Should probe into George Osborne's BlackRock job be dropped?

• Business Questions 12th September. 

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

   

  When the former Chancellor, Mr George Osborne, left office, he took on a job with BlackRock finance, working four days a month for a remuneration of £650,000 a year. In pursuit of the investigations of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs into possible abuses of the revolving door by which former Ministers might be using their inside knowledge for financial gain, the Committee invited Mr Osborne to come to this House to explain allegations that he had had dealings with BlackRock finance when he was Chancellor, as a result of which the laws were changed in favour of BlackRock. Should we not insist that we debate this issue and renew the invitation to Mr Osborne to explain his position to the House in order to guard our reputation?
   

   

   

​

 

• Andrea Leadsom

  Leader of the House

  There are very tightly enforced, clear rules regarding what ex-Ministers are able to do both when they have left office and while they are still in office. The hon. Gentleman is merely putting forward a hypothesis in which I see no merit. He is taking the opportunity to criticise something when he has no evidence to support his case—that is extremely unfair.

   

  Comment. Andrea Leadsom is hopelessly mis-informed. The body that seeks to end the abuses of the revolving door is a toothless watchdog with zilch powers. George Osborne is known to have had 5 meetings with Blackrock when he was Chancellor.

Comments

[Ad]

Those with power, authority and material wealth using those circumstances to their own advantage and not caring at all about the rest of us? That is the legacy of his government. Take that how you will but ask yourself: what did he do for the poorest? He injured them, he oppressed them. There is a difference between the two sides. There is one side against another; weaker against stronger.

I repeat: it is not enough for them to have the lion's share, even to be content and hold on to it. They are driven to spoil the lot of others, to poison their well upon principle, to attack the poor. George Osborne is a clear example.

Take away from the poor, make them uncomfortable, that's their aim. The little you have they don't want you to enjoy. OK, why? I'll say what I think at least:

* They are selfish. They want to stop others getting to where they are because it will (in their view) dilute their wealth, privilege and power.

* Tradition, go back, way back through the industrial revolution and their attitude is consistent: grind and cheat the poor.

* Holding doctrines (political, economic even religious) that merely serve their own interests and satisfy their nasty, selfish, baseless principles.

*Infiltration, stabbing you and yours whilst using you, fibbing to you that we have a common interest that should unite us.

*And also: strangling the truth with all their influence and connections, to throw mud at anyone who doesn't like and accept it.

These things Osborne dares to do, as his class always has and will until we work out that we are forced into this situation, that if we refuse we suffer. They hold the reins, and can afflict and promote the false doctrines alluded to.

The core of our society is injustice.