We need normal people to be running the country

[Marianne1234]

Not these Etonian freaks who have no idea what it’s like to live in the real world.

Where are they all? The lawyers, accountants, teachers. Clever professionals who have been to the state schools. Used the NHS. Lived amongst normal people. Been skint students who have struggled to pay their bills. Cared for elderly relatives. Been working mothers. Worked for a living.

Not ridiculous anachronisms like JRM or hooray Henry’s like David Cameron or national embarrassments like Boris (who was a national embarrassment before he was ever the PM).

It really is true that people who want to be in politics, should not be anywhere near it. Maybe we should conscript the normal people

Part of the problem (imho) is that since Blair, we have moved towards US style 'personality' politics. It's all about whether you 'like them', or would they be a good bloke to 'go for a drink with'. Which probably isn't the best criteria for a leader!

Why would any sensible, clever professional go into politics?

Despite the view that it’s a gravy train, a lot of professionals can earn far more outside politics than in.

It’s a totally thankless task, abuse, death threats, being told you’re useless and idle despite working your arse off, people who disagree with you thinking you’re scum because they’re utterly incapable of having a reasoned debate about anything.

It’s just not worth it.

I mentioned this on a thread yesterday. We need normal people who have lived ordinary lives and have worked hard to get to where they have, not walked into a job through privilege, or have been too changed by the success that they have had if they have come from more humble beginnings.

The trouble with this current PM and cabinet minsters is they move jobs on what seems like a monthly basis. I don't get how you can be an expert in transport and logistics one week and then in education the next. Experts and people with lived experience working in these fields need to be in these jobs as they can understand how things will play out if a policy is changed or introduced. The constant chaos of having self-elected experts who move roles so frequently (because they are shit and shouldn't be in them in the first place) just leads to a lack of stability, leadership and stagnation, which is basically what has happened in this country for the last 10 years. It's very convenient though for this government who avoid tackling real issues in the long term. It's a reactive government, not a proactive one.

Another issue is it seems people want a celebrity as a PM, and not someone who has worked hard and understands real people just because they appear to be a bit dull. They want the annoying snazzy tie weirdo in the office to run the company instead.

[quote onlychildhamster]@MorningStarling Keir Rodney Starmer was born in Southwark, London, on 2 September 1962[1][2] and grew up in the small town of Oxted in Surrey.[3][4][5] He was born the second of the four children of Josephine (née Baker), a nurse, and Rodney Starmer, a toolmaker

He has a far more 'ordinary' childhood than most people I know...He was also far more successful in his career than almost anyone I know. Sounds like a good combination.

After all we should respect people for what they have done with their lives, not who their parents were.[/quote]
The fact that he grew up in oxtead in Surrey means that he’s far more privileged than most of the country to start with. I grew up there too so I know it well.

It's not just the politicians though, is it? What about the permanent civil servants who are the ones who "really" run the country, many of whom stay in their jobs (or move on the magic merry go round) when the political party in power changes hands.

"Normal" people probably wouldn't want the interference and intense scrutiny into their home/family/personal life. The Lib Dems had, for a very short period of time, a brilliant leader in Tim Farron, who is an exceptional and popular, hard working MP in South Cumbria - he'd have done wonders for the Lib Dems, but resigned as leader pretty quickly due to the intrusion into personal religious beliefs.

The fact that he grew up in oxtead in Surrey means that he’s far more privileged than most of the country to start with. I grew up there too so I know it well.

That’s absurd. Are you seriously suggesting that the child of a cleaner in Oxtead is more privileged than the child of a lawyer in Manchester? Catch yourself on.

GreenLunchBox It's just one big piss-take

amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/17/rishi-sunak-refuses-to-say-if-he-will-profit-from-moderna-covid-vaccine?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16432134811309&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=Da%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2020%2Fnov%2F17%2Frishi-sunak-refuses-to-say-if-he-will-profit-from-moderna-covid-vaccine

@SuitcaseOfWhine

The trouble with this current PM and cabinet minsters is they move jobs on what seems like a monthly basis. I don't get how you can be an expert in transport and logistics one week and then in education the next.

That's the same regardless of party. It's always been that way. The current office holders are no better no worse than prior governments of all colours. The reality is that it's the civil servants who actually run the departments and who "feed" options to the current minister of their dept. Of course, the ministers should have some experience/qualifications in their dept in a perfect world, but if it was an absolute requirement, you'd have situations where there was only one MP with a law qualification who therefore "had to be" the attorney general or only one MP who is a qualified accountant who "had to be" the Chancellor - regardless of their actual ability and competence in ministerial office. That's just as ridiculous.

Oxted.
If you grew up there why spell it like that?
I know there area well and there is a traveller community, big social housing estate and pockets of deprivation.

He certainly wasn't privileged.

@Silverswirl there are all types of people in almost every area in the UK bar places like Knightsbridge. In my area, there are ex council flats costing £300k all the way up to £30 million houses. there are children who need food banks to eat, alongside children who probably have never seen the inside of a tube train. And everyone in between. No one is necessarily 'privileged' because of the area they live in because the experiences in the same area can be very very different based on who your parents are and what your living circumstances are. Disadvantaged children in London probably have more of an advantage in the sense that their schools tend to be better (even the rough comprehensives) and they can stay at home while saving for a deposit as my DH did; but at the same time, i think truly disadvantaged children do face other problems that inhibit their success even in London (knife crime is very high and there is high unemployment amongst disadvantaged london youths).

Normal

As an accountant (high end of 5 figure salary), with a working class background, I probably fit the OPs ideal pretty well.

There are a huge number of reasons why I wouldn't want to be an MP

• job uncertainty - you can lose your job every five years, so you need to be confident of walking straight into a job or having the money behind you for it not to matter
• time away from home - as a mum of a fairly young child, I wouldn't want to have to be away from him in London as often as would be needed as an MP
• stalling my career - it would be hard to go back into my role or a similar role after 5/ 10 years away from it
• not being part of the "old boys club" - I've had to prove myself already in my career in that sort of environment and wouldn't want to have to face it again, either to other MPs or to journalists/ the public who will judge your accent rather than your abilities, especially as a woman

The fact that he grew up in oxtead[sic] in Surrey means that he’s far more privileged than most of the country to start with. I grew up there too so I know it well.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

@daimbarsatemydogsbone - reporting from the station live 😁

I think it's the senior civil servants who need to be "normal" and have real world exposure, i.e. qualified accountants with experience in practice/business running the Treasury, which would be permanent long term jobs. We seem to have a lot of "career" civil servants who get their jobs through the old boy's network who are elevating beyond their qualifications, experience and abilities, or graduates without experience who know nothing but their civil service bubble.

Eg, we constantly get bad decisions made by the Treasury, whether in the annual Budget, or the Covid business support schemes. Real-life accountants spot the mistakes/omissions almost immediately, but the policiticians/civil servants refuse to accept they're wrong and won't change things.

A classic was Gordon Brown's paymaster general, Dawn Primarolo, who stood in Parliament and made an announcement that she didn;t think small businesses would convert themselves into limited companies "just to save tax", following Brown's stupid tax reductions which affected only limited companies and not sole traders. In the weeks and months that followed, literally tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of sole traders converted themselves into limited companies!

Is that your Kebab shop advertising? 😂😂

because being cleaners, retail staff and Uber drivers doesn't fit you for reading and analysing policy, speaking on your feet, picking apart arguments and scrutinising legislation. Sure, people who have done those jobs will bring valuable lived experience to Parliament but there is education needed too.

This is why a better democracy isn't just government by plebiscite or sortiton or whatever.

[quote onlychildhamster]@Silverswirl there are all types of people in almost every area in the UK bar places like Knightsbridge. In my area, there are ex council flats costing £300k all the way up to £30 million houses. there are children who need food banks to eat, alongside children who probably have never seen the inside of a tube train. And everyone in between. No one is necessarily 'privileged' because of the area they live in because the experiences in the same area can be very very different based on who your parents are and what your living circumstances are. Disadvantaged children in London probably have more of an advantage in the sense that their schools tend to be better (even the rough comprehensives) and they can stay at home while saving for a deposit as my DH did; but at the same time, i think truly disadvantaged children do face other problems that inhibit their success even in London (knife crime is very high and there is high unemployment amongst disadvantaged london youths).[/quote]
Oxtstead is a world away from London (but surprising close in actual distance of course) and yes I have lived and worked in multiple parts of London.
The vast vast majority of oxstead village is extremely privileged. You have to be to even consider living there.
Of course there are exceptions but I’m speaking about the vast majority.
How widely have you travelled and lived in various parts of England? I can assure you, most people’s experience of living as a ‘normal non privileged person’ or a ‘poor person’ in the poorer areas of Surrey (which oxtead is not btw) is vastly different from a ‘non privelidged’ person in say South Wales or Birmingham or the poorer parts of Manchester for example.

It's not just about whether you were born into money, the biggest job representatives should be well represented. Eg nurses, teachers, builders, civil servants. A lot of MPs seem to be career politicians.

I agree MPS should be paid more

This is why a better democracy isn't just government by plebiscite or sortiton or whatever

Ok but they don't actually scrutinise legislation do they. if they decide they want to vote against, they get silenced. As for the presenting of arguments, they (Boris especially) just tell lies and make it up as they go along. Not a skill you need to go to Eton for.

@MakeYourOwnLollies

because being cleaners, retail staff and Uber drivers doesn't fit you for reading and analysing policy, speaking on your feet, picking apart arguments and scrutinising legislation. Sure, people who have done those jobs will bring valuable lived experience to Parliament but there is education needed too.

This is why a better democracy isn't just government by plebiscite or sortiton or whatever.

Angela Rayner seems to be doing OK. Alan Johnson (former postman) was one of the best PMs we never had. What you need is intellect, there are plenty of bright people with very little education.

@NiceShrubbery

This is why a better democracy isn't just government by plebiscite or sortiton or whatever

Ok but they don't actually scrutinise legislation do they. if they decide they want to vote against, they get silenced. As for the presenting of arguments, they (Boris especially) just tell lies and make it up as they go along. Not a skill you need to go to Eton for.

Well it is in a way. Validated privilege which breeds arrogance which is needed to tell (and keep the stoney face pretence) of the lies and is most definitely needed to have the belief in yourself when you know that really you are just making it up

@Silverswirl like many places in the Home Counties, the property prices in oxted are cheaper than my bit of suburban north london. Of course for a poorer person, it would be more accessible to live in north london than surrey in many cases due to availability of public transport (lower cost of commuting) and more gig economy jobs. Hence why there are more poor people in London than in Surrey- I have talked to my office cleaners and they seem mainly to live in zone 5.

However, for people working in the NHS or in the trades like Keir's parents were, it probably doesn't make a difference. It makes a big difference for someone like me who commutes to the City or even someone who works in the restaurant trade in central london.

The problem is that the sort of person who wants to become a politician is usually manifestly not in it for the people. Even back in the day it was all personal ambition.

The various requirements of rank were dropped and you did get people rising up through the ranks, like Kier Hardy and so on, but the fact remains that in either party you still need to have quite a lot of time to campaign, schmooze and even get considered for election and time is the preserve of those with money or willing helpers. So usually middle class or above, and male, even now.

I would love to represent my community but i'm flat out teaching all day and marking in the evenings and caring for kids and an elderly parent and I cannot spare even an evening to go along to party meetings and bring myself to selection. You need a lot of time and support to be able to do that.