Labour to ban external working MP’s?

[Isitmebut]

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.

Do you honestly think that the 2008 financial crisis was caused by the influence of trade unions? Honestly?

Do you also think the government took or forced decisions on interest rates? If so, why didn't interest rates go up after the change of government?

You also seem to believe that governments 'control' economies. I suspect many wish that were true.

You are rather undermining your credibility.

I did not say JOINTLY responsible for both economic crisis’s, I had hoped posters had the brains to work out who was in the frame in 1979 and 2007/8, for themselves.

Governments controlled the levers of interest rates before Brown came in, as arguably this was the one useful post 1997 ‘surprise’ policy that didn’t rob the people, although throughout the decade to 2007, under the designated BoE controlling the Base Rate, our base rate (due to our stubborn inflation?) was higher than any other G7 nation.

Governments do control economies through their economic and fiscal policies. An anti business, pro big fat State, pro high business and personal taxes, pro immigration with high domestic unemployment, forgetting to build homes, government - will end in disaster EVERY time.

Governments influence economies. So do central banks. So do consumers, businesses, investors, and other economies.

Most economists agree that if government could have prevented the crash of 2008 in the UK (which is in itself very doubtful due to the interlinked nature of a global economy) it would have been through tighter regulation of the banking sector. This was seen to be anti-business so hadn't happened. The allegation (from politicians of all hues, and others) against the then-government is that they were too cosy with the banking sector and business in general to have taken those regulatory steps. I'm not sure where you think the unions came into it.

What happened after the crash, and whether government action made things worse or prevented a deeper recession, is very debatable and something we probably need much more hindsight to see.

With statements like 'governments control economies' you'll forgive people for questioning what you actually mean when you make sweeping statements that make it appear you haven't the first clue what you are talking about when it comes to politics, government or economics.

Let me spell it out, I do not believe that the trade unions had anything to do with the 2007/8 financial/economic crisis, unless it is proved that the 1 million plus increase in Public Sector workers from 1997 to 2010 was due to public sector union pressure - in which case that inflated our 'costs' to 'revenue' base = larger budget deficit.

The structure of the Uk economy prior to 2007/8, without a doubt made the length of our recession worse, as evidenced by the 7% fall in GDP during the first year, that if memory serves didn't happen to any other major economy, other than the basket cases needing IMF help. Government continued hiring and deficit spending from £30 odd £billion in 2007 to £157 bil in 2010 gave the impression of less of a GDP recession, but it was never sustainable.

If you don't believe governments do NOT control economies through economic and fiscal e.g. taxation, policies, I'd love to know what you think does

I told you what I think controls economies - a wide range of factors that influence them, rather than anything having individual control. I set out clearly what some of them were. As a proponent of a market economy, I'm surprised you're struggling with this.

Ultimately if anything 'controlled' our economy there would be state control of all systems of production and consumption and a radically different system of government.

We can argue about the impacts of governments choosing to spend their way through and out of recessions as an alternative to a sharper shock and restructuring, but we will probably get no further than the many economists who disagree on the question.

If you don't think trade unions or their 'control' of the Labour party influenced the recession, what on earth was your 'referendum' question about?

And you still haven't explained why you think it's beneficial for MPs to have second jobs, as distinct to a background in and support for business, which is the topic you started.

JassyRadlett….I believe that when you LIST “the wide range of things that control the economy” on here, we will see how much governments do/can control – if they have their priorities right.

Re the 2nd jobs Point; Firstly the sheer on-going hypocrisy of the Labour Party convinced as a traditional Tory perk it should stop, but then when they realised how many ex minister Labour MP’s had directorships – and how many ordinary MP’s wanted to jump ship in 2010 needed to either keep, or find 2nd job work experience before then, they shelved an ‘outside influence’ policy.

Furthermore, what are the hours of all these 2nd jobs directorships etc, as if time off MP’s day jobs is the issue, rather than ‘outside influence’ on MP’s who would have declared their interest in that company/business sector to parliament – surely if the time needed can come out of MP’s own time i.e read reports in evening or on train journeys, these 2nd jobs should not be an issue.

Re the Trade Union ‘outside influence’, which is more financially and politically deep rooted into the whole Labour parliamentary party. Lets take one as an example, Unite, what did they put into the Labour Party coffers last year, around £8 million? What did Ed Miliband in the same year directly receive in funding from that union alone, around £115,000? How many Shadow Cabinet members to they directly ‘fund’, of the (at least) 80% that are funded by trade unions? How many of the bolt-standard MP’s have funding/affiliations to trade unions????

Spot the democratic hypocrisy here, not just on Labour waiting another several years to curb 2nd jobs due to their own interests back then, on ‘outside influences’, but in the INCREASING trade union influences and non 2nd job related PAYMENTS for the benefit of the Labour Party, from the muppet brother/leader of their own choosing TO THE POLICIES LABOUR WOULD IMPLIMENT IN GOVERNMENT e.g. the UK being a debt/deficit economy under Labour , or living within our means.

news.sky.com/story/1235515/unite-chief-deals-labour-another-painful-blow

“At Labour’s special conference on union reforms a month ago, he made a blockbuster speech in which he declared: "This is our party. And we’re going nowhere."

“But now the union firebrand dubbed "Red Len" has suggested that Unite may do just that. Go and support another party that is.”

“It could happen, he said, if Labour lost the next election and failed to be on the side of ordinary working people."

“This bombshell intervention came as McCluskey became the first union general secretary to address political journalists at a Press Gallery lunch. And good copy he was, too.”

“As the Labour MP sitting next to me observed, he was quite well behaved in his speech. It was his answers to questions that did the damage.”

“However, he did say in his speech: "Democracy needs real choices and alternatives. Variations of austerity will not excite them (voters) to go to the polls come election day.”

No threats from Unites McCluskey there then; do what I want or we will stop funding supporting Labour (as a party and individually) and find another leftie party, who like Putin, wants to go back to the Soviet 1970’s ‘good old democratic days’

We came close to losing our democracy in 1979

www.spectator.co.uk/features/3665728/we-came-close-to-losing-our-democracy-in-1979/

“Douglas Eden reveals the extraordinary penetration of the 1970s Labour movement by pro-Soviet trade unionists and the extent of Callaghan’s toleration of the hard Left."

And Labour see THE threat to our democracy by having a balance of business interests/Private Sector, that 100% funds the Public Sector, represented in parliament? Yeah right.

You can't even be bothered to argue the original case on its merits, just more hysterical 'but Labour is worse and trade unions are evil!' while spitting out statements that demonstrate you have no clue about how Parliament, constituency work or government operate. You also don't understand, or don't want to understand, the way western economies work because it would undermine your flawed argument, which is I assume why you're spitting out economic concepts that would place you somewhat to the left of any mainstream party. Your posts directly contradict each other and are riddled with logical fallacies you can't be bothered to acknowledge while thinking that bolding a paragraph somehow lends your argument more weight.

I'm interested in healthy discussion based on facts and reasoned, evidenced positions. I'm not finding that here which is a pity because this is an interesting issue.

Therefore, I'm bowing out.

JassyRadlett...look at the para on my last most re the "original argument".

Nothing hysterical here about Labour's relationship with the trade unions, just facts/worries now and in the late 1970 - and I'd suggest the mass hysteria for the last 35-years has been blaming Thatcher for the fall of our industrial base.

I know VERY WELL how economies work, I have followed global economies for over 30-years - hence I have asked you nicely a few times now for your opinions why a government through its own economic, social and fiscal policies CANNOT control it's own economy - rather than stuff my opinions down your throat.

And FYI I have 'qualified' more of my opinions than you have yours.

Clearly there will always be external 'shocks' that effects the likes of exports, the price of oil etc, but by and large a government's policies define economic direction e.g. if a government spends £170 billion on Quangos, rather than lowering taxes for the poor and building homes for England (creating different types of jobs), what is the more socially useful and sustainable?

Anyhoo, if you want another crack at a debate with facts of your own some other time, I'd be happy to carry on.

Ooops..first line should read 'look at the para on my last post starting "Furthermore" re the 'original argument'.