Local elections, more proof people want change

The problem is that  Anyone doing a job that allows enough time to do their constituency and parliamentary work should be allowed to stand. is generally someone who can afford to. I.E the rich. 

How many benefit street residents are MP's? 

How many poor people can afford the time off to be an MP. 

That said MP salary is around 91k that is a pretty hefty salary for most people. So there isn't really an issue. 

I think it was me not following you Pat. 
God knows why, but at first I took you to mean MPs should become unpaid and rely on income from other work. That this would make them better at their jobs.
I apologise completely ballsd that up. 

Similarly, who would you vote for if you were a traditional Labour voter? Keir Starmer and co are not all that radical or inspiring and will only win on the basis of people being sick to death of the Tories. When Labour get in as they likely will, they need to be much more radical and inspiring when it comes to delivery or the support built largely on being fed up with the Tories will quickly dissipate.

But time will tell.

I am against compulsory voting on principle. Are we going to waste time and resources prosecuting possibly millions of non-voters? And what about those who lack the relevant voter ID? Are they going to be prosecuted for the crime of not yet having passed their driving test? 

Generally when it comes to nudging people into participating I prefer carrots to sticks, and incentives to vote are much more likely to invite positive participation than threats if you don't. People who don't want to vote cannot be made to do so anyway in the privacy of the ballot booth, and there is the inherent danger of people being forced there against their will organising themselves online to vote en masse for something truly ridiculous. You might get Monster Raving Loonies elected. And I am not talking about the Tories.

Then there is the problem of postal ballots. Would you risk prosecution if the ballot paper got lost in the post? And if you refused to use your postal vote how could they prove that you didnt vote if you insist that you did? How could they prove that it did not go astray in the post?

An incentive could be something like every valid voter who turns up to vote on polling day getting a £5 payment sent into their account within a week or two. Far more people would vote. And more of them would do so in person with less voting by post in order to get their payment. And it would probably cost less than trying to prosecute millions of people which in reality is never going to happen. They would also be rather less likely to vote antagonistically.

I know if voting were to be made compulsory, I would never vote for the party that enacted it and would only ever vote for someone promising to repeal it. If none of the candidates were offering that I wouldnt vote at all, but they could never prove that I hadnt. After all my postal vote could well have been lost in the post.

Being an MP should be a full time job, so MPs should not be spending time working for anyone else. If that means paying them a bit more then so be it, though the kind of people who think an MP's salary is peanuts are over-represented in there already. We need rather more everyday people in there, most of whom would regard the current salary plus expenses as very generous.

The kind of people we need as MPs are the kind of people who are there for the right reasons and not to further their careers or line their own pockets. People who believe in something and want to make this country a better place and make things better for our people.

I’ve no quarrel with any of that. But there are people who exist on four hours sleep a night and work through vacations and if these (or any other) people can fit one, two, or even three jobs into their time so be it. Their party and their constituents and party choose them in the first place and are free to judge their effectiveness and point out their failings (or throw them out) if they don’t perform…