Don,

I broadly agree, except for the bit about living outside London. There are ordinary people in this city too, after all! Perhaps you mean outside the London elite?

Matt

Don,

Rachel Reeves is hardly ‘a banker’ in the C of London sense. She used to work for in Halifax for HBOS on the commerical banking side of things and has lived in her potential constituency for over a year and a half. She has spent 8 years since Uni working for the FCO and for HBOS. Thats good experience for any career and I know that She has worked very hard to get to know many many people in West Leeds.

So whilst no, Rachel has never been a Postman or housing officer, neither is she a professional poltico in the sense of the uni-mp staffer-PPC route that, personally, I think doesn’t do PPCs much good.

The Labour Party is and should be a broad church. Rachel will be a great addition to it.

Interesting post.

I am probably the whole debate thrown into one person. Harbouring ambitions to be a Labour Welsh Assembly Member, former researcher (a job I lost for writing a blog), work in PR now , cross me off then?

Well not really, I also come from poverty, worked as a milkman, in mcdonalds, as a barman, in a trolley factory and as DJ. I am parent and have a mortgage, with a partner on minimum wage.

The problem I find with this debate is that there is always a certain amount of snobbery – kids from the gutter see jobs as a researcher for a politician as a really good job. My mother was happy as larry, just because I was working ‘in the welsh assembly’. It is all well and good talking about ‘being a manager’ or working at some posh company – but the fact is that people from Pontypool housing estates consider a job with a politician as success.

Professional experience is of course great and should be sought, but what about actual life experience? How many of these so called ‘professionals’ ever actually had to go without? Actually live with ‘real people’ apathetic about politics, with illiberal attitudes toward race, sex and sexuality?

The overriding point is that pulling the ‘professional politician class’ card only works for the same London-centric clique you are having a go at. For poor kids, going down that route might be the only realistic way to go if they want to become elected representatives, particularly in terms of selection. I am not criticising you or your post per se, I just hope that in the genuine attempts to try to broaden the cross section of potential candidates, we don’t write off those who have taken the ‘political path’ as one homogenous lump.

Too many scots and too many lawyers

Of course I agree with all of this post. I disagree with Matt at #1; of course there are ordinary people living in London, but I still think the “get out of London and go somewhere else” (ideally Yorkshire, the North East or the North West) point for aspiring MPs is a good one. London is different to every other city in the UK. Of course, even better would be that we select MPs who have working class backgrounds in these areas themselves in addition to working experience there.

Re: Straw junior’s comments. Don says “this is a pretty feeble rebuttal”.
I’d go further and say that as that’s the best he could come up with it’s a damning indictment of New Labour.
W-a-a-a-a-y too many lawyers, too many wonks/thin-tankers and no doers, by which I mean those who actively pursue activities rather than float above the coalface, telling others what they should be doing. Call me naive, but before you presume to tell others what to do, or pass judgement on their business, it helps to have done some graft, be that being a lowly clerk, a manual labourer, an expert in a substantitive field (that is not a plain policy wonk), whatever: in other words to have earned the right to stand for a position of power as an MP.Oh, and Will, dahling, being the offspring of Labour grandees (c.f. Ms Gould, for whom a safe seat will be found…) doesn’t count. Straw jr’s comments betray how fucked Labour is and disconnected. It’s also deeply insulting when chosen members of the clique get parachuted into constituencies with which they have no connection, or even cultural affinity (c.f. the foreign secretary).

I broadly agree, except for the bit about living outside London. There are ordinary people in this city too, after all! Perhaps you mean outside the London elite?

Sure there are, but it’s still London – and the assumption is that you ‘have’ to to be there rather than work somewhere else (hey, tim f, why not the Midlands?) because apparently it doesn’t exist if it doesn’t happen in London. The capital can always be the ‘next’ step. (If you’re from a small town, moving to the nearest city may be a big enough deal to start with.)

I agree, Redpesto. Politics is and always has been London-centric, and not living there is a double bar to anyone who is not already within the circles of politics.

I think you need to be very driven and/or a bit mad to want to become an MP. The pay is not great, the hours awful and the working atmosphere nasty. There are also so many other more interesting and fulfilling things to do with your life. That is probably the reason why MPs are drawn from such a narrow social spectrum.

Oh, and everyone despise you.

“The pay is not great,”

Over 60K. In top 3% of income-earners in the country.

I’d take that anyday.

The problem with London centicity is that the concerns of London are not necessarily the concerns of the provinces.

For example Westminster dictates policies to encourage public transport, and makes funding for regional road “improvements” conditional on the provsion of bus and cycle lanes. This works fine in London as it has a good public transport network and a high population density aready, but outside London, for example here in Bristol it produces perverve results with already choked roads being reduced to one lane to accomodate always empty bus/cycle lane.

The idea of “choice” in public services is also London centric, as you have multiple public services and high population density, so choosing a hospital/school is a big deal. In the provinces there is usually only one hospital/school in travelling distance anyway, so choice isn’t importanty, the quality of the service is.
Regional services should be about meeting local needs, not Westnminsters.

Thanks for all comments.

Just quickly – Marcus, the advice wasn’t aimed at you (you don’t live in London, for a start), and quite the opposite from ‘crossing you off’, I had a quick look at your blog and I think you’d be an excellent Labour politician.

Common Hukanist – fair point, and I think Rachel’s career will benefit from the fact that she did spend time doing a non-political class job and living outside of London before becoming an MP. Only point I was trying to make is that ‘look, one of our future MPs used to work in the Foreign Office and then for HBOS’ isn’t exactly a convincing rebuttal of the idea that there are only a narrow range of jobs which people do before becoming MPs.

Over 60K. In top 3% of income-earners in the country.

I’d take that anyday.

For real – its nearly 4 times my salary!

Over 60K. In top 3% of income-earners in the country.

Plus expen—

Oops…

As someone who exists on the fringes of the Westminster bubble, I’ve long pondered this issue. It makes me uneasy because I used to work for a think tank myself, and worked bloody hard at the none-too-glamorous tasks that it entailed! But I need to get over that. I do worry that the “Westminster bubble” accusation is becoming something of a cliche, a sort of psuedo-class war.

A couple of questions that might clarify things: I wonder what constitutes the Westminster Bubble? Does my current job, working for a campaigning charity with a Westminister focus, count? I was there twice this week!

Second: Of the 600+ MPs, how many have follwed the tink-tan/Westminster Bubble route? Could we check this sort of thing via TheyWorkForYou or similar? Is there any correleation between expenses claims, and the previous job of the MP?

Finally, hasn’t there always been established political routes mapped for the ambitious? Eton for the tie, Oxford for the Union, Inns of Court, then Parliament and Government. Or a rise up through the ranks of a Union, for Labour, say.

I don’t think *what* you do is as important (in terms of shaping your world view and thus your political priorities) as the mere fact of living within the M25. London is a European, rather than a UK city.

For real – its nearly 4 times my salary!

You’re just jealous of the duck islands and houses that look like Balmoral. The poor darlings with their 60k salaries, crap hours and nasty working atmosphere – how could everyone despise them?

Second: Of the 600+ MPs, how many have follwed the tink-tan/Westminster Bubble route?

Don’t know – but my worry is that they’re all in the Cabinet and/or on the Opposition front bench.

I would encourage the “next generation” of Labour, many of whom I’ve come across in student politics, to take a break from politics, get some life experience, go travelling, see the world, and, most importantly, take a big step away from their party, given the state it is in at the moment. I have seen some terrifying leaps of logic taken by young Labour members to defend their government’s record in power. Seriously: don’t try it. If you’re not keeping it real now, when you are 10-20 years away from power, what hope is there for you when you’re finally in government?

Don writes from a Labour perspective, and a few commenters have written about the Tory route to the commons. Nick Harvey, the LibDem on the standards and privileges committee also deserves a challenge. He followed the familiar path from student politics to jobs in marketing/PR to a relatively safe seat. I have no doubt that he is a liberal, and he has demonstrated independent thought on Europe, but has been overly defensive of the political class. A job for the LibDems is to replace him as their representative for MPs’ standards.

There are some related issues here. Do we want any young MPs in Parliament at all, or do they all have to be older “never been in politics” sorts? You’re all going on about how great Alan Johnson is because he was a postman, but what difference has that made to his voting record?

Most MPs currently sitting in the House of Commons have had careers before entering parliament. Yes, those careers might be narrow in scope: lawyer, banker, businessmen. So what kind of careers do we want our MPs to have had before getting into politics? Are we going to be so prescriptive as to tell young people what to do with their lives?

We should be encouraging young people to get involved in politics. Why can’t a 30 year old represent a constituency of all ages and backgrounds? Where is the cut-off point? Should we introduce some kind of age limit?

You’re putting unreasonable expectations on people here. If you go about telling people they aren’t fit to be MPs because they’re from London (maybe when you think of London you think of Islington but there are huge parts of the capital that do not fit your stereotype), where does it end? And have you tried looking for work outside the capital? As a young person myself, I can tell you, it’s bloody hard.

Well I suppose the reason that everyone despise them is because they are not very good.

When I read the discussions that take place amongst the ‘political class’ on the subject of something like humanitarian interventions and international legality I am shocked at the basic ignorance. The overwhelming majority of the people who voted to take Britain to war in Iraq really do not seem to have grasped why this was illegal and what its consequences might be. That is my specialist subject. I am sure that there are plenty of other people here who feel similarly on other issues.

My guess on the reason why the current scandal has caused such an outrage is that lots of people are thinking ‘who are these clowns? they can’t manage the economy, or run the country and yet they are fiddling their expenses, what are they good for?’

And that is the problem with the professional politicians. They have never had a proper job because it has taken them all their lives to get where they are and so their real world knowledge and experience is very limited. Yes an MP earns more than a postman, but you could make the same amount of money as a lawyer, doctor, head teacher, television producer, director of a medium-sized charity, senior civil servant, etc. and those are alternative career options for the type of person that becomes an MP.

I don’t have any strong views about whether MPs should be paid more or less. I agree with representative democracy and that means that someone has to do the representing. It is probably more important to ensure that the people who do the actual governing (ie the civil servants) are competent and allowed to get on with their jobs without too mush interference. Simon Jenkins was good on this today

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/21/gurkhas-government-lumley-gordon-brown

Rayyan @20: “I would encourage the “next generation” of Labour, many of whom I’ve come across in student politics, to take a break from politics, get some life experience, go travelling, see the world, and, most importantly, take a big step away from their party, given the state it is in at the moment.”

I agree with the suggestion to step away from electoral and party politics, but reject the idea that travelling the world serves any purpose. As Don writes, potential candidates need to have held a job — a real job in the UK that demands skills other than the ability to speak or write eloquently. A hypothetical Tesco manager will be three or four levels down the hierarchy from the Tesco board, thus providing a better education in management and organisation than any Business Studies degree.

On the point about living outside of London, I agree with Matt Munro at #12.

London is very different, and it is genuinely useful experience to understand what life is like outside of London before becoming an MP. (The reverse doesn’t apply, because someone who has never been to London before becoming an MP will quickly get to know it!)

This isn’t an anti-London point (I moved from Liverpool to West London last year), it’s about having a broader range of experience.

redpesto – fair enough re the Midlands; that’s my Northern prejudice showing. Anywhere south of Sheffield is “the South” for me.

Raayan -

“You’re putting unreasonable expectations on people here. If you go about telling people they aren’t fit to be MPs because they’re from London (maybe when you think of London you think of Islington but there are huge parts of the capital that do not fit your stereotype), where does it end? And have you tried looking for work outside the capital? As a young person myself, I can tell you, it’s bloody hard.”

I think you’re missing the point there. It’s not that MPs from London are necessarily unfit to be an MP (they may have other qualities & we certainly need some MPs who are from London in Parliament), but we would benefit from having more MPs who aren’t from London. And anyway, I’m less bothered about people’s right to be an MP, and their careers, than I am about getting MPs who actually understand most people’s lives and act accordingly.

(p.s. as ever, I agree with everything Conor Foley says)

Three lawyers, a banker and someone who worked at a think-tank?

To quote Have I Got News For You? a few weeks back, all they need is an estate agent to complete their twat collection.

One way to select more diverse candidates is to increase participation in main stream political parties. Not a realistic proposition at the moment. I fear that decline in party membership over the next twelve months may mean that future potential candidates are less appropriate for the job than MPs who get the boot.

There are some very fair points in this article, which I hope to address at greater length on this website next week.

Parliament, among many other problems, is clearly unrepresentative of wider society. As Don points out, we certainly have too many lawyers. But Sadiq Khan is one of only four Muslim MPs and David Lammy one of only five black MPs. Would we exclude them purely because of their profession?

So how do we make Parliament more representative? More people from non-Westminster Village or professional occupations as well as more women and people from ethnic minorities should be encouraged to come forward. But there may also be a problem with the selection process. David Miliband and Ed Balls plus all the current PPCs went through a selection process at a Constituency Labour Party. Why did they succeed? Is there perhaps too much demand from CLPs for those with Westminster Village credentials? As Nick Anstead and I argued in “The Change We Need,” open primaries – where everyone in the local community and not just Labour party members make the choice – are one potential remedy to both these problems.

I’m no Labour supporter but I thoroughly agree with the sentiment of the post. But I would say this applies to all three parties.

Yes an MP earns more than a postman, but you could make the same amount of money as a lawyer, doctor, head teacher, television producer, director of a medium-sized charity, senior civil servant, etc. and those are alternative career options for the type of person that becomes an MP.

And the fact that there’s a “type of person who becomes an MP” at all, added to the fact that it usually means “middle class professional living in London” is a big part of the disconnect between the public and the political classes at the moment.

Surely the fundamental problem is that the skills required to be an effective MP, irrespective of party are what could be described as middle class skills – conceptualising, consulting, advsising, negociating and influencing, and er fiddling your expenses are already deveoped in middle class professionals, added to which, as others have said you need to have a flexible and fairly well paid job to give you the time to work your way up the greasy pole.

Alan: yes I agree with that – and it is part of the problem. Labour’ internal democracy withered under Blair and a large number of the current intake of MPs were parachuted into constituencies (I remember both James Purnell and Pat MacFadden knew where they were going to be selected before the 1997 election, but could not tell anyone because the sitting MP had not yet publicly announced their ‘retirement’). The career of an MP is increasingly advanced through patronage and that is why so many start off in the milieu that Don mentions in his article. I think that most people who get out of that milieu, though, are never likely to want to get back into it.

Matt M has it right.

It also occurs to me that a lot of the more publicly appealing MPs from all parties, often the ones described as “gutsy”, “maverick”, “very normal”, “straight-talking” or similar are also the ones who are seen as the biggest pains in the arse by their colleagues because they can’t use those subtler skills.

The trouble is, I don’t know how you escape from the necessity for that skillset in any system of government that isn’t all-out warrior kingship. Government discourse has evolved that way for a reason. Influencing and negotiating skills have such a huge Darwinian advantage where actual weapons aren’t permitted.

[34] Conor, there’s always been patronage. Jack Straw was Barbara Castle’s anointed heir in Blackburn. And Michael Foot was known to have Nye Bevan’s blessing in Ebbw Vale (he was otherwise entirely the wrong demographic for the seat)…

The only answer to it is mass membership. But ask yourself this: if you were a Party leader, which would you prefer – a Party with half a million members or one with fifty thousand members and half a million standing orders (of the same value as a membership)? Which one would be more likely to be criticial, even hyper-critical of your performance?

True Mike – although the unions played a bigger role in the past – giving us such upstanding representatives as Michael Martin. If I get time next week I will try and write something about parties and politics that has been going around in my head.

Will Straw:

Parliament, among many other problems, is clearly unrepresentative of wider society. As Don points out, we certainly have too many lawyers. But Sadiq Khan is one of only four Muslim MPs and David Lammy one of only five black MPs. Would we exclude them purely because of their profession?

That’s the catch: You could have a compulsory 40% of female candidates for all parties at a general election – but if you ended up with a Tory government with, say 30-40% of their MPs being female, it’d be the fact that they’re Tories that would most concern me most.

Mike Killingworth: ‘The only answer to (MPs being selected by patronage) is mass membership.’

Or open primaries, meaning that someone wishing to become a parliamentary candidate would be well advised to gather as much support as possible in one constituency, rather than hanging around the Westminster village hoping to attract a powerful patron.

[39] Well I have argued here strongly in favour of open primaries and I still think that in principle they’re the answer, but there’s potentially a lot of devil in the detail. Mass party membership would be easier to achieve if the parties wanted it. The present crisis offers an opportunity for that: a candidate chosen by a constituency membership of say 1,000 is likely to be of higher calibre than one chosen by a membership of 150, surely (assuming the two seats to be equally promising for the party concerned).

Beware of the grandee response. Here’s Charles Moore writing in the Telegraph:

“The reason for this is that Labour really does believe in a political class. It thinks that having lots of full-time politicians paid lots by the state is good for them and good for the rest of us. It thinks that if they are paid by the state they will not be corrupt, and that, government being a self-evident good, it is better to have more of it.”

and “When he attacks what he calls the “gentlemen’s club”, Mr Brown is assailing the few vestiges of independence that remain. Gentlemen, after all, do not pay for their clubs with public money.”

In full at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/mps-expenses-rebuilding-politic/5370236/MPs-expenses-Now-is-the-time-to-obliterate-the-professional-political-class.html

Fortunately, we have the independently wealthy, such as Charles Moore, to step into the gap when MPs are no longer paid a salary or when councillors cease to receive expenses.

I am particularly troubled by the suggestion that the creation of a political class is a deliberate construct. Public compensation for legitimate expenses in local government has created mission creep, leading to a few occupational councillors, but we all know the reality. Councillors and JPs receive an attendance allowance that pays for somebody else to cut the garden lawn while they do their second job.

Political parties, charities, NGOs benefit from public money and that money creates jobs for researchers and lobbyists. But of the thousands of people who work for those bodies, how many see it as a route to professional politics and how many are simply working for a cause in which they believe? I strongly believe that we need parliamentary candidates who have held “real jobs”, but we also need to stand up for public compensation for public service.

This is a very good post, but just remember a certain politician raised on the hardcore of Glasgow Labour Union politics.

He grew up to be Prime Minister.

Gordon isn’t exactly in touch or credible with the ordinary voter, is he?

Gordon isn’t exactly in touch or credible with the ordinary voter, is he?

No – because he answers to Mandleson.

Hold on – hasn’t Nadine Dorries got a non-London non-politics background?

In fact, almost none of the corrupt, scum-sucking MPs caught up in the expenses scandal are from London: the whole scandal is about non-London MPs using the second homes allowance to buy all sorts of stuff. The only London MP I have heard of using the allowance is Dawn Butler, who should be sent to jail as far as I am concerned: she lives in Stratford, a few stops ON THE SAME TUBE LINE as Westminster, and yet thinks she can claim back a house in Kilburn, also on the same line. WTF?

But yeah, I’m trying to stick up for Londoners – we are the most progressive, tolerant, multicultural and diverse part of the British population.

You are very right in your comment about getting a real job rather than a think tank/party worker position. Very right for us the citizens of this country, but I doubt if it is right for the young person with a desire to be an MP.

How would a young person make the important contacts, which later will turn into personal support in their career? It is the smoozing that gets people into power, not a sharp political mind. Sadly, it has always been the case of who you know, not what you know, that is important. and it always will be.