PURE COINCIDENCE?

House building (PA)

History apparently does not repeat itself, but, very occasionally simular events and simular circumstances can arise. Back in 1997, early the first term of the then pre Iraq Blair government, there was extensive lobbying form the building trade to weaken the pre-election pledge to make homes more energy and more thermally efficient. 

Ironically this is something that would have over the longer term have saved all of us money and potentially reduced our energy bills. This decision it is worth noting was taken during a period of relatively cheap energy. Following the successful lobby from the building trade the energy efficiency measures were quietly watered down to the point of ineffectiveness.

Now some 15 years later, by way of coincidence, the Labour in Wales Government (in Cardiff Bay) following another successful lobby campaign from the building industry has followed in Blair government’s footsteps. They have managed to achieve some drasticreductions in proposed new home energy efficiency targets - something that may marginally benefit the house builders but won’t benefit the rest of us. Basically the Labour in Wales government, planned to introduce building regulations which would have required 40% carbon emissions savings, this target has been reduced to 8%.

Housing Minister Carl Sargeant, under severe pressure from housing developers, who had warned the tougher regulations were making it uneconomic to build homes in much of Wales, has thrown in the towel. His decision benefits the House builders in the short term, but, future house owners will lose out as result of having less energy efficient houses in a time of ever expensive energy bills. This decision at the end of the day is about ring fencing in the short term the profits of the house builders at the longer term expense of the house buyers. 

POST WESTMINSTER IMPRESSIONS

The views of the citizens should be regularly sought and heeded, rather than regularly avoided and ignored which sadly may have been the lasting impression gained by observing some of our sitting MP's on the stump during the last Westminster General election. The icing on the cake was Gordon Brown's televised mutterings following a clash with a potential Labour voter up north. The end result was being particularity grim up north for Gordon thanks to the presence of a live microphone - the rest as they say, along with his premiership was history.

Now just over four months or so down the line from Polling day, and after the dust has begun to settle I am still left with the impression that rather than being a historic election it was more of an odd one. This impression has been reinforced by the fact that a significant number of our Parliamentary representatives quite openly and quite deeply resented having to account for how they had fleeced the system, for some years, to line their pockets at our expense.

This impression has been deepened by the fact that so few of our formerly elected representatives who were unluckily enough to get caught with their hands in the till, so to speak, have finally ended up before the bench or the beak (or will at least do so shortly). I suspect that all of this could be said to leave any impartial observer of our questionable democracy wondering about the effectiveness (or not) of the system of checks (rather than cheques) and balances in place to monitor our elected representatives even after the expenses scandal.

It is worth remembering that The Times (back on the 25th September 2009) revealed that 28 prospective Conservative candidates who had a reasonably good chances of becoming Tory MPs were working as lobbyists or public relations consultants on behalf of businesses and other interests. Over a quarter of them had got their jobs after being selected to fight parliamentary seats.

A number of them were duly forced to put up their hands to admit that they had set up meetings for clients with Conservative Shadow ministers, MPs and officials. Others said that they provided advice on the party’s direction and some admitted to lobbying Tory Frontbenchers on behalf of clients. So much for a brave new sleaze free new Westminster world, I wonder how many of them got elected?

The then leader of the opposition, David Cameron (now Con Dem PM) found himself in a potentially difficult situation with at least one fifth of his 150 parliamentary candidates who are likely to get elected working or had worked in the highly lucrative field of public affairs or communications. The Times at the time noted that only 7 Labour and 3 Lib Dem parliamentary candidates (with a chance of being elected) had jobs in public relations or communications.

The real question you have to ask, and it is one that everyone should be asking is with regard to Westminster and every other elected body is how much has really changed?

UPDATE: As for lobby see the Guido Fawkes blog...

MP'S SECOND JOBS

The Sunday Times (21^st June 2000 has revealed that members of David Cameron’s frontbench team are in a hurry to drop well paid second jobs before the July 1st deadline, will force them to declare how many millions of pounds they earn from “moonlighting” with second jobs or outside interests. The Sunday Times revealed that it had found out that members of Cameron’s team earned at least £2.7m on top of their annual MPs’ salaries of £64,766 and expenses. It also revealed that 40 members of Cameron’s top team have second jobs, including about 10 who have directorships of hedge funds, which they declined to discuss.

The Sunday Times also reported that guidance on blind trusts was also being sought by Willetts and the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Philip Hammond. Shadow International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell has announced he will step down from his job at the investment bank Lazard and the shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague will relinquish a series of jobs bringing in about £230,000 over the past year.

The Independent has also noted that Labour MPs are more enthusiastic about holding on to employment outside the Palace of Westminster. The former health secretaries Alan Milburn and Patricia Hewitt earn additional incomes of about £100,000 and £185,000, respectively. Ms Hewitt, as well as being employed by BT as a director, receives over £45,000 a year from high street pharmacy chain Boots for whom she is a "special consultant".

The Sunday Times also reported that guidance on blind trusts was also being sought by Willetts and the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Philip Hammond. Shadow International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell has announced he will step down from his job at the investment bank Lazard and the shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague will relinquish a series of jobs bringing in about £230,000 over the past year.

The Independent has also noted that Labour MPs are more enthusiastic about holding on to employment outside the Palace of Westminster. The former health secretaries Alan Milburn and Patricia Hewitt earn additional incomes of about £100,000 and £185,000, respectively. Ms Hewitt, as well as being employed by BT as a director, receives over £45,000 a year from high street pharmacy chain Boots for whom she is a "special consultant".

The former home secretary David Blunkett has a wide range of directorships, media work and speaking engagements in addition to his £64,000 MP's salary. The former armed services minister Adam Ingram has put together a portfolio of directorships worth up to £170,000 per annum since leaving the Government two years ago.

On top of the ongoing scandal about MP’s expenses which has been running for some weeks this will also further damage the reputation of MP’s in the eyes of ordinary people. Factor in that there are recommendations in the pipeline that suggest that there be different pay rates for MP’s who have interests outside of Westminster – many people will no doubt be surprised that said MP’s have time to represent the interests of their constituents.