happypig
Staring at the rude boys
As is spelling it would seem
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
MPs empolying Family members.
- Thread starter Leekbrookgull
- Start date
As is spelling it would seem
Let's not forget our good friend, Norman Baker, was claiming for renting a room in a property that he owned. Or, the Wintertons who bought a property, put it into trust for their kids and then claimed rent for living there.
However, worst case was Derek Conway who was paying his son who was away at university!!
I don't have a problem with the principle but it has to be monitored very closely.
- Aug 7, 2003
- 8,086
Career politicians are all *****
The money you're getting paid isn't coming out of the public purse. Also, the expense scandal revealed an awful lot of MPs employing family members. There was a perception, true in some cases and not in others, that it was a way of supplementing the MPs salary with the family member not actually doing the job, or working the hours they had claimed.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
I see what you've done there.
Bad Ash
Unregistered User
No, because your wife runs a business. How she chooses to do so is up to her. If she over pays a family member for doing nothing/little, it'll force her costs up and profits down. Or force her to put prices up and potentially lose customers. So of course she doesn't do that, it sounds like she gets good value for money employing your services.
The service an MP provides is funded by us the tax payer. There is no real incentive for them to be efficient and possibly quite a temptation to line the pocket of their partner for doing next to nothing and providing no service to us, the public.
Perhaps if MPs had to provide a tender for their services and we choose their pay and office running costs when we elected them, then perhaps it'd be a little more comparible to the family business examples people are giving.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
That is a different kettle of fish.
Cian
Well-known member
Being an MPs secretary is a horrible job; and not one you can realistically hire someone from the general public for if you want to hit the ground running - you need someone who worked on your campaign. If that's a family member, so be it.
If you're trying to feather your nest, employing your spouse/partner is a terrible idea as if you lose your seat both your income sources are gone.
If you're trying to feather your nest, employing your spouse/partner is a terrible idea as if you lose your seat both your income sources are gone.
Our Eastbourne MP's husband quit his job as soon as she was elected to become her PA. Did she advertise the job and conduct interviews to ensure the best candidate got the job? Is her husband subject to appropriate performance appraisals? Who knows.
It is a poor practise that rightly raises questions of nepotism and favouritism. If an MP had any sense at all they would refrain from doing it.
It is a poor practise that rightly raises questions of nepotism and favouritism. If an MP had any sense at all they would refrain from doing it.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,015
the incentive is they have small budget, £85k i recall, to run their office, and need some sort of efficiency. there's little incentive to employ a partner to do nothing, thats a chunk of allowance you cant use productively. its not really news, this list is published every year. if we want to shine a light on MP funding, we should look at the setup around second homes, where theres far more scope to make a substantial nest egg.
honestly, who would be better as a PA than a partner? we're talking office admin, bit of secreterial work, keeping a diary and minor project managment. its not something that requires qualifications. performance reviews so they attain promotion and career progression to... what exactly, senior MP PA?
Last edited:
studio150
Well-known member
So this is the end of Steptoe and Son, to be replaced with Steptoe and employee because someone thinks employing a family member is a racket.
I have no problems with the arrangements
I have no problems with the arrangements
Nobody really cares who private individuals or companies employ, within reason. The point is this is taxpayers money. As an MP you get a good salary, office allowance and expense arrangements. There's no need to take the p1ss by employing family members. IMHO.
The Albion Roar
97.2FM
Are you deliberately ignoring the central point (that this about how public money is spent) repetitively being made?
Ok. So would you spend tax payers money giving the job to a qualified PA at a cost of 20-25k, or give it to your unqualified partner or relative at a significantly higher cost? Struggling with your logic here.
studio150
Well-known member
A MPs have an amount of money to assist them in parliamentary duties, and they should be free to spend it how they wish. I would expect that with any 'family' business that are likely to be unpaid hours undertaken by the partner.
What next why is public money used to provide houses for the PM, Chancellor, and others, shouldn't they still love at home, or pay the commercial rent for such properties.
studio150
Well-known member
We are going to disagree there is an amount that they can use, and they should be free to do so,
If you are really that worried why not start a campaign to ensure that MPs receive no pay whatsoever and only do it for the love of serving the public.
We're not going to agree. As I said, MP'S get decent salaries, costs to run an office, expenses etc. It is incumbent on them to spend taxpayers money in as efficient way as possible. Employing your unqualified spouse at an inflated salary is not doing that.
The more people say it doesn't matter, the more they will keep doing it.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,015
the logic is that it makes no sense to squader half your budget on someone ineffective at a job, even if its your partner. if they had unlimited budget i would view it differently. if theres a story about partners (or friends etc, not covered) overpaid for what they do, lets hear about it.