[tc]

If you want to stand as an independent candidate you have to be a UK citizen aged 18+ and have the support of at least 10 parliamentary electors in your constituency. Then you have to win the largest number of votes in the election.
That's the simple answer, anyway. To get accepted as a candidate by one of the main parties is infinitely more complicated. Particularly if you find the idea of fucking a dead pig's head somewhat distasteful.

[SamT]

For some, maybe. For others it's the desire to earn £80,000 a year plus expenses for a part time job.

I think for the bullingdon boys and their ilk, the 80k is inconsequential. Its more the desire to access power, control and inside information/contacts that allows them to take that 80k and turn it into 800k in a short space of time and thenk 8,000,000 after that.

[Nutty]

Incidentally, what does qualify someone to be a politician?

This brought to mind the Douglas Adams quote:

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

[spidermonkey09]

Incidentally, what does qualify someone to be a politician?

Was thinking about this overnight and am forced to conclude that I don't know! I think almost anyone is 'qualified' to be a backbench MP as there are many in this position who I think genuinely are in it to help and represent their constituencies. It gets trickier as you get higher up the food chain though as the focus switches from local issues to national and international ones. Ideally, I think that for someone to fulfil a cabinet post, which is normally a prerequisite for eventually holding the top job, they should have demonstrated an ability to keep on top of their brief for an extended period of time, have demonstrated their commitment to helping their constituents rather than naked self interest, have demonstrated a commitment to transparency, both financial and personal where relevant to the job they are doing...I'll think of a few more shortly!

I concur with the Adams quote Nutty mentioned, although it is obviously a paradox; those who actively want to run for high office almost always cannot be trusted, but those who pretend they have been forced into the job reluctantly can't be either!

[Will Hunt]

I'd agree with almost all of that.

What Huw said, about helping constituents, is fine for a common or garden backbencher but not enough for a cabinet job in my view. The best intentions in the world won't be enough to navigate the complex issues of government.

The last bit about those wishing to be in power being unsuited, and somebody's post above about £80k, I tend to think are simplistic conveniences to try and discredit those you don't agree with. I don't see people making the same accusations towards Corbyn or Abbott or whoever. Realistically, although its a great deal more than the average earnings, most of these people could be earning much more money and without the public scrutiny that goes with it if they went into banking or marketing etc.

[dunnyg]

A cabinet job just has a greater number of constituents no? The higher up the more complex the problems, but still attempting to serve the best interests of the nation is your job description. Being able to do that becomes more challenging, however you just need the ability to decide on an appropriate solution to those complex challenges. If you can do that, great, if you can't, not so hot. I guess the problem come from that is becomes your opinion of what is in the national interest rather than directly representing the consensus view of the population you work for. Chuck a referendum on that and you end up where we are.

[spidermonkey09]

I'd agree with almost all of that.

What Huw said, about helping constituents, is fine for a common or garden backbencher but not enough for a cabinet job in my view. The best intentions in the world won't be enough to navigate the complex issues of government.

The last bit about those wishing to be in power being unsuited, and somebody's post above about £80k, I tend to think are simplistic conveniences to try and discredit those you don't agree with. I don't see people making the same accusations towards Corbyn or Abbott or whoever. Realistically, although its a great deal more than the average earnings, most of these people could be earning much more money and without the public scrutiny that goes with it if they went into banking or marketing etc.

For what its worth I would pay politicians more, not less, and see if it encourages more people from different sectors of society to run for office. I don't think an instinctive cynicism about politicians motives is necessarily a bad thing, but I accept its glib and a bit simplistic.

[spidermonkey09]

... directly representing the consensus view of the population you work for...

This for me is the nub of it; do we want our MPs to be representative or a delegate?

[Will Hunt]

If you allow everything to boil down to a simple "what's best for the constituents" it belies how complex a lot of the questions are and the fact that they don't always have a simple right/wrong answer.

If all decisions were made in the interests of British citizens then we'd have to agree that going out and winning oil wars were a good thing. We certainly wouldn't be getting rid of our nukes with Russia on the prowl.
If politicians are merely representing their constituents then we should have already left the EU.
"What's best for the constituents?" is a big question when it comes to fiscal policy, with many people having many different answers. Some people would like to see Corporation Tax ratcheted up and enforced much more strongly, in spite of the fact that more strained operating conditions for business means less investment and ultimately a less diverse economy (I'm not saying we shouldn't have corportation tax or that the current level is good/bad, just pointing out that it's a balancing act with more than one opinion about "what's best" being tenable).
I'd rather delegate the complex decision making to someone who shares my values and is then given the time to get to grips with the issues in far more detail than me.

Bringing this back to education. When you consider that vital skills in our parliamentary democract include the ability to: reach consensus, argue a point well, broker deals, be willing to give and to take, think deeply about the broad implications of policy decisions, and understand the political history and climate of the UK etc, we should be glad that there are outstanding people out there like Caroline Lucas who do all that without formal training, but shouldn't be surprised that PPE graduates end up in the top jobs also.

[Oldmanmatt]

Bringing this back to education. When you consider that vital skills in our parliamentary democract include the ability to: reach consensus, argue a point well, broker deals, be willing to give and to take, think deeply about the broad implications of policy decisions, and understand the political history and climate of the UK etc, we should be glad that there are outstanding people out there like Caroline Lucas who do all that without formal training, but shouldn't be surprised that PPE graduates end up in the top jobs also.

This.

My partner, her siblings and all her parents/step parents and grandparents are products of middle tier (though selective) private schools (Portsmouth Grammar in my partners case). I’m a state school, then selective 6th form college, type.
But we’re all Military from 6th form on, with either dark blue of green uniforms.
And those colleges might be directly compared to public school (I’m not talking about “enlisted” entry boot camps).


So, for me, it was a migration from typical, large catchment, comprehensive school, to increasingly public schooled classmates and systems.
And it changed me and my worldview.

If I contrast that to my partner. Who did the opposite.
She hit a difficult patch at 18, rebelled and to flick one off at her father (Surgeon Captain, RN), ditched her “intended” career path and headed off to a civi college.
Of course, she rebelled in the most middle class fashion, and instead of aiming for a military/medical commission, she joined Trinity House as a Deck Officer cadet...
Still, this brought her into Warsash maritime college (then part of Southampton Institute) and a world away from her very sheltered background.

Between us, we’ve a reasonable grasp of the relative merits of the two systems.

The opportunity presented to those at public schools is enviable, to me as a pleb, and something to be striven for within the state sector. I now have two kids in years 9 and 7, respectively, at different schools. My eldest is in a selective school, within a larger comprehensive (ie, she had to sit the 11+ for entry and studies in classes of only students who have passed the 11+, but is (deliberately) expected to join non-streamed students for things like PE, and PSHE etc etc.
A great system, because she faces no stigma  for being in the Debating society, Drama club and History Society (some occasional comments about “Fucking Grammar tossers” but nothing much).
My lad, now ending year 7, is at a strict Catholic/CofE combined comprehensive (his fathers school and his choice, and as much for it’s sporting reputation as anything else) and he’s managed a good balance between Geek and Jock. They run “Elite Academies” for those who excel in certain subjects and they get taken into separate groups within their existing classes, rather than streamed/Grammared.
This works well to, but not as well and we’ve already encounteover-caffeinated sugary drink companyying issues with him. (I typed bullying there, that is B U L L Y I ng, but it mysteriously changed on posting).

Much of those systems have been lifted from public school practices. Both schools have been brought under the management of existing public schools and taken out of local authority control.
Even the worst local school, once a real shit hole, is now under the management of the Boys Grammar school and unrecognisable, despite no change in catchment, both in behaviour and performance.

So, my suspicion, is that some of the issues that have created the two tier political system and public school dominance of that world, will fade in coming years, and probably are already.

My experience of modern state schools is that they are vastly superior to my own comprehensive and was supposedly a “good” school by local standards.

PS, I’m strongly in favour of selective education, though I’m particularly impressed with the model at my daughters school (which she chose, against my advice, in preference to the Girls Grammar. She thinks same sex schools suck).

[TobyD]

I guess the problem come from that is becomes your opinion of what is in the national interest rather than directly representing the consensus view of the population you work for. Chuck a referendum on that and you end up where we are.

Well, that's basically what Farage etc would say anyway.  Representative democracy is to represent the interests, not the views of voters. Otherwise,  MPs should be pushing forward a white paper on reinstating the death penalty.

I totally disagree with the views put by some above that politicians are in it for the money. If you're well connected and want money, you'd go into finance,  senior management of major companies... an awful lot more cash for a lot less hassle.  Being an  MP must be bloody tough,  much of the time.  A lot of public sector jobs pay far more than  MPs.

[Johnny Brown]

So Boris is in. I standby earlier comments that this is preferable to Hunt in being more likely to crash sooner. But I suspect it's going to be uncomfortable viewing.

[tomtom]

So Boris is in. I standby earlier comments that this is preferable to Hunt in being more likely to crash sooner. But I suspect it's going to be uncomfortable viewing.

With an ever decreasing 'majority'....

[TobyD]

The 2003 appearance of Boris Johnson  on top gear.  A telling interview. 

[tomtom]

I'm ignoring the whole PM thing... most recently a series of plummy sounding BJ supporters cheerfully papering over his cracks/chasms have made me stop listening to the radio.

[TobyD]

I'm ignoring the whole PM thing... most recently a series of plummy sounding BJ supporters cheerfully papering over his cracks/chasms have made me stop listening to the radio.

Depressing isn't it. Mostly the parade of lightweights and incompetence that will make up most of the cabinet.

[Oldmanmatt]

Well, this thread hasn’t seen light for a while, what with constant Brexit and Election shit.
However, this one is worth sharing.
It’s always heartening to see who and how many, run towards the danger, when the shit goes down.
BZ’s.
Bravery and selflessness

[crzylgs]

These bloody foreigners, coming over here and heroically risking their lives to fight off terrorists...

[Oldmanmatt]

These bloody foreigners, coming over here and heroically risking their lives to fight off terrorists...

I know, right!
Anybody would think they were actually just other human beings, with similar wants and needs, but a funny accent or different skin pigmentation and otherwise identical to us...

[SA Chris]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53250718

Thoughts? I feel for some up and coming musicians, but those throwing their weight behind this are not exactly short of a bob or two. They want support from tax payer's money so they can go on investing millions in offshore bank accounts? Feels a hard pill for me to swallow.

[Will Hunt]

They all stated that their concern was for the employees in the industry, which the article cites as some 210k people. They don't demand an immediate return to gigs, just a plan for getting there.
 

Would you rather that people in privileged positions didn't use their high profile and poured themselves another glass of Bolly instead?

[SA Chris]

No, I'd rather they gave some of their millions back to the industry which has made them incredibly wealthy, either by donating some of their enormous earnings, or doing the gigs on a charitable basis at the venue and it getting their share. Do you think it's purely altruistic or do they want to keep earning? The small venues are what gave them their start, maybe they can give a bit back, rather than asking for taxpayer money to do it?

Struggling bands excluded of course, but Macca, Coldplay, Liam Gallagher, Ed Sheeran and the Rolling Stones are not exactly in financial difficulty.

Or should our taxes be used to shore up the industry?

[spidermonkey09]

I think that's a bit of a straw man of an argument tbh. Clearly they could do that but it wouldn't come close to addressing the black hole in the arts finances. That will only be mitigated with government intervention.

The arts are getting nailed all over the country. Without some government assistance there will be a cultural vacuum for years.

[Duma]

Government money is shoring up many other industries, why not the arts?

[SA Chris]

Most "arts" haven't made people multi-millionaires like music has and do need support.

https://wealthygorilla.com/richest-rockstars-world/

I just feel the richest people in the music business crying out is like Branson asking for support.

Clearly I am alone.