This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[Blair]

The problem with candidate quality is like with most things time, experience & money; with the party lacking all three.

My hunch is that the approach to candidates in target seats will be the same- give them a poorly paid organiser who runs door knocking sessions while the candidate does some local press, gets pictured pointing at potholes and then when the short campaign comes flood the seat with activists and leaflets.

There is no formal training structure in the basics even once you become an MP; how to hire staff, how to film good videos, what not to do on social media, how to get on with your local party, how to engage your members etc etc. A lot of it is learnt on the job by people who have no experience in managing a budget or running an organisation*.

The only way Labour MPs generally get training is either through their prior work as a political bag carrier or through the trade unions; the best media performers across the party have all either worked in politics or the trade union movement. But these people tend to have other uhm questionable traits- see the long list of Labour MPs who worked for Gordon Brown.

You get former councillors who understood some of the unwritten THIGMOO rules but they're more likely to be well the types of people who become councillors.


*Keir is one of the very few to not have had any formal role in the party before becoming an MP- and the only leader of a major party to have held a big public sector role before becoming leader. It explains some of his strengths but also mistakes in the last two years- as you can often physically sense him banging his head against the various moving parts of Labour.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

What makes it hard to attract quality people to run for office ? being an MP seems like a nice and cushy job ?

[Pericles]

What makes it hard to attract quality people to run for office ? being an MP seems like a nice and cushy job ?

I imagine that the abuse and threats made against MPs in the Brexit debate turned some people off.

[CumbrianLefty]

Though there still seems to be quite a lot of interest in it whenever a sitting MP retires/resigns/dies.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bluntly, the issue (and this is hardly a problem only for Labour as the present low caliber of government MPs rather brutally demonstrates) is that while there are a lot of people who want to be an MP, there is less interest than used to be the case from people who might actually make for good representatives or useful ministers.

[Zinneke]

Bluntly, the issue (and this is hardly a problem only for Labour as the present low caliber of government MPs rather brutally demonstrates) is that while there are a lot of people who want to be an MP, there is less interest than used to be the case from people who might actually make for good representatives or useful ministers.

I believe someone wrote an entire book on why this is, "why the UK gets the wrong politicians "- and the main issue remains that MPs are expected to fulfill roles in their constuencies that in other countries are fulfilled by councillors or mayors. And that as a result they have to be adept at solving issues caused by poor legislation rather than actually being good legislators.

Nevertheless I'd also maintain that it's a Western wide problem of political decline and it starts at university level where elites are formed. A good start would be to abolish the PPE degree for example.

[Blair]

Bluntly, the issue (and this is hardly a problem only for Labour as the present low caliber of government MPs rather brutally demonstrates) is that while there are a lot of people who want to be an MP, there is less interest than used to be the case from people who might actually make for good representatives or useful ministers.

There was also in the past much more willingness for CLPs to accept MPs who were not local- if the person was seen as being a future minister, or an asset to the party at large.

This comes from the changing role of MPs as others have said- my mothers MP in the 1950s was seen in the constituency about four times a year, and this was a seat that was only 50 minutes on the train from Westminster. It was not expected that they would be a hyper-local social worker who banged on about bin collections & the location of garden gates- we partly have the Liberal Democrats to thank for this- as they discovered this was the only way they could elect and keep MPs.

It has only got worse over the last decade as the social net has been ripped apart and the usual points of appeal (citizens advice service, trading standards etc) are shells and husks- meaning your MP is often the only point of recourse you have to fix the various flaws in the system.

What makes it hard to attract quality people to run for office ? being an MP seems like a nice and cushy job ?

From a labour point of view it's largely an issue of time & money- in order to become a councillor you are expected to have volunteered for the party & have a role in the local community. In order to do this you need free time, and getting selected is a lot easier if you have time & money to spend calling people and sending out leaflets.

To become an MP you then need to have spent years building up connections; it is very rare & difficult for someone to get selected without either prior work in a trade union, a base in the local council, a role in party as a staffer or the backing of a political machine

Virtually every Labour MP in London has come up via this route.

In terms of the job itself you would earn more money working as a headteacher in a secondary school in London. The headteachers probably works the same hours & would have more actual power.

It's the type of job that can be very cushy if you do it badly e.g only speak on matters that interest you, don't attend your constituency other than remembrance Sunday but there is much more of a danger that you get found out.

There was also broadly two types of MPs; those in safe seats and those in marginals. It's increasingly an issue that safe seats are getting fewer & fewer- Dominic Raab got given a safe seat in 2010, and he's now having to spend his Christmas holiday attending photo ops in his seat because it's no longer safe.
 

[Conservatopia]

I believe someone wrote an entire book on why this is, "why the UK gets the wrong politicians"

I think it was Isabel Hardman but don't let that put anybody off reading it - it's a good book.

[CumbrianLefty]

A good start would be to abolish the PPE degree for example.

Something where many on the left fully agree with Mr Cummings. And absolutely correctly.

[Cassius]

In addition to the above, being an MP used to be a role that was compatible with having extensive work interests outside of politics, such as being a barrister. For reasons mentioned above (you could well call it the ‘Irishing’ of the MP’s role) this isn’t as much the case now and the expectation on the part of the public is that the MP will devote themselves full time to their role as a representative, hence all the sturm und drang, for example, over Sir Geoffrey Cox’s perfectly legitimate legal work last year. As Blair said above, it’s not surprising that high calibre professionals increasingly tend to eschew politics given that they will earn much less money and get much more abuse. It’s also worth bearing in mind that, given the centralisation of party messaging and discipline that has taken place in the last few decades, the ideal MP from the perspective of, say, Conservative central office, is a lobby fodder drone, and highly qualified professionals don’t tend to make good lobby fodder drones.

[Conservatopia]

Funnily enough allowing MPs to have second jobs was actually a progressive reform because it meant that people without a wealthy background could be MP without being impoverished.  That was back before MPs were paid 80k though of course.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

SNIP

This seems to be a flaw of FPTP given the duality of the role, thought PR systems aren't exactly much better in terms of quality of parlimenterains. Generally speaking, are the Liberal democrats more flexible in terms of the qualifications of candidates than labour? and is it true that the conservative then to have a more central vetting system

[Blair]

SNIP

This seems to be a flaw of FPTP given the duality of the role, thought PR systems aren't exactly much better in terms of quality of parlimenterains. Generally speaking, are the Liberal democrats more flexible in terms of the qualifications of candidates than labour? and is it true that the conservative then to have a more central vetting system

The quality of MEPs was even worse over the last decade- and that was elected on a PR basis in the UK. Really the quality was dreadful- with a number of exceptions in the past; it use to be where relatively high profile anti-EEC left wingers went.

The Liberal Democrats will generally always pick someone who is local & who can look good on their leaflets; if they're very brave they might even pick someone who ideologically aligns with their party! They use to have the luxury of being able to parachute some well qualified party bureaucrat into seats but they lack safe seats these days.   

And yes the Conservative Party have a relative iron fist in that all candidates have to be approved by the central party; you're placed on a list & are required to do x number of campaign days or visits.

An example for the alternative history books is that Theresa Mays spad Nick Timothy (who wrote the disastrous 2017 manifesto) was blocked from the list in 2015 when he didn't campaign in a by-election.

[Blair]

The Conservative selections can be more interesting as they tend to put high profile candidates up against each other; the expectation is that you'll stand in multiple seats* & it's rare for all of them to be local to the county let alone the seat! They could of course do this in 2010 & 2015 as there were lots of target seats and a lot of retirements.

This does at least give local members a chance to chose- the usual labour practice is to put one person on the shortlist who is competent/loyal to the powers that be & then fill the rest of the shortlist with no-hopers & random activists. This has infamously backfired many a times- including with current members of the PLP!


*This ofc favours the wealthy- John Bercow hired a helicopter to get to two selection meetings on the same day. Although he belongs on this thread now as he's now a member of THIGMOO!

[Conservatopia]

And yes the Conservative Party have a relative iron fist in that all candidates have to be approved by the central party; you're placed on a list & are required to do x number of campaign days or visits.

All true - but as with anything in the Conservative Party there are no hard-and-fast ways of doing things and there can be tremendous differences from seat-to-seat and leader-to-leader. Remember when open primaries were all the rage in the Tories? Whatever

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

SNIP

This seems to be a flaw of FPTP given the duality of the role, thought PR systems aren't exactly much better in terms of quality of parlimenterains. Generally speaking, are the Liberal democrats more flexible in terms of the qualifications of candidates than labour? and is it true that the conservative then to have a more central vetting system

The quality of MEPs was even worse over the last decade- and that was elected on a PR basis in the UK. Really the quality was dreadful- with a number of exceptions in the past; it use to be where relatively high profile anti-EEC left wingers went.

The Liberal Democrats will generally always pick someone who is local & who can look good on their leaflets; if they're very brave they might even pick someone who ideologically aligns with their party! They use to have the luxury of being able to parachute some well qualified party bureaucrat into seats but they lack safe seats these days.  

And yes the Conservative Party have a relative iron fist in that all candidates have to be approved by the central party; you're placed on a list & are required to do x number of campaign days or visits.

An example for the alternative history books is that Theresa Mays spad Nick Timothy (who wrote the disastrous 2017 manifesto) was blocked from the list in 2015 when he didn't campaign in a by-election.

I've actually met one of Theresa May's former parliamentary assistants from back when she was in shadow cabinet, he said that the reason he moved to Singapore was that his initial dreams of becoming an MP were crushed after his first attempt campaigning.

On the quality of MEP's isn't that primarly because they were irrelevant and treated as such, frankly some of UKIP's MEP's seemed like random cranks who got put on the list because they were the only ones who applied.

[Zinneke]

With MEPs in general you can tell instantly which countries' political classes take the EP seriously and which don't.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

With MEPs in general you can tell instantly which countries' political classes take the EP seriously and which don't.

Which country sends quality MEP's? other than the Netherlands i can't think of any. And what's the point when european parliment has no actual power or role, remember when everyone was hyped last election about how finaly the MEP would vote in a parlimentary through a democratic proccese with the various parlimentary bloc leaders actualy competing with each other.

Then Macron threw a hissy fit and it went to the same old backroom proccese as before.

[Zinneke]

The EP's power and role has expanded significantly, and actually is deserving of more technical MEPs who understand trade, logistics and other EU competences where they have influence.

The NL is indeed a good student in this respect, even their Eurosceptic MPs know their brief. Belgium, even though we have a horrible political class, tends to send decent MEPs too. And some Eastern European countries also show clearly that there is value having a career in Brussels. Italy is a mixed bag but Brussels is considered an El Dorado for many who want to be involved (they also dominate the consultancies and lobbies, more than French and Germans even...).

France is genuinely pathetic - MEPs have notoriously terrible attendance rates - and Macron;'s half arsed attempt to form a coherent political block with Renew Europe was undermined by Loiseau being a gossipy arrogant cow and LREM still lacking depth in numbers. But then even though backroom processes are imposed by Macron, he still loses a lot by not having the network that the EPP grouping for example gives you. I obviously dislike the EPP but its an example of how to control the right levers of power in the EU, and obviously the French dislike it calling it the EPP deep state : https://www.liberation.fr/international/europe/la-cour-des-comptes-europeenne-debloque-les-conservateurs-font-bloc-20211201_AD6TVYAVXFBD3GZWINUZNZS3GE/

But all I have to say to the French whinging is : get your act together as coherent force and stop thinking Macron appearing on TV with hard words helps in any way. I want to say that to the European Left as a whole too - the EPP model is the one to follow. Cohesion at Council, EP and national level, and it makes things far more effecient anyway.  

[CumbrianLefty]

When is the EP ever going to be moved to a single permanent location? That's what I want to know.

(and the fact it moves around the place like it does was a gift to pro-Brexit people here)

[Zinneke]

When is the EP ever going to be moved to a single permanent location? That's what I want to know.

(and the fact it moves around the place like it does was a gift to pro-Brexit people here)

Oh yeah that's also scandalous but again its French petty symbolic nationalism that means every final week of the legislative mini-cycle the MEPs are in Strasbourg to vote on texts the committees worked on in Brussels. The French still promote the idea that Strasbourg is the real capital of Europe and the official Parliament so it encourages the lazy feckless MEPs they elect to set up an office in Strasbourg and only attend the general plenary debates there so that they can get their 5 minute youtube clip up (since that is where the likes of Farage cut their cloth in the media sphere, with the big speeches in Strasbourg, not on the small details that are worked on in Brussels). The French chauvinists like Jean Quatremer argue we are only the EU capital by accident anyway and that technically we were a temporary solution, but they are just sour individuals who remind us all why the guillotine was invented.

The weird thing is I am in favor of decentralizing EU institutions from Brussels, I actually think we are logistically a terrible choice to start hosting a lot of EU institutions and agencies. I want the German model of making every city (and not just capitals!) have a specialization in a policy sphere with universities alongside them pooling from that policy bubble. I think the Hague for example would be a better candidate for EU diplomacy and foreign policy formation - also because Dutch counter-intelligence is better. I also think things like IT and technology need to be allocated somewhere else than Brussels which has the worst internet connections per euro in the West. But don't implement these pipe-dreams in a way that makes one entire institution (that while is undeserving of its tag of powerless and useless, is definitely over-bloated!) have to move every 3 weeks down to a place that has notoriously bad train connections from Brussels.

Anyway we are going ferociously off topic.

[Blair]

Interesting that Rachel Reeves is fronting this for Labour- but it's an more significant intervention on energy prices and is what a number of people have been calling for over the past week.

https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1480135146468749315?ref_src=twsrc%5Ego...

[Blair]

I'm not sure if I've posted it before but Reeves is arguably the most powerful politician other than Starmer in the PLP- she's equally seen a rather remarkable rise.

She was given the relative non-job of Shadow Cabinet Office in 2020 but used it to target cronyism & waste around PPE contracts. She then pushed through Labours stance on the Brexit deal & as we know replaced Anneliese Dodds on the assumption that she would be better at the short-term political hits required.

The more significant thing is that her internal opponents on economic issues have been side-lined (her and Ed Miliband clashed) and she's virtually got the entire economic team (including Chief Sec & Business Sec) which are broadly in alignment with her. 

[Blair]

In other news... some comic relief. I would be very tempted to ban background quotes purely because it allows people to say absolute rubbish such as

1.) A claim that there is an upside to the party declaring bankruptcy!

2.) A lament that Keir is bad at asking donors for money.

3.) Someone justifying the sacking of Luke Pollard on the basis of 'there aren't any farms in Gedling'.

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1480153650437705732?ref_src=twsrc%5Eg...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/60d78ea0-70bc-11ec-9b00-681c4404af37?shareToken=b0e6ecd66a6ceb7b4bcdab9ade2587be

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Shipman is almost certainly on Starmer's List of Enemies, so the idea that people 'at the top of Labour' would be particularly willing to talk to him is... er...