The funny thing is, it seems their “outside experience” is all the same kind of outside experience. Perhaps, if Cameron’s argument is a fair one, we should insist MPs with second jobs spend time in a range of jobs each year, including cleaning, agricultural labour, domestic labour etc

At the risk of sounding like Mark Knopfler, I think it’s a stretch to call sitting on the board of private equity firms and hedge funds actually “working” in the sense that it runs contrary to what the vast and sweeping majority of us define as work*.

The issue for me is not that these second “jobs” would distract them from their parliamentary duties, but the fact that, given the parlous state of the financial industry it’s a cocking *gigantic* conflict of interest to have a potentially incoming government up to their necks in said industry, raking in massive sums in the process.

And these are the kind of people who have the gall to say that public-sector jobs are “make-work”. Given that a council-employed youth officer probably has to come up with ways to keep gangs of lads from tearing strips out of each other day on day, and these buggers basically have to show up to the odd meeting, play golf and attend the right social gatherings, I strenuously beg to differ on who’s doing the “make-work”.

* – i.e. They do bugger all except lend their name and influence, maybe show up at meetings once or twice a month and get paid hundreds of thousands for it, whereas most of us have to work at least 5 days a week and have bugger-all left once we’ve put a roof over our head for the next month and fed ourselves.

Aren’t they supposed to get their outside experience BEFORE becoming MPs, rather than on-the-job?

Pretty much all MPs used to have second jobs once, why the change now?

To a certain extent I agree with Bluepillnation. Personally I don’t give a damn what their work outside parliament is, (in fact given the damage they do while in the Commons, the more time spent outside the better), but transparency is the key to show potential conflicts of interest. Any attempt to hide such conflicts should be considered criminal and charged appropriately. I would include EU pensions as a similar possible conflict.

Returning to the OP: the list of Conservative MPs and their employers is unconvincing for a counter argument, because they were the same people who would work together anyway. Disgraceful employment of MPs and former MPs occurs when there is a connection with past or future government office.

Hedge fund management and private equity is not illegal at this time.

Does the fact that so many Tories are associated with financial organisations concern me? It dismays me that Cameron thinks that an executive jolly is the same as real work. But he has never had a real job.