The great, the good and the ugly

THE establishment view is that the public rage aimed at two of Westminster’s longest-serving and most respected MPs, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw, this week was unwarranted—a case of anti-politics feeling gone mad. Foolishly entrapped—in a snare a half-blind rabbit could have spotted—the two former foreign secretaries, Sir Malcolm a Conservative, Mr Straw for Labour, were both caught pitching to an undercover television reporter for what they believed was a lucrative opportunity to push the interests of a Chinese company. It was embarrassing; both protested they had broken no law, which may prove to be true. Yet the self-serving establishment view is wrong. Politicians peddling influence for cash is reprehensible, whatever the rules; and in the current, febrile mood, Sir Malcolm and Mr Straw have done serious damage to the system they once served with distinction.

Mr Straw’s case looks the worse of the two. Hitherto a Westminster watchword for probity, the former Blairite star took pains to tell his entrapper he could not consider her putative offer until after his retirement as an MP, in May. Yet by meeting her in his Westminster office, he appeared to break parliamentary rules. More seriously, the lobbying exploits he bragged of—to illustrate the commercial advantages of his operating “under the radar”—appeared to contravene at least the spirit of the law. British MPs may not accept payment for lobbying the government. Mr Straw said he had successfully importuned the European Commission and Ukrainian government—at least once alongside a serving British ambassador—to change their rules on behalf of a commodity trader that pays him £60,000 ($93,000) a year.