This is just starting tonight. See where it goes. Not a good look for two former Foreign Secretaries though :bleeding: :ultra:
QuoteJack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind face 'cash for access' allegations
Former foreign secretaries offered to use their political influence on behalf of fictitious Chinese firm set up by Channel 4's Dispatches
Patrick Wintour, political editor
Sunday 22 February 2015 23.19 GMT
Two former foreign secretaries are facing accusations of being involved in a new "cash for access" scandal by offering to use their political influence in return for payment.
The Telegraph and Dispatches said that Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind offered to use their positions as politicians on behalf of a fictitious Chinese company set up by Channel 4's Dispatches in return for payments of at least £5,000 per day.
Straw, one of Labour's most senior figures, claimed that he operated "under the radar" to use his influence to change European Union rules on behalf of a commodity firm which paid him £60,000 a year. He also claimed to have used "charm and menace" to convince the Ukrainian prime minister to change laws on behalf of the same firm.
Straw has decided to refer himself to the parliamentary commissioner for standards and suspended himself from the parliamentary Labour party.Rifkind also referred himself to the parliamentary commissioner for standards. In a statement the Labour party described the allegations against Straw as "disturbing".
Both men can claim that they will not have breached parliamentary rules as long as they disclosed their activities and financial interests at the relevant time in the register of members' interests.
But the story is likely to raise again the broader, complex debate on whether MPs or peers should be allowed to hold second jobs that allow them to lobby on legislation, or any other political issue, on behalf of private commercial interests.
Rifkind, who chairs the Commons intelligence and security committee, said he could arrange "useful access" to every British ambassador in the world because of his status.
According to the Telegraph, he said that he would submit questions to ministers on behalf of a paying client without revealing their identity.
It is the third time that reporters have been able to expose the willingness of politicians to make themselves available for hire in covert sting operations, but it has not yet been proved that either figure broke a parliamentary rule. The full transcripts of the discussions are not available.
Channel 4 and the Daily Telegraph disclosed that their reporters had approached 12 MPs asking if they would be interested in joining the advisory board of a Chinese company.
Six of the 12 did not respond and one said his contacts were not "for sale".
Straw and Rifkind agreed to enter discussions with the fictitious company which, they were told, was looking to expand its business interests in Europe and form an advisory board. Undercover reporters met Rifkind at the fictional firm's Mayfair office in January. Rifkind said he could meet "any ambassador that I wish to see" in London.
"They'll all see me personally," he added. "That provides access in a way that is useful".
In a second meeting, Rifkind suggested that he would be willing to write to ministers on behalf of the company without declaring the name of the firm.
According to the Telegraph, Straw explained how he had helped ED&F Man, a commodities company with a sugar refinery in Ukraine, to change an EU regulation by meeting officials in Brussels.
He claimed that he had overturned a law in Ukraine that would have hindered the commodities firm operating a factory they had recently refurbished.
The law made their activities "completely uneconomic" and so Straw took company representatives to see Mykola Azarov, the then Ukrainian prime minister, in September 2011.
"It's a combination of sort of charm and menace ... I mean he [the prime minister] understood."
Straw's spokesman said there was nothing inappropriate in him using the "knowledge and experience" he acquired as an MP after he stands down. The spokesman said Straw "has always been full and frank in any work carried out on behalf of ED&F Man" and had declared his role with the firm to Azarov and the European commission.
The spokesman said Straw's use of the phrase "charm and menace" would have been "colloquial and a purely conversational description of the approach he had adopted".
Asked about Straw's boast that he operated "under the radar", his spokesman said: "This was a reference to his preferred strategy of effecting a change to regulations by discussion and negotiation, rather than conducting a high-profile public campaign."
Straw's aides said that when he mentioned the £5,000 fee, he was giving it as an example and not as part of a negotiation.
Rifkind said he believed the "firm" had sought his help as a former foreign secretary rather than as an MP. He said: "I have never undertaken, nor would I undertake, any lobbying as an MP on behalf of any private organisation from which I was receiving remuneration."
He insisted that when he said he could write to ministers, he was only offering to obtain information that was "already in the public domain".
Asked by the BBC if he thought the allegations had any bearing on his role as security committee chairman, he said: "None whatsoever."
You could knock me down with a feather. :bowler:
This plays the ball into UKIP hands.
How much does an MP get paid?
That sounds really bad.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2015, 09:15:21 PM
How much does an MP get paid?
£67 000.
Rifkind would get £81 000 as Chair of a Select Committee.
Quotebut it has not yet been proved that either figure broke a parliamentary rule.
Doesn't look good, but it doesn't look illegal, either.
I mean, it sorta goes without saying that former high-ranking government officials can get things done at a certain level out of phone calls and face time, and with that comes a premium.
Don't tell me that the English are finally catching on to the concept of "lobbying", and are actually shocked that this is how it's done.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2015, 09:24:38 PM
Quotebut it has not yet been proved that either figure broke a parliamentary rule.
Doesn't look good, but it doesn't look illegal, either.
I mean, it sorta goes without saying that former high-ranking government officials can get things done at a certain level out of phone calls and face time, and with that comes a premium.
Don't tell me that the English are finally catching on to the concept of "lobbying", and are actually shocked that this is how it's done.
But they are sitting MPs. How does that functionally differ from a straight up bribe?
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2015, 09:37:13 PM
But they are sitting MPs. How does that functionally differ from a straight up bribe?
Sounds like your average member of Congress.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2015, 09:41:06 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2015, 09:37:13 PM
But they are sitting MPs. How does that functionally differ from a straight up bribe?
Sounds like your average member of Congress.
I'm not aware of something like this happening in the US in some time (at least with the leadership).
Campaign donations are not the same as directly paying a politician, and even then I think a straight up quid pro quo of campaign cash for a policy action would be illegal.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 22, 2015, 09:46:08 PM
I'm not aware of something like this happening in the US in some time (at least with the leadership).
Campaign donations are not the same as directly paying a politician,
Cash for access is a time honored tradition.
And if you honestly think that campaign donations /= paying a politician, then you're more naive than I am cynical.
Quoteand even then I think a straight up quid pro quo of campaign cash for a policy action would be illegal.
It is, but this isn't a case of "straight up quid pro quo" for a "policy action", now is it?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2015, 09:56:36 PM
It is, but this isn't a case of "straight up quid pro quo" for a "policy action", now is it?
This sounds like at least part of it is:
QuoteStraw, one of Labour's most senior figures, claimed that he operated "under the radar" to use his influence to change European Union rules on behalf of a commodity firm which paid him £60,000 a year. He also claimed to have used "charm and menace" to convince the Ukrainian prime minister to change laws on behalf of the same firm.
"Under the radar", "charm and menace". Sounds to me like a very particular set of skills, skills acquired over a very long career. Building bridges. Synergistic integration. Reaching out to stakeholders.
Jack Straw, the socialist, never fails to disgust me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 22, 2015, 09:20:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2015, 09:15:21 PM
How much does an MP get paid?
£67 000.
Rifkind would get £81 000 as Chair of a Select Committee.
By way of comparison, a 3-year qualified Associate at a top London law firm might be on about £85,000, plus bonus.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2015, 10:04:51 PM
"Under the radar", "charm and menace". Sounds to me like a very particular set of skills, skills acquired over a very long career. Building bridges. Synergistic integration. Reaching out to stakeholders.
You might very well say that. But I couldn't possibly comment.
An Austrian former minister and EU MP has been sent to jail for a few years over pretty much the same thing. It was a bit of a surprise, considering how lenient Austria normally is in such cases.
It's weird. Rifkind gave a very good defence of the whole cash for access but totally ruined it with his other comments.
You'd be 'amazed how much free time' he has, the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Select Committee.
A man of his professional background is 'entitled' to certain standard of living. He earns around £81 000 as an MP, and £270 000 as a director of various companies. And compared his £67 000 annual base salary with the £8 000 he can earn for a half day's work for a private company :bleeding:
Sheilbh, I have a question - since there are so many of scandals like this in Britain - is this illegal? In Poland there is a crime of "paid patronage" which would capture some of these scandals, I think.
I don't think this is illegal or even against the rules. MPs are allowed second jobs or outside earnings as long as they provide details on the register of members' interests.
Some of it is more sympathetic than others. There are still a few barristers who've kept up their practice (though I think eyebrows are probably raised at one MP who billed around 2000 hours last year....) and there are a few people who are involved in companies they founded. Then there's people who earn a lot from public speaking (Gordon Brown), shilling for unpleasant regimes (George Galloway - who hosts shows for Press TV, Russia Today and once a month, live from Beirut, for Al-Mayadeen) or novel writing (Nadine Dorries).
But most of the £7 million MPs earn on the side comes from consultancy work and directorships.
Edit: On the other hand it's worth emphasising that a lot of this is from just a few MPs. The top ten earn over £2.5 million and I believe only 20 MPs earn over £100 000 a year from their outside interests.
Edit: What often amazes me is how cheap some MPs are and there are problems away from the big figures. For example a junior housing minister is now a director of a private rental company for around £15-20 000 a year. Which probably isn't enough to worry massively about corruption but is still, clearly, a problem.
It is not illegal but exploiting one's political connections in this way for private gain is seen as immoral. I imagine that a bad law will be passed soon that puts a stop to far too much extra-parliamentary activity, confining that place even more to "professional" politicians.
MPs' pay is crap btw, and would be a step down for most modestly successful professionals.
Yeah, that's always a problem.
A Polish MP earns approximately EUR 2.5k per month after taxes. That's about fifth of what I earn. Yet to an "ordinary Pole" this is way too much and "bloody bastards should not be paid more". Not to mention, the scrutiny is obviously much higher than anything you are subject to in private practice.
The end result is mainly people who are either "professional politicians", unsuccesful professionally, independently rich or count on other "benefits" end up in politics.
Edit: The solution is 1-year term only and sortition, as I have always been saying. Political representation (i.e. legislative positions) should be like draft or jury duty. :P
The problem of pay for public service is not limited to MPs - see attitudes towards 'overpaid' and 'lazy' civil servants.
Quote from: Warspite on February 23, 2015, 05:38:18 AM
By way of comparison, a 3-year qualified Associate at a top London law firm might be on about £85,000, plus bonus.
Yeah but most law firms don't close down for eight weeks of the year :P
Quote from: Warspite on February 24, 2015, 04:23:09 AM
The problem of pay for public service is not limited to MPs - see attitudes towards 'overpaid' and 'lazy' civil servants.
I can't agree more. Civil servants deserve higher pay :menace:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 24, 2015, 03:10:21 AMMPs' pay is crap btw, and would be a step down for most modestly successful professionals.
I'm not sure that's true. See the stats with this Spectator piece:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/02/the-sad-truth-is-that-malcolm-rifkinds-political-career-ended-in-1997/
I think part of it is that weird distorting element about London.
I always think of an Evening Standard piece about property written by one of the Made in Chelsea girls. She'd been given £500 000 by her parents to get her started on the property ladder. To her horror she couldn't afford a remotely decent flat in Chelsea and was forced to look further afield in places like Fulham and Putney. Or I think of novels from the mid-twentieth century which have Chelsea as a plausible area for civil servants and hacks.
It's the usual keeping up with the Jones scenario, but for people who are senior MPs or board members they're trying to keep up with a super-rich that now live in the bits of London that the merely rich used to be able to afford. Which then distorts everything else for everyone else.
The average pay figures for professionals always surprise me by being on the low side but we should bear in mind that they include the recently qualified and also people with their own businesses who take much of their earnings as company dividends rather than as salary. They will also include a large cohort of people who never get a substantive promotion, many of these people are steady and reliable but are unlikely to set the world alight as MPs. There is also the business of potentially losing your job at an election then having trouble getting back in your old profession.
Of course, in living memory, there used to be many electricians, coal miners , bus drivers and so on in the Commons.........no doubt they were delighted by the pay and conditions and they made perfectly good MPs :hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 25, 2015, 03:16:00 AM
The average pay figures for professionals always surprise me by being on the low side but we should bear in mind that they include the recently qualified and also people with their own businesses who take much of their earnings as company dividends rather than as salary. They will also include a large cohort of people who never get a substantive promotion, many of these people are steady and reliable but are unlikely to set the world alight as MPs. There is also the business of potentially losing your job at an election then having trouble getting back in your old profession.
Of course, in living memory, there used to be many electricians, coal miners , bus drivers and so on in the Commons.........no doubt they were delighted by the pay and conditions and they made perfectly good MPs :hmm:
Yup, average pay for professionals is always low, as the spreads are huge. For every high-flying City lawyer bringing in half a million quid per year, there are 20 country solicitors with annual income in tens of thousands or less.