Quote:
Originally Posted by davebtelford
With the PC procedures now in the parties' candidate selection processes there is no guarantee that those best qualified to be MPs would get onto the ballot paper anyway - even if they were attracted by a higher salary.
|
In his "peanuts and monkeys" post, Neil mentioned the "right people"; and you mention the "best qualified" ... in this funny old world, has any one of us given much thought to "qualifications"? What qualifies someone to be an MP? Looking at your present government, it would seem that attending Eton and Oxbridge are, if not necessary, at least a tremendous advantage
Over here, it seems as if a law degree is almost a necessity.
We all probably know what qualifications are required for a plumber or an electrician, a nurse or a doctor, an airline pilot etc. etc. But what should be the qualifications needed to represent thousands of people in the House of Commons (we call it that too
)? We all know what they tell us on the hustings. I will do this, and that; I will be honest, reliable, hard working, always ready to represent your interests ... and all kinds of other stuff that can be found emerging from the rear end of a bull, or a horse. But what should one look for, in terms of qualifications, in a potential MP? How high should our expectations be? How difficult is it be a back bencher (we call them that too
)? After all, they don't even have to listen to the debates, let alone contribute to them. They are told how to vote. Over here, one can be illiterate and run for office
If you can't sign your own nomination papers, a witnessed "X" will do