There is a problem in your kitchen. Your pipes are leaking and you need somebody to solve the problem before it gets worse. Therefore you hire a plumber. You would expect that this plumber would commit 100% of their efforts to solving your problem without hesitation or question. It would be outrageous if your plumber stopped halfway through their job (with your kitchen all over the floor, your pipes hanging out still leaking) to take up another paid opportunity somewhere else.
The people of West Dorset collectively hired a “plumber” at a rate of £63,291 per year with expenses over £150,000, who is expected to commit 100% towards helping to solve problems and progress our society to ensure that it is safer, fairer, greener and more efficient. However it would appear that the people of West Dorset are simply a part-time interest?
I was livid when I learnt this month that our Conservative parliamentary representative, the prestigious Oliver Letwin, had requested a less demanding role within the Conservative party so that he could pursue a city career as a Non-Executive Director for the NM Rothschild bank whilst “representing” the people of West Dorset.
During these times of recession, parents are sitting at their kitchen tables after the children have gone to bed, worrying about rising food and energy costs, how they are going to keep up with the mortgage, credit card payments, how they are going to keep up with car payments. Our rural roads are suffering; elderly people are not getting enough support and dignity to live in their own homes, day-care centers are being shut down, pubs are struggling to survive, military veterans are not getting the support they deserve, public transport is a disgrace, the county-council has wasted millions on consultants and has lost millions more though Iceland bank failures and the Madoff fraud.
After 12 years on the job, West Dorset’s pipes are still leaking. It’s time for a change. It’s time to get a new plumber?
* Kasch Wilder is a Liberal Democrat member and activist in West Dorset.
18 Comments
Hmmm, quite a few Lib Dem MPs have external business interests. Lembit Opik has his small airline business, for example. You can argue about whether that’s right or wrong, but please let’s come up with better reasons for wanting to replace somebody than the simple fact that they have external business interests.
Don’t worry.
Letwin means that he is giving up on serious politics; probably because he has realised that Cameron will not give him a plum Ministerial job.
In practice how much constituency work does a Minister have time to do?
Sorry – agree with Bernard above on this one.
Agree with the comments above. Would you object if your plumber worked when required but wrote a book in his spare time?
Lots of tangents in this article, too. What have Letwin’s career interests got to do with pubs closing down? This is somewhat more due to the Labour government’s obscene taxes on alcohol, no?
As the comments thus far indicate, any commitments outside of Parliament are likely to impinge upon time commitments of an MP, so there needs to be a distinction between those that are problematic and those that aren’t. Difficulty is that when outside commitments are remunerated, a conflict not just of time but of interest arises. At a time where millions of jobs are at stake due to economic downturn, Letwin becoming the director of a bank is beyond parody – elected to serve the interests of his constituents, he will be paid mutliples of his Parliamentary salary to ‘represent’ those of his bank which often will conflict with the former.
@ Bernard Salmon – just because LDs do it doesn’t make it right – paid employment outside of Parliament necessarily raised conflicts of interest and should be stopped – and unlike in Julian H’s comment, it’s akin to your plumber working to fix you leaks but simultaneously punching ruddy great holes in your pipework (I exaggerate for effect, but then who doesn’t?!).
A few things, Teek:
1) I certainly didn’t say that because LDs do something, that makes it right. Indeed, I specifically said that you can argue whether that is right or wrong. But as an argument for replacing a politician from another party with one of ours, using the argument that external business interests are wrong isn’t the most persuasive I’ve seen.
2) I don’t think the issue is whether outside interests are remunerated or not, but about whether MPs can represent their constituents effectively. For instance, many MPs will get paid for writing articles and columns for newspapers. Is that wrong or should that be seen as part of the job of an MP, by enabling the exchange of ideas and information?
3) The life of an MP can be a precarious one. Should we say to a doctor or dentist who gets elected that they’re not able to keep their skills up to date by practising part time? Given that they might be voted out again in four or five years, it seems rather unfair that they should then either have to undergo some retraining or be denied the right to practise their profession, simply because of a puritanical view that MPs can never be allowed any outside interests. And if we allow exemptions for medical staff, why not for a lawyer, or a forex trader, or a company director?
“3) The life of an MP can be a precarious one.”
True – but it would be an interesting study to find out what ex MPs are earning 12 months after they have been voted out. It’s not like its a job which leaves you without the skills, experience and contacts to get future employment!
all very understandable and gd points, especially those from Bernard Salmon.
The point behind this was not about MP’s in general and their business interests. In this economic climate, you would expect your rep to be supporting his constit to the best extents possible, and this is certainly not happening in West Dorset. The man is hardly ever here unless it is politically critical to his position. Some of the language used was in hindsight a tad too strong and slightly ignorant, but the point still stands. Its about commitment. Sure, business interests can still be retained however in this case there is a serious lack of effort to keep up with the constituency. So why not suggest for that reason that he should go, especially when there is a Liberal Democrat candidate more than capable of representing the constituency to better extents?
Writing from an adjacent constituency (South) I would suggest that a check on what OL is claiming in second homes allowance might be a worthwhile angle.
If he is being reimbursed for London accommodation from the public purse while he is being paid to work there in a private capacity – and for a (whisper it not) investment bank – the public reaction is unlikely to be favourable.
The question is surely whether OL is representing the people of West Dorset well, not what else he may be doing.
An MP with no outside interests who sits in their constituency watching television all day would be useless. But I can imagine that there are hard working MPs who also have paid outside interests but still do great work in their constituencies. I assume, for example, that Vince Cable will earn a decent sum from his recent book, but any opponent who said that he should have spent more time campaigning for his local pubs and less time writing a book would be silly. There is more to being an MP than local campaigning.
And as for saying that OL being a Director of a Bank is beyond parody, well, what next? If Rothschilds are advising asset strippers who are ruining firms in West Dorset fair enough, but otherwise it sounds like “Oo, Letwin is a capitalist, we can’t have that.”
Let us oppose Letwin at the next election with vigour. But let us do so because he will be standing on a manifesto that is likely to be markedly inferior to the LD one, and because he represents a party whose instincts are frequently nasty, not because he chooses to spend time working for a Bank.
Hmmm.
Would it be reasonable to have a “one day a week” (or perhaps 50 days a year bearing in mind that Recesses come in large chunks) limit combined with Mr Gordon’s “declare your hours and your renumeration” proposals?
M.
Still holding onto that stolen cash that was given to you by that fraudster Brown?
Give it back, then you can get all pious.
As for Oliver Letwin. Your past attacks on this issue of his directorship smacked of Jew baiting. They didn’t work in the 2001 or 2005 opponent character assassination phase of the Lib Dem Parliamentary campaigns, so smell the coffee.
OH, honi soit qui mal y pense.
I was reminded of that on, of all places, Liberal Conspiracy yesterday. So true.
You are hoist by your own petard, “Old Hack”. If it is anti-Semitic for Lib Dems to criticise Oliver Letwin, then it is surely equally anti-Semitic for David Cameron to freeze him out of his inner circle.
Tsk, tsk Old Hack, you’re being rather careless with the evidence again. Liberal Democrats have criticised people of all sorts of faiths over outside business interests. If we’d only ever criticised people from one faith, you could perhaps argue that showed discrimination. But you’re only able to make your case by ignoring the inconvenient evidence of other criticisms of other people. Mind you, if you wanted to give the impression that you’re a grumpy person who doesn’t really care whether or not what they say is true, you’re doing a fine job 🙂
You should see your local literature which painted Letwin as some sort of Shylock.
No comment on your stolen loot I note. …….
I have, and what I saw didn’t. And yes, I do disagree on your other point too 🙂
This article is misleading. Letwin resigned from his position at Rothschilds in 2003, yet this article makes it sound like he still holds the position. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1448448/Letwin-quits-bank-role-after-row-over-conflict-of-interest.html