REFNATION
GovernanceEnded 21 Jul

Should MPs be allowed second jobs?

Yes 26%No 74%108 votes cast

MPs currently earn a base salary of around £91,000 and may take on limited outside work if it is declared and does not conflict with parliamentary duties. In recent months Labour MP Richard Burgon has introduced a bill and secured debates to impose a full ban, citing cases where some MPs earn over £1 million from external work since the last election. Critics argue the role demands full attention while supporters say outside experience prevents Westminster becoming a career for professional politicians only.

Jump to opinions· 7

There was no fracture to speak of here, and that is the story: from the youngest voters to the oldest, from men to women, opposition to second jobs ran at roughly the same clip, with No winning comfortably in every slice large enough to read. A question that touches class, trust in politicians and the nature of public service usually splits a chamber along some fault line or other; this one didn't.

The mild variation that does exist is worth a glance rather than a headline — the middle-aged, 35 to 44, were the most tolerant of outside earnings, while the youngest and the over-65s were the most hostile, bookending the debate rather than driving it. That shape suggests scepticism of second jobs isn't a generational reflex so much as a broadly shared instinct that the £91,000 salary and the seat itself should be enough.

The vote lands squarely on the row Richard Burgon has forced onto the Commons agenda, where MPs earning seven figures from consultancies and directorships have become a symbol of a Westminster seen as detached from those it represents. Given that context, a chamber voting so lopsidedly against second jobs reads less as a verdict on any individual MP's outside work than as a statement about what full-time public service is supposed to mean.

Even the most-respected dissenting voice didn't really dissent on the principle — Mark's case for No came with a rider that the trade-off should be a proper rise in pay, arguing "a good gas engineer or electrician can earn £91,000 pa", which suggests the appetite for banning second jobs sits alongside an unresolved argument about what MPs should be paid instead.

A rare thing in these results: not a divided country, but something close to a settled one.

No, but we need to pay them more. A good gas engineer or electrician can earn £91,000 pa.

NO case · Mark · 1 respect

LeftCentreRight
26%
Yes · 28 votes
74%
No · 80 votes
Spread the wordShare
Debate

7 Opinions

Sign in and vote to share your opinion.
The Peacemaker
Voted noRight lean

I give my vote to an MP to represent me. If they are doing a second, separate job, then they are not representing me, and clearly have time when they should be representing me. If a candidate doesn't think they would be paid enough to be a full-time MP, then don't stand.

Slawomir· 733
The Flat-Tax Traditionalist
Voted noRight lean

No, it is full time job. Salary should be of two average country salary from previous year. No gifts, no paid speeches when on duty. Max 2 terms in office. House of Lords should be dropped.

Glasses· 556
The Motorway Marketeer
Right lean

At least some gave experience

The Practical Constitutional Leftist
Left lean

Most full time professional jobs require about 40 - 50 hours per week to do a reasonable effort. They should focus on doing a great job at being an MP, rather than having a second focus.

The Nuclear-First Hardliner
Right lean

Why not? If they can use their time more efficiently outside of their government role, then let them. As long as they're taxed the same as the rest of us. More productivity is never wrong.

Mark· 300
The Border-State Social Democrat
Voted noRight lean

No, but we need to pay them more. A good gas engineer or electrician can earn £91,000 pa.

GobbyRon· 59
The Polymath
C. Left lean

£91k is enough, then add expense, day rates and so on.