Should MPs have second jobs?
Dear Chris Leslie,
What a clever little cover. Instead of Gordon Brown attacking MPs for having second jobs, he leaves it to you instead – a former minister who ran his leadership campaign last year. That amazing coincidence aside, the argument is still a valid one. I remain undecided as to whether MPs should be allowed to spend unlimited amounts of their time and effort on pursuits that are clearly not related to working in their constituency, although the arguments supporting such practices are easy to understand.
Your point is that because ”ordinary people have such low expectations of the behaviour of elected representatives”, MPs should focus solely on their constituents and that ”excessive outside earnings from consultancies and directorships [lead people to] perceive that they are diverted from the public interest – or worse, that they are exploiting their public status.” This seems a perfectly logical argument, in my opinion. MPs are elected to represent their constituents and serve their party. If, however, they put a considerable amount of their time into lines of work that are clearly not related to either of these pursuits, surely we should feel aggrieved. The heading of ’second jobs’ covers a huge range of activities from writing books, after-dinner speeches, company directorships etc so it’s difficult to generalise. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t want my MP to spend two or three days a week away from Parliament earning extra cash on the side. If they have so much free time, shouldn’t their constituents be the first to benefit? Critics of MPs with second jobs also point out that their voting record is typically very poor.
But it’s not as simple as that. One can’t help feeling that Gordon Brown taking up your recommendations would be reigniting a bit of class warfare, seeing as the stereotype that all Conservative MPs use extra cash to pay for expensive second homes, while all Labour MPs are less well-off and need to spend the money on food and water seems alive and well. It probably didn’t escape your attention that 66% of Conservative MPs, 37% of Lib Dems but only 19% of Labour MPs have other jobs – so your plans would obviously hurt the Conservatives more. Some MPs argue that outside work makes them ‘better politicians’ by giving them experience outside Westminster (although personally I would prefer them to get this experience before becoming an MP). And, of course, another argument in favour of second jobs is that if MPs want second jobs, let the electorate decide at the ballot box whether they still want them as their MP.
The options for addressing second jobs remain quite fluid. There could be a total ban, a US-style earnings limit of, say, 15% on top of an MP’s salary, or a partial ban under which more time-consuming second jobs would be outlawed but others such as a newspaper column would be allowed. In all honesty, I think this is a perfectly valid debate to have in front of the media. Having said that, I would have been a lot happier if this debate had taken place when Labour weren’t being crushed in the polls and looking for cynical ways to undermine the Conservative Party.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Another argument in favour of second jobs is that it attracts high-flyers who, if they couldn’t have lucrative and rewarding work outside Parliament, wouldn’t bother to be MPs at all, thus making way for the final victory of the careerists.
I’m not making that argument, as I don’t have any instinctive view for or against so I’m not inclined to take sides. I’m just saying
Fair point, but with the number of people who want to be MPs I don’t think that argument necessarily holds up – although you’d need information on the PPC applicants to be 100% sure either way.
Mind you, I hear rumours that Labour and the Lib Dems are struggling to fill quite a few PPC vacancies at the moment….
I think you are dignifying a spiteful snipe more than it deserves .
It wasn’t a spiteful snipe – I was merely relaying information from conversations that I’ve had with my friends from other parties, some of whom are thinking about applying to be MPs.
Yes, but the number who want to be MPs is almost totally irrelevant. It surely matters who they are rather than how many they number, & happy-following careerists have got to be discouraged.
I’m not necessarily saying MPs should be allowed/encouraged to do other work, I’m just saying.
Obviously the quality of the applicants is important, but if credentials are the issue here then surely we cannot have people who are ‘over-qualified’ becoming MPs (whatever that means) and will therefore continue to pursue outside interests if they are elected?
I must admit I’m rather tempted by the idea of putting some form of cap on outside earnings to prevent people taking the p*** with any second jobs. Newspaper columns don’t earn people that much but directorships and executive positions will clearly distract from their focus on being an MP.
Its unstopable. Even if the total ban was adopted.
One way round it is to allow a spouse or family member to operate a business that you fund through parliamentary expenses from your home.
The MP remains off the books but the web site and literature runs .. Mrs Bill Quango phd, wife of the noted parliamentarian Bill Quango MP who campaigns tirelessly for {lets say} British Farmers … .
“Sensimatic Slurry Consultation Solutions can unlock the potential of your business. With unparalleled access to EU decision makers..etc
Better the way it is.. but I may be biased.
You can’t hide attending meetings and being an executive director of a major organisation. You’ll be absent from a lot of votes for one thing.
When it comes to running a business, I think all PPCs should have to declare what their other activities are and how much time they consume. MPs only have to declare their second job titles as far as I’m aware, but no details are given to the electorate on which they can make a decision on whether their MP puts their time into their constituents and party or not. That’s why I think the situation at the moment is not acceptable.
A well argued post but I disagree. Being an MP should not be a full-time job. Parliament does not need to sit for such long periods. Full-time politics removes many MPs from the communities they are supposed to represent. Remember that MPs have plenty of assistance to deal with correspondence and casework, too, unlike councillors.
It is healthy for MPs to have outside interests as long as they do not conflict with their parliamentary role. It should not be difficult to resolve this, but because the current set of MPs are comfortable they will never do anything which radically changes it.
Surely your definition of “conflict” between roles is the key here. What constitutes conflict? Who judges it?
Also, if full-time politics removes MPs from their constituencies then how can they justify also holding jobs at the same time – thereby compounding the problem?
Who judges any conflict of interest? Why do you think it would be impossible to draw up a set of simple rules and an enforcement system? Is this impossible in other professions? Do councillors have this problem?
If running the country is not important enough for any perspective parliamentary candidate then they should not put themselves up for candidature.
The problem with parliament at the minute is that too many MP’s have been drawn from a narrow section of society specifically form the law and form closeted occupations.
MP’s should not be permitted to keep an involvement in their practices and MP’s in business with directorships.
The job of MP should be the only and job that Member of Parliament has.
I would go further and say that no MP should hold a seat in any regional assembly or parliament. There are obvious conflicts of interests.
We have the situation here in Northern Ireland that nearly every MP is a member of the assembly and some have ministerial jobs and they are also local councillors.
If being an MP is a full time job how can they do 3and ½ jobs, 1 job 1 person.
There is too much self promotion of MP’s
If the person who is thinking of standing for parliament does not like the wages and perks they will get then they are not the person for the job.
If they need to subsidise their MP’s salary with other jobs, then obviously they are only becoming and MP with a view of what’s in it for them instead if what they can do for us.
I think your last sentence is very poignant.
Well, Margaret Curran will be sending out her CV now