Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Getting the MPs we deserve?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Getting the MPs we deserve?
In a rare moment of PB agreement in a recent thread, Casino_Royale and Nick Palmer, himself a former MP, discussed the shallow gene pool which provides too many of our MPs, and the party and parliamentary processes which aim – not always successfully – to keep them in check. Strong whipping, party patronage and a lack of local competition in their seats mean too many members can enjoy a trouble- and blame-free life on the backbenches with an agreeably-subsidised lunch. As Nick also pointed out, this stifles free thinking and bores some of the cream before it has the chance to rise to the top. (Before I go any further, I apologise for the generalisations in this piece, and agree wholeheartedly that most MPs are doing what they believe to be best, and a number way in excess of zero succeeding).
Comments
Much as I'd love "to at least a few more of us checking who we’re sending there in the first place, " fee found that background information about first - time candidates is generally lacking, and that the apparent quality of candidates can be pretty thin gruel across the partisan board.
*except in Switzerland, and they don't do Qars.
Plenty of people can see that May is an idiot, and that Corbyn is an idiot, but too few seem to think this is a system problem.
The things the government must do are defence of the realm and a functioning legal/justice system. Maybe once those are sorted properly they might be allowed to look at other problems.
https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1116468833869602817
"Direct" democracy is having a referendum.
Then actually implementing it.
What we currently have is a shower of shite who won't implement the result of a referendum. It's now the electorate's job to judge them on that failure.
As for Corbyn, I think it's daft for a party to allow its leader to be chosen by those outside the party, but it remains true that Labour's membership today is significantly more left-wing (albeit perhaps not as extremely so as is often made out) than its parliamentary representation, so I don't think outsiders can be "blamed" for the push-back against centrism and there is an argument that Labour MPs could have tried harder to work with their membership's preferences.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47905089
If the threat posed by UKIP had been taken a bit more seriously by Cameron back in 2013, who knows what might of happened. (Or not happened).
UKIP might well have been mainly clowns but what they represented had much broader support than the people who led UKIP at the time.
Decrying the Moggs et al as posh twats isn't really addressing the issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Airways
We, the public, choose who to hire and who to fire.
They are accountable to us, not the other way round.
We are their masters. A fact that many of the current lot seem to have forgotten. It is my sincere hope that the whole rotten lot get their P45s at the first possible opportunity.
We can all recharge our batteries . For political junkies like most in this forum am I the only one who feels a bit exhausted by recent events.
The last few weeks have been a real rollercoaster .
As to your other point at this stage we are beyond the Brexit Party. We know the choices in front of us and it is up to our MPs to make a decision.
There is no one who is going to (be allowed to) negotiate any other deal.
The head of Sudan military council has stepped down a day after long-time leader Omar al-Bashir was toppled in a coup
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47913338
* Venal, duplicitous, self-serving tossers like Boris excepted.
We like to fool ourselves that we want MPs to show independent judgement but when they do, as on Brexit, we demand their deselection.
https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1116797398951628800?s=21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adzYW5DZoWs
If anybody is still interested in the saga after Rian Johnson fucked it up and in the brief moments before they move the franchise to streaming because they can't give it away in China, please see the derivative meanderings of a once-proud corpse. Fat Old Lando Calrissian is in it. And there's a piece of the Death Star. Palpatine's laugh. And a Tie Interceptor. Yay. All things that are over thirty years old. Ach.
https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
I do wonder how much thought he put into his actions of a few months ago.
Shareholders do have ultimate power, but only generally at the AGM by hiring the bosses. (And then CEO Cameron goes and calls an EGM for a vote on closing the European office). Generally, they don’t decide on the detail of branch closures and special offers.
Anyway.. thanks to Mike for publishing my musings, and to all of you for joining in.
Despite claims Tory associations are apoplectic at the govt, I wonder how many have been leaning on people like DK to wind their necks in to get Brexit over the line.
That’s generally a good thing IMO. But it does mean today’s voters expect their MP to do their personal bidding, rather than send someone to London to run the country for five years.
Perhaps “disconnect” was the wrong word, but we’ve moved from an era where voters were remote and not bothered. to where they know and expect more but are invariably disappointed.
And thanks for the article.
Keep the faith, my young Padawan.
http://randomthoughtsnrb.blogspot.com/2017/01/we-need-adultier-adults.html?m=1
It's an interesting question to wonder whether or not people would have voted for Brexit if they felt they could have changed their MP. If they felt that anyone was listening.
Almost none of it appears in the final cut, and it includes a very different ending
A good example from yesterday: Trump says "Wikileaks is not my thing", and within minutes people are posting clips of him talking about Wikileaks. Trump mentioned Wikileaks 141 times in public alone in the month before the 2016 election.
The mystique that politicians are particularly smart, well informed, thoughtful and so on has been blown away. We can see what they are really like, and we don't like it.
To the extent that the current system at least lets us choose the more competent-looking individual rather than the rosette whose colour we prefer - albeit that is a choice not many of decide to take - it's arguable that the current system has better filters on the individual candidates than PR-like alternatives where you're faced with a choice between party lists only. (Also local party associations may have some role to play in the matter - I am concerned that when candidates are selected for a list-based system, that will usually be done centrally, by committee, and with particular emphasis on who's more likely to toe the line. People good at manipulating themselves to first on the list, either by just hanging round long enough to gain precedence or by years of strategic schmoozing with potential future members of the relevant selection committee, still has a job for life.)
Weakening the local link might not help much with the sense of disconnect either.
How many people would agree with the statement that yes, it would be a better system? Would more people agree with the statement now than would have agreed ten years ago? Twenty years ago? If so, why?
Are our politicians no longer up to the job, or as glw states below, is it simply a lot easier to catch them out these days as being no better or wiser than the rest of us?
How about scrapping the Lords and creating a second chamber selected entirely by lottery? No power to propose or make law, but the ability to veto it or send it back. As a way to provide a check and balance on the government of the day.
And this is news ! It’s hardly a big shock . He is of course reflecting the views of a huge majority of members and Labour voters .
He’s not there to facilitate Mays deal unless it has a referendum attached . I’m surprised these for show negotiations lasted this long .
Perhaps it would have been a bit too obvious to cancel them as the ink was drying on the extension letter from the EU so they threw in an extra 24 hours for good measure !
On the face of that evidence of past performance, were the hoops set even higher to select only for the very best hoop-jumpers, then Francois would be significantly more likely to make the cut than the vast majority of MPs.
Which Chamberlain?
If you are talking about Neville you are wrong. He was famously assiduous as a constituency MP and spent much time in Birmingham.
If you are talking about Joseph, you would be half right. From 1886 he was increasingly divorced from Birmingham, and from 1906 he was of course incapacitated following a stroke. However as he had done such a huge amount of work for Birmingham before and immediately after entering Parliament, that was forgiven.
If you mean Austen, you are entirely correct. He did in fact get turned down for a Birmingham seat (I think it was Edgbaston, who eventually adopted Neville instead) because he was considered so remote. Indeed, he nearly lost Birmingham West in 1929, which had previously been one of the safest Tory seats in the country - too much time negotiating treaties and winning Nobel Prizes, not enough time in his constituency.
Churchill was also quite lazy and on at least one occasion (1908) it was a factor in losing his seat.
Spending 30 or more years living a normal life and then rocking up in Parliament is becoming harder as each electoral cycle goes by.
Night night all.