Paul Flynn

First recorded case of a "GROUP BRAIN-FADE"?

  

Fired-up. Enthused. Excited. Angry. Turned-on. Yes all that are more. This is freak election campaign 2015 and I am enjoying it more than any other.

 There are genuine mysteries on how the Rubik’s Cube of a result in Newport West will turn out. It depends on where the UKIP votes will come from and where the deserting LibDems will go. Nobody knows.

For the past six months, Tory MPs have smugly been forecasting an economy-success fueled surge in Tory support to happen at Christmas…. in long campaign…. in short campaign….. sometime…. never.  They have tried abusing Miliband, fictionalisng the financial crisis origins, stirring up English nationalism and now ‘Dollgate’. We are living in ‘The Thick of it” when the demoniac character of Sturgeon is proved by the exposure of her alleged Hitlerite act of cutting her doll’s hair.....it was some time ago too. Now they a holding an undeclared leadership battle. Not a bright idea 11 days before polling day. Those whom the Gods intend to destroy, they first make mad. Is Tory neurosis the first recorded case in the history of psychology of a Group Brain-Fade? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckmLnkzjIjI

The Newport West battle has been less soporific than usual. The Tory has woefully ignored his Government’s final act of removing local councils’ right to ban fracking or nuclear waste drilling and part of his cunning 'plan' is a call for more planning powers for local councils. With restraint I have gently mocked his ridiculous parliamentary-irrelevant ‘plan’ as ‘Something old, nothing new, mostly borrowed and sadly blue.’ He has exposed himself as a Tory Nerd in Waiting keen to obey all his party’s calls to plunge into avoidable wars-especially when based on emotional spasms. He would just another addition to the Commons 'Give War a Chance Party'. 

 

The South Wales Argus has treated us to pioneering intelligent coverage that captures the the passion of the Hustings at their best.

The Newport West LibDem has been absent from all the Hustings. He suffers from REDS-Repetitive Election Defeat Syndrome after spending £30,000 in his last failed candidature– more that any other candidate in Gwent. That;s more that three times the sums spent by each of the two winning MPs in the ciry. UKIP has also failed to show and Plaid managed one only. Not that the Hustings were worthless. They were great.

A LibDem for another constituency elbowed his way unwisely into all of the Hustings here. He has an uncertain grasp of facts and reality. But he has ONE fan who writes a hilarious blog hagiography on him-anonymously of course. Anyone any clue who writes it? Is it a hoax? I recently sued him for a gross defamation of me on national television. I kindly did not press it to the courts stage where the costs would have escalated. He has not learned his lesson and has repeated the offence. The Hustings have given me  the chance to confront him face-to-face with a dose of grown-up politics. As a heckler told him last Friday ‘If you can’t do good: then don’t do harm’. He has increased the problem he rails against with self-indulgent grandstanding. This is coarse vulgar world of  student politics at  its worst. 

Green Pippa has been an eloquent adornment of the campaign making some good points. She has avoided the Greens La-la-land of no immigration control plus citizens wage of £80 a week, for all, That’s all those in work, out of work, seeking work and not-seeking work. Implemented that would have an interesting consequence on immigration. An increase in her vote from 1.1% in 2010 could have the perverse result of robbing Wales of its greenest MP. They did it before to Simon Thomas in 2005.

One more Hustings next Friday. Will the Scarlet Pimpernel absent candidates  appear? Even as holograms or in ectoplasm would suffice.

 

We live in hope.

 

 

 

 

 

Nobody told him

 

 

Tories voted blindly to destroy local power.

Tory Newport candidate Nick Webb has a plan.  He is calling for neighbourhood planning powers, allowing residents to shape their own communities

He did not know that his sly Tory Government had already robbed Local Authorities of  those powers.

The Guardian last week reported on a change in the law which will allow nuclear waste dumps and fracking drilling to be forced on local communities. The profoundly anti-democratic measure removes from local authorities their powers to control drilling and the dumping of toxic waste, including nuclear waste, in their locality. The legislation was rushed through in the dying days of the last Parliament by a thinly attended House of Commons.

Tory Zac Goldsmith is described in the Guardian piece as ‘one of the few government MPs who broke ranks to vote against the move.’ But this does not tell the full story. 

The move first came to the attention of eagle-eyed campaigners and MPs on Wednesday 18 March as item no. 13 on the order paper - Infrastructure Planning Standing Order no. 118(6).

 

A trickle of emails arrived from horrified anti-nuclear campaigners, urging me to do something. Duncan Hames LibDem MP called round concerned colleagues to organise resistance to the motion.

 

The Government did not expect the motion to be opposed. They expected it to be quietly passed by a disinterested Parliament in its final throes. But I, along with three other voices, objected to it. And so the motion was deferred until the following week.

 

The next day I raised the issue with William Hague at Business Questions.

 

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): The Leader of the House will be remembered in Wales as one of the most agreeable alien governor-generals we have had, in a period when he had the great good fortune to meet the wonderful Welsh woman who was to become his wife. Can he add further lustre to his reputation today by looking at a profoundly anti-democratic measure that was blocked by several voices last night? It would remove from the local authorities their powers to control drilling and the dumping of toxic waste, including nuclear waste, in their country. Would it not be an affront to democracy if that measure passed through the House on a deferred decision by a thinly attended House? Should the measure not now be withdrawn, for consideration by the next Parliament?

Mr Hague: I am grateful for the nearest thing to a ringing endorsement from the hon. Gentleman. I have fond memories of being Welsh Secretary. The Prime Minister who appointed me to that role, Sir John Major, asked me to take Wales to my heart. When, a year later, I married my private secretary, he said, “I think you are taking this a little bit too literally now.” Of course I have been deeply fond of Wales ever since.

On the measure the hon. Gentleman refers to, we must follow the procedures with all matters before the House, including the large number of orders in the remaining few days of the Parliament, so I cannot offer him an additional debate, but he will be able, as ever, to use every possible procedure of this House—he is very skilled at that—to make his views known. I am sure he will continue to do so on that matter.

 

The measure came before the Commons again as a deferred division – what the Guardian describes as an ‘unusual paper ballot’ – on Wednesday 25 March. No debate takes place on a deferred division. MPs vote in ballot boxes either yes or no. Despite opposition from 33 MPs including myself, the vote passed. I managed to persuade one Tory MP to vote against. None of the other Tories  appeared to know what it meant. They voted the way the whips told them to do.

 

 

As a result, nuclear waste storage sites will now be chosen by the Energy Secretary. Local authorities can object, but they cannot stop toxic waste being dumped in their areas. Had MPs been allowed a proper debate, the outcome could have been very different. Instead, an extremely anti-democratic measure was hidden away in one the final acts of this Parliament. Local democracy has been dealt a further blow. Communities are right to be angry with the Conservative party that tramples over the rights of local communities to defend themselves.

 

Yet Nick Webb boasts another leaflet that contains the same promise to boost local democracy. It’s not fair. Someone should have told him.

How to be a PPC

Here is an article revealing the secrets of winning in a marginal seat. It was first published  for candidates last September. 

 

 

How to be a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate

 

Nine heart stopping, stomach churning, mind-uplifting, morale pulsating months before victory or defeat strikes.  

 

Plan for both the desolation of failure and the exuberance of success.  Both will quicken the flow of creative juices. Your contribution to the result will be marginal because voters choose mainly on national perceptions of parties and their leaders.  But prepare meticulously because results are often determined in the margins.

 

My six general elections victories in a previously Tory seat are mainly attributable to national moods helped by a bad perception of Thatcher and a favourable one of Tony Blair. The party in Newport West did the rest and determined the result of the 2010 election where the swing against Labour was below the UK or Welsh average. Either of those would have unseated me.

 

The 2015 omens are good. Traditionally we are champions of depression - imprisoned in the neurotic endemic pessimism that’s Labour’s incurable trait. But the facts disagree.  The poll average for the past 24 months all promise overall victory for us. The LibDems are in a tailspin. Right wing voters have two Tory parties in which to divide their votes. Firm traditional Labour loyalty can be topped up with footloose voters who recognise the cavernous failure of the Tory ineptocracy.  There is no new dawn of Tory popularity that an improved economy promised. Their horizon remains stubbornly mid-night black.

 

Vote magnetism

Politicians have not won back public trust after the hideous screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal. Grow a shell back to protect from the inevitable sneers and insults.  Build on the lingering goodwill of the loyal to establish your distinctive persona.  Individuality is prized over a party apparatchik image. Stress your out-of-politics hinterland. An accolade or two won in the ‘real world’ is worth years of distinction in the political pond life.

 

Candidates and the local parties know best.  Attune your antennae to the constituency’s mood.  The party nationally does not always know best. Use their advice sparingly filtering out the bland and banal statements of the Janet and John obvious written in patronising politics-speak. Only 8% read political leaflets. That’s not the % of voters but the % of party workers delivering them. Pictures always trump words. Invest lavishly in striking flattering pictures of the candidate and the constituency. Insist on a pleasing clean design layout where generous white space highlights images and is more eloquent than a thousand words.

 

An impression made in the months before the election is more influential that a blizzard of propaganda during the final campaign. Seek to build a reputation on the bread and butter local issues.  Convince voters that you are linked umbilically to the constituency: knowledge encyloepaedic, sensitivity bottomless, affection maternal and enthusiasm inspiring. Big up on non-political voters’ worries. Big-down on heavy-duty political mega-issues.

 

On the campaign trail in 2001, I explained to dramatist David Hare that I did not approach voters because they all recognise me and can chat if they wish. He reported for the Telegraph: 'As we walk round, I tell Flynn that, for my sake, he must put his principles aside and approach an actual voter. The chosen victim admits reluctantly that he’s going to vote Lib Dem. ‘Good for you,’ Flynn says. ‘They’re very good people.’

 

Hare was baffled. Shouldn’t I have persuaded him to vote for me? My explaining the 65 major points of Labour’s economic policy would only have inflicted earache on the poor man. Instead we had a pleasing social encounter and an intelligent chat. It might deliver a vote, if not immediately, perhaps the election after next. The novelty of telling the plain truth is the best way of nurturing the seed corn. Nobody expects that from a vote-glutton parliamentary candidate

 

In Alun Michael’s first election, The Guardian reported that ‘the agent thinks he is the candidate and candidate thinks he is the agent’.  The roles must be precisely defined and boundaries respected. Tempers swiftly fray when candidates’ neuroses are tested by the inevitable foul-ups.  Cultivate saintly tolerance, calm and a benign love for all. Beatification will beckon.

 

If your seat is an unwinnable nursery one, treasure and gorge on the apprenticeship experience. The impossibility of victory creates worry free bliss. I was once dumped in a distant Tory area with no chance of winning or fully understanding local issues in a five-week campaign. My sole ploy to make some impression was to re-cycle and re-word the editorials in the local papers and submit back to the editors as press releases. It never failed.

 

Stress need not bother those contesting seat we won in 2010. There are no pushovers but victory this time is a safe bet. Conventional advice is to dodge election Hustings as they elevate weak opponents to potential winners status. Forget that. Accept all invitations and relish meeting and winning the respect of your future constituents.

 

The thrilling fights are in the marginal that we lost in 2010.  Think 1997.  Recall the great clutch of new MPs triumphant in seats the party centrally had written off.  May 2015 will be the high flood mark for floating voters looking for a safe harbour. The Tories will be sinking deeper into the flotsam of the failures of the Big Society, welfare changes, depressed wages and dozens of privatisation from prisons to passport that have created New Tory chaos.

 

The metamorphosis from PPC to MP is richly rewarding and fulfilling. Seize the chance!

Will impartiality inquiry be speeded up?

 

Full text of letters below

 

Inquiry into leaked Sturgeon memo 'might be concluded before election'

Email from cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood assures Labour MP that investigation is ‘highest priority’ and will be treated with ‘appropriate urgency’

 Rajeev Syal

 

A Whitehall leak inquiry into a controversial memo which claimed that Nicola Sturgeon would prefer the Conservatives to form the next government could conclude before the general election, according to Britain’s most senior civil servant.

Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary, who is conducting the inquiry, has written that he is treating it as “a matter of the highest priority” and with “appropriate urgency” after being urged by a senior parliamentarian to resolve the matter before 7 May.

His comments, made in an email seen by the Guardian, are at odds with the views of the secretary of state for Scotland, Alistair Carmichael, who said that “these things happen” when it emerged that the document had come from his department.

The leaked memo caused a major row over the weekend because it was a civil servant’s account of a private meeting between the Scottish first minister and the French ambassador.

According to the report of the memo’s contents in the Telegraph, Sturgeon had said she did not see Ed Miliband as “prime ministerial material” – a view at odds with her public claims that she hoped to lock the Tories out of government.

After the memo was published, Sturgeon complained of “dirty tricks”. She has emphatically denied expressing a preference for David Cameron.

Heywood’s comments are contained in an email sent as a reply to the veteran Labour politician Paul Flynn, a longstanding member of the public administration select committee, which oversees the civil service.

A letter sent by Flynn on Monday asked the government to proceed rapidly with the inquiry into the leak, which he said had been “contrary to our long traditions of civil service impartiality”.

6-Apr-15

Sir Jeremy Heywood, Head of Cabinet Office.

Dear Sir Jeremy,

Civil Service Impartiality

The most serious aspect of the alleged memo concerning Scotland’s First Minister is that it again raises doubts about the impartiality of the Civil Service. As the senior member of the Public Administration Committee (PASC) since 2007 I strongly supported the conclusions of PASC on the conduct of Sir Nicholas Macpherson.

In PASC’s report last month we concluded that there are lessons to be learned for future referendums from the Scottish independence referendum about maintaining Civil Service impartiality. The roles played by civil servants in both Scotland and London were subject to criticism and controversy. The Treasury’s most senior civil servant has confirmed that the department set aside its supposed impartiality to support the Better Together campaign for a No vote. Sir Nicholas Macpherson confirmed in a lecture at the Treasury that his teams had reached a “strong recurring conclusion” that independence would be against the interest of the Scottish people. The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury said people were trying to "destroy the fabric of the state.” He had concluded that therefore the normal rules of civil service impartiality did not apply, according to a report in The Independent.

 The allegations arising from the publication of the note of the meeting that the Scottish First Minister had with a French official are that another incident of interference by a civil servant in a political matter may have occurred.  Two people in the conversation say certain matters were not discussed. A Civil Service memo allegedly says they were. If civil servants routinely intervene in referenda or elections it would be contrary to our long traditions of civil service impartiality. This matter is one of great importance and I believe it requires urgent investigation. It is difficult to understand claims that it cannot be swiftly resolved and a conclusion published before May 7^th.

Yours sincerely

Paul Flynn 

 

Human shields for ministers' reputations

 

 

 

 

 

 

A not very bright political opponent recently raised my expulsion from the Commons. He is hopelessly confused so below is an update on what happened in September 2012.

 

Something was certain to blow. It had been seven days of hot churning emotion that led to my expulsion from the Commons for the first time in 25 years.

 

The previous Thursday International Development Secretary Justine Greening demeaned and insulted the Commons with a saccharine-flavoured quarterly report on Afghanistan.

 

It was stuffed with the culpable self-deluding optimism that has led to the deaths of hundreds of our soldiers. Greening looked forward to a happy-ever-after corruption and drugs-free Afghanistan.

Green on blue attacks? Sorted. Rampaging corruption? No worry. Mass exit of the troops of our allies? Never heard of it.

 

We'll have to wait. Britain's exit from the hell of Afghanistan is being delayed so that it can be spun as a victory for politicians. On Sunday I attended the Merchant Navy memorial service on Tower Hill. One in four of them died in WWII - a higher proportion than any other service.

Admiral Lord West was there. No government minister or royalty turned up. Ingrates.

The Afghan nightmare continues untouched by government optimism. By Monday three more British soldiers had been killed.

 

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond was dragged to the house by a backbencher's urgent question. He patronised and postured. He would never fall for the Taliban's trick of trying to divide the Nato-led forces from Afghan trainee soldiers. Not our Philip. Wokingham MP John Redwood and I urged him to bring our troops home by Christmas.

 

The Dutch and Canadians have already pulled out of the mission impossible. France and New Zealand are leaving earlier than planned. Isn't Britain an independent nation? Hammond offered this  despicable justification for more war without an end in sight.

 

"Four-hundred and thirty British service personnel have given their lives, and we intend to protect that legacy by ensuring that the UK's national security interests are protected in future by training and mentoring the Afghan national security forces."

 

His argument is - to justify the waste of 430 lives by foolish politicians - that more lives should be lost. Since the expulsion of al-Qaida there has been no threat to Britain's security from Afghanistan.

The Taliban attack us because we are occupying their country not because they plan terrorism on the streets of Britain. Later on Monday afternoon I began to read the list of the fallen in Afghanistan.

Twenty-five of my early day motions have filled 13 pages of the Common motions paper for the past two weeks.

 

I previously sought an arrangement for the full list to read in the Commons.

The Speaker courteously stopped me - "Mr Flynn raised with me his view that there should be a formal oral recording, periodically, of lives lost, and asked me to look into the matter.

"I said that I would, and I am doing so, and I think it wise to proceed on the basis of consultation. I intend to speak very soon to the leader of the house, the shadow leader of the house and various others about the matter, and then to revert to the honorable gentleman."

 

I was delighted with that assurance and ended the reading.

 

Tuesday dawned with the news that the International Security Assistance Force had fallen for the precise Taliban trick that Hammond said would never fool him. Humiliated, he was dragged back again to the Commons.

 

I asked: "The role of our brave soldiers is to act as human shields for ministers' reputations. The danger to our soldiers has been prolonged by those on the front bench who have the power to stop it.

"Other countries have removed their soldiers and are not doing what we are doing in arming and training our future enemy.

 

"Is this not similar to the end of the first world war when it was said that politicians lied and soldiers died and the reality was, as it is now, that our brave soldier lions were being led by ministerial donkeys?"

The Speaker asked me to make clear if I was saying that a minister was lying. There was only one possible answer.

 

My head was full of the deceptions of vain ministers since 2006, the avoidable 430 deaths and 2,000 soldiers who return home broken in mind and body.

 

"Yes, ministers had lied," I said. Exclusion was inevitable and a price worth paying. It struck a chord with thousands of people. It resonated for many months in many parts of the world.

 

Now that the war is over the pundits are falling over themselves to denounce its futility.

 

EDM 813 2015

 

That this House records its sorrow at the deaths of 453 British soldiers in Afghanistan and notes the post-conflict judgements by Brigadier Ed Butler that the UK was under-prepared and under-resourced, by General Sir Peter Wall that the calculus was wrong, by Major General Andrew Mackay that the war was a series of shifting plans, unobtainable objectives, propaganda and spin, by former ambassador Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles that the UK operation was a massive act of collective self-deception by military and politicians unable to admit how badly it was going, and by General Lord Dannatt that the UK knew it was heading for two considerable size operations and really only had the organisation and manpower for one; and calls for an early inquiry into the conduct of the war in order to avoid future blunders.

 

What a shame they could bear to tell the truth earlier when many lives could have been saved.

 

Speed up Inquiry - Sir Jeremy urged

6-Apr-15

Sir Jeremy Heywood, Head of Cabinet Office.

Dear Sir Jeremy,

Civil Service Impartiality

The most serious aspect of the alleged memo concerning Scotland’s First Minister is that it again raises doubts about the impartiality of the Civil Service. As the senior member of the Public Administration Committee (PASC) since 2007 I strongly supported the conclusions of PASC on the conduct of Sir Nicholas Macpherson.

In PASC’s report last month we concluded that there are lessons to be learned for future referendums from the Scottish independence referendum about maintaining Civil Service impartiality. The roles played by civil servants in both Scotland and London were subject to criticism and controversy. The Treasury’s most senior civil servant has confirmed that the department set aside its supposed impartiality to support the Better Together campaign for a No vote. Sir Nicholas Macpherson confirmed in a lecture at the Treasury that his teams had reached a “strong recurring conclusion” that independence would be against the interest of the Scottish people. The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury said people were trying to "destroy the fabric of the state.” He had concluded that therefore the normal rules of civil service impartiality did not apply, according to a report in The Independent.

 The allegations arising from the publication of the note of the meeting that the Scottish First Minister had with a French official are that another incident of interference by a civil servant in a political matter may have occurred.  Two people in the conversation say certain matters were not discussed. A Civil Service memo allegedly says they were. If civil servants routinely intervene in referenda or elections it would be contrary to our long traditions of civil service impartiality. This matter is one of great importance and I believe it requires urgent investigation. It is difficult to understand claims that it cannot be swiftly resolved and a conclusion published before May 7^th.

Yours sincerely

Paul Flynn 

Did Civil Servant break rules-again?

 

Civil Service Impartiality trashed again?

There is persuasive evidence that a Civil Servant may have again interfered politically in breach of Civil Service rules. Two people in an alleged conversation say it did not happen. A civil service memo allegedly says it did.

Already the Public Administration Committee has condemed interference in Scottish politics by a senior civil servant. Has it happened again? As a senior member of PASC since 2007 I am today writing to Sir Jeremy Heywood demanding a swift inquiry. Civil Servant interference in referenda or elections is an affront to our democratic traditions.

In a report last month the Commons Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) says that there are lessons to be learned for future referendums from the Scottish independence referendum about maintaining civil service impartiality. The roles played by civil servants in both Scotland and London were subject to criticism and controversy. PASC called for changes to the Civil Service code.

The Treasury’s most senior civil servant has confirmed that the department set aside its supposed impartiality to support the Better Together campaign for a No vote.

Sir Nicholas Macpherson confirmed in a lecture at the Treasury that his teams had reached a “strong recurring conclusion” that independence would be against the interest of the Scottish people. The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury said people were trying to "destroy the fabric of the state” He had concluded that therefore the normal rules of civil service impartiality did not apply, according to a report in The Independent

In a report published in March 2015 by PASC, the committee criticised Macpherson’s actions. It stated that he should not have published his views in the run up to the referendum and doing so “compromised the perceived impartiality” of one of the UK’s most senior civil servants.

The report  recommended that the decision to publish such comments “should not recur”, and that the Civil Service Code should be revised.

 

Apology from the BBC

Dear Mr Flynn,

Thank you for your reply and for correcting my misunderstanding of the entries in the Register of Members' Interests.

We have now posted the following statement on the I-Player page where this particular edition of The Big Questions is accessed.

“Note:  At about 7mins 10 seconds into this programme, during the live debate about "Should MPs work full-time for their salaries?", an opinion is expressed by an audience member concerning the Labour Party and Paul Flynn MP’s position concerning the issue of MP’s having second jobs.  The audience member is Paul Halliday the Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate for Newport East. By way of response to those comments, Paul Flynn MP has asked us to point out that he donates all income from his books to charity, a practice he has made public regularly and a practice he advocates other MPs should adopt in relation to any additional income they receive."  

I trust this will clear up any misunderstanding of your position and I hope you will accept my fullest apologies for any distress this may have caused you.

What MPs do.

I’ve never met Paul Halliday. I hope I never will. He does not sound very interesting company. In the world of mature politics there is a dispute on whether MPs should have second jobs. The main objections are that excessive time spent on jobs unrelated to parliamentary duties will reduce time that MPs can devote to MPs’ duties and secondly serving a second master may divert their loyalties away from duties to constituency, country and party.

Mr Halliday is a prospective parliamentary candidate in a neighbouring constituency. He has worked himself up into a lather of excitement because I write books. It has proved expensive for him. It could get worse.

All my seven books have been written in Augusts during parliamentary recesses. They have been my annual holidays when rhythm of work adapts to a different regime of writing 2,000 words a day.  Each takes a fortnight to write.  One of them is the most borrowed book in the House of Commons library. Like all my other books they are devoted to parliamentary work and packed with humour and, I hope, sage advice. In addition I am a prolific writer of articles that are printed widely. All are devoted to the only subject on which I have deep knowledge – parliament.  Newspapers have serialized nearly all the books, which brings in money.  Rather boringly my entire working life and most of my leisure life is devoted to the wonderful job I have as MP for Newport West. Speaking, questioning, constituency work and writing are all elements that make up the whole of an MPs working life.

Mr Halliday attacked me in a television programme. I sought advice on whether to pursue Mr Halliday for his remarks. I was told by a barrister that they were defamatory and I was advised to sue for substantial damages. Seeking his silence and not his humiliation, I sought token damages and generously settled for a very small amount and payment of some of my costs. Mr Halliday persists in some of his baseless charges. Does he really understand the nature of legal costs and the need to honour a settlement that has been made? Contrary to the terms of the settlement, Paul Halliday is still exited and today wrote (and I am aware that it’s the 1^st of April):

 

“The point, which stands, is that an MP either has time to do their Job or Not. It is political point scoring to say no second Jobs, when taking time to write books, which can take much more time than some second jobs.We have a system that allows the public to decide whether someone is spending the time they should on their constituents”.

 

In the years since 1972 when was I first elected as a representative politician in Newport, I have never been accused of neglecting my duties. By all measures, as a councillor and MP, I have been hyper-active, making more speeches, asking more questions and serving on more committees than 95% of MPs. I understand that Mr Halliday claims to be a man of religion.What will convince him that he must not bear false witness against his neighbour?

 

Below are some of my previous comments that set out my position with clarity.

 

 

From How to be an MP 2010

How to squirrel

Odd sums of money arrive in the post. Cheques from media inter- views, for writing or from market research companies are not really earned. They are usually paid for doing the job for which MPs are already paid.

If they lie heavily on the conscience, they can be diverted into a fund for excess income. Set up a proper charitable trust with defined aims and trustees, into which the full sums can be deposited. A simpler course is to pay tax on the cash, then deposit it in a separate charitable account with independent signatories.

Either way the sums quickly accumulate into substantial amounts for worthwhile giving. They help to avoid dependence on outside money and ensure that work priorities are not distorted by financial temptations. Always insist that any charitable giving is anonymous. It absolves the giver of the insulting charge of trying to buy votes and it reduces the calls on the fund from unworthy causes.

 

From Radio Five Live 23^rd February 2015.

Jack Straw has brought all of politics into disrepute again and so has Malcolm Rifkind. They have both behaved very foolishly. We should have had root and branch reform of Parliament. In 1994 I said that some MPs had their snouts so deeply in the trough that all you could see of them was the soles of their Gucci boots. And here, all these years later, it hasn’t changed.

There are Ten Commandments for MPs. Number five says ‘never covet a second income, honours, or a retirement job.’ Yet all this is still going on. We should have had huge reforms in Parliament after the great screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal. We haven’t done it - we’ve gone backwards. We’ve got more honours. We haven’t reformed lobbying. We haven’t reformed the retirement process from the place. It’s got worse, not better.

Yes, I write books. All the money and the serial rights go to charities. I take the view that the public has sent me here, they give me a full-time wage and they expect a full-time job. That’s simple to understand. If MPs have to take some time off to do another job, they should deduct any income that they get during that time from their Parliamentary salary.

 

10 Backbenchers Commandments 1997

From How to be a Backbencher

1.    Value the role of a backbencher as a high calling.

2.    Serve constituents, the weak and the neglected.

3.    Seek novel remedies and challenge accepted wisdom.

4.    Attack opponents only when they are wrong.

5.     Never covet a second income, honours or a retirement job.