Short Fuse

Full take: > MPs are not employees, they're representatives. It's up to them to manage their time, and to their constituents (and whips) to hold them accountable > Parliament doesn't subsidise alcohol - the alcohol actually subsidises the *rest* of the catering (net cost of around £7m annually). About 15,000 people work in the palace, inside a security perimeter. You don't want them all rushing in and out at lunch. Providing canteens, cafes, etc at all hours is necessary, and the profit margin on alcohol offsets some of that. > MPs have several 'jobs'. Constituency case work, speeches/debates in the chamber, committee work, and votes. Plus plenty of reading, writing, etc. Most of that will be done during regular office hours, when their staff are there. > Having 'a drink' at lunchtime is fine. Lots of professional jobs do, you just get the admin done for a bit after before getting back to proper work. Probably unwise every day for your health, but France manages just fine with lunchtime drinking! > Votes can often go on late into the night, and are whipped. ie, an MP's job is to hang about and then be a body walking through a door. Their vote is already decided by the time there's a division, they don't get to the door and suddenly pull out a pack and start working out what to do, unless they're extremely stupid and unprepared. You want them on-site, but there's no need for them to be 'working' per se. Having a few drinks is fine. However: > Parliament has an infamous drinking problem, which leads to assaults and bad behaviour. Much as I hate to say it, they probably need a better centralised HR that can mediate disputes and curb some of that. > People should not be *drunk* while in committees, in the chamber for debates, or working on constituency matters, etc. Doing so should flag an intervention by the Speaker, in the interest of MPs health and well-being as much as their constituents. But what they choose to do after they're done is up to them. More broadly: > Alcohol is deeply rooted in British (and western) culture, and serves a social purpose - it helps create social bonds, facilitates conversation, drops inhibitions. Yes, you can overdo it, but there's a genuine positive from the bonds it creates, often across party lines. Parliament is confrontational, but it needs to be collegiate, too. People need to know each other well, and humanise one another - frankly, that's much easier to do when the barriers are lower. Many professions now have the opposite problem of over-professionalisation, leading to weak social networks and homogenisation of process. Bad in its own ways, as I've covered elsewhere. My overall summary is that MPs are adults, in a deeply unusual place with long hours where socialising and networking are key to performing effectively. Alcohol is an important lubricant for that. That being said, it can go too far, and tighter controls on bad behaviour might be beneficial, as well as better intervention where problematic patterns become apparent. But the puritanism and holier-than-thou attitude is tiresome. No, I don't want my doctor drinking at lunchtime, but yes, I'm totally happy if my stockbroker wants to. It depends on the nature of the job, what they're trying to achieve, and the net outcomes.