Sajid Javid: Why has the ex-chancellor been allowed to work for JP Morgan?

[Thomas]

That's taken care of by the various Parliamentary standards bodies.

In the case of Sajid Javid it does not appear to have been taken care of.

Why is this only a problem when the tories do it , but when labour do it , you remain silent?

Remember when labour got booted out in 2010 ,they then went on to bleat about nhs privatisation ( that began under their watch) in england , and then it was found many of them were involved whilst active mps in big business and private healthcare companies profiting from the sale of parts of the english nhs?

Many will believe the NHS is safer in Labour's hands than in those of the current Tory-led coalition government; and believe that the Tories are corrupt and making personal gains from the demise of the NHS into a private national insurance contribution based provider of healthcare via private healthcare  companies in this country.

However, this ignores the reality of the fact that the privatisation of the NHS was long ago 'enabled' by the Blair government and ministers like Alan Milburn.

It also ignores the reality and indisputable fact that many Labour MPs are involved with the private healthcare companies now lining up to buy up healthcare services and sold off and privatised NHS hospitals, of which the sale of 10 will probably be completed before end of 2012.

https://unionsafety.eu/docs/HSNewsItems%2012/DespiteProtestationLabourMPsProfitFromNHSPrivatisation.html

or what about labour peers in this article....

The Guardian investigation into peers and MPs who have directorships or a controlling interest in companies linked to tax havens began as an exercise to show how widespread the use of offshore jurisdictions has become in British business life.

It soon became apparent that many Parliamentarians who are able to influence tax laws have taken up positions as directors and non executive directors in major companies with offshore links.

There are 27 Tories - six of whom are MPs – 17 Labour peers, three Lib Dem peers and another 21 are either crossbench or non-affiliated peers.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/sep/20/peers-mps-directors-companies-linked-tax-havens

[papasmurf]

That's taken care of by the various Parliamentary standards bodies.

In the case of Sajid Javid it does not appear to have been taken care of.

[patman post]

The problem is taking a job relevant to their experience in government which they will have very sensitive and commercially advantageous knowledge to certain companies.

That's taken care of by the various Parliamentary standards bodies.
But what about encouraging knowledgeable people to take jobs in government relative to their experience in the outside world? If such people are banned from returning to their areas of expertise once they leave government, fewer people will  be willing to serve...

[Thomas]

And if this discourages some of those in it for themselves, creating more space for more genuinely public spirited types, then that's a good thing in my view. The basic pay of an MP after all is pretty good at some three to four times the median wage. We have far too many self-serving bastards in parliament at the moment.

Ideological rubbish.

You need less mps , and to pay them far mmore than the 80 grand they currently get. The average uk salary is about 30 grand , and an ordinary mp salary for years has averaged around 2 half times the average wage.

In this old article from 7 years ago , https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-do-we-pay-mps-too-much

it says the basic uk salary for a politician was among the lowest in the then OECD member states.

In Britain a backbench MP gets about 2.25 times the average full-time wage, only the 13th biggest ratio out of the 17 countries.

As streetwalker says , we have council bosses and small business owners outperforming mps and prime mininsters on salaries , yet we wonder why we have such poor politicians?

Im a firm believer in the old saying abour peanuts and monkeys.

of course , labour believe in paying peanuts but getting large expenses and corrupt backhanders as we all know.

The chairman of Scotland's largest transport authority has resigned following questions over expenses.

Alistair Watson, who is also a Glasgow Labour councillor, stood down from Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) on Monday for health reasons.

It comes after documents obtained under Freedom of Information showed SPT officials claimed more than £100,000 between 2006 and 2009.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8516202.stm


then labour rewarded our dodgy dealer by giving him a 7 grand pay rise for fiddling his expenses and a new improved job...

Disgraced former SPT chair lands new job with £7000 rise

A disgraced former quango chair is at the centre of a fresh row after he was handed a new job by the incoming leader of Glasgow City  Council.
Alistair Watson, who quit his post at Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) earlier this year, will receive a £7000 salary bump after landing the twin roles of "senior councillor" and chair of a local authority committee

Opposition councillors have criticised Labour's new leader Gordon Matheson for lining up his colleague for the post

http://archive.is/GrbLZ


back in the good old days of out and out labour corruption and contempt for the ordinary people.

So if you paid your politicans more SRB , it might help stop them having their greedy labour hands constantly in the till.

[papasmurf]

No one is suggesting stopping anyone from working, merely stopping former elected representatives from taking highly paid top jobs in business for a certain period.

The problem is taking a job relevant to their experience in government which they will have very sensitive and commercially advantageous knowledge to certain companies.

[Streetwalker]

te (selected)
Quote from: Streetwalker on August 21, 2020, 05:36:12 pm

If you are going to stop people from working after public service the brain drain from Westminster on all sides will be significant .

No one is suggesting stopping anyone from working, merely stopping former elected representatives from taking highly paid top jobs in business for a certain period.

And if this discourages some of those in it for themselves, creating more space for more genuinely public spirited types, then that's a good thing in my view. The basic pay of an MP after all is pretty good at some three to four times the median wage. We have far too many self-serving bastards in parliament at the moment.

Well thats exactly what you are suggesting . You are saying they cant take jobs that are 'highly paid' . Whats that £30K , 50 .200  Whats highly paid ?  MP's are actually not paid very well at all in the world of public service .
For instance you can earn 3 times as much for running Croydon council than you get for running the country  and the councils head of finance clears £50K more than the Savid Javid was on  at number 11 .

Im all for keeping an eye out  that nothing untoward is going on  and the heaviest of penalty's for the cheats but you cant stop people earning a few quid in their chosen field , its just not cricket .

[srb7677]

If you are going to stop people from working after public service the brain drain from Westminster on all sides will be significant .

No one is suggesting stopping anyone from working, merely stopping former elected representatives from taking highly paid top jobs in business for a certain period.

And if this discourages some of those in it for themselves, creating more space for more genuinely public spirited types, then that's a good thing in my view. The basic pay of an MP after all is pretty good at some three to four times the median wage. We have far too many self-serving bastards in parliament at the moment.

[Streetwalker]

If you are going to stop people from working after public service the brain drain from Westminster on all sides will be significant .

[srb7677]

Party donations are one thing. Personal allowances paid to already-salaried MPs is another, otherwise why's this different from paying for questions...?

No money is being handed over as one off payments in brown envelopes in return for asking specific questions.

It was in the past generally Tories who went in for that particular form of overt corruption.

[papasmurf]

Personal allowances paid to already-salaried MPs is another, otherwise why's this different from paying for questions...?

It is all documented and open to inspection.

[patman post]

Why? Given the Multi £millions some donors give the Tory party.
Plus Labour have done precisely nothing for the  Unions since Blair  got into office.

Why? This is traditionally how ordinary working people via their union subs have gotten working people's representatives elected to parliament, and is an antidote to it all being in the hands of the rich. Besides which, the unions concerned are themselves integral parts of the Labour party, so this is effectively Labour MPs being supported by affiliate parts of their own party. Where is the corruption here?

Party donations are one thing. Personal allowances paid to already-salaried MPs is another, otherwise why's this different from paying for questions...?

[srb7677]

I am more uneasy about tens of Labour MPs "funded" by trades unions — in 2015 there were about 50 drawing approx £750,000 between them...

Why? This is traditionally how ordinary working people via their union subs have gotten working people's representatives elected to parliament, and is an antidote to it all being in the hands of the rich. Besides which, the unions concerned are themselves integral parts of the Labour party, so this is effectively Labour MPs being supported by affiliate parts of their own party. Where is the corruption here?

[papasmurf]

I am more uneasy about tens of Labour MPs "funded" by trades unions — in 2015 there were about 50 drawing approx £750,000 between them...

Why? Given the Multi £millions some donors give the Tory party.
Plus Labour have done precisely nothing for the  Unions since Blair  got into office.

[patman post]

The position will have to be cleared by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which can place restrictions and limitations on when and how the job can be undertaken.
Personally, I seen nothing wrong with MPs having careers/jobs outside Parliament — in fact I believe it can give them relevant experience outside the politics bubble.
I am more uneasy about tens of Labour MPs "funded" by trades unions — in 2015 there were about 50 drawing approx £750,000 between them...

[srb7677]

I am afraid this is all too typical of the media/business/politics revolving door. A lot of mutual back-scratching is likely to be involved. How likely is it that any chancellor will get tough on say bankers' greed or any form of business tax avoidance when he is likely to go running to them for a job in the very near future?

I think elected politicians should be barred from holding simultaneous positions in business and continue to be so barred until they have ceased to be an elected politician for at least 5 years.

The stench of corruption is too cloying at the moment.