Jack Straw & Malcolm Rifkind in 'cash for access' sting.

There was a vote on it on 25th February. Needless to say the government got its way.
This is from Hansard.

"Ms Eagle: To make it clear again, the parliamentary Labour party will change its rules and its standing orders so that from the start of the next Parliament no Labour MP will have remunerated directorships or consultancies. All our candidates and all our existing Members of Parliament will have to change their arrangements in order to comply with this change of rules. Will the right hon. Gentleman now commit to his party doing the same?

Mr Hague: No, as is very clear from my speech. I have made the point that the Committee on Standards in Public Life made. The hon. Lady has said what the Labour party will do in the next Parliament, but I hope she will admit that she has to deal with the points I have been making about how to define these responsibilities, because they are not dealt with at the moment. There is no clear answer from the Opposition even about what their policy is."

Personally, I think it would be good if there was a requirement that people who stand for election have had some work experience outside of politics.

Once they are MPs, though, I don't think they should have directorships and other positions in companies that might lead to a conflict of interest and to them neglecting their parliamentary duties.

I do agree that those with professions that require continuing professional development criteria to be carried out in order for professional status to be maintained should be able to do the minimum hours required in order to do this. They may, as has been said, be voted out after five years and may then wish to return to their former employment.

BRedhead59

I don't see why parliament would benefit from having MP's who cannot have a second job.

Why do you think a doctor for example should be unable to practise for 5 years?.

Don't you think they would probably never put their name forward so we could be missing excellent MP's and sitting in their place would be a career politician who may have less of a contribution to make during debates and voting in legislation.

It is nonsense to say that MP's need a second job to extend their experience if they spent time with their constituents that would give them real experience rather than sitting around in board meetings and having lunch!
MP's could also do with being less arrogant and more interested in real people with real challenges and successes.

of not or

I rather like the rules in the US (and I don't say that very often ) where they can work at something else but are limited to, I think it was, a third or their political salary.

Of course this could be abused

I though Jack Straw was a good guy.I even read his autobiography.

Would like to see their bank accounts balances.

I have a problem with this.

act.sumofus.org/go/7579?t=4&akid=9593.1669823.ryh6Un

I don't even think about the female allure side to this to be honest, she could have looked like the back end of a bus for all we know.

They would have probably been just as interested if the journalist was a male, it smelt of money!

I can differentiate between the 'sting' and the fact these two have a history. I am not particularly worried nor concerned about their take of what they were showing a willingness to undertake, it was their past that was seriously an issue to me!

To say you had 'gone under the radar' , used your position to get change in legislation was totally unacceptable .

I do not have a problem with MP's having more than one job/directorship etc. I do have a problem with sleaze and that's what I felt I was seeing to some degree in the recordings. They were both prepared to use their status to 'gain access' to other governments/interests whilst being representatives of the UK parliament . That is not putting your country nor your constituents first, that is totally putting yourself first and for that they deserve to be taken to task , however found out.

Yes I suppose we did Gracesgran - but it's still nauseating to see men responding to attractive young women in the time honoured manner

Not sure I like these 'stings', but if it brings the truth to light then maybe...

I am very sure I don't like them henetha. When painstaking journalism reveals wrong doing as in the Watergate case then I will applaud as loudly as anyone else.

However, these guys were not doing anything until the paper set this up and what have they proved ... that men, particularly older men, however clever they may be, are susceptible to a pretty face and will boast in the presence of a pretty girl.

Well - we didn't know that, did we

The 'sting' has the same feel as the one that trapped Vince Cable. Older men, young female journalists who from the clips I've heard, behaved like simpering teenagers, appearing overwhelmed by being in the presence of a high profile politician. Gotcha - loathsome head line at the time, but very accurate on this occasion

Not sure I like these 'stings', but if it brings the truth to light then maybe...

What gets me is the arrogance of these men, and the way they seemed to be showing off during the purported interviews. Most unstatesmanlike in my opinion.

It doesn't matter what 'most people' call things if the law calls them something else.

I agree, pogs, it's all very distasteful (skanky is the word that came to mind). Power corrupts. My previous comments were about accuracy not the ethics behind the behaviour.

Well I was completely shocked by Jack Straw who has 2 'outside interests'. One of which pays him £60.000 a year working for a British Global Commodities Trader, ED &F Man. The other I don't know his wage but he is as an Advisor to The Eurasian Council.

He is recorded explaining his role working for ED & F Man. He says he is an advisor for ED & F Man.

One of the commodities ED & F Man trade in is sugar. In 2011 ED &F Man wanted to import raw sugar cane into Ukraine, then refine it in one of ED &F Man's factories there and then export it . There was a problem for ED &F Man , the business was prevented from doing this because of recently introduced Ukrainian regulations.

Jack Straw said he took 'Man' with the British Ambassador in Kiev to see the Ukrainian Prime Minister, a guy called Azarov. Outcome, they got the law changed. He did say he recorded the trip and it was signed off by the appropriate parliamentary committee. I hope that is the case.

Sugar regulations were hampering ED &F Man's business so he goes on to say " I got in to see the relevant director general and his officials in Brussels and we got sugar regulations changed.". He then goes on to say "It's public that the regulations have been changed but the best way of dealing with these things 'IS UNDER THE RADAR" Meaning I am willing to work without transparency.

He then says he works for £5.000 a day. He says his first responsibility is to his day job. Fine. Then he says uncomfortably 'I have managed to keep out of any scandal, do you know what I mean". " I don't want to attract attention by earning more, I need to justify it to myself. Working for Man is something I can do in my spare time". He said on a Sky News interview his researcher is paid 2/3 by parliament and 1/3 by himself but his researcher does use his commons office for both jobs.

He then tells them how if he were to stand up in the House of Commons and talk about sugar he could end up being disqualified! He then says "WELL OBVIOUSLY I AM NOT IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, I COULD END UP IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS". Then he says the rules are different there, plenty of people have commercial interests. I could help you more but I wouldn't be taking this on if I were a member of parliament. In other words I'm finished as an MP but as a Lord I can negotiate more for you. The code of conduct is quite clear they are there to support their parliamentary duties , not furthering their own interests.

Now Rifkind and Straw may well be within parliamentary guidelines but to me they have not acted in a way I believe to be statesman like and have used their connections and past government positions to further their pocket. I hope they are cleared of any wrong doing but there certainly have been some comments made that need looking into in my opinion.

trisher there is no right or wrong on this only opinion and, I feel, we will have to agree to each hold different opinions.

"Adam Smith International (including Amphion Group Ltd and Adam Smith Services Ltd) (non-executive), 3 Albert Embankment, London; consultancy and project implementation overseas. Monthly board meeting in central London lasting 2 hours approximately. Occasional e-mail exchanges between meetings. (Updated 11 June 2014)
Monthly ongoing payment of £2,916.66 gross. (Registered 8 September 2009)
1 June 2014, additional payment of £5,512.50 in non-executive fees, in recognition of success of the company during the past year. (Registered 5 June 2014)
Unilever plc (non-executive), 100 Victoria Embankment London. Approximately eight board meetings a year each lasting a morning and afternoon with a dinner the previous evening. Most meetings in London, two or three in The Netherlands and one elsewhere. Also member of Board Committee, three hours the day before each board meeting. Attendance may be by video conference.
Monthly ongoing payment of £7,166 gross from May 2013. (Updated 24 July 2013)
Alliance Medical Group (non-executive), Princes House, 38 Jermyn Street, London SW1Y 6DN. Approximately 10 board meetings a year, mainly in London, each lasting around 2-3 hours. Occasional ad hoc meeting.
Monthly ongoing payment of £5,000 gross, from January 2014. (Registered 10 April 2014)"

I think most people would say that monthly ongoing payments are salaries.
He also receives £12,500 gross quarterly from another company for 4 hours work.
Most people would be quite happy with just one of those salaries. It seems he considers being an MP to be his part-time job.

Rifkind was imposed on the extremely safe Kensington & Chelsea constituency after losing his Scottish seat in 1997 - I wonder who'll get the plum K&C posting.

Boris must be regretting that he's settled for Uxbridge!

Did he say he wasn't paid by anybody or that he wasn't in receipt of a salary from anybody (presumably apart from his MP income)? Remunerated directorships and fees for speeches or whatever are not "salary" even if they are income. He's not a stupid man; I expect he knew exactly what he was saying and that what he was saying was correct. Approval or not from other people is clearly irrelevant to the correctness of his statement.

He was my MP when I lived in Edinburgh. No, I didn't vote for him. I find it hard to believe that a man who has managed to stay an MP for as long as he has doesn't know what he's saying.

www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11660/malcolm_rifkind/kensington

This is what Malcolm Rifkind gets from not being paid by anybody.

You can find out about your own MP.
It's listed under members interests.

they will have plenty of time on their hands now to consider whatever lucrative contracts come their way, but the question is WILL anything now come their way?They must both be grinding their teeth at the televised interviews.However, I have never been a fan of these setups by the media, honey trap kind of things.I don't think that either have done anything that isn't legal, it's just the perceived look of the thing, that made us all cringe.

Gracesgran If MP candidates are limited because those who judge a position only by the financial reward it brings go elsewhere I think this wouldn't be a bad thing. We have enough money-grabbing characters in banking and other areas, we should require more from our public servants. As for "how you reward the "element of public service". It will have to be rewarded as that is how he world works." Actually it doesn't. There are loads of people doing jobs which are poorly paid but give them personal satisfaction because they are providing a valuable service. Care workers,social workers, ambulance crews, firefighters etc. Finally the newspaper and a TV channel have not chased either of these men out of office Jack Straw was going anyway and Malcolm Rifkind has resigned because he believes it will be easier for the Kensington Conservative Party to choose a new candidate who will have the backing of the party (who have of course exiled him).

Indeed - I am just registering my distaste. It betrays a mindset that I cannot warm to!

Their being 'slimey' does not necessarily put them in the wrong, revolting though the sliminess may have been.