Lack of judgement could cost us dearly
Wednesday, January 30, 2008 There's little I can add to the Derek Conway story that hasn't been said elsewhere - although David Cameron has gone up in my estimation. A free society needs a strong, occasionally ruthless, leader. Not only did Cameron act correctly in withdrawing the party whip (effectively sacking a popular colleague), he acted very quickly. I know opponents are trying to say he prevaricated for 24 hours but that's nit-picking. Compare that with Brown's response to Peter Hain's predicament, and before that his dithering over an election that never was, and there's no comparison.
Conway isn't the only politician to come out of this badly. According to today's Telegraph:
The Daily Telegraph has established that at least 38 other MPs are currently employing members of their immediate families. The Speaker of the House of Commons has blocked the disclosure of information about their employment.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life is now poised to launch an inquiry into MPs’ expenses although it has emerged that Jack Straw, when leader of the House, blocked a similar move last year on the basis it would embarrass backbench MPs.
Note the use of the word "blocked". Twice. I don't have a problem with people - including government - keeping some things secret. It's a question of judgement, and in this case the Speaker and the former leader of the House have demonstrated appalling judgement.
Taxpayers are entitled to know how their money is being spent. If MPs wish to employ members of their family, fine, but they must be open about it. We are entitled to know how much they are being paid and there has to be evidence that the work is being done. Some call it "transparency" (how I hate that word), others call it "freedom of information". I call it common sense.
Report HERE.
Reader Comments (5)
Simon. A word I hate is 'Honourable', meaning honest or trustworthy. Being honourable MPs do not have to disclose that they pay members of their family. I wonder how many MPs are truely honourable.
Somebody said on Newsnight last night (from memory) that it's time Parliament stopped acting like a 19th century club and realised that here in the 21st century it is accountable to the people.
I think that's about right.
The older I get the more I wonder how on earth these people can just pay themselves (and their relatives, apparently) out of OUR money while refusing to represent us or our views, and not even flinch.
Takes a very 'special' kind of person to behave that way, and I wouldn't employ any of them to 'work for me', since they haven't the first clue how to represent me (nor do they seem to care).
Simon
David Cameron acted honourably and without equivocation in withdrawing the whip from Derek Conway.
He did not prevaricate at all, and in his previous decisions when MPs transgressed, he was equally forthright.
Derek Conway gave us the excuse for his actions, that this was an administrative oversight. When you use taxpayers’ money for your own ends…whether to help family or friends…then this is not only intolerable but also dishonourable.
Certain parts of our institution of government need to be scrutinised much more closely. In private industry misappropriation of funds would have resulted in instant dismissal and possible prosecution.
How true is this?
Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 600 employees and has the following statistics?
29 have been accused of spouse abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad cheques
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
4 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year
Which organization is this?
I'm led to believe that it's the 635 members of the House of Commons, the same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.
Well... we're their employers. We should be able to sack 'em with one month's notice.
Now that's one piece of legislation I'd like to see introduced and made water-tight.
Why do we have to keep paying these people's wages for up to five years, regardless of how fit WE think they are for the job?
The rest of us can't say to our employers 'Look I know I've stepped way outside of my remit, got everyone's backs up, and pee'd all over their desks, but you're stuck with me for five years and, basically, I can do what the hell I like. It's your problem that I sucked you in at the interview'.
Does anyone know the law on this? How come the house can have a vote of 'no confidence' but we can't?