It is so obvious that if MPs spouses and children are not only banned from working for them, but for other MPs as well, they will simply do a bit of wife swapping to keep the money rolling in.  Wives will work for MPs other than their husbands.  Whenever Guido argues that it is nepotistic it is often a step too far for political audiences.   They invariably argue it is (a) cost effective (b) conducive to family life (c) they never abuse the system / underpay themselves.

Guido counters that it is too open to abuse, that it goes against well established civil service principles that hires should be selected openly and on merit.  How are taxpayers to distinguish between those who abuse the system and those that don’t?  This sort thing would not be tolerated by shareholders as a matter of course, where it does happen in the private sector (Murdoch’s News Corp for example) the family usually has a significant stake in the business.  In a democracy, politics should not be a family business.

Guido thinks that regrettably, those who have abused the system have made it necessary to ban MPs’ partners and children from working in parliament.  The Kelly report should recommend an end to the practice.  The Shadow Kelly Report certainly took the tough line.