Cash for Questions

[brogdale]

v dangerous stuff - needs watching really carefully

Balls appeared to welcome this on C4 news. They quizzed him on this issue after his main interview in which he attempted to defend his announcement that NLii will stick to the spending plans of the man the with the failing plan.

Funny, if it weren't so tragic.

 

[brogdale]

MPs in taking cash to further interests of capital shocker.

 

[danny la rouge]

Just heard Lemsip Optic on the radio saying it was healthy for MPs to have outside interests, and comparing Rifkind's comments about spare time to having a hobby or bringing up children. People complaining, he said, were just jealous of others' ability to earn high sums "for their efforts". That was his phrase: "for their efforts".

Lemsip, you twat, this is not "outside interests". Straw boasted about influencing EU rules on behalf of a company. He was already (supposedly) being paid to influence those rules on our behalf. That was his job. Those were the efforts he was meant to be exerting himself on.

Rifkind says - more or less - "we all do it". Yup, no doubt.

 

[DotCommunist]

MPs in taking cash to further interests of capital shocker.

its like a sickness with them. They already have 58k a year before they touch expenses, a job out of the rain that they don't have to clock in daily for- and yet they want more.

 

[brogdale]

its like a sickness with them. They already have 58k a year before they touch expenses, a job out of the rain that they don't have to clock in daily for- and yet they want more.

£60 ain't enough.

• He said senior business and professional figures would not enter parliament if MPs were banned from having second jobs.

If you’re trying to attract people of a business or a professional background to serve in the House of Commons and if they’re not ministers, it is quite unrealistic to think they will go through their parliamentary career being able to simply accept a salary of £60,000. That sounds a lot to a lot of people earning less than that, but the vast majority of people of a business or professional background earn far, far more than that.

You've got to remember they look at those pulling their strings and think they're somehow as important.

 

[Wilf]

its like a sickness with them. They already have 58k a year before they touch expenses, a job out of the rain that they don't have to clock in daily for- and yet they want more.

£67,000 I think?

 

[Wilf]

Thieving, dirty, rotten shitbags - aka business as usual.

 

[butchersapron]

Aka pay big money get big talent

 

[danny la rouge]

Aka pay big money get big talent

They all seem to have a big talent for attracting big money to their pockets.

 

[butchersapron]

They all seem to have a big talent for attracting big money to their pockets.

The underlying logic of Lembit '13% swing' Opik and others of pay peanuts get monkeys is that all 650 members are monkeys - and that he is a failed wannabe monkey.

 

[danny la rouge]

The undferlying logic of Lembit '13% swing' Opik and others of pay peanuts get monkeys is that all 650 members are monkeys - and that he is a failed wannabe monkey.

And also that £67k is peanuts. Poor dears.

I'd like peanuts.

 

[DotCommunist]

at those prices I would expect the whole peanut tree, covered in gold leaf and fed to me by an expensive robot arm

 

[Wilf]

Big business or newspaper books hotel suite, MP wanders in, takes tea, names price, gets filmed. All good for the hotel and miniature camera industry.

 

[Dogsauce]

The long-forgotten point of parliament is to Represent the people. The clever business economics and other technical stuff should be left to civil servants who have the skills to implement or work towards the policy goals decided by the people's representatives. Having a chamber stuffed full of business people just means that the policy goals are designed around the needs of such people. We need a lot less of them.

 

[danny la rouge]

The long-forgotten point of parliament is to Represent the people.

It's amazing how many people think that.

The point of parliament is actually to represent the ruling class.

 

[andysays]

It's amazing how many people think that. The point of parliament is actually to represent the ruling class.

Exactly, hence there's not even an attempt to hide the underlying assumption

If you’re trying to attract people of a business or a professional background...

Also

He said senior business and professional figures would not enter parliament if MPs were banned from having second jobs

And he is clearly suggesting that would necessarily be a bad thing...

 

[danny la rouge]

It is “quite unrealistic” to think MPs can live on “simply £60,000” a year, says Sir Malky.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/inv...e-on-60k-a-year-says-Sir-Malcolm-Rifkind.html

I know, it's terrible. It's like the minimum wage. Or the average wage.

 

[DJWrongspeed]

I'll watch the doc tonight but on first impressions they haven't actually done anything wrong? legally anyway. Jack Straw is retiring in May anyway so who can blame him wanting to look for work ?

More importantly this was the Telegraph 'making' a story rather than actually investigating dubious HSBC.

 

[Lord Camomile]

I'm actually mildly surprised at the going rate; £5k a day seems kind of cheap, for that world.

 

[SaskiaJayne]

Its a difficult one, politicians need to be people of both ability & intergrity, they need to have higher ideals than the accumulation of wealth. The people with political power are not necessarily those with massive wealth. Those with massive wealth seek always to increase their wealth & they can often do this by influencing politicians. So the wealthy seek out the company of politicians & offer them money for 'advice' & so on. This gives the politician a taste for the goodlife & so it goes on. Nobody has any answers & the public just become more disillusioned with the political process & are even less inclined to vote.

Rather than railing against the political class generally does anybody have any answers on how to change this? The problem here is corruption. I'm sure there are less corrupt politicians in the UK than some other countries though. An MP can be corrupted whatever their background so where they come from is less important & most important is that they are people of integrity as well as ability. I think the way forward if there is one is that MPs do not have any other income except their salary. Rifkind is talking bollocks saying you need wealthy business people as MPs, that will just give more of the same. What is needed is people of integrity & honesty to be MPs

 

[danny la rouge]

Its a difficult one

No it isn't.

 

[Wilf]

I'll watch the doc tonight but on first impressions they haven't actually done anything wrong? legally anyway. Jack .

Probably not, legally. He's just allowing the super rich to exercise their influence on public policy - secretly. Pretty run of the mill stuff. And that's why he HAS done something wrong.

 

[danny la rouge]

Here's the thing. The problem isn't that Straw and Rifkind had outside interests; it's that they had inside interests.

They think it's normal for MPs to take money to influence things in the interests of companies when they are already supposed to be influencing those same things in their constituents' interests.

But they can see nothing wrong in what they were doing because it's normal! Have you heard them both today on the radio? They're baffled, outraged and stocked to the brim with fucking entitlement.

Fuck you both. You think your job is to influence stuff for the highest bidder. Fuck you.

 

[SaskiaJayne]

No it isn't.

Yes it is. You need MPs who reject a life of wealth & privilege even though they rub shoulders with the wealthy & priviledged. MPs are often by their nature ambitious & part of ambition is often the desire for wealth.

 

[Wilf]

Here's the thing. The problem isn't that Straw and Rifkind had outside interests; it's that they had inside interests.

They think it's normal for MPs to take money to influence things in the interests of companies when they are already supposed to be influencing those same things in their constituents' interests.

But they can see nothing wrong in what they were doing because it's normal! Have you heard them both today on the radio? They're baffled, outraged and stocked to the brim with fucking entitlement.

Fuck you both. You think your job is to influence stuff for the highest bidder. Fuck you.

All the language they use, 'external interests', a nice little discourse to fog over the fact that they are on the take.

 

[danny la rouge]

Yes it is. You need MPs who reject a life of wealth & privilege even though they rub shoulders with the wealthy & priviledged. MPs are often by their nature ambitious & part of ambition is often the desire for wealth.

(From) £67k a year is not "rejecting wealth".

 

[tim]

MPs in taking cash to further interests of capital shocker.

It shocks and amuses me that they were stupid enough to fall for this. I'd always assumed that Straw and Rifkin were clever bastards but it turns out that they're no brighter than Patrick Mercer.

Still they can take comfort from the fact that being a convicted fraudster hasn't stopped the media continually turning to and, presumably paying,Denis Mcshane for his political insights paedophilia Europe and the Ukraine.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Yes it is. You need MPs who reject a life of wealth & privilege even though they rub shoulders with the wealthy & priviledged.

While staying well clear of the poor and underprivileged?

I'm presuming that's not what you meant, but there seems to be an overemphasis on who MPs should be dealing with.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Have selection by lot (like jury service) of delegates not representatives. Do politics (all the investigation, campaigning and policy making) outside of the town and city halls, outside of the parliaments and assemblies; do it where people live and work. Make politics part of the life and work of us all, then we won't need representation.

Not holding my breath - Louis MacNeice

 

[andysays]

Yes it is. You need MPs who reject a life of wealth & privilege even though they rub shoulders with the wealthy & priviledged. MPs are often by their nature ambitious & part of ambition is often the desire for wealth.

The vast majority of MPs are already accustomed to lives of (relative) wealth and privilege before they actually become MPs.

And they are already used to rubbing shoulders with the wealthy & privileged (even if for a few of them that's not their immediate background), that's part of how they come to be MPs.

Their desire is not so much to use their position to elevate themselves to that position in the first place, but to consolidate themselves (even) further within it.