School children or MPs: who works the most?

You guessed it – it’s the kids – who work 310 hours more than MPs.

As Michael Gove continues his personal mission to make British schools a little more work-house like and less of a national handicap in the “global race” to nowhere, Margaret Hodge has suggested MPs might take a look at their own work habits. “It feels as if we are hardly working,” she told the Guardian. “Members of the public would be forgiven for thinking that it is MPs who are lazy and that it is parliament that is failing to provide good value for money.”

A little comparison is in order. This year the Commons are expected to sit for fewer than 140 days. During the 2010-2012 Session, the House sat for a total of 2,342 hours and 25 minutes, which comes to 296 days over two years. During the same period, school children spent a total of 2,660 hours in school, a total of 380 days.

That’s 310 hours and 84 days more than MPs.

The Lib Dem transport minister Norman Baker responded defensively to Hodge’s claim. “Some MPs work bloody hard all year round,” he said. Edward Garnier, Conservative MP for Harborough, argued that Hodge's claim select committees have inadequate hours to carry out their business is erroneous. “If she [Hodge] wants her committee to convene, they should be allowed to whenever they like. They do not need the house to be sitting to do so.”

Presumably, when the teachers’ unions make the same argument, the effect will be derided by an Education Secretary who keenly ignores the recommendations for shorter school days, increased flexibility and more support for teachers, which come from our Scandinavian neighbours, opting instead to lionise nations with scantly regulated school systems in East Asia.

The hours quoted above are based on my own comprehensive school's (that is to say, the most common type of school in Britain), which are from 8.20am – 3.20pm every day, 39 weeks a year (minus 5 teacher training days). This does not did not include extracurricular activities, breakfast or after school clubs, homework, revision and the rest.

Some students work bloody hard all year round, after all.

Hard at work - Michael Gove. Photo: Getty.

Philip Maughan is Assistant Editor at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

What do Labour's lost voters make of the Labour leadership candidates?

What does Newsnight's focus group make of the Labour leadership candidates?

Tonight on Newsnight, an IpsosMori focus group of former Labour voters talks about the four Labour leadership candidates. What did they make of the four candidates?

On Andy Burnham:

“He’s the old guard, with Yvette Cooper”

“It’s the same message they were trying to portray right up to the election”​

“I thought that he acknowledged the fact that they didn’t say sorry during the time of the election, and how can you expect people to vote for you when you’re not actually acknowledging that you were part of the problem”​

“Strongish leader, and at least he’s acknowledging and saying let’s move on from here as opposed to wishy washy”

“I was surprised how long he’d been in politics if he was talking about Tony Blair years – he doesn’t look old enough”

On Jeremy Corbyn:

"“He’s the older guy with the grey hair who’s got all the policies straight out of the sixties and is a bit of a hippy as well is what he comes across as” 

“I agree with most of what he said, I must admit, but I don’t think as a country we can afford his principles”

“He was just going to be the opposite of Conservatives, but there might be policies on the Conservative side that, y’know, might be good policies”

“I’ve heard in the paper he’s the favourite to win the Labour leadership. Well, if that was him, then I won’t be voting for Labour, put it that way”

“I think he’s a very good politician but he’s unelectable as a Prime Minister”

On Yvette Cooper

“She sounds quite positive doesn’t she – for families and their everyday issues”

“Bedroom tax, working tax credits, mainly mum things as well”

“We had Margaret Thatcher obviously years ago, and then I’ve always thought about it being a man, I wanted a man, thinking they were stronger…  she was very strong and decisive as well”

“She was very clear – more so than the other guy [Burnham]”

“I think she’s trying to play down her economics background to sort of distance herself from her husband… I think she’s dumbing herself down”

On Liz Kendall

“None of it came from the heart”

“She just sounds like someone’s told her to say something, it’s not coming from the heart, she needs passion”

“Rather than saying what she’s going to do, she’s attacking”

“She reminded me of a headteacher when she was standing there, and she was quite boring. She just didn’t seem to have any sort of personality, and you can’t imagine her being a leader of a party”

“With Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham there’s a lot of rhetoric but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of direction behind what they’re saying. There seems to be a lot of words but no action.”

And, finally, a piece of advice for all four candidates, should they win the leadership election:

“Get down on your hands and knees and start praying”

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.