job share MP - will that ever happen

[ArkeNOTen]

Inspired by the Brian Cox thread but not 'about' it. I was thinking about it and I know it's been mooted before but I wonder if anyone will ever try to properly jobshare the role of MP? For example: someone mentioned BC would be wasted as an MP - and actually his wife Gia is incredibly intelligent, perceptive and would make a good MP in her own right - but imagine if they could jobshare?

Call me massively idealistic but it could make sense in the case of quite a few people I could imagine. It might also avoid the 'career MP' thing where MPs have only ever worked in Whitehall, and allow a more diverse bunch. I'm thinking aloud though - perhaps that's what the house of Lords is/should be for....

Fed up of MPs who don't know how to interpret statistics or science, or have any interest in their brief really.

The Green Party went to the High Court when two green party women's joint candidacy was refused.

They lost
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/28/green-party-job-share-mp-high-court-rejected

One of the candidates (Clare Phipps) has become quite famous for her role in the mentoring, coaching, promotion and support of Aimee Challoner, during AC's rise to prominence and while ClareP was the Chair of the Green party Executive. Clare is doing a PHd in 'gender and health'. She heads up the Non-Men section of the Green party and frankly, you would be hard-pressed to find a person who has done as much damage to the GPEW itself and gender critical feminists.

She may feature some more in the report into the David Challoner inquiry. It's a great pity that she, rather than someone with a true interest in women's participation in politics, put her name forward to test the law.

Ah OK. That's a bit annoying.

I would imagine at some point in the future someone will challenge it then. Maybe with the backing of a major party.

I could really see it making sense

The problem I see with job sharing is that, fundamentally, we vote for a specific person as an MP. It seems like a job share would lead to bait-and-switch tactics, reducing what limited influence the public currently has and permitting MPs to avoid taking responsibility to an even greater extent.

No, it wouldn't work in our democratic set up, where we have individuals elected to represent a specific constituency and where we have (albeit limited) rights to hold them to account for their performance in post

I think that the second chamber (which will continue to be called the Lords for a very long time) should be where people with broader experience should able to participate in politics. For example, Robert Winston is a life peer without having been an elected MP

To bring in more diverse MPs - and those with more life experience than the usual PPE at Oxbridge / bag-carrier for MP / minor party position / MP in a safe seat - we need to reform how Parliament works and make it far more modern. And really challenge parties on how they select their candidates

What happens if the two disagree on a vote? That's the obvious issue.

You should read Isabel Hartman's book 'why we get the wrong politicians'

I don't think we will get job share politicians- how would the agree on policy? What if they disagreed on something? Who would vote if they couldn't agree?

Interesting idea, it wouldn't work but does highlight how our democratic set up needs to change to become more effective. Potentially a change could also result in more women in parliament as well as people with more diverse backgrounds, skills, experiences.

Interesting... @poshme I will have a look at that.

I actually think that pairs of leaders/owners/auteurs have worked very well in the past. I have a sneaking suspicion that the idea of one leader/author/originator is a very patriarchal idea. (In film its called the ‘auteur’ theory and the theory is that the director is ‘responsible’ for the whole film - totally denying contributions from a team of people working in unison - a very male viewpoint)

The voting thing though... I don’t know but I would imagine a job share would only continue to work if both parters homoured the agreement they had discussed - like any other decision-making process involving two people (parenting for example)

Sounds great in theory as an idea for making the role more open to involved parents etc....

But as everybody else said, I think the practicalities and the fact that it is a "buck stops here" kind of role, you need one person to be held to account. Means it's unworkable.

I don't think two people in that role can work.

Picture your toddler, or your teenager, with two parents. If mum says no, they go to dad, or vice versa. Actually I get it in school, too - teacher will say no to something and some of the kids will come to the TA with the exact same request five minutes later. Now imagine a persistent adult playing two MPs off against each other..."but Mrs xxxx agrees with me on this point!". The sort of green ink, what-about-the-drains-in-Hackney type will think nothing of taking up double surgery time.