The media have been having a corporate entertainment frenzy over the perks of Whitehall politicians. It seems that our MPs have been enjoying the likes of Wimbledon, light lunches and football matches for free thanks to having the odd meeting or two with bank bosses and petrol suppliers. I have always been under the impression that this kind of thing went on anyway, so is it really news? Every job has its perks, and the higher up your job is, then surely the perks improve. If MPs are going to have to declare each free lunch in a bid for transparency, should the guy who works in the pub declare that he gets the occasional free pint? And who is this affecting anyway, it is the companies that are providing the entertainment, not the tax payer; surely we should be glad that someone else is footing the bill.
The perks of any job vary; I have in my time worked in hotels, restaurants, bars and cafes and with each it brought a different set of complimentary goodies. The hotel gave me a heavily discounted rate if I wanted to stay in any of its hotels; the restaurant gave me free food cooked by one of the top chefs in the country; bar and cafe work saw a mixture of free drinks and cakes for me and my family. Working in these circles also got me VIP treatment at other establishments thanks to meeting others in the business. At one point, I didn't have to queue or pay to get into some of the top clubs in London, just because I knew the right people. This harmed no-one and it was out of the generosity of whoever was offering me the hospitality.
In light of this, isn't it just a case that being an MP gets you freebees that involve corporate entertainment? Free tickets to the circus are not paid for by the tax payer; a centre court seat at Wimbledon is not a gift from Joe Public either. The offer of tickets for such things are from a company that has paid for them. If Shell wanted to have a meeting with the Prime Minister and decided that inviting him along to the Grand National might be a nice idea, who are we to moan. If it were the other way round, then fair enough; if tax payers money was providing a place for MPs to impress oil company owners with corporate entertainment then there would be every reason to complain.
Maybe the furore is over whether this type of specialist treatment is being used to butter up the people that make the decisions about our economy. If so, that means that the big guys providing the corporate entertainment are in fact oiling the system in a way that smaller companies cannot, which is obviously a heavily biased situation. It's not like the bloke who owns the local coffee shop can afford to wine and dine his local MP when he wants to extend his entertainment licence for example. Corporate entertainment is for the corporations, and its very function is to entertain large companies in a bid to network effectively.
The fact that the FA paid for an MP to go to a football game is irrelevant, what would have been the outcome if the MP in question turned the ticket down? It would have either been an empty seat or another person with good connections sitting there.
Author Resource:-
Dom Donaldson is a hospitality expert.
Find out more about Corporate Entertainment and the packages that are available for prestigious sporting events, concerts and theatre at Keith Prowse.
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.articlesinsight.com/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites
