And Another Thing…

I am intrested whether or not you believe that it is possible to devote enough time to both jobs to do them effectively? Salmond has turned Banf and Buchan into an empty seat.

Probably not, but if it’s for a short period of time (ie, until the next UK general election), then it shouldn’t be too big an issue. As I say, if the electors of Gordon choose to share their MSP with the constituents of Banff and Buchan, that’s their choice.

Surely it is a full time job to be a Westminster MP?

As Toby Harris suggested the jobs of Mayor of London and Commissioner of Police are too much for one person, and Cameron seemed to insist that Bojo quit as an MP if he won the Mayoralcy.

Some MPs have had several jobs/interests and it is disputed how far the interests of their constituents – I nearly wrote ‘subjects’ – have suffered or benefited. Wm Hague is the most notable, having argued with cameron that he had no need to give his jobsworthlots up, until the expenses fiasco somehow strengthened Cameron’s hand – PR I guess, his only suit.

It is true that the proposal would strengthen parties against MPs which is not called for at present. Perhaps it would make sense for elected MPs in the Commons NOT to be members of two other assemblies – EU parliament, any national parliament/assembly, or the Lords, or be a mayor.

Two should be enough for anyone, a powerbase such as Burlusconi’s is not healthy for the politics of a society, and Bojo might aim for something like that.

I agree that you shouldn’t have to resign, just to seek election to another legislature, but believe that you must do so as soon you are successfully elected. Councillors do it, if they become MP’s. I do also think that the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments must demand 100% attention from their elected members. Allowing part-timers is no way to run a parliament. For the same reason, I’d insist that MP’s cannot have other jobs (with the odd exception). How about this then; could the same person be elected to represent 2 or more constituencies in Westminster. No, I thought not.

I don’t see anything morally wrong with someone sitting in two parliaments, if they are up to doing both jobs effectively, but Laudrup has a point, is it possible to do the two jobs efficiently? That is a question for the voters to decide upon, not Westminster. If the likes of Alex Salmond is doing both jobs well, then i see no problem with it.

On the other hand, if Alex Salmond is doing both jobs well, then it raises the question as to what other MP’s and MSP’s are doing with their days. I`ll will be nice and say that they are performing a service which is above and beyond what is required of any elected member.

Has there been some double ‘troughing’ going on?

Let’s face it, MPs, Scottish Parliament, Welsh, Irish and Isle of Wight Assembly Members will use whatever excuse they can find to screw more money out of Joe public.

Today’s evidence shows that they still don’t ‘get it’, or didn’t when they made their claims published today.

Where now with Gordon Browns assault on Tory toffs after Questin Davies bell tower? You just couldn’t make it up or perhaps Monty Python might have tried!

How would it have benefitted labour if Alex Salmond had not been allowed to remain an MP as well as being an MSP?

Are you suggesting that Labour would have won a by-election in Banff & Buchan?

Surely not! Glenrothes and Springburn yes – but Banff & Buchan?

Tom, I asked you not to mention the Dual Mandate.
So you can update your records though, the possibility is looking very unlikely in Berwickshire etc etc.
Running out of leaflets(can’t be too careful), helpers and support.
Moore means less for me.

Indy – I was wondering which nat would be the first to miss the point of my blog and try to score a party political point – well done!

In fact, I meant that Alex is an asset to the SNP, and that if had been prevented from standing as an MSP, Labour might have won in 2007. Happy now?

Dual mandates should not be permissable, they should be compulsory.

Seems fairly pointless to me. Tom, could you answer for me why a scandel relating to MPs abusing the expenses system ends up with this barmy rule and a possible change to the electoral system? Don’t get it personally.

Also, you must be thrilled that staunch socialist Quentin Davies now sits amongst your ranks. What an asset!

The silence from Indy, I guess, will continue? So righteous in attack, so invisible in contrition.

Two comments in a row that I agree with Tom Harris? I may have been ill recently, but that can’t explain this. You’re right Tom, though I think it should extend to if they’re elected to both seats in both houses, that’s just the way democracy is…the people have spoken and they should sit on both for however long they are elected.

Trough gouging? have a look at peter and iris Robinson MLA in N Ireland and MPs.
Shameful !

Wales has AMs, not MAs (although I suspect that was humorous; but above my head). And you significantly miss out the case of members of another House who bravely manage to eke out a living on only two sets of expenses.

But on the whole I do agree with what you’ve said. I personally hate job-hogs, but let the voters have their say. ;-p

So what would we the position of the members of the House of Lords? Would their’s be regarded as a dual mandate? We currently have one MSP who is a member of the Lords (George Foulkes)and in the last Scottish Parliament you also had Malcolm Douglas Hamilton
Now its also fair to note one idea being floated is that were the Tories to win next year, they would elevate an MSP to the Lords to take the position of Secretary of State for Scotland

You’ve actually changed my mind on something. Normally I would of said it was unfair for constituents to have their representative decide to stand for another position after they’ve been elected, but I actually agree with you. Heh!

But Alex Salmond would not have been prevented from standing as an MSP under those rules. He would simply have resigned as an MP.

Have you ever met Alex Salmond, Indy?

Yes.

I guess you are hinting that Alex Salmond would have been unwilling to give up a safe Westminster seat when there was a risk that he might not have won his Holyrood seat?

You miss three points there. One – he could have stood in a safe Holyrood seat. He chose to stand in the less than safe Gordon pour encourager les autres. Two – he was in any case guaranteed a seat via the regional list. Three – and if you know Alex you will know this – he would not have considered the possibility of failure.

I agree with you on this one, Tom. It is up to the people to decide whom they elect, not the unelected unaccountable Sir Christopher Kelly. After all, if Alex Salmond stands for election next year and the people of Banff & Buchan elect him it is in the full knowledge that he has a ‘second job’ – just as the people of Peckham have the right to elect that ‘Uptown Girl’ Harriet Harman knowing the she too has a second job (Leader of the House, etc., etc.) and therefore cannot possibly dedicate all her energies to her constituents. And that, folks, is life.

I usually agree with your posts, Tom. But not this time. You say that Kelly would prefer MPs to be treated differently from constituents but I think you’ll find that there’s not many workplaces that will allow you to actually start a new job whilst staying at the old place. I have no problem with an MP/MSP running for another seat as long as they resign immediately if they win.

@Mel Cannon. I’m assuming (and hoping dearly) that your post is an ironic nod to Tom’s earlier post of ‘geddit’.

[...] a similar note, Tom Harris defends the right to dual mandates, pointing out that the people of Gordon knew already that Alex [...]