Labour has hardly shied away from gunning for the Tories on sleaze, not least over Flatgate and Greensill. Leading the charge has been Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who has accused the Conservatives of sleaze no fewer than 31 times on Twitter. It’s awkward, therefore, that four days ago the Commons sleaze commissioner launched an investigation into Reeves for improper registration of donations and other support…
Paragraph 14, of course, reads:
“Members shall fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. They shall always be open and frank in drawing attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its Committees, and in any communications with Ministers, Members, public officials or public office holders.”
Back in March 2021 Reeves was out and about suggesting the government’s delay in publishing the ministers’ register of interests was over potential “conflicts of interests”. Over to Kathryn Stone…
“His own mishconduct, Mr Speaker, is absolutely clear to everybody…”
See also: Starmer’s Office Tries Shutting Down Second Job Earnings Questions
Now that Boris has announced plans to restrict MPs’ second job hours to “within reasonable limits“, it looks like the government still hasn’t figured out what those limits are. Speaking on the media round this morning, Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan gave three different answers to the question of how many hours per week an MP could reasonably expect to work at their second job – all within the space of an hour. Classic broadcast round clock-up…
First on Times Radio, Trevelyan claimed it was acceptable to spend “8-10 hours” a week on other work. That number then jumped to “10-15 hours” when she appeared on BBC Breakfast. By the time Trevelyan appeared on the Today programme, the figure had somehow climbed all the way up to “10-20 hours“. It’s worth pointing out that Geoffrey Cox currently works 41 hours a month on his extra-curricular work, so according to Trevelyan, he’d actually be able to double his outside earnings before hitting this floated limit…
As the sleaze row spills into another day, Starmer was once again pressed this afternoon on why it was acceptable for him to coin it with his second job as a legal adviser for several years, only to now insist they’re inappropriate:
“I think there are moments when we all need to reflect and move forward. And I am accepting that this is one such moment. This corruption, this scandal, has been live now for the best part of two weeks, and I think that moving forward, we need to change rules… this is intended to say this is a moment. There come moments when you have to strengthen and improve rules… it looks as though we have already succeeded, in part, in that change of the rules. And that’s a good thing.”
Meaningless drivel – there’s a reason he’s not been doing media…
Tories Guido speaks to say that if there is going to be a ban on businesses paying Tory MPs for parliamentary advice, it is only fair and reasonable that Labour MPs should similarly be banned from taking money from the unions. When Guido put to Downing Street sources that the 2014 Lobbying Act brought in under David Cameron sought to regulate trade unions in the same way as lobbyists – meaning Labour MPs should be banned from lobbying on behalf of union interests – the response given was that “this was a very interesting interpretation of the proposals”. What’s sauce for the goose is the sauce for the gander…
