Mark Thompson suggests this morning that MPs shouldn't have second jobs, and that Matthew Parris, writing in the Times, is wrong to differentiate between 'cuddly' second jobs (charity work, doctor etc) and 'non-cuddly' ones (company director, barrister and the like). And so, the non-slave to conformity that I am, I'm going to disagree with both of them.
It is, in the nicest way, none of our damned business what MPs do when they're not performing their duties in the role. Since when did the public have the right to dictate what anyone does with the one hundred and sixty-eight hours a week that an MP has? No, our concern should be twofold;
- Is the MP meeting our expectations in terms of performance?
- Are they engaged in activities which represent a conflict of interest?
If an MP is generally accepted to be performing well, and they spend sixty hours a week doing so, why should we be dictating to them what they do with the other one hundred and eight hours? We don't dictate their reading matter, or their holiday destination, or their residence, so why are we dictating any other aspect of their lives?
I have already made the point about how we are merely repeating the mistakes of over-regulation so beloved by the Labour Party. It's not about money, an assumption that most cynics would draw, it's about freedom.
3 comments:
Pfft! Us Marks are supposed to stick together!
I suppose my response would be that being an MP is not a 9-5 (or 8-6 6 days per week however the maths works out from your figures) job. Is is pretty much all encompassing and I don't think you can so easily ring-fence the time as you suggest. I really feel that if an MP has a substantial outside job then it will invariably impact on his/her performance as an MP. And what criteria would you use to judge whether they are "meeting our expectations in terms of performance?".
I'm all for simplicity and lighness of regualtion. It doesn't mean I'm a laizez faire kind of guy, just that I prefer things clear cut.
My worry on the expenses anger was that reform and reguation would be introduced that has appeasing the anger as its main purpose, and making the system better a tertiary aim.
I like the idea of MPs doing consultancy for silly money as little as Matthew Paris, but am prepared to consider that this may be my personal prejudice.
There's two sides to this coin.
The exact job of an MP isn't clearly defined because they are representatives of the public, so it's inaccurate to suggest they are ever off-duty. Though we shouldn't judge what MPs do outside of their work for the public, it is also fair to say that the office of a member of parliament isn't an ordinary job and deserves to be treated with exception.
I agree it would be unfair to judge individuals on what they do outside their official role, it is also true that their whole lives must be open to scrutiny to enable them to be held accountable by voters. My personal feeling is that whether or not MPs have a second job we definitely need the full facts about them to learn whether and how outside activities are detracting from or supporting their efforts on our behalf.
So there can't be a hard and fast rule, otherwise the electorate will be prevented from making our decision at the ballot box on a case by case basis.
Post a Comment