On March 25th, several newspapers released reports detailing a sting of MPs that was orchestrated by the campaign group Led by Donkeys.
Led by Donkeys set up a fake South Korean company which approached a number of MPs including former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kwasi Kwarteng, and former Health Minister Matt Hancock.
The fake South Korean company, Hanseong Consulting, offered to hire the ministers for fees of up to £12,000 a day, claiming that it wanted members for an international advisory board to help their clients navigate the shifting political, regulatory and legislative frameworks in the UK and Europe.
Most of the MPs approached seem to have been willing to take on the work, and quoted prices of between £6,000 and £10,000 a day for their services, plus travel expenses for foreign trips.
Sir Graham Brady, the chair of the 1922 Committee, did a virtual meeting with the firm online, where he told them that he wouldn’t be able to arrange meetings for them, but that he would be able to advise them about who to approach in government. He told them that a rate of £6,000 a day felt right. Meanwhile, Kwasi Kwarteng and Matt Hancock each agreed to work for a fee of £10,000 a day.
So far this reads like one of the many cash for access stings, and it is. But there’s something about this story which makes it more worth talking about. The way that the MPs in question responded to the scandal when challenged at best shows that they’re oblivious to their own corrupt nature, or at worst that they’re actively using their office to enrich themselves, despite understanding the obvious conflicts of interest.
A spokesperson for Matt Hancock said: “The accusation appears to be that Matt acted entirely properly and within the rules, which had just been unanimously adopted by parliament. It’s absurd to bring Mr Hancock into this story through the illegal publication of a private conversation. All the video shows is Matt acting completely properly.”
This brazen response tries to draw a false equivalence between what is legal and what is right. It says that as long as Matt Hancock operated within the laws that he and his fellow MPs created, then he’s perfectly entitled to have a second job that conflicts with his public duties.
Businesses who hire these MPs do it so that they can get an upper hand in their business dealings. Increased profit often comes at the expense of public well-being though.
All profit comes from labour that isn’t paid for, and finding ways to remain profitable, despite competition, forces businesses to exploit their employees harder.
At other times, it means getting governments to loosen regulations that exist to protect consumers or the environment.
An MP helping specific businesses to maximize their profits isn’t serving the interests of the majority of the population, only themselves and their employer.
Of course, the system’s set up so that politicians can’t actually serve the majority of the population, even when they’re not taking on second jobs. Any government who puts human needs before the needs of investors will see capitalists pull their money out of the economy, forcing a recession or crash. Meanwhile, the media will continue to frame GDP as being of grand importance, rather than metrics more directly tied to people’s well-being; and will keep smearing socialists while praising liberals. Add political donations to that, and the cushy jobs MPs can expect after politics if they treat business kindly, and you have a system set up to serve business interests.
The MPs feel so secure in their legal corruption that they’re able to pretend that it’s moral, and papers like The Guardian, being liberal rags, don’t challenge them on it.
When approached for comment about his involvement in the scandal, Philip Hammond said: “This was nothing other than what I thought to be a preliminary discussion with a South Korean company – a country that is close to my heart as I have a substantial Korean community in my constituency, and which is an important ally to the UK.”
Oh yes, he’d be serving the UK’s interests by working to enrich a small group of foreign capitalists. Could he be more ridiculous? But he goes on…
“It turns out this company was fake, with a fake website. The remuneration amount was suggested by the actor purporting to be an employee of the company, not by me. Scamming is an unpleasant activity undertaken with malicious intent. I believe it is a great honour to be an MP. I have always put my constituents first and will always try to act in their best interests.”
The people who disclosed his willingness to be corrupt should apparently be ashamed of themselves, because scamming is malicious and unpleasant? People like Philip Hammond view the general public with utter contempt, and refuse to even acknowledge that using his public office to enrich himself is against the general interest.
In a class based society, all actions you take serve the interests of one class over others. By choosing to side with capitalists, whether foreign or domestic, MPs like Philip Hammond, Matt Hancock, and Kwasi Kwarteng are choosing to work against ordinary working and marginalised people.
MPs shouldn’t be allowed second jobs and especially not paid ones. Making corruption legal doesn’t make it any less corrupt.
