Are they committed?

News has emerged that David Cameron has been defeated in his intention to require all shadow cabinet members to divest themselves of second jobs, i.e. moonlighting. In fact, assuming that shadow ministers are paid an extra allowance for what can be quite demanding, we are really discussing giving up a third job.

Now the third job can take several forms, - writing a book at week-ends or during the long recess, sitting on a board of directors once a month, giving occasional paid lectures or acting as a consultant in an MP's own time. Many MPs engage in these occupations and others and manage to fit them in around dealing with constituency matters and presence in the chamber at Westminster.

What is different here is that shadow cabinet members have been selected by Cameron as being people of high calibre and commitment, the leaders of the Party at Westminster. What may be appropriate for rank and file MPs arguably is not for the shadow cabinet.

We are told that one or two have threatened to walk out if the measure is imposed on them. This really does question their commitment, and whether they ought to be in the job. If the Tories are successful in winning the next election, most shadow ministers would be expected to be equipped and experienced to be made full ministers. If they are part time for the moment, would this be true? Would they even want to be full ministers, given their other interests?

Cameron has been made to look weak, would he look any weaker if he called their bluff and made them walk away? In so far as some minor shadow cabinet members might leave, no great damage might result as there are others of ability ready to replace them. If, as is rumoured, one or two leading figures are involved, and William Hague has been mentioned, would it better to have the show-down now, well in advance of the election?

What is clear is that although some of these moonlighters do occasionally make a speech or write an article which impresses, do they really pull their weight? Cameron has been criticised for being a "one man band". This may in part reflect the fact that one or two other powerful figures are not pulling their weight. (I am conscious that William Hague was involved in re-building the Party in the North of England, certainly his name was regularly mentioned. Whether he should now be adopting a more active role nationally or in foreign affairs is a question which only he and Cameron can answer.)