Forum Topic

Fishy Rishi & Dodgy Dave

What I do not understand in this 'insider dealing' sleaze fest is how in Heaven's name civil servants were allowed to work for outfits with  extremely iffy connections with private companies. I was a civil servant for many years - one of the first things I had to do was to sign the Official Secrets Act, so assuming that is the same across the board do we assume that was broken with barely a thought or once again it is a case of those at a senior level are not held to the standards expected of others far lower down the food chain? This whole saga reeks of corruption. For years 'Private Eye' have been highlighting the 'revolving door' of ex-ministers taking lucrative private sector jobs where their ministerial inside knowledge has a bearing on the business acitivities of their new employer, at times within a short period of leaving political office. The galling thing in all this is - that if you worked for a local authority and you were made redundant you could not work directly for another local authority for a whole year, similarly in an education setting - why? ACOBA - The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments has long been a toothless tiger. I found this gem on their website - below. This whole thing is shameful and for Tory MPs to vote down plans for a major enquiry shows them up for the gutless morally bankrupt, shambles they are. DetailsIn accordance with their code of practice, members are required to disclose, in a published register, any interests they have which might influence their judgement or which could be perceived (by a reasonable member of the public) to do so.

Vanessa Smith ● 2021d21 Comments

Well said Vanessa.What a shower behind the scenes. Worthy of serious penalties.We're being taken for a ride. Am I surprised at Cameron's behavior? Yes!

Jim Lawes ● 2021d

All parties are at it. If Labour were in government the opposition would be doing the same.

Simon Temple ● 2021d

Oh! - So two wrongs make a right now do they? Another one of the 'whatabouters' in defence of the indefensible.

Vanessa Smith ● 2021d

I think Vanessa was right to highlight the senior civil servant working for a private sector firm whilst at the same time working out his notice with the civil service.  Technically that was all approved but it just doesn't feel right to me.As for what Cameron was doing that is not a scandal.  It is a nothing story - all senior ministers are required to wait 2 years from leaving office before joining a private sector firm such as Greensill where the work involves lobbying.  Cameron correctly waited 2 years.  He was not required to register as a lobbyist because he was a Greensill employee (and Greensill was not required to register because they are not professional lobbyists for others).  Whether Rishi or others in govt correctly recorded the meetings with Cameron as lobbying meetings is not an issue for Cameron.It should be remembered that Labour in the last 2 elections has pledged to revoke the Lobbying Act because not only did the act deal with professional corporate lobbyists but also the trade unions (as professional lobbyists to Labour).  The idea that trade union lobbying is good but corporate lobbying is bad is illogical.  Given that lobbying is as old as time and will never be banned (and should not be) the issue should always be about transparency and ensuring we know who is doing the lobbying (and on whose behalf), what the lobbying is about, who they lobbied in govt/civil service and what the results were.The current law is defective in that it does not provide enough openness/transparency

Justin Stephenson ● 2021d

I don't think anyone thinks lobbying should be banned - even if it were possible, but the 2 years before jumping from the Ministerial/MPs pan into the commercial fire - needs to be much longer, apart from which the two year limit is largely ignored anyway. ACOBA needs some teeth - sharp ones preferably.Transparency is the key and is what the various emquiries now looking into this should be concentrating on. Also we don't need 'Codes of Conduct', which are worse than useless, we need proper enforceable rules that can incur severe penalties if people do not observe them. I think that it's already accepted that as far as civil servants are concerned they need to be reminded they are Crown employees not commercial spies. If they want to work in the private sector then they leave the civil service first.

Vanessa Smith ● 2021d

Sorry Vanessa, you're quite right. This has never ever happened before.

Simon Temple ● 2021d

Dave had a cameo role on the news last night.No lines.  But he had to walk along the pavement, open the gate to his house then walk up the path without giving anything away.He did it beautifully.  A masterful example of a politician under-performing the moment, with his great mind fixed on other, far more important, things.He looked very sleazy.

Stuart Kerr ● 2021d

With all the negativity about Eton it's a wonder that people send their children there. Or maybe not.

Simon Temple ● 2021d

Teaches them they are special, privileged, superior and that the usual rules don't apply to them.  Unfortunately, they seem to be right.

Claire Moran ● 2021d

Hmm, don't agree with that. I bet most boys at Eton are perfectly decent.

Simon Temple ● 2021d

Once again we see that Public Life in this country (and what goes on in the City) is a stinking cess-pit.Cameron started his working life as a PR spiv for Channel 4 TV, and has been an oily spiv and chancer ever since.And look at Blair, who's made his tens of £-millions polishing the turds of some of the biggest crooks/despicable dictators in the world.And as for that loathsome slimeball that is Mandelson ....

Roger Talbot ● 2020d

Hancock has shares in a company which was placed on NHS England and NHS Wales approved list and gained a contract from NHS Wales.Of course the minor point that Hancock has no influence or control over NHS Wales as health is a devolved matter so under control of Welsh govt doesn't stop it being a scandal.As for the NHS England part - there is (so far) no evidence that Hancock had any involvement in the decision to put the company on the NHS England approved list, that is not a decision ministers would normally have any involvement with even without a conflict of interest.Serious allegations require serious proof.  Sadly we are now in an era where serious allegations merely require plenty of followers on FB or twitter and fantasy conspiracy becomes more publicised than actually hard truths

Justin Stephenson ● 2019d

I think it's also the case that Ministers, MPs and senior civil servants need to understand how things are perceived by the public. When you have a P.M. who is an ackowledged liar and a government made up of very wealthy people with fingers in many business pies, then every little thing will come under scrutiny. You have to be seen to be doing things properly, blaming the 'rules' is disingenuous, if that really is the case - like the expenses saga, then change the bloody rules - quickly. After all Hancock has been quick enough to take all the credit for the success of the vaccine programme with ne'er a mention of the wonderful NHS and all the volunteers which have delivered it.

Vanessa Smith ● 2019d

There seems to be a recent tendency for it to be acceptable for public servants to have hitherto inappropriate business interests as long as they 'declares their interest'. It turns out that the lawyer recently appointed to chair Johnson's sleaze investigation also works for a bank that makes donations to the Tories - but now he's 'declared his interest' that makes it OK.  So we're being set up to believe that the only problem with top civil servants also working for the private company they came from is that it was kept sort of secret.  That they were actually doing it seems to have became acceptable under 'they're all doing it' defence. Meanwhile the sleazy Tories go up several points in the latest opinion poll, so maybe the public doesn't really care.

Peter Evans ● 2019d

There's the rub. Being a notorious serial philanderer is no barrier to the highest elected office....

Simon Temple ● 2019d

Sorry, not made up.A senior minister holds a significant share holding in a company that benefits directly from the NHS , which is this ministers brief. On which numtpy bumpy line of thinking does that sound ok?As a comparison. To make this clearer. If you work for an accountant firm who audits a bank. Any role. Then you cannot have a bank account with that bank. Let alone shares in that bank. Nor can your immediate family. Now please explain why government ministers should adhere to a lower standard.

Alan Clark ● 2018d

It makes you wonder how many ex-cabinet members and senior civil servants will be appointed to the boards or receive consultancies from the companies due to get very rich building HS2 (which, according to the business pages of some of last week's more serious papers, could double in price to £200-billion by the time it's finished). It's only public money, after all.

Roger Talbot ● 2018d

Having had to deal with the accountants rules (I am not an accountant but married to one), they are certifiable insane (in fairness the rules are driven by SEC in the US which is even more conservative than ICAEW), clearly drafted by white men over 60 whose wives either never worked once married or stopped working when they had kids.  The entire concept of a married couple who both work, both  hold senior professional positions, both have significant savings and handle their finances independently of each other never occurred to them.  Add in the issue that if the wife/husband/partner of an accountant manages their finances independently and refuses to disclose information to the accountant other half, it is not entirely clear how the accountant rules could be enforced without breaching GDPR rules.So lets look at the "numpty bumpty line of thinking" (great phrase, I fully intend to borrow it frequently!).The problem with the accountancy example is that accountants only work for some companies in a particular market or market segment (for example one accountancy firm does not audit all the banks in the UK), a minister has oversight over an entire market segment.  So if we were to follow your logic a minister whose portfolio includes regulation of banks would not be allowed to hold a bank account in a UK bank.In the case of Hancock, he has no influence or control over NHS Wales, it is not part of his portfolio because health is a devolved matter, so why is it a conflict of interest if NHS Wales give a contract to a company the minister has shares in? Obviously for NHS England to award a contract to the firm would be a conflict of interest (or even put it on the approved list) but the solution to that is for the minister to recuse himself from all involvement.  As far as we know the minister had no involvement at all in the decision to place the family company on the approved supplier list and only found about it after the fact.Obviously there may be additional facts which come to light which may make it a scandal but at the matter it appears the minister correctly followed the rules, was not involved in the decision making process and the entire "Hancock scandal" (at least the scandal relating to share holdings as there are many other issues involving Hancock) appears to be nothing more than the frothing of conspiracy theorists and left wing nutters who spend far too much time on FB/Twitter

Justin Stephenson ● 2018d

Thanks. A long, considered and informed post. A rarity.But not truly a great post. You bleat about the SEC audit constraints. You decry old white men’s rules. Yet these finance based strictures are not « white man » rules. They are to prevent fraud, dodgy behaviour and exactly the sleazy behaviour we see today. It was not me, it was in my wife’s name. Such transparent shoddy evasion. Are you defending that?Then you defend Hancock. That in itself damns you. However you defend him and his share holding by claiming that he should be allowed any investment. After all, you say, he might shift ministerial role. Gosh, then he can’t hold any shares. Poor man.Boo bleeding hoo. What about hands off investment if he has so much money that it can’t sit in a bank? Why is he allowed direct investment? Why can’t his money be in blind trusts? Sorry but with so many options for removing one self from influence and risk of wrong doing, your claims are empty. Hancock done wrong. He is a turd beyond polishing.

Alan Clark ● 2017d

And Tory MP Chris Grayling, who while the Secretary Of State For Tranport gave a contract for roll-on roll-off ferries to a shipping companyy which didn't have any ro-ro ferries, is now a connsultant to the Hutchison Ports Group at £100,000 for a day's work a week. What could possibly go wrong?

Roger Talbot ● 2017d

As long as you don't have shares in Hutchison, what's the problem ?

Richard Greenhough ● 2017d