Should UK MPs be allowed second (or even third) jobs whilst serving MPs?

Newdawn

MPs should have some sort of contract which requires a minimum amount of attendance in the house of commons and at surgeries. Then people like Nadine Dorries and Matt Hancock couldn't go off and do TV programmes in the jungle for huge payments during parliament.If a minimum amount of work was required then some outside work would be ok.

It was a disgrace that she went onto IACGMOOH when she should have been in parliament.

This is exactly what is wrong with modern politics. We don’t get the right people standing as MPs because it means giving up a well paid career with little certainty that the new job will last even 5 years. Consequently we fill the commons with career politicians who have never done a proper job. Being an MP should be a part time role and all MPs should be given enough time to keep their hand in at their old job so that they have something to go back to when they lose their seat. Career politicians have not served us well over the recent years.

I totally disagree. If done properly being an MP is a full time job plus plus plus. I would never vote for any MP who didn’t give their whole working life to the job. I have friends who have been MPs and it is more than a full time job if you care about your constituents.

GrannyRose15 I totally agree. In the past career politicians got their out of politics experience befor they entered parliament, and they often did not stand for parliament until they were in their late 40s and even older.

Current politicians leave university, work in politcally oriented jobs, like interns, in think tanks, Trade Union HQs, (heaven forbid they should actually have worked on a factory floor!) and other parasite companies that collect around parliament util they get a seat in their late 20s or 30s.

They are generally very clever but ignorant of the lives of ordinary people, they usually only plan to be in Parliament for one or two elections before flying off to some big better paid job in an international organisation or other quasi governmental organisation.

That doesn't fit the profile of my MP at all, but a survey would be interesting.

Wyllow3 Your word is my command
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7483/CBP-7483.pdf

nanna8

I totally disagree. If done properly being an MP is a full time job plus plus plus. I would never vote for any MP who didn’t give their whole working life to the job. I have friends who have been MPs and it is more than a full time job if you care about your constituents.

How can they properly represent their constituents if they know nothing about life outside politics?

Thank you Monica, the table at the end is interesting. Some things haven't changed a lot. There is an increase in "political" backgrounds. My MP was a white collar office manager.

Nothing like the Maps here, either. The majority are businessmen or some have been social workers. We don’t have the same social class setup so I suppose it is different. Thank goodness.

Maps=MPs

Most , probably all, of ours go into it at a mature age. I can’t think of any that go straight from university. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of crap ones but they do , on the whole, work pretty hard. I think it would be awful if they were running another job. Have to agree to differ here. Also, they cover larger distances here of course because we are a big country.

It's an insecure job, may only be for 4 years. Most can earn more money doing other things, stop second jobs we could lose the best people and the more they earn the more tax they pay.

Yes. But only because they have to think about the careers they need to be able to go back to after their 5 years is up if they don't get back in, they need to keep their skills or business contacts up to date. Otherwise there is a risk that only wealthy people can afford to risk being MPs.

The insecurity of being an MP means they need to keep their hand in at whatever their particular job is.
A third job on top of that implies they don’t have enough work to do as an MP.
There should be a minimum requirement of work-and an assessment of outcomes.
A sort of Ofsted for MPs, checking on effort, results and whether or not the impact is successful for all voters.
(Yes I know that’s impossible, but it’s what OFSTED expects of schools.)
As an aside,
In the light of councils struggling to manage their budget, Parliament should be doing it a bit by cutting down on food and drinks.

No

No absolutely not

Absolutely not.!!

I can't agree with most of you. Being an MP is a vocation (almost like a hobby) for many, not a job. They don't do it alone, they have local offices and staff and a web of support in Westminster doing their research and informing them. My own MP for the past 5 years was Tory and lost his seat this year, despite being a very hard-working young man, being replaced by a previously-unknown Labour chap (and the Tory replaced a previous Labour woman who also served for only 5 years - also a hard-working MP.

Many women do two jobs - one outside the home, the other within it. I did that part-time when I had small children but went full-time when I could, plus I landed an extra job that was almost full-time at certain times and was very fulfilling. I believe I gave more than most to each role I performed. There are 168 hours in a week, it is manageable to spent 35-40 hours on each of two jobs and still have time for family, relaxation and sleep. Lots of people have fulltime jobs and also study for extra qualifications. I admit it isn't ideal to spend 20 years like that but it's doable - especially if you enjoy it.

If you are a Minister the workload is probably greater (but more staff to support you) and I feel that an MP who does nothing else is not the best to represent a wide range of constituents without real-life experience.

Anyway, job security does not exist so what does the "ordinary" MP do for a job once he or she loses his/her seat?

It’s very well paid with huge pension rights and a lot of benefits. That compensates for the short term members. They know what it is and no one forces them to stand.

nanna8

It’s very well paid with huge pension rights and a lot of benefits. That compensates for the short term members. They know what it is and no one forces them to stand.

But there should not be barriers to their standing either and and not being able tokeep up to date with their profession is a barrier.

It Takes some MPs a long time to get back into emplyment after loosing a seat. Pension rights (for 5 or 10years service) does not make up for having to take a 5 or more more step back in your profession or even find you are unemployable, during which the only pension yoy are gathering is your state pension.

Interesting set of replies and responses.

Personally, I don’t think they should do other jobs too. They are reasonably paid and have very generous expense accounts.

No job is secure anymore, no such thing as a job for life.

Many become after dinner speakers, advisors and write books or articles.

I cannot feel sorry for them I’m afraid.

GrannyRose15

This is exactly what is wrong with modern politics. We don’t get the right people standing as MPs because it means giving up a well paid career with little certainty that the new job will last even 5 years. Consequently we fill the commons with career politicians who have never done a proper job. Being an MP should be a part time role and all MPs should be given enough time to keep their hand in at their old job so that they have something to go back to when they lose their seat. Career politicians have not served us well over the recent years.

PART TIME! Never, some don’t even fulfil their obligations now. I’m assuming if they are Part Time we would pay them accordingly, trim their expense accounts and get rid of second home rules??

I do not feel sorry for them, but if the state of the NHS comes up in Parliament, the quality of debate is increased immeasurabley if the doctors who have become mPs are still doing one or two sessions a week as GPs or consultants and can speak in an ifnormed way about wht is really happening. The same with all the others. Work experience quickly becomes out of date, especially with ever changing technology and a doctor, or teacher, or engineer who has not worked in their profession for 10 years cannot talk with the knowledge and infomation of someone who did a day at the coal face in the last week.

Agreed the quality of debate may be increased through present day experience but MPs mostly vote along Party lines so the debate is less relevant.

They can contribute in cross party committees tho, the work "behind the scenes". As long as their work is relevant, for example a doctor or lawyer working in the profession is very different from the "directorships" taken up that are basically "pay for lobby".

I cant see however if you are doing your job properly as an MP, meeting constituent needs in surgeries, case work, you can have much time.