MPs must have experience before they enter politics.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Balleh, Oct 9, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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?
  2. Thats an interesting idea. A sort of an inversion of the "Services guarantees Citizenship" concept in Starship Troopers.
  3. Isn't that an old tory tradition, accepting people who've got life experience beyond politics?
  4. 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. 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. 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 George Galloways or Gordon Broons!
  10. 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. 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
  12. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    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

    Minister for Defence Equipment & Sp / Also a Minister in BERR – formerly the DTI

    USofS & Veteran’s Minister:

    Minister for Armed Forces (i.e. Personnel):

    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!
  13. Sixty

    Sixty LE Moderator Book Reviewer
    1. ARRSE Cyclists and Triathletes

    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.