We would say:

MPs without a proper job, or who have never done one, will not be allowed to stand for eelction.

5 responses to “We would say:

  1. The corollary is that more rather than less lawmaking should be the obligation of the counties and towns. There, on that level, one really KNOWS who the worthwhile folk are — and, the lazy rent-seekers! Real ‘governance’ is a part-time affair at best, and the rest of the time should be left free for money-making, cattle- and woman-stealing, hammering together /new/ kinds of smelly technology and inventions in the smithy and the rest of it. THAT is Atlantic democracy and the smell of a new-laid coal fire in the April morning whilst swallows sweep low over the hammer man at his anvil. Not this suffocating credentiallist drool and hopeless aura of universal therapy, in the course of which no one ever, EVER gets better. I have to go rivet leger plates and weld up a couple of coulters.

  2. Guards, not coulters….

  3. ‘MPs with second jobs will have to declare how much they earn and how many hours they work….’

    Do they get an extra vote then, for being more rather than less self-sufficient?

    Perhaps the text needs revision:

    ‘MPs with REAL jobs will have to declare how much they earn and how many hours they work, UNLESS THEY DO NOT CLAIM ANY PARLIAMENTARY SUCK WHATEVER, IN WHICH CASE THEY ARE ACCORDED ‘EXTRA’ VOTES, ON SELF-SUFFICIENCY & /cet/….’

  4. To Mr Wook:-

    This raises the question of how much representation one ought to get according to how much tax one pays. I see an interesting debate forming up, in the air!

  5. Emmett Smith

    Old (!) Wook is out in the paddock trying to unharness, curry and settle the punch horse, Mr Gamgee. I, personally, really probably do think that sufferage damn well ought to be a function of some sort of equity or freehold, and that’s that.

    Always in History, I think, democracy is at its best on the way up — when you get to 1867, and 1906 and 1933, by then it has gone all straight to Hell, because the “average man” is a skunk who WILL vote himself “free” money everytime.

    As a sop to this latter impulse, unfettered suit should, along with casinos, be restored to the favoured, er, favored way of capitalizing more assertive individual members of the lower reaches of the populace. This means getting rid of so-called “limited liability,” and hence especially liable to these personal attentions should be big corporate owners where damages arguably have ensued. As well of course as any personalities especially deeply embroiled in the governance hoax, any sort of credentialism and “the public service.”

    Indeed in the last special case, the attainment of any professional grade or rank in the non-productive “service” ranks of society should mean automatic surrender of the franchise.