The Post Office Horizon Scandal: Government Accountability and the Missed Opportunity for Justice
The exposure of the Post Office Horizon scandal by journalists, which began gaining significant attention in the late 2000s and early 2010s, highlighted systemic issues with the Horizon IT system that led to the wrongful convictions of sub-postmasters. Despite these reports, the government’s response was markedly slow, with no immediate action taken to launch a public inquiry into the matter. This inaction persisted even though evidence from journalistic investigations suggested a widespread problem, affecting a significant number of individuals across the UK.
Journalistic efforts throughout the 2010s provided detailed accounts of the injustices faced by sub-postmasters, combining investigative reporting with personal stories of those affected. By 2012, with a growing body of evidence and increased media coverage, it was apparent that there were serious, systemic flaws in the Post Office’s operations and its reliance on the Horizon system. This period would have been a critical point at which the government could have intervened more decisively.
While some Members of Parliament (MPs) did attempt to raise concerns and advocate for the affected sub-postmasters, their efforts alone were insufficient to prompt the government to initiate a full-scale public inquiry. It wasn’t until the widespread public outcry following the TV documentary, which aired years after the initial reports, that the government took more concrete steps to address the scandal.
Given the timeline of events and the mounting evidence available by the early 2010s, a reasonable assertion is that the government should have launched a public inquiry by 2012 or shortly thereafter. By this time, there was ample journalistic evidence and growing public concern that warranted a comprehensive investigation into the failures associated with the Horizon IT system and the subsequent legal and financial impact on sub-postmasters. The delay in launching a public inquiry until after significant public pressure was applied highlights a missed opportunity to address and rectify the injustices in a more timely manner, thereby failing those affected by the scandal.
Given the evidence and the timeline of events surrounding the Post Office Horizon scandal, there is a strong argument to be made that the government bears responsibility for not acting sooner, particularly around the year 2012 when the issues had been sufficiently exposed by journalists and were becoming increasingly apparent. The failure to initiate a public inquiry or take decisive action at that time contributed to the prolongation of suffering for many affected sub-postmasters, who faced wrongful convictions, financial ruin, and personal distress.
Holding the government to account for this failure involves several considerations:
Recognition of the Issue: By 2012, there was enough information and public concern that indicated a systemic problem with the Horizon system and its impact on sub-postmasters. The government’s responsibility includes responding to such significant issues with timely and appropriate measures, including investigations or inquiries to understand the scope and root causes.
Duty to Protect Citizens: The government has a fundamental duty to protect its citizens from miscarriages of justice, especially when they arise from the operations of a state-owned entity like the Post Office. The delay in acknowledging the scale of the problem and acting to address it signifies a breach of this duty.
Responsibility for Oversight: The government’s role in overseeing national institutions includes ensuring that they operate fairly, transparently, and in the public interest. A failure to scrutinize the Post Office’s handling of the Horizon system and its aftermath suggests a lapse in this oversight.
Accountability Mechanisms: There should be mechanisms in place for holding the government accountable when it fails to act on clear evidence of systemic failures that affect citizens’ lives. This could include parliamentary scrutiny, public inquiries, and legal avenues to ensure that such failures are addressed and do not recur.
Given these considerations, it is reasonable to argue that the government should be held to account for its inaction in 2012. This accountability is essential not only for providing justice to those affected but also for restoring public trust in government institutions and their capacity to respond effectively to crises. Accountability would also serve as a deterrent against future inaction in the face of systemic injustices.
In 2012, the UK government departments and ministers responsible for oversight of the Post Office, and hence potentially implicated in the failure to initiate a public inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal, included:
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)
Responsibility: BIS was the government department responsible for postal services, including the Post Office, during 2012. This department would have had direct oversight and responsibility for addressing any systemic issues within the Post Office.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills at the time was Vince Cable (2010-2015). Under him, the minister responsible for postal affairs would have been particularly involved in decisions related to the Post Office.
Ed Davey’s role as Minister for Postal Affairs between 2010 and 2012 places him in a significant position regarding the oversight of the Post Office during the early stages of the Horizon scandal’s public exposure. It should be noted, however, that he did meet Alan Bates, albeit that it took him 5 months to do so. What needs to be exposed is why such a meeting was not followed up with significant action. Ed Davey’s statement this week “I’m sorry I did not see through the Post Office’s lies..” could imply that following his meeting with Alan Bates, Ed Davey engaged with Post Office leadership or representatives who presented a counter-narrative or reassurances about the Horizon system and its associated legal actions and he chose to believe their version of events. Was this the reason government did not take action at the time? The Inquiry needs to establish whether this was the case.
Following Ed Davey, the Ministers for Postal Affairs were
Norman Lamb (2012-2012)
Jo Swinson (2012-2013)
Jenny Willott (2013-2014)
Jo Swinson (2014-2015)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (2015-2016)
Margot James (2016-2018)
Andrew Griffiths (2018-2018)
Kelly Tolhurst (2018-2020)
Paul Scully (2020-2022)
Jane Hunt (2022-2022)
Dean Russell (2022-2022)
Kevin Hollinrake (2022-present)
Prime Minister’s Office doesn’t want public to know why David Cameron was made a Lord
The Tory Prime Minister’s Office is under fire for its opaque handling of former PM David Cameron’s appointment as a Lord, igniting concerns among voters across the UK. Despite a comprehensive Freedom of Information request, the Office has strategically shielded pertinent details, invoking exemptions that raise more questions than answers. This lack of transparency is particularly striking given Cameron’s absence from parliamentary politics, a factor that should arguably simplify the disclosure process.
Their response, clinging to legal exemptions, not only undermines public trust but also cloaks the decision-making process in mystery. In an age where transparency in political appointments is crucial for democratic integrity, such concealment hints at potential political maneuvering, far removed from the public eye. This evasiveness, especially concerning a figure like Cameron who has already exited the political stage, suggests a worrying trend of selective transparency, tailored more to political convenience than public accountability.
As voters prepare for the 2024 general election, this issue serves as a stark reminder of the importance of governmental openness. The electorate’s right to understand the criteria and process behind such significant appointments is not just a matter of curiosity but a cornerstone of democratic participation. The Prime Minister’s Office’s reluctance to provide clarity feeds into a narrative of a government that selectively decides what the public should know, undermining the very essence of a transparent democracy.
Tory Cabinet Office caught refusing to release information behind decision to siphon funds intended for the north
As the 2024 general election looms, the Tory-run Cabinet Office’s handling of the “Network North” funds is more than just a bureaucratic misstep; it’s a democratic crisis. The refusal to disclose crucial information on the reallocation of northern funds to London projects, particularly following the scrapping of the HS2 rail project in the North while maintaining it in London, is a blatant disregard for public accountability. This secrecy not only breeds distrust but also robs the electorate of the information necessary to make an informed voting decision.
The Cabinet Office’s use of legal exemptions to shield details about fund allocation is a stark reminder of political gamesmanship taking precedence over public interest. At a time when regional equality and fair distribution of resources are of paramount importance, this lack of transparency is a severe blow to the government’s credibility. The electorate deserves to know why money intended for their development is being siphoned off to the capital.
This withholding of information is not just an administrative issue; it’s a potent symbol of a government that talks about transparency and leveling up but walks an entirely different path. As voters prepare to cast their ballots in 2024, they are left questioning the integrity of a party that prioritises London over the North. The Cabinet Office’s actions are a clear message: it’s time for a government that values all regions equally and operates with true transparency. The people of the UK deserve nothing less.
Tories don’t want the public to know why they are siphoning funds from northern projects
IPSA’s Secrecy: Concealing the Reasons Behind MP Payoffs Increase
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) has been the focus of significant scrutiny following its decision to augment MP severance payments. Despite claims of commitment to “fair and impartial decisions about MPs’ pay, pensions, and business costs” on its website, IPSA’s actions remain shrouded in secrecy, particularly concerning the rationale behind increasing MPs’ payoffs.
The emblem of justice scales on IPSA’s website, a symbol of fairness, impartiality, and transparency, now seems more ironic than ever. This irony is deepened by IPSA’s refusal to disclose the internal assessments, analyses, or impact evaluations that led to their decision on enhanced payoffs for MPs—a decision that contrasts sharply with the expectations placed on the general public to seek support through conventional means, like the jobcentre, in times of financial difficulty.
The recent revelation involving Tory Minister Maria Caulfield, who retained a severance payment of £7,920 only to return to her ministerial post seven weeks later, casts a stark light on the issues at hand. This incident not only questions the adequacy of the current severance payment system but also highlights a disturbing misuse of taxpayer money, reinforcing the public’s demand for transparency and accountability from IPSA.
When an internal review was sought (RFI-202308-14) to shed light on IPSA’s decision-making process, the response provided was disappointingly inadequate, lacking in detail and failing to engage with the core issues raised. This approach fuels speculation about IPSA’s intentions and commitment to transparency, leaving the public to wonder if there is a concerted effort to obscure the decision-making process.
The public’s trust in IPSA is contingent on its transparency and accountability. The belief that MPs might be disproportionately compensated, especially when financial prudence is expected of the public, underscores the need for IPSA to disclose the information requested. The escalation of this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) signifies a critical juncture in the quest for openness in governance.
The case surrounding IPSA’s increase in MP payoffs, especially in the context of the Caulfield incident, underscores the pressing need for clarity and accountability. The intervention of the ICO is not just necessary but vital for upholding the principles of transparency and public trust in democratic governance. It is imperative that the ICO’s review leads to the disclosure of the information sought, ensuring that IPSA’s decisions are informed, justified, and aligned with the national interest. Only through such transparency can the public be assured that IPSA is operating with integrity and making decisions that are truly in the best interests of the nation.
From one blunder to the next: The not-so-clever James Cleverly
James Cleverly’s tenure as Home Secretary has been marred by a string of blunders and controversies that raise serious questions about his ability to lead effectively. From insensitive comments to questionable policy decisions, Cleverly’s track record is a cause for concern not only for his own political career but also for the Conservative Party as a whole.
- Date-Rape Drug Joke:
Perhaps one of the most disturbing incidents during Cleverly’s time as Home Secretary was his insensitive joke about giving his wife a date-rape drug. This remark not only displayed a shocking lack of judgment but also trivialised the serious issues of sexual violence and drug-facilitated crimes. Such a statement, coming from the minister responsible for addressing violence against women and girls, was a grave error that eroded public trust in his leadership. The Fawcett Society rightly expressed distrust in Cleverly’s ability to handle these critical matters effectively. - Rwanda Migrant Deportation Plan Comment:
Cleverly faced criticism for allegedly describing the government’s Rwanda migrant deportation plan as “batsh**” in private. If true, this comment hinted at a lack of support or belief in the government’s own policies. Such doubts from a senior cabinet minister could weaken the government’s stance and create internal friction within the Conservative Party. - Revolt over Rwanda Interview:
In an interview with The Times, Cleverly described the Rwanda deportation plan as “not the be-all and end-all” and cautioned against “hyperbole” in migration discussions. This stance caused significant backlash from fellow Conservative MPs who viewed it as a disregard for public concerns about immigration. Cleverly’s inability to align with his party on such a critical policy issue risked alienating the Conservative base and underscored the divisions within the party. - Migrant Visa U-Turn:
Under Cleverly’s leadership at the Home Office, the government executed a sudden U-turn on its decision to significantly increase the earnings threshold for Britons bringing family members to the UK. This reversal was widely perceived as a sign of weakness and inconsistency in handling the pressing issue of immigration. Members of Cleverly’s own party criticised this move, highlighting his incapacity to effectively manage the complex issue. - Economic Understanding:
During his tenure as Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly’s inability to provide coherent and informed answers on key economic issues, such as inflation and interest rates, raised substantial concerns about his grasp of economic fundamentals. These issues are vital for the country’s stability and prosperity, and Cleverly’s shortcomings in this area called into question his suitability for high-profile cabinet positions. This led us to publish some much-needed advice for him. - Poor judgement:
Before his role as Home Secretary, Cleverly’s track record revealed a pattern of poor judgment. His controversial tweet criticising Liberal Democrat leader Simon Hughes in 2010, his support for the closure of 10 fire stations in London after a fatal fire in Camden in 2015, his vote against a housing amendment requiring homes to be “fit for human habitation” in 2016, and his support for cutting disability benefits, which led to a charity asking him to step down as patron, all showcase a consistent pattern of questionable decisions and insensitivity.
James Cleverly’s political career has been marked by a series of blunders, misjudgments, and a lack of competence in various roles. These incidents collectively portray a politician prone to errors and lacking the necessary qualities for leadership. Furthermore, these controversies not only tarnish his personal reputation but also reflect poorly on the Conservative Party’s leadership and governance approach. As the Conservative Party continues to govern the UK, it must confront these concerns and seriously consider whether James Cleverly is fit for any high-profile positions within the government.
Cost of Rishi Sunak’s failed Judicial Review to block Covid Inquiry finally exposed
The Tory government under Rishi Sunak initially refused the request of its own Covid Inquiry to hand over Boris Johnson’s communications while he was Prime Minister. The Government even launched a judicial review at taxpayers’ expense in an attempt to block the Inquiry from being able to access such messages. Then it threatened Boris Johnson because he was willing to comply with the Inquiry.
Back in July 2023, we requested the cost of this failed judicial review. The government refused to release this information, claiming they intend to release it in the future – probably at a time when it is less damaging for the Tory government.
During the course of our investigation, it transpired their claims were full of holes and inconsistencies. They claimed that they did not hold any evidence to back up their claim that they intended to release the information in the future, then went on to provide a link to a transcript which stated that the costs would be released once they were held – but they had already admitted that they held information relevant to our request.
As of November 2023, the true cost of the failed Judicial Review aimed at preventing the Inquiry from accessing Boris Johnson’s messages has been unveiled. A substantial burden has been placed on the taxpayers, with the total cost reaching £192,739.
The staggering £192,739 cost incurred by Rishi Sunak’s failed judicial review, aimed at preventing the government’s own Inquiry from seeking the truth, is a reprehensible misuse of public funds. As we approach the 2024 general election, voters must carefully consider whether they want a government that squanders taxpayers’ money to prioritise its interests over the public’s right to transparency and accountability. This financial burden should serve as a stark reminder of the imperative to select representatives who genuinely act in the best interests of the public, making wise use of their votes to shape the future of responsible governance.
Tory Rishi Sunak wasted your money on a judicial review to prevent a public inquiry accessing information
DWP claims no-one reputable is campaigning to change the 5 week wait for Universal Credit
In their response to our Freedom of Information Act request, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) brazenly claimed that no reputable organisation is currently championing changes to their five-week wait for Universal Credit. This startling assertion overlooks the profound and pervasive impact of this policy on millions across the UK. This article aims to cast a stark light on the harsh realities faced by claimants and the glaring inadequacies of the system, particularly the flawed nature of advance payments.
The five-week waiting period for Universal Credit is more than a mere administrative hurdle; it’s a prolonged ordeal of financial precarity for countless individuals. Embedded within the Universal Credit system, this wait is especially catastrophic for those in already precarious financial situations, hurling families and individuals into a relentless dilemma of choosing between basic necessities like food, rent, and utilities. The repercussions extend far beyond the financial; the perpetual stress and anxiety wrought by such uncertainty inflict enduring mental health trauma.
The DWP’s advance payment proposition, while masquerading as a mitigating measure, is in reality a duplicitous trap. These ‘advances’ are, in truth, loans that burden claimants with repayment obligations, subtracted from future Universal Credit payments. This system ensnares recipients in a debilitating debt cycle, leaving them with less than their full entitlement in subsequent months.
Recent outcries from Teesside MPs against the Universal Credit’s five-week waiting period underscore its dire consequences. New figures from the North East Child Poverty Commission (NECPC), sourced from the DWP itself, reveal a disturbing reality: out of 211,200 children in North East households on Universal Credit, a staggering 61% (approximately 130,000) are embroiled in debt repayment plans, a desperate measure to ‘put food on their tables.’
The fallout of the five-week wait transcends individual claimants, heavily impacting local communities, charities, and food banks. These pillars of support are increasingly strained under the weight of heightened demand for their services, as people grapple with financial survival.
The DWP’s assertion that the campaign against the five-week wait is unsupported by any ‘reputable’ group is not just dismissive but outright insulting. It signifies a government wilfully turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the relentless pleas for change from those bearing the brunt of this inhumane policy.
There is an urgent need to champion a system that uplifts rather than undermines those in need. The current framework, with its deceptive advance payment scheme, is a glaring failure in providing a genuine safety net, leaving millions to navigate a treacherous financial landscape.
Tories Accused of Prioritising Costs Over Claimants’ Lives by Revising ‘Substantial Risk’ Clause
THE TORIES are facing more allegations of prioritising cost-cutting over the needs of vulnerable claimants. These stem from the DWP’s proposal to revise the ‘substantial risk’ clause in welfare assessments, to reduce the number of individuals who qualify for vital support. What makes this move particularly contentious is that existing claimants who meet the ‘substantial risk’ criteria have already provided substantial evidence from medical professionals, including clinical psychologists, demonstrating their need for support. In this article, we will delve into the evidence and concerns surrounding this proposed change.
The ‘substantial risk’ clause was designed to serve as a safety net for claimants undergoing assessments for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). It was intended to be applied in cases where there was genuine evidence that claimants faced significant harm to their mental or physical health, or the health of others if they were found not to have limited capability for work-related activity (LCWRA). The purpose of this clause was to protect vulnerable individuals from being left without essential support.
One of the central issues at the heart of this controversy is the substantial evidence already provided by claimants who fall under the ‘substantial risk’ category. Many of these claimants have undergone rigorous assessments, provided extensive documentation from doctors, mental health practitioners, and clinical psychologists, all attesting to the significant risks they face due to their health conditions. This evidence is critical in establishing the genuine need for tailored support.
Despite the compelling evidence presented by claimants and healthcare professionals, the proposed revision of the ‘substantial risk’ clause appears to be driven by a cost-cutting agenda. Critics argue that the government aims to reduce the number of individuals qualifying for LCWRA, which would lead to cost savings in the welfare system.
The concern is that by amending or potentially removing the ‘substantial risk’ clause, the government will make it more difficult for individuals who genuinely need support to qualify. Vulnerable claimants, many of whom are already struggling with their mental health, could find themselves without the assistance they require to improve their overall well-being.
This move also raises concerns about the increased vulnerability of claimants who may no longer meet the revised criteria. Vulnerable individuals could be left without the necessary financial support, putting them at greater risk. This is especially worrisome considering the potential consequences, including increased mental health issues and suicides.
The proposed revision of the ‘substantial risk’ clause has triggered public outcry and advocacy efforts. Many argue that no changes to the clause should be made, and the overwhelming evidence presented by claimants and healthcare professionals should be respected.
The allegations against the Tory government for prioritising cost-cutting over the needs of vulnerable claimants are a serious cause for concern. While the government may seek to reduce costs, it must not be done at the expense of anyone’s life. This demonstrates that the Tories have either learned nothing from all the DWP deaths since they came to power or they couldn’t care less.
Related news items
See our Freedom of Information request in full
Disabled people are trying to tell us how benefits system is killing them. It’s time we listened
SHAMED: The Tories who voted AGAINST helping disabled people with RISING living costs
The DWP’s FOI Magic Act: Now You See It, Now You Don’t
When it comes to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, one would expect government departments to be transparent, consistent, and professional. However, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) seems to have taken a different approach, one that resembles a magic act more than a straightforward administrative process.
The Disappearing Act
In June 2023, the DWP initially responded to our FOI request by stating that they held the requested information regarding job titles related to death inquiries. Then they U-turned and claimed they didn’t possess the information.
The Reappearance
In a twist that would make any magician proud, the DWP then claimed in their internal review that they do, in fact, hold the information. However, they now argue that providing it would exceed the cost limit of £600, as stipulated under Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act.
The Misdirection
The DWP’s inconsistent responses raise serious questions about their credibility and the validity of their legal arguments. They initially invoked Section 40(2) of the FOI Act to claim that job titles are personal information, a point that has been robustly challenged by us. Job titles are publicly listed on the DWP’s own website and other job portals, making it difficult to understand how they could be considered sensitive or personal information.
The Illusion of Cost
The DWP’s subsequent reliance on Section 12(1) appears to be a tactic to avoid fulfilling the request rather than a genuine cost concern. They have not provided a detailed breakdown of how they arrived at this cost estimate, making their claim less credible. Moreover, the nature of the information—job titles—suggests that it should be readily available and not require extensive resources to compile.
The Public Interest
Even if one were to accept the DWP’s argument about cost, the public interest in disclosing this information far outweighs any administrative or financial burden. Transparency in government operations is not just a cornerstone of democratic accountability but also a matter of public welfare, trust, and ethical obligation.
Conclusion
The DWP’s handling of this FOI request has been nothing short of a magic act, filled with disappearing and reappearing information, misdirection, and illusion. Such tactics not only undermine the DWP’s credibility but also erode public trust in government institutions. It’s time for the DWP to drop the act and adhere to the principles of transparency and accountability that are the bedrock of a democratic society. ICO must now decide on whether the information should be released.
What can be done about MPs who don’t focus on representing their constituents?
The prevalence of images like the one displayed below is regrettably on the rise as some MPs seek to prioritise personal financial gain over their elected duties, while attempting to shape public sentiment in their favour.
Let’s take a look at some of the problems with it:
Neglecting Constituency Responsibilities: When MPs engage in external activities, it diverts their attention and time away from their constituents and the issues affecting their constituencies. This shows they are not committed to representing their constituents’ interests. Constituents and the electorate are primarily responsible for holding MPs accountable for neglecting constituency responsibilities through the democratic process, including elections.
Conflict of Interest: Holding multiple roles creates conflicts of interest. MPs are influenced by their outside affiliations, especially when connected to media or corporate interests, which compromises their impartiality when making legislative decisions. The UK Parliament and its Standards Committee oversee the registration of financial interests by MPs. They are responsible for ensuring compliance with rules related to conflicts of interest.
Prioritising Personal Ambitions: MPs are using their political careers as stepping stones to other lucrative opportunities, such as media or business ventures, and prioritising their personal ambitions over their elected duties. This concern falls under the domain of the Code of Conduct for MPs, and MPs themselves are individually responsible for ensuring that they prioritise their parliamentary duties over personal ambitions.
Accountability and Transparency: It’s impossible to maintain transparency and accountability when MPs are involved in multiple roles. Outside activities impact their parliamentary work and conflicts need addressing.
Time Management: MPs will not not have enough time to thoroughly research and debate important issues or engage in constituency work. MPs are individually responsible for managing their time effectively to fulfill their parliamentary duties. There may not be specific regulatory bodies overseeing time management, but public perception and party leadership may play a role in accountability.
Perception of Entitlement: MPs who take on high-profile external roles are seen as benefiting from their political position to secure opportunities that others may not have access to, reinforcing a perception of elitism. MPs are individually responsible for their actions that may create a perception of entitlement. Public opinion and media scrutiny contribute to holding MPs accountable for how they are perceived.
Impact on Public Trust: When MPs prioritise outside activities over their parliamentary responsibilities, it further erodes public trust in the political system and the belief that elected representatives are genuinely focused on serving the public. Public trust in MPs is a shared responsibility among MPs themselves, political parties, the media, and the electorate. Public opinion and media coverage play a significant role in shaping public trust.
What can the public do to put a stop to the self-serving practice?
Contact Your MP: Express your concerns directly to your Member of Parliament. You can write letters, send emails, or schedule meetings to discuss your worries about their dual roles and how it might affect their representation of your constituency.
Engage in Public Debate: Participate in public discussions and debates about the roles and responsibilities of MPs. Join local or national forums, attend public meetings, and use social media to voice your opinions and raise awareness about the issue.
Support Ethical MPs: Recognise and support MPs who are dedicated to their elected roles and prioritise their constituents. Encourage and endorse those who demonstrate a commitment to transparency, accountability, and ethical behaviour.
Petitions and Campaigns: Organise or sign petitions that call for stricter regulations or guidelines regarding MPs’ external roles. Support campaigns aimed at ensuring that elected representatives are fully focused on their parliamentary duties.
Engage with Political Parties: If you are a member of a political party, engage with party leadership to raise concerns about MPs taking on additional roles. Advocate for party policies that promote transparency and accountability among elected representatives.
Media Scrutiny: Encourage media outlets to investigate and report on MPs’ external activities and potential conflicts of interest. Media coverage can help raise awareness and hold MPs accountable.
Support Legislative Reforms: Advocate for legislative reforms that address the issue. This might include lobbying for stricter rules on MPs’ external employment or advocating for changes in parliamentary codes of conduct.
Vote Wisely: During elections, consider the track record and commitment of candidates to their parliamentary roles. Make informed choices by researching candidates and their past actions and statements regarding their responsibilities.
Community Engagement: Encourage local community organizations and civic groups to engage with MPs and hold them accountable for their actions. These groups can also organize events and discussions to highlight the issue.
Promote Civic Education: Advocate for better civic education in schools and communities to raise awareness about the roles and responsibilities of MPs and the importance of an active and engaged citizenry.
Transparency Initiatives: Support initiatives that promote transparency, such as demands for MPs to disclose all their outside interests and earnings. Transparency can help the public better understand potential conflicts of interest.
Legal Action: If there are clear violations of laws or parliamentary rules, consider seeking legal action or filing complaints with relevant authorities. Ensure that any actions taken are within the bounds of the law.
It’s important to note that addressing this issue may require a combination of grassroots efforts, political engagement, and changes in legislation or parliamentary codes of conduct. Public awareness and advocacy can play a significant role in holding MPs accountable for their actions and ensuring they prioritise their elected roles.
Related items
Stop UK lies & corruption 