2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[Guest MattP]

That was terribly awkward by Natalie Bennett. This is the problem with minority parties, most of their policies are not exactly thorough because they know they are unlikely to be questioned deeply on them.

Once you can forgive, but for exactly the same thing to happen twice in two weeks is pretty unforgivable.

They may as well just be honest and admit they are promising shit they know they can't do or afford.

I doubt the sort of people voting Green are really going to bother looking at whether it's realistic.

[Guest Kopfkino]

Probably got a crap tutor... 

Touché

[Alf Bentley]

I've decided against that, despite my distain for the Labour party I don't think any sensible person can sit back and let a party with policies and opinions as dangerous as the Greens get any sort of support or momentum.

I know we can all exaggerate about leaving the country etc if certain parties got to power but anyone with any aspiration or anyone wanting to live a normal life would have too if this lot got anywhere near.

 

 

I disagree with you about the Greens' policies being dangerous. Partly, that's just a difference of opinion, which I'm sure we'll discuss in detail before the election (got to work now). Partly, though, it's because small (if growing) parties like the Greens and UKIP have to be judged by different criteria compared to the big parties, and we all know that the next government will be dominated either by Labour or by the Tories.

 

If I thought that my vote would elect a majority Green government tomorrow, I'd probably not vote for them. But they're unlikely to get more than 1-2 seats and highly unlikely to exert any influence after the election. Even if they had a surge in support and the result was very marginal, they'd still only be a very minor influence - at most, they might be in a position to persuade a Labour minority government to do a bit more for the environment, devolution to local communities or income redistribution....which I'd approve of. Depending on what happens in the next 5 years, a lot might change by 2020, of course.

 

Same applies to UKIP, to a slightly lesser extent. They're unlikely to get more than 5-10 seats in 2015. So, the most they'd be able to do, in all probability, would be to ensure that Cameron called an EU referendum - and maybe got a bit tougher on immigration from outside the EU. So, the same applies to UKIP as to the Greens: the lack of credibility of both parties' policy costings is a lot less important than it would be if they were likely to be the dominant party in government. Is it clear how UKIP would fund massive tax cuts for all, eliminate tuition fees for thousands of students, protect the NHS while eliminating PFI schemes and cutting immigration, "support a diverse energy market" while abolishing the Dept. of Energy (& Dept. for Culture, Media & Sport), all while keeping the economy on track?  Not really.... Does it matter? Not really, as they're not likely to be exerting much power, apart from over the EU referendum (possibly).

 

Re. Natalie Bennett's "brain freeze" during the interview: it reminded me of when I was a 19-year-old student speaking at hustings for a student union election. I made the fatal error of announcing that there were "2 important things to remember"....and then freezing and forgetting the second one!  Tbf, even at 19, I got out of it better than Natalie Bennett did, by making a joke of it and promising to get back to anyone who wanted to know the second "important thing to remember". I still narrow failed to get elected as Communications Officer, though! 

[davieG]

I'd agree with a big reduction in the number of MPs, but only if it was combined with the devolution of a lot of power to the local or regional level.

 

Many other countries have fewer MPs, but they also invariably have less centralised systems of government. If you want a very centralised political system (I don't), then you need a lot of people to run it. Otherwise, either a small number of people are exercising an enormous amount of power or unelected civil servants are running whole swathes of the country without political oversight.

 

Also, according to a survey quoted on the lunchtime news, the average MP works a 67-hour week (excluding travel). What would happen to the work done by the 400 MPs that you got rid of, if you only had 250 MPs?

- What effects would it have at constituency level? I think that the average MP currently represents about 70,000 constituents....presumably they'd have to represent about 200,000 instead; so you'd have 1 MP for the whole of Leicester, instead of 3.

- What effects would it have at parliamentary level? There are currently about 120 cabinet and junior ministers and whips, so you'd have to either give government posts to almost the entire governing party or drastically reduce democratic oversight.

 

And how much money would you save?

- Get rid of 400 MPs at £65k = an annual saving of £26m

- Increase pay for the rest (250 x £35k) = £8.75m.....

So a net saving of £17.25m, compared to an annual budget of £732bn.

That's an annual saving of 0.0024%....hardly a great deal in exchange for practically demolishing democracy at both the national and the constituency level!

 

I'm partly playing devil's advocate, here, as I'd favour fewer MPs in combination with a lot more decentralisation of power....

A view of MPs 

 

Why have our MPs changed so much in 40 years?

By Julia LangdonPolitical journalist

Professions such as teaching and mining are disappearing from the Commons

Continue reading the main story Related Stories

• Uncanny political parallels with 1974

There is a well attested thesis that anyone who wants to be elected as a Member of Parliament has to be just a little mad.

It is a difficult way of life and a highly inconvenient one.

The hours are dreadful, the rewards (relatively) insubstantial.

Getting selected as a candidate in the first place is a profoundly unpleasant process involving many hours in the company of others with whom one might not naturally choose to spend one's evenings.

Continue reading the main story “Start Quote

Today we probably have a more unrepresentative parliament than at any time since before women were given the vote ”

If elected after this gruelling exercise, the outcome is likely to be a great deal of travel between Westminster and the constituency, a serious decline in any sort of private life and no thanks from anybody, particularly the little strangers who call one "Daddy" - or, less frequently, "Mummy".

It is, therefore, quite curious that so many seek such a career and that is the important point to bear in mind here: politicians are self-selecting.

None of them had to do this, no-one imposed these hardships upon them. They chose this way of life for themselves.

I raise this interesting question about the character of politicians because a programme I have made for BBC Radio 4, looking at the changes at Westminster in the last 40 years, suggests that today we probably have a more unrepresentative parliament than at any time since before women were given the vote.

Money is key

And the reason for that, which has once more been thrown into sharp focus by the latest allegations about cash for access involving Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind, is all to do with money.

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin is a former miner

Dennis Skinner: former miner and Labour MP for 45 years

The nature of the people who want to be professional politicians has not changed.

They are still the somewhat unusual characters I have described, but what has happened, however, since the 1970s is that the make-up of the membership of the House of Commons has changed profoundly.

This is because the background from which today's MPs are elected is almost exclusively that of the comfortable middle classes.

This might have been expected, of course, given the rise in living standards and the growth of university education over the period of years in question, but it is still remarkable that 40 years ago there were more than 30 miners, more than 20 engineering workers, a host of other manual workers and a total of over 150 teachers sitting in the House of Commons.

As former Chancellor Ken Clarke observed, when we spoke of his election in 1970, one of the differences between then and now was that his intake was the first that wanted a political career.

It was the dawn of meritocracy, yet he was struck by the fact that most trade unionists on the Labour side had no interest in becoming ministers.

The contrast with today in his view is that social distinctions have disappeared, exactly the same type of person represents each party and everyone wants to be chancellor.

Continue reading the main story “Start Quote

MPs shared dingy rooms and flats on the cheaper side of the Thames and could scarcely afford a secretary”

Many MPs in the 1970s, notably the lawyers - and there were more than 150 of them as well - had other jobs, paid employment which enabled them to afford a relatively affluent lifestyle.

That was one reason why parliament did not sit until the afternoons - to enable those who wished to do so to earn their money in the mornings.

There were also those who had family money or the sort of business interests which made the size of the parliamentary salary immaterial.

But by far the vast majority of other MPs relied on that salary for their main family income. It wasn't generous.

Although expenses were paid for travel to and from the constituency, for stationery and postage, and while food and drink in the Houses of Parliament was subsidised (as it remains today, but considerably less generously) the subsistence allowances paid were less than munificent.

That meant MPs shared dingy rooms and flats on the cheaper side of the Thames and could scarcely afford a secretary.

Members from the same areas would share a car home at weekends to save money from the mileage allowance.

And they employed other family members to help with their office and constituency work.

Expenses boosted

One interviewee for the programme, a former railway guard, Peter Snape - now a member of the House of Lords - recalled that the hardships were such that representations were made to Harold Wilson, prime minister after the 1974 election, for an increase in parliamentary pay.

Harold Wilson boosted MPs' expense allowance

Wilson was not new to the job. His six years as prime minister in the 60s had taught him the wily wisdom on which political survival depends and his instinct was that public opinion would not endorse paying more for politicians.

Instead he offered to do something about expenses and allowances and thus the seeds of today's troubles were sown.

The parliamentary expenses scandal, with all its attendant horrors of publicly funded duck houses and moat-cleaning, did much to damage the reputation of MPs.

The subsequent reforms are meant to have restored a degree of political propriety to the way we pay for our politics, but it brings the issue dodged by Harold Wilson back into focus and no government has yet had the courage significantly to increase MPs' pay.

As Jack Straw himself tells me before the latest allegations came to light, it is highly regrettable that today's party leaders apparently intend to abandon their previously declared promises to uphold the official recommendations made by the new independent body (Ipsa) established for precisely this purpose.

Continue reading the main story “Start Quote

What incentive is there for clever university graduates to choose politics as a career when they can earn more in the City, at the Bar or in journalism? ”

The situation thus remains unresolved. But there are other aspects besides the continuing potential for what Straw described to me as the "egregious abuse" of the exposed expenses.

MPs are paid a salary of £67,060 per annum. There are 800 head teachers in the state system paid over £100,000 and a further 800 earning between £90,000 and £100,000. General practitioners can easily earn more than MPs and some can reportedly clock up as much as £300,000.

What incentive is there for clever university graduates to choose politics as a career when they can earn more in the City, at the Bar or in journalism?

Less desirable choice

As Shirley Williams observes, bemoaning as she does the unrepresentative parliament we have today, politics is a much less desirable choice for the brightest and the best.

The result of this is that those who seek to stand for parliament in 2015 are drawn from a smaller section of society than once was the case.

Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband have little experience of work outside politics

There are few candidates today who are not university educated and few who have much experience of working in industry or in the wider world beyond Westminster.

It is rare for those from outside the "bubble" to secure selection in competition with those who know the parliamentary score.

The salary may not be competitive for high earners but it is nevertheless between two and three times the national average salary and it has a commensurate appeal for those who seek to breathe the unadulterated oxygen of neat politics.

Thus it is that today's House of Commons has about 90 Members who have never had a "real" job outside politics including, as it happens, the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, and the Liberal Democrats' Nick Clegg, who both briefly flirted with careers in journalism before entering politics full-time at an early age.

As for David Cameron: he was canny enough to get a job working in public relations for a TV company, when he had already worked as a Conservative adviser for six years and perhaps spotted that this lack of outside experience could have been a career handicap.

And as for the rest of them, the miners and the plumbers and the telephone engineers are almost all long gone and at the last count there were just 24 teachers.

Julia Dear Boy - Welcome to Westminster is broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on 28 February at 10:30 GMT.

[ADK]

It feels like we've gone full circle from parliament being filled with Earls and Dukes in the early 19th century to becoming gradually more meritocratic whether that be successful businessmen, long serving members of the armed forces or respected professionals and now we drift back towards politics being dominated by a narrow spectrum of individuals, usually with similar privileged backgrounds.

[Rincewind]

you've noticed it too?Thought I was the only one.

[Guest MattP]

It feels like we've gone full circle from parliament being filled with Earls and Dukes in the early 19th century to becoming gradually more meritocratic whether that be successful businessmen, long serving members of the armed forces or respected professionals and now we drift back towards politics being dominated by a narrow spectrum of individuals, usually with similar privileged backgrounds.

I bet statistically it's not the case over the whole house but both front benches seem full of people not many would class as 'normal'.

Although I'm not too bothered, I'd rather see a good politician than a bad one whatever the background, gender, race etc of them - it's the rise of the 'career politician' that I think poses the biggest danger.

[Alf Bentley]

Although I'm not too bothered, I'd rather see a good politician than a bad one whatever the background, gender, race etc of them - it's the rise of the 'career politician' that I think poses the biggest danger.

 

This. Plus the suggestion in Davie's article and from the various expenses/cash-for-access scandals that a lot of them are just in it for the money.

 

I don't expect them to be martyrs prepared to live on peanuts and I do think they should be paid more than £67k, but the idea that so many of them are apparently grubbing around after extra cash out of jealousy of higher-paid people in equivalent careers makes me sick. Whatever happened to people entering politics because they wanted to further a cause or set of beliefs (of whatever political persuasion)?! Or to feel rewarded by having contributed something to society (and a half-decent wage)?

 

As for all the "career politicians", I suppose it's the parties that have to sort that out, ultimately. In a way, it's surprising that it is such a problem as my understanding is that a lot of the power to select candidates still rests with local Labour and Conservative parties. I know that "approved candidates" often get shoehorned into safe seats by Labour HQ (still the NEC?) shortly before an election, but most candidates are still chosen by the local parties - and Conservative Associations are also supposed to be the dominant local decision-making power in that party.

 

Why do local parties and local members keep appointing these career politicians? Are they really just kow-towing to their party establishments? Maybe these "insiders" are able to impress them with a lot of in-house knowledge acquired by working at Westminster as special advisers or researchers. But why don't local parties look beyond that and see that someone with a different employment background might have more to offer in different ways from their experience - and could be brought up to speed with procedural practices and knowledge through some intensive training before they enter parliament....particularly if the parties saw this as a good idea. Maybe that's a big part of the problem: the people at Westminster and party HQ are quite happy to give a hand-up to their mates and to see people like them coming to Westminster instead of people they don't know and might have less in common with?  

[ADK]

I bet statistically it's not the case over the whole house but both front benches seem full of people not many would class as 'normal'.

Although I'm not too bothered, I'd rather see a good politician than a bad one whatever the background, gender, race etc of them - it's the rise of the 'career politician' that I think poses the biggest danger.

 

I'm not bothered by background either, but it is mostly those from a background of privilege and connections who are able to access the "career politician" route. So it is not just dangerous that these people lack the skills and experiences that would make them good politicians but it narrows the pool of potential candidates as well.

[Strokes]

I find it amazing that the people who are the harshest elitists are the biggest champions of equality.

[davieG]

Perhaps the career politician candidates are more malleable which might suit some on the selection committee who have strong views but don't want to stand for whatever reason. This would also make them more attractive to party leaders or those that have a leaders ear.

 

just a thought.

[MooseBreath]

Could be that people from non-political backgrounds tend to enter the scene with unrealistic ideals, a bit like a fringe party, expecting everything but not having much of an idea as to how anything can be achieved in reality. Maybe it's more efficient to have MPs who already know the limits of what they can achieve.

[ADK]

I'd think of it the other way round. People coming from successful careers and who have a good quantity of life experiences would surely be more capable of dealing in reality than people who've never had to earn a living or never proven themselves capable of feats of leadership or management.

 

I'm talking more about front benchers here whose roles really do have an influence on the country. For some reason it tends to be that a lot of the "best" politicians don't seem to make it past council or back bench level.

[Voll Blau]

Of the current crop of prominent politicians I'm struggling to think of anyone beyond Andy Burnham I actually like (I've met a few of them, including him).

 

As my mate who works for Labour put it - "he's the closest thing in the shadow cabinet to an actual human being".

 

Quite a lot of MPs are perfectly nice people, but still somehow removed from the society they govern.

 

Don't get me started on spads and researchers mind, I've found them to be a right bunch of wanks in general.

[MooseBreath]

I'd think of it the other way round. People coming from successful careers and who have a good quantity of life experiences would surely be more capable of dealing in reality than people who've never had to earn a living or never proven themselves capable of feats of leadership or management.

I'm talking more about front benchers here whose roles really do have an influence on the country. For some reason it tends to be that a lot of the "best" politicians don't seem to make it past council or back bench level.

Most MPs earn less than successful business leaders so you could argue that they're more grounded in reality. But what I'm saying is that maybe the type of already successful person who wants to enter politics feels compelled to do so by a desire for particularly drastic change, of the type that politics alone isn't really capable of delivering.

[Guest MattP]

I disagree with you about the Greens' policies being dangerous. Partly, that's just a difference of opinion, which I'm sure we'll discuss in detail before the election (got to work now). Partly, though, it's because small (if growing) parties like the Greens and UKIP have to be judged by different criteria compared to the big parties, and we all know that the next government will be dominated either by Labour or by the Tories.

 

If I thought that my vote would elect a majority Green government tomorrow, I'd probably not vote for them. But they're unlikely to get more than 1-2 seats and highly unlikely to exert any influence after the election. Even if they had a surge in support and the result was very marginal, they'd still only be a very minor influence - at most, they might be in a position to persuade a Labour minority government to do a bit more for the environment, devolution to local communities or income redistribution....which I'd approve of. Depending on what happens in the next 5 years, a lot might change by 2020, of course.

 

Same applies to UKIP, to a slightly lesser extent. They're unlikely to get more than 5-10 seats in 2015. So, the most they'd be able to do, in all probability, would be to ensure that Cameron called an EU referendum - and maybe got a bit tougher on immigration from outside the EU. So, the same applies to UKIP as to the Greens: the lack of credibility of both parties' policy costings is a lot less important than it would be if they were likely to be the dominant party in government. Is it clear how UKIP would fund massive tax cuts for all, eliminate tuition fees for thousands of students, protect the NHS while eliminating PFI schemes and cutting immigration, "support a diverse energy market" while abolishing the Dept. of Energy (& Dept. for Culture, Media & Sport), all while keeping the economy on track?  Not really.... Does it matter? Not really, as they're not likely to be exerting much power, apart from over the EU referendum (possibly).

 

Re. Natalie Bennett's "brain freeze" during the interview: it reminded me of when I was a 19-year-old student speaking at hustings for a student union election. I made the fatal error of announcing that there were "2 important things to remember"....and then freezing and forgetting the second one!  Tbf, even at 19, I got out of it better than Natalie Bennett did, by making a joke of it and promising to get back to anyone who wanted to know the second "important thing to remember". I still narrow failed to get elected as Communications Officer, though! 

 

Apologies for the late reply, too long a post to reply to on the mobile!

 

I think there are some seriously dangerous policies I've heard from the Greens in the last few weeks, legalising memberships to groups like ISIS and Al Queda simply cannot be allowed to happen no matter how much freedom you want people to have, that's before you get onto jobs that would be lost from deliberately taking the country into a permanent recession and the absolute social destruction an open borders Immigration policy would cause to people.

 

Do realise that they are playing by a different set of rules but with possibilities of coalitions and percentage of the vote reacing 10% they simply have to be viable, they can't come on television and radio promising to build houses for 5 grand a piece whilst raising the minimum wage to a tenner.

 

UKIP are going to get exactly the same from the press and worse - see C4 100 days of UKIP and meet the UKippers (although it's easier for them as they aren't proposing the vast changes to society that the Greens are) and if they don't have viable policies they'll be torn to pieces by all and sundry when eventually the pundits really challenging them on politics might be the way to go instead of picturing race riots in fictional documentaries and picking up individual ex-councillors comments continues not to work.

 

Communications officer? - Can't imagine you in the 'Malcolm Tucker' role Alf!

[Alf Bentley]

Communications officer? - Can't imagine you in the 'Malcolm Tucker' role Alf!

 

I saw myself more as a left-wing campus Rupert Murdoch, using the print media to spread agitation.

 

But the voters thwarted me....though my defeat was narrower than the rest on the Labour slate. Caroline Flint (the outgoing Communications Officer) was trounced 2-to-1 for the Welfare Officer position by a wishy-washy, non-aligned Scouse hippie in dungarees! Her subsequent political career has been more impressive than mine, admittedly. 

[Lionator]

Of the current crop of prominent politicians I'm struggling to think of anyone beyond Andy Burnham I actually like (I've met a few of them, including him).

 

As my mate who works for Labour put it - "he's the closest thing in the shadow cabinet to an actual human being".

 

Quite a lot of MPs are perfectly nice people, but still somehow removed from the society they govern.

 

Don't get me started on spads and researchers mind, I've found them to be a right bunch of wanks in general.

 

He's about the only top politician that could restore a bit of faith with the public however he'll always have mid-staffs hanging over him. 

 

It'd be for the better if Labour lost this election so they could actually get a decent leader and regroup ready for next time. 

[ADK]

The ideal situation for Labour would probably be a narrow loss with a Tory minority government for a year or two with Milliband stepping down and a half decent charismatic leader taking over, a bit like when Major won a narrow victory and Blair rose to the fore.

 

The wheels will come off the Tory plan of flooding the country with unproductive cheap labour whilst massively underinvesting in public services and continuing the trend of ever increasing public liabilities and dependence on financial institutions eventually.

[Webbo]

The ideal situation for Labour would probably be a narrow loss with a Tory minority government for a year or two with Milliband stepping down and a half decent charismatic leader taking over, a bit like when Major won a narrow victory and Blair rose to the fore.

 

The wheels will come off the Tory plan of flooding the country with unproductive cheap labour whilst massively underinvesting in public services and continuing the trend of ever increasing public liabilities and dependence on financial institutions eventually.

How and why do the tories want to flood the country with unproductive labour?

[ADK]

How and why do the tories want to flood the country with unproductive labour?

 

Why? Because they think it will get them elected, while satisfying the people who fund them through donations and who aid them with propaganda.

 

How? Through ever increasing immigration and a tax/benefits regime which favours the lowest and the highest earners while squeezing the middle.

[Webbo]

There was a thing on the news a couple of weeks ago saying the cuts/tax rises have effected the rich worst in cash terms and those on benefits worst in percentage terms with the people in the middle about the same as they were.

 

As for encouraging cheap, presumably productive, labour from abroad do you really think they've worst than Labour?

[Strokes]

Why? Because they think it will get them elected, while satisfying the people who fund them through donations and who aid them with propaganda.

How? Through ever increasing immigration and a tax/benefits regime which favours the lowest and the highest earners while squeezing the middle.

So the mean old tories, now create a tax system that favours the lowest earners and you're upset because?

I think I've heard it all now.

Just for the record, in austerity, there will always be some class system getting squeezed. I'm pretty sure they all are, it just some more than others.

Tell me why the country is in a worse state now, than before the coalition came to power. (lets give the liberals some credit/flak)

[Guest Kopfkino]

Why? Because they think it will get them elected, while satisfying the people who fund them through donations and who aid them with propaganda.

 

How? Through ever increasing immigration and a tax/benefits regime which favours the lowest and the highest earners while squeezing the middle.

[ADK]

I don't really want to enter a long rambling political debate especially since most people on here are entrenched in their views.