Talk about the avarice of politicians:

“Hospital consultants, GPs and senior civil servants were furious last night after being told that their pay would be frozen this year while MPs enjoy a 1.5 per cent rise.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/politics/article7057415.ece

Not bad going for a graduate of Liverpool Poly

Oy, Chris, you can do better than that. (And yes, I do have degrees from two Russell Group unis. I know my posts usually suggest otherwise )

I’m a graduate of Liverpool Poly.

Blairite defends Blairite.

I think Aaronovitch didn’t finish the sentence, or some sub chopped it.

Probably should read “And almost certainly not well off compared to Tony Blair”.

But Mr Dillow, have you not argued in the past that judges and politicians need to be rewarded to a level that they do not succumb to corruption? There is much logic to that argument; if MPs were paid a salary that was significantly lower than the one that they might earn employing non-political talents, they would be more likely to supplement their income in illegal or immoral ways. But most of us would agree with the proposition above that ministers get well paid, and get paid off enough when they stand down.

The problem, therefore, is how to manage those with little non-political talent who wish to live to the standard to which they should never have become accustomed. Fiddling around with the rules about lobbying in an area of previous responsibility may deliver a few benefits. An enforced two year (long enough?) gap would mean that there was sufficient change in government and suppliers that an ex-minister would be relying on comprehension rather than contacts? If an ex-minister uses understanding of a market to his/her benefit after that break, I can’t see an ethical problem.

Further than that, I am not sure how much we need to manage ex-ministers. If a company employs an ex-minister in a field in which they have no expertise and few contacts, who is harmed beyond company shareholders? The idea that an ex-minister, as advisor, brings insight to the workings of government is deluded almost to the point of fraud. What Gordon thought last week is no indication of future plans.

Today’s Leicester Mercury reports that the city’s second most odious MP, on retirement, will be joining the board of Eurotunnel. Eurotunnel is a glorious adventure that can’t make money, so the £50,000 for Patricia Hewitt’s employment is a trivial concern. But I can’t help wondering whether her appointment was an expensive joke: at corporate dinners, seat her adjacent to the people that the board most dislike, I suppose.

@5: “Today’s Leicester Mercury . . ”

Patricia Hewitt has been energetic in pushing many government policy initiatives besides the £12.7bn project to create a national database of personal medical records when she was health minister. As DTI minister, she was also one of the most enthusiastic members of the Cabinet for joining the Euro through to Gordon Brown’s announcement in June 2003 that it was not in Britain’s interest to do so – at least, not for the time being:

“Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt has trumpeted the benefits of euro entry for British industry by saying most inward investors supported the move.” [January 2003]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1776964.stm

“The government’s ailing £12.7bn IT programme to overhaul paper-based NHS patient records in England is close to imploding, potentially triggering a deluge of legal claims against the taxpayer running into billions of pounds, which could start to emerge weeks before a general election.” [21 March 2010]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/21/nhs-software-system-close-to-imploding

In Wales, they are complaining: “Porters, IT staff and administrators have routine access to confidential medical records in the Cardiff and Vale health board, according to research.” [26 March 2010]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8588567.stm

I do wonder if Eurotunnel quite appreciate the scale and scope of Patricia Hewitt’s err . . . talents.

Charlieman: “There is much logic to that argument; if MPs were paid a salary that was significantly lower than the one that they might earn employing non-political talents, they would be more likely to supplement their income in illegal or immoral ways.”

But how much is enough to prevent corruption?

My experience would suggeset that when someone is corrupt, it’s the idea of having more money per se (independently of the specific amount) that appeals to them, and the general idea of being the all-knowing insider with the savvy to play the big boys game and get one over on the moralistic losers.

The actual amount of money they already have (unless they’re actively struggling to get by) probably doesn’t make that much difference to the incentive.

I think the article is right on target with the idea that New Labour’s corporatists probably don’t see much wrong with influence peddling. From the start, they were unable to tell the difference between promoting free market economics and promoting the interests of the big players in that free market.

@7: “From the start, they were unable to tell the difference between promoting free market economics and promoting the interests of the big players in that free market.”

That’s fair comment but could indicate a lack of competence, not motivation by avarice, which is the principal charge being made about Blairite ex-ministers.

Btw in the news on Sunday night, two more ex-ministers have been reported peddling their influence:

“Two more former Labour ministers were dragged into the row over MPs touting for lobbying work today, as Adam Ingram and Richard Caborn were secretly filmed offering to use their contacts in exchange for fees.

“Ingram, the former armed forces minister, and Caborn, the former sports minister, followed Geoff Hoon, Stephen Byers and Patricia Hewitt in being caught out in a sting set up by the Sunday Times and Channel 4′s Dispatches programme. Both denied they had broken any rules.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/28/lobbying-sting-more-former-labour-ministers

The cultivated notion that politicians are motivated to promote community values and to serve the public interest has become laughable.

@7: “From the start, they were unable to tell the difference between promoting free market economics and promoting the interests of the big players in that free market.”

That’s fair comment but could indicate a lack of competence, not motivation by avarice, which is the principal charge being made about Blairite ex-ministers.

Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

I feel sure an incoming Conservative government will award Patricia Hewitt a Peerage for her personal contribution to Labour’s defeat.

I wonder if this recent traducing by Labour of its critics is due to incompetence or malice.

(The Home Affairs Committee evidence session in question.)

Bob B: “That’s fair comment but could indicate a lack of competence, not motivation by avarice…”

…or perhaps both.

I’m not saying that taking a “what’s good for corporations is good for the country” attitude excuses personal corruption. I’m just suggesting that a politician who believes that from the start is a lot more likely to consider taking bribes from corporations.

@12: ” I’m just suggesting that a politician who believes that from the start is a lot more likely to consider taking bribes from corporations.”

As many lobbyists and corporations have doubtless discovered, there are all sorts of ways of buying influence, many quite legitimate. Milton Friedman famously said that there’s no such thing as a “free lunch”.

Try this very recent briefing on lobbying produced by the House of Commons Library – which I’ve only just come across:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04633.pdf