I don’t know whether “aspiring journalists” read the rest of the news, so you may not have seen this story as well:

“Cameron: Shadow cabinet will give up second jobs by end of year”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/29/conservative-second-jobs

Gove’s second job was only writing a few articles – that he was paid so much to do so is hardly his fault!

Tbf, he is quite a good columnist and it’s far less than BoJo gets for his witterings (£250,000).

“As a result, his hourly rate looks like something a corporate lawyer would drool over.”

Good for him!

Still defending Tories diligently eh Cjcjc?

Am I supposed to be shocked about Murdoch getting poor value for money? I can’t say I am that upset.

I wonder what Blunkett gets (and whether he gets a bonus for every time he shills ID cards without mentioning that he has a financial interest in their introduction – see Private Eye ad nauseam)

What is worse – for a person to spend a few hours a week on a job that distracts them from being a constituency MP, or to spend 40 hours a week on a job that distracts them from being a constituency MP?

One is a Tory MP and the other is a government minister.

To paraphrase:

“All outside jobs are bad, but some outside jobs are more bad than others”

Sunny – it’s my (unpaid) second job!

@cjcjc – with the time you spend on here, I’m surprised you get paid for the first one.

I’m self-employed!

Not charging by the hour, I hope…

I don’t have a problem with Gove (or other MPs) earning money for a newspaper column, or with MPs receiving income from outside Parliament per se.
For me the problem arises either when there it creates a conflict of interest, or the appearance of such, if they are blatantly cashing in on their contacts and experience in Government (like David Blunkett for example), or if the time they devote to their outside interests prevents them from properly fulfilling their duties of an MP.
I don’t think that Gove knocking out a column for the Times falls into any of those categories.

‘What is worse – for a person to spend a few hours a week on a job that distracts them from being a constituency MP, or to spend 40 hours a week on a job that distracts them from being a constituency MP?’

Hate to admit it but that’s a strong argument.

I think it would make a less childish piece if you first of all found an MP who was very bad at his job, had no time for his constituents etc etc before you criticise them. If Gove is a good MP and he earns lots on the side… what’s your problem?

Well, I suppose Gove’s keenness to attack the minimum wage does tend to make him a target when he’s got easy money rolling in on all sides.

So what ? Talented sucesfull people are what’s neded in politics, rather than over promoted town hall clerks like caroline flint. At least he has a proper job – how much do all the nulabour luvvies make from “consultancy” ?

Gove is not a good Shadow Minister, and even with the Tories parlous lack of talent on the front benches, is distinguished by his poor judgement and lack of ability.

It’s plain he not only has too much to do, but that he only does the bits he likes (talking to the media, mainly), and not the bits he doesn’t like (reading and evaluating evidence, consulting with people who know what they’re talking about, listening to people who might have valid criticisms of his policies, not straying outside his departmental remit).

This analysis might seem lighthearted, but actually his many second jobs not only suggest he doesn’t take his rather important Shadow role seriously enough, but also explain why he isn’t actually very good at it.

Munro – if you see what Gove does as ‘a proper job’, then you have set the bar rather low. Of course, we all know that you define ‘proper job’ as ‘whatever my team does’ and ‘not a proper job’ as ‘anything done by the other lot’.

We do agree that talented people are needed in politics, though. That rules Gove, only in his current role through personal contacts rather than ability, out.

All I would say, is that at the moment there are too many fucking lawyers in politics, and anyone who isn’t one is ok by me.

The problem is, the parties tend to choose lawyers as candidates. That is because lawyers get paid a shit lot of money, and that allows them to have enough time to be school governors, sit on local police boards, all the horseshit you have to do to pretend you are “in touch” with the concerns of “local people”, i.e. the old grannies and idiots who are the swing vote.

Matt

One in twenty of all first degrees awarded in the UK is in law, and that proportion is going up. It’s now actually the most popular first degree in the country.

And they keep getting jobs. We’ve too many lawyers everywhere – it’s hardly surprising some of them ship up in politics.

So what ? Talented sucesfull people are what’s needed in politics

Are we to take it that “talented” and “successful” are roughly equivalent in meaning here?

No of course not. I struggle to see any evidence of talent in most modern politicians. I blame this on the fact that we now have conviction free, consensus, politics, rather than any real convinction-driven dividing lines. For some unfathomable reason the current generation see this as preferable to the “punch and judy politics” which forged one of the worlds finest democracies. Lawyers are about consensus and negociated agreement. We therefore have, and deserve, government by lawyers.