Timeline for What are the arguments for allowing MPs in the UK to work second jobs?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 24 at 15:10 | answer | added | Callam Delaney | timeline score: -1 | |
| Apr 23 at 18:19 | comment | added | njzk2 | @Henry funny that you should mention book writing: the current French finance minister seems to be spending a lot of time writing novels, while at the same time having trouble balancing his budget. He said many times that he doesn't see that as a problem, and that he has time for both. Maybe he does, and he is just really bad at his job? | |
| Apr 23 at 11:37 | answer | added | avid | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 22 at 22:25 | vote | accept | Ben Cohen | ||
| Apr 22 at 19:49 | answer | added | ohwilleke♦ | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 22 at 10:48 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | "Most UK full time work contracts prevent employees from working elsewhere." Do they? I would like to get more sources about this. I think that there may be limits of how much you can work elsewhere or you will have to tell your primary employer about other jobs but as written this sounds like most UK fill time workers cannot earn anything anywhere else. Also this might not be specific for the UK. Maybe in other countries similar rules do or don't exist. | |
| Apr 22 at 9:42 | answer | added | Hobbamok | timeline score: 7 | |
| S Apr 22 at 9:30 | history | suggested | psmears | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fix typos; improve punctuation
|
| Apr 22 at 9:21 | answer | added | Michael Kay | timeline score: 8 | |
| Apr 22 at 9:17 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 22 at 9:30 | |||||
| Apr 22 at 5:01 | comment | added | user71659 | In many US states, a job is necessary by design, as the legislator salary is below the poverty line (e.g. $100 total in New Hampshire). | |
| Apr 21 at 21:46 | answer | added | user28660 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 21 at 18:50 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Apr 21 at 14:53 | answer | added | alexg | timeline score: 25 | |
| Apr 21 at 14:40 | comment | added | Ben Cohen | @Henry, interesting perspective which I had not considered. That being said, a difference between holding a second / third job and carrrying out other time consuming activities is that standard work contracts tend to prohibit the first and permit the second. Why should MPs be any different? | |
| Apr 21 at 13:30 | comment | added | user36423 | @F1Krazy On similar lines, a hypothesis rather than an answer but: party leaders who aspire to be Prime Minister have an incentive to keep MPs distracted from the job, because if MPs are fully-focused, they might start holding the executive branch of government to account for its decisions. | |
| Apr 21 at 13:07 | comment | added | F1Krazy | This feels too cynical to post as an answer, but the obvious explanation as to why this is permitted is that outlawing it would require the MPs themselves to vote on it, and they have a vested interest in keeping it legal because it earns them more money. | |
| Apr 21 at 12:31 | comment | added | Henry | Ministers have two labour-intensive jobs: an executive job as a Minister running a department and the country; and a representative/legislative job as a Member of Parliament. What they are not allowed is a third job. But most ministers manage to find the time for both, suggesting that other MPs may be able to find the time to do other things as well as their representative/legislative job. Would you ban other time-consuming activities such as writing books or newspaper articles as being a distraction from the position as MPs? | |
| Apr 21 at 12:06 | history | edited | Ben Cohen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Apr 21 at 10:50 | history | asked | Ben Cohen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |