Guilt Free Railing 14

[WouldBeGood]

😱 I think we will need this thread.. could it be the last?!

And @StarryEyeSurprise I agree about the endemic sleaze and corruption. Scratch the surface and everyone is on the make.

Not a fan of ageism, we should treat all protected categories equally.

Imagine the outcry if we put a ten year condition on the other end?

With Alice in the agree to disagree camp. Some of the young people I've been privileged to teach would inspire me far more than some slumbering back and front benchers.

Okay, I know what you mean about discrimination, however, I just don't think it's appropriate for parties to be putting up candidates with no life experience. If a 21 year old stood as an independent and was able to gain election then fair enough, but people vote for a party more than the person so the candidate themselves are not necessarily the choice someone would make.

There are too many folk elected that have no life experience for what is essentially a high level job with an associated high salary. There is no way that most people in their early 20s (or any age to be fair) would be able to walk into a management level job without being able to demonstrate competence and experience.

Depends what you mean by life experience. I think what a lot of young people go through would shock you. There are kids in high school have more of a certain type of life experience than I do and I'm in my 30s. Age doesn't totally determine skills and abilities or indeed life experience.

Hence why I said life experience, not age @alicesfavouritepen 😃

Well aware of what youngsters go through: personal experience and work

Apologies @WouldBeGood I was replying to @ElephantOfRisk who talked about putting up candidates of 21 with no life experience. A candidate of 21 might have more life experience than a candidate of 31 was my point.

Yeah, best they’re not self seeking wankers, whatever their age 🤣 That’s really what I think

Which is why something like a beefed up youth parliament would be valuable. But, being a politician isn't just about having an opportunity to put your own views across, it's about being able to support and represent your constituents. Same as being a manager in a business isn't just about having good ideas or being a decent person, it's about being able to make appropriate decisions, supporting your staff, having experience and understanding and life skills.

Being an MP at the moment doesn't require you to have any of that per se. There isn't a promotion scheme where you start as a junior and under supervision and as you demonstrate competence and ability you get moved up to have more responsibility and salary. Well I guess there is a structure (move to Junior minister etc) but it starts too high up imo.

I just believe that some young people absolutely could and would support their constituents well. In fact there have been precedents so hopefully no age discrimination anytime soon!

And whilst there will be some 21 year olds with more life experience than some 30 year old, the average 30 year old will have more life experience than the average 21 year old.

I am not sure what the answer is but it's not what we have now. An alternative to party politics and people standing on their own policies and character would be good but it wouldn't work either.

When you talk about life experience, I don't think multi millionaires who were born into extreme wealth and have multiple , extravagant homes and multiple streams of income from dividends and such like, should be MPs. Or at least, they shouldn't be entitled to tax payer funded homes.

@ElephantOfRisk

And whilst there will be some 21 year olds with more life experience than some 30 year old, the average 30 year old will have more life experience than the average 21 year old.

Sure but if you impose an age restriction then we lose a whole pool of potentially great representatives. That's all I'm saying. Age is irrelevant imo.

@StarryEyeSurprise

When you talk about life experience, I don't think multi millionaires who were born into extreme wealth and have multiple , extravagant homes and multiple streams of income from dividends and such like, should be MPs. Or at least, they shouldn't be entitled to tax payer funded homes.

It's strange isn't it that so many of this type are attracted to politics. 🙄

This Tory Government has enriched its sponsors, supporters, donors, family, friends and the private sector pockets from the public taxpayer purse.

"£252m of public money given to Ayanda Capital, registered in Mauritius for tax dodging, to supply PPE that never appeared.

£186m of public money given to Uniserve Ltd of Essex, the UK’s largest privately owned logistics and global trade management company, to supply PPE that never appeared.

£116m of public money given to P14 Medical Ltd of Liverpool, which had liabilities exceeding assets by £485,000 in December 2019 with just £145 in the bank, for PPE that never appeared.

£108m of public money given to PestFix, with 16 employees and net assets of £19,000, for PPE that never appeared.

£14.2m and a subsequent £93.2m of public money given to Clandeboye Agencies Ltd, a confectionery wholesaler in Co Antrim, for PPE that never appeared.

£40m of public money given to Medicine Box Ltd of Sutton-in-Ashfield, despite having assets of just £6,000 in March, for PPE that never appeared.

£32m and a subsequent £16m of public money given to Initia Ventures Ltd, filed for dormancy in January this year, for PPE that never appeared.

£28m of public money given to Monarch Acoustics Ltd of Nottingham, makers of shop and office furniture, for PPE that never appeared.

£25m of public money given to Luxe Lifestyle Ltd, to supply garments for biological or chemical protection to the NHS. According to Companies House, the business was incorporated by fashion designer Karen Brost in November 2018. It appears to have no employees, no assets and no turnover.

£18.4m of public money given to Aventis Solutions Ltd of Wilmslow, with just £322 in assets, for PPE that never appeared.

£10m of public money given to Medco Solutions Ltd, incorporated on 26 March (three days after lockdown) with a share capital of just £2, for PPE that never appeared.

£1.1m of public money given to Bristol shoemaker Toffeln Ltd, had seemingly never supplied any PPE whatsoever in the past, for PPE that never appeared.

£825,000 of public money given to MGP Advisory, described as a venture and development capital business that was in danger of being struck off the companies register for failing to file accounts, for no one knows what...

Surely this is criminal. However, the set up of the UK Gov is such that it's accepted, this corruption on a massive scale. The public accept it as we're used to it.

No one protests against the ultra wealthy helping the rest of the ultra wealthy become richer. For example, Boris and Goldsmith. Or Boris and Patterson. It's enshrined in our government.
The ultra wealthy can't be touched as they form the majority of the government which run the UK. And their whole raison d'etre is to become more wealthy. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. And Joe Public will vote them in, time and time again.

I really do find it strange how people keep voting for corrupt or incompetent governments

@StarryEyeSurprise

When you talk about life experience, I don't think multi millionaires who were born into extreme wealth and have multiple , extravagant homes and multiple streams of income from dividends and such like, should be MPs. Or at least, they shouldn't be entitled to tax payer funded homes.

I'm sure many multi millionaires or people born rich also have good life experience or are you saying that only people from humble/difficult beginnings can represent people?

Sure but if you impose an age restriction then we lose a whole pool of potentially great representatives. That's all I'm saying. Age is irrelevant imo.

But you aren't losing them? They might just have to wait. I suggested an age or an experience level so you could still be young as long as you met the experience level of having done something other than gone straight into politics.

This Tory Government has enriched its sponsors, supporters, donors, family, friends and the private sector pockets from the public taxpayer purse.

Maybe give the party political broadcast a rest?

All parties are riddled with corruption and the one you support has pissed tax payers money up the wall whilst pretending to maintain the moral high ground.

But you aren't losing them? They might just have to wait. I suggested an age or an experience level so you could still be young as long as you met the experience level of having done something other than gone straight into politics.

It's a slippery slope if you ask me. One of your suggestions is ageist and the other will end up valuing certain experiences over others. I do think that when you become employed as an MP or MSP you shouldn't have another job.

@ElephantOfRisk

This Tory Government has enriched its sponsors, supporters, donors, family, friends and the private sector pockets from the public taxpayer purse.

Maybe give the party political broadcast a rest?

All parties are riddled with corruption and the one you support has pissed tax payers money up the wall whilst pretending to maintain the moral high ground.

But this is a railing thread. Surely Tory corruption is a valid topic?

Same in every party? Eh no! Totally inaccurate. It's honestly no wonder they keep getting away with it.

I’d like honesty, integrity and an ability to see how life is for normal everyday people

@WouldBeGood absolutely!

Okay, so do you think there are many jobs that a 21 year old with no actual experience can get that pays over £65k (or over £80k)? The job market is inherently ageist then as most jobs paying that will expect people to have experience and skills that they wont have at 21. But we somehow don't seem to think that they people doing this important job should have any of that?

I certainly agree that they shouldn't have 2nd jobs or work as directors or own their own businesses without evidencing that someone else runs them in their entirety, especially when they can't do the one they are paid for properly.

Of course it's a valid topic but we don't need stuff just pasted in from whatever article someone happens to be reading.

If you show me the party that doesn't have a level of corruption in it then I'll stand corrected. Of course not every individual in a party is corrupt.

Okay, so do you think there are many jobs that a 21 year old with no actual experience can get that pays over £65k (or over £80k)? The job market is inherently ageist then as most jobs paying that will expect people to have experience and skills that they wont have at 21. But we somehow don't seem to think that they people doing this important job should have any of that?

Why are you so insistent that a 21 year old has no experience? I can't think of many jobs that pay that much to be honest that don't require years of study. Politics does pay that much and doesn't require any study or qualification so I don't see why young people should be ineligible for that.

I certainly agree that they shouldn't have 2nd jobs or work as directors or own their own businesses without evidencing that someone else runs them in their entirety, especially when they can't do the one they are paid for properly.

Who is they? Do you have a particular person in mind or just all of them? These are massive generalisations surely?