The Hubris Of Former Ministers

Perhaps it might be an idea to await the outcome of investigations before condemning someone? This is not Wonderland - sentence first and all that...

Jack Straw could always ask his son to roll him a spliff to help forget about the whole ghastly business...

George, you seem to be a bit previous with the conviction and sentencing here.

The pair might well be guilty of some sort of offence, but until Channel 4 and the Daily Telegraph put their evidence in front of a Judge and Jury and Rifkind and Straw have provided their defence, I think you would do well to hold your fire.

From the few words that each side, that formed yesterday's news on Radio 4 and the BBC News at Ten, I wasn't willing to form any opinion as to guilt.

Quite separately, is the question of whether MPs should be allowed to hold other jobs or consultancies, even if they declare their interest. Our MP for example, comes from a wealthy family and he owns large estates. How do you separate his income and political interest from these estates and the local community who depend on them ?

Remember, being an MP isn't necessarily a job for life. Voting comes around every now and then !!

+1 on a bit previous with the conviction and sentencing 

Also re  the question of whether MPs should be allowed to hold other jobs or consultancies: I am uncomfortable with using their political positions (past & present) to gain advantage/open doors/influence.  I am not convinced that such activity is not without some form of political leverage & that cannot be healthy.  Maybe not as blatant as the Hamilton case,  but to me it has a familiar odour.    

Well Rifkind has fallen on his sward. After what was broadcast before my opening post there was nothing else he could do, and his defiance in the interim was astonishing. 

As for Straw, his comment about things below the RADAR [also broadcast before my initial post] would seem to suggest that he was getting break-up happy as he is leaving Parliament in any case at the next election.

We are better off without such people of severely poor judgement in the posiition to affect all our lives through government policy direction.

I don't think I was previous at all.

How are we to decide which candidate to vote for when the choice is between such people of such dubious judgement. 

ATB from George

It's not a question of guilty of any offence for me. CGAF.

It's a question of these people being voted into a position of great influence and privilege via the trust of voters and then seeking to use that privilege to line their own pockets with the promise of effecting influence not for just reasons, not for the right reasons but for the highest bidder. 

This is something I personally find reprehensible and there should be no wriggle room here.  There should be a blanket ban however who trusts politicians to make the rules they must abide by?

Without commenting on the right or wrong of these individual cases ... consider this.

If this (as it turns out bogus) Chinese company was setting up business which potentially helped the British economy / British people; would there be any more right or wrong to a former minister advising said company on approaching the right people?

Now exactly what was or wasn't said or implied I'm not commenting on.

It was your reference to corruption in your initial post to which I consider you are a bit previous. That is a serious allegation. Not yet proven.

Okay about that my comment about.corruption being too strong until proven [which in this case it certainly will not be as it was a sting],. but certainly not steering clear of the possibility as demonstrated ....

"Keeping it under the RADAR ..." as Straw commented.

And as for Rifkind's claim that he had no salary, and lots of time .... An MP salary is over £60K. I guess that many millions of people [in the UK], who pay taxes to pay for people like Rifkind, would find their salaries doubled, trebled or even quadrupled, and yet are represented by such unwise rulers, but yet show better judgement in daily life. I am glad Rifkind has gone. He was fool who would not hold a job making bolts and nuts in Birmingham.

When MPs claim that their skills are such that they need more than a GP as a salary then I might be tempted to agree. Let us cut the number to 200 and triple their salary. The benefit would be that more quality and talent would be attracted to becoming an MP, and the expense account for them all would be cut by two thirds.

ATB from George

Ah, now you are talking sense again.

Dear Don,

I would never claim to talk sense all the time.

But I was furious when I heard the reports on the Radio Four Today Programme. Absolutely livid in fact.

ATB from George

If there is anything worse than The Hubris of Former Ministers, it is the faux outrage of their electorate.

If you consider that a salary of £67k is sufficient for an MP working in central London then you are inhabiting the planet Zog.

The reality of this is that Prime Ministers and Party Leaders from Margaret Thatcher onwards have conspired to keep down the remuneration of MPs for political reasons. First they encouraged them to make it up on expenses and then hypocritically through their hands up in horror when a minority got seriously caught out.

Now its outside income god help us. You really have hit the nail on the head with your second paragraph but it really illustrates the futility of the rest of the comments.

Oh and its worth noting that Jack Straw, whatever you might personally think of him, did say he couldn't do any thing whilst sitting as an MP.

That should have course been threw. I hate predictive text with a passion.

My fury is not faux.

Men in their hundreds of thousands died defended democracy, and yet  who hose [claim to represent is democratically represent us are idiots.  Aiming for self aggrandisement rather than the common good. How can one vote for other then a non-estrablishment party when all the establshimt are so involved in ptetty and less petty potential corruption? Perhaps to is really is time to vote for the UKIP [perish the thought} or something worse, or simply not vote and accept that the whole process of democracy has been ruined by the principle of climbing the greasy pole?

That is a disrespect not far short of holocaust denial ...

Shits like Rifkind and Straw should be pilloried and sentenced to live on the minimum wage.

ATB from George

Press holds power to account. Where's the problem?

Chris

Dear Chris,

Just wait till the political elite decide that silencing the press would be a good idea for security reasons. We are one step form Nazism with with characters like Rifkind and Sraw ....

Would they let us vote if it made  difference?

We are not far from there.

ATB from George

The Fourth Estate (Media) also has its problems Chris, like the Second (Lords) and Third (Commons) Estates, it is losing the trust of the people.  Can any of them be effective if they all have issues with morality?  To my mind this is what the Rifkind / Straw saga is about... they both may not have broken any rules or laws as such, but it their behaviour is perceived as lacking morality then people's trust in the Third Estate is lessened even further.

Rob

Edited to add: evidently the "invitation" went to 10 MPs, half didn't respond, and one said the weren't interested - perhaps, as a balance to naming and shaming of Rifkind and Straw, those 6 MPs should also be named as well; people who do the "right thing" are never quite as newsworthy.

People we sadly distrust:

Number One: Politicians, 

And sadly number two Journalists.

ATB from George

 "That is a disrespect not far short of holocaust denial ..."

Sorry George no it isn't. You need to get hold of your city slickers. Two more bad apples weeded out. That's all.

Some politicians are corrupt. Some journalists are corrupt. Hell, even some ice-cream makers are no doubt corrupt. There are mechanisms in place where they will all be found out, as here with Rifkind and Straw.

Can we agree to cut the well-meaning majority a bit of slack, undo a couple of top buttons on our shirts, and say that human failings such as hubris can't be legislated against? And maybe even agree that some of us have allowed a Maily Telegraph agenda to push the needles on our 'self-righteous indignation meters' far too far into the red zone?

Chris

The ambassadors, diplomats, ministers etc are all assets of the state and of the people.  They should not be seen by individual MP's as a private asset for themselves.

Look at it this way. If you work for a company that has a huge client list, that database belongs to the company and it's not for individual employees to think "I'll have a piece of that" and use it for their own personal gain.  See how far you get doing that working for a large company.

I don't share your outlook if I'm being honest.  There are certain jobs/careers where I expect more than just good time keeping and putting in a shift from the individuals who work there.

Being an MP is not just a job, it's a great honour and privilege. You represent your constituents and the individual MP's should show this great position of trust the honour and respect it deserves.

These two did no such thing by sleazing around lining their own pockets when they're supposed to be representing their constituents.

I can only imagine Rifkind's constituents must all have perfect lives and have no issues requiring his attention if he has so much free time.  Maybe someone should ask them.