Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
28 October 2009
09:0831801#1
Blimey, if all this expenses hasn't gone round enough some MP's including our very own Thanet conservative MP Roger Gale speaking out saying he should be able to employ his wife as a secretary.
Bear in mind this report by Chris Kelly is an independent one and trying to bring bak some credibility to the MP'S Fiasco.
This debate will go on but i suspect the leaders of the 3 main parties will try to push this report through in full, but as can be seen some very active MP's are not going to allow it through easily
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
28 October 2009
09:5531808#2
Provided they are doing a proper job and are being paid the market rate for the hours they do, then I see no reason why an MP should not employ his wife. It must be all open and transparent of course.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
28 October 2009
10:0031809#3
Interesting one barryw
The electorate in general are so peed off with MP's and the gravy train, this would have been a good time to clean up and make MP's and maybe even look a bit more credible.
Instead MP's are going to argue diffrent corners, switching more people off, interesting to see if party leaders get there way, and how many rebel
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
28 October 2009
10:1131810#4
BarryW
Surely you mean to add to your posting above "if qualified and suited to the post"A point you made on another thread about 'Gays' etc.
The problem is that most of the wives are not qualified most of them can't type and haven't undergone the normal vetting procedure that you and I would have to go through before being offered a position in the HofC.
The second point is that MPs were also hiring their children as researchers who weren't even attending the office and still getting paid.It's nepotism of the highest order and should they wish their family to work for them they should apply through the normal channels and be subject to an independently held interview etc.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
28 October 2009
10:2831811#5
Are you speaking from knowledge of most Westminster wives or prejudice Marek?
My p.a. has no such formal qualifications and would object to being called a secretary because she can't touch type. But she is very good at her job and very efficient. There are different types of qualification and the most over-rated are the paper qualifications obtained from formal education. Personality, adaptability and experience are much more important in many or maybe even most jobs. We find these days that far too many people seem to have had common sense educated out of them...
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
28 October 2009
10:3831812#6
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
28 October 2009
14:2631819#7
there is a big difference when public money is used to employ someone.
anyone looking for employment with a district or county council has to go through the normal interrogation and vetting, whether they are related to someone or not.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
28 October 2009
14:3031820#8
BarryW
I haven't said that spouses and family members can't be employed by their partners but that they should undergo the same recruitment procedures as Joe Public.
That seems fair and above board and perfectly acceptable in todays new transparent HofC.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
28 October 2009
14:4831822#9
Personally the beaurocratic processes involved in the Civil Service and local government are what is wrong - and expensive. It really does not matter how someone is recruited at all as long as the person so recruited is doing a proper job for the appropriat rate.
Results are more important than processes. Sadly we have a system in the public sector that concentrates too much on the processes (its true about the FSA in much in my own industry, at least as far as IFAs are concerned).
28 October 2009
15:3131823#10
It does matter how someone is recruited - it doesn't need to be expensive, only transparent and fair. It takes simple thought and practical detail, not money. I realise that processes are a bit top heavy in some sectors - they don't need to be! To employ people, paid by you and I, we need an audit trail and a clear but simple process to ensure we get the best deal.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
28 October 2009
16:3031830#11
The best deal is the right person for the job regardless of any paperer trail. If you find someone who is right for the job down the pub why look further?
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
28 October 2009
18:2631843#12
Not sure Barryw my first port of call would be the pub lol
this is our money barryw, and of course there needs to be accountability
so it has to be shown to be, not this present system, jobs for the family,
David Shaw(remember him?) as our MP before Gwyn, used to spend a lot of time in Scotland(monklands)chasing labour people
for this sort of thing.
openness we need
28 October 2009
19:5031857#13
True - many a good candidate is found in the pub, but then the vision clears..........
But you are right - where the candidate springs from is not as important as the qualities and skills, but the paper trail does matter, as it is a good way of evidencing good practice and equality, both of which are necessary in todays economy. It doesn't hurt to have a good paper trail and audit system, whether or not you like it or endorse it.