Westminster Accounts

[albie]

Sky have launched a new series on the opaque funding arrangements of many MP's.
Here is the opener:
https://youtu.be/kJ3Q98gw6p0

They have launched an interactive tool to access the information revealed as a part of the investigation.
The web link is here;
https://news.sky.com/topic/westminster-accounts-10530

Some surprising extra curricular activities going on...nice little earners!

How to explore the database is here;
https://news.sky.com/story/westminster-accounts-how-to-explore-the-database-for-yourself-12781065

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm all for exposing corruption, but that database is shit. It doesn't differentiate at all between MPs trousering hundreds of thousands, and ones getting funding to help with their jobs.

One of the biggest, if not THE biggest donor in that database is Unite. Does anyone think they are paying MPs to subsidise lavish lifestyles?

[danumdon]

Regardless of its shit or not the question should be asked (again)are any of the MP's putting in the requisite hours into their MP's job before they go swanning off and filling their boots. I'd hazard a guess that its a no, so that begs the question why are they allowed to get away with it.

The rule should be while you are a MP you put all your efforts into that job first and foremost. If you can't do that because of outside interests then we don't want you or need you.

None of them are good enough to say "we desperately need your skills in parliament and we will allow you more leeway, just to keep you. Not one.

If they want to do extra curricular work then they need to resign their position so we can get someone in who wants to do the job full time.i'd even pay extra for the right person.

They have a lifetime to do all this when they have finished being an MP.

It won't be just me that thinks this shower need regulating because the stench is awful.

[BillyStubbsTears]

DD.

I entirely agree.

The point is that there's no way you can tell from that database whether MPs are "filling their boots" on this funding or if they are using it for genuine expenses that allow them to do a better job (travel to meetings, employing researchers etc).

The dander is that it gets used for shit stirring, and genuine, honest MPs get smacked down along with the real barrow boys.

[danumdon]

Yes, its fair enough to employ researchers and backroom staff if you are of the level where your research is required for the job, i would of thought they could have some sort of pay scale level to work to for that.

What i don't think works is for individuals who are medical doctors/consultants, barristers/solicitors and the likes. The amount of time required by them on this alternative career to keep up to date and to maintain certifications and competencies would lead me to think that the MP work was the part time job and they were really looking after their first interests as something to go back to when they leave,retire, loose the seat or get locked up for corruption.

That's even before we start on sitting MP's doing world speaking tours Jungle appearances and the like.(a complete no
no until they retire)

In all these cases these people should not be taking on the MP position unless its their one and only priority, anything less and its the country who take the hit with "professional MP's who are gaming the system for their own needs rather than for the overall good of the nation.

You have to admit, there are some real borderline cases who should be nowhere near parliament, ever.

From all sides.

[BobG]

I agree DD. Trouble is, the reason these leeches always come up with is that they are maintaining their contact with the real world - which allows them to undertake their parliamentary duties more effectively... How is that to be countered?

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

DD

Once again, I agree that MPs who are using their positions to line their pockets should be exposed.

But, once again, that database doesn't help you identify those MPs.

Here's an example.

Rebecca Long-Bailey (an MP I don't agree with on many issues, so I've zero ulterior motive here) comes over in that database as someone getting WAY above average "payments" from outside sources. That looks like she's taking backhanders. In fact, the overwhelming majority of her money was a donation from Unite to pay for the expense of running for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. That requires payment of assistants, buying computers, printing and mailshots, hiring rooms for meetings, travel up and down the country etc, etc. Those are all perfectly legitimate expenses which an senior MP standing for a major national position would be expected to run up, and which no MP should be expected to fund themselves.

As far as I can tell, there is no way of telling from that database that this was the purpose of that payment from Unite. It just looks like Long-Bailey had her snout in the trough. That makes it a very dangerous source of half-truths.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Similarly, Jeremy Corbyn is another MP who I have no motive to defend.

According to that database, he is in the top 5% of recipients of external money. Mainly, a £100k donation from JBC Defence Ltd. That's all the info given by that database

That shocked me! Corbyn, getting a backhander from a defence company. What a hypocritical Kitson, eh?

Except he's not. "JBC Defence Ltd" is a company set up to manage donations made by the public to help Jeremy Bernard Corbyn fight legal battles after he was accused of defamation.

You may agree or disagree with the details of the legal case, but clearly individuals have a right to support Corbyn's defence costs. And he's clearly not getting a backhander. But just reading that database, there's no way of knowing that he's not pocketing £100k from an arms manufacturer.

[selby]

The shadow foreign secretary isn't doing bad, I wonder what they think to that in Cas.

[BillyStubbsTears]

As I suggested. This database will be used by the ignorant to stir up trouble.

[drfchound]

Mmm, would that be the case if selby had said the actual foreign Secretary, not the shadow one.

[albie]

BST,

The Sky database is not intended to be a corruption index.
It is clearly a log of the resources provided to MP's by outside interests.

Provided donations are declared in the members register of financial interests, they are legal.
All of this information is in the public domain, but without many donations being fully explained in a reasonable manner.

Payments to Labour from trade unions are well known, and it is right to include them in the log.
Some of those payments are for known activities, and are not a suggestion of illicit backhanders.
As you say, explanations are available for some of these payments, but some are not clear as to the reason for the payment or its acceptence.

For those payments that are not explained, they need to be for full transparency.
If people are in receipt of unexplained donations, from a company with no office or website, then what service is being provided for that support?

Otherwise you could have a situation where politicians lobby for organisations, either in the HoC or behind the scenes, without disclosure of a personal interest.

It seems to me a golden opportunity for those who receive these donations to explain the reasons, and so wipe away any doubt about these earnings.

[selby]

  There is only one ignorant on here if you think the labour lot from local government and local union reps up haven't got their snouts in the trough Billy, in fact you have never lived and are ignorant of everyday life and is slapping you in the face.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Selby.

While you go on accusing  folk of being the only one in here who is ignorant, you might want to have a think about why the people of Castleford should get het up about David Lammy.

[selby]

  Because he plays the racial card, comes over as racial against British white ethnic groups, comes over as London Centric and is well up there on the list with their own shadow home secretary little Yvette 

[BillyStubbsTears]

The simple way out there Selby would have been to hold your hand up and say you got the Shadow Cabinet roles mixed up.  Instead, you do what you do...

You got any examples of Lammy "coming over as racial against British white ethnic groups"?

[danumdon]

Talking about Yvette Cooper, looking in from the outside i always wondered why she always missed out on the Top job, I remember her running against Corbyn and Burnham and not getting a sniff, was always under the impression that of all the favoured ones she was the one who always seemed on top of her brief and looked like someone who could unite a disunited party with a bit of competence. many may not have agreed with her politically but she looked competent and on it. I'd say a step up from your Lammy's, Streeting's and Reeve's who all sound like they've swallowed whole the Labour idiots guide to governing in the UK today.

Do we think that all the financial baggage over the years with her and Balls has left its mark or is she too toxic to the left of the party after her miraculous escape last election?

[Filo]

The shadow foreign secretary isn't doing bad, I wonder what they think to that in Cas.

No comment on the highest 11 on that list?

Or the fact that 17 of the highest 20 are Tories?

[BillyStubbsTears]

DD.
My take on Cooper is that she's a very competent combative MP. As you say, she's in command of her brief and is very good at forensic questioning. But I don't  see her as leadership material. She's a competent technocrat rather than someone who gives the impression she could lead.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I agree DD. Trouble is, the reason these leeches always come up with is that they are maintaining their contact with the real world - which allows them to undertake their parliamentary duties more effectively... How is that to be countered?

BobG

They can do that just as well whilst donating all their secondary earnings to a charity controlled by Parliament. Which I think should be the rule. It'd be interesting to see who still felt they needed to keep their hand in when they didn't benefit from it financially.

[danumdon]

DD.
My take on Cooper is that she's a very competent combative MP. As you say, she's in command of her brief and is very good at forensic questioning. But I don't  see her as leadership material. She's a competent technocrat rather than someone who gives the impression she could lead.

I think your right, as far as the Labour party goes you could just about swap any of the shadow team with Cooper in that paragraph (including Starmer)and come to the same conclusion.

With this being the case and in a earlier thread posters talking about what criteria you require to be a leader it looks like the ingredients are missing from both sides of the house.

Interesting to see what some think, would i be right in thinking your top ticket would be someone along the likes of a Dave Milliband/Andy Burnham type?

I'm struggling to see Labours Johnson doppelganger!

[SydneyRover]

I agree DD. Trouble is, the reason these leeches always come up with is that they are maintaining their contact with the real world - which allows them to undertake their parliamentary duties more effectively... How is that to be countered?

BobG

They can do that just as well whilst donating all their secondary earnings to a charity controlled by Parliament. Which I think should be the rule. It'd be interesting to see who still felt they needed to keep their hand in when they didn't benefit from it financially.

This is the one Glyn a test of integrity.

[SydneyRover]

DD.
My take on Cooper is that she's a very competent combative MP. As you say, she's in command of her brief and is very good at forensic questioning. But I don't  see her as leadership material. She's a competent technocrat rather than someone who gives the impression she could lead.

I think your right, as far as the Labour party goes you could just about swap any of the shadow team with Cooper in that paragraph (including Starmer)and come to the same conclusion.

With this being the case and in a earlier thread posters talking about what criteria you require to be a leader it looks like the ingredients are missing from both sides of the house.

Interesting to see what some think, would i be right in thinking your top ticket would be someone along the likes of a Dave Milliband/Andy Burnham type?

I'm struggling to see Labours Johnson doppelganger!

What I don't understand is if you're correct about Starmer why are labour polling so well.

[danumdon]

Pretty simple to understand really, there is no alternative at this time.

Corbyn with a PLO face mask on would poll better than the tories just now.

[SydneyRover]

Pretty simple to understand really, there is no alternative at this time.

Corbyn with a PLO face mask on would poll better than the tories just now.

I'll quote you so it stays on here forever, just remember corbyn sued a social media user for something similar.

[drfchound]

Oooh, I bet dd is terrified.

[ncRover]

I genuinely don’t see the issue with any of this.

If you were good at your job and got paid for tv interviews / consulting about your job or other interests, how would you feel that the angry mob were demanding you give up the money you’ve earned?

Everything they do is declared so it is clear to see any potential conflict of interest.

If the MP isn’t paying enough attention to their job they can get voted out at the next election.

[albie]

ncRover,

There are 2 issues in play here.....whether income is properly declared, and what service is provided for that income.

Now it is a requirement that MP's declare payments received, but without a proper explanation of the benefit given to a supporter.
In addition, it is easy for a donor to protect their identity via a shell company, so that the true nature of the relationship is obscure.

Tortoise give an explanation in "who pays the piper" here;
https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/01/10/sensemaker-230110/

So you can see that a sum donated to an MP might be a conflict of interest with their role in the HoC.
As an example, substantial finance given cannot be explained by claiming it is for "general office expenses", without a more detailed breakdown of expenditure.
Likewise, funding from a private health provider is inappropriate where the MP speaks to health matters in the HoC.

As Glyn says, the outside interests of an MP should play no part in the conduct of their role as an MP...the system is compromised by those who choose to divide their time in this way.

A further complication is that those making a donation are often playing both sides to hedge their commercial interests. They see it as an business investment in their own development.

From the published figures, can you or I know what influence has been bought by these donations?

[scawsby steve]

DD.
My take on Cooper is that she's a very competent combative MP. As you say, she's in command of her brief and is very good at forensic questioning. But I don't  see her as leadership material. She's a competent technocrat rather than someone who gives the impression she could lead.

I think your right, as far as the Labour party goes you could just about swap any of the shadow team with Cooper in that paragraph (including Starmer)and come to the same conclusion.

With this being the case and in a earlier thread posters talking about what criteria you require to be a leader it looks like the ingredients are missing from both sides of the house.

Interesting to see what some think, would i be right in thinking your top ticket would be someone along the likes of a Dave Milliband/Andy Burnham type?

I'm struggling to see Labours Johnson doppelganger!

What I don't understand is if you're correct about Starmer why are labour polling so well.

Sydney, Labour will win in 2024 in spite of Starmer, not because of him.

They could put Donald Duck in charge of Labour, and they'd still win in 2024.

[SydneyRover]

So how come all the other parties have not benefitted to the same extent or better Steve?