2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[Mark_w]

I can't get over the clown collection, I think she's taken it a bit far.

[Alf Bentley]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31580374

 

Two former foreign secretaries have been secretly filmed apparently offering their services to a private company for thousands of pounds.

Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind are the subject of the allegations, arising from a joint investigation by the Daily Telegraph and Channel 4's Dispatches.

The documentary makers said reporters posed as staff of a fake Chinese firm.

The MPs have referred themselves to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Both deny any wrongdoing.

It is claimed that Mr Straw was recorded describing how he operated "under the radar" and had used his influence to change EU rules on behalf of a firm which paid him £60,000 a year.

On the subject of payment, Mr Straw allegedly said: "So normally, if I'm doing a speech or something, it's £5,000 a day, that's what I charge."

Sir Malcolm is reported to have claimed he could arrange "useful access" to every British ambassador in the world.

The Conservative MP for Kensington and chairman of Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee is also allegedly heard saying: "Nobody pays me a salary."

[Guest MattP]

Neither of those names surprise me unfortunately.

[bovril]

I truly despise Jack Straw, he would pardon the murderer of his own Grandmother if he thought it would win him votes.

[Rincewind]

he's not the only one.

[Alf Bentley]

I truly despise Jack Straw, he would pardon the murderer of his own Grandmother if he thought it would win him votes.

 

Yes, indeed. Whatever the truth in this particular scandal, I've always seen Straw as one of the most deeply cynical politicians out there.

Slightly more surprised about Rifkind, who always seemed one of the more thoughtful, human Tories, but I'd not paid attention to his ethical conduct, or lack thereof.

 

This might be a bit more of a problem for the Tories than for Labour, as Straw was standing down anyway, whereas Rifkind was due to be a candidate again (extraordinarily, as he was in Thatcher's cabinet).

Apparently, the Tories are going to conduct an internal investigation and he won't be allowed to be a candidate unless he's cleared by that - though the parliamentary investigation into him and Straw is likely to take several months.

 

Straw is already claiming that he was just talking about earning some cash after he'd stood down as an MP. So, Miliband will be able to express distaste about his actions without having to do much. He might not be too disappointed, either, as Straw is one of the cynical greasers closely associated with New Labour, the same traitorous bunch who are emerging from the woodwork criticising Miliband for not being more "New Labour", Just need an exposé of Alan Milburn and Mandelson up to dodgy business now!

 

Overall, scandals like this are most likely to benefit UKIP, the Greens and the SNP, if anyone. Though most people are already pretty cynical about politicians and those who were likely to shift party will mostly have already done so.

 

Must piss off the MPs (majority or minority?) who seek to serve their constituents and political beliefs honorably, as they all end up unfairly tarred with the same brush.

 

MPs should be paid more (£65k is too low compared to similar positions of responsibility, like senior civil servants, businessmen, GPs, head teachers), but good luck persuading the public of that! Whether that would eliminate the money-grubbing, greasy-pole culture is quite another matter - especially when the links between big business, their lobbyists and politicians of all main parties are so tightly meshed.

 

I don't buy the argument that it's a good thing for MPs to have second jobs. It would be a good thing if more of them came from different employment backgrounds before they were MPs, as that would give them a wider understanding of life - particularly if each party had people from a range of different backgrounds, rather than just a load of former special advisers/career politicians with a scattering of trade unionists and businessmen. Do MPs seriously have so much spare time that they can do a second job? Plus, one of the arguments for having constituency MPs is that contact with constituents keeps them in touch with the real world.

[Sir Fynwy]

Yes, indeed. Whatever the truth in this particular scandal, I've always seen Straw as one of the most deeply cynical politicians out there.

Slightly more surprised about Rifkind, who always seemed one of the more thoughtful, human Tories, but I'd not paid attention to his ethical conduct, or lack thereof.

This might be a bit more of a problem for the Tories than for Labour, as Straw was standing down anyway, whereas Rifkind was due to be a candidate again (extraordinarily, as he was in Thatcher's cabinet).

Apparently, the Tories are going to conduct an internal investigation and he won't be allowed to be a candidate unless he's cleared by that - though the parliamentary investigation into him and Straw is likely to take several months.

Straw is already claiming that he was just talking about earning some cash after he'd stood down as an MP. So, Miliband will be able to express distaste about his actions without having to do much. He might not be too disappointed, either, as Straw is one of the cynical greasers closely associated with New Labour, the same traitorous bunch who are emerging from the woodwork criticising Miliband for not being more "New Labour", Just need an exposé of Alan Milburn and Mandelson up to dodgy business now!

Overall, scandals like this are most likely to benefit UKIP, the Greens and the SNP, if anyone. Though most people are already pretty cynical about politicians and those who were likely to shift party will mostly have already done so.

Must piss off the MPs (majority or minority?) who seek to serve their constituents and political beliefs honorably, as they all end up unfairly tarred with the same brush.

MPs should be paid more (£65k is too low compared to similar positions of responsibility, like senior civil servants, businessmen, GPs, head teachers), but good luck persuading the public of that! Whether that would eliminate the money-grubbing, greasy-pole culture is quite another matter - especially when the links between big business, their lobbyists and politicians of all main parties are so tightly meshed.

I don't buy the argument that it's a good thing for MPs to have second jobs. It would be a good thing if more of them came from different employment backgrounds before they were MPs, as that would give them a wider understanding of life - particularly if each party had people from a range of different backgrounds, rather than just a load of former special advisers/career politicians with a scattering of trade unionists and businessmen. Do MPs seriously have so much spare time that they can do a second job? Plus, one of the arguments for having constituency MPs is that contact with constituents keeps them in touch with the real world.

I'd be happy to see MPs paid a larger salary if they reduce the numbers of MPs by at least half, parliament is far too large, 200-300 well paid motivated politicians in the house would lead to a far better quality of governance in my opinion.

[GaelicFox]

I'd be happy to see MPs paid a larger salary if they reduce the numbers of MPs by at least half, parliament is far too large, 200-300 well paid motivated politicians in the house would lead to a far better quality of governance in my opinion.

Totally agree 250 would be more than enough then pay them guys 90-100k a year and get quality applicant

[GaelicFox]

LOL ...UKIP ,

premature election suicide

[bovril]

Disgusting portrayal of UKIP, tarring them with the same brush. There are two types of people I hate: those who generalise about a group of people, and fvcking Romanians.

[Alf Bentley]

I'd agree with a big reduction in the number of MPs, but only if it was combined with the devolution of a lot of power to the local or regional level.

 

Many other countries have fewer MPs, but they also invariably have less centralised systems of government. If you want a very centralised political system (I don't), then you need a lot of people to run it. Otherwise, either a small number of people are exercising an enormous amount of power or unelected civil servants are running whole swathes of the country without political oversight.

 

Also, according to a survey quoted on the lunchtime news, the average MP works a 67-hour week (excluding travel). What would happen to the work done by the 400 MPs that you got rid of, if you only had 250 MPs?

- What effects would it have at constituency level? I think that the average MP currently represents about 70,000 constituents....presumably they'd have to represent about 200,000 instead; so you'd have 1 MP for the whole of Leicester, instead of 3.

- What effects would it have at parliamentary level? There are currently about 120 cabinet and junior ministers and whips, so you'd have to either give government posts to almost the entire governing party or drastically reduce democratic oversight.

 

And how much money would you save?

- Get rid of 400 MPs at £65k = an annual saving of £26m

- Increase pay for the rest (250 x £35k) = £8.75m.....

So a net saving of £17.25m, compared to an annual budget of £732bn.

That's an annual saving of 0.0024%....hardly a great deal in exchange for practically demolishing democracy at both the national and the constituency level!

 

I'm partly playing devil's advocate, here, as I'd favour fewer MPs in combination with a lot more decentralisation of power....

[GaelicFox]

Disgusting portrayal of UKIP, tarring them with the same brush. There are two types of people I hate: those who generalise about a group of people, and fvcking Romanians.

Seriously funny self portrayal

I'd agree with a big reduction in the number of MPs, but only if it was combined with the devolution of a lot of power to the local or regional level.

 

Many other countries have fewer MPs, but they also invariably have less centralised systems of government. If you want a very centralised political system (I don't), then you need a lot of people to run it. Otherwise, either a small number of people are exercising an enormous amount of power or unelected civil servants are running whole swathes of the country without political oversight.

 

Also, according to a survey quoted on the lunchtime news, the average MP works a 67-hour week (excluding travel). What would happen to the work done by the 400 MPs that you got rid of, if you only had 250 MPs?

- What effects would it have at constituency level? I think that the average MP currently represents about 70,000 constituents....presumably they'd have to represent about 200,000 instead; so you'd have 1 MP for the whole of Leicester, instead of 3.

- What effects would it have at parliamentary level? There are currently about 120 cabinet and junior ministers and whips, so you'd have to either give government posts to almost the entire governing party or drastically reduce democratic oversight.

 

And how much money would you save?

- Get rid of 400 MPs at £65k = an annual saving of £26m

- Increase pay for the rest (250 x £35k) = £8.75m.....

So a net saving of £17.25m, compared to an annual budget of £732bn.

That's an annual saving of 0.0024%....hardly a great deal in exchange for practically demolishing democracy at both the national and the constituency level!

 

I'm partly playing devil's advocate, here, as I'd favour fewer MPs in combination with a lot more decentralisation of power....

I'd vote for that

[Guest MattP]

Not sure about cutting the number of MP'S - 650 isn't that many for 60 million people.

Of course I favour a lot more decentralisation and less impact of the state on it's people.

Other news Rifkind resigns. Hardly surprising, the public just don't have the tolerance for this anymore, sick of hearing politicians hiding behind rules we all know are clearly wrong, similar to the expenses scandal, the rules are there so if they get caught they can actually say officially they haven't broken any rules etc - even when anyone with common sense knows what they have done is morally incorrect.

[Guest MattP]

Natalie Bennett on the radio. Sounds like the citizens income and give ISIS a hug policies are staying.

Not releasing the costings until May though unfortunately.

[Alf Bentley]

Other news Rifkind resigns. Hardly surprising, the public just don't have the tolerance for this anymore, sick of hearing politicians hiding behind rules we all know are clearly wrong, similar to the expenses scandal, the rules are there so if they get caught they can actually say officially they haven't broken any rules etc - even when anyone with common sense knows what they have done is morally incorrect.

 

His quote (from the Indie) is interesting: "Sir Malcolm said today: “This is entirely my personal decision. I have had no such requests from my constituency association but I believe that it is the right and proper action to take."

 

I note that he says he's had no such requests "from [his] constituency association", not from his party.... He's a QC who habitually speaks (very articulately) in legalese, so my reading of that is that Cameron or someone high up in the party has had a word in his ear... a wise decision by the Tories, I'd say, so that the issue doesn't run and run throughout the election campaign. Being cynical, I wonder if we'll see a Lord Rifkind in the cabinet in a couple of years, if the Tories win? 

[Guest MattP]

Very possible, wouldn't be the first party to shift a disgraced ex politician back into the cabinet after a peerage.

Delighted to say Natalie Bennett has been at it again this morning This interview actually makes the Andrew Neil one look sensible....

[Guest MattP]

http://news.sky.com/story/1433260/green-leader-gives-excruciating-interview

Only three minutes unfortunately, she's just apologised to green party members on the Dailly Politic for it. If I were them I'd be doing my best to be excluded from these tv debates.

[Alf Bentley]

http://news.sky.com/story/1433260/green-leader-gives-excruciating-interview

Only three minutes unfortunately, she's just apologised to green party members on the Dailly Politic for it. If I were them I'd be doing my best to be excluded from these tv debates.

 

Embarrassing stuff. If she wasn't clear about the costing and funding figures, she should have just said that the figures would be in their manifesto and talked about the principle of the policy. And if she wasn't up to doing the interview because of a heavy cold, she should have cancelled or sent someone else - like Caroline Lucas, who would doubtless have done an infinitely more professional job (though it would be hard to have been less professional, tbf).

 

The question can be asked: would the interviewer have been so aggressive with Cameron, Clegg or Miliband (repeated interruptions)? Maybe, maybe not, but the leader of a political party needs to be able to deal with the Paxman style of interviewer.

 

If I were running the Labour election campaign, I'd be downloading this for inclusion in their party political broadcasts....and if I were a right-winger like you, Matt, I'd be hushing it up, as the Greens looking bad is mainly likely to benefit Labour, surely?!

[Guest Kopfkino]

A kid I'm currently tutoring for economics intends to vote Green in May. Unsurprisingly he isn't very good at economics

[Alf Bentley]

A kid I'm currently tutoring for economics intends to vote Green in May. Unsurprisingly he isn't very good at economics

 

Probably got a crap tutor... 

[Guest MattP]

Embarrassing stuff. If she wasn't clear about the costing and funding figures, she should have just said that the figures would be in their manifesto and talked about the principle of the policy. And if she wasn't up to doing the interview because of a heavy cold, she should have cancelled or sent someone else - like Caroline Lucas, who would doubtless have done an infinitely more professional job (though it would be hard to have been less professional, tbf).

The question can be asked: would the interviewer have been so aggressive with Cameron, Clegg or Miliband (repeated interruptions)? Maybe, maybe not, but the leader of a political party needs to be able to deal with the Paxman style of interviewer.

If I were running the Labour election campaign, I'd be downloading this for inclusion in their party political broadcasts....and if I were a right-winger like you, Matt, I'd be hushing it up, as the Greens looking bad is mainly likely to benefit Labour, surely?!

I've decided against that, despite my distain for the Labour party I don't think any sensible person can sit back and let a party with policies and opinions as dangerous as the Greens get any sort of support or momentum.

I know we can all exaggerate about leaving the country etc if certain parties got to power but anyone with any aspiration or anyone wanting to live a normal life would have too if this lot got anywhere near.

Nick Ferrari is like that with every leader, very similar to Andrew Neil, it's how it should be as well, watching Jo Coburn interview her today was a bit of a nothing event.

[Guest MattP]

Although I will say for the sake of 5 years.

If she can build me a house for £5,400 she can have my vote once.

[MooseBreath]

Natalie Bennett announces completion of first batch of £5,400 houses

[Hirsty The Blue 94]

That was terribly awkward by Natalie Bennett. This is the problem with minority parties, most of their policies are not exactly thorough because they know they are unlikely to be questioned deeply on them.

[Guest MattP]

Natalie Bennett announces completion of first batch of £5,400 houses