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. - ThreadSky

alastairmeeks.bsky.social • 7 days ago

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.

Comments

grahamwalkernrg.bsky.social•7 days ago

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.

alastairmeeks.bsky.social•7 days ago

Then if you don't endorse the way the system functions, you need to identify ways of improving it.

I agree with you that salary levels are not particularly relevant to this. I disagree with you in that I do think job insecurity has some relevance.

grahamwalkernrg.bsky.social•7 days ago

Open list voting would go quite some way to address your problems with quality, lack of MPs independence, and party control of candidates. No chance of being enacted.

grahamwalkernrg.bsky.social•7 days ago

The reason I think job insecurity is irrelevant is that a large proportion of MPs are prepared to accept the supposed job insecurity and pay cuts to do the job, and most UK citizens would jump at the chance of the pay and conditions.

alastairmeeks.bsky.social•7 days ago

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.

grahamwalkernrg.bsky.social•7 days ago

And I think there are at least two misconceptions here - that (primarily or only) people with "careers" are "quality" candidates, and that people with careers don't currently interrupt their careers to be MPs, whereas they manifestly do all the time.

grahamwalkernrg.bsky.social•7 days ago

The vast majority of working people in the UK would be increasing their pay and pensions drastically if they became MPs. If the existing social safety net is not enough for MPs, guess what? They can increase the social safety net for everyone, rather than just themselves.

alastairmeeks.bsky.social•7 days ago

There are a lot of people with careers. Some of those could be capable MPs. A high proportion of those are put off by job insecurity (leaving only zealots or nutters willing to interrupt their current careers).

I'll let you draw your own Venn diagrams so you can see where you erred in that tweet.

grahamwalkernrg.bsky.social•7 days ago

I'd rather see you evidence your statement that "only zealots and nutters" are willing to interrupt their "careers", when the average male salary is 1/3rd of base MPs' pay. 23% of MPs went to Oxbridge and 20% private school, it rather suggesting other factors are significantly more important.

alastairmeeks.bsky.social•7 days ago

*gestures at the House of Commons*

grahamwalkernrg.bsky.social•7 days ago

Cool, so what your saying is you have no evidence that "a high proportion of people are put off by the job insecurity"? Are you seriously telling me that someone on average salary wouldn't grab the chance to earn £93k for potentially five years with both hands?

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply