Politicians without overbearing egos are truly rare beasts. If talking themselves up is a resigning offence - when they have convinced themselves they might be pivotal in bringing a big new employer into the country - we would be in by-election heaven.
But the notion that MPs are "self-employed" is as demeaning to the voters who put them there as the comments of Austin Mitchell. Damn near impossible to have respect for either of them. Get some new players please, who understand they are servants of the people until the people jerk their chains and turf them out.
And as for the holier-than-thou crap the kippers are spouting tonight - it's beyond parody. A party with more scumbags per square inch than any other.
Shades of Harold Wilson, George Brown and Department of Economic Affairs.
To be fair that was farce the first time round.
Even now, nearly fifty years later, I'm still gobsmacked that George Brown ever got to hold any kind of public office, let alone Foreign Secretary and Deputy PM.
Still, he did bless us with the Archbishop of Lima story...
Politicians without overbearing egos are truly rare beasts. If talking themselves up is a resigning offence - when they have convinced themselves they might be pivotal in bringing a big new employer into the country - we would be in by-election heaven.
But the notion that MPs are "self-employed" is as demeaning to the voters who put them there as the comments of Austin Mitchell. Damn near impossible to have respect for either of them. Get some new players please, who understand they are servants of the people until the people jerk their chains and turf them out.
And as for the holier-than-thou crap the kippers are spouting tonight - it's beyond parody. A party with more scumbags per square inch than any other.
I think you will find there are just as many if not more scumbags in the Tory party. Just one of the reasons so many of us abandoned them.
It is a major fault with our version of democracy, the people who make it to the top are seldom the ones who should. (Your percentage of good to bad varies by cynicism)
On topic, from what I've experienced personally when mixing socially with MPs in the past, bragging about their well-connectedness is rife. As is the name-dropping.
It is normally exaggerated.
Not just MPs, of course. In fact pretty much anyone at a London drinks party.
I have a rule: the more you have to talk about it, the less true it probably is.
There's an old US Teamster leader saying - "Being powerful's like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you ain't"
And as my granny would say, "There's no fool like an old fool".
Apart from a couple of delayed peerages, much real impact?
It is a major fault with our version of democracy, the people who make it to the top are seldom the ones who should. (Your percentage of good to bad varies by cynicism)
As opposed to which superior version of democracy?
Interesting that in the week when the Telegraph is lambasted for its journalistic ethics, it is the paper which comes up with a scoop - albeit it is Channel 4 which did the sting.
@Richard_Nabavi I am in favour of the "random parliament", where each month we invite some people down to shout and scream at each other, with offers of cheap booze and meals. Actual law can be sorted the same way as it is now, multi nationals will decide it.
In all honesty, I doubt it will do much - other than make it more likely that those who probably weren't going to vote anyway, actually don't vote and people who had thrown their lot in with UKIP or the greens may be a bit more likely to go along to next weeks' campaign meeting.
Politicians without overbearing egos are truly rare beasts. If talking themselves up is a resigning offence - when they have convinced themselves they might be pivotal in bringing a big new employer into the country - we would be in by-election heaven.
But the notion that MPs are "self-employed" is as demeaning to the voters who put them there as the comments of Austin Mitchell. Damn near impossible to have respect for either of them. Get some new players please, who understand they are servants of the people until the people jerk their chains and turf them out.
And as for the holier-than-thou crap the kippers are spouting tonight - it's beyond parody. A party with more scumbags per square inch than any other.
A typically complete lack of self-awareness by a supporter of the party whose representatives are not fit to adorn the undersides of their predecessors shoes!
PS And I had little intent on saying anything on this issue before I saw this typical piece of moronic excrement!
Watched "Meet the ukippers" the press officers came over well I thought _ ok they had a bit of a clown thing going on... but hey everyone has their hobbies.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind I perhaps naively thought was above this. Such an apparently genuine grantee no better than Stephen Byers. Straw surprises me too but not as much as Sir Malcolm.
"It is claimed that Mr Straw was recorded describing how he operated "under the radar" and had used his influence to change EU rules on behalf of a firm which paid him £60,000 a year. On the subject of payment, Mr Straw allegedly said: "So normally, if I'm doing a speech or something, it's £5,000 a day, that's what I charge.
Rifkind
Sir Malcolm is reported to have claimed he could arrange "useful access" to every British ambassador in the world.
Watched "Meet the ukippers" the press officers came over well I thought _ ok they had a bit of a clown thing going on... but hey everyone has their hobbies.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind I perhaps naively thought was above this. Such an apparently genuine grantee no better than Stephen Byers. Straw surprises me too but not as much as Sir Malcolm.
A genuinely sad day for British politics
Given the way Straw was supposed to have 'won his spurs' as a SPAD in the Wilson Government nothing surprises me about him.....
Politicians without overbearing egos are truly rare beasts. If talking themselves up is a resigning offence - when they have convinced themselves they might be pivotal in bringing a big new employer into the country - we would be in by-election heaven.
But the notion that MPs are "self-employed" is as demeaning to the voters who put them there as the comments of Austin Mitchell. Damn near impossible to have respect for either of them. Get some new players please, who understand they are servants of the people until the people jerk their chains and turf them out.
And as for the holier-than-thou crap the kippers are spouting tonight - it's beyond parody. A party with more scumbags per square inch than any other.
I think you will find there are just as many if not more scumbags in the Tory party. Just one of the reasons so many of us abandoned them.
The conviction rates would suggest otherwise.
Jeez, kippers really think their very smelly shit don't stink.
Oh jeez, its seems Cameron has said he will continue to protect all the pensioner bribes that Gordo gave out...bloody free TV licenses should be the first to go.
Sir Malcolm told the BBC: "Channel 4 have confirmed in writing that I made clear that I would not assist any company to acquire information that was not already public.
"Trying to influence a decision or to receive privileged information would be improper."
Asked if he thought the allegations had any bearing on his role as security committee chairman, he said: "None whatsoever."
Sir Malcolm told the BBC: "Channel 4 have confirmed in writing that I made clear that I would not assist any company to acquire information that was not already public.
"Trying to influence a decision or to receive privileged information would be improper."
Asked if he thought the allegations had any bearing on his role as security committee chairman, he said: "None whatsoever."
Sounds like he is going to fight this.
He's not going to go down well, what with his "I'm self employed" bollocks. I used to hold him in quite high regard, no longer.
Meanwhile in other news Nick Clegg utterly misrepresents the issues regarding Prison overpopulation by refusing to acknowledge that the explosion in prison population was caused by the liberalisation of sentencing policy inthe early 1990's.
Its not Prisons that don't work its Liberalism....
As for the crap about Women in custody. They now through the misandrist manner in which sentencing policy has been implemented make up less than 5% of the Prison population. So Clegg is pandering to women once more when there isn't a significant problem. Auntie Hattie will be pleased....
Being autistic means that I have a bit of a mental block on things to do with finance, so I don't really know what it is that Rifkind and Straw are actually accused of doing - or whether it is "wrong" for them to do it, even if they did do it, which seems to be uncertain.
I don't get the idea of someone being paid £5,000 for making a speech. I don't know what people actually mean when they say words like "access" and "consultancy". If the information (whatever information it is that they are talking about) is already in the public domain and not "privileged", then what's wrong with just Google-ing it? Why do they have to pay someone like Rifkind thousands of pounds to find out whatever it is?
Has all this Rifkind-and-Straw-payment-access-gate been conjured up as a plot by UKIP to deflect attention away from Thanet-South-racist-woman-programme-gate?
I don't get the idea of someone being paid £5,000 for making a speech. I don't know what people actually mean when they say words like "access" and "consultancy". If the information (whatever information it is that they are talking about) is already in the public domain and not "privileged", then what's wrong with just Google-ing it? Why do they have to pay someone like Rifkind thousands of pounds to find out whatever it is?
$5,000 is pretty small beer for an after dinner speaker these days, I believe Blair for example is charging several times that and both Clintons somewhere in excess of twenty times that.
"Access" I think is a fancy word for getting an introduction, i.e. getting to meet someone that you probably could in theory meet anyway but might otherwise have trouble getting them to make a slot in their diary for you, such as ministers, CEOs and other busy people with vigilant gatekeepers keeping their diary for them.
I don't know but I suspect the "googling it" bit is about credibility and provenance, if you get some figures off the web they probably are treated with more than a certain scepticism in official and executive circles, if you tell your clients that you got the information from a senior MP and the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee it's going to be taken a lot more seriously especially if there is accompanying documentation (such as a letter) confirming this, what is more it will give that person much more credibility as someone who "knows the right people" probably essential for lobbyists.
The Times: "Jack Straw agreed to be suspended from the Labour Party last night after he was caught up in a cash-for-access investigation that sought to ensnare two former foreign secretaries." Ahem ...... was he actually given any choice in the matter I wonder? The words "dry", "out" and "hung" spring to mind.
Cameron says that a Tory government would protect pensioners benefits, because they always vote and are more Tory that younger generations. What a surprise ! I thought we were all in this together.
Cameron says that a Tory government would protect pensioners benefits, because they always vote and are more Tory that younger generations. What a surprise ! I thought we were all in this together.
Agreed, a bit silly that there isn't a means test on the free TV license and winter fuel allowance.
Cameron says that a Tory government would protect pensioners benefits, because they always vote and are more Tory that younger generations. What a surprise ! I thought we were all in this together.
Agreed, a bit silly that there isn't a means test on the free TV license and winter fuel allowance.
Far too complicated and intrusive.
Just make it taxable income.
(Actually I'd rather just abolish it and roll it up into the annual state pension, but whatever)
Cameron says that a Tory government would protect pensioners benefits, because they always vote and are more Tory that younger generations. What a surprise ! I thought we were all in this together.
Agreed, a bit silly that there isn't a means test on the free TV license and winter fuel allowance.
Far too complicated and intrusive.
Just make it taxable income.
(Actually I'd rather just abolish it and roll it up into the annual state pension, but whatever)
Yes, and while they are at it make the winter fuel payment mandatory and roll that into the pension as well, it has to cost more to administer than it ever saves by not giving it out some years.
I am not a pensioner, but my preference would be to roll of the odds and ends into the state pension with a generous one off uplift to make it palatable politically speaking, and then scrap all the various extra benefits to simplify the system, and tax the total amount of benefits added as income so that it doesn't look like an outrageous give-away to wealthy pensioners.
Intesting how our political class monsters Putin over Ukraine and imposes sanctions, but is quite happy to do business with communist China who have been occupying Tibet since invading it in 1951 with along record of brutality against anyone there who objects.
Cameron says that a Tory government would protect pensioners benefits, because they always vote and are more Tory that younger generations. What a surprise ! I thought we were all in this together.
Agreed, a bit silly that there isn't a means test on the free TV license and winter fuel allowance.
Yes and no. Can a means-test be done easily? I've not given any thought to this particular case but often the cost is either an inflated bureaucracy to collect and process information (see various NHS "market" reforms) or linking together different government databases, which has civil liberties and/or privacy implications. Flat-rate, universal benefits are cheap to administer. The down-side, obviously, is that more is paid out, sometimes to undeserving cases, but there is a trade-off.
Meanwhile in other news Nick Clegg utterly misrepresents the issues regarding Prison overpopulation by refusing to acknowledge that the explosion in prison population was caused by the liberalisation of sentencing policy inthe early 1990's.
Its not Prisons that don't work its Liberalism....
As for the crap about Women in custody. They now through the misandrist manner in which sentencing policy has been implemented make up less than 5% of the Prison population. So Clegg is pandering to women once more when there isn't a significant problem. Auntie Hattie will be pleased....
What does "liberalisation of sentencing policy" mean? It sounds like going easy on wrongdoers, how can that end up with prison overpopulation? Genuine question.
Cameron says that a Tory government would protect pensioners benefits, because they always vote and are more Tory that younger generations. What a surprise ! I thought we were all in this together.
Agreed, a bit silly that there isn't a means test on the free TV license and winter fuel allowance.
Far too complicated and intrusive.
Just make it taxable income.
(Actually I'd rather just abolish it and roll it up into the annual state pension, but whatever)
Well, I’m a fairly comfortably-off pensioner; not rich by any means but I pay around a grand in tax per year. I would have no objection to having my winter fuel allowance included in my taxable income and while it was nice when I didn’t have to pay the TV licence fee any more I wouldn’t object to that being included in my coding. I use my bus pass quite a lot and if there was a charge of (say) £10 for renewing it, I’d have no objection but I can see the consequent administration problems with both collection and exemptions for those who aren’t as well off. Same with prescription charges.
Actually Cameron’s shameless attempts at buying my vote make me even less inclined to vote Tory. Not that that was at all likely, anyway!
I have to say I despise this sort of journalism whether it's channel 4 stitching up a few politicians or one of Murdoch's rubbish journals doing a kiss and tell. Why we don't have laws against agent provocateurs I don't know.
@faisalislam: while an ISC chair talking in this way to Chinese company doesn't look great, is HK co wanting invest in hs3 property a security conflict?
@grvlx001: Rifkind: asked for right of reply in Channel 4 Despatches programme, was refused
The Times: "Jack Straw agreed to be suspended from the Labour Party last night after he was caught up in a cash-for-access investigation that sought to ensnare two former foreign secretaries." Ahem ...... was he actually given any choice in the matter I wonder? The words "dry", "out" and "hung" spring to mind.
It might be a good time to bet on the Conservatives in Rossendale.
Oh jeez, its seems Cameron has said he will continue to protect all the pensioner bribes that Gordo gave out...bloody free TV licenses should be the first to go.
And he's added further bribes such as Pensioner Bonds on top.
The political stables need a further cleansing.All political lobbying payments need to be declared on a public register giving company paying and name of recipient.and while we are it political donations above £5000 should also be on a public register Parliament is there to protect the people not to further the interests of the powerful companies...
@politicshome: SIr Malcolm Rifkind tells the Today programme he will fight the cash for access claims "with all my strength"
Echoes of Jonathan Aitken, Neil Hamilton, Jeffrey Archer and Maria Miller.
Sleezy Tories never learn.
Normally I would agree with you, however, the difference between Rifkind and the others mentioned, is that he is a very intelligent QC. I suspect that if it went to court, C4 and the Telegraph might find it a very painful experience.
@BBCJLandale: Ch4 letter to Rifkind: "We will...include your clarification that you were not offering access to any privileged or secret information."
Which does kinda put the Outrage Bus up on bricks.... But the damage is done. Channel 4 just better hope that Sir Malcolm isn't so well regarded in the intelligence community that It starts getting some embarrassing material leaked by way of payback.
@politicshome: SIr Malcolm Rifkind tells the Today programme he will fight the cash for access claims "with all my strength"
Echoes of Jonathan Aitken, Neil Hamilton, Jeffrey Archer and Maria Miller.
Sleezy Tories never learn.
Normally I would agree with you, however, the difference between Rifkind and the others mentioned, is that he is a very intelligent QC. I suspect that if it went to court, C4 and the Telegraph might find it a very painful experience.
But not so intelligent to avoid this problem.
And the record of posh Tories taking cases to court isn't good.
So will Cameron learn from his mistake with Maria Miller and sack Rifkind or will he seek to protect the posh parasite ?
Rifkind's "I can't afford to live on an MP's pay, I'm self-employed and have lots of free time" line is really not going to go down well.
Sack him from what ?
From wiki:
' He was appointed chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, on 6 July 2010, a post he will hold for the duration of the Parliament.'
And he could be deselected as an MP - shouldn't be difficult for the Notting Hill Cameroons.
What Cameron should say is "Unlike the previous Labour government I will not tolerate this sort of sleeze. Government and parliament must not only be clean and honest but seen to be so. I have therefore told Malcolm Rifkind to resign with immediate effect as chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee and as MP for Kensington."
So will Cameron learn from his mistake with Maria Miller and sack Rifkind or will he seek to protect the posh parasite ?
Rifkind's "I can't afford to live on an MP's pay, I'm self-employed and have lots of free time" line is really not going to go down well.
Sack him from what ?
From wiki:
' He was appointed chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, on 6 July 2010, a post he will hold for the duration of the Parliament.'
And he could be deselected as an MP - shouldn't be difficult for the Notting Hill Cameroons.
What Cameron should say is "Unlike the previous Labour government I will not tolerate this sort of sleeze. Government and parliament must not only be clean and honest but seen to be so. I have therefore told Malcolm Rifkind to resign with immediate effect as chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee and as MP for Kensington."
He was nominated by Cameron, the House voted to appoint him Chairman and only the House can remove him.
Is to stop the PM of the day removing Chair of Committees like Blair did.
Glad to see you're such a fan of guilty until you prove your innocence.
On one of our more usual topics, quite an interesting RedBox poll on what the LibDems ought to do. Basically stand up for the EU, immigration and human rights, rather than either defending their role in government or apologising for it.
Seems unfair to fire Rifkind from the Chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee over these not particularly devastating corruption allegations when he could be much more appropriately fired for the mendacious and/or incompetent way he's been chairing the Intelligence Committee.
But 51 per cent of voters want Mr Cameron to make clear he won’t agree a post-election pact with Ukip in order to remain Prime Minister, the poll reveals.
Only 30 per cent say he should leave the option open. And 57 per cent say Labour leader Mr Miliband should do the same, compared with 24 per cent who say he shouldn’t.
Elsewhere, the poll shows that 29 per cent think both main party leaders should rule out a deal with the Liberal Democrats.
It also found that 39 per cent say Mr Miliband should make clear he won’t agree a pact with the SNP - something he has so far refused to do.
But 51 per cent of voters want Mr Cameron to make clear he won’t agree a post-election pact with Ukip in order to remain Prime Minister, the poll reveals.
Only 30 per cent say he should leave the option open. And 57 per cent say Labour leader Mr Miliband should do the same, compared with 24 per cent who say he shouldn’t.
Elsewhere, the poll shows that 29 per cent think both main party leaders should rule out a deal with the Liberal Democrats.
It also found that 39 per cent say Mr Miliband should make clear he won’t agree a pact with the SNP - something he has so far refused to do.
Hmm, not sure what the voters' opinion has to do with this. It's unlikely to swing their votes, and they're not experts in political strategy so there's no reason to think doing what they suggest would be smart politics.
I think Bad Al Campbell is one of the most tedious tweeters out there - if it's not some anti tory bile, it's yet another plug for one of his books. Dull in the extreme.
But 51 per cent of voters want Mr Cameron to make clear he won’t agree a post-election pact with Ukip in order to remain Prime Minister, the poll reveals.
Only 30 per cent say he should leave the option open. And 57 per cent say Labour leader Mr Miliband should do the same, compared with 24 per cent who say he shouldn’t.
Elsewhere, the poll shows that 29 per cent think both main party leaders should rule out a deal with the Liberal Democrats.
It also found that 39 per cent say Mr Miliband should make clear he won’t agree a pact with the SNP - something he has so far refused to do.
Hmm, not sure what the voters' opinion has to do with this. It's unlikely to swing their votes, and they're not experts in political strategy so there's no reason to think doing what they suggest would be smart politics.
I think there's a belief that there are some in England won't vote for a party that refuses to rule out a pact with the SNP.
So will Cameron learn from his mistake with Maria Miller and sack Rifkind or will he seek to protect the posh parasite ?
Rifkind's "I can't afford to live on an MP's pay, I'm self-employed and have lots of free time" line is really not going to go down well.
Sack him from what ?
From wiki:
' He was appointed chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, on 6 July 2010, a post he will hold for the duration of the Parliament.'
And he could be deselected as an MP - shouldn't be difficult for the Notting Hill Cameroons.
What Cameron should say is "Unlike the previous Labour government I will not tolerate this sort of sleeze. Government and parliament must not only be clean and honest but seen to be so. I have therefore told Malcolm Rifkind to resign with immediate effect as chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee and as MP for Kensington."
He was nominated by Cameron, the House voted to appoint him Chairman and only the House can remove him.
Is to stop the PM of the day removing Chair of Committees like Blair did.
Glad to see you're such a fan of guilty until you prove your innocence.
For a lawyer you're not very good at reading details are you.
Which is why I wrote that Cameron should ask Rifkind to resign.
If Rifkind is an honourable man I'm sure he would be willing to do so.
If he didn't then we're likely to get the Maria Miller embarrassment again.
Glad to see you're such a defender of sleezy Tories.
I mean they can't do them all in the hope some might bite as each time the story is spun the chances of exposure become more. They have to identify those they really think would take the bait. If they think they might take the bait then why do they think that? ( over and above of course the fact they are politicians).
But 51 per cent of voters want Mr Cameron to make clear he won’t agree a post-election pact with Ukip in order to remain Prime Minister, the poll reveals.
Only 30 per cent say he should leave the option open. And 57 per cent say Labour leader Mr Miliband should do the same, compared with 24 per cent who say he shouldn’t.
Elsewhere, the poll shows that 29 per cent think both main party leaders should rule out a deal with the Liberal Democrats.
It also found that 39 per cent say Mr Miliband should make clear he won’t agree a pact with the SNP - something he has so far refused to do.
Hmm, not sure what the voters' opinion has to do with this. It's unlikely to swing their votes, and they're not experts in political strategy so there's no reason to think doing what they suggest would be smart politics.
I think there's a belief that there are some in England won't vote for a party that refuses to rule out a pact with the SNP.
Maybe some, like one or two, but the vast majority won't be able to keep track of who said they'd work with who if the election outcome was what.
So will Cameron learn from his mistake with Maria Miller and sack Rifkind or will he seek to protect the posh parasite ?
Rifkind's "I can't afford to live on an MP's pay, I'm self-employed and have lots of free time" line is really not going to go down well.
Sack him from what ?
From wiki:
' He was appointed chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, on 6 July 2010, a post he will hold for the duration of the Parliament.'
And he could be deselected as an MP - shouldn't be difficult for the Notting Hill Cameroons.
What Cameron should say is "Unlike the previous Labour government I will not tolerate this sort of sleeze. Government and parliament must not only be clean and honest but seen to be so. I have therefore told Malcolm Rifkind to resign with immediate effect as chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee and as MP for Kensington."
He was nominated by Cameron, the House voted to appoint him Chairman and only the House can remove him.
Is to stop the PM of the day removing Chair of Committees like Blair did.
Glad to see you're such a fan of guilty until you prove your innocence.
For a lawyer you're not very good at reading details are you.
Which is why I wrote that Cameron should ask Rifkind to resign.
If Rifkind is an honourable man I'm sure he would be willing to do so.
If he didn't then we're likely to get the Maria Miller embarrassment again.
Glad to see you're such a defender of sleezy Tories.
So when you wrote at 8.32
"So will Cameron learn from his mistake with Maria Miller and sack Rifkind or will he seek to protect the posh parasite ?"
I'm assuming you're not a morning person, and forget what you wrote a few moments earlier.
(When I think someone has done something warranting resignation I say so, like when Maria Miller's expenses first became an issue)
But 51 per cent of voters want Mr Cameron to make clear he won’t agree a post-election pact with Ukip in order to remain Prime Minister, the poll reveals.
Only 30 per cent say he should leave the option open. And 57 per cent say Labour leader Mr Miliband should do the same, compared with 24 per cent who say he shouldn’t.
Elsewhere, the poll shows that 29 per cent think both main party leaders should rule out a deal with the Liberal Democrats.
It also found that 39 per cent say Mr Miliband should make clear he won’t agree a pact with the SNP - something he has so far refused to do.
Do you have a link? Can't see these figures on the YouGov site.
On one of our more usual topics, quite an interesting RedBox poll on what the LibDems ought to do. Basically stand up for the EU, immigration and human rights, rather than either defending their role in government or apologising for it.
I don't see why Labour wouldn't rule out a coalition with the SNP anyway. If Labour head a minority government they can do deals with whoever they want, but to be joined at the hip in a formal coalition with them is never going to happen.
But 51 per cent of voters want Mr Cameron to make clear he won’t agree a post-election pact with Ukip in order to remain Prime Minister, the poll reveals.
Only 30 per cent say he should leave the option open. And 57 per cent say Labour leader Mr Miliband should do the same, compared with 24 per cent who say he shouldn’t.
Elsewhere, the poll shows that 29 per cent think both main party leaders should rule out a deal with the Liberal Democrats.
It also found that 39 per cent say Mr Miliband should make clear he won’t agree a pact with the SNP - something he has so far refused to do.
Do you have a link? Can't see these figures on the YouGov site.
It has only appeared on the Sun website in the last hour, so probably won't be on YouGov's website yet, probably in a couple of hours time.
So will Cameron learn from his mistake with Maria Miller and sack Rifkind or will he seek to protect the posh parasite ?
Rifkind's "I can't afford to live on an MP's pay, I'm self-employed and have lots of free time" line is really not going to go down well.
Like it or not MPs do have lots of spare time. Not only when the House is sitting but when it is not. it goes with being an MP, and MPs do lots of different things with that time. Being an MP is not like being on a production line. If you are people like say Tom Watson you use your time bullying and plotting on behalf of Gordon Brown. Indeed if your names are Ed Balls and Ed Miliband you join in. And they were doing it right after 7/7/ when you might think there were better things to do. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8567023/Labour-coup-Gordon-Browns-cabal-hatched-plot-in-midst-of-terrorist-crisis.html
Rifkind's "I can't afford to live on an MP's pay, I'm self-employed and have lots of free time" line is really not going to go down well.
I don't think that's what he said - do you have a link?
I thought it was "I'm self-employed, I get to organise my own days". The point he was making is that he can fit consultancy work around his own responsibilities. Elsewhere he said "no one pays me a salary, I have to earn my own money" - I don't know if that is technically true? (perhaps @NickPalmer might know) - which is really a set up for a fee discussion
I agree with you, though, that it's not going to go down well!
That said, we really do need to have a discussion about exactly what an MP's role is. The fact that someone can be a minster as well as an MP is prime facie evidence that a MP role is not full time. I'd see two elements to compensation:
(1) Everyone receives an MP flat rate fee plus out-of-pocket expenses, with secretaries employed centrally (although selected by MP from a qualified list) and core office equipment/technology, etc provided centrally. I'd actually set this at the median salary for a London-based employee. Good enough to provide a decent standard of living, but not enough to make anyone rich.
(2) Ministers and office holders (e.g. committee chairman) then receive an additional payment, but such payment automatically excludes them from taking on any external work. This should be generous. Ex-ministers should also receive a payment (say half rate) for 5 years post : they don't need to do any work for this 'pension' but are not allowed to take on any external paid work while in receipt.
(3) All other MPs are allowed - encouraged - to seek external work, subject to full transparency on what they are doing. Hopefully with a relatively low MP fee this will try to offset the risk that if someone looks for external work it is used as the basis for a political attack
So will Cameron learn from his mistake with Maria Miller and sack Rifkind or will he seek to protect the posh parasite ?
Rifkind's "I can't afford to live on an MP's pay, I'm self-employed and have lots of free time" line is really not going to go down well.
Sack him from what ?
From wiki:
' He was appointed chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, on 6 July 2010, a post he will hold for the duration of the Parliament.'
And he could be deselected as an MP - shouldn't be difficult for the Notting Hill Cameroons.
What Cameron should say is "Unlike the previous Labour government I will not tolerate this sort of sleeze. Government and parliament must not only be clean and honest but seen to be so. I have therefore told Malcolm Rifkind to resign with immediate effect as chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee and as MP for Kensington."
He was nominated by Cameron, the House voted to appoint him Chairman and only the House can remove him.
Is to stop the PM of the day removing Chair of Committees like Blair did.
Glad to see you're such a fan of guilty until you prove your innocence.
For a lawyer you're not very good at reading details are you.
Which is why I wrote that Cameron should ask Rifkind to resign.
If Rifkind is an honourable man I'm sure he would be willing to do so.
If he didn't then we're likely to get the Maria Miller embarrassment again.
Glad to see you're such a defender of sleezy Tories.
So when you wrote at 8.32
"So will Cameron learn from his mistake with Maria Miller and sack Rifkind or will he seek to protect the posh parasite ?"
I'm assuming you're not a morning person, and forget what you wrote a few moments earlier.
(When I think someone has done something warranting resignation I say so, like when Maria Miller's expenses first became an issue)
I meant in just the same way as Cameron forced the retirement of embarrassing MPs in the expenses scandal.
Often MPs who had followed the rules and done nothing wrong (except get bad publicity) - the duckhouse bloke for example.
I don't remember you frothing about Cameron treating the innocent as guilty but perhaps I'm mistaken.
Now if you'll forgive me I have to do some proper work so if you wish to continue the discusssion it will have to wait until this evening.
Rifkind's "I can't afford to live on an MP's pay, I'm self-employed and have lots of free time" line is really not going to go down well.
I don't think that's what he said - do you have a link?
I thought it was "I'm self-employed, I get to organise my own days". The point he was making is that he can fit consultancy work around his own responsibilities. Elsewhere he said "no one pays me a salary, I have to earn my own money" - I don't know if that is technically true? (perhaps @NickPalmer might know) - which is really a set up for a fee discussion
I agree with you, though, that it's not going to go down well!
That said, we really do need to have a discussion about exactly what an MP's role is. The fact that someone can be a minster as well as an MP is prime facie evidence that a MP role is not full time. I'd see two elements to compensation:
(1) Everyone receives an MP flat rate fee plus out-of-pocket expenses, with secretaries employed centrally (although selected by MP from a qualified list) and core office equipment/technology, etc provided centrally. I'd actually set this at the median salary for a London-based employee. Good enough to provide a decent standard of living, but not enough to make anyone rich.
(2) Ministers and office holders (e.g. committee chairman) then receive an additional payment, but such payment automatically excludes them from taking on any external work. This should be generous. Ex-ministers should also receive a payment (say half rate) for 5 years post : they don't need to do any work for this 'pension' but are not allowed to take on any external paid work while in receipt.
(3) All other MPs are allowed - encouraged - to seek external work, subject to full transparency on what they are doing. Hopefully with a relatively low MP fee this will try to offset the risk that if someone looks for external work it is used as the basis for a political attack
I don't know where Rifkind gets the line about "no one pays my salary" from. This is the statement about MPs pay on their own house of commons website:
"The basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2014 is £67,060."
'Oh jeez, its seems Cameron has said he will continue to protect all the pensioner bribes that Gordo gave out...bloody free TV licenses should be the first to go.'
Hopefully he'll pass the cost of the free TV licenses to the BBC..
Charles and others - it's not true that MPs are self-employed: they are employed by the Commons and paid £66000 or whatever it is. They may in addition have outside interests so are also self-employed for those.
It is both true and false that they have a lot of spare time. It's true that nobody micromanages what MPs do. The whips only care how you vote and whether you say something disgraceful. What you do between say 9 and 12 next Friday they couldn't care less. Most voters only really pay attention every 5 years (if then).
On the other hand, if you have a marginal seat, the job as currently practiced is a bottomless pit. There is an effectively infinite number of things you might and perhaps ought to be doing - regularly ringing or visiting all your 70,000 constituents individually (or you're "out of touch"), researching every Bill you'll vote on (or you're "voting blindly according to the whips"), writing thoughtful analyses (or you're "failing to contribute to current debate") and proposing new amendments and legislation, interacting with NGOs to understand their concerns, following events around the world to learn from them, etc.
MPs vary hugely in what they do with that space, but relatively few conclude "I don't really need to do anything, so let me sign up for a lot of consultancies and earn lots more money". I think that some outside work is a useful contact with the real world, but everyone draws the line differently.
Comments
But the notion that MPs are "self-employed" is as demeaning to the voters who put them there as the comments of Austin Mitchell. Damn near impossible to have respect for either of them. Get some new players please, who understand they are servants of the people until the people jerk their chains and turf them out.
And as for the holier-than-thou crap the kippers are spouting tonight - it's beyond parody. A party with more scumbags per square inch than any other.
Even now, nearly fifty years later, I'm still gobsmacked that George Brown ever got to hold any kind of public office, let alone Foreign Secretary and Deputy PM.
Still, he did bless us with the Archbishop of Lima story...
That should ensure last time is surpassed.
(Your percentage of good to bad varies by cynicism)
And as my granny would say, "There's no fool like an old fool".
Apart from a couple of delayed peerages, much real impact?
I am in favour of the "random parliament", where each month we invite some people down to shout and scream at each other, with offers of cheap booze and meals.
Actual law can be sorted the same way as it is now, multi nationals will decide it.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/22/jack-straw-malcolm-rifkind-cash-for-access-channel-4-dispatches-telegraph?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
In all honesty, I doubt it will do much - other than make it more likely that those who probably weren't going to vote anyway, actually don't vote and people who had thrown their lot in with UKIP or the greens may be a bit more likely to go along to next weeks' campaign meeting.
It's confirmation bias for a lot of people.
"I thought I'd be pretty good at it."
PS And I had little intent on saying anything on this issue before I saw this typical piece of moronic excrement!
Sir Malcolm Rifkind I perhaps naively thought was above this. Such an apparently genuine grantee no better than Stephen Byers. Straw surprises me too but not as much as Sir Malcolm.
A genuinely sad day for British politics
Bbc news
"It is claimed that Mr Straw was recorded describing how he operated "under the radar" and had used his influence to change EU rules on behalf of a firm which paid him £60,000 a year. On the subject of payment, Mr Straw allegedly said: "So normally, if I'm doing a speech or something, it's £5,000 a day, that's what I charge.
Rifkind
Sir Malcolm is reported to have claimed he could arrange "useful access" to every British ambassador in the world.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31580374
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31574868
Yeah right....I will believe that when I see it.
Jeez, kippers really think their very smelly shit don't stink.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5wYiPeLlsE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpNm8FjbbcA
"Trying to influence a decision or to receive privileged information would be improper."
Asked if he thought the allegations had any bearing on his role as security committee chairman, he said: "None whatsoever."
Sounds like he is going to fight this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/11428075/The-MPs-who-topped-up-their-salaries-with-1600-an-hour-second-jobs.html
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/pipe/499903/clegg-outlines-prison-reform-policy/
Its not Prisons that don't work its Liberalism....
As for the crap about Women in custody. They now through the misandrist manner in which sentencing policy has been implemented make up less than 5% of the Prison population. So Clegg is pandering to women once more when there isn't a significant problem. Auntie Hattie will be pleased....
Labour plans to set up child protection unit in government, says Cooper
Shadow home secretary outlines plans for more joined-up approach to child protection, with earlier intervention and more sharing of information
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/23/labour-plans-to-set-up-child-protection-unit-in-government-says-cooper
15 YEARS TOO LATE!
I don't get the idea of someone being paid £5,000 for making a speech. I don't know what people actually mean when they say words like "access" and "consultancy". If the information (whatever information it is that they are talking about) is already in the public domain and not "privileged", then what's wrong with just Google-ing it? Why do they have to pay someone like Rifkind thousands of pounds to find out whatever it is?
"Access" I think is a fancy word for getting an introduction, i.e. getting to meet someone that you probably could in theory meet anyway but might otherwise have trouble getting them to make a slot in their diary for you, such as ministers, CEOs and other busy people with vigilant gatekeepers keeping their diary for them.
I don't know but I suspect the "googling it" bit is about credibility and provenance, if you get some figures off the web they probably are treated with more than a certain scepticism in official and executive circles, if you tell your clients that you got the information from a senior MP and the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee it's going to be taken a lot more seriously especially if there is accompanying documentation (such as a letter) confirming this, what is more it will give that person much more credibility as someone who "knows the right people" probably essential for lobbyists.
"Jack Straw agreed to be suspended from the Labour Party last night after he was caught up in a cash-for-access investigation that sought to ensnare two former foreign secretaries."
Ahem ...... was he actually given any choice in the matter I wonder?
The words "dry", "out" and "hung" spring to mind.
Just make it taxable income.
(Actually I'd rather just abolish it and roll it up into the annual state pension, but whatever)
I am not a pensioner, but my preference would be to roll of the odds and ends into the state pension with a generous one off uplift to make it palatable politically speaking, and then scrap all the various extra benefits to simplify the system, and tax the total amount of benefits added as income so that it doesn't look like an outrageous give-away to wealthy pensioners.
I use my bus pass quite a lot and if there was a charge of (say) £10 for renewing it, I’d have no objection but I can see the consequent administration problems with both collection and exemptions for those who aren’t as well off. Same with prescription charges.
Actually Cameron’s shameless attempts at buying my vote make me even less inclined to vote Tory. Not that that was at all likely, anyway!
@grvlx001: Rifkind: asked for right of reply in Channel 4 Despatches programme, was refused
Sleezy Tories never learn.
Perhaps there is less to this than meets the eye?
So which party is sleaziest? https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/12/12/ukip-now-most-sleazy-party/
@IanDunt: Jack Straw is defending himself by sounding even more slippery and unscrupulous than he usually does.
F1: Alonso was concussed. Next test is in a few days. No idea if he'll be driving.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/31575734
Edited extra bit: message for Mr. Corporeal, incidentally.
Parliament is there to protect the people not to further the interests of the powerful companies...
Rifkind's "I can't afford to live on an MP's pay, I'm self-employed and have lots of free time" line is really not going to go down well.
And the record of posh Tories taking cases to court isn't good.
Its the prominent people who are remembered.
' He was appointed chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, on 6 July 2010, a post he will hold for the duration of the Parliament.'
And he could be deselected as an MP - shouldn't be difficult for the Notting Hill Cameroons.
What Cameron should say is "Unlike the previous Labour government I will not tolerate this sort of sleeze. Government and parliament must not only be clean and honest but seen to be so. I have therefore told Malcolm Rifkind to resign with immediate effect as chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee and as MP for Kensington."
I'll aim low and guess 6.
Is to stop the PM of the day removing Chair of Committees like Blair did.
Glad to see you're such a fan of guilty until you prove your innocence.
http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/9b698eb3105bd82528f23d0c92dedfc0.html
But 51 per cent of voters want Mr Cameron to make clear he won’t agree a post-election pact with Ukip in order to remain Prime Minister, the poll reveals.
Only 30 per cent say he should leave the option open. And 57 per cent say Labour leader Mr Miliband should do the same, compared with 24 per cent who say he shouldn’t.
Elsewhere, the poll shows that 29 per cent think both main party leaders should rule out a deal with the Liberal Democrats.
It also found that 39 per cent say Mr Miliband should make clear he won’t agree a pact with the SNP - something he has so far refused to do.
Which is why I wrote that Cameron should ask Rifkind to resign.
If Rifkind is an honourable man I'm sure he would be willing to do so.
If he didn't then we're likely to get the Maria Miller embarrassment again.
Glad to see you're such a defender of sleezy Tories.
I mean they can't do them all in the hope some might bite as each time the story is spun the chances of exposure become more. They have to identify those they really think would take the bait. If they think they might take the bait then why do they think that? ( over and above of course the fact they are politicians).
Mmmmm....
"So will Cameron learn from his mistake with Maria Miller and sack Rifkind or will he seek to protect the posh parasite ?"
I'm assuming you're not a morning person, and forget what you wrote a few moments earlier.
(When I think someone has done something warranting resignation I say so, like when Maria Miller's expenses first became an issue)
He at least tried but failed to win it back in 2001 before following in the footsteps of many defeated Scots Tories to a seat in England.
BUT the ways of Westminster ultimately seem to lead too many astray.
Until you get hauled off to clink for fiddling expenses, natch.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8567023/Labour-coup-Gordon-Browns-cabal-hatched-plot-in-midst-of-terrorist-crisis.html
I thought it was "I'm self-employed, I get to organise my own days". The point he was making is that he can fit consultancy work around his own responsibilities. Elsewhere he said "no one pays me a salary, I have to earn my own money" - I don't know if that is technically true? (perhaps @NickPalmer might know) - which is really a set up for a fee discussion
I agree with you, though, that it's not going to go down well!
That said, we really do need to have a discussion about exactly what an MP's role is. The fact that someone can be a minster as well as an MP is prime facie evidence that a MP role is not full time. I'd see two elements to compensation:
(1) Everyone receives an MP flat rate fee plus out-of-pocket expenses, with secretaries employed centrally (although selected by MP from a qualified list) and core office equipment/technology, etc provided centrally. I'd actually set this at the median salary for a London-based employee. Good enough to provide a decent standard of living, but not enough to make anyone rich.
(2) Ministers and office holders (e.g. committee chairman) then receive an additional payment, but such payment automatically excludes them from taking on any external work. This should be generous. Ex-ministers should also receive a payment (say half rate) for 5 years post : they don't need to do any work for this 'pension' but are not allowed to take on any external paid work while in receipt.
(3) All other MPs are allowed - encouraged - to seek external work, subject to full transparency on what they are doing. Hopefully with a relatively low MP fee this will try to offset the risk that if someone looks for external work it is used as the basis for a political attack
Often MPs who had followed the rules and done nothing wrong (except get bad publicity) - the duckhouse bloke for example.
I don't remember you frothing about Cameron treating the innocent as guilty but perhaps I'm mistaken.
Now if you'll forgive me I have to do some proper work so if you wish to continue the discusssion it will have to wait until this evening.
"The basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2014 is £67,060."
http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/pay-mps/
'Oh jeez, its seems Cameron has said he will continue to protect all the pensioner bribes that Gordo gave out...bloody free TV licenses should be the first to go.'
Hopefully he'll pass the cost of the free TV licenses to the BBC..
It is both true and false that they have a lot of spare time. It's true that nobody micromanages what MPs do. The whips only care how you vote and whether you say something disgraceful. What you do between say 9 and 12 next Friday they couldn't care less. Most voters only really pay attention every 5 years (if then).
On the other hand, if you have a marginal seat, the job as currently practiced is a bottomless pit. There is an effectively infinite number of things you might and perhaps ought to be doing - regularly ringing or visiting all your 70,000 constituents individually (or you're "out of touch"), researching every Bill you'll vote on (or you're "voting blindly according to the whips"), writing thoughtful analyses (or you're "failing to contribute to current debate") and proposing new amendments and legislation, interacting with NGOs to understand their concerns, following events around the world to learn from them, etc.
MPs vary hugely in what they do with that space, but relatively few conclude "I don't really need to do anything, so let me sign up for a lot of consultancies and earn lots more money". I think that some outside work is a useful contact with the real world, but everyone draws the line differently.
For a lot of mps, it's a part time job, esp if you have an affluent electorate. Of course they are going to try and get paid elsewhere.
I don't see much wrong with anything reported in the telegraph
'researching every Bill you'll vote on (or you're "voting blindly according to the whips"),'
In the 13 years you were an MP how many times did you vote against the whips?