To take the heat off Johnson, it is said that Geoffrey Cox was thrown to the wolves. Best known for his colourful but brief tenure as Attorney General during Theresa May's blighted years, making £1m/year from his outside interests, including representing the British Virgin Islands against his own government, ir's safe to say he now has a better claim to fame. If that wasn't bad enough, not only is he a legal whiz who can command top dollar from corrupt tax jurisdictions, he's a dab hand at juggling properties too.
The worst conflict of interest since Paterson voted against his own suspension? Yes, but there are plenty more. Consider Sajid Javid and £300k for three weeks work he did in 2020. Paid for by C3.ai, a Silicon Valley AI firm for advice on the global economy and market opportunities, one can only wonder what insider knowledge and connections he drew on, and to what end. John Redwood gets £193k/year for around two days' work per week chairing a "wealth management" firm. Our old friend Chris Grayling pockets £100k for advising a harbours business, which of course has nothing to do with his enthusiasm for the government's freeports wheeze.
Perhaps more egregious, though chicken feed compared to these titans of industry, was Laurence Robertson trousering £24k from the gambling industry. Again, his propensity to argue against restrictions on betting and casinos undoubtedly gushes at the behest of a deep well of principle. And Iain Duncan Smith, one of the most odious creatures to have sat on the Tory benches, gets £25k from a hand sanitiser company. Coincidentally, the committee he chaired recommended the government approve the non-alcoholic sanitiser his paymasters manufacture. And the capstone on this pyramid of corruption is the grand poo-bah of money grubbing himself, a Prime Minister whose appetite for infidelity is eclipsed only by his roving eye for gift, grift, and gratuity.
The defence of this is well rehearsed by now. We've even had the old chestnut of it was within the rules. But the one the Tories rely on the most is the need to maintain outside interests to keep one grounded in the realities of the day-to-day. The undeclared millions of Jacob Rees-Mogg, apparently, helps keep his fingers on the pulse of Britain. In reality it keeps him in the style to which he is accustomed: that of generations of city spivs and speculators pretending to the mores and "authenticity" of the British landed aristocracy. The same is true of all the top earners. They pave the way for deepening connections between the sectional interests of whichever part of the bourgeois class they hail from or aspire to, and the general political interests of capital the Conservative Party articulates. And they don't think they're doing anything wrong because this is what Tory parliamentarians have always done. Capitalism separates politics and economics, but in practice it's standard ruling class practice to overcome this by stuffing their chosen parties with actual capitalists, their lackeys and their agents. These relationships are personally lucrative for the MPs concerned, but helps ensure the Tories remain the favoured vehicle of the British bourgeoisie.
But this is not a smooth process, and reproduces a pecking order within the party - one pregnant with tensions and potential dangers. For them. For every well-heeled ex-PM who can effortlessly leverage their dodgy connections to pad out their Swiss bank accounts, there are others who aren't so blessed. The IDS-types of this world selling their wretched political souls for a mere £25k. The Esther McVeys who'll gobble up tickets to sporting events, and the others who'll take five grand here, eight grand there, these often enter parliament without the networks or the "skills" of the upper tier bung takers, and prostrate themselves with a planted question here or a helpful recommendation there. Services rendered now might mean favours returned later - a few non-executive chairships to see them through their dotage.
There is an unseemly and behind-closed-doors competition for these sinecures, lubricated by coffee mornings with the CEO and liquid lunches with the money men. But thanks to the scale of the last Tory general election victory, we've seen the introduction of new agonisms within the Tories' parliamentary ranks. Consider the rumbles and bellyaching from the red wall contingent. Many of these new MPs were frustrated by the three-line whip on the Paterson vote, with one complaining about having been "hung out to dry to protect someone who wouldn’t even recognise me in the corridor". My heart, it bleeds. But many of these MPs are (mostly) from humble backgrounds. Their parliamentary existence is coloured by the fear they are one-term Tories, and the knowledge that once they're out of the Commons there's no chance they'll see £82k/year again. No matter how hard they work, or diligent a constituency MP they are, ultimately their fates are tied to Johnson. If he or his blue-blooded chums screw up through their carelessness and hubris, they know it will be the marginals who'll pay the price. No wonder the new Tories are hopping mad.
This tension can play to Labour's advantage, if the corruption revelations continue to depress Tory polling. There are questions for Labour too given the unerring tendency for some to end up in nice jobs post-parliament. This obviously does have important corrupting influences and fires the career aspirations among layers of the Labour right, but the scale of the corporate troughing are a mouse's snack against the hearty feasts top Tories trough on.
The Tories will fight tooth and nail to prevent bans on directorships and "advisory roles". They benefit personally, its keeps the links between party and class alive, and it says to business-types with political aspirations that they won't have to slum it on a much reduced salary to meet them. The threat to make this more difficult isn't a minor inconvenience, for them it's potentially existential and cuts to the quick of what the Tory party is about. All the more reason to back bans on Tory MPs' second jobs.
Image Credit
6 comments:
Geoffrey Cox, like all MPs, is not only elected to (supposedly) represent his constituents but as an MP to also protect the interests of Britain. To be paid by a foreign entity to help that entity in a legal battle AGAINST the British government might be considered by some a treasonable act.
I'm not sure a blanket ban on second jobs would really work, how would it stop the ex-journalist, working as freelancer, who writes the occasional column for a newspaper or the doctor who helps out as a locum, to keep their hand in, and of course, the example of Starmer, a lawyer who gives occasional advice.
A far better way to curb it would be for all money (or gifts in kind) received from sources outside their parliamentary pay to be deducted from their pay (pound for pound) and for any income over and above the value of their salary to be taxed at 50% up to £100k and then at 75%. That will soon sort out those who do a bit of extra work 'to keep in touch' and those who won't stand to be an MP because the lucrative opportunities to misuse their MP position won't be there.
«I'm not sure a blanket ban on second jobs would really work, how would it stop the ex-journalist, working as freelancer, who writes the occasional column for a newspaper or the doctor who helps out as a locum, to keep their hand in, and of course, the example of Starmer, a lawyer who gives occasional advice.»
Once upon a time here were several left-wing MPs who were also trade unionists, coop workers, think-tank workers, book authors, etc.; the outrage of our bloggers is directed at Conservative MPs only, for doing what Conservative MPs do, which is to represent the interests of their class.
There are two possible points of view on that:
* The interests of privileged incumbents are illegitimate as such, and preventing them from doing a second job is just part of trying to abolish them altogether.
* Since being MP is a professional full time career, regardless of the political legitimacy of an MP, they should have an exclusive employment contract like most professional employees do.
As to the latter, the traditional view of MPs used to be that they were part-time volunteers, rather than full-time employees. a bit as if membership of the Commons were the membership of a club or the local worker's society. I guess that that point of view is fading and the public expects MPs to be full time emmployees.
«those who do a bit of extra work 'to keep in touch' and those who won't stand to be an MP because the lucrative opportunities to misuse their MP position won't be there»
The question there is what is the duty of an MP in exchange for the money they receive: to represent politically their voters, so what matters is how they vote, and they are otherwise free to do as they please, subject to being accountable to their voters for their activity, or to work as employees of the Commons, effectively as public servants ("theyworforyou.com"), and then they are accountable like every employee for their attendance and for their dedicating their full time attention to their employer (following debates, reviewing bills, dealing with constituent correspondence, participating in divisions, etc.) and being accountable for their diligence in carrying out those duties to the voters.
My guess is that the current model is a mix, and the press and much of the public expect the MPs to behave more like salaried public servants.
Blissex pull the other one. There is no comparison with someone second-jobbing as a trade union exec or writing a book, and a Tory MP getting paid $10,000 an HOUR for 10 hours 'work' for some organisation.
If you really do think that then you're not half as smart as you think you are.
«There is no comparison with someone second-jobbing as a trade union exec or writing a book, and a Tory MP getting paid $10,000 an HOUR for 10 hours 'work' for some organisation.»
There quite a number of people in places like London paid $10,000 an hour for their precious time, as a matter of course (it is "just" $20,000,000 a year gross). It is "just my usual rate" for some people. Boris Johnson once said that the £250,000 a year he was paid to write one column a week taking him 1-2 hours to write (total yearly work hours 60-70) was "chicken feed".
Then if someone objects to people having *any* second job at their usual rate, whether it be that of an union exec or say an investment banker, that is the "full time salaried public servant” case, if someone objects to it only in the case of the investment banker, that may be the case where one considers illegitimate the pay of $10,000 per hour, as in “The interests of privileged incumbents are illegitimate as such”.
If people think that $10,000 per hour is a disguised bribe, because nobody would pay $10,000 per hour for actual work, that's wrong, nobody would be so stupid to declare that openly. Corruption is done in rather different and better hidden ways.
Post a Comment