Ban second jobs? You'll end up with a Parliament of puppets

"Ban second jobs!" goes the cry.

Okay.  What about the dozens of MPs who have a second job as a government minister?  Or as a select committee chairman?  Or on the Speaker's panel of worthies?

These are all "second jobs".  Indeed, some take up four or five days a week, meaning that the MP has to in effect delegate the task of being a constituency representative to staff.

Banning "outside interests" means that MPs will have only "inside" Westminster interests.  It will mean that the executive and party whips have a total monopoly to determine an MP's career trajectory.  That means less scope for the independent-minded and more power for the executive over those we elect to represent us.

If you can only work for the executive, you'll end up with MPs who only aspire to working for the executive.  You'll have few MPs prepared to hold it to account - a Parliament of patsies and puppets.  Government whips would love it.

Westminster' s secret isn't about MPs working for dodgy outside interests.  It's about the number of low-grade ministers and MPs who privately know that they ought to have stood up to government.  But they failed to because they were on its payroll.   

Posted on 29 June 2009 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

Serious questions raised in the House by experienced, respected MP's 'standing up to government' are, according to reports 'barred', i.e. not called upon by the Speaker.

Posted on 29 June 2009 10:19 by Jean Baker

These government proposals are control freakery at its worst and yet another example of advancing socialist totalitarianism.
A Westminster Parliament of 'party poodles' is surely a prerequisite for EU domination of our country. I really do hope that this can be prevented. Please do what you can Douglas.

Posted on 29 June 2009 11:40 by Jaybee

Hurrah. At last someone bringing ministerial roles into the 'second jobs' debate. Maybe Gordon should have tried calling them 'outside jobs' (in the way that global warming has become climate change), but it's too late for that now.

Chris Mullin realised his first two ministerial jobs gave him less influence than he'd had as a select committee chairman - and of course less independence.

A very good post, if you don't me saying so :)

Posted on 29 June 2009 11:47 by John Page

Perhaps the solution is to have an across the standard MP salary and NOT increase it for extra ministerial responsibility. So therefore the drive to obey the whips is not money driven anymore and the people who do the ministerial work over and above a normal MP's work are purely the ones who want to do it out of a sense of public service. The reward is knowing you've made a real positive difference to people by your decisions, that should be enough shouldn't it?

Posted on 29 June 2009 14:09 by James Bartlett

Logically, any MP having a post in government is "doing another job". If it is OK for them, what is wrong with an MP who does not have such a post, spending time working outside parliament? Yes, obviously if they are Ministers, there needs to be some restrictions, but I believe that these exist already.
Part of the problem for most Labour MPs is, I suspect, their inability to obtain any worthwhile job outside Parliament, whereas most Tories have shown that they can hold down good jobs elsewhere. Regrettable, from my point of view, is that the fact the Cameron is one of those who hasn't demonstrated such an ability, but hopefully within the next year he will have a real job, and if he does not perform, the Tories are hard enough to take action, unlike the present Labour party.

Posted on 29 June 2009 14:47 by Brian E.

"You'll end up with a Parliament of puppets"
What, exactly, do you think we have now? MPs are selected by their party leader and the constituency apparatchics.Slavish obedience is what they look for.
Any hope of climbing the greasy pole depends on total obedience to party. Party can bend any independence or patriotism and make it subservient to party interest. Look at Brown, prepared to ruin the country for party advantage. Party whips with total power over the untermenschen.
Every MP should have a job, in fact they should not have a salary, only a retainer of say £20,000, after all Brussels do the heavy lifting, as Westminster wanted.

Posted on 29 June 2009 16:05 by Jaccuse

I would have thought an mp with outside experience far preferable to an mp promoted from uni to researcher and up.What experience of real life have they,just the fantasy land of politics,twisted truths and lies.As long as all interests are noted so a watch can be kept,I see only advantages.

Posted on 29 June 2009 19:09 by davmc

Make A Comment