Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Jack Straw retires from parliament


Gnasher
 Share

Recommended Posts

The system's fucked because MPs tend to be highly qualified, highly employable people?

I see what you've done there.

 

Firstly you've made the mistake of thinking that people with lots of money deserve lots of money through their own hard work and talent.

 

Secondly you have forgotten that in a representative democracy the representatives are supposed to, y'know, in some way resemble the people they are supposed to represent

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what you've done there.

 

Firstly you've made the mistake of thinking that people with lots of money deserve lots of money through their own hard work and talent.

 

Secondly you have forgotten that in a representative democracy the representatives are supposed to, y'know, in some way resemble the people they are supposed to represent

 

Firstly, there is unquestionably a positive correlation between wealth and level of education. This isn't to say that everyone with wealth is a genius, and everyone without a dunderhead; however, if you have wealth, you are probably smarter and better educated than average. This is a fact.

 

Secondly, I don't see why MPs have to "resemble" the people they represent. The major requirement is that MPs represent their constituents' best interests, to the best of their ability. This is obviously easier if the MPs in question actually have ability - which, as we've seen above, is positively linked to wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, there is unquestionably a positive correlation between wealth and level of education.

 

You're right.  So right.  There's no doubt.  No doubt.  It's great.  The best.  It is.  The very best, believe me.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right.  So right.  There's no doubt.  No doubt.  It's great.  The best.  It is.  The very best, believe me.

As this was evidently missed by several of you the first time, here it is in large font for the visually challenged:

 

This isn't to say that everyone with wealth is a genius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, there is unquestionably a positive correlation between wealth and level of education. This isn't to say that everyone with wealth is a genius, and everyone without a dunderhead; however, if you have wealth, you are probably smarter and better educated than average. This is a fact.

 

Secondly, I don't see why MPs have to "resemble" the people they represent. The major requirement is that MPs represent their constituents' best interests, to the best of their ability. This is obviously easier if the MPs in question actually have ability - which, as we've seen above, is positively linked to wealth.

I think it's easier to represent people if you understand them. This is not linked to education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be in favour of less MPs as there are too many. Then I would pay them a lot more, something like £125-150k per annum. A good salary no doubt, but it reflects the importance of the job they do.

 

I would ban additional income streams for MPs while in office, so no paid directorships, fees for speeches and so on. Expenses should be scrutinized and kept reasonable. There should be an independent body overseeing expenses as MPs are not well placed to decide what is reasonable, as they are the beneficiaries.

 

I would also ban MPs from serving as directors of companies for 3 years after leaving office. It's too easy to manipulate as is. Say I'm a large company, and I manipulate an MP to act in my favour, and then I reward said MP with a cushy directorship on the back of it? No. That needs to stop. And it's too suspicious to jump straight from serving as an MP to holding a directorship, so I would have a three year gap.

 

I want good people as MPs. Educated? Of course. With a breadth of life experience? Of course. But nobody has mentioned character in this thread. I want people who genuinely have a sense of duty, who are principled and informed, and who are willing to work hard for the greater good, rather than manipulate things to their own advantage. Too many politicians have fallen down on that over the years, which is why the general public is so cynical about the whole system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, there is unquestionably a positive correlation between wealth and level of education. This isn't to say that everyone with wealth is a genius, and everyone without a dunderhead; however, if you have wealth, you are probably smarter and better educated than average. This is a fact.

 

 

gallery_5_3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, there is unquestionably a positive correlation between wealth and level of education. This isn't to say that everyone with wealth is a genius, and everyone without a dunderhead; however, if you have wealth, you are probably smarter and better educated than average. This is a fact.

 

Secondly, I don't see why MPs have to "resemble" the people they represent. The major requirement is that MPs represent their constituents' best interests, to the best of their ability. This is obviously easier if the MPs in question actually have ability - which, as we've seen above, is positively linked to wealth.

There is a positive correlation between wealth and getting the type of education that  gets you into the House of Commons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32692789

 

It is not "a fact" to say that wealth is a sign that you are "probably smarter" than the common herd.  Wealth is just as much a sign that you plopped out of the right fanny, that you've always been lucky (for example, in the fact that your particular skillsets are those that society showers with money, whereas someone like a nurse can be equally talented and hardworking, but never as rich) and/or that you're amoral and ruthless in the pursuit of money for its own sake. 

 

So, the fact that a disproportionate number of MPs were privately educated, or the fact that many of them had positions that paid more than about 95% of the UK population receive, is not proof of their suitability to the job.  I would argue the reverse.  I would argue that in a representative democracy, you're supposed to have government of the people, for the people, by the people - not subservience to some rich twats who claim to be superior to everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...