If the major supermarkets got together to agree the selling prices of their goods, that would be a cartel and would be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If all the local plumbers colluded to set rates, we wouldn't allow it; we'd find someone else to do the job.
MPs already have two jobs: as constituency MPs and as legislators. It has long been my view that these functions should be separated. There is no reason why someone who listens to their constituents and helps to solve their problems should be a representative of a political party. It's a non partisan role. We should elect these people solely to perform that function; they should be independent of party and should have the constitutional right to meet Government Ministers to represent the views, issue and problems of the people of their areas. Being elected as a legislator, on the other hand, would follow the current practice. But we wouldn't need so many of them; just enough to populate Ministerial offices and their opposition counterparts, together with the membership of select committees. Given that the resulting fewer people involved - say 250 instead of the current 650 - would all be busy doing their legislative work, it would be legitimate to ban them taking second jobs.
One of the arguments about MPs (basic salary: £81,932 p.a.) having a second job is that some of those, for instance qualified doctors spending some time each week helping out the understaffed NHS, are more worthy than the obviously freeloading consultants, barristers and the like. I say No! If you want to be a doctor, be one and don't become an MP. One or the other. This is the 21st century, people!
If you say "only certain types of second jobs" or "yes but limited in some way" you create loopholes which will inevitably be used.
Another argument is that doing outside work makes you more rounded, better informed and more effective members of our political community. What, like the current lot? Yeah, that's working well.
"Lots of professional people wouldn't want to become MPs if they couldn't continue in their professions". Good riddance then.
So if MPs are too personally involved to be able to honestly vote on the question of second jobs, who should decide? We should. I'd go for a quick, binding referendum: "Should MPs have second jobs? Yes or No". If the answer is Yes, a supplementary referendum to determine the limits would be held and the results would be binding. We would need a Parliamentary Bill to:
- Make the outcomes of such referendums binding
- Allow supplementary referendums, dependent on the outcome of a primary referendum
- Issue all households with a Referendum Voting Machine so that they could be held almost instantaneously
Cloud cuckoo land? In the USA, lots of states have referendums and various other instruments for citizens to decide on important issues. If we want to do it, we can do so. Get on with it!
Agreed on almost all counts. We should have referendums more often and especially on things that keep politician on their toes more often than every 4 years.
ReplyDeleteI also don’t see the need for MPs to have second jobs at all, except (loophole coming) if they haven’t got much to do, don’t have many constituent cases to deal with, and could be doing something else helpful that also happens to pay. But I can’t imagine that applies to many. And I would hope that there is enough in being an MP that you aren’t often short of things to do.
As for the case officer v legislator point, I am unconvinced. Presumably a social worker or council officer could do that (and may already l), but people come to MPs for something else: a political solution maybe, or political clout.