Should MPs be allowed to have a ‘side hustle’?

[Fab Foodie]

I think not.
Being an MP should be your only job. If becoming an MP is that important to you, your constituents and country, I expect you to give it your full attention and not have another ‘earner’ on the side.

Discuss.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Being paid more than I'd earn full time in a year as a consultant seems a wee take. Just that most of them are cleverer than Paterson was at avoiding the perception of corruption. Would they be worth that without the letters MP after their names??

There is though potential for hard cases around those keeping their eye in on a profession or doing a bit of journalism.

 

[BoldonLad]

I see your point, of "giving it your all", but, it concerns me that we may (would?) end up with most MP's being effectively professional politicians, with no experience of life outside of Politics. This already happens to a degree, with "researchers" graduating into MPs, and, in my view, is not healthy.

On balance, better to allow second jobs, but, with more robust and enforceable rules about what is and is not acceptable.

At the risk of thread diversion, I think the rules on MPs, Ministers, and Senior Civil Servants sliding into highly paid jobs, based on their "Contacts Book" should also be given a good shake-up, plus of course, a complete end to slotting people into the House of Lords.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Short answer: no.

It’s often stated that an MP is stretched beyond the normal 40-hour week, doing lots of evening work and weekends, meeting with constituents, etc. It appears to be more than a full time task and isn’t a position I would envy.

If an MP is taking on a second job, it tells me s/he’s not fully dedicated to the primary function and/or doesn’t feel they earn enough. What do they get, £82,000 a year plus expenses of running an office and staff?

If you’re able to do a second or even third job then you’re probably not doing the first one properly.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I am more concerned that they do a good job as an MP than whether they can hold down some other paid employment, which is likely only to be part-time.

Once they become a Minister, with the additional responsibilities, then I think there is more of a case for saying they should not have another job.

Anything that can attract good quality people who have had experience of more than just university and/or political work should strengthen parliament.

 

[pubrunner]

Short answer: no.

It’s often stated that an MP is stretched beyond the normal 40-hour week, doing lots of evening work and weekends, meeting with constituents, etc. It appears to be more than a full time task and isn’t a position I would envy.

If an MP is taking on a second job, it tells me s/he’s not fully dedicated to the primary function and/or doesn’t feel they earn enough. What do they get, £82,000 a year plus expenses of running an office and staff?

If you’re able to do a second or even third job then you’re probably not doing the first one properly.

This ^^^ is my opinion too.

Patterson has given up his paid consultancy work.

Reason: to concentrate on his family.

Definitely not because as an ex MP, he’s no use to them any more, or that they wouldn’t want to be associated with the strong stench that follows him around of course.

If he wasn’t being paid for access to power why have they dumped him now ?

 

[winjim]

I think we need to be very careful not to conflate the issue of having a second job with that of corruption. Second jobs for MPs are certainly worthy of discussion and debate, but if we're linking it too closely to the Paterson affair then we're in danger of losing sight of the problem at hand.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

If we remove the option for MPs to have second jobs, that also removes an avenue for corruption.
Corrupt politicians will still do what they do but it won't be hidden under the guise of a legitimately held second job.

 

[Milkfloat]

I am in favour of the 'keeping an eye in' approach for those professional bodies that require it, at a stretch it would be maintaining pre-election roles/commitments such as a family firm. If necessary double the salaries to attract the right candidates. The public have shown for years that we fully expect our politicians to be corrupt and that 'they are all at it', until the appetite for 'honest' politicians is more widespread then nothing will change.

 

[matticus]

If we remove the option for MPs to have second jobs, that also removes an avenue for corruption.
Corrupt politicians will still do what they do but it won't be hidden under the guise of a legitimately held second job.

But surely it's much easier to spot conflicts of interests due to a declared job+income, than whom the MP dines with, who their Dad knows, etc etc ... ? Surely?

 

[swansonj]

I would like to allow MPs with bona fide careers that help inform their MP role (health, care, education, some law, etc) to keep a foothold in those occupations (say one day a week). Could one approach be to limit it to activities that they were doing before becoming MP (no consultancies offered only because they are MP)? And could another approach be to deduct earnings from their MP salary so they have no financial incentive? Pinning down either of those tight enough would be a nightmare but as concepts?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Worth remembering that you don't always need money to gain influence. Boris Johnson's wife Carrie seems to have plenty of influence despite being unelected, and I would think personal relationships and the Old Boy Network in general are in many ways as corruptive as having a second paymaster.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

But surely it's much easier to spot conflicts of interests due to a declared job+income, than whom the MP dines with, who their Dad knows, etc etc ... ? Surely?

I did say it removes *an* avenue, dodgy MPs will still be dodgy in other ways. Being an MP ought to be a job that takes your full time, attention and focus. If it doesn't, I question that person's motives for being an MP.

 

[Ian H]

I see your point, of "giving it your all", but, it concerns me that we may (would?) end up with most MP's being effectively professional politicians, with no experience of life outside of Politics. This already happens to a degree, with "researchers" graduating into MPs, and, in my view, is not healthy.

I'm not sure why 'professional' politicians would be a bad thing. Looking down the register of interests, I see almost none that couldn't be characterised as money for political influence or inside knowledge.

 

[Archie_tect]

Keeping up professional qualifications through CPD isn't a second job as such- it's maintaining professional standards to be able to remain registered to practise, eg medical/ law/ engineering. That is a good thing and demonstrates commitment and responsibility.