The debate over "real life experience" rumbles on. Today after work I had a very productive hour with the Sabbs at UEA discussing student issues - from housing to student finance and back to parking at the UEA. Aftewards leaving campus I met a gentleman who not only recognised me (!) but had also read the posts below. I believe more-or-less word for word here is what he had to say about it:
"I want an MP who has recently worried about bringing up kids and how to pay their mortgage. No political party is perfect, I don't agree totally with any of you, but at least we can pick the candidate who know what life is about."
To balance up the arguement, an email I ahve recieved:
"Your attack (I, by the way, deny this is an "attack") on other candidates who don't have jobs is a nonsense. The question is, will our next MP have the right instincts when it comes to voting on going to war, tackling climate change and child poverty. Political instinct is worth more than any job you might hold for the moment."
Interesting stuff. Keep it coming.
2 comments:
I cannot believe anybody would argue against a future MP having experience of working, paying tax and being on the same treadmill as the rest of us. I agree with the last thead that it would make a difference to how I vote.
Don't forget Antony - we can't choose policies because ALL the parties are the same, we can only choose candidates.
A candidate who pays tax, worries about the family budget, has kids in local state schools DOES matter to me.
Post a Comment