Should MP's have second jobs?

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[wiggy001]

No. Being an MP should be a full time role. If they are not working full time then their pay should be pro-rata’d, but they should be working full time for the people they represent.

£80k isn’t a massive salary for the role to attract the right people. It’s in the ballpark of what I earn as an IT manager so I’d be in favour of reducing the number of MPs, reducing the number in the HoL and increasing the salary they receive.

Parliament needs a lot of other reforms too though and increasing MPs salaries will never be a vote winner.

[anonymous-user]

Most don’t do it for the money, they are wealthy in their own right.

[Gweeds]

Why does it need to be people from those sectors?

I’d argue we need more people who are, say, nurses or teachers in there. They have more of a fking clue.

[biggles330d]

No, being an MP should be a full time job that requires 100% focus and attention. If they want a part time role, join a community council.

[biggles330d]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I like this idea. If its good enough for those in work on Universal Credit then why not use the principle for this.

[gazza285]

Gweeds said:

Why does it need to be people from those sectors?

I’d argue we need more people who are, say, nurses or teachers in there. They have more of a fking clue.

Aren’t there enough militant morons in government already?

[B'stard Child]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

MP's are supposed to be running the country (I said running not ruining but lets leave that one for now) they are responsible for determining how an annual income of 650 Billion is spent.

For that we pay an MP £81K (but then most get to claim almost double that in expenses) and that's where the trust starts to break down............

It's broken down further by relationships with businesses they develop thro lobbying both as MP's and after they leave.

It's also broken down by the fact the many are as thick as pig st and couldn't run a bath let alone a business

Hey ho it's what we've got since Guy Fawkes fked up his attempt at reducing the number of MP's



-

[roger.mellie]

I’d be quite happy to pay them a lot more and at the same time bar them from having outside interests.

I have to be careful in my job about conflicts of interest, I see no problem in MPs having to do the same. Generally I can’t see much of a case for them needing second jobs but at the same time would like a way to encourage more to go into politics from non political careers instead of the PPE student union brigade.

[hyphen]

biggles330d said:

No, being an MP should be a full time job that requires 100% focus and attention. If they want a part time role, join a community council.

If they have two much time on their hands, then the tax payer is quite willing to cut down their office allowance so they have less staff.

[turbobloke]

hyphen said:

biggles330d said:

No, being an MP should be a full time job that requires 100% focus and attention. If they want a part time role, join a community council.

If they have two much time on their hands, then the tax payer is quite willing to cut down their office allowance so they have less staff.

They shouldn't have a second job at least until they can make a decent job of the first one.

[XCP]

if outside jobs are banned it just means the backhanders will be more creative.

[Mojooo]

I don't understand how being an MP is NOT a full time job - surely there are endless constituents issues you could be dealing with or debates you could be attending.

I suspect in reality most MPs do work full time and probably work a lot of hours a week and those earning 10k for 2 hours a week for 2nd jobs are on the dodge.

[frisbee]

If they don't like how much they are getting paid as an MP they can fk off and be the chief executive of a council or something. They are in politics because they want to be in politics, paying them more won't attract anyone different or better.

[Einion Yrth]

They get paid about twice the sum that I do. I have no problem with them having other paid employ, but they have to demonstrate value for the money they take from the public purse first. Currently I'd sack most of them, so they'd only have the one job, outside of parliament.

[Greedydog]

IMHO the problem isn't the salary, it's the way MPs are selected by the various parties to stand for election. Selection is based on party service, loyalty to the cause, internal party affiliations and associated dogma. They aren't selected for competence or ability. This results in the electorate mostly being presented with a choice of incompetents, who, in many cases, wouldn't be capable of achieving a role in other industries or professions paying close to an MP's salary. Is it any wonder they seek to feather their nests before they fall off the gravy train?

I've met a number of MPs and MSPs through work, beyond a certain level of animal cunning, I found the vast majority pretty limited in their grasp of fairly simple subjects, and one in particular embarrassingly ignorant.

[Murph7355]

wiggy001 said:

No. Being an MP should be a full time role. If they are not working full time then their pay should be pro-rata’d, but they should be working full time for the people they represent.

£80k isn’t a massive salary for the role to attract the right people. It’s in the ballpark of what I earn as an IT manager so I’d be in favour of reducing the number of MPs, reducing the number in the HoL and increasing the salary they receive.

Parliament needs a lot of other reforms too though and increasing MPs salaries will never be a vote winner.

Broadly this.

[roger.mellie]

Einion Yrth said:

They get paid about twice the sum that I do. I have no problem with them having other paid employ, but they have to demonstrate value for the money they take from the public purse first. Currently I'd sack most of them, so they'd only have the one job, outside of parliament.

I don’t feel it’s right that I can earn considerably more than an MP, Admittedly my take home is highly correlated to company profits so there have been good years and bad years.

It would be interesting to see if it was possible to create a profit driven scheme for MPs demonstrating value for money but I doubt it is.

[crankedup5]

Let those that stand for election advise the electorate ‘ this is a second job for me’ .

[anonymous-user]

B'stard Child said:

MP's are supposed to be running the country (I said running not ruining but lets leave that one for now) they are responsible for determining how an annual income of 650 Billion is spent.

For that we pay an MP £81K (but then most get to claim almost double that in expenses) and that's where the trust starts to break down............

It's broken down further by relationships with businesses they develop thro lobbying both as MP's and after they leave.

It's also broken down by the fact the many are as thick as pig st and couldn't run a bath let alone a business

Hey ho it's what we've got since Guy Fawkes fked up his attempt at reducing the number of MP's




-

Expenses which are mostly spent paying staff & office costs to deal with constituents issues. MPs employ c 5 people each on average, should they work for free?


(edit for ballsing up quoting)

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 5th November 23:19