The perfect MP
The ideal politician is one who does nothing.
A politician who jumps up at any opportunity and makes a name for himself by grandstanding and coming up with new laws and opinions every other day is not one who has the interests of his electorate at heart. Such a person is only interested in themselves and the sound of their own voice. They tend to be more interested in promoting themselves so that they can climb the greasy pole upwards.
Such people are actually the worst politicians as they tendnot to have any skill or aptitude for the job. Witness any politician who gets into a ministerial role and immediately finds themselves out of depth and making mistakes left right and centre. One politician famously admitted that they had no training to run a department of thousands of people when installed as a minister. MPs must have had some managerial experience or should get the training when they become MPs.
But being able to manage is not the only prerequisite for the job of an MP. They also need life experience. Having a parliament made up of a wide variety of experiences is a good thing as it ensures that a lot of different backgrounds provide input into the debates. Currently our parliament is made of up a high proportion of lawyers and academics with a smattering of other types which does not provide for a balanced debate. That’s not to say that a 21 year old can’t be an MP, but generally MPs should be of middle age.
Now I should qualify the ‘does nothing’ aspect of the job of a politician. I don’t mean that they sit on their arse all day drinking and smoking and looking at porn. What it actually means is that they just get on with the job. They don’t need to announce to all and sundry that they are doing ‘x’ or ‘y’. 90% of people don’t give a fig what their politician does or who they are, so long as they look after them when they have a problem.
Most of the time the electorate don’t care who their MP is. Only if there is a problem and they need someone to badger some officious authority will they use their MP as a figurative battering ram. Only then does the MP need to show that they are good at their job. An MP who doesn’t interact with their electorate is not an MP, just a loud mouthed egotistical show off.
An MP should be talking with their electorate in what ever way works best to get feedback, be it twitter, facebook, blogs, or face to face. Also, they should understand that those who shout loudest aren’t necessarily those in the majority. One aspect of British society is that of keeping quiet and and not making a fuss unless really provoked so the majority are more likely to be the silent majority. Those who are shouting the loudest are most likely to be lobbyists. An MP should be able to see past those who are lobbying them and check what their hidden agenda really is.
An MP is elected to represent the interests of their electorate in parliament and use the power given to them on their election. Parliament is part of our democracy and is where MPs debate issues surrounding British society. Sometimes the results of these debates are new laws. MPs are expected to look into these new laws and ensure that they are implemented in a fair and proportionate way and that no minority is unfairly penalised. They should be able to look into the laws in a dispassionate manner so that mob rule doesn’t take over and that hard cases don’t end up making bad laws. Being a lawyer does help but also being able think in a logical manner also helps so it could be argued that computer programmers would make ideal politicians.
If in doubt the best thing that they should be doing is asking whether or not a new law is really necessary. Most of the time existing laws can cover what seems to be a novel and new situation. Human society might seem to have changed dramatically since our caveman times, but in reality there is very little difference in how society works. Yes, there have been loads of new high tech invented in the 20th century, but a lot of the time all they do is help us interact as we are social animals or give us pleasure in some form or other.
So new laws are only needed in very rare cases. This is the minimal state, one which does as little as possible. So you can now see why the perfect MP is one who does nothing.
-
January 7, 2011 at 02:49 -
@annaraccoon2010 How would you describe a perfect cop ?
-
January 7, 2011 at 03:10 -
It worries me that some (maybe most) politicians seem to think that their whole purpose in life is to pass more laws, so that people and society become ‘better’. If a politician bangs on about ‘change’, then you can be sure he’s one of those. Forget ‘change’. Let’s have a quiet and reasonable debate about how we can run things best, and then let’s shut up. Let’s have a trawl through the lawbooks and see what laws we can scrap because they are outdated or oppressive. Let’s make a rule that for any new law to be enacted, at least three will have to be scrapped. And let’s have a basic principle that, if you are harming no-one else, then you can do as you damn well please. The buggers are all hyperactive. Let’s get them some meds and have a quieter life.
-
January 7, 2011 at 09:54 -
‘Being a lawyer does help but also being able think in a logical manner also helps so it could be argued that computer programmers would make ideal politicians.’
Anna, you seem to be talking about some kind of medieval scholasticism here! Would these logicians have to be cloistered somewhere special? Perhaps they might emerge on special feast days – to still the irrational mob with demonstrations of their science! (Marx would smile – so too every tin pot dictator).
I agree with the sentiment of ‘less being more’. But I’d far rather this was borne out of humility rather than logic. Why should ‘being a lawyer’ be preferable to ‘being a poet’? or, God forbid, being just any one member of ‘the mob’?
Humility is quiet….knowing limits, seeking consensus (local concensus) and feeling the ground.
-
January 7, 2011 at 10:58 -
The bit about computer programmers was that they are trained to think of all the possible ways something might go wrong and to code that into the computer. A computer is dumb and must be told everything to the nth degree.
As for lawyer being preferable to a poet. No, I was stating that all jobs are equal but having too many of one type is not good. It’s the variety that is important.
-
January 7, 2011 at 11:58 -
Numerically, lawyers are already over represented in the HoC – and particularly so under New Labour – and it didn’t seem to help.
But it’s impossible to KNOW everything to the nth degree (let alone state it) – that was exactly my point – both politicians and scientists who make such a claim are totalitarians, pure and simple. We’re dealing with the reality of human life, not printed circuits. People are not dumb conduits. Nor are they a baying mob.
Yes, variety is important; but impossible to achieve so long as any one person (or group) believes themselves especially ‘trained to think of all the possible ways’. That IS scholasticism. And medieval.
I agree that ‘if in doubt they should be asking’. But this conflicts with your notion of a privileged logic and training. Politicians should abide in doubt – and care…..ie. humility.
-
-
-
January 7, 2011 at 10:10 -
I like the Peoples Manifesto idea: Scrap all laws, then just have two
Being out of order
Being bang out of order -
January 7, 2011 at 11:08 -
“I don’t mean they should be sitting on their arse all day smoking and drinking and looking at porn”.
I disagree. If only they would confine themselves to this, they would have done this country far less harm in the last fifty years. I say — give the buggers all the fags and booze and porn they can consume, and leave them to abuse themselves all day rather than us.
Also, I have thought for years that MPs should pass regular exams every year or so, just like our poor little kids. And if they fail, they are judged “not fit for purpose”, and debarred from standing for office again.
Better still, hung. But that’s just MY opinion, and who gives a damn about what I think?
-
January 7, 2011 at 11:40 -
What you have is the inevitable result of universal equal suffrage : ‘democracy’, as its proponents like to call it ; in reality ochlocracy.
You would not want your house re-wired by any-one other than a qualified electrician ; you’d be horrified at the idea of having a cardiac revascularization performed by the local butcher. Yet you seem happy to leave the choice of who will run the entire country to a largely unqualified mob.
Lenko suggests periodic examinations for members of Parliament ; perhaps it were better to have such tests for voters.
ΠΞ
-
January 7, 2011 at 12:27 -
My preferred choice of expression for the present regime would be cacopoeocracy: rule by evildoers.
-
January 7, 2011 at 13:00 -
Nice gloss, C.C.
ΠΞ
-
-
January 7, 2011 at 12:42
-
{ 14 comments }