Comments on: MPs second jobs

By: john silvester

john silvester — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:05:46 +0000

I’m afraid MP’s cannot have their cake and eat it!
You are either a full time MP or not.Let’s face it the only reason you are offered a paid second job is because of your MP statusand the influence it brings.
And can you say hand on heart that you NEVER use any resources claimed for by allowances or expenses from the Taxpayer on your private work?
My contract of Employment states that I have to have my Employers express permission if I want to take on any extra paid work with the emphasis on the answer being NO unless I can make a very good case – and my salary is £20k p.a so not exactly a high flyer!
Can Mr Redwood assure me that he is dealing personally with any of my issues rather than passing to an aide ( for which I as a taxpayer will foot the bill ) whilst he is earning his corporate dollar?

Any answers would be gratefully received!

Reply: As I set out, the whole system is based on MPs having second jobs. Those who are Ministers have the most onerous and time consuming ones.
I do all my own research/speeches etc and have low staff costs by Parliamentary standards. I work from home or elsewhere if I am doing something other than my Parliamentary work.

By: Sidskitchen

Sidskitchen — Mon, 04 May 2009 13:11:59 +0000

That’s all very lovely, but surely the best way to solve this dilemmna is to let the public judge for themselves?

An MP should be able to hold however many second jobs he wants as long as he discloses what they are, how many hours he spends on them, and what he’s paid for it. His constituents can then judge if they believe his actions are in their best interests.

By: Steve Pearl

Steve Pearl — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:06:18 +0000

Sir Graphus, I agree with your point entirely as long as the current system holds. My point is that what we really need is a Constitutional revision (or really reversion) where the Legislature (ie MPs) have real independence over the Executive and can scrutinise and hold it in check properly.
Then the job of MP becomes worthwhile and important in its own right, not merely seen as a sinecure or stepping stone. And, to use your phrase some of that ill-considered, illiberal, incompetent legioslation might not survive real legislative scrutiny.

By: savonarola

savonarola — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:15:07 +0000

Putting aside your analysis of the reality of ‘second jobs’ the point behind Brown’s focus on the subject is typical of his perverted approach to his job as Prime Minister.

Every thought and act of his has as its motivation ‘what political capital can I gain?’

This is his psychological flaw. The inability to distinguish between what is the right thing to do and the advancement of his own narrow political interests. Very sad for him and for us.

By: Sir Graphus

Sir Graphus — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:17:53 +0000

Second jobs are actually very important to the ability of MPs to hold government to account, as it gives a Prime Minister a great deal more control over the earnings of his MPs. An MP doesn’t earn a particularly great salary. If his only means of earning more (we all aspire to promotion) is to be a government minister, then he is very unlikely to speak up against a government proposal, join a rebellion or otherwise exercise any degree of scrutiny that is part of his job. To illustrate I only need point to the vast amount of ill-considered, illiberal and incompetent legislation that has been waved past in the last 10 years. Secondly, the loss of income is a considerable deterrent to a minister considering resigning on a matter of principal. Why would anyone of talent would be attracted to Parliament on this basis?

Some MPs have undoubtedly abused the system. It’s a distasteful sight. But not as bad as the alternative.

By: Cliff.

Cliff. — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:49:18 +0000

I agree!!
Imagine the scene; You set up a new country, you want someone to be in charge of the prisons, the police,national security, the courts etc etc. You look for a suitably qualified person to take on that role; Who will it be?
An ex senior copper? No!
A former judge or barrister? No!
A retired prison governor? No!
A retired army general? No!
A former head of MI5? No!
A home economics teacher? Of course you do!!

By: Fox in sox

Fox in sox — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:48:11 +0000

Dear mr Redwood,

Does the EWTD not apply? As a surgeon I am not allowed more than 48 hours per week, as of august.

I should be grateful for the next MP interviewed by Paxman or Humphries on the subject to turn the tables. Why are BBC workers allowed to cash in on their fame with second jobs as writers and speakers? Why can they not give newsnight or Today their full attention?

They don’t like it up them!

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:19:40 +0000

First there is the fact that well over 4 bills out of 5 never reach the parliament at all because they are made into law straight from the Commission without discussion.
Then, on top of all that, there is the fact that parliament never seems to be sitting. And I thought schoolteachers had long holidays!
Interesting article by Iain Martin in the Telegraph about getting rid of the current (Labour) Speaker whose job is really is to sort out this sort of thing.
Damien Green is arrested and his house ransacked. This is outrageous. Even Mr Mugabe has not sunk that low.
The Home Secretary, of all people, claims for porn and a bath plug on top of what, to us down here, the voters, see as a huge emolument.
Ms Gould, as the Mail corrrectly showed, is the real face of New Labour: Corruption, party before country, privileges which are denied indignantly to other people.
Meanwhile we are, against our will, plunged into a sort of John Law situation by an unelected government. That led, eventually, to the French Revolution.

All I ask is this: can you see why I am so fed up?
And then I hear that Jack Jones and Eddie George, very different people indeed, were both straight as a die. We never seemed to get all this malarky from the Conservatives, however hard Labour tried to smear them and cry “sleaze”.

By: Paul Embery

Paul Embery — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:57:55 +0000

I do chuckle when I hear (usually Tory) MPs vociferously protesting whenever they come under attack for having second jobs.

‘We need to do these jobs to help us stay in touch with the real world,’ they argue.

Now, invariably these jobs involve sitting on the board of some blue chip company, and being paid a ludicrous amount of money. So please tell me, how can this be considered ‘staying in touch with the real world’? How many ordinary members of the public can lay claim to ever having been employed in such a capacity? Hardly any.

The day a Tory MP walks into the House of Commons chamber and says, ‘I’m sorry I arrived late for this debate, but the dustcart suffered a puncture,’ I shall perhaps feel some sympathy.

Until then, stop complaining about being criticised for lining your own pockets when you should be working flat-out for your constituents.

By: chris southern

chris southern — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:51:24 +0000

MP’s need experience of the real world, too many go from education into the public sector and then into the house of commons.
A second job in the private sector ensures that not only do they have that experience (if they didn’t have it before) but that they are also still connected with how the real world works.

The gravy train needs to stop, before the people being forced to fuel it remove their supply of fuel in protest.