Above: in the midday heat the old sow snorted appreciatively and slept off a good lunch (the finest swill) in what little shade she could find. Pigs are very intelligent, clubbable, endearing animals. Increasingly Members of Parliament are likened to pigs in… er… clover.
Derek Conway, Member of Parliament for Old Bexley and Sidcup, has had the Conservative whip removed following revelations that he employed members of his family in non-existent jobs in his parliamentary office (the salaries for the non-existent jobs paid for by the taxpayer).
He is now disgraced, pilloried by his political enemies, designated by his parliamentary colleagues as so unclean he cannot remain a member of the Conservative party in the House of Commons.
All this is, no doubt, as it should be.
But in my naive way I have been astonished at all the bland assurances by politicians (all parties) that there is “nothing wrong” per se with MPs employing members of their families in (publicly funded) positions in their Westminster offices.
Surely there is EVERYTHING wrong with doing this? No matter how “hard-working” they are, there cannot be proper scrutiny if their employer is also their husband / wife / partner? The whole thing stinks.
How many MPs are employing family members in this way, and what is the total cost to the taxpayer? (I ask rhetorically - since there is no chance of me actually getting an answer, whoever I write to).
And have you noticed how many MPs manage to get their relatives into public positions? No sooner does Neil Kinnock stand down as an MP, his wife Glenys “pops up” as an MEP. No sooner does Tony Benn stand down as an MP, his son Hillary “pops up” as an MP (and gets into the Cabinet). Just as we think we’ve seen the back of John Prescott, his son “pops up” trying to get his dad’s old seat.
And why are we asked to celebrate the fact that husband and wife Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls are the first married couple to be members of the British Cabinet? The news was reported in a gushing style as if we should all be happy for them. Are we seriously asked to believe that both of them reached Cabinet status entirely on their own merits and not through a mish-mash of old Spanish practices that would shame the 18th century Court of Dublin?
3 comments:
Old Spanish practices?
Laia, the term means (as I understand it) benefits and easy working conditions that can't be justified but are carried on "because it's always been done that way".
So for instance, why do you go home early on a Wednesday one hour before the end of your shift? Answer: "it's an old Spanish practice", meaning it has gone on for so long that everyone has forgotten the original reason.
My own view is that the expression dates from when Philip of Spain (Felipe II de España) married Bloody Mary (Queen Mary II) 1554 to 1558. He brought with him to London court ceremonial that was very complex and formal, and no-body really understood what the rituals meant.
Ahh, ok. It's a nice expression. After reading the post I understood "nepotism is an old Spanish practice".
Maybe it's true and the expression comes from the shock of viewing a completely different protocol. Maybe was the Burgundian one! It was considered quite "exotic" though I don't know why -sure little Burgundy had their political reasons to create a new one for their own court-. On that period, the Spanish protocol was influenced by the Burgundian protocol. Maybe political reasons too, it's possible (relation of Burgundy with Charles V and Philip II, region in the middle of the rute to the Netherlands, blah blah).
I red about the spanish protocol of that time if you want to know. Sadly I can't compare with others, I red only about that one.
Post a Comment