Suella Braverman - sacked as Home Secretary (p394)

mexico1970 said:
Have you ever heard of pulling the ladder up? I am working class but that isn't part of a competition I just referred to the way you sneered at the hypothetical Dave.

You're knocking a class of people not an actual person, as for your last statement Labour aren't that working class anymore so we can put that argument to bed with the other that just because you have made it to brain surgeon status others legitimately can't.
Click to expand...
What on earth makes you think I'm a brain surgeon? I'm not nearly that clever.

I am all for giving every single person the maximum opportunity to educate and advance themselves. I am probably (in that sense) as egalitarian as it gets. Now, I will grant you this. There is not nearly enough done in that direction. Partly because people would sooner pay £5 a month less tax. So far from pulling up the ladder, I want more ladders, many more. I suspect I am in the minority though.

The bottom line is this. Training people up to high-level jobs costs money. Big money. Both government and private industry are often not willing to make that investment when they can just bring someone in from abroad who is already trained. Plug and play. How you change this by voting, fuck knows. 'We will make you pay more tax to train our own people' is not necessarily a vote winner.

And the other bottom line is this, and I'm really sorry if it offends. Not everyone has the capacity to do these jobs any way. That was what I was referring to in my comment. It's not their fault, any more than it's my fault that I've got brown eyes. It just is. To draw a parallel, I was shit at football. Really shit. Even if you'd trained me eight hours a day, seven days a week, I would still not have been good enough, not even to play for Droylesden. Or even the Dog and Duck. Is it putting me down to say so? No, it's a fact.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
I think this is a worthwhile debate that often suffers from a lack of nuance. Is £86k a year a lot of money? For most people of course it is.

But it is also demonstrably true that being an MP attracts the kinds of people for who generating an income is not a big concern. Those being people who already have disproportionately high wealth and social station and crave power and prestige. You only have to look at parliament’s make up to see that. Believe Johnson when he says it’s chicken feed because it is to these people.

Unless they already have that wealth, it is simply not worth it for the best and brightest in this country to be an MP. Will the people who have the competence and capability to be leading lawyers, doctors, scientists etc. give up that opportunity for £86k with a decent chance you’ll be jobless every 5 years?

Absolutely not a hope in hell. I wouldn’t even consider it for a second and I’m decidedly not one of those people.

Empirically speaking, if you want more landed gentry types, decrease the MP salary - because you’ll get them in droves. If you want more diverse candidates, you need to increase it to make it a realistic option for a broader audience.

Understandably people inherently don’t like or agree with this because they like to think people become an MP out of some moral sacrifice, but unfortunately that just isn’t how it pans out in practice.
Click to expand...
Spot on.

A hard debate needs to be had about this, because public service is becoming a hobby. A bit like Philanthropy a game for the very wealthy to play in. The other side of the coin is, those from wealth are often best placed to "profit" from been an MP post their political career.

A similar discussion needs to be had about teaching and even in the next few years the medical profession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.