Should MPs employ family members?

[poppet2]

MP's prove they are just educated con artists, out for what they can get using whatever they can, to further their ambitions.

 

We have some of the least educated and worldly politicians compared to many developed nations, excluding the USA of course, which is run overtly by big corporate interests, and thus prefer dimwits.

 

We have politicians who look abroad to see poverty, where they can mix with other successful con artists, while all the time neglecting their own populations, and the state of their own nation. Our infrastructure, is falling apart, despite the hand outs to the private sector, who always promise one thing and deliver another.

 

They are a corrupt bunch of liars, which now infest all major parties, and like all infections consume the host, and is this a better land to live in that ever before? If the art ids to divide and sub divide the people of this nation and grind many down into various forms of poverty, then we have winning teams in all the major parties. They are called career politicians, and they are ther to give lip service to being elected and they taking everyone to the cleaners, unless you are very rich or influential that is.

 

Well said, and furthermore what they fail to understand is such behaviour permeates its way down the chain as those less fortunate then them, are likely to take the attitude, 'if they can do it, why can't I fiddle the system', be it re. tax or benefits.

[nightrider]

I don't really see the problem. They have to employ someone. What's the difference between an MP and anyone else in business. Our local MP employs family in a secretarial role. I regularly attend the office and she is always there. It can cut down on accomodation costs.

 

Would you rather an MP just employ a mate/lover etc. At what point does that become more of a problem than employing a family member, and would you expect a PA to loose her job if she married her employer who happened to be an MP?

 

the solution is to provide each mp with a staffed office. Then the MP would not be involved in employing anyone, and would prevent this corruption.

[poppet2]

MP's with 2nd or even 3rd incomes or with a lot of cash behind them could afford to pay for more/better staff than those without. wouldn't this mean that the constituents of the richer MP's would get a better service? Genuine question..

 

Good point. So, the answer is to stop all other forms of income whilst an MP, especially as the companies and large corporations they work for could result in a conflict of interest re. voting issues. After all they are in power because of votes from the public, not as a result of votes from large corporations.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2013 at 15:22 ----------

 

the solution is to provide each mp with a staffed office. Then the MP would not be involved in employing anyone, and would prevent this corruption.

 

Perfect, Nightrider. Problem solved, after all we have enough people working in the civil service.

[Happ Hazzard]

MP's with 2nd or even 3rd incomes or with a lot of cash behind them could afford to pay for more/better staff than those without.

That is already the case now.

[truman]

That is already the case now.

 

How would your suggestion improve things..? not having a go, just asking

[Happ Hazzard]

It would save the country money.

[poppet2]

How would your suggestion improve things..? not having a go, just asking

 

Yes, MPs would think twice about buying lavish dinners, taking unnecessary

Taxi's (when they could use public transport), hiring family members for mega bucks. With the abolition of expenses and instead just being given one large salary, you could bet your life they would spend as little as possible to recoup as much of THEIR salary as possible, rather then spend it recklessly on expenses as they currently do, because they know they can recoup all expenses.

[Riannon]

Remember Derek Conway MP, who claimed his son was working for him, when in fact his son was at university?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/feb/01/uk.conservatives

 

Who trusts that family members to do the work or hours they claim to do, or have the qualifications to do such work. Someone else doing that same job could be quicker, more qualified and experienced and therefore do the job part-time, thus saving tax payer's money.

 

It is public money so these jobs should also be advertised in the public sector, not just given directly to family members.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2013 at 14:23 ----------

 

 

An MP and the staff they hire are paid by the tax payer. They are therefore accountable to the tax payer.

 

If it's a private company, you can do as you please.

 

 

I can't see anything in any of your posts that wouldn't apply equally to employees who weren't family members. Please tell me what difference you perceive. I can't see any reason why a family member should be any less qualified and will usually be available at hours when a non family member might no be.

[nightrider]

I can't see anything in any of your posts that wouldn't apply equally to employees who weren't family members. Please tell me what difference you perceive. I can't see any reason why a family member should be any less qualified and will usually be available at hours when a non family member might no be.

 

That might be the case. Its a hell of a coincidence though that for so many MPs a close family member just happened to be the best candidate. Fancy that?

[truman]

Yes, MPs would think twice about buying lavish dinners, taking unnecessary

Taxi's (when they could use public transport), hiring family members for mega bucks. With the abolition of expenses and instead just being given one large salary, you could bet your life they would spend as little as possible to recoup as much of THEIR salary as possible, rather then spend it recklessly on expenses as they currently do, because they know they can recoup all expenses.

 

What level would you put this salary at?