[arista]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Well I am confused with this story, are they guilty of a crime ? No then why are they being plastered all over the front pages, and why have they reported themselves for this non crime?

So is it a crime or not , strange state of affairs perhaps what they are doing is not legally wrong but morally wrong.

This needs to be made clear exactly where the line is and what is permissible and what is crossing the line.

Yes Correct they never got paid
its just the The Clever Ch4 Under cover women
gets the men relaxed and talking big fee's
for a half day.


They were caught undercover


So its only both MP's saying & getting excited
with the sexy undercover lady says what fee's do you need
etc.

[arista]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

There are 2 different issues here. Rifkind was selling his contact database, he was not taking money to directly influence decision making. Straw on the other hand openly admitted to influencing decision making for money - that is no different to the brown paper bag and cash for questions. Its corrupt.

Yes Straw and his Sugar
processing plant in Ukraine.


I prefer the brown paper bag
at least I know its Pure Corruption
not a can of worms

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by arista

Genuine thanks for this Arista - you are indispensable on here.

[arista]

Conservative Rifkind MP has been sacked from the current
defence comittee and is standing down at the election in may

[Helen 28]

Originally Posted by arista

Conservative Rifkind MP has been sacked from the current
defence comittee and is standing down at the election in may

He hasn't been sacked he resigned from the committee.

[Nedusa]

So they both have resigned or been told to stand down because of what they might have done not what they actually did ?

No money was actually paid to anyone merely talk of possible money or fee's

surely a crime is committed when it has actually been committed not when it has only been discussed in the loosest of terms.

Seems like a set up to me a con a scam to get them to talk with a sexy interviewer who was flattering the old fools.

Are there not more important news stories at the moment ffs......do we really have to invent news stories by scamming old politicians like this.

Seems a bit sad really.

[Kizzy]

He was the security committee chairman, and was selling information... does that not strike as a little odd?

Mind you I'm wondering if this wasn't orchestrated... if Boris becomes MP for Kensington now I'll know it was.

[MTVN]

There seems to be a lot of problems with this second jobs motion of Labours. It also seems that on the one hand they're trying to capitalise on anti-establishment sentiment by banning them, but on the other that will just surely lead to a new breed of career politicians who are also responsible for public disillusionment with MPs: those who go straight from education to parliament, lacking experience or appreciation for life outside of the Westminster bubble and for whom politics is all they know.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Helen 28

He hasn't been sacked he resigned from the committee.

Yes correct
but to me he would be sacked
if he did not move fast.

He is 70years old
so its time to get out of it.
In My View.


After May this year
he can bugger off
he has his own wording to blame

[Livia]

Originally Posted by MTVN

There seems to be a lot of problems with this second jobs motion of Labours. It also seems that on the one hand they're trying to capitalise on anti-establishment sentiment by banning them, but on the other that will just surely lead to a new breed of career politicians who are also responsible for public disillusionment with MPs: those who go straight from education to parliament, lacking experience or appreciation for life outside of the Westminster bubble and for whom politics is all they know.

That is an excellent point.

[Kizzy]

Maybe then those who split themselves shouldn't be classed as 'full time' MPs?
If they have other commitments and businesses they are part time MPs.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by MTVN

There seems to be a lot of problems with this second jobs motion of Labours. It also seems that on the one hand they're trying to capitalise on anti-establishment sentiment by banning them, but on the other that will just surely lead to a new breed of career politicians who are also responsible for public disillusionment with MPs: those who go straight from education to parliament, lacking experience or appreciation for life outside of the Westminster bubble and for whom politics is all they know.

I don't know really, I think Labour have a point as to 'other' jobs and commitments but I myself would prefer a little more give and take.

There was a Lib Dem MP on tonight, who has his own business,he became an MP too, now for me, that is fine, he has a business,however as an MP he could limit drastically his commitment as to time for that business,dealing more with political. parliamentary and constituency affairs.

It does see, if someone is involved with 2 or 3 things,then likely none will be getting the due attention they should.
Since being an MP is paid by the taxpayer then I do agree far more scrutiny shold be applied as to 'outside' of politics commitments.

It is my hope someday to go into politics and success willing become an MP, I could have embarked on that immediately on finishing UNi but chose not to.
I got involved in many issues in many areas and followed Uni with time in a law firm too.
I have explored lots of other issues and areas and am acquiring a wide knowledge of life generally in the UK and how things affect people of all backgrounds in the UK.

Once I have taken on board enough,then I hope to pursue a political career,if it happens, and I find myself in the right place at the right time.

I would then hope however, and feel pretty sure I would, that were that to happen, my time will be my constituents,my Party's and Parliaments,more to the point strictly adhering under the rules laid down by parliament at that time too.

That is where the problem lies,under the current rules, these 2 MPs likely have not done anything really wrong,no matter how bad it may look.

However,I agree now with Ed Miliband, that maybe does need to change. An MP can have a long or short career,depending on what seat they get and when elections are held.
There is nothing wrong with having something else or a career to fall back on after being an MP but once elected, their time should be dedicated almost fully to their constituency and supporting their party as to parliamentary matters.

I do feel the status quo as it is,will only fuel more anger and suspicion as to MP's from the electorate, so some things need to be altered.
From watching the 2 leaders today, it seems there is really little will on David Cameron's side to alter things really at all.
Which was actually disappointing to watch and hear from him too.

[MTVN]

Do you not feel Joey that sometimes a second job can benefit the service you're able to provide as an MP and make you more appreciative of certain issues outside Westminster politics? Being an MP is a very time consuming job I'm sure - I don't envy those who do it and feel they can get unfairly criticised - but I do also think that second jobs can complement the role that MPs serve. MPs used to not be paid at all, it was thought that by being salaried they'd be less capable of serving the public interest. I wonder if someone only has their MP wage to fall back on then it can encourage the whole career politician mindset where the only goal is to maintain your seat and stay within that Westminster bubble. By all intents and purposes MPs do get a good wage, its true. But there also many of them who could earn a lot more in different careers. William Hague made this point today: you try and cap secondary earnings, well what about politicians writing books? Is it ok for it to be an unsuccessful book - falling below the cap - but not a successful one. What if an MP is also a farmer (like Mark Spencer) - do they have to quit as an MP if they have a good harvest and then seek re-election when the crops fail? It's a very problematic thing.

If constituents feel that their MP is too tied up with a second job to suitably represent them then they can vote him out. We don't need a law to say what MPs can and can't do in their own time.

[bots]

The argument about second jobs is noise designed to deflect attention from the real issues.

Members of parliament are placed there by people who voted for them. If they don't measure up in representing those voters in parliament, they can soon be replaced at the next election. For years there have been some MP's that attend every debate, and those that do the bare minimum. Lazy people with no second or 3rd job can get away with doing next to nothing, while someone with multiple jobs can be an active and worthwhile MP.

The cabinet members and PM spend next to no time representing their constituents, do the constituents care? No. Why is an MP not subject to performance reviews as any other employee is. Why are cabinet members elected to represent a constituency yet don't do it in cabinet.

Getting back to the real issue. The real issue is one of conflict of interest, and a conflict of interest can arise whether someone is employed in an other capacity or not. Secondary employment is just a symptom of conflict of interest, but until the cause of the conflict of interest is eradicated within parliament, there will always be corruption.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Do you not feel Joey that sometimes a second job can benefit the service you're able to provide as an MP and make you more appreciative of certain issues outside Westminster politics? Being an MP is a very time consuming job I'm sure - I don't envy those who do it and feel they can get unfairly criticised - but I do also think that second jobs can complement the role that MPs serve. MPs used to not be paid at all, it was thought that by being salaried they'd be less capable of serving the public interest. I wonder if someone only has their MP wage to fall back on then it can encourage the whole career politician mindset where the only goal is to maintain your seat and stay within that Westminster bubble. By all intents and purposes MPs do get a good wage, its true. But there also many of them who could earn a lot more in different careers. William Hague made this point today: you try and cap secondary earnings, well what about politicians writing books? Is it ok for it to be an unsuccessful book - falling below the cap - but not a successful one. What if an MP is also a farmer (like Mark Spencer) - do they have to quit as an MP if they have a good harvest and then seek re-election when the crops fail? It's a very problematic thing.

If constituents feel that their MP is too tied up with a second job to suitably represent them then they can vote him out. We don't need a law to say what MPs can and can't do in their own time.

Well yes, I agree with just about all that, however I do think we have a great number of MPs who in fact have little knowledge across all society who have gone into parliament carrying all the baggage of their own interests that exist in their life.

I think if a Farmer is elected as an MP then of course he should need to be able to devote time to that, it is his livelihood if his time as an MP was cut short for any reason.

I think now, with fixed term parliaments it is harder to get rid of an MP not doing their job, once elected they are there for 5 years and that is some time to wait to removed someone no longer serving the constituency that actually fought to get them elected.
Such as for those who trusted and voted LibDem in 2010 and are still waiting to get that vote back to vote for someone else who maybe would honour the trust given.

One of the things for me, is there are probably way too many safe seats in parliament, if MPs were looking over theri shoulders at the prosepect of really losing their seats at general elections, I think we would get better politicians.
At present, rolling into a safe seat for a MP is a massive bonus, they can do much or even possibly nothing at all of note but be there for ages.
When they have outside businesses and interests, they can concentrate on them rather than worry about their time as an MP.

I would be looking at the creation of constituencies that left very few and hopefully no massively safe seats.

We,I think anyway, need to come out of our cocoons of our own little worlds and interests.
To serve the public,and I still would consider it an honour to serve as an MP,should if it happens be the absolute main focus of an MPs life.
What happens is, a fair amount of the time,I would say, is that those with their heavy commitments who come into Westminster only have those interests to bring to Westminster.

The sad fact is, most MPs likely have not a single idea how some of society exists or operates.
I also think and MP should be an MP because they want to geninely serve the public and Country as a whole,not to be something just to add to a list of experience or achievements.

Which I why I think, with some flexibility, common sense and understanding, that outside 'earning' interests as to MPs should be looked at and new rulings put in place.

A Farmer as an MP,to take your example, already has a knowedge of across the board of society.
What people need, how business operates,budgeting problems, and in fact all its needs.
It is already too a great commendable public service really,someone like that,where it is their livelihood,should be encouraged as a Farmer brings far more to politics,in my view, than most who are just looking to add to their wealth and status.

[Kizzy]

Let's look up our MP's and see how hard they are working, with or without 2nd jobs?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/248...ves/leeds_west