https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ospitality
MPs ‘failing to learn lesson’ over freebies after accepting £400,000 of hospitality
Duncan Hames, the director of policy at Transparency International UK, added: “Just because something is permitted it is not necessarily appropriate.
“MPs should be clear-eyed about why these invitations are really being offered. Before accepting hospitality, they should stop to consider what the company might be hoping to gain and what the public will make of it.”
Well, yeah, I'm sure most of them do. I'm not a Kemi fan, obviously, but her attending Wimbledon at the expense of the All England Club (who also invited a senior Labour MP) doesn't seem particularly bad. What are they going to do? Start caring more about tennis?
Others do look more questionable, especially gambling interests. If I were an MP, I'd not take that, but the Government have raised taxes on gambling quite considerably. So I'd argue that, in terms that Hames puts forward here, the MPs probably did consider what the donor might have wanted and thought, nah, I'm still going to vote for their taxes to go up.
Sue Hawley, the director of Spotlight on Corruption, suggested MPs should consider whether they should accept free tickets. “Some ministers and MPs appear to have short memories of the freebie-gate scandal that engulfed the first few months of Starmer’s time in No 10,” she said.
“Showering MPs and ministers with gifts and hospitality is a tried and tested lobbying tactic by big business and foreign governments. There is no good reason why elected officials should be accepting jaunts and tickets to events that have nothing to do with their parliamentary or constituency business
I've not forgotten it- it was a massively overcooked load of bollocks, mostly about Lord Ali, who is a long established Labour donor and peer. Wiki tells you what his main interests are- what favors is he supposed to have had?
Sue Hawley sounds like fun. Very senior politicians need security when they go to events, and this means "VIP" tickets, which costs. The taxpayer doesn't want to pay for it, so this is what happens. Would they be better ministers if they didn't attend any events?
What I think we need is a decent set of principles to judge this stuff. The article hints at that- Lucy Powell has had very nice seats at Man City a few times. She's a local MP, and you'd expect her to represent a large local employer (and taxpayer). As Sue Hawley says, one should be concerned about (some) foreign governments paying for stuff.
But beyond that? Has this lobbying had an effect? Was there a change of policy that is hard to defend on its own terms? That's the important thing to me. This article has some important stuff in it, but it does rather add to the "they're all at it!" narrative. which is a gift to Farage. Do we think Starmer, when he went to a concert with his kids, palmed them off and started getting pissed on Bolly? Or that he stood there swallowing lobbying whole, before rushing back to Downing Street and dictating a change of policy?
A sense of perspective is needed on this stuff.
- By Youngian