So here’s a fun question

Rifkind would, as an ex-Foreign Secretary, pretty much have a right to a peerage.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the Conservative MP embroiled in cash for access allegations, is to step down as an MP at the General Election and has also resigned as chairman of the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee.

So, what odds on him actually getting one?

Same goes for Jack Straw actually (he was Home Office, wasn’t he?)

14 thoughts on “So here’s a fun question”

  1. I’d like to hope that Rifkind will be stripped of his K rather than bumped up a level. Unfortunately, reality impinges.

  2. How could anyone forget Straw as Foreign Secretary – the minister who, because of the poor lighting, couldn’t recognise Robert Mugabe, with whom he found himself ‘accidentally’ shaking hands?

  3. Presumably now that he’s freed from the shackles of being an MP, Rifkind will have the liberty to demonstrate his vast ability by earning more than he was previously.

  4. Yes, it did amuse me that he was demanding a good professional salary without the training or qualifications that a professional job would require.

  5. Surely, as compensation for not getting the peerage, Her Majesty could instead provide them with free accommodation for a lengthy period of time.

  6. bloke (not) in spain

    “..without the training or qualifications that a professional job would require.”
    Isn’t that rather the point? The post was for a money grubbing MP. They were both qualified, trained money grubbing MPs.

  7. Richard: They all look the same to him?

    Indeed, unkind tongues were wagging to that effect at the time.

    Yes, it did amuse me that he was demanding a good professional salary without the training or qualifications that a professional job would require.

    Rifkind is a QC, Straw qualified as a barrister but would need to retrain as a barista.

  8. Rifkind is a QC in the sense that a barrister who becomes a Minister is minted as a QC. At least I think that’s so: not sure he’s a “real” QC as it were.

  9. If Rifkind had wanted a decent lawyer’s income he should have stayed as a lawyer.

    The MPs’ salary, it is true, is likely to attract only those who already have a nice little pile, or who are incapable of earning much anyway. We are the electorate: why don’t we change it if we want more capable people to do the job? But do we?

    It’s a pity that Rifkind didn’t lament the fact that as MP for a London seat he couldn’t rip us off on expenses the way that Balls and Trixiebell do. And Straw too, for all I know. And Moribund?

  10. Dearime: The old “pay ’em enough to bring in good people” fantasy eh?

    The “job” is thieving and lording it over others in service of their own egos. Good people don’t do that–that is one of the things that makes them good.

    More competent then? More competent thieves and tyrants ?–no thanks.

    Think of them as an inner ring of sharks in a feeding frenzy,
    circling their floating prey. Just outside the ring is another ring of second eleven sharks ( These would equate to local government or 3rd sector pricks ). If–by some magic means –repellent or beaming them into space–the inner ring of predators was destroyed then all that would happen is that the small fry sharks would move in and begin to fatten and grow as they gained experience in their vile trade. Experience presently denied them by the big sharks in their way.

    The whole rotten system has to go–but then of course the same process of bad driving out good then begins again.

  11. Everyone is saying that Rifkind’s spin about how he’s entitled to make more money has gone down badly. But I think it worked brilliantly to deflect the issue. Because now the debate is all about whether MPs are entitled to earn outside money, or earn outside money on the basis of their position as an MP and Cabinet minister. But that isn’t the real issue at all.

    The issue is that what Rifkind and Straw did appeared to be corrupt. They were offering to get legislation changed, for example, in exchange for money. That is corruption, and it has nothing to do with the general principle of whether an MP is entitled to earn extra dough by being on a company board, or writing a column, or working on the docks, or appearing in a TV commercial, or however else a slimy-but-not corrupt MP might earn extra money. The issue is that they are legislators-for-sale, selling off the power vested in them by their official state positions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *