MPs must have experience before they enter politics.

#1
Not one of the Government front bench has any commercial experience and none have served in the Armed Forces, and the opposition parties are little better.

Accordingly, given MPs’ powers to influence the economy and to commit the country to war, should it not be mandatory that only those with a minimum of 7 years’ commercial experience and/or 7 years’ service in HM Forces can be elected to Parliament?
 
#3
Isn't that an old tory tradition, accepting people who've got life experience beyond politics?
 
#4
CutLunchCommando said:
Thats an interesting idea. A sort of an inversion of the "Services guarantees Citizenship" concept in Starship Troopers.
I certainly think that was what Heinlen was commenting on when he wrote it.

I would suggest that how ever the sic'un' professional politicians that we seemly saddled with would cry like Jessies at the thought of getting there hands dirty.

They have no connection to either the public servants or the working people of this country, many have never even done a proper job of work since leaving university. :x
 
#5
I read recently that Tony Benn's granddaughter, with the wealth of 18 years life experience behind her, will be standing for Labour in Shoreham, Sussex.

I assume (hope) that it is a VERY safe Conservative seat since, whilst I have no doubt that she has been surrounded by politics all her life, a little experience of the real world the rest of us inhabit might be of use to her should she ever be in a position to influence decisions which affect us all.
 
#6
Another good reason NOT to vote for Labour, those clowns must think the British Electorate are stupid.... mmm second thoughts, they are, they voted them in 3 times already ..... :x

Just what experience has this young person got that makes her qualified for the job should they have a stupid attack and actually vote her in? 17 years old and selected as the next canditate ffs
 
#7
No. Any free private citizen should be allowed to put themselves forward to be accepted or rejected by the electorate. If the electorate are stupid enough to elect tossers, well, we get what we deserve.
 
#8
Firehorse said:
I read recently that Tony Benn's granddaughter, with the wealth of 18 years life experience behind her, will be standing for Labour in Shoreham, Sussex.

I assume (hope) that it is a VERY safe Conservative seat since, whilst I have no doubt that she has been surrounded by politics all her life, a little experience of the real world the rest of us inhabit might be of use to her should she ever be in a position to influence decisions which affect us all.
I was about to ask where she could learn to be a two-faced, self-centred, self-promoting, lying, barsteward in only 17 and a bit years then I read your answer!
 
#9
wedge35 said:
No. Any free private citizen should be allowed to put themselves forward to be accepted or rejected by the electorate. If the electorate are stupid enough to elect tossers, well, we get what we deserve.
I disagree, in fact I'd go as far as Heinlen and state that voting rights should only be given to those who have served in the military or if medically unable, some form of citizens service in lieu.

Our so called freedoms are paid for in blood, why should those who are unwilling to defend our democracy, be allowed to influence it?

Just think...no George Galloways or Gordon Broons!
 
#10
The_Cad said:
wedge35 said:
No. Any free private citizen should be allowed to put themselves forward to be accepted or rejected by the electorate. If the electorate are stupid enough to elect tossers, well, we get what we deserve.
I disagree, in fact I'd go as far as Heinlen and state that voting rights should only be given to those who have served in the military or if medically unable, some form of citizens service in lieu.

Our so called freedoms are paid for in blood, why should those who are unwilling to defend our democracy, be allowed to influence it?

Just think...no George Galloways or Gordon Broons!
I think thats just silly - everyone can't serve their country - should all medically unable be allowed to vote over others, what if they never had an intention to serve?

If you say anyone in government must of served a minimum amount of times in the forces, shouldnt they also spend time in the police/fire service/public/private sector etc. The one person who needs forces backround in parliment is the Defence Secretary.
 
#11
Invictus_88 said:
Isn't that an old tory tradition, accepting people who've got life experience beyond politics?
Yes that is indeed correct, in fact in their last government it was almost compulsory to have outside business interests to serve before your constituency, and to have the life experience of being a complet c unt.

Which filtered from the top down :)

Dont vote FFS... it only encourages the pricks
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#12
Over the last 30 years or so, politicians have become increasingly 'professional' (Professional, that is, as in paid, as opposed to being particularly competent).

We seem to have already made our choice, which is that Parliament should gradually slip from its old form, wherein it was designed to operate out of normal business hours, and paid members not much, to one that is a 'career', operating more along office lines (well, more than before) and paying its members pretty well (and with excellent pensions and perks). One the one hand, you used to have Tory businessmen and landowners, opposed by Labour members sponsored by TUs. Now we have just ‘politicians’ on both sides.

If you really want to be depressed, look at the Wiki entries for out current Defence Ministers:

Secretary of State for Defence / Scottish Minister
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des_Browne

Minister for Defence Equipment & Sp / Also a Minister in BERR – formerly the DTI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Drayson,_Baron_Drayson

USofS & Veteran’s Minister:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Twigg

Minister for Armed Forces (i.e. Personnel):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ainsworth

Not a day’s military experience between them.

Oh, and for some reason Wikipedia has stopped anyone from editing the Bob Ainsworth one – I wonder why!
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#13
A preposterous suggestion and one which I’m sure that the original poster threw out to cause debate rather than this being what he actually believes.

At a stroke you remove the right of ‘single issue’ campaigners from standing against their local MP if they close your local hospital/library/swimming pool and so on if this is the thing they feel strongest about but have no commercial or military experience.

And do you really believe that the armed forces and industry are all that the government has the responsibility for? To take the argument to its logical conclusion you may as well disbar anyone who hasn’t spent 7 years as a doctor/nurse (Health) a bin-man (Council expenditure) a farmer/vet (DEFRA) and so on.

A remarkably silly post Balleh.
 
#14
As an ex-serviceman myself I think the idea that having served should be the main criteria for representing the people is utterly ludicrous. Some of the plonkers I came across in khaki I wouldn't put in charge of running a dustbin. Unfortunately it was an ex serviceman who talked us into the common market which so many of us abhor. I do think that there should be a minimum age of at least 25 because putting forward a 17 year old is insulting the electorate.I
 
#15
he has a point though MPS are supposed to represent the people.

how can they if all they know is Westminster.

the idea that parliament should operate out of hours is fine if you only want the
rich to apply.
 
#16
I do think its right that a person should have some life experiance before going in to politics, at any level. A minimum age of say 25 would sort that out. It doesn't matter whether it was services, professional or being a sodding swimming pool attendent. Having 18 year olds in Westminster is a bit of a joke. Time was the house of Lords acted as a check-balance to the mosr wild impulses of the lower house, but thanks to recent reforms that looks less likely than ever.
 
#17
Disagree about disbarring people because of background, but we definitely need to stop the slide towards politics as a career in its tracks if we're to have any sort of functioning democracy.

How about fixing MP salary to the national average? And making them pay their own expenses like everyone else has to? And before anyone argues that you need a good salary to attract talent, I'd advise them to take a look at what we've got for our money at the moment.

Performance related pay or bonuses sounds an attractive idea to me, but not sure how it could be made to apply to politicians.
 
#18
The voting age should be dropped too, but if not there should be an age limit of when you can vote.

and the same with people who stand.

Edited to add and only those in full time education or employment are allowed to vote.
 
#19
Sixty wrote:

And do you really believe that the armed forces and industry are all that the government has the responsibility for? To take the argument to its logical conclusion you may as well disbar anyone who hasn’t spent 7 years as a doctor/nurse (Health) a bin-man (Council expenditure) a farmer/vet (DEFRA) and so on.
I think the point is more that an increasing number of politicos (principally, but not exclusively Nue Arbeit) have absolutely no experience of a "normal" working life out side politics.

Take for example a Labour member for a Northern constituency I will not name for legal reasons (ie so I don't get my ARRSE sued off). Her biography runs something like this:

Non-political career:
Political lobbyist
Governor, XXXXX University
Member, Further Education Funding Council quality committee

Political career:
President, National Union of Students 19XX-19XX
Member, Labour Co-ordinating Committee, Commission on Party Democracy
(from the BBC 1997 election website).

Note the non-political career still (and I may be expressing ignorance here and do not intend to defame if I'm wrong) seems to be tied up in lobbying, QUANGOs and governmental administration rather than being an active member of the Forces, industry, education, health care or any of the sectors mentioned above. Hardly non-political, I would submit.

Even the Prime Minister has only worked outside politics as a lecturer in, you guessed it, politics and as a journalist (and I think one can have some suspicions about the kind of stories he was covering).

Say what you will about Bliar and the WMF they did qualify and work as barristers which up to a point means thay have experience of running a business, although the barristers I know are far too busy to climb the greasy pole of politics and hold down their careers.
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#20
brighton hippy said:
he has a point though MPS are supposed to represent the people.

how can they if all they know is Westminster.

the idea that parliament should operate out of hours is fine if you only want the
rich to apply.
Then dont feckin vote for them then. (not aimed at you BH..)

Nothing stops anyone from standing for parliament (except convicts and nutters), so stand for parliament and the great unwashed will vote for you... or not...
 

Latest Threads

Top