Share my job? Bonkers, says Southend MP (From Southend Standard)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us Click here for details »
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)
firedog
says...
5:24pm Fri 5 Oct 12
no chance!
aduksquack
says...
5:35pm Fri 5 Oct 12
leighmum
says...
5:55pm Fri 5 Oct 12
org/wiki/Democracy_2
015
steve@eastwood
says...
6:23pm Fri 5 Oct 12
SUFC1906
says...
6:34pm Fri 5 Oct 12
jolllyboy
says...
6:40pm Fri 5 Oct 12
jayman
says...
10:40pm Fri 5 Oct 12
emcee
says...
11:10pm Fri 5 Oct 12
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.
Dumbnut
says...
6:35am Sat 6 Oct 12
Nebs
says...
2:25pm Sat 6 Oct 12
emcee wrote: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.
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.
beyond the valley of the asbos
says...
5:16pm Sat 6 Oct 12
aduksquack wrote:assuming you mean the royal "us"
Jobshare: good enough for us plebs, not good enough for tory MPs.
beyond the valley of the asbos
says...
5:19pm Sat 6 Oct 12
Nebs wrote:i vote for....none of the above. you'd get my vote though nebs but not as transport secretary!
emcee wrote: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.
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.
Eric Whim
says...
5:48pm Mon 8 Oct 12
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
girlie71 says...
5:21pm Fri 5 Oct 12