Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Dave Spart

Should Mps Be Allowed To Have Second Jobs?

Recommended Posts

Given the mess the country is now in is it acceptable for our democratic representatives to be be managing the country's affairs on a part time basis?

How would you feel if your house was on fire, the fire brigade turned up late, then before the fire was out, half of the firefighters left the scene to go to other jobs?

That is what appears to be happening at the national level. I've just watched a news article where MPs were using all sorts of excuses to keep their part-time jobs.

I say this: Its time to ban MPs moonlighting. They must become full time professional managers. Bring their salaries in line with those in the private sector (which will also have the effect of boosting their pensions) and offer them free training should they lose their seats the way soldiers are offered training when the leave the armed services.

We can no longer allow the country to be managed by those whose minds are not fully on the job.

Edited by Dave Spart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should Mps Be Allowed To Have Second Jobs?

Most certainly, their earnings from second jobs could then be deducted from their MPs pay (Benefits).

If you are on Benefits then any other income you earn will be deducted from those Benefits.

As MPs are on Benefits then the same rule should be applied to them. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the idea of MPs who are actually in touch with business and society compared to politicians who are professional, career voter collectors. The proposal above to have a reduction in MP pay based on outside income is a good one.

I would actually go a step further and disallow all elected or nominated politicians from serving more than 10 years in office. A big part of the problems that we face to-day are a result of institutional intertia and jaded, cynical long term members of some of those institutions. Let's keep things fresh by recycling politicians through our institutions .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If MPs aren't allowed to have second jobs from where would Ministers of State be appointed? The House of Lords?

If a front-bench MP has time to also work as a minister or shadow minister then surely back-bench MPs have time to work part-time for an external business or charity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think MPs should have jobs....but its tricky. How far are their second jobs influencing their decisions in parliament.....who are they representing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I prefer the idea of MPs who are actually in touch with business and society compared to politicians who are professional, career voter collectors. The proposal above to have a reduction in MP pay based on outside income is a good one.

Then you would risk ending up with senior politicians and leaders who simply don't have the political experience needed to make the right judgment calls on very complex and/or sensitive issues. That having been said, I would support a two-term limit on the Prime Minister. Most of the damage done by poor leadership in the PM's job tends to have happened in the third term.

I would actually go a step further and disallow all elected or nominated politicians from serving more than 10 years in office. A big part of the problems that we face to-day are a result of institutional intertia and jaded, cynical long term members of some of those institutions. Let's keep things fresh by recycling politicians through our institutions.

I'd support not having any restrictions on what second jobs an MP can do, but to require them to disclose into the public domain how much they earn, from whom and for what. That way, if constituents feel that an MP is neglecting his or her elected duties, they have the information needed to decide how to vote at the next election. I would also require disclosure of MPs holding any other elected office (e.g. trade union official), whether paid or not, while they are in Parliament, too.

Edited by The Ayatollah Bugheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you would risk ending up with senior politicians and leaders who simply don't have the political experience needed to make the right judgment calls on very complex and/or sensitive issues. That having been said, I would support a two-term limit on the Prime Minister. Most of the damage done by poor leadership in the PM's job tends to have happened in the third term.

I'd support not having any restrictions on what second jobs an MP can do, but to require them to disclose into the public domain how much they earn, from whom and for what. That way, if constituents feel that an MP is neglecting his or her elected duties, they have the information needed to decide how to vote at the next election. I would also require disclosure of MPs holding any other elected office (e.g. trade union official), whether paid or not, while they are in Parliament, too.

They should get the relevant experience before they come to parliament. Once they are there they should have only one master. Transparency on its own is pointless and declaring a conflict of interest doesn't alter it. Choosing every five years between an incumbent and a complete unknown is not effective either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you would risk ending up with senior politicians and leaders who simply don't have the political experience needed to make the right judgment calls on very complex and/or sensitive issues. That having been said, I would support a two-term limit on the Prime Minister. Most of the damage done by poor leadership in the PM's job tends to have happened in the third term.

In the end, the real question is whether better decisions can be made by people who have tried and succeeded or failed in the real world or whether career policitions make the better decisions. A permanent civil service managed by the people, for the people can bring the continuity that you discuss.

A limit of something like 10 years for MPs and 12 years for the Lords might help us to avoid the cynicism that we have seen recently .....

I do agree that it is a tricky question but I would prefer to be led by someone who has had to worry about making payroll, run a school, lead soliders etc etc than being led by someone who has spent their entire life being a politician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the end, the real question is whether better decisions can be made by people who have tried and succeeded or failed in the real world or whether career policitions make the better decisions. A permanent civil service managed by the people, for the people can bring the continuity that you discuss.

A limit of something like 10 years for MPs and 12 years for the Lords might help us to avoid the cynicism that we have seen recently .....

I do agree that it is a tricky question but I would prefer to be led by someone who has had to worry about making payroll, run a school, lead soliders etc etc than being led by someone who has spent their entire life being a politician.

+1

This seems to be being driven by envious MPs who cannot secure well paid work in the real world and have just had their expenses gravy train taken away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Patrick McCormack (Con, Staffs) there are caterers working in the House of Commons on more than he is.

Rather like anyone in London living on such low wages, I assume second or even third jobs are hard to avoid really.

;) I tell you, there is a goldmine of hilarity out there under the heading of "What MPs used to say about their pay before they got busted and shut up".

As to the real question here, no. There is already this culture of voting on things they haven't read, I don't see how there can be a minute free in the day. Is there any MP who would declare our society perfect and that every single person in their constituency is happy and reassured? They are paid more than enough for at the very least a full-time working week, possibly more. They have more work to do than anyone can manage, the measure of them is to what degree they fail in it.

Certainly people should prove themselves in the world outside politics before hand. But that is before. I don't see how they can be effective legislators when they answer to a master other than the British people.

I'm a bit tired of all these politicians whose background is in a PPE degree, bag carrying for MPs, hanging round central office for a bit, maybe a couple of years at a think tank (same difference) and then they get a winnable seat. George Osborne is an example of this and it makes his tub-thumping discussions about public service delivery and wealth creation laughable, he knows nothing about either and has the air of a child sneaking into the pub in his dad's over-sized suit in the hope of getting served.

There are numerous egregious examples of just the same thing on all the benches. Whatever the arguments either way in theory, we haven't been well served by this professional political class and we should demand better.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, if a second job was a real job such as front line nursing, police beat officer, road maintenance engineer, ambulance driver, builder/plumber/electrician, factory worker, street cleaner, territorial army, farm worker, small business owner (and I mean small, like a local grocers, pharmacy, newsagents) etc etc...I think you get the gist... then I would say it would provide MPs with 'real life' worthwhile experience.

However, with the exception of the few doctors and dentists who are MPs, the second and subsequent 'jobs' they do are just as divorced from the life of the everyday working population as their political jobs. Many 'work' as Board members of various corporations, and I expect they take as little interest in these companies as they do of the electorate - just turn up for a few meetings, vote as their mates tell them to and collect a nice, fat salary.

I'd fully support my MP doing additional work to their parliamentary duties if it was good, honest labour that really contributed to the community and kept them in touch with what was really happening in the country, but some cushy directorship of some multinational congomerate...no way. They get paid a decent wage for doing a full time job as an MP and should ensure that this is their main priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+1

This seems to be being driven by envious MPs who cannot secure well paid work in the real world and have just had their expenses gravy train taken away.

Bit silly really. Anyone who can secure a shot at a half-winnable seat can easily find themselves directorships and consultancies in abundance. Its like thinking the guy who comes last in an F1 grand prix isn't a good driver. They are venal scum alright, but they are in top rank of venal scum in this country. Alas, you have to give them some credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I say this: Its time to ban MPs moonlighting. They must become full time professional managers. Bring their salaries in line with those in the private sector (which will also have the effect of boosting their pensions) and offer them free training should they lose their seats the way soldiers are offered training when the leave the armed services.

You seem to be falling for a Labour scam. They are trying to equate working for money (generally a good thing) with stealing money (by lying on expenses forms) which is a bad thing.

Their main job is just mindlessly voting the way the whips tell them to, mostly to rubberstamp directives from their German overlords. You would go mad if all you were allowed to do was that mindless drivel (actually this might explain a few things).

People with demanding jobs would also have less time to think up diabolical schemes to torment us.

The idea is that if Labour can't get elected next time, they want to try to discourage any talented people from joining the Conservatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea is that if Labour can't get elected next time, they want to try to discourage any talented people from joining the Conservatives.

How? Are you saying talented people who'd join the conservatives have no sense of decency and public service?

Bit strong isn't it?

Perhaps its a working class thing to believe you should do a day's work for a day's pay, I don't know how the Bullingdon mob see it.

I'm sorry but we're back here in 1997 again and everyone is making allowances for the Other Lot who will save us from the predations of the Current Lot. Do you people never, ever learn?

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bit silly really. Anyone who can secure a shot at a half-winnable seat can easily find themselves directorships and consultancies in abundance. Its like thinking the guy who comes last in an F1 grand prix isn't a good driver. They are venal scum alright, but they are in top rank of venal scum in this country. Alas, you have to give them some credit.

Only while they're MPs/have influence is this the case. Many MPs who lose seats find it very difficult to secure employment and end up with depression/bankruptcy. There was some study or other on the matter recently.

I, obviously, think being a minister is a full-time job but, I don't really think being an MP ought to be. Sure they have constituency surgeries etc. but the bulk of the work is administered by their staff. It should be the norm that they continue to be a director of their own company, do a few days a week as a dentist or GP. These are traditionally right of centre occupations but, those on the left could carry on working for a union etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only while they're MPs/have influence is this the case. Many MPs who lose seats find it very difficult to secure employment and end up with depression/bankruptcy. There was some study or other on the matter recently.

I, obviously, think being a minister is a full-time job but, I don't really think being an MP ought to be. Sure they have constituency surgeries etc. but the bulk of the work is administered by their staff. It should be the norm that they continue to be a director of their own company, do a few days a week as a dentist or GP. These are traditionally right of centre occupations but, those on the left could carry on working for a union etc.

The only reason the Labour benches have fewer part time jobs is because they are in government and can receive political second jobs, it isn't really about much else. Their benches aren't groaning with coal miners anymore than the Tory benches are filled with people who've worked for a living either. This isn't the 1970s, they are nearly all professional politicians.

I don't think MPs should be directors of companies or anything else. I see where you are coming from but what you are doing here really in my view is condoning a half-assed approach to a serious job.

You know, vicars in theory only work on a sunday but the truth is that they have a huge problem with people burning out with the hours. There are schools to visit, hospitals to visit, parishioners to see at home, local issues to be involved with, it never stops. MPs should be in the same boat if, bizarrely, they believe they've done enough reading and background research to vote in an informed manner then they can offer some community service for the people who pay them an ludicrously excessive wage. Frankly I believe very few of them ever read the bills they are voting on, much less do they go the extra distance to establish the context for the material they are working with.

I know you don't like this argument but I have to wonder just how the last 12 years would have gone if the Tory party were actually concentrating on their jobs instead of lining their pockets and waiting their turn.

Edit: Cos I'm off up the steps to nodville; I find it absolutely outrageous, particularly given the piss-poor standards of corporate governance in this country, that anyone is prepared to pretend that sitting as a non-exec director has anything to do with exposure to the 'real world'.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only reason the Labour benches have fewer part time jobs is because they are in government and can receive political second jobs, it isn't really about much else. Their benches aren't groaning with coal miners anymore than the Tory benches are filled with people who've worked for a living either. This isn't the 1970s, they are nearly all professional politicians.

disagree here, a vast number of Labour canon fodder are ex cooncillors (as they say where I come from) or jumped up union rabble rousers, incapable of contributing much in a non-exec role anywhere.

that's not to say a fair number of Tories aren from coonsil ranks as well, or from the rotary club/masons or whatever but at least a fair number of them have had a stab at running something in their lives.

In both parties though these types are disadvantaged against the professional pol classes - which I think come behind either of the above groups in knowledge of the real world.

As to the point of whether MPs should be allowed to earn money outside - I don't have a problem with that so long as it's declared, no favours allowed (in placing parliamentary questions etc) and people are required to excuse themselves in any discussion or vote. this of course would reduce their open market value somewhat - exactly what the tories are fighting in resisting a light being shone on this whole area.

allow it, but with more transparency I say. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only reason the Labour benches have fewer part time jobs is because they are in government and can receive political second jobs, it isn't really about much else. Their benches aren't groaning with coal miners anymore than the Tory benches are filled with people who've worked for a living either. This isn't the 1970s, they are nearly all professional politicians.

I don't think MPs should be directors of companies or anything else. I see where you are coming from but what you are doing here really in my view is condoning a half-assed approach to a serious job.

You know, vicars in theory only work on a sunday but the truth is that they have a huge problem with people burning out with the hours. There are schools to visit, hospitals to visit, parishioners to see at home, local issues to be involved with, it never stops. MPs should be in the same boat if, bizarrely, they believe they've done enough reading and background research to vote in an informed manner then they can offer some community service for the people who pay them an ludicrously excessive wage. Frankly I believe very few of them ever read the bills they are voting on, much less do they go the extra distance to establish the context for the material they are working with.

I know you don't like this argument but I have to wonder just how the last 12 years would have gone if the Tory party were actually concentrating on their jobs instead of lining their pockets and waiting their turn.

Edit: Cos I'm off up the steps to nodville; I find it absolutely outrageous, particularly given the piss-poor standards of corporate governance in this country, that anyone is prepared to pretend that sitting as a non-exec director has anything to do with exposure to the 'real world'.

Obviously, I don't think vicars should be company directors ;)

I don't really mean non-execs this as been a gravy train clique for a long time.

The Tory opposition has been hopeless for the past decade and continues to be. I don't think this is much to do with second job distraction and more to do with self-hating and a consensus centre-ground politics in which they dare not speak what they really stand for, if, indeed, even they themselves no.

I, also, don't go for the MPs need to read up on legislation argument. So much voluminous legislation now emanates from Brussels that it's simply not an option that they read it all.

If a sitting MP is unable to maintain their profession, to some limited degree, then you will simply attract the think-tank wonks you complain about. MPs can and do get voted out and they cannot pay a price of being thrown on the economic scrap heap. I also don't want too many of my tax pounds spent on golden parachute payments to mitigate for this.

I think it's a serious job but, it should never be, nor ever be dressed up to be, something that a reasonably intelligent normal adult citizen could not do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

Yes, it should actually be an entry requirement that MP's have some commercial experience in the real world, look at the sort of stupid and naive decisions made by career politicians that entered politics straight from university. Brown is a great example of a closeted idiot that has no experience of the private sector.

However, if you join the government as a minister then it's fair to say that your outside interests should be cut right down and that running the country should become your sole focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the mess the country is now in is it acceptable for our democratic representatives to be be managing the country's affairs on a part time basis?

How would you feel if your house was on fire, the fire brigade turned up late, then before the fire was out, half of the firefighters left the scene to go to other jobs?

That is what appears to be happening at the national level. I've just watched a news article where MPs were using all sorts of excuses to keep their part-time jobs.

I say this: Its time to ban MPs moonlighting. They must become full time professional managers. Bring their salaries in line with those in the private sector (which will also have the effect of boosting their pensions) and offer them free training should they lose their seats the way soldiers are offered training when the leave the armed services.

We can no longer allow the country to be managed by those whose minds are not fully on the job.

I think the growth of a political class who have only ever done politics is a far worse danger than part time MPs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Parry

I voted yes, but that only refers to a Houses of Parliament toilet cleaning rota.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes. Its clear to me that a lot of the people making policies have no real world experience of work at all. So we dont wont to discourage the odd one who does live in the real world from being an mp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BAREBEAR_soon to be ALIVA
Given the mess the country is now in is it acceptable for our democratic representatives to be be managing the country's affairs on a part time basis?

[/b]How would you feel if your house was on fire, the fire brigade turned up late, then before the fire was out, half of the firefighters left the scene to go to other jobs?

That is what appears to be happening at the national level. I've just watched a news article where MPs were using all sorts of excuses to keep their part-time jobs.

I say this: Its time to ban MPs moonlighting. They must become full time professional managers. Bring their salaries in line with those in the private sector (which will also have the effect of boosting their pensions) and offer them free training should they lose their seats the way soldiers are offered training when the leave the armed services.

We can no longer allow the country to be managed by those whose minds are not fully on the job.

That is exactly what happens in many parts of the country.

Edited by BAREBEAR_soon to be ALIVA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.