It wasn’t so long ago that George Foulkes was arguing vociferously for politicians to receive significant increases in pay. We were in the eye of the expenses storm and the suggestion, as I understood it, was that an MP’s base salary was so low in relation to their heavy workload that it was understandable, if not necessarily excusable, for politicians to seek extra remuneration elsewhere.
At the time I found it to be a convincing argument; if we do expect the life of an MP to be a frenetic, round-the-clock, 24/7 affair, then that should be reflected in some way, reflected perhaps even through increasing the £60k or so salary that the current crop of MPs currently enjoy.
Given this pleading to give overworked politicians a break, I must admit that I was struck with surprise when I learned that David Miliband was looking to carve out a career for himself on TV, over and above his commitments as a constituency MP.
That ambition from the former Foreign Secretary has now swerved towards (and seemingly settled upon) volunteering as a teacher for 12 hours/week in a Chalk Farm school, a school some 300 miles away from his constituency.
Now, putting aside the selflessness of this decision (not to mention the flightiness of it that is more becoming of a student picking an outside college course) how can an MP for the far flung constituency of South Shields take almost two working days off in the week from his main job?
Don’t get me wrong, it’s for those South Shielders to decide how acceptable this is and I have little doubt that they’d return David Miliband with a stonking majority at any opportunity they had between now and the next election, and no doubt beyond.
It does beg the question though of just how busy our MPs actually are. And, specifically, how busy are our Scottish MPs who do not have to overly concern themselves with education, health and crime issues that their English and, to a lesser extent, Welsh counterparts do, including David Miliband of course.
I have no problem with MP salaries rising in order to attract and attain the brightest and the best and I have no problem with politicians being cut some slack if they have to work morning, day and night to fulfil modern expectations of what an MP should do and be.
However, I do have a problem with MPs acting outside the job description and taking up part-time roles outside their democratic remit. If you want to be a tv star or a teacher then step aside and let someone else in to do the job that you were elected to do less than a year ago.
Perhaps David Miliband can be something of a guinea pig to these ends with his looming circuitous career that will keep him off the backbenches for the next four years. Who knows, it may prove to be a rip-roaring success for reasons that I cannot currently see. However, I can’t help but be a little less in favour of those politician pay rises that Lord Foulkes was advocating recently…
UPDATE – David’s latest career plan is to join the board of Sunderland
#1 by Douglas McLellan on January 12, 2011 - 2:15 pm
It is an interesting point. I would actually advocate taking a step back and looking at really defining the role of an MP in the first place. At the moment I have no interest in being an MP due to my perception of the role being a glorified Social Worker as opposed to a legislator and campaigner.
Yet the role of a MPs (and I assume MSPs) staff seems to pick a lot of this stuff up which then gives the MP time to do other things. At Holyrood & Westminster there are both research staff and even research units which then negate the need for the MP/MSP to research things, write speeches or even put lots of thought into questioning the government. And the system of parliamentary written questions means that 20 minutes writing down questions replaces a few days research. Lord Foulkes and Andy Kerr MP are masters of this.
Actual parliamentary work seems to be limited the personal aspirations of the elected representative. I think the Green MP Caroline Lucas has reported on the ridiculous, costly and mostly useless amount of time that voting in Westminster takes up. Which is why it doesnt really matter that Gordon Brown MP is not exactly a regular in the House. And Alex Salmond could be the First Minister of Scotland and a MP. If Alex could do that I am sure that David Milliband can do TV, teaching or whatever he wants really.
I also think that the constituency itself offers some clues as to how much ‘spare’ time an MP has. More affluent constituencies could me less Social Work so more time for external directorships. More rural constituencies could mean less time advocating on things like immigration appeals.
As for MSPs – well they should really only be concentrating on Holyrood and local issues do with health (and whatever local campaigns take their interest) as MPs should be dealing with all benefits issues and local councillors should deal with things like education and social work/council housing. As for what list MSPs do locally lord only knows…….
Anyway, thats just my thoughts.
#2 by Jeff on January 12, 2011 - 5:24 pm
Thanks Douglas. I think you’ve hit upon an important point that it is really an MP’s staff who does the vast majority of the work that many tend to think an MP actually does.
I confess I don’t know what an MEP/MSP/Mp does on a day-to-day basis, I don’t know what they should be doing and I don’t know what I would like them to be doing. That’s a bit embarrassing really now I think about it…..!
#3 by Douglas McLellan on January 12, 2011 - 11:18 pm
Its also worth looking at how the job has changed. MPs used to be elected and then never really needed to be seen in their constituencies. They were sent to Westminster to do Parliamentary activities.
Lots of people are moaning about the proposals to cut the number of MPs but I have to ask why, when we have no role description and no real expectation of them (except if they are Lib Dem in which case the student fees thing is a very big expectation).
#4 by Ideas of Civilisation on January 12, 2011 - 3:43 pm
A reasonable question Jeff and one that should take us to the central issue of what being an MP is for.
In simple terms MPs are obviously legislators, whose job it is to represent their constituents’ views on matters being voted upon at Westminster.
However it is more than that. They are often playing a ‘social work’ role in their local area by dealing with problems people have and attending local events, mainly to ensure a good media profile.
You can debate which of these roles is most useful or if they should even be combined. For instance the MP with the best grasp of and ideas for policy may not be good at relating to people with problems, and vice versa.
At that point it flags up either the problem or in David Miliband’s case the opportunity. Being an MP is ultimately what people make it. You can become embroiled in local issues or policy, if you so choose.
However if you don’t, does it really matter? As long as you are doing enough to get by locally that is enough to ensure re-election. And in terms of incentives, given the lack of backbench power do they really get anything out of being a policy expert?
I sense a blog posting of my own coming on!
#5 by Jeff on January 12, 2011 - 5:21 pm
No, I’d agree with all of that Bob, certainly for as long as we have FPTP as a voting system at least.
Under AV, will MPs have to work that little bit harder to be sure of re-election? Is that why there is clear opposition to PR from so many in the House?
I do like the idea of different parts of the country interpreting what an MP is differently and voting accordingly. So an MP may be more Social Worky in the North and more media luvvy in the South, to adopt a pretty crass generalisation there…. It’d add to a much-needed variation in the House of Commons.
#6 by Indy on January 12, 2011 - 4:29 pm
The glorified social worker role is vital – it keeps them in touch with reality. They should be going round chapping doors and speaking to people anyway but that’s part of their campaigning role – which they are not paid for – not part of their duties as an MP.
#7 by Jeff on January 12, 2011 - 5:17 pm
That’s certainly close to my understanding of what an MP should be Indy. I also think ‘glorified social worker’ is a bit insulting to social workers who deserve more prestige than they currently do. I’m pretty sure you’d agree with me there (I know it’s not your phrase!)
It does seem a lot of politicians buy into the ‘showbiz for normal-looking people’ reputation that Politics attracts but don’t really want to do the hard yards.
But it does come back to what we want politicians to be which, I must admit, I don’t even really know myself. South Shields are clearly happy with David so who am I to say he can’t be a tv personality and teacher on the side, door-chapper or not…
Pingback: Miliband TV Channel « Curly's Corner Shop, the blog!
#8 by Indy on January 12, 2011 - 9:27 pm
Absolutely – I wouldn’t class MPs or MSPs as any kind of social worker because, unless they are actually qualified, they don’t have the training or experience to do the job. But I think that it is important that they come into regular contact with people who are experiencing problems because it helps them understand what needs to be prioritised e.g getting more police out on the streets, building more affordable housing etc.
#9 by Douglas McLellan on January 12, 2011 - 11:36 pm
I stick by the description that I used as it is one the I have read in a number of those ‘following an MP for a week’ articles that crop up in every broadsheet once every six months.
With every constituency being different, every MP will have a different understanding of the problems facing their constituent. But when, and to play devils advoate I ask ‘why?’, did it become a MPs job to deal with the varied and many problems people have.
For example – when did Leylandii trees become a problem that needed parliamentary time, why did we create a society that blocked all local solutions to Leylandii trees being to tall and how many MP letters have not been dealing the the great issues facing us but instead fast growing trees?
Immigration is a societal issue that affects us all and needs a parliamentary solution. But some MPs are very involved in immigration appeals and campaigns yet others are not (depending on their own opinion and judgement). Or MSPs writing to judges asking for leniency in court cases. Why do we have the variable approach? Indeed it is a post code lottery that decides on what an MP, MSP etc will advocate on. Is that fair? Surely everyone should get the same level of support from a representative but it is clear they do not.
#10 by Amused Socialist on January 13, 2011 - 8:05 am
Our MSP’s are worked to death though – how else can you explain the failure of the SNP to inform Holyrood that its constitutionally and publicly mandated powers have been suspended.
The MSP’s were just to busy to be told.
It is a situation the needs to be reviewed. More recesses perhaps – more time for the decidedly dodgy executive to hide monumental/historical/hysterical cock-ups.
#11 by Indy on January 13, 2011 - 10:47 am
MSPs/MPs don’t deal directly with the various problems that constituents bring to them. Their job is to make sure that problems are dealt with by whoever is responsible. The Leylandi tree issue is probably a good example of that. It is easy for you to imply it is not a serious issue – but presumably you are not affected by it and you don’t have to meet people who are affected by it. MSPs and MPs do. Personally I don’t believe that there needs to be specific legislation on that issue, local authorities should have the power to just go in and do what is necessary but parliament needs to give local government that power.
I agree that constituents should be entitled to have the same level of representation from all MPs or MSPs. Immigration is a good example of that because MSPs are not allowed to deal with immigration cases – the Labour Givt rules that UKBA will not engage with MSPs and the ConDems are sticking to that. So people who are having problems with the Home Office have to go to their MP. Some MPs are good at helping people, some are awful. The difference between MPs and MSPs of course is that people have a choice of MSPs – if your constituency MSP is a bit rubbish you have the choice of going to a regional MSP. That is one area where the Scottish Parliament is way better than Westminster.
#12 by Stuart Winton on January 14, 2011 - 8:25 am
Douglas is right to mention Alex Salmond. I mean, MP, MSP and first minister, and still managed 13 visits to the Glenrothes by-election!!