“Well, first of all, tell me, is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy. It’s only the other fellow who’s greedy”... “Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organise society for us.”
So said Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. And he has a point. While we should punish people who don’t follow the rules, we need to focus on getting those rules right in the first place. We need systems of government that work with the grain of the crooked timber of humanity – not against it. Everything else is destined to fail.
We already have rules to limit those in power. MPs are not allowed to take money to raise issues in the House of Commons or with the government. That’s why Owen Paterson got into trouble when the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards found that he had approached and met officials at the Food Standards Agency on behalf of companies and ministers at the Department for International Development. It was also reported that he used his parliamentary office and stationery for his consultancy work and failed to declare his interests in some meetings.
This is not the same as MPs having second jobs. Stephen Bush makes a spirited defence of Geoffrey Cox in the New Statesman, while David Gauke argues in the same publication that banning second jobs would likely lead to talented individuals refusing to become MPs: “In addition to discouraging potentially good ministers from becoming or remaining parliamentarians, there would be a decrease in the understanding of business within the Commons and an increase in the potency of the Prime Minister’s powers of patronage. The benefit of attaining ministerial office and the cost of losing it would become all the greater. At a time when the country could do with a few ministers being willing to stand up to the Prime Minister from time to time, this would be unwelcome.”
While the broad point has merits, Gauke fudges the issue. He’s right to defend second jobs, such as his NED roles, as offering “invaluable experience”, but many second jobs don’t pass the smell test so easily, with too many clearly just employed to lobby on behalf of companies. The rules really need to be tightened and enforced.
There is a bigger issue that needs addressing if we really want MPs to focus on legislating: we should pay MPs more. This isn’t excusing the likes of Patterson breaking the rules, or even those pushing them to near breaking. It’s about acknowledging that it’s an important job that MPs shouldn’t feel like they have to top up with external pay. And while they are paid more than the average voter, only a quarter have a second jobs (being an MP is very demanding), and their peers are often earning a lot more. In fact, many of their peers would make better MPs, but are put off by the idea of taking a significant pay cut for a precarious job. I know many such people.
As Tom Chivers argues: “[I]f there’s even a small chance that increased pay would improve the calibre of MP candidates, then since MPs are responsible for decisions about the UK’s one-trillion-pound budget – 38,000 times as big as the sum required to raise their salary by 50% – then it seems like a decent bet. If improving MPs’ wages by that much raised GDP by 0.001% it would pay for itself. Or, in expected value terms, there was a 1% chance of it raising GDP by 0.1%, then it would be a worthwhile bet.”
That said, I don’t think boosting pay (even if it were politically feasible) would suddenly lead to the very best and brightest becoming MPs. In order to prove loyalty, potential candidates need to spend years wooing their local party chair, delivering leaflets and knocking on doors. Let’s face it, that immediately cuts out 99% of the population from wanting the job.
That’s why we need to be more open to bringing outside talent in. The example of the venture capitalist Kate Bingham coming in to head up the UK's Vaccine Taskforce is a textbook example of what can be achieved. This is about bringing in individuals with particular skills to solve problems better than politicians and the civil service. And here, finally, is the relevance of all this to entrepreneurs: often the best people for the job will be entrepreneurs.
To date, business experience has often been the main reason for appointments, with 40% of appointees having a business background. Earlier this year the Commission for Smart Government recommended that the Prime Minister should be able to appoint ministers from outside parliament, which is an idea worth considering.
Of course, Tsars (like Ministers) aren’t always successful. They have tended to work best when brought in for a short burst of activity, to mobilise around an issue, and then to retire. But there are plenty such problems to solve and many entrepreneurs with the skills and public spiritedness to give it their best shot.
Sign up to Philip’s Friday newsletter here.