Strange world of the amateur politician

The appearance of former health secretary Matt Hancock on the ITV reality show, I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here, caused some controversy. What was the Member of Parliament for West Suffolk doing heading off to spend three weeks in the jungle, when he should have been in Parliament serving his constituents? A very fair question. Other MPs, though, have taken on reality TV challenges, such as Nadine Dorries (I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here), Penny Mourdant (Splash) and George Galloway (Celebrity Big Brother). But why, when they should be giving 100% of their working time to the very demanding job of being an MP? Yet, it has been a strange custom going back centuries that MPs are allowed to have more than one job. The part time, MP role, whilst doing something else, like practicing the law. The rather weak defence is sometimes put up that they get to see other sides of life. This does not really stand up to scrutiny because if they are doing the MP’s job properly they will be getting a very full view of life from dealing with their constituents’ problems. They need the money – hardly? MPs have an annual salary of £84,000, well above what the vast majority of people earn. And, they can put so many of their daily activities down to expenses, that much of that salary can be banked. No, it all seems to go back to this strange tradition of amateur politicians, running back centuries, that goes right through the political system. There is the job, then there is politics. The politics is not considered in itself enough to fill the whole day. A sort of amateur/professional thing. This does seem amazing, given that if an MP is really doing the job properly, it is usually a 24/7 commitment. But the whole system seems to be set up on this sort of amateur/ professional type basis. Take local government. Many councillors have other day jobs. Councillors receive a basic allowance for the activities they do. This varies around the £10,000 to £12,000 depending on the authority. Opinions vary, from those who think councillors should not receive anything, to others concerned that keeping allowances low stops many of the people who should be coming forward to represent their communities from doing so. But the role of the councillor is a rather strange hybrid sort of role. It is structured to be part-time but the expectancies are often for a full time commitment. Some give huge amounts of time, other less. Most give huge amounts to the role - people don’t become councillors for the money. But if there were no payment or allowances are kept very low, then that skews the role toward those who can afford to do it – these will be those with so much money, they don’t need an allowance to pensioners and those with supportive partners and/ or flexible day jobs. But what of the single parent living on the housing estate, who should be representing their community but cannot afford to do so. Or the disabled person forced to survive on the allowance, which is low but high enough to stop them receiving certain benefits. The same peculiar attitude to the political class that exists regarding MPs applies to councillors also. It is a role that should/ could arguably be full time but the aurore of amateurism hangs over it. The MPs and councillors with their second and main jobs respectively. On the plus side at councillor level, there is a flexibility that enables people from different backgrounds to take part and contribute. Though, as mentioned previously, the level of allowances, hours of operation etc can stop others who should be coming forward from doing so. On the MP side, there really is little excuse for having other roles – the job demands full time commitment. Maybe, it didn’t in the 18th century but it certainly does today. So, let’s hope that in future our elected representatives keep their focus on the day job (their Parliamentary role) and not decide in the middle of a Parliamentary session to depart to the jungle for a few weeks and generous renumeration.