Croydon (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Moonlighting MPs draw scrutiny as they lend support to controversial figure Basher Lewis in Sutton, raising ethical concerns over parliamentary priorities.
According to Rose Hill, dual-role representatives serving as both ward councillors and constituency MPs are increasingly struggling with the mounting pressure of their overlapping duties.
As reported by Inside Croydon, people in Sutton are starting to wonder if the two newly elected MPs for the borough are acting in the public interest or if they are putting their political parties and their own interests first.
During last July’s General Election, Liberal Democrats Luke Taylor and Bobby Dean were elected as Members of Parliament, ostensibly representing Sutton and Cheam and Carshalton and Wallington, respectively. Both had previously served as council members: Dean for The Wrythe and Taylor for Sutton West and East Cheam.
Additionally, both continue to serve as council members, each of whom is eligible to receive £12,600 in councillor allowances on top of their £91,000 annual MP salary. Of course, taxpayers paid for all of it.
However, it appears that those two potentially taxing positions are insufficient to keep Taylor and Dean completely busy.
In accordance with his own statement of members’ interests, Taylor was not satisfied with his wages from Sutton and Westminster and, until October, was also receiving £71,440 year for a third employment with an aviation consulting firm. What a high flier!
Born in Essex In the meantime, Dean mentioned two other ways he could channel his seemingly limitless energy, aside from his duties as a ward councillor and his full-time position as an MP. Dean stopped using his councilor allowances when he was elected to the House of Commons. However, he was listed as the sole director of Speak Change Ltd., a public relations firm with its headquarters located at Otter Drive in Carshalton, until the beginning of April. Additionally, he says he is a “producer” for Save the Children.
Moonlighting MPs Taylor and Dean seem to be failing at their public duties as a result of attempting to balance all these demanding commitments.
With Taylor serving as Sir Ed Davie’s spokesman on London and having front bench responsibilities, the LibDem pair has adopted a rather flexible approach to their Westminster duties. This is not bad for a young man from Lincolnshire who had twice failed to win parliamentary elections before striking it lucky in Sutton.
While serving as cheerleaders in two local by-elections, Taylor and Dean have been spending their time stabilizing the LibDems’ listing ship in Sutton rather than at the House of Commons dealing with issues of national relevance.
They are among the most costly council lobby fodder in the nation as a result.
At Sutton’s full council meeting last Monday, things reached a breaking point. The LibDem group, led by Barry “Basher” Lewis, needed the votes of both MPs at Sutton Civic Centre in order to thwart a Conservative motion that called for a consultation about the usage of e-bikes on Sutton High Street.
They also contributed to the passage of a second motion that made an ambiguous pledge to increase access to general practitioners. which is pleasant.
Dean said nothing at all. Taylor, his fellow MP, talked for a total of two minutes.
Only three members of the public were present in the viewing gallery, and security personnel outnumbered them.
The meeting’s only genuine spark of interest was when Liberal Democrat councillor Patrick Ogbonna defied convention and abstained from voting, an act of defiance that was almost unheard of among Sutton’s LibDems. Ogbonna’s distaste for Luke Taylor is well known by this point.
Critics contend that Taylor and Dean are entirely focused on local party politics and electioneering in the lead-up to the local elections in 2026, rather than carrying out their responsibilities as national lawmakers or attending to the issues of their local voters.
A ward by-election is held when many local council members shift up to the national level and become MPs, which can cost anywhere between £15,000 and £25,000 per ward, depending on the council and ward size.
Not every time does this happen perfectly.
Last year, Jim Dickson, a part-time Labour councillor in Lambeth and a full-time professional lobbyist for real estate developers (he was Steve Reed’s predecessor as council leader at Brixton Town Hall), unexpectedly found a hitherto unnoticed interest in the residents of Dartford and was elected as an MP there.
After Dickson decided to leave Lambeth Council in February, he continued to receive payments from Westminster and Brixton for some time.
This led to a by-election in Herne Hill and Loughborough Junction last Thursday. The Greens won that council seat from Labour, which is now incredibly unpopular across the country.
Furthermore, the LibDems in Sutton have already had to contend with two by-elections brought on by absent council members.
They were able to hold onto the seat in Sutton Central that was left empty by David Bartolucci, who had a terrible outburst after being fired by “basher” Lewis as the council’s deputy leader. Simply said, Bartolucci never bothered to attend any council sessions.
In preparation for a by-election brought on by absentee councillor Amy Haldane, who chose to spend her maternity leave in north London, the LibDem leafleting cult is currently active on the streets of Carshalton South and Clockhouse.
Regardless of how much the constituents of Sutton and Cheam, Carshalton, and Wallington could be affected, the Sutton LibDems party machine may not be in favor of Taylor or Dean resigning their council seats at this time.
What are the main arguments against discussing the Viridor incinerator in Sutton?
The council’s and the incinerator operator’s reputations could be harmed by an open discussion of frequent pollution violations, fires, and regulatory infractions. To avoid bad press and preserve the reputation of responsible waste management, leaders may steer clear of debate.
Councils may be concerned that public discussion of environmental and health hazards, such as violations of emissions regulations and issues with air quality, could exacerbate political backlash, community activism, and citizen worry.
One strategy for controlling the narrative and containing controversy is to steer out of conversation.
Authorities occasionally contend that additional public discussion is superfluous or redundant and that technical monitoring, regulatory compliance, and periodic reporting are adequate. Even when there is evidence to the contrary, they can assert that oversight is already being handled by internal committees or the Environment Agency.