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

No DJ.

You didn't start watching until 2 pm !

As you quite rightly said they watch from t.v's in their offices and before 1 pm Parliament Live is rarely televised, you usually get Select Comittee proceedings live or pre recordings.. That is not the same as they didn't start working to 2pm.

The BBC is notoriously left-wing, POGS - of course they'd rather concentrate on the supposed wrongdoings of Rifkind!

When I said they did not start until 2 pm I had looked at the parliament website. The first committee was tabled for 2 pm. The main house did not start until 2.30 today.

Presumably they were doing other parliamentary things before that time. Surely the 9 - 5 reference wasn't meant to be taken literally...

When I was teaching, I used to get to school at 8 am. School did not start until 9 am, whatever time I arrived. Just being in the building does not count. Did you see how many hours Rifkind said he worked? That's definitely part time hours.

DJ
So you are definitely saying that MP's didn't start working before 2pm

Ana The Conservative Party would prefer the BBC to be the mouthpiece of the establishment - sometimes it is (when it angers one group of people) and sometimes it isn't (when it angers another). A good example of that is the coverage of Mrs Thatcher's funeral: "The BBC said on Wednesday it had received 268 complaints that its coverage was biased in favour of Thatcher, and 227 who said it was biased against her."

The website "Biased BBC" has contributions that are intended to demonstrate how biased the BBC is. These include:

The BBC's coverage of HSBC has been unearthed to support "Labour's narrative on tax evasion".

- The HSBC is, quite rightly, a major story in all the newspapers (bar The Telegraph which has widely been discredited for its lack of coverage) and on all TV channels.

The BBC has done a "hatchet job on UKIP" (by filming Rozanne Duncan's ignorant ramblings about black people).

- UKIP agreed to take part in the programme and Duncan was in no way "tricked" into making such remarks - she just came out with them. It was a self inflicted "hatchet job".

"We are now well into day 5 of the BBC's intensive coverage of the racist Chelsea fans story".

- Again, this was a story that was not given unusually prominent coverage by the BBC. The whole of Europe reverberated with the story and it has received intensive coverage throughout the British media.

Presumably MPs from outlying constituencies have a lot of travelling to do. My local MSP does a great deal of work 'on the ground' in her constituency so, yes, she won't be in her office quite a lot of the time, nor in the Scottish parliament. I think even those who don't vote for her would be hard pressed to say she doesn't work hard.

My Westminster MP replies to letters I send him, which is more than my Oxfordshire constituency MP did back in the late nineties and early noughties. He did turn up on my doorstep once and mentioned letters I'd written to him and to which he hadn't replied over several yesrs. He wanted me to join the LibDems. I said no.

You can't judge how much legitimate work an MP does by watching televised parliament.

'Jack Sraw being one of the good guys'
Let's not forget his silence on the grooming of young girls in his predominately Muslim constituency.

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?'

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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!

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.

Lilygran he said 'nobody pays me a salary' .

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.