of which may be different to yours. Please show a little respect.

Oh, but come on! It's absurd! I can't believe anyone could be so naive.

Naive? How do I know you've lost this argument? You're attacking me rather than debating the point.

Cogito-

You haven't debated the point at all. I asked you to address the points and you didn't.

Cogito

Are you going to sit there and honestly tell me that someone is not going to hire a family member over a professional PA, who may be more qualified, when they they have the possibility to double their income by doing so? Really?!

Actually ttosca I think a number of people have put forward some sensible and well argued points. All you have done is deride them. You have said nothing interesting or intelligent yourself.

Are MPs getting their "second homes" expenses curbed to the same amount as housing benefit is going to be?

So much money would be saved if they would have some kind of accommodation in London specifically for the use of the MP of such-and-such a place and not for the individual. Owned by the state and not by the greedy MP who can then sell for profit which has to go against their moral compass surely?

In fact go a step further, lets raise their wages a little and ban all expenses bar stationary and other office equipment inc. office itself. If they need staff then they need to advertise before the need to employ the missus, mister or kids.

I'd like to get a food allowance each month but then I'd be a scrounger wouldn't I.

Let me repeat my points by reposting:

-----------

It's a bad argument because it gives the impression that MPs are employing family members and friends so that they can effectively earn double salary. No doubt, some of them do precisely this.

Secondly, it is nepotism; when a family member is employed, they are denying the job of someone else from the public. You could argue that a family member may be 'more efficient', but you're not exactly going to get MPs hiring people on an equal basis when there is the choice between hiring a family member, who will add £35 K to the family income, or a member of the public, who won't.

Thirdly, if you can find a member of the public who is better trained than a family member at this sort of job, then there is a serious problem with your recruitment process.

Finally, at a time when trust in politicians is (rightfully) at an all-time low, MPs should be doing everything they can to alter the impression that they're corrupt bastards in it for themselves and their rich buddies. They're playing with fire, here.

___

The only arguments which people have come up with are:

a) Why not hire a family member so long as "they're competent at the job".

The point is not 'competence'. The point is hiring the best person for the job. Given that there is a pattern of hiring family members to work as PAs, obviously the selection process isn't simply working in the basis of 'best person for the job'.

b) Family members can be trusted:

There are already non-disclosure laws and data protection laws which need to be followed in this sort of job. This is not a new area. The 'problem' of privacy and secrecy happens with every secretarial or PA or job as assistant.

Someone might need additional protection if they were acting illegally, in which case that is an argument against hiring family members, not for.

------------

Now could you all address my points about the unfairness of the recruitment process, the motivation to hire in the family to double one's income, and the problem of public perception of nepotism and milking public funds at a time where trust in politicians is at an all time low?

Well said, Twolf.

ttosca, you've repeatedly said that the MPs do this to "double their income".

I believe MP's salaries are around £65k. In the story you've linked to, 136 MPs employ relatives. 42 of these relatives were paid over £30k, 6 over £40k (but less than £45k). Median salary of the 140 employees was £20k-£25k. So you could maybe argue a maximum of 6 of the 136 MPs as being anywhere near (but not actually) doubling.

Just a small point, but your constant repetition smacks of 'say a lie often enough and people stop questioning that it's true'.

And many of these family members could probably earn more money for doing much less work. 35k for a PA in the City isn't a great salary.

But 'best' is a subjective description isn't it? There may as others have already pointed out be very good reasons why a family member is the 'best' person for the job. Competence implies they have to have matching skills. Personally i don't have a problem with that.

At the end of the day though your biggest failing is being unable to take on board anyone else's opinion that differs from your own. In Ttosca's world everyone who disagrees with your opinion is wrong.

Just had a thought - I'd imagine there was a time when spouses were expected to do all the work but it went unacknowledged and unpaid as it would just have been seen as part of being a 'political wife' (and it would have been wives back then). Enter feminism stage left demanding acknowledgement and a salary. Or possibly poorer MPs pointing out that their family could not afford to have one adult working unpaid, and so unavailable for paid work. I'm thinking 1970s and earlier, when MPs didn't have second homes but could only claim for rent on crashpads.

niceguy-

'Best' probably isn't quite as subjective as you're trying to make out. That's why there are procedures to assess competence, skills, and experience.

Generally speaking, someone with 10 years+ experience PA work isn't going to be better qualified than a spouse.

And yet you continue to ignore the fact that earning an extra 20 or 30K is a very strong motivation to hire someone - as if this is some minor point. It's not a minor point. It's a major point.

Would you be happy if you went for a job interview, and the people you were competing against offered a bribe of 20K if they took them instead of you? No? Why not? It's all subjective after all. I'm sure the person hiring will be very fair to you and consider you both on an equal basis with regards to 'competence'.

Sheesh.

No, at the end of the day, you have to decide whether you want to live in a world where people are hired on the basis of what you know, or instead on who you know. That's what the issue is about. You should think about the wider implications of what you're saying.

Not that it doesn't happen already, but it would be a far worse and far less fair world if people were hired because they were family members or even friends - who could equally have a advantage in terms of 'trust', for example.

It's nepotism, and you are supporting it in principle.

Ttosca, like i said earlier. Providing the MP can demonstrate good reason why they have chosen a family member above other people and those reasons stand up to scrutiny, where's the problem?

So if an MP says "Well I hired my wife to be my secretary because she's got some experience, she's willing to work the hours I am and obviously the commute isn't an issue. I did look at others but for x,y,z reasons I concluded they were not suitable." Then what's your issue with that?

Your assertion that £20-30k is a strong motivation only stacks up if said family member was going to otherwise sit at home. If he/she was going to work anyway then the difference would be way less. In fact chances are some would probably earn more than £30k anyway.

You are assuming that any MP hiring a family member is guilty of nepotism until proven otherwise. Is that the sort of society you want? Because I don't. There may be a few bad eggs still but then frankly you'd get that everywhere. I bet there are corrupt police, incompetent nurses etc. It doesn't make them all bad.

Very well said niceguy but I'm afarid ttosca is incapable of understanding anyone else point of view so waste of time trying to engage in reasonable debate. Thank goodness we don't all assume MPs are corrupt, what a very sad place this country would be to live in if that was the case.

I don't assume they're corrupt. I'm sure most of them operate properly within their system. But I don't necessarily think the system in itself fair, for reasons I stated above.

niceguy-

What scrutiny? Is there a vetting system? I would be very interested to know more about it if there was.

So if an MP says "Well I hired my wife to be my secretary because she's got some experience, she's willing to work the hours I am and obviously the commute isn't an issue. I did look at others but for x,y,z reasons I concluded they were not suitable." Then what's your issue with that?

The problem with that is that it's hypothetical. You're considering one best case scenario and assuming the honesty and the best intentions while ignoring every other possible scenario.

In an imaginary world, this could happen:

All PA candidates would be reviewed for the job anonymously by an independent panel, except that the one candidate who was also the spouse would be noted as such. The panel could take this in to consideration for 'no commute times' and 'high trust'. However, they would have no special interest (ie. £20-30K) in hiring him or her over anyone else. All candidates would be considered on equal terms. If the spouse is hired, so be it.

That's not what happens. In reality:

MP decides he or she needs a PA. Decides that awarding their spouse the job would be a nice extra income. Even if their spouse is already working, it's always nicer to have a job where your job is your husband or wife. MP chooses spouse over more qualified candidates because of the perks.

You are assuming that any MP hiring a family member is guilty of nepotism until proven otherwise. Is that the sort of society you want? Because I don't. There may be a few bad eggs still but then frankly you'd get that everywhere. I bet there are corrupt police, incompetent nurses etc. It doesn't make them all bad.

I'm not assuming that they will. I'm saying that the system allows them to do this. In the same way that I don't think that every employer is racist, yet we still need anti-discrimination laws. Nepotism should be illegal.

Finally, you're right, I don't generally have much faith, or trust in MPs. In fact, I hold most of them in contempt, and I think you should too. Not just one or two, but scores of MPs were found to have made fraudulent claims:

The United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal was a major political scandal triggered by the leak[1] and subsequent publication by the Telegraph Group in 2009 of expense claims made by members of the United Kingdom Parliament over several years. Public outrage was caused by disclosure of widespread actual and alleged misuse of the permitted allowances and expenses claimed by Members of Parliament (MPs), following failed attempts by parliament to prevent disclosure under Freedom of Information legislation. The scandal aroused widespread anger among the UK public against MPs and a loss of confidence in politics. It resulted in a large number of resignations, sackings, de-selections and retirement announcements, together with public apologies and the repayment of expenses. Several members or former members of the House of Commons, and members of the House of Lords, were prosecuted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The scandal also created pressure for political reform extending well beyond the issue of expenses and led to the Parliament elected in 2005 being referred to as the 'Rotten Parliament'.[2][3][4] (Wikipedia)

These are the MPs you expect people to trust? The same ones who commit widespread fraud with impunity?

Very well said niceguy but I'm afarid ttosca is incapable of understanding anyone else point of view so waste of time trying to engage in reasonable debate. Thank goodness we don't all assume MPs are corrupt, what a very sad place this country would be to live in if that was the case.

Parliament doesn't represent your interests and welfare, Laugs. It represents the welfare of the moneyed classes. It that sense it's not 'corrupt'. It's fulfilling its function perfectly.

It wasn't me that said the bit you quoted. I agree with you.

Ooops, sorry. Cool.

I work in Parliament for an MP (not a relation).

I do not think this is a problem at all so long as the family member actually does their job. I've seen a few husbands and wives of MPs make the most efficient PAs.

and IPSA should be abolished

I worked for a charity as a contractor (and a charity which receives public funds as well as fundraising income) who employed the daughter of a senior manager into an influential policy role straight out of uni (having done an unrelated degree) without advertising the job. I find it even worse when organisations that are supposed to lobby for change do this. Even more galling is the fact that the charity campaigns about tackling disadvantage....I could suggest not practising nepotism might be a good place to start...