[metaslider id=660]
BY BRAD JAMES
There was a time when politicians failed to earn even a penny for their foray into statesmanship. Instead of this fact representing some form of communist idyll, this utopian sense of selflessness was merely due to the main body of those standing in parliament at the time. The House of Commons has been an ironic name for a while, as the vast majority of MP’s hail from noble/upper class birth. Such a heritage was even more apparent prior to the 20th century. Hence the abundance of Prime Ministers such as the Duke of Wellington, Viscount Palmerston, the Earl of Derby et al.
Pay for MP’s was introduced as a proponent of social mobility, when the Labour movement saw an influx of working class union men rising through the ranks and bringing their red ardour to the green leather. In 2015, the basic pay for a Member of Parliament is £67,060 per annum, rising to £134,565 for Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet Ministers and David Cameron receives £142,500 for squatting in Number 10 for the last five years (after forming a coalition no one asked for or wanted). Yet many politicians have careers that existed before they dabbled in government, 281 members of the House of Commons in fact, accruing combined earnings from those outside endeavours of £7.4 million yearly. Yet when earning money as an extra-curricular activity outside of parliament undermines an MP’s work in parliament, that’s when questions about the efficacy of allowing politicians to have outside incomes gets raised.
In a recent episode of Dispatches on Channel 4, the documentary exposed Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw offering cash for access. Cash for Access is a poisoned thorn in what is supposed to be a healthy bloom of democracy, as it allows those with financial clout to pay MP’s to gain access to senior government officials – Cabinet members included. As former Cabinet grandees themselves, the influence in their respective parties are strong and therefore acts as a sad indictment that money is the real barometer for influence and undermines all of our rights to equal representation. Sir Malcolm Rifkind entered Thatcher’s government in 1979, appointed as Scottish Secretary in 1986, becoming Defence Secretary under John Major in 1992, implementing many cost saving measures to the department, until he lost his seat when Blair became PM in 1997. Having made a return to government in 2005 as a brief attempt to challenge Michael Howard for the Conservative Party leadership, he only until recently chaired the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. A body which oversees the UK’s intelligence agencies, he has been heavily involved in the debate over privacy and surveillance powers.
Jack Straw has held two of the great offices of state in Tony Blair’s government, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary. He also served for a time as Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is clear both are high ranking elites, rank and file top brass of their parties, with much honour and respect owing to their status, plus it stinks of the notion of privilege ruling our nation. It also raises questions about how highly MP’s regard their positions in government and their standing as a talisman for their constituents. This very issue was on the agenda in Westminster today, following some the highly public embarrassment of Mr. Rifkind’s and Mr. Straw’s infractions – which has forced Malcolm Rifkind’s resignation as an MP and for him to stand down from his committee chair after the General Election. Labour have made the move to ban politicians serving in Westminster as well as on paid directorships and consultancies, arguing for the need to restore public trust. Although the motion was defeated 287 to 219.
Everyone is walking on thin ice at the moment. It’s the time in half a decade when our voice actually matters to a significant extent, so government and opposition are fawning over us. It affords a rare glimpse of who they are accountable to, and this is a glaring error in what should be an indefatigable adherence to democracy and the pursuit of public service. Money talks, as the saying goes and it always speaks the loudest when funnelled through the corridors of power. What truly matters about this scandal is who would Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind have bestowed such access upon, if the person asking had not been an undercover investigator? How many other MP’s have been committing this act? Most importantly, what legislation and bills have been influenced by such a process? This is once more a grave failure and sore issue of neglect from the ‘Mother of Parliaments.’
