Serving MPs should not hold second jobs unless they can show that there is no conflict with their role as MP, both in terms of time required and conflict of interest. This includes directorships and advisory posts.
All persons holding public office will be barred from standing as a candidate in any election other than for re-election to the same post.
Allowed expenses would be reduced to only those costs incurred as part of their job; for instance, travel and accomodation.
Second home allowances will be scrapped, and MPs will instead have accommodation provided through parliament. This could be in dedicated accommodation, existing hotels, or long-term leases as appropriate. All MPs would be treated equally under this system. The President will be equal before the law, and will not be protected by Sovereign Immunity. The President will not be constitutionally linked to any faith.
[^1]: Do we need a written constitution? - The Constitution Society
@yellowgopher - almost 9 years ago
I'm for this; although notfor the "gravy train" reason - I believe holding a second position would be detrimental (in terms of time, energy, passion etc) to the first, or vice versa. The only things to consider are where these posts are junior - say parish council and governing body for example. Also the wording as it stands could be read as a council clerk couldn't be a governor at a school. If this can be made clearer then it will be a thumbs up from me.
@anilliams - almost 9 years ago
In essence, I agree, however I do come to an issue when it comes to local government. If you don't allow, for instance, Parish Councillors to also be Borough Councillors, and in some cases also County Councillors, then that extends a problem that we already have in this country - not enough people willing to be councillors. A solution could be that you can only simultaneously be a Councillor on two different local government authorities, and no more than two. But I think by stopping a person for being a Councillor on at least two different bodies will create a supply problem, and that helps no one.
Serving MPs should not hold second jobs unless they can show that there is no conflict with their role as MP, both in terms of time required and conflict of interest. This includes directorships and advisory posts.
All persons holding elected public office will be barred from standing as a candidate in any election other than for re-election to the same post. An exclusion will apply to holding parish and district-level councillor positions simultaneously.
Allowed expenses would be reduced to only those costs incurred as part of their job; for instance, travel and accomodation.
Second home allowances will be scrapped, and MPs will instead have accommodation provided through parliament. This could be in dedicated accommodation, existing hotels, or long-term leases as appropriate. All MPs would be treated equally under this system. The President will be equal before the law, and will not be protected by Sovereign Immunity. The President will not be constitutionally linked to any faith.
[^1]: Do we need a written constitution? - The Constitution Society
@philipjohn - almost 9 years ago
I read your mind @andrewdwilliams :)
Latest update is clearer on "elected" (thanks @yellowgopher ) and excludes parish and district/borough-level.
@anilliams - almost 9 years ago
Would upvote but I don't think my upvote-y thing actually works. 👍 Correction: maybe it does.
@yellowgopher - almost 9 years ago
Going to be a pain here mainly because I have had first hand experience of district councillors who sit at parish level effectively having a conflict of interest over areas such as planning! Supply issue or no supply issue I think they shouldn't stand at both levels. Districts, for example, have power to appoint to Parish if need be anyway.
@philipjohn - almost 9 years ago
Yep, I get that @yellowgopher . Unfortunately I don't think that's going to change until we can change the system of Government at the local level. We did have a couple of proposals around that but neither passed. Until we have that, would you consider voting for this to at least bring it in for the levels of government above the parish/district?
A thought - should we allow them to stand, but if elected they must resign their other post triggering another election? I'm in favour in general though.
@anilliams - almost 9 years ago
I personally don't think that we can do much better than this under the current system with the current level of engagement. If we do either of what @Floppy or @yellowgopher suggest, then we end up with, as I say, a supply problem with not enough people filling Councillor roles. And this ultimately leads to the most vacancies on Parish Councils, as they are the least important, and it effectively makes Parish Councils redundant or just more parochial as there are no elections as there are not enough challengers to seats. It already happens with my local Parish Council, we have two or three vacancies all the time.
@philipjohn - almost 9 years ago
Hmm, I thought about doing that @Floppy but didn't because even standing as a candidate can be quite intense so I wondered whether it would have the same effect as holding two positions.
@philipjohn - almost 9 years ago
@yellowgopher Potentially, we create a "consitutional conundrum" with the supply issue you mention. It'd be good to revisit the proposals around restructuring local government, so if you fancy having a look at that it'd be good :)
The OpenPolitics Manifesto
@philipjohn - almost 9 years ago
Think of this as the "Boris law". Anyone who is already holding an elected office should not be seeking election to another position without making a commitment to resign first.
Public office is not a gravy train.