Cable Forum - View Single Post

ntluser · 03-02-2008, 14:14

Given that MPs are apparently self-employed I wondered if they were governed by the same rules as mere mortals.

If a job comes available in a company, the company is required to advertise and interview candidates. This means that there is a job specification and a person specification that the candidate has to meet. Similar process occur for cvil service posts. Wonder if this process happened in these cases .

It does appear that MPs are above the law in that they don't have to submit to legal requirements which they lay down for others.

They are not subject to the Freedom Of Information Act and now we learn that they appear to be above criminal investigation even by the Anti-Terrorist police.

They are able to claim for allowances for duties which one would have thought to be part of the job e.g. attendance allowance. Imagine if your boss said that every time you came to work you would receive an allowance over and above your salary.

Derek Conway's comment that the wives of a number of MPs have used their maiden names to make the link to the MP less obvious seems to suggest that MPs are conscious of the fact that employing family members would be perceived unfavourably, which indeed it has.

Interesting too that Party Leaders can only ASK MPs to be more transparent rather than like the rest of us be legally required too.

Given all this, it begs the question who are MPs actually accountable too especially as they keep all the business in house, have a rather weak Parliamentary Ombudsman and only react positively when electors become aware of their Parliamentary transgressions?

03-02-2008, 14:14	#56
ntluser Inactive Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Manchester Age: 78 Services: Virgin Media XL Telephone,TV with Tivo box & Superhub3 upto 150Mb Broadband, Sky World, & Freeview+ Posts: 1,901	Re: Another MP in trouble? Given that MPs are apparently self-employed I wondered if they were governed by the same rules as mere mortals. If a job comes available in a company, the company is required to advertise and interview candidates. This means that there is a job specification and a person specification that the candidate has to meet. Similar process occur for cvil service posts. Wonder if this process happened in these cases . It does appear that MPs are above the law in that they don't have to submit to legal requirements which they lay down for others. They are not subject to the Freedom Of Information Act and now we learn that they appear to be above criminal investigation even by the Anti-Terrorist police. They are able to claim for allowances for duties which one would have thought to be part of the job e.g. attendance allowance. Imagine if your boss said that every time you came to work you would receive an allowance over and above your salary. Derek Conway's comment that the wives of a number of MPs have used their maiden names to make the link to the MP less obvious seems to suggest that MPs are conscious of the fact that employing family members would be perceived unfavourably, which indeed it has. Interesting too that Party Leaders can only ASK MPs to be more transparent rather than like the rest of us be legally required too. Given all this, it begs the question who are MPs actually accountable too especially as they keep all the business in house, have a rather weak Parliamentary Ombudsman and only react positively when electors become aware of their Parliamentary transgressions?