I actually think that it takes 2 people to represent this constituency (Copeland). Either that or we need MPs with the ability to clone themselves.

Constituents work their MPs HARD in these parts. They also expect them to be in 2 places at once: Copeland and Westminster.

…but it’s bigger than that. I grew up in a corner of the Tory Shires that hasn’t changed in 20 years. For most people who live there, this is a GOOD thing. MPs are there to stop the runways, the housing estates, the motorways etc. etc.

In contrast, the Copeland economy will be dead in 20 years if nothing changes. We depend on our MP to fight for our economic survival.

That is not a part-time job.

How could Churchill have survived under the current strictures?
His sanity as well as financially.

John is a shining example of a MP with ‘outside’ interests, duly represented and satisfied constituents.

Conversely, Mandleson’s proposed attendance on ‘strictly come dancing’ – using politicians as ‘media celebrities’ (to increase popularity) was shouted down and out via the media.

‘Broken Britain’ was not caused because MP’s had ‘outside’ interests; Mrs Thatcher’s historic ‘turnround’ from the previous mess was with ministers with ‘outside’ interests.

I believe the ‘Hail Brussels’ brigade are doing their utmost to discredit MP’s per se and deter the serious minded from a career in British politics.

The only issue of concern to constituents is whether or not their MP works effectively – John has pointed out they are ‘barred’ from asking/debating serious issues. Therefore, a return to democracy, freedom from oppression, is long overdue and represented by the local election results.

No country, especially Great Britain, should be ‘ruled’ on the basis of media spin and manipulation.

The governance of this country is a very serious business. I’ll take some convincing there is enough of a case to allow MPs to work at other roles in ‘term time’.

Reply: I don’t

I can see no reason to consider that a regular MP should be considered a full time employment. A member of government is a different case: however, they will be better ministers if they have other experience.

Expenses are claimed for costs incurred in carrying out ones job. No employee should be in the position of incurring an expenditure as part of the job without knowing exactly the situation for being reimbursed for that expenditure.

How much is paid is a matter for the employer and its employees. However, a point is reached where expense reimbursement becomes so generous that, for tax purposes, it is considered a benefit in kind, and therefore taxable. If reasonable then there is no taxable benefit. What is reasonable is agreed on a national basis.

My experience in private industry is that employers allow claims up to the non-taxable limit. MP’s expenses should be treated in exactly the same way.

The second homes allowance is not fit for purpose because it is an ALLOWANCE claimed as EXPENSES. Reforms to better regulate second homes EXPENSE claims completely missed the point, and will make the situation worse.

I think it is unreasonable to ask someone to put all their eggs in one basket and when they stand a good chance of being thrown out of their job within five years.

It is also yet another method of the party exerting a controlling influence on an elected representative and further eroding their independence. Our parliament is supposed to represent the people not become a separate political class representing their party.

It is a recipe for even more political careerists with Westminster centred outlooks and no genuine day to day contact with the real world and no external experience on which to make decisions.

Are not all Cabinet members taking a second job in any case.

It will undoubtedly lead to even more costs in higher salaries.

Paying a wage to MPs opens up parliament to those do not have an independent income, forcing people to give up all other interests excludes those who do.

The only reason we need to know about outside interests is in case of a conflict of interest, but then we have people like Lord Mandy thingy watsit lord protector ect ect who has a conflict of interest in that he is paid by the EU, him, the Kinnocks dynasty and several others including many Conservatives also in receipt of large pensions and other payments from the EU, who for some inexplicable reason seem exempt from such base considerations as a conflicting loyalties. Yes the Lords.

Depriving MP of a chance to earn extra income does not seem to address the problems of the expense claims in any case and will not lead to a clean up of parliament.

Do we really need a full time parliament filled with full time law makers who will only fill their time by creating even more laws, rather than better laws.