Share my job? Bonkers, says Southend MP

5:00pm Friday 5th October 2012 in News

A SOUTHEND MP has branded the idea of introducing job shares to Parliament “absolutely raving bonkers”.

David Amess, the Tory MP for Southend West, said it was “crazy” to believe two people could jointly perform an MP’s role.

His outburst followed a letter to a national newspaper, signed by dozens of MPs, academics and other prominent figures, which advocated job shares in Parliament to ensure it was more “representative” of the electorate.

Mr Amess said: “When I heard this suggestion, I thought it was April Fools’ Day.

“Unless I have misunderstood the concept, I think it is absolutely raving bonkers.

“This is not the sort of job that is appropriate for job shares.”

Job shares allow two people to work on a part-time basis by splitting a role - including its salary and benefits - between them.

The concept has spread to posts as senior as primary care trust chief executives and council directorships. Supporters of the idea claim it would allow more people, such as young mothers or the disabled, to stand for Parliament.

Meg Hillier, the Labour MP for Hackney South, said: “The idea that MPs can still kid themselves that our job is so special that the rules of the real world do not apply to it - I think that is bonkers. “It is a privileged job, but a job like any other.”

But Mr Amess argued the Government was trying to reduce the number of MPs - from 650 to 600 - by the next election and job-sharing deals would compound the problem.

He added: “I think our job has already been dumbed down and huge damage has been done. “This is just not like an ordinary job and this sort of idea is what has gone wrong with democracy at the moment.”

Comments (14)

5:21pm Fri 5 Oct 12

girlie71 says...

more worried about losing half his salary i bet
more worried about losing half his salary i bet girlie71

5:24pm Fri 5 Oct 12

firedog says...

Share the wages and expences?They will be asking them to be truthful next,
no chance!
Share the wages and expences?They will be asking them to be truthful next, no chance! firedog

5:35pm Fri 5 Oct 12

aduksquack says...

Jobshare: good enough for us plebs, not good enough for tory MPs.
Jobshare: good enough for us plebs, not good enough for tory MPs. aduksquack

5:55pm Fri 5 Oct 12

leighmum says...

This sums up the very problem with most of our MP's, career politicians with no experience of the real world, in safe seats with no incentive to worry about whether they are serving the wishes of the electorate first and foremost. I would encourage everyone who is disillusioned with the current party politics to check out a new movement called Democracy2015 which is in it's infancy, but has some interesting ideas about how to address some of these issues. http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Democracy_2
015
This sums up the very problem with most of our MP's, career politicians with no experience of the real world, in safe seats with no incentive to worry about whether they are serving the wishes of the electorate first and foremost. I would encourage everyone who is disillusioned with the current party politics to check out a new movement called Democracy2015 which is in it's infancy, but has some interesting ideas about how to address some of these issues. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Democracy_2 015 leighmum

6:23pm Fri 5 Oct 12

steve@eastwood says...

Amess will lose his gravy train, no wonder he is against the idea.
Amess will lose his gravy train, no wonder he is against the idea. steve@eastwood

6:34pm Fri 5 Oct 12

SUFC1906 says...

Amess must be really worried. Not only would he have to give up half his extravagant wage & cushy expenses lifestyle, but the real danger might be if the other part of the jobshare was maybe a hardworking pleb who god forbid, did the job better than him. Can't have plebs getting ideas above their status.
Amess must be really worried. Not only would he have to give up half his extravagant wage & cushy expenses lifestyle, but the real danger might be if the other part of the jobshare was maybe a hardworking pleb who god forbid, did the job better than him. Can't have plebs getting ideas above their status. SUFC1906

6:40pm Fri 5 Oct 12

jolllyboy says...

Lose his meal money (more than a pensioners gets to live on) and trips abroad - has someone sussed him at last. All we ever see is his photo in the paper but never what he has done for people. Certainly my neighbour found him useless, if it could be solved with one phone call (and they said who is he) then it cannot be done but others can help, funny that.
Lose his meal money (more than a pensioners gets to live on) and trips abroad - has someone sussed him at last. All we ever see is his photo in the paper but never what he has done for people. Certainly my neighbour found him useless, if it could be solved with one phone call (and they said who is he) then it cannot be done but others can help, funny that. jolllyboy

10:40pm Fri 5 Oct 12

jayman says...

oh great.. that means we will have two people doing bugg'r all..
oh great.. that means we will have two people doing bugg'r all.. jayman

11:10pm Fri 5 Oct 12

emcee says...

However much this looney irritates me, he does have a point.
Job sharing is fine for certain jobs but for jobs based on important decision and policy making, jobs based on personal views and aspirations and where conflict of views and interests can be damaging to the purpose of the job itself, then job sharing is certainly not suitable.
However, my view does not mean I believe Mr Amess should be in his job in the first place.
However much this looney irritates me, he does have a point. Job sharing is fine for certain jobs but for jobs based on important decision and policy making, jobs based on personal views and aspirations and where conflict of views and interests can be damaging to the purpose of the job itself, then job sharing is certainly not suitable. However, my view does not mean I believe Mr Amess should be in his job in the first place. emcee

6:35am Sat 6 Oct 12

Dumbnut says...

Does that mean we will be paying for 4 properties?. In that case, I'm out.
Does that mean we will be paying for 4 properties?. In that case, I'm out. Dumbnut

2:25pm Sat 6 Oct 12

Nebs says...

emcee wrote:
However much this looney irritates me, he does have a point.
Job sharing is fine for certain jobs but for jobs based on important decision and policy making, jobs based on personal views and aspirations and where conflict of views and interests can be damaging to the purpose of the job itself, then job sharing is certainly not suitable.
However, my view does not mean I believe Mr Amess should be in his job in the first place.
Since when has David Amess made important decisions or policy. He just toes the party line. We would be better served by a job share between Max Impact and Jayman, at least everyone would get a chance to be heard.
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: However much this looney irritates me, he does have a point. Job sharing is fine for certain jobs but for jobs based on important decision and policy making, jobs based on personal views and aspirations and where conflict of views and interests can be damaging to the purpose of the job itself, then job sharing is certainly not suitable. However, my view does not mean I believe Mr Amess should be in his job in the first place.[/p][/quote]Since when has David Amess made important decisions or policy. He just toes the party line. We would be better served by a job share between Max Impact and Jayman, at least everyone would get a chance to be heard. Nebs

5:16pm Sat 6 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

aduksquack wrote:
Jobshare: good enough for us plebs, not good enough for tory MPs.
assuming you mean the royal "us"
[quote][p][bold]aduksquack[/bold] wrote: Jobshare: good enough for us plebs, not good enough for tory MPs.[/p][/quote]assuming you mean the royal "us" beyond the valley of the asbos

5:19pm Sat 6 Oct 12

beyond the valley of the asbos says...

Nebs wrote:
emcee wrote:
However much this looney irritates me, he does have a point.
Job sharing is fine for certain jobs but for jobs based on important decision and policy making, jobs based on personal views and aspirations and where conflict of views and interests can be damaging to the purpose of the job itself, then job sharing is certainly not suitable.
However, my view does not mean I believe Mr Amess should be in his job in the first place.
Since when has David Amess made important decisions or policy. He just toes the party line. We would be better served by a job share between Max Impact and Jayman, at least everyone would get a chance to be heard.
i vote for....none of the above. you'd get my vote though nebs but not as transport secretary!
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: However much this looney irritates me, he does have a point. Job sharing is fine for certain jobs but for jobs based on important decision and policy making, jobs based on personal views and aspirations and where conflict of views and interests can be damaging to the purpose of the job itself, then job sharing is certainly not suitable. However, my view does not mean I believe Mr Amess should be in his job in the first place.[/p][/quote]Since when has David Amess made important decisions or policy. He just toes the party line. We would be better served by a job share between Max Impact and Jayman, at least everyone would get a chance to be heard.[/p][/quote]i vote for....none of the above. you'd get my vote though nebs but not as transport secretary! beyond the valley of the asbos

5:48pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Eric Whim says...

Nebs wrote:
emcee wrote: However much this looney irritates me, he does have a point. Job sharing is fine for certain jobs but for jobs based on important decision and policy making, jobs based on personal views and aspirations and where conflict of views and interests can be damaging to the purpose of the job itself, then job sharing is certainly not suitable. However, my view does not mean I believe Mr Amess should be in his job in the first place.
Since when has David Amess made important decisions or policy. He just toes the party line. We would be better served by a job share between Max Impact and Jayman, at least everyone would get a chance to be heard.
Since when has David Amess made important decisions


when he decided to run away from his Basildon constituency for a safe seat in Southend East
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: However much this looney irritates me, he does have a point. Job sharing is fine for certain jobs but for jobs based on important decision and policy making, jobs based on personal views and aspirations and where conflict of views and interests can be damaging to the purpose of the job itself, then job sharing is certainly not suitable. However, my view does not mean I believe Mr Amess should be in his job in the first place.[/p][/quote]Since when has David Amess made important decisions or policy. He just toes the party line. We would be better served by a job share between Max Impact and Jayman, at least everyone would get a chance to be heard.[/p][/quote][quote]Since when has David Amess made important decisions [/quote] when he decided to run away from his Basildon constituency for a safe seat in Southend East Eric Whim

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree