Should Mps Be Allowed To Have Second Jobs?

[Guest BAREBEAR_soon to be ALIVA]

I voted no. They cant have it both ways, one minute saying its a difficult and demanding job and the next taking on another supposed demanding job.

These company's that employ MP's on their boards or as advisers are doing it for a reason and it cant be for the skills that MP's have coz most haven't got any.So it must be for the publicity and for an insight into whats going to happen re policys in parliament. A lot of it may be hear say but fore warned is fore armed and can make or save them a lot of money and thereby gain advantage over competitors who dont have such insight.

That has got to be wrong, the biggest company's with the most money being able to influence policy's.

Therefore I wouldn't mind if the second job was a care worker or St Johns ambulance where they could be of use.

[Guest Parry]

I voted no. They cant have it both ways, one minute saying its a difficult and demanding job and the next taking on another supposed demanding job.

These company's that employ MP's on their boards or as advisers are doing it for a reason and it cant be for the skills that MP's have coz most haven't got any.So it must be for the publicity and for an insight into whats going to happen re policys in parliament. A lot of it may be hear say but fore warned is fore armed and can make or save them a lot of money and thereby gain advantage over competitors who dont have such insight.

That has got to be wrong, the biggest company's with the most money being able to influence policy's.

Therefore I wouldn't mind if the second job was a care worker or St Johns ambulance where they could be of use.

But you agree the toilet cleaning rota can be counted as a second job?

[Guest BAREBEAR_soon to be ALIVA]

But you agree the toilet cleaning rota can be counted as a second job?

I think they should clean their own toilets for free.

[Guest BAREBEAR_soon to be ALIVA]

If we had MP's living on their actual earning of 60k with sensible expences we would get all these bstards resigning, to be replaced by people that actually wanted to do the job. 60 k isn't a bad starting wage . Theres loads of good people out there that would work their socks of for that.

The country would be far better run.

[Dave Spart]

Some interesting answers so far.

Someone suggested that if an MP becomes a minister then that might be considered a second job. The point is not as daft as it might sound.

Many backbenchers (ie non-ministers) serve on select committees; would you consider select committee work to be a second job? It does raise questions over job design. What should MPs do?

I'm sure a lot of HPCers have studied Human Resources on business modules at university and probably looked at the subject of Job Design. At your own place of work you can be sure your HR department routinely re-examine resourcing needs and with it job design.

Your company does this to ensure its workforce is functioning at its very best to eliminate wastage and ensure all roles are designed and fulfilled to meet the company's strategy, but when was the structure, roles and responsibilities of the nation's management last similarly reviewed?

Are MPs there to do nothing but represent their constituents?

Just how can a busy minister (or secretary of state) actually represent his individual constituents properly when they are busy dealing with matters of grave international importance?

Edited June 30, 2009 by Dave Spart

[Dave Spart]

Another change I'd like to see at Westminister is the recording of how MPs time is used.

If you decided what time you were going to turn up at work each day, what time you were going to leave, what days you were going to work and what meetings to attend your boss would soon tell you to mend your ways or get out.

Equally the public is entitled to know how MPs are using their time.

Perhaps the most rudimentary way to fix this is with a clocking system - where MPs would clock in and out as they enter or leave the Palace of Westminster or Portcullis House. There would be no security issues as all it would do is record entry and exit times - something any committed terrorist could find out by following their mark.

Admittedly there will be times when the MP has legitimate need to be off-site. It would be no burden at all to record times and purpose - just the way you would be expected to if you worked in the private sector.

Now that the Telegraph has let a chink of sunlight shine on the murky world of our nation's manager's activities lets go the whole hog and see everything out in the open. The media will love it and the people will feel re-enfranchised. We've had enough of the Big Brother surveillance culture aimed at us. Well, whats good for the goose is good for gander.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Dave Spart

[Moo]

Yes, they should, and I'd go so far as to say anyone with less than 15 years experience of work in either the private sector or on the front lines of the public sector should not be permitted to stand. We need less career politicians and insulated mongs who've spent their lives in the machinery of the state, and more people who've been out there and actually had a go at the real world. I'd be far happier seeing backbenchers divide their time between their surgery, or their business, and the Commons than have them just play politics all the time - it might give them a better idea that life's not about the shape of a load of graphs.

[Mrs Bear]

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

+1

[blankster]

I think MPs should be allowed to have second jobs as long as it doesn't interfere with their ability to perform as an MP and that the second job doesn't represent a conflict of interests.

But MPs should continue to be paid a suffcient sum for them not to need to look for outside work. A healthy mix of carreer politicians and other MPs with continuing outside experience makes for a varied parliament.

[Dave Spart]

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

Both problems can be swept away with by banning political parties and using the tools like the mass media and internet to devolve policy formation, parliamentary debate and law making into the hands of the people.

The foundations of the British Parliamentary system were laid at a time when most Brits lived in tiny villages toiling the fields on behalf of their feudal landlords to pay tithes to the Church.

With mass communication so widely available its time to sweep that medieval system away and replace it with something that gives power directly to the people without the need for shyster politicians and the clandestine vested interest groups that pull their strings.

Parliament's recalcitrance is caused in part by sentimenality for history and ceremony. I say consign it to the history books and move on. We should be masters of our own destinies, not hostage to the past.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Dave Spart

[abharrisson]

I voted yes but I'd qualify it by saying that I'd go with no as long as all MP's had had a career entirely outside politics of at least 10 years in length ( in other words I think its massively important to have people with experience of the real world rather than career politicians ... this is one area where I am nervous of cameron).

I'd also say that if second jobs are allowed then they shouldn't be allowed for ministers ( A minister shouldn't have the time to do both)...... how you sort out the house of lords I don't know... personally I think the current system is far far worse than the old hereditary peers plus appointees system we had before blair made the changes.

[KingBingo]

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.

Dave, do you dislike only one kind of Second jobs for MP's?

You have not thought this through have you...

[SHERWICK]

yes 39

no 40

total votes 77

[KingBingo]

So Dave why are you upset at only certain kinds of second jobs?

A backbench MP has a full time job in the sense that you could not do it properly in less than 40 hours a week 48 weeks a year. But it is a demanding job with very flexible hours and demands. You do not do it 9 til 5 five days a week. For example, most MPs accept that they need to work at week ends, when constituents are available to meet them and invite them to events. If you wish to make a case on the media it is no use saying you do not do week-ends. They all accept that they should be at work at 10 pm in the evening on Mondays and Tuesdays when there are often votes.

However, the whole system is also based on the proposition that it is normal for an MP to do a second job. There are five types:

1. Official jobs that carry a substantial taxpayer paid salary and require the MP does no other outside job

2. Official jobs with a lower salary.

3. Unpaid official jobs.

4. Private jobs with salary

5. Private jobs without salary

Well over a third of all MPs have jobs in the first three categories. You seems to approve of these jobs. All Ministers, Government Whips, Senior Opposition Whips, the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker are paid substantial salaries for their second jobs, with a rule that they may not hold other paid employment to avoid any conflicts and to demonstrate that these are very demanding second roles. If you have an exective second public job of course you should not also be in paid employment elsewhere.

Other MPs have paid official jobs as Chairmen of Committee business or Chairmen of Select Committees. These attract extra pay, but do not require the ending of all outside interests. They do naturally restrict the type of outside interest that would be possible.

Edited June 30, 2009 by KingBingo

[Dave Spart]

So Dave why are you upset at only certain kinds of second jobs?

A backbench MP has a full time job in the sense that you could not do it properly in less than 40 hours a week 48 weeks a year. But it is a demanding job with very flexible hours and demands. You do not do it 9 til 5 five days a week. For example, most MPs accept that they need to work at week ends, when constituents are available to meet them and invite them to events. If you wish to make a case on the media it is no use saying you do not do week-ends. They all accept that they should be at work at 10 pm in the evening on Mondays and Tuesdays when there are often votes.

However, the whole system is also based on the proposition that it is normal for an MP to do a second job. There are five types:

1. Official jobs that carry a substantial taxpayer paid salary and require the MP does no other outside job

2. Official jobs with a lower salary.

3. Unpaid official jobs.

4. Private jobs with salary

5. Private jobs without salary

Well over a third of all MPs have jobs in the first three categories. You seems to approve of these jobs. All Ministers, Government Whips, Senior Opposition Whips, the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker are paid substantial salaries for their second jobs, with a rule that they may not hold other paid employment to avoid any conflicts and to demonstrate that these are very demanding second roles. If you have an exective second public job of course you should not also be in paid employment elsewhere.

Other MPs have paid official jobs as Chairmen of Committee business or Chairmen of Select Committees. These attract extra pay, but do not require the ending of all outside interests. They do naturally restrict the type of outside interest that would be possible.

Please read post #30.

[Dave Spart]

Dave, do you dislike only one kind of Second jobs for MP's?

You have not thought this through have you...

Do you require assistance understanding the analogy in my opening post?

[scottbeard]

People criticise MPs for being out of touch with the real world, then say they shouldn't be able to have a job in the real world! You can't have it both ways.

I don't expect my employer to tell me what I can and can't do in my spare time, so if that means get a second unrelated job then so be it.

However, if they have a second job they should abstain from any parliamentary vote which is a conflict of interest.

[bogbrush]

What a silly idea; we need MPs with some idea of what happens outside in the real world, and some skills to do stuff. What's the pint of having a load of professional politicians whose fate it 100% dependent on the patronage of the executive.

Sounds great for independence of MPs doesn't it?

Stop doing Browns dirty work for him.

[bogbrush]

Both problems can be swept away with by banning political parties and using the tools like the mass media and internet to devolve policy formation, parliamentary debate and law making into the hands of the people.

The foundations of the British Parliamentary system were laid at a time when most Brits lived in tiny villages toiling the fields on behalf of their feudal landlords to pay tithes to the Church.

With mass communication so widely available its time to sweep that medieval system away and replace it with something that gives power directly to the people without the need for shyster politicians and the clandestine vested interest groups that pull their strings.

Parliament's recalcitrance is caused in part by sentimenality for history and ceremony. I say consign it to the history books and move on. We should be masters of our own destinies, not hostage to the past.

Ban 2nd jobs? Ban parties? Anything else you would ban?

Dave, why don't you just accept that people should be left to make their own choices? Check what your MP does and decide to vote for him or not accordingly.

[Guest BAREBEAR_soon to be ALIVA]

Hold on a sec the yes argument based on MP's need experience of working in other careers is rubbish.

We dont expect that of career policemen, doctors, solicitors or any other profession so why cant you be a career politician after going to university and going up through the ranks ?

You dont need to know what its like to be a plumber to tax him.

Furtermore I say if this lot have time to do second jobs then make the constituencies bigger and halve the amount of MP's.

All thats happening at the moment is the waters are being muddied so they can continue with their extravagant lifestyles.

If the dont like a starting pay of 64k a year for what is by their own admission a part time job then resign and find an easier job.

I note that Cameron has announced that tory MP's will give up second jobs so the likes of Hague ( 220k second job) may very well resign and just do his more lucrative job and good riddance.

Could we see an influx of Polish MP's only too happy to do the job and probably for even less.

[KingBingo]

If the dont like a starting pay of 64k a year for what is by their own admission a part time job then resign and find an easier job.

I note that Cameron has announced that tory MP's will give up second jobs so the likes of Hague ( 220k second job) may very well resign and just do his more lucrative job and good riddance.

Could we see an influx of Polish MP's only too happy to do the job and probably for even less.

Why stop at minimum wage why not charge MP's £64k a year to be am MP.

That way only bored ex-bankers, aristocrats and trade union appointees will do it, it will be just like the 1800's.

Mind you we did have a big empire then, so maybe that would work. Doubt you would be happy though.

[KingBingo]

Do you require assistance understanding the analogy in my opening post?

No, do you need help answering the question?

I expect you haven't got one because you didn't think this through. As I (and others) point out being a minister is a second job, but your not outraged at that. As others have pointed out, staying on-top of the issues in commerce and industry is actually a good thing.

It just an issue for Labour MP's because no business would hire them, because they know nothing about business. The country would be in a much better state if the government had experience of being anything other than lawyers, teachers and trade union reps.

Your barking up the wrong tree, so WAKE UP!

Edited June 30, 2009 by KingBingo

[cht]

Do MPs have to timesheet their rounds of golf? Long lunches? Political canvassing? Time spent acting for the Crown as Ministers or Privy Counsellors? Writing books and articles? Writing books and articles unpaid? Going on overseas junkets? etc etc.

[Guest sillybear2]

Mods should look at this:

Yes [ 28 ] [50.00%]

No [ 28 ] [50.00%]

Total Votes: 55

Is the forum powered by Iranian software?

[Guest sillybear2]

Just how can a busy minister (or secretary of state) actually represent his individual constituents properly when they are busy dealing with matters of grave international importance?

They employ their sister to help, who lives 100 miles away from the constituency.