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

True enough, G2, but job insecurity is not going to encourage people to become MPs and that isn't good for a democratic government and politicians who have a clue what ordinary life is like.

I agree Mishap.

I think that what I found most distasteful in all this was the slimy way they both behaved on the clips - sort of lounging about and behaving as though the world owed them a living. Finger down throat icon definitely required!

Well actually job insecurity is what many people now live with

He did lose his job as an MP. What if he had had nothing to go back to?

This scenario might not apply to Straw or Rifkind but the principle should remain the same in all cases.

Being an MP has only been thought of as a full time job recently. It is not a very secure job. You might lose your job in five years' time. My Oxfordshire MP did not stop being a doctor.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11430154/Parliament-will-be-poorer-if-MPs-have-no-experience-outside-Westminster.html

Although I can understand why they felt they both had to go is it democracy for a newspaper and a TV channel to be able to chase two widely respected MPs out of office when they appear to have committed no offence?

You may not like them, I may not like them but this seems very undemocratic.

Malcolm Rifkind claimed to have no salary and to be self-employed. Perhaps he'd forgotten about the piffling little amount he is paid as an MP since, according to The I, he has an annual "side income close to £250,000". This includes non-executive directorships of Unilever and Adam Smith International (£35,000 p.a.) and membership of the Advisory Board of LEK Consulting (£25,000 p.a.). One wonders why a company would think it worthwhile to pay these fairly substantial amounts of money for someone who already has what is meant to be a full-time job. At the time of this revelation, he was also the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee - a sensitive position which one would hope would be filled by someone with more sense of public duty.

Jack Straw bragged about operating "under the radar" to use his influence to change EU rules on behalf of a firm that had paid him £60,000 a year.

I don't know whether either of these people have done anything against the rules but I think their behaviour is, at the very least, unseemly and brings the image of politicians into further disrepute. The motivation of the Telegraph is, of course, suspect but it doesn't negate the fact that the behaviour of Straw and Rifkind was pretty shabby.

I agree that politicians and ministers should be paid more but so should many people. If they don't wish to do the job at the prescribed salary and treat it as full time employment, they should not stand for election. The I reported that last year in total MPs spent more than 26,600 hours on non-parliamentary duties. I don't know how many hours per MP this works out at, but it seems an awful lot to me.

Is it wrong for an MP to try and get business for companies in or near their constituencies? I would answer no to that.

Is it wrong fro an MP to try and get business for companies in or near their constituencies on condition that once the MP is no longer an MP he or she can take up a position on the board of that company (presumbably to help drum up more business)? I would say it possibly is to that one, but not certainly.

Do we know that this is the case in the Jack Straw story? Or are we assuming it is the case? Could it be that the company offered him the post off their own backs because he will have lots of contacts that might help their business? If that is the case, is that wrong or is it sound business sense?

If people want to "earn much more elsewhere" then let them go off and do so.

That's fine trisher if you don't mind limiting the choice of people who offer themselves as MPs. The reason they are better paid elsewhere is because companies believe it is worth paying to get the best. You can argue whether the individual is best for the job but that, surely is up to the electorate to decide.

I would also ask how you reward the "element of public service". It will have to be rewarded as that is how he world works. Do we continue to make them Peers, give then letters after their name, etc. Personally I would do away with much of this and pay them properly.

They shouldn't complain about the salary, plus expenses and perks - they know what the pay is before they apply.

There is never a shortage of candidates!

Incoming MPs who are business-owners, farmers, doctors, trade unionists, etc would indeed be good for Parliament, but for Straw and Rifkind, and others, nearing the end of their tenure to be feathering their nests in this way - how does that benefit anyone but themselves?

Plus they get a very generous pension and redundancy package.

If people want to "earn much more elsewhere" then let them go off and do so. If they become MPs then they should recognise it has a certain element of public service. it isn't badly paid, it has incredible holidays and you are only called to account for your actions every 5 years. There are some hard working dedicated MPs who keep in contact with their constituents, attend debates and try to improve matters, it is a pity that some others are easily bought and are prepared to even consider becoming involved in dodgy deals.

I think boasting in general is rather pathetic but, as far as I know, it is not against the law even in these circumstances.

These men (and probably not just these ) seem to puff their chests quite regularly. It's sad but I suppose it is part of the human condition.

Gracesgran

Did you watch the Channel 4 program?

On the supposition you did, or at least read snippits of their comments to know what happened, what did you make of Jack Straw and his boast re ED & F Man?

I feel that this is far from the investigative journalism we could applaud and is playing to the politics of envy. As far as I can see, and of course this will come out when they look at this properly, they have done nothing illegal but both have been scammed by what I always thought of as one of the better newspapers. I am sorrier for that than for the politicians words.

As for what they should be paid, only nuns and monks reject the world for vocations. Most of these people could earn much more elsewhere and we probably need to be prepared to pay more if we want the best minds - perhaps fewer MPs would help with this.

The old excuse that MPs should have experience of work other than PR/Special Adviser, etc doesn't apply in this case .... both men have been in the Commons for decades, what can further outside interests do to make them better MPs?

Sitting on company boards and actually doing work for that business is one thing but raking in thousands per day for lobbying/introducing is not in the public interest.

Lilygran he said 'nobody pays me a salary' .

Anya Rifkind made it clear that he was talking about his business interests. He doesn't receive a salary from any outside bodies. What MPs earn seems a lot compared with the average wage (about £27,000?) but when you consider house prices and the cost of living in Central London, it doesn't seem so much. The allowances they get, in spite of the various scandals, can't cover all their expenses and most MPs have to have a second home in their constituency. They daren't vote themselves a proper pay increase even though recommended by an independent body because there would be a media-induced public outcry. Of course we have so many MPs with outside interests and personal fortunes. They can afford the cost of being an MP.

I didn't watch the programme but on the radio yesterday did I hear Rifkind say something like

"I have a lot of time on my hands"?

I bet that Jack Straw is/was expecting a nice seat in the House of Lords!

It is now the case Malcolm Rifkind HAS RESIGNED from the Intelligence Committee.
Maybe he is standing down as an MP also.

It is just being announced on T.V

I watched the Channel 4 program last night and for my mind both of them have been greedy, big headed, opportunists.

Rifkind should step down with immediate effect, albeit temporarily, from chairing the Intelligence and Security Committee. His comment ' I cannot give priviledged information' did give hope he was not 'totally for sale' but saying he was 'self employed'. ' 'Nobody pays me a salary' was pure b----y stupidity and will assure him of very few friends I am sure. . No doubt there is a lot going on as to whether he will stand again.

Jack Straw should be given considered thought as to whether or not he enters the Lords given his stance and his comment ' the rules are different in the House Of Lords' it shows a man who will continue to ' try it on' whenever and wherever he can. Obviously his boasting about his connection to one of his outside roles working for ED&F Man and what he had done for them must be looked into. If what he boasted had happened I wonder where that story could lead on to? Now there is the £75 million government furniture contract and the lobbying he did undertake on behalf of a winning contractor. It could be could be a something or nothingnothing issue but it sure is bad timing!

Both men have tarnished their careers.

Jack Straw was standing down anyway, cynic's have been saying the Chilcot Inquiry could prove to be very difficult for him when it comes out. He also has his son Will Straw who is the Labour candidate for Rossendale and Darwin , supposedly his winning the seat was a 'shoe in' but he has done him no favours.

Did anyone else notice that part of tne recording when Rifkind said he is self emplyed and nobody pays him a salary. Blatant lie. The average earning of MPs is about £67,000 plus expenses.

As well as attending to the problems of constituents, most MPs have to spend time attending party events. On Friday nights, many of them - especially senior ones - will be found making the same old speeches, with the same old jokes, at party dinners (often known as 'the rubber chicken circuit); then there are the other fund-raising events, essential to raise money for election expenses - bazaars, garden parties (whatever the weather) and barbecues. MPs of a minority party may also have to attend events in constituencies other than their own, in order to help drum up support for the next election. These are the non-parliamentary duties owed by an MP to those who got him/her elected.

Firstly I question the financial necessity (claimed by some MPs) to engage in outside work.

Secondly, the nature of that work needs close scrutiny. It is virtually impossible for an MP to work for any organisation without finding a potential conflict of interest situation arising.

Thirdly, that other "job" should definitely not consist of taking bungs for using one's influence in the corridors of power to change policies or acquire favours.

You can't judge how hard MPs work by what you see on television. thatbags is right when she points out they have other things to do as well as sitting in the Commons chamber. How they deal with urgent local issues is an indication, how many parliamentary bodies they are involved in and what they are is another, what constituency activities they support and attend and whether and how they reply to letters from you or other constituents. And I think it's a good thing that many of them stay in touch with their former profession or business and work with business and other interests that affect their constituencies. The media have a lot to answer for. Who said, 'Power without responsibility?'