I enjoyed the article and agreed with most of it. However, 'the disconnect between Westminster and the voters' in some ways is nothing new - indeed was it ever thus? When I think of MPs from the pre-war period - indeed as recently as the 1960s and 1970s - I am struck by how much more remote they were from their constituents than is the case today. Many failed to hold surgeries at all and quite a few rarely set foot in their constituencies from one year to the next. Yet paradoxically , there was little evidence that electors felt particularly neglected or ignored by their MPs - indeed they were held in much greater esteem than their present day successors. I doubt very much that Asquith, Baldwin, Chamberlain, Churchill or Attlee et al spent much time attending to the particular concerns of their local constituents - yet few seemed to care!
I think it comes down to the death of deference and greater accessibility.
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.
I totally agree - we now expect far too much of our MPs in terms of casework and insist that they effectively act as social workers. As a result, they no longer have the time to think in depth and to contemplate the wider national implications of policy decisions.
.
MPs today have far more resources available to them than their predecessors, but it is far from clear that this matches the greater demands and expectations of them.
I've never spoken to my MP and I don't think I know anyone who has had dealings with their MP in a personal rather than professional capacity. I'm not sure how prevalent this view is, but my suspicion is that our political class today finds it harder to say no. The fact that interest rates have barely moved in a decade is evidence of this, in my opinion.
Interest rates are a key aspect of Monetary Policy , and nowadays are not even directly controlled by the Executive - ie the Chancellor - never mind MPs. Gordon Brown handed the setting of interest rates over to the Bank of England in 1997 - for good or ill.
I enjoyed the article and agreed with most of it. However, 'the disconnect between Westminster and the voters' in some ways is nothing new - indeed was it ever thus? When I think of MPs from the pre-war period - indeed as recently as the 1960s and 1970s - I am struck by how much more remote they were from their constituents than is the case today. Many failed to hold surgeries at all and quite a few rarely set foot in their constituencies from one year to the next. Yet paradoxically , there was little evidence that electors felt particularly neglected or ignored by their MPs - indeed they were held in much greater esteem than their present day successors. I doubt very much that Asquith, Baldwin, Chamberlain, Churchill or Attlee et al spent much time attending to the particular concerns of their local constituents - yet few seemed to care!
I think it comes down to the death of deference and greater accessibility.
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.
I totally agree - we now expect far too much of our MPs in terms of casework and insist that they effectively act as social workers. As a result, they no longer have the time to think in depth and to contemplate the wider national implications of policy decisions.
.
MPs today have far more resources available to them than their predecessors, but it is far from clear that this matches the greater demands and expectations of them.
I've never spoken to my MP and I don't think I know anyone who has had dealings with their MP in a personal rather than professional capacity. I'm not sure how prevalent this view is, but my suspicion is that our political class today finds it harder to say no. The fact that interest rates have barely moved in a decade is evidence of this, in my opinion.
Interest rates are a key aspect of Monetary Policy , and nowadays are not even directly controlled by the Executive - ie the Chancellor - never mind MPs. Gordon Brown handed the setting of interest rates over to the Bank of England in 1997 - for good or ill.
That's why I said political class - I'd include the MPC in that. They have a lot of power and as far as I'm concerned are happy to go with the flow and not put the government's nose out of joint.
I enjoyed the article and agreed with most of it. However, 'the disconnect between Westminster and the voters' in some ways is nothing new - indeed was it ever thus? When I think of MPs from the pre-war period - indeed as recently as the 1960s and 1970s - I am struck by how much more remote they were from their constituents than is the case today. Many failed to hold surgeries at all and quite a few rarely set foot in their constituencies from one year to the next. Yet paradoxically , there was little evidence that electors felt particularly neglected or ignored by their MPs - indeed they were held in much greater esteem than their present day successors. I doubt very much that Asquith, Baldwin, Chamberlain, Churchill or Attlee et al spent much time attending to the particular concerns of their local constituents - yet few seemed to care!
There were a lot more manual workers in parliament in those days, especially on the Labour benches. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't become distant from voters once they entered the Commons.
If we have a GE 2019, given that MPs and parliament have been prominent, I would expect to see some more in the way of genuinely localised swings based on how individuals are seen to have performed in the Brexit battles. This is even setting aside a rate of MPs ceasing to represent the banner they were elected under, which is running at 1 around every 5 weeks in the current parliament.
Not many voters will be aware of as many of the different Brexit players as PBers, but you can be sure a decent number of voters know that their own MP is prominent.
If you are going to have a gatekeeper, you need to keep an eye on the gatekeeper. In the case of Wikileaks, it was clear from the beginning that it was very much about where Assange wanted to focus the truth than on the whole truth.
Wikileaks did start as a clearing house for whistleblowers, but somewhere along the way it became, wittingly or not, an outlet for disinformation and propaganda. The actual mainstream media, like for example the Guardian, tends to be a lot more careful than the alternative media about who they work with.
Wikileaks knowingly worked with Russian intelligence agencies. The megalomaniac (in itself a warning) that was its leader knowingly had contact with Russian officials and helped deliver Edward Snowden to them.
What really beats me are 1. the people who still buy into Assange in some way and 2. those who now get the picture but don't admit that they once bought into his speak truth to power shtick.
It's just a thought experiment, but it's not entirely undemocratic, either. A random cross section of society is chosen by lottery to govern for a fixed term of five years. It may offer more representation to, say, a Conservative voter in Bootle (I assume there are some?) who has never been represented in his or her life. I believe others have made similar arguments about the single stochastic vote system of electing representatives, which you could argue is more democratic than our current system.
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.
So heart surgeons, pilots and military officers would be taken out of their highly skilled and valuable jobs for five years and put them into a job which does not interest them, just to fill the house of lords.
No surprise that the Moggette is the cover girl of tomorrow's Telegraph.
Night night again!
I assume Nancy Rees Mogg will be top of their list in the south west?
I thought they were also looking to recruit Michelle Dewberry - ex of the Apprentice and current of Sky News’ the Pledge? She would look good oop north.
Diane James MEP who led UKIP for less than a month has also apparently signed up to be right below Farage in the south east.
It would be an interesting debating point to slash the number of MPs.. even down to, say, a couple of hundred.. representing c. half a million each (possibly a county or borough each) to actually make the decisions. But whether through higher money or genuine notability attracting better people, you aim to get serious people rather than Mark Francois. And then you back them with a proper staff to ‘do local’. Lots of cons (not least each idiot who does slip through having a far bigger say), but it’s an alternative system with some pros too.
As much as you deride Francois for not being "serious", he has demonstrated the capacity - or at least the luck - to jump through whichever hoops were required to become an MP in our current system. In fact, holding one of the country's largest and therefore most coveted majorities, he seems to be a serious hoop-jumper of the first rate. Approval of central party, approval of local party, approval of local voters, the guy's done it all. Goodness only knows how, but he's done it.
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.
Partly, I accept he has his strong points and a ‘constituency’ (and choosing him over others was flippant and a shortcut - maybe Kawczynski’s a better bet, or most other backbenchers). But my point is that you might actually attract more top business people/head teachers/surgeons/whatever to fight those people... in seats where they would have real clout rather than being lobby fodder as 1 in 650.
The voters choose from the candidates that the local parties put in front of them. The local parties get to choose from the shortlist put in front of them. Getting onto the approved candidates lists comes from on high. If we are not getting a decent cadre of MPs it is the systems used by the parties to decide who is a suitable candidate to blame.
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.
Don't think I agree with this. It's not that hard to get on the approved list - I'd guess that 90% of PBers could do it without preparation. The only person I knew who failed had poor English and didn't know what a county council was. Nice guy, but...
The problem is selection by familiarity. It's human nature to prefer someone who you've known for ages and think reasonably sound to someone you've never heard of who rocks up. so the way to get selected is usually to spend a significant part of your free time for 10-20 years helping your local party (if you live in a winnable seat). And if you're doing that, you're probably not becoming a leading economist or an expert on lemons.
But Sandy's certainly right that the ordinary voter often doesn't have a meaningful, informed choice of individuals, and most voters hesitate to vote for someone they respect but disagree with. So people vote primarily for the party, and the party picks saomeone they happen to know well.
It would be an interesting debating point to slash the number of MPs.. even down to, say, a couple of hundred.. representing c. half a million each (possibly a county or borough each) to actually make the decisions. But whether through higher money or genuine notability attracting better people, you aim to get serious people rather than Mark Francois. And then you back them with a proper staff to ‘do local’. Lots of cons (not least each idiot who does slip through having a far bigger say), but it’s an alternative system with some pros too.
As much as you deride Francois for not being "serious", he has demonstrated the capacity - or at least the luck - to jump through whichever hoops were required to become an MP in our current system. In fact, holding one of the country's largest and therefore most coveted majorities, he seems to be a serious hoop-jumper of the first rate. Approval of central party, approval of local party, approval of local voters, the guy's done it all. Goodness only knows how, but he's done it.
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.
Partly, I accept he has his strong points and a ‘constituency’ (and choosing him over others was flippant and a shortcut - maybe Kawczynski’s a better bet, or most other backbenchers). But my point is that you might actually attract more top business people/head teachers/surgeons/whatever to fight those people... in seats where they would have real clout rather than being lobby fodder as 1 in 650.
I don't think we need more surgeons or other doctors in Parliament. There are a half dozen already. We need more porters, security guards, waitresses and hair dressers. They are the people that are missing.
The voters choose from the candidates that the local parties put in front of them. The local parties get to choose from the shortlist put in front of them. Getting onto the approved candidates lists comes from on high. If we are not getting a decent cadre of MPs it is the systems used by the parties to decide who is a suitable candidate to blame.
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.
Don't think I agree with this. It's not that hard to get on the approved list - I'd guess that 90% of PBers could do it without preparation. The only person I knew who failed had poor English and didn't know what a county council was. Nice guy, but...
The problem is selection by familiarity. It's human nature to prefer someone who you've known for ages and think reasonably sound to someone you've never heard of who rocks up. so the way to get selected is usually to spend a significant part of your free time for 10-20 years helping your local party (if you live in a winnable seat). And if you're doing that, you're probably not becoming a leading economist or an expert on lemons.
But Sandy's certainly right that the ordinary voter often doesn't have a meaningful, informed choice of individuals, and most voters hesitate to vote for someone they respect but disagree with. So people vote primarily for the party, and the party picks saomeone they happen to know well.
No surprise that the Moggette is the cover girl of tomorrow's Telegraph.
Night night again!
I assume Nancy Rees Mogg will be top of their list in the south west?
I thought they were also looking to recruit Michelle Dewberry - ex of the Apprentice and current of Sky News’ the Pledge? She would look good oop north.
Diane James MEP who led UKIP for less than a month has also apparently signed up to be right below Farage in the south east.
So, this uprising of the disposed and the forgotten, the just about managing, the seaside dwellers of bedsit land, those who are definitely not the elite... turns out to be a minor celeb fest of talk radio stars, late night TV appearances and aristo former tory candidates.
Presumably Darcey Bussell has been tapped up as well?
It would be an interesting debating point to slash the number of MPs.. even down to, say, a couple of hundred.. representing c. half a million each (possibly a county or borough each) to actually make the decisions. But whether through higher money or genuine notability attracting better people, you aim to get serious people rather than Mark Francois. And then you back them with a proper staff to ‘do local’. Lots of cons (not least each idiot who does slip through having a far bigger say), but it’s an alternative system with some pros too.
As much as you deride Francois for not being "serious", he has demonstrated the capacity - or at least the luck - to jump through whichever hoops were required to become an MP in our current system. In fact, holding one of the country's largest and therefore most coveted majorities, he seems to be a serious hoop-jumper of the first rate. Approval of central party, approval of local party, approval of local voters, the guy's done it all. Goodness only knows how, but he's done it.
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.
Partly, I accept he has his strong points and a ‘constituency’ (and choosing him over others was flippant and a shortcut - maybe Kawczynski’s a better bet, or most other backbenchers). But my point is that you might actually attract more top business people/head teachers/surgeons/whatever to fight those people... in seats where they would have real clout rather than being lobby fodder as 1 in 650.
I don't think we need more surgeons or other doctors in Parliament. There are a half dozen already. We need more porters, security guards, waitresses and hair dressers. They are the people that are missing.
It would be an interesting debating point to slash the number of MPs.. even down to, say, a couple of hundred.. representing c. half a million each (possibly a county or borough each) to actually make the decisions. But whether through higher money or genuine notability attracting better people, you aim to get serious people rather than Mark Francois. And then you back them with a proper staff to ‘do local’. Lots of cons (not least each idiot who does slip through having a far bigger say), but it’s an alternative system with some pros too.
As much as you deride Francois for not being "serious", he has demonstrated the capacity - or at least the luck - to jump through whichever hoops were required to become an MP in our current system. In fact, holding one of the country's largest and therefore most coveted majorities, he seems to be a serious hoop-jumper of the first rate. Approval of central party, approval of local party, approval of local voters, the guy's done it all. Goodness only knows how, but he's done it.
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.
Partly, I accept he has his strong points and a ‘constituency’ (and choosing him over others was flippant and a shortcut - maybe Kawczynski’s a better bet, or most other backbenchers). But my point is that you might actually attract more top business people/head teachers/surgeons/whatever to fight those people... in seats where they would have real clout rather than being lobby fodder as 1 in 650.
I don't think we need more surgeons or other doctors in Parliament. There are a half dozen already. We need more porters, security guards, waitresses and hair dressers. They are the people that are missing.
Agreed.
Only (and I apply it to the surgeons etc too) if they’re willing to do the homework and govern for the whole country rather than reading a bunch of “wot I reckon” on Facebook and turning it into policy. Too many at the moment have a very narrow view of life, whether theirs or living vicariously through the eyes of JRM (or Corbyn)
The voters choose from the candidates that the local parties put in front of them. The local parties get to choose from the shortlist put in front of them. Getting onto the approved candidates lists comes from on high. If we are not getting a decent cadre of MPs it is the systems used by the parties to decide who is a suitable candidate to blame.
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.
It's not that hard to get on the approved list - I'd guess that 90% of PBers could do it without preparation.
As much as you deride Francois for not being "serious", he has demonstrated the capacity - or at least the luck - to jump through whichever hoops were required to become an MP in our current system. In fact, holding one of the country's largest and therefore most coveted majorities, he seems to be a serious hoop-jumper of the first rate. Approval of central party, approval of local party, approval of local voters, the guy's done it all. Goodness only knows how, but he's done it.
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.
Partly, I accept he has his strong points and a ‘constituency’ (and choosing him over others was flippant and a shortcut - maybe Kawczynski’s a better bet, or most other backbenchers). But my point is that you might actually attract more top business people/head teachers/surgeons/whatever to fight those people... in seats where they would have real clout rather than being lobby fodder as 1 in 650.
On the flip side, the diversity (in the walks-of-life sense) of MPs seems rather less than the diversity of, say, local councillors. The more "elite" the position becomes, perhaps the more likely it is to be pursued and occupied by a devoted political animal, rather than a "normie"?
I accept that there are talented people put off by the idea of becoming lobby-fodder. I wonder if, on the other hand, the fact that back-bench MPs can still pursue personal interests (including professional ones) should their political career never really hit the heights might be a reassurance to some? Some high-flyers would have to give a whole lot up if they went into politics on the basis of "if elected, the mantle of power is so great you need to focus on it 100%".
I suspect the strongest argument against reducing the size of the Commons substantially is that the payroll would become disproportionately important - it may even end up with the executive having more power and the legislators less, even on a per capita basis. Not sure what the best alternative would be - appointing ministers from public life to sit in the Lords, or to separate powers further by having non-legislative ministers as the norm?
FWIW there's a lot of academic research on decision-making that might be relevant here.
I'm not massively convinced by the hypothesis that we need lots of "talented" people in the Commons (top surgeons or top lawyers or top businessfolk etc) as there are questions over just how their decision-making skills, which have served them well in their area of expertise, might transfer to a quite different domain. But given the very varied subjects that Parliament legislates over, there may be benefits to diversity of backgrounds and experiences.
I also agree with Dr Fox that many groups outside "the professions" need/deserve more representation in politics.
It would be an interesting debating point to slash the number of MPs.. even down to, say, a couple of hundred.. representing c. half a million each (possibly a county or borough each) to actually make the decisions. But whether through higher money or genuine notability attracting better people, you aim to get serious people rather than Mark Francois. And then you back them with a proper staff to ‘do local’. Lots of cons (not least each idiot who does slip through having a far bigger say), but it’s an alternative system with some pros too.
As much as you deride Francois for not being "serious", he has demonstrated the capacity - or at least the luck - to jump through whichever hoops were required to become an MP in our current system. In fact, holding one of the country's largest and therefore most coveted majorities, he seems to be a serious hoop-jumper of the first rate. Approval of central party, approval of local party, approval of local voters, the guy's done it all. Goodness only knows how, but he's done it.
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.
Partly, I accept he has his strong points and a ‘constituency’ (and choosing him over others was flippant and a shortcut - maybe Kawczynski’s a better bet, or most other backbenchers). But my point is that you might actually attract more top business people/head teachers/surgeons/whatever to fight those people... in seats where they would have real clout rather than being lobby fodder as 1 in 650.
I don't think we need more surgeons or other doctors in Parliament. There are a half dozen already. We need more porters, security guards, waitresses and hair dressers. They are the people that are missing.
We need more advertisers and marketers. Doctors and surgeons and hairdressers and porters are too useful outside. What we are short of are people with the ability to sell an idea. They have no public service virtue outside and there is certainly no shortage of them.
But just think of the power if someone could harness some of the industries best brains to sell an absolutely crap idea like Mrs May's deal?
Don't underestimate them. They could achieve goals other MPs couldn't reach. Ad men that made My Little Pony the most sought after toy in the world and the foul tasting Bud Light the best selling beer
It would be an interesting debating point to slash the number of MPs.. even down to, say, a couple of hundred.. representing c. half a million each (possibly a county or borough each) to actually make the decisions. But whether through higher money or genuine notability attracting better people, you aim to get serious people rather than Mark Francois. And then you back them with a proper staff to ‘do local’. Lots of cons (not least each idiot who does slip through having a far bigger say), but it’s an alternative system with some pros too.
As much as you deride Francois for not being "serious", he has demonstrated the capacity - or at least the luck - to jump through whichever hoops were required to become an MP in our current system. In fact, holding one of the country's largest and therefore most coveted majorities, he seems to be a serious hoop-jumper of the first rate. Approval of central party, approval of local party, approval of local voters, the guy's done it all. Goodness only knows how, but he's done it.
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.
Partly, I accept he has his strong points and a ‘constituency’ (and choosing him over others was flippant and a shortcut - maybe Kawczynski’s a better bet, or most other backbenchers). But my point is that you might actually attract more top business people/head teachers/surgeons/whatever to fight those people... in seats where they would have real clout rather than being lobby fodder as 1 in 650.
I don't think we need more surgeons or other doctors in Parliament. There are a half dozen already. We need more porters, security guards, waitresses and hair dressers. They are the people that are missing.
We need more advertisers and marketers. Doctors and surgeons and hairdressers and porters are too useful outside. What we are short of are people with the ability to sell an idea. They have no public service virtue outside and there is certainly no shortage of them.
But just think of the power if someone could harness some of the industries best brains to sell an absolutely crap idea like Mrs May's deal?
Don't underestimate them. They could achieve goals other MPs couldn't reach. Ad men that made My Little Pony the most sought after toy in the world and the foul tasting Bud Light the best selling beer
David Cameron was a PR man for Carlton I believe.
We have him to thank for this marvellous Brexit situation we are in!
The voters choose from the candidates that the local parties put in front of them. The local parties get to choose from the shortlist put in front of them. Getting onto the approved candidates lists comes from on high. If we are not getting a decent cadre of MPs it is the systems used by the parties to decide who is a suitable candidate to blame.
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.
It's not that hard to get on the approved list - I'd guess that 90% of PBers could do it without preparation.
It would be an interesting debating point to slash the number of MPs.. even down to, say, a couple of hundred.. representing c. half a million each (possibly a county or borough each) to actually make the decisions. But whether through higher money or genuine notability attracting better people, you aim to get serious people rather than Mark Francois. And then you back them with a proper staff to ‘do local’. Lots of cons (not least each idiot who does slip through having a far bigger say), but it’s an alternative system with some pros too.
As much as you deride Francois for not being "serious", he has demonstrated the capacity - or at least the luck - to jump through whichever hoops were required to become an MP in our current system. In fact, holding one of the country's largest and therefore most coveted majorities, he seems to be a serious hoop-jumper of the first rate. Approval of central party, approval of local party, approval of local voters, the guy's done it all. Goodness only knows how, but he's done it.
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.
Partly, I accept he has his strong points and a ‘constituency’ (and choosing him over others was flippant and a shortcut - maybe Kawczynski’s a better bet, or most other backbenchers). But my point is that you might actually attract more top business people/head teachers/surgeons/whatever to fight those people... in seats where they would have real clout rather than being lobby fodder as 1 in 650.
I don't think we need more surgeons or other doctors in Parliament. There are a half dozen already. We need more porters, security guards, waitresses and hair dressers. They are the people that are missing.
Yep. The people who voted for Brexit are the ones missing from Parliament.....
FWIW there's a lot of academic research on decision-making that might be relevant here.
I'm not massively convinced by the hypothesis that we need lots of "talented" people in the Commons (top surgeons or top lawyers or top businessfolk etc) as there are questions over just how their decision-making skills, which have served them well in their area of expertise, might transfer to a quite different domain. But given the very varied subjects that Parliament legislates over, there may be benefits to diversity of backgrounds and experiences.
I also agree with Dr Fox that many groups outside "the professions" need/deserve more representation in politics.
What top QC or partner in a City law firm earning £500 000 a year or CEO of a FTSE 100 company earning £1 million + a year or top consultant earning £80 to £100 000 a year who also wants a private life is going to swap it to become an MP on £79 000 a year still working very long hours and in the public eye and dependent on the Party machine and facing orders from the whips?
Even those who reach the Cabinet frequently sacrifice the best years of their professional careers to reach the top and will have to have spent years normally climbing the ranks of the Party to get there.
In any case those who have had top careers outside e.g. Archie Norman have often found it difficult to flourish in the bearpit of Westminster
It would be an interesting debating point to slash the number of MPs.. even down to, say, a couple of hundred.. representing c. half a million each (possibly a county or borough each) to actually make the decisions. But whether through higher money or genuine notability attracting better people, you aim to get serious people rather than Mark Francois. And then you back them with a proper staff to ‘do local’. Lots of cons (not least each idiot who does slip through having a far bigger say), but it’s an alternative system with some pros too.
As much as you deride Francois for not being "serious", he has demonstrated the capacity - or at least the luck - to jump through whichever hoops were required to become an MP in our current system. In fact, holding one of the country's largest and therefore most coveted majorities, he seems to be a serious hoop-jumper of the first rate. Approval of central party, approval of local party, approval of local voters, the guy's done it all. Goodness only knows how, but he's done it.
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.
Partly, I accept he has his strong points and a ‘constituency’ (and choosing him over others was flippant and a shortcut - maybe Kawczynski’s a better bet, or most other backbenchers). But my point is that you might actually attract more top business people/head teachers/surgeons/whatever to fight those people... in seats where they would have real clout rather than being lobby fodder as 1 in 650.
I don't think we need more surgeons or other doctors in Parliament. There are a half dozen already. We need more porters, security guards, waitresses and hair dressers. They are the people that are missing.
We need more advertisers and marketers. Doctors and surgeons and hairdressers and porters are too useful outside. What we are short of are people with the ability to sell an idea. They have no public service virtue outside and there is certainly no shortage of them.
But just think of the power if someone could harness some of the industries best brains to sell an absolutely crap idea like Mrs May's deal?
Don't underestimate them. They could achieve goals other MPs couldn't reach. Ad men that made My Little Pony the most sought after toy in the world and the foul tasting Bud Light the best selling beer
This is a great post. But while it makes its point superbly, it could also double as an argument for ad-men to be banished from public life, and possibly exiled from society altogether...
FWIW there's a lot of academic research on decision-making that might be relevant here.
I'm not massively convinced by the hypothesis that we need lots of "talented" people in the Commons (top surgeons or top lawyers or top businessfolk etc) as there are questions over just how their decision-making skills, which have served them well in their area of expertise, might transfer to a quite different domain. But given the very varied subjects that Parliament legislates over, there may be benefits to diversity of backgrounds and experiences.
I also agree with Dr Fox that many groups outside "the professions" need/deserve more representation in politics.
What top QC or partner in a City law firm earning £500 000 a year or CEO of a FTSE 100 company earning £1 million + a year or top consultant earning £80 to £100 000 a year who also wants a private life is going to swap it to become an MP on £79 000 a year still working very long hours and in the public eye and dependent on the Party machine and facing orders from the whips?
Even those who reach the Cabinet frequently sacrifice the best years of their professional careers to reach the top and will have to have spent years normally climbing the ranks of the Party to get there.
In any case those who have had top careers outside e.g. Archie Norman have often found it difficult to flourish in the bearpit of Westminster
Think Archie Norman is a good example actually. If parliament had a few hundred of his ilk, it might be an easier place for such people to operate effectively - but would it end up making "better" decisions? I'm not sure.
British MPs are fine, the problem is their unbelievably shitty leaderships. This in turn is caused by the combination of FPTP and party democracy, which results in being limited to two choices, each chosen by a few hundred thousand of the most mental people in our society.
British MPs are fine, the problem is their unbelievably shitty leaderships. This in turn is caused by the combination of FPTP and party democracy, which results in being limited to two choices, each chosen by a few hundred thousand of the most mental people in our society.
British MPs who have so far twice voted down every Brexit option going?
It would be an interesting debating point to slash the number of MPs.. even down to, say, a couple of hundred.. representing c. half a million each (possibly a county or borough each) to actually make the decisions. But whether through higher money or genuine notability attracting better people, you aim to get serious people rather than Mark Francois. And then you back them with a proper staff to ‘do local’. Lots of cons (not least each idiot who does slip through having a far bigger say), but it’s an alternative system with some pros too.
In fact, holding one of the country's largest and therefore most coveted majorities, he seems to be a serious hoop-jumper of the first rate. Approval of central party, approval of local party, approval of local voters, the guy's done it all. Goodness only knows how, but he's done it.
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.
But my point is that you might actually attract more top business people/head teachers/surgeons/whatever to fight those people... in seats where they would have real clout rather than being lobby fodder as 1 in 650.
I don't think we need more surgeons or other doctors in Parliament. There are a half dozen already. We need more porters, security guards, waitresses and hair dressers. They are the people that are missing.
We need more advertisers and marketers. Doctors and surgeons and hairdressers and porters are too useful outside. What we are short of are people with the ability to sell an idea. They have no public service virtue outside and there is certainly no shortage of them.
But just think of the power if someone could harness some of the industries best brains to sell an absolutely crap idea like Mrs May's deal?
Don't underestimate them. They could achieve goals other MPs couldn't reach. Ad men that made My Little Pony the most sought after toy in the world and the foul tasting Bud Light the best selling beer
David Cameron was a PR man for Carlton I believe.
We have him to thank for this marvellous Brexit situation we are in!
Exactly! Turn their dark arts to work for good for a change. The point about admen is that they can work for any client selling any product. Cameron's problem was that he was both client and adman. He did a reasonable selling job but he's left us with a God awful product.
FWIW there's a lot of academic research on decision-making that might be relevant here.
I'm not massively convinced by the hypothesis that we need lots of "talented" people in the Commons (top surgeons or top lawyers or top businessfolk etc) as there are questions over just how their decision-making skills, which have served them well in their area of expertise, might transfer to a quite different domain. But given the very varied subjects that Parliament legislates over, there may be benefits to diversity of backgrounds and experiences.
I also agree with Dr Fox that many groups outside "the professions" need/deserve more representation in politics.
What top QC or partner in a City law firm earning £500 000 a year or CEO of a FTSE 100 company earning £1 million + a year or top consultant earning £80 to £100 000 a year who also wants a private life is going to swap it to become an MP on £79 000 a year still working very long hours and in the public eye and dependent on the Party machine and facing orders from the whips?
Even those who reach the Cabinet frequently sacrifice the best years of their professional careers to reach the top and will have to have spent years normally climbing the ranks of the Party to get there.
In any case those who have had top careers outside e.g. Archie Norman have often found it difficult to flourish in the bearpit of Westminster
Think Archie Norman is a good example actually. If parliament had a few hundred of his ilk, it might be an easier place for such people to operate effectively - but would it end up making "better" decisions? I'm not sure.
Norman us an executive who likes clear decisive decision making, as we have seen with the Brexit votes Westminster may not be the best forum for that.
You also need a bit of charisma to flourish as a businessman in politics, hence it worked for Trump and Berlusconi but not Romney and Norman, maybe the difference between being an entrepreneur and more of a risk takes than someone working for an established corporation
It would be an interesting debating point to slash the number of MPs.. even down to, say, a couple of hundred.. representing c. half a million each (possibly a county or borough pros too.
In fact, holding one of the country's largest and therefore most coveted majorities, he seems to be a serious hoop-jumper of the first rate. Approval of central party, approval of local party, approval of local voters, the guy's done it all. Goodness only knows how, but he's done it.
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.
But my point is that you might actually attract more top business people/head teachers/surgeons/whatever to fight those people... in seats where they would have real clout rather than being lobby fodder as 1 in 650.
I don't think we need more surgeons or other doctors in Parliament. There are a half dozen already. We need more porters, security guards, waitresses and hair dressers. They are the people that are missing.
We need more advertisers and marketers. Doctors and surgeons and hairdressers and porters are too useful outside. What we are short of are people with the ability to sell an idea. They have no public service virtue outside and there is certainly no shortage of them.
But just think of the power if someone could harness some of the industries best brains to sell an absolutely crap idea like Mrs May's deal?
Don't underestimate them. They could achieve goals other MPs couldn't reach. Ad men that made My Little Pony the most sought after toy in the world and the foul tasting Bud Light the best selling beer
David Cameron was a PR man for Carlton I believe.
We have him to thank for this marvellous Brexit situation we are in!
Exactly! Turn their dark arts to work for good for a change. The point about an adman is they are indiscriminate in what they sell. They can work for any client selling any product. Cameron's problem was that he was both client and adman. He did a reasonable selling job but he's left us with a God awful product.
Maurice Satrach was of course the guru for that when he sold Thatcherism in the late 70s and 80s
British MPs are fine, the problem is their unbelievably shitty leaderships. This in turn is caused by the combination of FPTP and party democracy, which results in being limited to two choices, each chosen by a few hundred thousand of the most mental people in our society.
British MPs who have so far twice voted down every Brexit option going?
1) All the options were shit, so that's not such an unwise response 2) The paralysis is a combination of terrible leadership and terrible membership. The leader won't whip Tory MPs for anything except banging their heads against the brick wall she's built, and the members will turn on Tory MPs who do anything that might get them out of the treacle
It would be an interesting debating point to slash the number of MPs.. even down to, say, a couple of hundred.. representing c. half a million each (possibly a county or borough pros too.
In fact, holding one of the country's largest and therefore most coveted majorities, he seems to be a serious hoop-jumper of the first rate. Approval of central party, approval of local party, approval of local voters, the guy's done it all. Goodness only knows how, but he's done it.
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.
But my point is that you might actually attract more top business people/head teachers/surgeons/whatever to fight those people... in seats where they would have real clout rather than being lobby fodder as 1 in 650.
I don't think we need more surgeons or other doctors in Parliament. There are a half dozen already. We need more porters, security guards, waitresses and hair dressers. They are the people that are missing.
We need more advertisers and marketers. Doctors and surgeons and hairdressers and porters are too useful outside. What we are short of are people with the ability to sell an idea. They have no public service virtue outside and there is certainly no shortage of them.
But just think of the power if someone could harness some of the industries best brains to sell an absolutely crap idea like Mrs May's deal?
Don't underestimate them. They could achieve goals other MPs couldn't reach. Ad men that made My Little Pony the most sought after toy in the world and the foul tasting Bud Light the best selling beer
David Cameron was a PR man for Carlton I believe.
We have him to thank for this marvellous Brexit situation we are in!
Exactly! Turn their dark arts to work for good for a change. The point about an adman is they are indiscriminate in what they sell. They can work for any client selling any product. Cameron's problem was that he was both client and adman. He did a reasonable selling job but he's left us with a God awful product.
Maurice Satrach was of course the guru for that when he sold Thatcherism in the late 70s and 80s
FWIW there's a lot of academic research on decision-making that might be relevant here.
I'm not massively convinced by the hypothesis that we need lots of "talented" people in the Commons (top surgeons or top lawyers or top businessfolk etc) as there are questions over just how their decision-making skills, which have served them well in their area of expertise, might transfer to a quite different domain. But given the very varied subjects that Parliament legislates over, there may be benefits to diversity of backgrounds and experiences.
I also agree with Dr Fox that many groups outside "the professions" need/deserve more representation in politics.
We are all discussing Parliament but we are not discussing its function. Once we define what it is (and what it should be), then defining what MPs would best fit that task becomes easier.
It would be an interesting debating point to slash the number of MPs.. even down to, say, a couple of hundred.. representing c. half a million each (possibly a county or borough pros too.
In fact, holding one of the country's largest and therefore most coveted majorities, he seems to be a serious hoop-jumper of the first rate. Approval of central party, approval of local party, approval of local voters, the guy's done it all. Goodness only knows how, but he'srity of MPs.
But my point is that you might actually attract more top business people/head teachers/surgeons/whatever to fight those people... in seats where they would have real clout rather than being lobby fodder as 1 in 650.
I don't think we need more surgeons or other doctors in Parliament. There are a half dozen already. We need more porters, security guards, waitresses and hair dressers. They are the people that are missing.
We need more advertisers and marketers. Doctors and surgeons and hairdressers and porters are too useful outside. What we are short of are people with the ability to sell an idea. They have no public service virtue outside and there is certainly no shortage of them.
But just think of the power if someone could harness some of the industries best brains to sell an absolutely crap idea like Mrs May's deal?
Don't underestimate them. They could achieve goals other MPs couldn't reach. Ad men that made My Little Pony the most sought after toy in the world and the foul tasting Bud Light the best selling beer
David Cameron was a PR man for Carlton I believe.
We have him to thank for this marvellous Brexit situation we are in!
Exactly! Turn their dark arts to work for good for a change. The point about an adman is they are indiscriminate in what they sell. They can work for any client selling any product. Cameron's problem was that he was both client and adman. He did a reasonable selling job but he's left us with a God awful product.
Maurice Satrach was of course the guru for that when he sold Thatcherism in the late 70s and 80s
A case in point. What a crap product he sold us!
Compared to Britain in the 70s it was like vintage champagne to Tesco own brand Ribena.
(Plus should have said Saatchi not Satrach, apologies).
If Corbyn gets in we will soon need another Thatcher
The voters choose from the candidates that the local parties put in front of them. The local parties get to choose from the shortlist put in front of them. Getting onto the approved candidates lists comes from on high. If we are not getting a decent cadre of MPs it is the systems used by the parties to decide who is a suitable candidate to blame.
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.
Don't think I agree with this. It's not that hard to get on the approved list - I'd guess that 90% of PBers could do it without preparation. The only person I knew who failed had poor English and didn't know what a county council was. Nice guy, but...
The problem is selection by familiarity. It's human nature to prefer someone who you've known for ages and think reasonably sound to someone you've never heard of who rocks up. so the way to get selected is usually to spend a significant part of your free time for 10-20 years helping your local party (if you live in a winnable seat). And if you're doing that, you're probably not becoming a leading economist or an expert on lemons.
But Sandy's certainly right that the ordinary voter often doesn't have a meaningful, informed choice of individuals, and most voters hesitate to vote for someone they respect but disagree with. So people vote primarily for the party, and the party picks saomeone they happen to know well.
Blair being the exception to your rule. Trimdon.
So were Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan and Hugh Gaitskell!
British MPs are fine, the problem is their unbelievably shitty leaderships. This in turn is caused by the combination of FPTP and party democracy, which results in being limited to two choices, each chosen by a few hundred thousand of the most mental people in our society.
British MPs who have so far twice voted down every Brexit option going?
1) All the options were shit, so that's not such an unwise response 2) The paralysis is a combination of terrible leadership and terrible membership. The leader won't whip Tory MPs for anything except banging their heads against the brick wall she's built, and the members will turn on Tory MPs who do anything that might get them out of the treacle
Eventually MPs will have to compromise on something, as even May has realised, we cannot go on with this purgatory for ever
British MPs are fine, the problem is their unbelievably shitty leaderships. This in turn is caused by the combination of FPTP and party democracy, which results in being limited to two choices, each chosen by a few hundred thousand of the most mental people in our society.
British MPs who have so far twice voted down every Brexit option going?
1) All the options were shit, so that's not such an unwise response 2) The paralysis is a combination of terrible leadership and terrible membership. The leader won't whip Tory MPs for anything except banging their heads against the brick wall she's built, and the members will turn on Tory MPs who do anything that might get them out of the treacle
Eventually MPs will have to compromise on something, as even May has realised, we cannot go on with this purgatory for ever
Ultimately the universe will run out of thermodynamic free energy, so there are potential outcomes that don't involve the British making a decision.
But we know how you end the paralysis: A general election or a referendum. Why hasn't this happening yet? Because the government won't support them. Alternatively MPs could work around the government and support one of these, but they can't realistically be expected to do that that because their membership is opposed to them, to the point of potentially deselecting them.
Terrible leadership, terrible membership. That's it.
British MPs are fine, the problem is their unbelievably shitty leaderships. This in turn is caused by the combination of FPTP and party democracy, which results in being limited to two choices, each chosen by a few hundred thousand of the most mental people in our society.
British MPs who have so far twice voted down every Brexit option going?
1) All the options were shit, so that's not such an unwise response 2) The paralysis is a combination of terrible leadership and terrible membership. The leader won't whip Tory MPs for anything except banging their heads against the brick wall she's built, and the members will turn on Tory MPs who do anything that might get them out of the treacle
Eventually MPs will have to compromise on something, as even May has realised, we cannot go on with this purgatory for ever
Ultimately the universe will run out of thermodynamic free energy, so there are potential outcomes that don't involve the British making a decision.
But we know how you end the paralysis: A general election or a referendum. Why hasn't this happening yet? Because the government won't support them. Alternatively MPs could work around the government and support one of these, but they can't realistically be expected to do that that because their membership is opposed to them, to the point of potentially deselecting them.
Terrible leadership, terrible membership. That's it.
It might as well be the heat death of the universe to support a second ref if you're a Tory.
It would be an interesting debating point to slash the number of MPs.. even down to, say, a couple of hundred.. representing c. half a million each (possibly a county or borough each) to actually make the decisions. But whether through higher money or genuine notability attracting better people, you aim to get serious people rather than Mark Francois. And then you back them with a proper staff to ‘do local’. Lots of cons (not least each idiot who does slip through having a far bigger say), but it’s an alternative system with some pros too.
As much as you deride Francois for not being "serious", he has demonstrated the capacity - or at least the luck - to jump through whichever hoops were required to become an MP in our current system. In fact, holding one of the country's largest and therefore most coveted majorities, he seems to be a serious hoop-jumper of the first rate. Approval of central party, approval of local party, approval of local voters, the guy's done it all. Goodness only knows how, but he's done it.
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.
Partly, I accept he has his strong points and a ‘constituency’ (and choosing him over others was flippant and a shortcut - maybe Kawczynski’s a better bet, or most other backbenchers). But my point is that you might actually attract more top business people/head teachers/surgeons/whatever to fight those people... in seats where they would have real clout rather than being lobby fodder as 1 in 650.
I don't think we need more surgeons or other doctors in Parliament. There are a half dozen already. We need more porters, security guards, waitresses and hair dressers. They are the people that are missing.
Yep. The people who voted for Brexit are the ones missing from Parliament.....
And the chance of being selected as a candidate who has supported Brexit are low, unless you are a Tory. This means many from the centre and left of politics who supported Brexit are missing this representation.
And the chance of being selected as a candidate who has supported Brexit are low, unless you are a Tory. This means many from the centre and left of politics who supported Brexit are missing this representation.
But hardly anyone from the centre or left supported Brexit. "Lexit" is a niche interest, popular among a certain type of baby boomer far left activist (Lenin cap, various badges optional). Of course many people in Labour-leaning constituencies voted for Brexit. But I am not sure how many of them were Labour voters. And if they were Labour voters, I'm not sure how many were left wing. Brexit is a nationalist project beloved of people in the English provinces. It's got fuck all to do with left wing politics.
And the chance of being selected as a candidate who has supported Brexit are low, unless you are a Tory. This means many from the centre and left of politics who supported Brexit are missing this representation.
But hardly anyone from the centre or left supported Brexit. "Lexit" is a niche interest, popular among a certain type of baby boomer far left activist (Lenin cap, various badges optional). Of course many people in Labour-leaning constituencies voted for Brexit. But I am not sure how many of them were Labour voters. And if they were Labour voters, I'm not sure how many were left wing. Brexit is a nationalist project beloved of people in the English provinces. It's got fuck all to do with left wing politics.
You have it completely backwards. The "Left's" damascene conversion to the EU is (ironically) down the now hated "right-wing" Blairites and the subsequent shifting demographics of the left vote. What the Left has now is a bunch of middle-class voters who actually do quite well out of full-on economic liberalisation that the Tories and then Blairites pursued.
The reason the Left is no longer Eurosceptic as it once was (moreso than the Tories) is because its voter base is no longer that left-wing.
The reason Tories became more Eurosceptic than they once were is because, as the EEC morphed inexorably towards the EU, political and identity issues became more salient than economics.
And the chance of being selected as a candidate who has supported Brexit are low, unless you are a Tory. This means many from the centre and left of politics who supported Brexit are missing this representation.
I think that's over-egging the pudding. 'Supporting' Brexit is one thing; having Brexit as the core point in your political life is another.
Thankfully, the other parties seem to realise that there is a wider world than just Brexit, and therefore a candidate who screeches about it (either for remain or leave) might face issues.
And that's the problems the Conservatives have had for decades:small-minded idiots (e.g. Cash, IDS) who put the EU at the top of all their concerns. And if the other parties are hesitant to select such fools, good on them.
Note I didn't mention Johnson, as he's just using Brexit as part of a shallow and selfish power-grab.
And the chance of being selected as a candidate who has supported Brexit are low, unless you are a Tory. This means many from the centre and left of politics who supported Brexit are missing this representation.
But hardly anyone from the centre or left supported Brexit. "Lexit" is a niche interest, popular among a certain type of baby boomer far left activist (Lenin cap, various badges optional). Of course many people in Labour-leaning constituencies voted for Brexit. But I am not sure how many of them were Labour voters. And if they were Labour voters, I'm not sure how many were left wing. Brexit is a nationalist project beloved of people in the English provinces. It's got fuck all to do with left wing politics.
My old neighbour always voted Labour, and had a big "leave" flag outside his house. He never seemed particularly left wing. Voting Labour is just something people do round these parts, like following Wednesday or United..
British MPs are fine, the problem is their unbelievably shitty leaderships. This in turn is caused by the combination of FPTP and party democracy, which results in being limited to two choices, each chosen by a few hundred thousand of the most mental people in our society.
British MPs who have so far twice voted down every Brexit option going?
1) All the options were shit, so that's not such an unwise response 2) The paralysis is a combination of terrible leadership and terrible membership. The leader won't whip Tory MPs for anything except banging their heads against the brick wall she's built, and the members will turn on Tory MPs who do anything that might get them out of the treacle
Eventually MPs will have to compromise on something, as even May has realised, we cannot go on with this purgatory for ever
Ultimately the universe will run out of thermodynamic free energy, so there are potential outcomes that don't involve the British making a decision.
But we know how you end the paralysis: A general election or a referendum. Why hasn't this happening yet? Because the government won't support them. Alternatively MPs could work around the government and support one of these, but they can't realistically be expected to do that that because their membership is opposed to them, to the point of potentially deselecting them.
Terrible leadership, terrible membership. That's it.
It might as well be the heat death of the universe to support a second ref if you're a Tory.
This is true. The problem is then that both the Tory base and the voters at large hate their brexit policy so much that it's impossible for them to run for election on it, hence paralysis.
That's it - it's nothing to do with too many MPs having studied PPE or whatever.
It would be an interesting debating point to slash the number of MPs.. even down to, say, a couple of hundred.. representing c. half a million each (possibly a county or borough each) to actually make the decisions. But whether through higher money or genuine notability attracting better people, you aim to get serious people rather than Mark Francois. And then you back them with a proper staff to ‘do local’. Lots of cons (not least each idiot who does slip through having a far bigger say), but it’s an alternative system with some pros too.
As much as you deride Francois for not being "serious", he has demonstrated the capacity - or at least the luck - to jump through whichever hoops were required to become an MP in our current system. In fact, holding one of the country's largest and therefore most coveted majorities, he seems to be a serious hoop-jumper of the first rate. Approval of central party, approval of local party, approval of local voters, the guy's done it all. Goodness only knows how, but he's done it.
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.
Partly, I accept he has his strong points and a ‘constituency’ (and choosing him over others was flippant and a shortcut - maybe Kawczynski’s a better bet, or most other backbenchers). But my point is that you might actually attract more top business people/head teachers/surgeons/whatever to fight those people... in seats where they would have real clout rather than being lobby fodder as 1 in 650.
I don't think we need more surgeons or other doctors in Parliament. There are a half dozen already. We need more porters, security guards, waitresses and hair dressers. They are the people that are missing.
Yep. The people who voted for Brexit are the ones missing from Parliament.....
Nah, plenty of pendioners and those with private incomes there...
Boris is utterly thick. He wants the top job, yet he doesn't seem to realise that his behaviour now will colour that leadership. If he can rebel in such a manner, Conservative MPs outside his little coterie of thick upper-class idiots or thick upper-class idiot wannabes will feel able to rebel against his backwards policy platform.
The YouGov poll shows that the proportions who believe Britain was wrong or right in 2016 to vote to leave the EU remain broadly unchanged since the start of the year. Some 48 per cent think it was the wrong decision while 41 per cent think it was the right decision, with 11 per cent saying they do not know.
Among Labour voters, 77 per cent think Britain was wrong to vote to leave. Some 8 per cent of people who voted to leave in 2016 think that this was the wrong decision, and a further 8 per cent are now unsure.
It would be an interesting debating point to slash the number of MPs.. even down to, say, a couple of hundred.. representing c. half a million each (possibly a county or borough each) to actually make the diot who does slip through having a far bigger say), but it’s an alternative system with some pros too.
As much as you deride Francois for not being "serious", he has demonstrated the capacity - or at least the luck - to jump through whichever hoops were required to become an MP in our current system. In fact, holding one of the country's largest and therefore most coveted majorities, he seems to be a serious hoop-jumper of the first rate. Approval of central party, approval of local party, approval of local voters, the guy's done it all. Goodness only knows how, but he's done it.
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.
Partly, I accept he has his strong points and a ‘constituency’ (and choosing him over others was flippant and a shortcut - maybe Kawczynski’s a better bet, or most other backbenchers). But my point is that you might actually attract more top business people/head teachers/surgeons/whatever to fight those people... in seats where they would have real clout rather than being lobby fodder as 1 in 650.
I don't think we need more surgeons or other doctors in Parliament. There are a half dozen already. We need more porters, security guards, waitresses and hair dressers. They are the people that are missing.
We need more advertisers and marketers. Doctors and surgeons and hairdressers and porters are too useful outside. What we are short of are people with the ability to sell an idea. They have no public service virtue outside and there is certainly no shortage of them.
But just think of the power if someone could harness some of the industries best brains to sell an absolutely crap idea like Mrs May's deal?
Don't underestimate them. They could achieve goals other MPs couldn't reach. Ad men that made My Little Pony the most sought after toy in the world and the foul tasting Bud Light the best selling beer
David Cameron was a PR man for Carlton I believe.
We have him to thank for this marvellous Brexit situation we are in!
Yes, a man experienced in PR and with consequently a complacently high assessment of his selling skills is responsible for this whole fine mess.
Boris is utterly thick. He wants the top job, yet he doesn't seem to realise that his behaviour now will colour that leadership. If he can rebel in such a manner, Conservative MPs outside his little coterie of thick upper-class idiots or thick upper-class idiot wannabes will feel able to rebel against his backwards policy platform.
Boris is all tactics, no strategy.
And he never feels tied to or bound by anything he has said or done previously. That's why he is so dangerous; his complete lack of principle, morality or shame.
And the chance of being selected as a candidate who has supported Brexit are low, unless you are a Tory. This means many from the centre and left of politics who supported Brexit are missing this representation.
But hardly anyone from the centre or left supported Brexit. "Lexit" is a niche interest, popular among a certain type of baby boomer far left activist (Lenin cap, various badges optional). Of course many people in Labour-leaning constituencies voted for Brexit. But I am not sure how many of them were Labour voters. And if they were Labour voters, I'm not sure how many were left wing. Brexit is a nationalist project beloved of people in the English provinces. It's got fuck all to do with left wing politics.
A very astute post. "Brexit (was) a nationalist project beloved of people in the English provinces" would be its perfect epitaph
CHUK and the LDs need to do something together quickly. Neither going anywhere alone.
Greens too. I have to think quite carefully who to vote for here in the East Midlands, as in a 5 member Dehondt constituency it is not very proportional.
Tories are road kill though, so Brexit isn't all bad.
And the chance of being selected as a candidate who has supported Brexit are low, unless you are a Tory. This means many from the centre and left of politics who supported Brexit are missing this representation.
But hardly anyone from the centre or left supported Brexit. "Lexit" is a niche interest, popular among a certain type of baby boomer far left activist (Lenin cap, various badges optional). Of course many people in Labour-leaning constituencies voted for Brexit. But I am not sure how many of them were Labour voters. And if they were Labour voters, I'm not sure how many were left wing. Brexit is a nationalist project beloved of people in the English provinces. It's got fuck all to do with left wing politics.
A very astute post. "Brexit (was) a nationalist project beloved of people in the English provinces" would be its perfect epitaph
Wales, not noted as a bastion of Toryism, voted for it. The Valleys, which when last I checked have been Labour for over 100 years, voted to leave. Only two Labour seats in the whole of Wales voted remain, both of them in Cardiff.
Boris is utterly thick. He wants the top job, yet he doesn't seem to realise that his behaviour now will colour that leadership. If he can rebel in such a manner, Conservative MPs outside his little coterie of thick upper-class idiots or thick upper-class idiot wannabes will feel able to rebel against his backwards policy platform.
Boris is all tactics, no strategy.
And he never feels tied to or bound by anything he has said or done previously. That's why he is so dangerous; his complete lack of principle, morality or shame.
Boris is utterly thick. He wants the top job, yet he doesn't seem to realise that his behaviour now will colour that leadership. If he can rebel in such a manner, Conservative MPs outside his little coterie of thick upper-class idiots or thick upper-class idiot wannabes will feel able to rebel against his backwards policy platform.
Boris is all tactics, no strategy.
And he never feels tied to or bound by anything he has said or done previously. That's why he is so dangerous; his complete lack of principle, morality or shame.
Qualities he shares with Corbyn.
I am no fan of Corbyn, but I don't agree. Corbyn is more commonly criticised for having stuck to the same principles and views his whole life, regardless of the world changing around him,
The YouGov poll shows that the proportions who believe Britain was wrong or right in 2016 to vote to leave the EU remain broadly unchanged since the start of the year. Some 48 per cent think it was the wrong decision while 41 per cent think it was the right decision, with 11 per cent saying they do not know.
Among Labour voters, 77 per cent think Britain was wrong to vote to leave. Some 8 per cent of people who voted to leave in 2016 think that this was the wrong decision, and a further 8 per cent are now unsure.
Also in YouGov I see only 14% believe we will actually leave in (or have left by) 31 October. Whatever else is happening, people are clearly doubting it will happen now.
And the chance of being selected as a candidate who has supported Brexit are low, unless you are a Tory. This means many from the centre and left of politics who supported Brexit are missing this representation.
But hardly anyone from the centre or left supported Brexit. "Lexit" is a niche interest, popular among a certain type of baby boomer far left activist (Lenin cap, various badges optional). Of course many people in Labour-leaning constituencies voted for Brexit. But I am not sure how many of them were Labour voters. And if they were Labour voters, I'm not sure how many were left wing. Brexit is a nationalist project beloved of people in the English provinces. It's got fuck all to do with left wing politics.
A very astute post. "Brexit (was) a nationalist project beloved of people in the English provinces" would be its perfect epitaph
Wales, not noted as a bastion of Toryism, voted for it. The Valleys, which when last I checked have been Labour for over 100 years, voted to leave. Only two Labour seats in the whole of Wales voted remain, both of them in Cardiff.
I think your thesis needs a bit of work.
I wouldn't like to take credit for Living Boys line but for someone from the land of Dylan Thomas you have a fairly pedestrian idea of the metaphorical
Looks like Brexit Party may win the Euros, doesn't it? A lot of the voters won't have got the memo that faragism is now living at Brexit not UKIP, but they mostly will by the time the election comes around. Put those two together and that's a win, and there's probably some room for LD/Green/CHUK to nibble a bit more out of Lab once the campaign starts and they get some broadcasting time.
Boris is utterly thick. He wants the top job, yet he doesn't seem to realise that his behaviour now will colour that leadership. If he can rebel in such a manner, Conservative MPs outside his little coterie of thick upper-class idiots or thick upper-class idiot wannabes will feel able to rebel against his backwards policy platform.
Boris is all tactics, no strategy.
And he never feels tied to or bound by anything he has said or done previously. That's why he is so dangerous; his complete lack of principle, morality or shame.
Qualities he shares with Corbyn.
I am no fan of Corbyn, but I don't agree. Corbyn is more commonly criticised for having stuck to the same principles and views his whole life, regardless of the world changing around him,
He is wrongly criticised for that. He has in fact made major changes in his approach - the EU springs to mind, but so do wealth transfers, law and order, and race and racism.
Corbyn throughout his career has done whatever he thinks will appeal to his target audience. That's why he was Loony Left in the eighties, serial rebel in the nineties, anti-Iraq war in the noughties and now free tuition and free ponies in the teens. There isn't really any consistency except trying to persuade people he is 'sound'.
It's why he's wriggling so much on the EU at the moment - he can't decide what would be most popular as the country is so split. By an interesting irony, that has however been very politically beneficial to him. It's also why he's impaled on the hook of anti-Semitism - to get his core vote on the radical Left out, he has to be nice to Muslims and rabid on Palestine, including being chummy with Holocaust deniers. Therefore, he must ignore the Jews, who have fewer votes. The fact he comes across to outsiders as deeply unpleasant is irrelevant, although he cares enough to lie repeatedly when caught out.
The big drawback of Corbyn compared to Johnson is that Johnson may be crazy but is undoubtedly intelligent. Corbyn is crazy and is clearly not very bright either.
Neither is fit to be PM, or arguably to be an MP. But Corbyn is less fit.
And the chance of being selected as a candidate who has supported Brexit are low, unless you are a Tory. This means many from the centre and left of politics who supported Brexit are missing this representation.
But hardly anyone from the centre or left supported Brexit. "Lexit" is a niche interest, popular among a certain type of baby boomer far left activist (Lenin cap, various badges optional). Of course many people in Labour-leaning constituencies voted for Brexit. But I am not sure how many of them were Labour voters. And if they were Labour voters, I'm not sure how many were left wing. Brexit is a nationalist project beloved of people in the English provinces. It's got fuck all to do with left wing politics.
A very astute post. "Brexit (was) a nationalist project beloved of people in the English provinces" would be its perfect epitaph
Wales, not noted as a bastion of Toryism, voted for it. The Valleys, which when last I checked have been Labour for over 100 years, voted to leave. Only two Labour seats in the whole of Wales voted remain, both of them in Cardiff.
I think your thesis needs a bit of work.
I wouldn't like to take credit for Living Boys line but for someone from the land of Dylan Thomas you have a fairly pedestrian idea of the metaphorical
Boris is utterly thick. He wants the top job, yet he doesn't seem to realise that his behaviour now will colour that leadership. If he can rebel in such a manner, Conservative MPs outside his little coterie of thick upper-class idiots or thick upper-class idiot wannabes will feel able to rebel against his backwards policy platform.
Boris is all tactics, no strategy.
And he never feels tied to or bound by anything he has said or done previously. That's why he is so dangerous; his complete lack of principle, morality or shame.
Qualities he shares with Corbyn.
I am no fan of Corbyn, but I don't agree. Corbyn is more commonly criticised for having stuck to the same principles and views his whole life, regardless of the world changing around him,
Boris can be seen as having 'principles' if those 'principles' are self-interest.
Likewise, Corbyn's support for women's rights appears not to stretch to supporting the alleged victims of Assange. Or his views on the rights of the people do not stretch to those suffering in Venezuela. Or his 'principles' about anti-racism conflicts with his anti-Semtiism.
Basically: his principles hold as long as they don't interfere with his sick ideology.
Boris is utterly thick. He wants the top job, yet he doesn't seem to realise that his behaviour now will colour that leadership. If he can rebel in such a manner, Conservative MPs outside his little coterie of thick upper-class idiots or thick upper-class idiot wannabes will feel able to rebel against his backwards policy platform.
Boris is all tactics, no strategy.
And he never feels tied to or bound by anything he has said or done previously. That's why he is so dangerous; his complete lack of principle, morality or shame.
Qualities he shares with Corbyn.
I am no fan of Corbyn, but I don't agree. Corbyn is more commonly criticised for having stuck to the same principles and views his whole life, regardless of the world changing around him,
Boris can be seen as having 'principles' if those 'principles' are self-interest.
Likewise, Corbyn's support for women's rights appears not to stretch to supporting the alleged victims of Assange. Or his views on the rights of the people do not stretch to those suffering in Venezuela. Or his 'principles' about anti-racism conflicts with his anti-Semtiism.
Basically: his principles hold as long as they don't interfere with his sick ideology.
I don't think that works as an argument, at all. Corbyn has an ideology (I never said I liked it, just that he had one). Boris has none. Being self-interested is the opposite of being principled.
And he never feels tied to or bound by anything he has said or done previously. That's why he is so dangerous; his complete lack of principle, morality or shame.
Qualities he shares with Corbyn.
I am no fan of Corbyn, but I don't agree. Corbyn is more commonly criticised for having stuck to the same principles and views his whole life, regardless of the world changing around him,
He is wrongly criticised for that. He has in fact made major changes in his approach - the EU springs to mind, but so do wealth transfers, law and order, and race and racism.
Corbyn throughout his career has done whatever he thinks will appeal to his target audience. That's why he was Loony Left in the eighties, serial rebel in the nineties, anti-Iraq war in the noughties and now free tuition and free ponies in the teens. There isn't really any consistency except trying to persuade people he is 'sound'.
It's why he's wriggling so much on the EU at the moment - he can't decide what would be most popular as the country is so split. By an interesting irony, that has however been very politically beneficial to him. It's also why he's impaled on the hook of anti-Semitism - to get his core vote on the radical Left out, he has to be nice to Muslims and rabid on Palestine, including being chummy with Holocaust deniers. Therefore, he must ignore the Jews, who have fewer votes. The fact he comes across to outsiders as deeply unpleasant is irrelevant, although he cares enough to lie repeatedly when caught out.
The big drawback of Corbyn compared to Johnson is that Johnson may be crazy but is undoubtedly intelligent. Corbyn is crazy and is clearly not very bright either.
Neither is fit to be PM, or arguably to be an MP. But Corbyn is less fit.
Your argument falls down almost immediately when you say ;
"Corbyn throughout his career has done whatever he thinks will appeal to his target audience"
Corbyn has never had a target audience. He has never been or wanted to be a leader. Corbyn is long term into student politics. Up to his mid 60s in fact. Describing him as a chamelion appealing to his target audience would make as much sense applied to Chance the Gardener
Looks like Brexit Party may win the Euros, doesn't it? A lot of the voters won't have got the memo that faragism is now living at Brexit not UKIP, but they mostly will by the time the election comes around. Put those two together and that's a win, and there's probably some room for LD/Green/CHUK to nibble a bit more out of Lab once the campaign starts and they get some broadcasting time.
The ~Express goes even further with their poll - 82% intend to vote the Brexit Party
Mr. Sandpit, thanks. Tight margins in qualifying. Good tip on Bottas to win the race tomorrow, may look at hedging that.
Will write the first half of the pre-race ramble imminently but the full thing will likely be up this evening, due to a combination of wanting the markets to wake up and being otherwise occupied for much of the day.
Boris is utterly thick. He wants the top job, yet he doesn't seem to realise that his behaviour now will colour that leadership. If he can rebel in such a manner, Conservative MPs outside his little coterie of thick upper-class idiots or thick upper-class idiot wannabes will feel able to rebel against his backwards policy platform.
Boris is all tactics, no strategy.
And he never feels tied to or bound by anything he has said or done previously. That's why he is so dangerous; his complete lack of principle, morality or shame.
Qualities he shares with Corbyn.
I am no fan of Corbyn, but I don't agree. Corbyn is more commonly criticised for having stuck to the same principles and views his whole life, regardless of the world changing around him,
Boris can be seen as having 'principles' if those 'principles' are self-interest.
Likewise, Corbyn's support for women's rights appears not to stretch to supporting the alleged victims of Assange. Or his views on the rights of the people do not stretch to those suffering in Venezuela. Or his 'principles' about anti-racism conflicts with his anti-Semtiism.
Basically: his principles hold as long as they don't interfere with his sick ideology.
I don't think that works as an argument, at all. Corbyn has an ideology (I never said I liked it, just that he had one). Boris has none. Being self-interested is the opposite of being principled.
I agree Corbyn has an ideology: we were talking about principles. Principles and ideology are very different: which is why idealogues who pretend to hold certain principles dear can break those principles to further the ideology.
Witness anywhere that has attempted Communism, for instance: it is always the poor that suffer.
Corbyn has held the same ideology (a sick one IMV) for decades. His principles have been somewhat fluid.
And he never feels tied to or bound by anything he has said or done previously. That's why he is so dangerous; his complete lack of principle, morality or shame.
Qualities he shares with Corbyn.
I am no fan of Corbyn, but I don't agree. Corbyn is more commonly criticised for having stuck to the same principles and views his whole life, regardless of the world changing around him,
He is wrongly criticised for that. He has in fact made major changes in his approach - the EU springs to mind, but so do wealth transfers, law and order, and race and racism.
Corbyn throughout his career'sound'.
It's why he's wriggling so much on the EUwho have fewer votes. The fact he comes across to outsiders as deeply unpleasant is irrelevant, although he cares enough to lie repeatedly when caught out.
The big drawback of Corbyn compared to Johnson is that Johnson may be crazy but is undoubtedly intelligent. Corbyn is crazy and is clearly not very bright either.
Neither is fit to be PM, or arguably to be an MP. But Corbyn is less fit.
Your argument falls down almost immediately when you say ;
"Corbyn throughout his career has done whatever he thinks will appeal to his target audience"
Corbyn has never had a target audience. He has never been or wanted to be a leader. Corbyn is long term into student politics. Up to his mid 60s in fact. Describing him as a chamelion appealing to his target audience would make as much sense applied to Chance the Gardener
Yep - Corbyn has never changed his mind on anything. He’s learned, to an extent, to keep his mouth shut, but as his uncritical, unwavering support for Assange and his reactions to the Salisbury poisonings show he remains the anti-Western activist he’s always been. That’s his guiding star.
The Tory collapse in the YouGov poll hides the Labour one. What’s clear is that there’s at least a partial way back for the Tories - leaving the EU. Where does the Labour bounce come from?
I wonder if the Pirate Party is standing in Yorkshire. Thinking of most political parties and the voting selection available, it's making me think of a vegan menu. Plenty of options, and I don't want any of them.
Not my area, but Ladbrokes has a nice-looking market set for most seats in various EU regions. Might be interesting for tips and/or an article for those who know about such things.
Edited extra bit: Verstappen's odds have barely fallen, he's 15 for the win. Each way, that's a fifth the odds for top 3.
Not a proper tip yet because I want to see how the full markets look this evening (and will be busy, soonish) but that's worth considering.
And he never feels tied to or bound by anything he has said or done previously. That's why he is so dangerous; his complete lack of principle, morality or shame.
Qualities he shares with Corbyn.
I am no fan of Corbyn, but I don't agree. Corbyn is more commonly criticised for having stuck to the same principles and views his whole life, regardless of the world changing around him,
He is wrongly criticised for that. He has in fact made major changes in his approach - the EU springs to mind, but so do wealth transfers, law and order, and race and racism.
Corbyn throughout his career'sound'.
It's why he's wriggling so much on the EUwho have fewer votes. The fact he comes across to outsiders as deeply unpleasant is irrelevant, although he cares enough to lie repeatedly when caught out.
The big drawback of Corbyn compared to Johnson is that Johnson may be crazy but is undoubtedly intelligent. Corbyn is crazy and is clearly not very bright either.
Neither is fit to be PM, or arguably to be an MP. But Corbyn is less fit.
Your argument falls down almost immediately when you say ;
"Corbyn throughout his career has done whatever he thinks will appeal to his target audience"
Corbyn has never had a target audience. He has never been or wanted to be a leader. Corbyn is long term into student politics. Up to his mid 60s in fact. Describing him as a chamelion appealing to his target audience would make as much sense applied to Chance the Gardener
Yep - Corbyn has never changed his mind on anything. He’s learned, to an extent, to keep his mouth shut, but as his uncritical, unwavering support for Assange and his reactions to the Salisbury poisonings show he remains the anti-Western activist he’s always been. That’s his guiding star.
As I say below, I think you are confusing ideology and principles. His ideology has remained consistent: his principles vary to match the ideology.
An interesting choice for MPs. Push ahead with a revoke or another referendum where they might snatch a narrow win (their preference), or allow at least a soft Brexit and try to paint it as a full-on Leave.
The first might produce a rearrangement of the voting patterns for the main parties which is difficult to predict. The second is problematic because Labour (members and MPs) will dislike it intensely, and many Tories will hate, even if Jezza and many voters can live with it.
I'd opt for the Irish option … "If I were you, sir, I wouldn't start from here."
The Tory collapse in the YouGov poll hides the Labour one. What’s clear is that there’s at least a partial way back for the Tories - leaving the EU. Where does the Labour bounce come from?
I expect that almost every vote for the Brexit Party at Parliamentary level comes from former Conservatives. I don't know if the Brexit party is planning to field Parliamentary candidates, though.
I wonder if the Pirate Party is standing in Yorkshire. Thinking of most political parties and the voting selection available, it's making me think of a vegan menu. Plenty of options, and I don't want any of them.
It appears that it’s possible to run as an individual candidate in the EU elections, although there’s a hefty £5k deposit to find.
And the chance of being selected as a candidate who has supported Brexit are low, unless you are a Tory. This means many from the centre and left of politics who supported Brexit are missing this representation.
But hardly anyone from the centre or left supported Brexit. "Lexit" is a niche interest, popular among a certain type of baby boomer far left activist (Lenin cap, various badges optional). Of course many people in Labour-leaning constituencies voted for Brexit. But I am not sure how many of them were Labour voters. And if they were Labour voters, I'm not sure how many were left wing. Brexit is a nationalist project beloved of people in the English provinces. It's got fuck all to do with left wing politics.
You have it completely backwards. The "Left's" damascene conversion to the EU is (ironically) down the now hated "right-wing" Blairites and the subsequent shifting demographics of the left vote. What the Left has now is a bunch of middle-class voters who actually do quite well out of full-on economic liberalisation that the Tories and then Blairites pursued.
The reason the Left is no longer Eurosceptic as it once was (moreso than the Tories) is because its voter base is no longer that left-wing.
The reason Tories became more Eurosceptic than they once were is because, as the EEC morphed inexorably towards the EU, political and identity issues became more salient than economics.
This programme by Peter Hitchens is interesting on those points as I recall
Comments
Night night again!
Not many voters will be aware of as many of the different Brexit players as PBers, but you can be sure a decent number of voters know that their own MP is prominent.
What really beats me are 1. the people who still buy into Assange in some way and 2. those who now get the picture but don't admit that they once bought into his speak truth to power shtick.
JRM's sister is in Farage's Brexit Party?
I thought they were also looking to recruit Michelle Dewberry - ex of the Apprentice and current of Sky News’ the Pledge? She would look good oop north.
Diane James MEP who led UKIP for less than a month has also apparently signed up to be right below Farage in the south east.
The problem is selection by familiarity. It's human nature to prefer someone who you've known for ages and think reasonably sound to someone you've never heard of who rocks up. so the way to get selected is usually to spend a significant part of your free time for 10-20 years helping your local party (if you live in a winnable seat). And if you're doing that, you're probably not becoming a leading economist or an expert on lemons.
But Sandy's certainly right that the ordinary voter often doesn't have a meaningful, informed choice of individuals, and most voters hesitate to vote for someone they respect but disagree with. So people vote primarily for the party, and the party picks saomeone they happen to know well.
Presumably Darcey Bussell has been tapped up as well?
https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/04/12/pete-buttigieg-is-emerging-as-a-serious-contender-for-the-democratic-nomination
7.4 for dem nominee.
I accept that there are talented people put off by the idea of becoming lobby-fodder. I wonder if, on the other hand, the fact that back-bench MPs can still pursue personal interests (including professional ones) should their political career never really hit the heights might be a reassurance to some? Some high-flyers would have to give a whole lot up if they went into politics on the basis of "if elected, the mantle of power is so great you need to focus on it 100%".
I suspect the strongest argument against reducing the size of the Commons substantially is that the payroll would become disproportionately important - it may even end up with the executive having more power and the legislators less, even on a per capita basis. Not sure what the best alternative would be - appointing ministers from public life to sit in the Lords, or to separate powers further by having non-legislative ministers as the norm?
says former Cameron 'A' list candidate, and daughter of editor of the Times.
Against the elite. Oh yes...
I have a feeling though we are about to see a surprise with this guy in the debates.
I'm not massively convinced by the hypothesis that we need lots of "talented" people in the Commons (top surgeons or top lawyers or top businessfolk etc) as there are questions over just how their decision-making skills, which have served them well in their area of expertise, might transfer to a quite different domain. But given the very varied subjects that Parliament legislates over, there may be benefits to diversity of backgrounds and experiences.
I also agree with Dr Fox that many groups outside "the professions" need/deserve more representation in politics.
But just think of the power if someone could harness some of the industries best brains to sell an absolutely crap idea like Mrs May's deal?
Don't underestimate them. They could achieve goals other MPs couldn't reach. Ad men that made My Little Pony the most sought after toy in the world and the foul tasting Bud Light the best selling beer
We have him to thank for this marvellous Brexit situation we are in!
Even those who reach the Cabinet frequently sacrifice the best years of their professional careers to reach the top and will have to have spent years normally climbing the ranks of the Party to get there.
In any case those who have had top careers outside e.g. Archie Norman have often found it difficult to flourish in the bearpit of Westminster
You also need a bit of charisma to flourish as a businessman in politics, hence it worked for Trump and Berlusconi but not Romney and Norman, maybe the difference between being an entrepreneur and more of a risk takes than someone working for an established corporation
2) The paralysis is a combination of terrible leadership and terrible membership. The leader won't whip Tory MPs for anything except banging their heads against the brick wall she's built, and the members will turn on Tory MPs who do anything that might get them out of the treacle
(Plus should have said Saatchi not Satrach, apologies).
If Corbyn gets in we will soon need another Thatcher
But we know how you end the paralysis: A general election or a referendum. Why hasn't this happening yet? Because the government won't support them. Alternatively MPs could work around the government and support one of these, but they can't realistically be expected to do that that because their membership is opposed to them, to the point of potentially deselecting them.
Terrible leadership, terrible membership. That's it.
The reason the Left is no longer Eurosceptic as it once was (moreso than the Tories) is because its voter base is no longer that left-wing.
The reason Tories became more Eurosceptic than they once were is because, as the EEC morphed inexorably towards the EU, political and identity issues became more salient than economics.
Boris Johnson’s allies have said that he will not campaign in the European elections, amid growing Tory gloom over participation in the poll." {£}
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-johnson-to-snub-preposterous-eu-poll-amid-threat-of-wipeout-dktnlc8bs
Thankfully, the other parties seem to realise that there is a wider world than just Brexit, and therefore a candidate who screeches about it (either for remain or leave) might face issues.
And that's the problems the Conservatives have had for decades:small-minded idiots (e.g. Cash, IDS) who put the EU at the top of all their concerns. And if the other parties are hesitant to select such fools, good on them.
Note I didn't mention Johnson, as he's just using Brexit as part of a shallow and selfish power-grab.
Voting Labour is just something people do round these parts, like following Wednesday or United..
That's it - it's nothing to do with too many MPs having studied PPE or whatever.
Boris is all tactics, no strategy.
Among Labour voters, 77 per cent think Britain was wrong to vote to leave. Some 8 per cent of people who voted to leave in 2016 think that this was the wrong decision, and a further 8 per cent are now unsure.
The Tories will soon be circling the plughole.
Tories are road kill though, so Brexit isn't all bad.
I think your thesis needs a bit of work.
Corbyn throughout his career has done whatever he thinks will appeal to his target audience. That's why he was Loony Left in the eighties, serial rebel in the nineties, anti-Iraq war in the noughties and now free tuition and free ponies in the teens. There isn't really any consistency except trying to persuade people he is 'sound'.
It's why he's wriggling so much on the EU at the moment - he can't decide what would be most popular as the country is so split. By an interesting irony, that has however been very politically beneficial to him. It's also why he's impaled on the hook of anti-Semitism - to get his core vote on the radical Left out, he has to be nice to Muslims and rabid on Palestine, including being chummy with Holocaust deniers. Therefore, he must ignore the Jews, who have fewer votes. The fact he comes across to outsiders as deeply unpleasant is irrelevant, although he cares enough to lie repeatedly when caught out.
The big drawback of Corbyn compared to Johnson is that Johnson may be crazy but is undoubtedly intelligent. Corbyn is crazy and is clearly not very bright either.
Neither is fit to be PM, or arguably to be an MP. But Corbyn is less fit.
Likewise, Corbyn's support for women's rights appears not to stretch to supporting the alleged victims of Assange. Or his views on the rights of the people do not stretch to those suffering in Venezuela. Or his 'principles' about anti-racism conflicts with his anti-Semtiism.
Basically: his principles hold as long as they don't interfere with his sick ideology.
"Corbyn throughout his career has done whatever he thinks will appeal to his target audience"
Corbyn has never had a target audience. He has never been or wanted to be a leader. Corbyn is long term into student politics. Up to his mid 60s in fact. Describing him as a chamelion appealing to his target audience would make as much sense applied to Chance the Gardener
As it's in the Express it must be true!
Mr. Sandpit, thanks. Tight margins in qualifying. Good tip on Bottas to win the race tomorrow, may look at hedging that.
Will write the first half of the pre-race ramble imminently but the full thing will likely be up this evening, due to a combination of wanting the markets to wake up and being otherwise occupied for much of the day.
Nice start to the weekend.
Witness anywhere that has attempted Communism, for instance: it is always the poor that suffer.
Corbyn has held the same ideology (a sick one IMV) for decades. His principles have been somewhat fluid.
I wonder if the Pirate Party is standing in Yorkshire. Thinking of most political parties and the voting selection available, it's making me think of a vegan menu. Plenty of options, and I don't want any of them.
Edited extra bit: Verstappen's odds have barely fallen, he's 15 for the win. Each way, that's a fifth the odds for top 3.
Not a proper tip yet because I want to see how the full markets look this evening (and will be busy, soonish) but that's worth considering.
The first might produce a rearrangement of the voting patterns for the main parties which is difficult to predict. The second is problematic because Labour (members and MPs) will dislike it intensely, and many Tories will hate, even if Jezza and many voters can live with it.
I'd opt for the Irish option … "If I were you, sir, I wouldn't start from here."
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/candidate-or-agent/european-parliamentary-elections
I wonder if we are about to see a few prominent people crowdfunding for campaign funds on a ‘F the politicians’ platform?
Edit: I believe that Mr @Lennon, of this parish, stood for the Pirate party in the last general election.
https://youtu.be/CY_BgnZdwko