Keir Starmer’s plan to ban MPs' "second jobs" would worsen Parliamentary Standards

Starmer and many of our elected representatives have come to believe their duty fits in the "job" category

Last Sunday, The Labour leader was on the news circuit, trying to convince viewers - and himself - that his party’s offer of technocratic social democracy is better than the Conservatives’ technocratic social democracy.

During his interview on Sky News, Sir Keir was asked whether, since becoming Labour leader, he had abandoned previously held policy ideas. First, he was asked about his change of heart regarding past calls for ending outsourcing in the NHS. Today he wants more NHS outsourcing to the private sector. Not surprisingly, Starmer was unable to account for his newfound interest in market economics.

Yet more interesting was the moment when Sophy Ridge asked Sir Keir to clarify his previous stance on improving parliamentary standards by banning MPs from having so-called “second jobs”. His response was comically confused. He stated that MPs should be banned from having them, but reiterated that some jobs should be exempted. Which jobs should be banned? he didn’t know. What about the exemptions? Lucrative jobs such as David Lammy’s, his Foreign Shadow Secretary. The fact this barely made the news is a clear example that we have become accustomed to political opportunism. It’s almost fair game.

Banning MPs from having a job, in addition to performing their duties as elected representatives, is a popular policy with the public. However, those proposing the ban are wrong. Being an MP is not a job, and in order to have a “second job” MPs should start by having a “first job”. I am not trying to say that being an MP doesn't require any effort, or that they are not valuable. On the contrary. In fact, my point is that being an elected representative simply does not fit in the “job” category because it is too important a role.

This present confusion is a relatively recent development in parliamentary history. The short-lived Chartist movement of mid-19th century had strongly campaigned for parliamentary reform. One of their demands was for Members of Parliament to receive a salary. This, they claimed, would enable ordinary people to enter politics. It wasn’t until the Parliament Act 1911, that MPs started to receive a salary paid out of general taxation. Fast-forward to the present day and you will see that we have come a long way from the £400 (£37,362 in today’s money) annual salary initially paid to MPs. Today their salary stands at £84,144.

Can it still be claimed that — at more than double the UK’s median average salary for full-time work — MPs are paid just enough to enable ordinary people to enter politics? It is not hard to see why we are in a situation where the public frowns at the idea that MPs should have additional income. The emotional effect this has on the public is what motivates Labour to call for the ban. (they have fewer “second-jobbed” MPs. Over 60% of MPs with jobs were Conservatives back in 2014, according to the only data I could find)

Unfortunately, the narrative has become increasingly important in determining the type of person who becomes an MP in Britain. The ramifications are barely perceptible. The public has come to think of MPs making an honest living by working, as being somehow “greedy”. Others think that paying them more would attract greater ‘talent’ and deter the incumbents from getting “second jobs”. But this ignores the reality of party politics. Talented people do not simply sign up to become candidates for a party and skip the long queue of party activists, councillors, parliamentary assistants, and well-connected nepotistic underachievers.

In fact, it is precisely because “career politicians” think of being an MP as a sort of job, that they believe career progression is the correct route to becoming one. Political parties use this to ensure loyalty from their active members. If Parties started to primarily “hire externally” this would admittedly annoy the loyal activist angling for the job. Sadly, this mindset also means that MPs who have come through the “progression” route also consider becoming ministers as a sort of promotion. Edmund Burke must be rolling in his grave. 

So what should we do instead, to improve parliamentary standards?

Instead of trying to improve the quality of our politicians by restricting their ability to make a living, or by increasing their salaries, maybe we could Go Medieval about paying MPs — as Tim Worstall suggested in an excellent article back in 2013. At the very least, we should stop MPs from receiving their salaries out of general taxation. Instead, constituencies should decide how much to pay their MPs as they did back in the 13th and 14th centuries. This would certainly be an improvement.

I believe further improvement could result from changing the public’s perception of what it means to be a Member of Parliament.

Here I must go back to my initial point: Being an MP is not a job. It is a privilege and those hoping to become one should not be career politicians motivated by financial gain or "career progression”. Prospective candidates should be driven by a love of their country and fellow citizens. This is why I believe that having more MPs with real jobs and being financially secure could go a long way to improving parliamentary standards. If an MP is not worried of losing his “job” — and in many cases their only income — they might not be so easily coerced to do as told by the government and their party.

In short, we should not stop MPs from having a job but encourage them. If more were financially independent we would have fewer career politicians. A practical starting point could be to give constituencies the ability to pay their MPs and decide their salaries, perhaps they would decide that a pay cut could do the job.