I know this isn't directly the economy but in my mind will have serious secondary effects:
Id pay all MPs £200k, and abolish all second jobs of any kind. It would be good to have a lot more people who are real professionals in the job, as although I can point to a good few MPs in parliament that impress me, the standard level of parliamentarian is abysmal. Look at how shit so many ministers/shadow ministers seem to be, and then remember they are generally the best of the bunch...
I work with dozens of people that are more impressive than most MPs, but wouldn't want to take the paycut, and nor should they in my opinion.
We could have more talented people who understand the issues making decisions, it would cost approx £90m-£100m a year I think.
Seriously? You'd prevent MPs from working in their professions and gaining insight and experience of working people?
Should Fiona Bruce MP be forced to close her law practice? Should Dr Caroline Johnson, Maria Caulfield or Dr Dan Poulter be refused permissions to carry on working in the NHS as a Paediatrician, nurse and psychiatrist, respectively? And should Daniel Zeichner, Layla Moran or Chris Skidmore be prevented from working in academia, advising universities? Should Geoffrey Cox be refused permission to work as a barrister?
What successful industry leader would ever risk being elected, if they had to give up their career? Why would preventing people from working in their profession result in an increase in talent?
Banning people from working outside Westminster is a sure-fire way to ensure the talent pool inside Westminster is diluted, substantially.
Yeah I actually would stop all those second jobs. No longer working in the NHS doesn't stop you going to a ward to understand the problems staff face.
Being an elected member of parliament is, and should be a full time job, regardless of how noble your second job is. I'm sure as an example you are delighted that Mr Farage earns the money he does on GB News.
Having a rule of no second jobs removes any ambiguity, removes a lot of the "wrong reasons" for going into parliament and should massively improve quality of MPs. They would be able to take experience they have gained in their career and maybe spend the last 10-15 years of their careers as parliamentarians.
I can't have a second job because it would prejudice my ability to carry out my role for my employer, which in those people's cases is their constituents. If it was because I wanted to be a psychiatrist at the weekend, I am almost certain I would still be barred from that role.
Being an MP shouldn't be seen as a side hustle, it's your main and only job.
I would waive all of those rules in the case of being involved in charities to be clear.
I know this isn't directly the economy but in my mind will have serious secondary effects:
Id pay all MPs £200k, and abolish all second jobs of any kind. It would be good to have a lot more people who are real professionals in the job, as although I can point to a good few MPs in parliament that impress me, the standard level of parliamentarian is abysmal. Look at how shit so many ministers/shadow ministers seem to be, and then remember they are generally the best of the bunch...
I work with dozens of people that are more impressive than most MPs, but wouldn't want to take the paycut, and nor should they in my opinion.
We could have more talented people who understand the issues making decisions, it would cost approx £90m-£100m a year I think.
Seriously? You'd prevent MPs from working in their professions and gaining insight and experience of working people?
Should Fiona Bruce MP be forced to close her law practice? Should Dr Caroline Johnson, Maria Caulfield or Dr Dan Poulter be refused permissions to carry on working in the NHS as a Paediatrician, nurse and psychiatrist, respectively? And should Daniel Zeichner, Layla Moran or Chris Skidmore be prevented from working in academia, advising universities? Should Geoffrey Cox be refused permission to work as a barrister?
What successful industry leader would ever risk being elected, if they had to give up their career? Why would preventing people from working in their profession result in an increase in talent?
Banning people from working outside Westminster is a sure-fire way to ensure the talent pool inside Westminster is diluted, substantially.
Yeah I actually would stop all those second jobs. No longer working in the NHS doesn't stop you going to a ward to understand the problems staff face.
Being an elected member of parliament is, and should be a full time job, regardless of how noble your second job is. I'm sure as an example you are delighted that Mr Farage earns the money he does on GB News.
Having a rule of no second jobs removes any ambiguity, removes a lot of the "wrong reasons" for going into parliament and should massively improve quality of MPs. They would be able to take experience they have gained in their career and maybe spend the last 10-15 years of their careers as parliamentarians.
I can't have a second job because it would prejudice my ability to carry out my role for my employer, which in those people's cases is their constituents. If it was because I wanted to be a psychiatrist at the weekend, I am almost certain I would still be barred from that role.
Being an MP shouldn't be seen as a side hustle, it's your main and only job.
I would waive all of those rules in the case of being involved in charities to be clear.
I can't see how banning people from working in other roles would "massively improve the quality of MPs". It would have entirely the opposite effect.
Why would a skilled, experienced head of industry take a role that stymies his earning potential and prevents him from doing any other work? And if a head of industry wouldn't do it, why would anyone else?
What improvement in the general quality of MPs is derived from removing a GP from a surgery that he or she is a partner of, simply because they've been elected as an MP? Would we really benefit if we had - in your scenario - MPs who hadn't worked in industry for 10-15 years?
I know this isn't directly the economy but in my mind will have serious secondary effects:
Id pay all MPs £200k, and abolish all second jobs of any kind. It would be good to have a lot more people who are real professionals in the job, as although I can point to a good few MPs in parliament that impress me, the standard level of parliamentarian is abysmal. Look at how shit so many ministers/shadow ministers seem to be, and then remember they are generally the best of the bunch...
I work with dozens of people that are more impressive than most MPs, but wouldn't want to take the paycut, and nor should they in my opinion.
We could have more talented people who understand the issues making decisions, it would cost approx £90m-£100m a year I think.
Seriously? You'd prevent MPs from working in their professions and gaining insight and experience of working people?
Should Fiona Bruce MP be forced to close her law practice? Should Dr Caroline Johnson, Maria Caulfield or Dr Dan Poulter be refused permissions to carry on working in the NHS as a Paediatrician, nurse and psychiatrist, respectively? And should Daniel Zeichner, Layla Moran or Chris Skidmore be prevented from working in academia, advising universities? Should Geoffrey Cox be refused permission to work as a barrister?
What successful industry leader would ever risk being elected, if they had to give up their career? Why would preventing people from working in their profession result in an increase in talent?
Banning people from working outside Westminster is a sure-fire way to ensure the talent pool inside Westminster is diluted, substantially.
Yeah I actually would stop all those second jobs. No longer working in the NHS doesn't stop you going to a ward to understand the problems staff face.
Being an elected member of parliament is, and should be a full time job, regardless of how noble your second job is. I'm sure as an example you are delighted that Mr Farage earns the money he does on GB News.
Having a rule of no second jobs removes any ambiguity, removes a lot of the "wrong reasons" for going into parliament and should massively improve quality of MPs. They would be able to take experience they have gained in their career and maybe spend the last 10-15 years of their careers as parliamentarians.
I can't have a second job because it would prejudice my ability to carry out my role for my employer, which in those people's cases is their constituents. If it was because I wanted to be a psychiatrist at the weekend, I am almost certain I would still be barred from that role.
Being an MP shouldn't be seen as a side hustle, it's your main and only job.
I would waive all of those rules in the case of being involved in charities to be clear.
I can't see how banning people from working in other roles would "massively improve the quality of MPs". It would have entirely the opposite effect.
Why would a skilled, experienced head of industry take a role that stymies his earning potential and prevents him from doing any other work? And if a head of industry wouldn't do it, why would anyone else?
What improvement in the general quality of MPs is derived from removing a GP from a surgery that he or she is a partner of, simply because they've been elected as an MP? Would we really benefit if we had - in your scenario - MPs who hadn't worked in industry for 10-15 years?
Ok great thanks for your opinion I've taken that on board.
I know this isn't directly the economy but in my mind will have serious secondary effects:
Id pay all MPs £200k, and abolish all second jobs of any kind. It would be good to have a lot more people who are real professionals in the job, as although I can point to a good few MPs in parliament that impress me, the standard level of parliamentarian is abysmal. Look at how shit so many ministers/shadow ministers seem to be, and then remember they are generally the best of the bunch...
I work with dozens of people that are more impressive than most MPs, but wouldn't want to take the paycut, and nor should they in my opinion.
We could have more talented people who understand the issues making decisions, it would cost approx £90m-£100m a year I think.
Seriously? You'd prevent MPs from working in their professions and gaining insight and experience of working people?
Should Fiona Bruce MP be forced to close her law practice? Should Dr Caroline Johnson, Maria Caulfield or Dr Dan Poulter be refused permissions to carry on working in the NHS as a Paediatrician, nurse and psychiatrist, respectively? And should Daniel Zeichner, Layla Moran or Chris Skidmore be prevented from working in academia, advising universities? Should Geoffrey Cox be refused permission to work as a barrister?
What successful industry leader would ever risk being elected, if they had to give up their career? Why would preventing people from working in their profession result in an increase in talent?
Banning people from working outside Westminster is a sure-fire way to ensure the talent pool inside Westminster is diluted, substantially.
Yeah I actually would stop all those second jobs. No longer working in the NHS doesn't stop you going to a ward to understand the problems staff face.
Being an elected member of parliament is, and should be a full time job, regardless of how noble your second job is. I'm sure as an example you are delighted that Mr Farage earns the money he does on GB News.
Having a rule of no second jobs removes any ambiguity, removes a lot of the "wrong reasons" for going into parliament and should massively improve quality of MPs. They would be able to take experience they have gained in their career and maybe spend the last 10-15 years of their careers as parliamentarians.
I can't have a second job because it would prejudice my ability to carry out my role for my employer, which in those people's cases is their constituents. If it was because I wanted to be a psychiatrist at the weekend, I am almost certain I would still be barred from that role.
Being an MP shouldn't be seen as a side hustle, it's your main and only job.
I would waive all of those rules in the case of being involved in charities to be clear.
I tend to agree. It’s a full time job if done properly and you don’t want any suggestion of undue influence.
We have successfully evolved from predominantly grey haired white males with their potential conscious /unconscious biases to a place where we seem to have more ‘professional politicians’ with very limited real world / lived experiences and the associated issues that has.
Landing at a happy medium that attracts the best person for the job and where financial reward is transparent and at a level more commensurate with the private sector may be a way to achieve that.
What we have now isn’t the best it feels.
I’d also ban / limit party fundraising so that election campaigns are publicly funded at much reduced levels.
Comments
Being an elected member of parliament is, and should be a full time job, regardless of how noble your second job is. I'm sure as an example you are delighted that Mr Farage earns the money he does on GB News.
Having a rule of no second jobs removes any ambiguity, removes a lot of the "wrong reasons" for going into parliament and should massively improve quality of MPs. They would be able to take experience they have gained in their career and maybe spend the last 10-15 years of their careers as parliamentarians.
I can't have a second job because it would prejudice my ability to carry out my role for my employer, which in those people's cases is their constituents. If it was because I wanted to be a psychiatrist at the weekend, I am almost certain I would still be barred from that role.
Being an MP shouldn't be seen as a side hustle, it's your main and only job.
I would waive all of those rules in the case of being involved in charities to be clear.
Why would a skilled, experienced head of industry take a role that stymies his earning potential and prevents him from doing any other work? And if a head of industry wouldn't do it, why would anyone else?
What improvement in the general quality of MPs is derived from removing a GP from a surgery that he or she is a partner of, simply because they've been elected as an MP? Would we really benefit if we had - in your scenario - MPs who hadn't worked in industry for 10-15 years?