MP was never, originally, meant to be a full time occupation
Originally, no, but the MPs I'm in contact with (admittedly a small subset) normally pull a 60 hour week when the house is in session and 30+ when it's not.
MPs were never meant to be the glorified social worker come local advocate that they've frequently become, but what was 100+ years ago and what is now in terms of job description doesn't compare.
and indeed many have other jobs
Some do, nowhere near the majority, and most will only work very part time in their other work (directorships, occasional legal work, etc).
Ministers do get higher salaries, but even then they're underpaid compared to CEOs of even mid-ranked companies.
Another problem is the whole Party system
Agreed—STV weakens the party system, that's partially why I like it. It also rewards those who build up a local rep, and time and again a "straight talking" MP is shown to be popular within their constituency.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2008-May-29, Thursday 11:09 (UTC)Originally, no, but the MPs I'm in contact with (admittedly a small subset) normally pull a 60 hour week when the house is in session and 30+ when it's not.
MPs were never meant to be the glorified social worker come local advocate that they've frequently become, but what was 100+ years ago and what is now in terms of job description doesn't compare.
Some do, nowhere near the majority, and most will only work very part time in their other work (directorships, occasional legal work, etc).
Ministers do get higher salaries, but even then they're underpaid compared to CEOs of even mid-ranked companies.
Agreed—STV weakens the party system, that's partially why I like it. It also rewards those who build up a local rep, and time and again a "straight talking" MP is shown to be popular within their constituency.