Rifkind and Straw. What a surprise! NOT!

mr_goo

Two more career politician playing the long game, but caught out doing it a wee bit too early. Just goes to prove that no MP is truly in politics for the good of the people.
The one that surprises me at the moment is Gordon Brown. I would have thought by now he would be well on the way to trousering £millions by sitting on the boards of half dozen multi-nationals and brokering trade deals. Would imagine that Camoron and Boy George are planning their fall back positions for the summer.

slowmart

Amazingly the two you mention will probably still be in the same positions post May?


We shouldn't be surprised but its disappointing all the same but it adds an extra depth to hear the excuses when they have been caught bang to rights.

VTech

My shock isn't that this is now news, its that people really don't think this is the way things are

I don't actually think that these will/can be found guilty of an offence unless more evidence comes forward, Straw has categorically claimed he was referring too "after" his exit from government/polotics about what he could offer, I would be surprised if he would make that statement if it were not true because if it were a lie he would be completely finished.
I also favour media and newspapers in less of a degree than politicians as they all lie to get what they want.

If you want decent politics it can't happen as we have it because to make the changes needed for the real people, you would have to upset the masses but people are fickle and tend to only care about the here and now and this doesn't work with doing whats right.

morstar

VTech wrote:

If you want decent politics it can't happen as we have it because to make the changes needed for the real people, you would have to upset the masses but people are fickle and tend to only care about the here and now and this doesn't work with doing whats right.

Agree completely that people in general have a very short term view on the best way to manage a society but your use of the word "masses" is ambiguous.

Do you, as a purported wealthy individual mean that the 'working man' doesn't know what's good for him and should listen to the likes of yourself more or do you include all classes and creeds within the term 'masses'?

If the latter, I agree, if the former, well, let the arguments commence!

VTech

morstar wrote:

VTech wrote:

If you want decent politics it can't happen as we have it because to make the changes needed for the real people, you would have to upset the masses but people are fickle and tend to only care about the here and now and this doesn't work with doing whats right.

Agree completely that people in general have a very short term view on the best way to manage a society but your use of the word "masses" is ambiguous.

Do you, as a purported wealthy individual mean that the 'working man' doesn't know what's good for him and should listen to the likes of yourself more or do you include all classes and creeds within the term 'masses'?

If the latter, I agree, if the former, well, let the arguments commence!

I don't think it matters if people have or don't have money, its a way of thinking thats the issue, not the money in the bank.
People tend to do what they believe will suit them in the short term, maybe someone on the dole supporting a party who will support them via benefits and the wealthy will vote for those who suggest top rate tax will be lower.
Fickle can be on both sides and I've no doubt it is.

slowmart

It's great to have a free press and the mis direction from both of these individuals has been short lived with Rifkind resigning from various posts and stepping down at the next election as an MP. though he will still get a six figure payout to help his adjustment to "normal life" but hardly the actions of an "innocent or wronged party"

Lets sees what Slippery Jack does as the Tories are much more ruthless in despatching the injured than labour.

If Jack doesn't go later today i would be amazed given his position of "under the radar" and "£5k a day' comments

VTech

Slowmart wrote:

It's great to have a free press and the mis direction from both of these individuals has been short lived with Rifkind resigning from various posts and stepping down at the next election as an MP. though he will still get a six figure payout to help his adjustment to "normal life" but hardly the actions of an "innocent or wronged party"

Lets sees what Slippery Jack does as the Tories are much more ruthless in despatching the injured than labour.

If Jack doesn't go later today i would be amazed given his position of "under the radar" and "£5k a day' comments

£5k/day for someone with his background isn't out of the norm, I would expect to pay that kind of fee (well actually quite a lot more) if I were in need.
A Barrister can cost you £1500/hour and if you need one for half a day your well over that.

RideOnTime

What is most annoying is there so up their own backsides they just can't see that anyone would think what they're doing is morally wrong.

Rifkind as with so many of the Tories just thinks he's got some god given right to do what he likes in public office. Even worse he think it's contemptible when someone exposes him.

Frank the tank

Perhaps it is time to pay MPs a salary of say £100,000/year but only be allowed to do the work of an MP, i.e. not sitting on various boards of directors, hawking their "talent" as consultants or running a business. Therefore they can commit 100% of their time to their MPs duties.

If a prospective MP doesn't like such an arrangement, don't stand for office.

mamba80

Frank the tank wrote:

Perhaps it is time to pay MPs a salary of say £100,000/year but only be allowed to do the work of an MP, i.e. not sitting on various boards of directors, hawking their "talent" as consultants or running a business. Therefore they can commit 100% of their time to their MPs duties.

If a prospective MP doesn't like such an arrangement, don't stand for office.

Rifkinds current registered interests give him a salary of 145k from 3 positions, plus his MPs salary, so in the 200k region and he still hawks his services! no amount of salary will curtail human greed.

these guys, at the end of their time in Parliament, will make many times their salary with directorships and public speaking, not too mention their generous pensions, "former MP" is a great thing to have on a CV.

I do sort of, understand Vtechs view so maybe far less MPs and a much higher salary, say around the 200k mark, and a go directly to jail for "lapses of judgment"

arthur_scrimshaw

Frank the tank wrote:

Perhaps it is time to pay MPs a salary of say £100,000/year but only be allowed to do the work of an MP, i.e. not sitting on various boards of directors, hawking their "talent" as consultants or running a business. Therefore they can commit 100% of their time to their MPs duties.

If a prospective MP doesn't like such an arrangement, don't stand for office.

This would be a good start however a view for the long game needs taking, a lot of these politicians would be planning on their future roles as company directors or consultants while still in power. This could lead to certain skewed decision making amongst the less morally endowed.

VTech

mamba80 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Perhaps it is time to pay MPs a salary of say £100,000/year but only be allowed to do the work of an MP, i.e. not sitting on various boards of directors, hawking their "talent" as consultants or running a business. Therefore they can commit 100% of their time to their MPs duties.

If a prospective MP doesn't like such an arrangement, don't stand for office.

Rifkinds current registered interests give him a salary of 145k from 3 positions, plus his MPs salary, so in the 200k region and he still hawks his services! no amount of salary will curtail human greed.

these guys, at the end of their time in Parliament, will make many times their salary with directorships and public speaking, not too mention their generous pensions, "former MP" is a great thing to have on a CV.

I do sort of, understand Vtechs view so maybe far less MPs and a much higher salary, say around the 200k mark, and a go directly to jail for "lapses of judgment"

These are both right, in general terms, MP's are paid VERY poorly, you wouldn't find someone in business on such a low income. I am aware people will respond to this with "their on more than the average man cr4p" but the average man isn't meant to run your country and someone in a similar position who runs a corporate would be on a far superior income so why is anyone surprised when they play away (in the money sense).

£200k isn't enough either.
We need less MP's and put them on a higher salary but make them accountable. Charge them for fraud, fine them for misrepresentation and cut money for failings.

Its actually not that difficult but due to the fact that the average man does get to vote in these issues I doubt things will change.

arthur_scrimshaw

mamba80 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Perhaps it is time to pay MPs a salary of say £100,000/year but only be allowed to do the work of an MP, i.e. not sitting on various boards of directors, hawking their "talent" as consultants or running a business. Therefore they can commit 100% of their time to their MPs duties.

If a prospective MP doesn't like such an arrangement, don't stand for office.

Rifkinds current registered interests give him a salary of 145k from 3 positions, plus his MPs salary, so in the 200k region and he still hawks his services! no amount of salary will curtail human greed.

these guys, at the end of their time in Parliament, will make many times their salary with directorships and public speaking, not too mention their generous pensions, "former MP" is a great thing to have on a CV.

I do sort of, understand Vtechs view so maybe far less MPs and a much higher salary, say around the 200k mark, and a go directly to jail for "lapses of judgment"

I can see the arguement that to attract the right calibre MPs you need to be competing with business salaries however which business? Banking, Petrochemical? Or do you just go for the highest? This would also show the dislocation of these kind of people from the majority of voters who aren't anywhere near (and by large multiples) these salaries. However it would hold them up to scrutiny in the way that football supporters view their team's stars and the salaries they are paid vs their performance?

verylonglegs

I've said on here before that the 2008 banking crisis clearly illustrated that paying people well doesn't mean you get good results, surely it knocked that theory on the head once and for all. Or do we all have memory loss and forgot what happened?

VTech

verylonglegs wrote:

I've said on here before that the 2008 banking crisis clearly illustrated that paying people well doesn't mean you get good results, surely it knocked that theory on the head once and for all. Or do we all have memory loss and forgot what happened?

You have, but paying people lots of money will never solve anything.
Paying lots of money isn't good, just like paying pennies for good work isn't good.

Pay the right value for the work done, this means paying the fair rate equivelent salary for the same work you would in the private sector but at the same time make people accountable. Not only for the time they are employed but for a set time afterwards, lets say 6 years. (you can't have an unlimited time for legal reasons).

RideOnTime

VTech wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Perhaps it is time to pay MPs a salary of say £100,000/year but only be allowed to do the work of an MP, i.e. not sitting on various boards of directors, hawking their "talent" as consultants or running a business. Therefore they can commit 100% of their time to their MPs duties.

If a prospective MP doesn't like such an arrangement, don't stand for office.

Rifkinds current registered interests give him a salary of 145k from 3 positions, plus his MPs salary, so in the 200k region and he still hawks his services! no amount of salary will curtail human greed.

these guys, at the end of their time in Parliament, will make many times their salary with directorships and public speaking, not too mention their generous pensions, "former MP" is a great thing to have on a CV.

I do sort of, understand Vtechs view so maybe far less MPs and a much higher salary, say around the 200k mark, and a go directly to jail for "lapses of judgment"

These are both right, in general terms, MP's are paid VERY poorly, you wouldn't find someone in business on such a low income. I am aware people will respond to this with "their on more than the average man cr4p" but the average man isn't meant to run your country and someone in a similar position who runs a corporate would be on a far superior income so why is anyone surprised when they play away (in the money sense).

£200k isn't enough either.
We need less MP's and put them on a higher salary but make them accountable. Charge them for fraud, fine them for misrepresentation and cut money for failings.

Its actually not that difficult but due to the fact that the average man does get to vote in these issues I doubt things will change.

Rather than set out my views I think it's easiest to say they're basically the opposite of these.

RideOnTime

There's something about Rifkind that I really don't like.
Can't put my finger on it...

slowmart

I believe in market forces but this is set diametrically against that is the sentiment of public service.

MP's go into the job well aware of the salary scale, work load and responsibilities that accrue from such a position

Both of the individuals attained high office in their respective governments and were appropriately rewarded with additional salaries in line with their office in question.

Frank the tank

RideOnTime wrote:

There's something about Rifkind that I really don't like.
Can't put my finger on it...

He's a smarmy, arrogant git.

HTH.

frisbee

If MPs were paid £300k/week then it would attract footballers, I think we should do that!

pblakeney

RideOnTime wrote:

There's something about Rifkind that I really don't like.
Can't put my finger on it...

Maybe he'd let you if you ask him nicely?

mr_goo

No amount of money will satisfy the majority of MPs. Firstly I believe many are in it for the power and influence they can wield. Secondly it is very much a long game plan. Look at Blair. In the course of his time he loaded all the dice for when he stepped down. He makes Frank Underwood look like an amateur.

Another thing that should be looked at is the positions held by the immediate family members of MPs. Cherie Blair and her human rights cronies probably benefited from legislation during the last labour government. Miriam Clegg was a director of a wind turbine manufacturer, and I am sure Nick Clegg was quite active in pushing through wind farm schemes.

rick_chasey

Mr Goo wrote:

No amount of money will satisfy the majority of MPs. Firstly I believe many are in it for the power and influence they can wield. Secondly it is very much a long game plan. Look at Blair. In the course of his time he loaded all the dice for when he stepped down. He makes Frank Underwood look like an amateur.

Another thing that should be looked at is the positions held by the immediate family members of MPs. Cherie Blair and her human rights cronies probably benefited from legislation during the last labour government. Miriam Clegg was a director of a wind turbine manufacturer, and I am sure Nick Clegg was quite active in pushing through wind farm schemes.

What's fundamentally wrong with wind farms?

There will always be conflicts of interest when you govern. That's a given.

What's good is that there are rules in place to avoid such conflicts of interest, and we have a free press that is willing to test those politicians to make sure they are adhering to the rules. What would be worse is this kind of thing being found out and nothing being done about it.

Paying MPs a lot more would likely reduce the need some politicians feel to engage in this kind of behaviour. I've never quite understood why you wouldn't want your MPs paid a lot.

pblakeney

Mr Goo wrote:

No amount of money will satisfy the majority of MPs. Firstly I believe many are in it for the power and influence they can wield. Secondly it is very much a long game plan. Look at Blair. In the course of his time he loaded all the dice for when he stepped down. He makes Frank Underwood look like an amateur.

Another thing that should be looked at is the positions held by the immediate family members of MPs. Cherie Blair and her human rights cronies definitely benefited from legislation during the last labour government. Miriam Clegg was a director of a wind turbine manufacturer, and I am sure Nick Clegg was quite active in pushing through wind farm schemes.

FTFY

PS:- There may be rules regarding conflicts of interest but they are rarely tested. The public's best hope is for a reporter to have a grudge against an M.P. The more reporters with grudges, the better.

mm1

Surprising that two lawyers, former cabinet ministers and experienced MPs (36 years in Straw's case) seem incapable of carrying out the simple due diligence that would be expected of an intern researcher or junior civil servant. Astonishingly vain, greedy and stupid.

VTech

PBlakeney wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

No amount of money will satisfy the majority of MPs. Firstly I believe many are in it for the power and influence they can wield. Secondly it is very much a long game plan. Look at Blair. In the course of his time he loaded all the dice for when he stepped down. He makes Frank Underwood look like an amateur.

Another thing that should be looked at is the positions held by the immediate family members of MPs. Cherie Blair and her human rights cronies definitely benefited from legislation during the last labour government. Miriam Clegg was a director of a wind turbine manufacturer, and I am sure Nick Clegg was quite active in pushing through wind farm schemes.

FTFY

PS:- There may be rules regarding conflicts of interest but they are rarely tested. The public's best hope is for a reporter to have a grudge against an M.P. The more reporters with grudges, the better.

Thats not exactly true though is it.
Does this mean you hold reporters in a higher regard than an MP ?
To me there is issues on both sides, I have personally seen good people go down due to wrongful reporting. I have seen pure blackmail that goes on just to hide stories which to me is similar to MP's taking cash on the side for inside info. Its much of a muchness.

Having someone hold a grudge and use that to expose someone isn't a good thing, it breeds hatred and the willingness to "make things up" which is what happens most of the time.

Ive said it here before, I was at a private function with Amy Winehouse a few days before she died, she was NOT drinking and fell as she left the event, the following day the news reported her as being drunk, this appeared globally on many media outlets, inc papers, internet, news etc.
reporters lie for the sake of a story.

I was on the phone once to a guy I worked with in Isreal, there were reports of a huge explosion in the city and it was all over the BBC, although he was 2 miles from the explosion, he knew nothing about it.

bianchimoon

PBlakeney wrote:

RideOnTime wrote:

There's something about Rifkind that I really don't like.
Can't put my finger on it...

Maybe he'd let you if you ask him nicely?

If you paid him £5k he definitely would

pliptrot

Michael Heseltine is quoted today as suggesting that some people in Parliament will find MPs salaries insufficient and that, therefore, they should be allowed to take other jobs in addition - also stating that being an MP is not a full time job. 70 grand a year for a part-time job should be considered in the context of the average UK salary -less than 30 grand a year. Also consider that many people who really do make things happen (and there are precious few of those) earn nothing like the salary of an MP. It reveals what a rarified and strange world the lucky and the rich live in. It's time to get the pitchforks out.

mm1

pliptrot wrote:

It's time to get the pitchforks out.

Perhaps with Rifkind out of the way the truth about his cousin may come out, then things will get interesting.

bompington

mm1 wrote:

pliptrot wrote:

It's time to get the pitchforks out.

Perhaps with Rifkind out of the way the truth about his cousin may come out, then things will get interesting.

and what "truth" would this be? Most of us know the rumours, but unless you have info the rest of us don't have -in which case please have the balls to say what you mean - rumours they remain.

As for "get the pitchforks out" - well, yeah, let's shoot all the rich! After all, that turned out really well in every other country they tried it in, didn't it?

pblakeney

VTech wrote:

Lots of stuff, which may or may not be true

Take away investigative journalists and we would never hear anything about wrong doings in Westminster.
Who else is going to blow the whistle?
MPs, lawyers, judges? Too many vested interests.
The Police? Doubtful. They only act on accusations and there aren't any.
The public? Not a clue what is going on.

It is one of the best private welfare clubs in the World.