If you choose your MP to be a casino chip for their party leader, that's your decision. But don't then complain if you think the MPs are idiots/zealots/lazy/crap.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I didn't say quality candidates weren't important, just that there is no requirement that they be any good. And in any event, like everyone else, I don't "choose" the candidates to be MPs - parties do, and most seats are safe.
So your argument should be with party candidate selection processes - which are often opaque and gerrymandered - rather than trying to address that through pay.
I absolutely do have arguments with party candidate selection process. I wrote about this whole area a few years ago. I disagree with you less than you seem to think!
You explicitly stated that the only requirement for an MP is that they can win an election. If that's the only way you're judging them, it's as a casino chip for their party leader.
Functionally, that is their main purpose now. I've largely made my peace with it. Few others seem to have done.
It's not the only way *I* am judging them - that is how the system is set up. That is literally the only actual requirement to be an MP. You have mistaken my statement of how the system functions as an endorsement.
If improving the quality of legislators is more important than that, the role has to be made more attractive. I don't support the call for raising MPs' salaries. I do think offering more support to ex-MPs would encourage more people to interrupt their careers to do the role.
Comments
https://medium.com/@alastair-meeks/performance-anxiety-1b3815423f36
Functionally, that is their main purpose now. I've largely made my peace with it. Few others seem to have done.