18/6/2026 by-elections - including Makerfield

[brad465]

Jokes aside the pollsters have Burnham with a healthy 3 point lead and the fact that it is the future PM of the country standing is helping the labour vote in the constituency. The best result for the constituency would be the local plumber but it would require the other RW candidates to drop out for that to happen.

Restore Britain, far from dropping out, are deliberately going hard here. Their best realistic strategy is to win enough votes that had all their votes gone to Reform UK, the latter would have won, as that will get publicity and force Reform UK into a panic.

The only reason the greens took the previous by-election was that they conned the asian community into believing they were a pro islamic party. I doubt that will happen again unless Polanski leaves and a fundamentalist muslim becomes the leader. Post election rresearch by the pollsters suggest that had Burnham been standing he would have won.

If that was the main reason the Greens won there, that can't be replicated in Makerfield as the proportion of foreign-born residents in the constituency is much lower than Gorton and Denton.

Rather unusually, despite this being a high-stakes by-election for Reform UK, Nigel Farage has rarely been seen in the area. He's done a couple of campaign videos with the candidate, but nothing more. This suggests this crypto controversy is a genuine liability at the moment.

 

[Farigiraf]

I would be absurd to apply this line of reasoning to any other line of work wouldn't it? "I don't like the idea of this doctor who's treating me, he's obviously looking to do it as a career". "This guy I've got rewiring my house turns out to be one of those 'career electricians' - if only I'd known I would have found someone else with less vested interests". "Turns out this barrister defending me in court has had a 30 year legal career. Of course once I found out I dismissed them at once!"

The difference being that if an electrician or lawyer wants to keep their job, they have to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.
Career politicians can keep their jobs solely off of promises and minimal results, as we've seen in the last decade or two. Think you're mistaking the 'career' part as being experienced in achieving results, instead of what it actually means - trained in winning elections.

 

[SuspectUsual]

The best result for the constituency would be the local plumber but it would require the other RW candidates to drop out for that to happen

The one who isn’t really a plumber and isn’t local?

 

[quantinghome]

The difference being that if an electrician or lawyer wants to keep their job, they have to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

There are some pretty mediocre electricians and lawyers out there.

Career politicians can keep their jobs solely off of promises and minimal results, as we've seen in the last decade or two. Think you're mistaking the 'career' part as being experienced at achieving results, instead of what it actually means - trained at winning elections.

Politicians can get a certain way without delivering results - particularly if they're in opposition as they don't have to actually bother about achieving what they say they will. But that approach rapidly comes undone once they get into power - the libdems in 2015 being a paradigm. When politicians lose it's pretty brutal in comparison to other jobs - no notice, you're out and that's it. And often not a reflection on the work they've done, particularly in local elections where councillors who have done a good job are regularly ejected because voters want to send a message to national government. Still, it's what they signed up for so they know the score.

 

[styles]

Politicians can get a certain way without delivering results - particularly if they're in opposition as they don't have to actually bother about achieving what they say they will. But that approach rapidly comes undone once they get into power - the libdems in 2015 being a paradigm. When politicians lose it's pretty brutal in comparison to other jobs - no notice, you're out and that's it. And often not a reflection on the work they've done, particularly in local elections where councillors who have done a good job are regularly ejected because voters want to send a message to national government. Still, it's what they signed up for so they know the score.

I always think the Lib Dems in coalition was a particularly special case. The National Union of Students (who I don't compliment very often) ran actually a hugely successful campaign around tuition fees and many young people and students voted Lib Dem.

The coalition agreement effectively green-lighted the Lib Dems voting or whipping however they like on the issue of tuition fee increases.

Then they voted for the fee increases anyway, including Vince Cable and Nick Clegg himself.

If they'd all voted against it, the increase wouldn't have happened and the Lib Dems could've stood up proud at the next election saying look, this is what we said we would do for young people, and this is what we delivered, even in coalition.

It has to go down as one of the stupidest political moves in modern British politics.

 

[GusB]

What exactly is the problem with 'Career Politicians'?

The main issue with career politicians is that they go straight into the political bubble from university and know nothing else. This is likely to leave them detached from the real world.

The only reason the greens took the previous by-election was that they conned the asian community into believing they were a pro islamic party. I doubt that will happen again unless Polanski leaves and a fundamentalist muslim becomes the leader. Post election rresearch by the pollsters suggest that had Burnham been standing he would have won.

The Greens won the last by-election because they had a local candidate who resonated with her community and they actually went round knocking on doors and talking to people. It was nothing to do with conning the Asian community.

 

[quantinghome]

Thr main issue with career politicians is that they go straight into the political bubble from university and know nothing else. This is likely to leave them detached from the real world.

I hear this a lot, but the thing is you could say this about any profession, and in fact there's a good case to make that politics gives people a wider range of experience than most careers.

For example I went straight from university into civil engineering. This widely regarded as a 'practical' profession, but I must admit it's a very limited form of practicality. It's taught me a lot about foundation bearing capacity and tunnel linings and numerical modelling and construction contracts but I couldn't honestly say it's given me a particularly wide understanding about 'how the world works'. My career hasn't given me any insight about foreign policy or how the NHS works or the financing of council housing or the opportunities and risks of AI.

Councillors and MPs meanwhile get experience in all sorts of issues through case work and the huge variety of issues that appear on their plate. Of course some of them will do next to nothing and just blag their way through it - but that's due to personal laziness, not an inherent problem with going straight into politics. There is something to be said for having a 'hinterland' and non-political work experience, but looking at the efficacy of senior politicians, there's no clear correspondence between who has done a good job and who has had significant experience outside politics.

 

[styles]

I hear this a lot, but the thing is you could say this about any profession, and in fact there's a good case to make that politics gives people a wider range of experience than most careers.

For example I went straight from university into civil engineering. This widely regarded as a 'practical' profession, but I must admit it's a very limited form of practicality. It's taught me a lot about foundation bearing capacity and tunnel linings and numerical modelling and construction contracts but I couldn't honestly say it's given me a particularly wide understanding about 'how the world works'. My career hasn't given me any insight about foreign policy or how the NHS works or the financing of council housing or the opportunities and risks of AI.

Councillors and MPs meanwhile get experience in all sorts of issues through case work and the huge variety of issues that appear on their plate. Of course some of them will do next to nothing and just blag their way through it - but that's due to personal laziness, not an inherent problem with going straight into politics. There is something to be said for having a 'hinterland' and non-political work experience, but looking at the efficacy of senior politicians, there's no clear correspondence between who has done a good job and who has had significant experience outside politics.

I think it's a bit different though. We don't expect civil engineers to represent our interests and make national policy based on it.

We do expect politicians to broadly represent our interests. While in theory there is nothing stopping politicians from canvassing opinions and representing those in Parliament, it is not really a substitute for having actually experienced these things. Obviously no politician can first-hand experience every issue, but with 650 MPs having worked in a variety of professions, you should get a broad range of experience of non-political working life.

If we take Streeting as an example, he has only ever worked in politics. First it was a students' union, then the NUS, then Labour. All three of these organisations are quite odd because they're tightly coordinated political organisations where to get to the top job (as Streeting has), you just need to perfect politics and the machine, but nothing else. That's not really a highly-valuable skill in a prime minister, bar the fact that they are likely to be good at international relations.

I have the same criticisms of Burnham in the by-election.

I imagine your experience as a civil engineer has given you insight into things like working conditions, worker satisfaction, planning policy, archaeology discovery difficulties, building regulations, etc. If you combine that with an MP who has worked in cybersecurity and another who has worked in accounting and another who has worked as a GP, etc, suddenly you get a representative house.

 

[Gloster]

My feeling is that there are too many who have gone from university to a job working as a research assistant for the party or a lobby group or an MP, but often not one dealing with constituents, possibly then to a made-up job in a friendly business which allows them lots of time to seek a seat. This applies to all the parties, although someone who worked for a trade union might have a tiny bit more knowledge of life. They then get selected for a seat and spend their time nursing it.

I may be wrong, but my feeling is that politicians are expecting and expected to hit the top much younger. Wilson at forty-eight, and Heath and Thatcher at fifty-three were the youngest PMs since Lloyd George and then only just in the last two cases. But since Thatcher five of the nine PMs have been younger. Starmer is an outlier, being older than anyone since Callaghan. ‘Done too much, much too young.’

 

[nw1]

The one who isn’t really a plumber and isn’t local?

And quite why someone being a plumber makes them more eligible for the job is anyone's guess.

It's the typical inverse snobbery of the modern populist right.

Whatever job he had or didn't have, the quoted comments of the waste of space standing for Reform means that he is entirely suitable to be an MP.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jun 2026 ==

Restore Britain, far from dropping out, are deliberately going hard here. Their best realistic strategy is to win enough votes that had all their votes gone to Reform UK, the latter would have won, as that will get publicity and force Reform UK into a panic.

It's not often that I'd say I might be grateful for the actions of the "wonderful" Mr Lowe, but perhaps in this case many of us will be. Perversely, it might be in the country's best interests if Restore manage to charm one in ten voters nationally and lure them away from Reform. Just as long as it's no more than that, of course...

 

[quantinghome]

I may be wrong, but my feeling is that politicians are expecting and expected to hit the top much younger. Wilson at forty-eight, and Heath and Thatcher at fifty-three were the youngest PMs since Lloyd George and then only just in the last two cases. But since Thatcher five of the nine PMs have been younger. Starmer is an outlier, being older than anyone since Callaghan. ‘Done too much, much too young.’

It's true. If you look when PMs first became MPs, there was a big shift in the 1990s. Thatcher was fairly young when she became PM in comparison to previous premiers, but had been an MP for 20 years (and had stood as a candidate in 1950, the youngest Conservative candidate in the country at the time). That was a relatively short parliamentary career compared to other PMs some of whom had been MPs 30 or even 40 years before getting to No. 10. By contrast Major has only been an MP 11 years. Our most recent PMs had 9 years and 7 years in parliament when appointed. And it shows.

OTOH Thatcher is an example of the problems that can occur when someone comes into politics from another professional background. Famously she had a chemistry degree and had done some work in industry (although she was refused a job by ICI - there is a quote from the interviewing panel which is hilarious in hindsight), but that didn't stop her from pursuing policies which devastated the UK's industrial base. Crucially, it meant that she hadn't been exposed to a variety of political ideas - she read The Road to Serfdom, agreed with it and that was that as far as she was concerned. Had she actually done a politics degree it would have forced her to think about other political standpoints. Both she and the country may have been a lot better off if she had.

 

[MadMarsupial]

The bookmakers don't seem to be changing their odds much though there is some money for Restore.

Best odds currently available are Labour 4 / 11, Reform 3 / 1 and Restore 12 / 1

Any other party and you can get 1000 / 1 or higher.

Source "Oddschecker" link below

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/makerfield

 

[Trackman]

The bookmakers don't seem to be changing their odds much though there is some money for Restore.

Best odds currently available are Labour 4 / 11, Reform 3 / 1 and Restore 12 / 1

Any other party and you can get 1000 / 1 or higher.

Source "Oddschecker" link below

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/makerfield

Labour are at 11/4 with some bookies, not 4/1, which makes it 2.75 decimal so near enough neck and neck with Reform.

 

[MadMarsupial]

Labour are at 11/4 with some bookies, not 4/1, which makes it 2.75 decimal so near enough neck and neck with Reform.

Labour are 4 / 11 not 4 / 1 which equals 1.364 on tote odds so far from neck to neck. ( 4 / 11 meaning odds on rather than 11 / 4 which would be odds against. Labour are odds on to win ).

 

[Trackman]

Labour are 4 / 11 not 4 / 1 which equals 1.364 on tote odds so far from neck to neck. ( 4 / 11 meaning odds on rather than 11 / 4 which would be odds against. Labour are odds on to win ).

correct, ignore me it's been a long day!

 

[WesternLancer]

Unless anyone can come up with another example, got to be the first time that a by-election has been called with the intention to allow someone to challenge for the post of Prime Minister during the course of a parliament.

If Burnham doesn't win it will be egg on face for him, and just as humiliating for Josh Simons who stood down to allow it all to happen.

I wondered about Alec Douglas-Home. But although he entered the commons at a by election when becoming the PM the circumstances were not the same.

 

[GusB]

I hear this a lot, but the thing is you could say this about any profession, and in fact there's a good case to make that politics gives people a wider range of experience than most careers.

For example I went straight from university into civil engineering. This widely regarded as a 'practical' profession, but I must admit it's a very limited form of practicality. It's taught me a lot about foundation bearing capacity and tunnel linings and numerical modelling and construction contracts but I couldn't honestly say it's given me a particularly wide understanding about 'how the world works'. My career hasn't given me any insight about foreign policy or how the NHS works or the financing of council housing or the opportunities and risks of AI.

Civil engineering is perhaps a niche career, but it's still "real-world" experience. If you were to suddenly decide that you wanted to have a career in politics, you'd be far better placed to advise a government on matters such as HS2, for example...

Councillors and MPs meanwhile get experience in all sorts of issues through case work and the huge variety of issues that appear on their plate. Of course some of them will do next to nothing and just blag their way through it - but that's due to personal laziness, not an inherent problem with going straight into politics. There is something to be said for having a 'hinterland' and non-political work experience, but looking at the efficacy of senior politicians, there's no clear correspondence between who has done a good job and who has had significant experience outside politics.

Councillors and MPs may experience issues through case work, but it's not the same as actually having "lived" experience. A politician who has come from a less well-off background is more likely to have more empathy with constituents on issues such as minimum wage, benefits etc. when wealthier representatives have absolutely no idea what it's like to have to count every penny.

On the other hand I frequently hear from some people, mainly on the right of the political spectrum, that our politicians have no experience in business. There's clearly a disconnect between career politicians and "ordinary" people, whether they're workers or bosses.

And quite why someone being a plumber makes them more eligible for the job is anyone's guess.

Being a plumber doesn't make anyone more eligible for the job, but being an ordinary person with a trade resonates more with the general public than being a city trader or a high-flying lawyer. Anyhow, the Green Party's Hannah Spencer is a plumber by trade.

It's the typical inverse snobbery of the modern populist right.

Whatever job he had or didn't have, the quoted comments of the waste of space standing for Reform means that he is entirely suitable to be an MP.

I think you meant that he's entirely unsuitable to be an MP.

It's not often that I'd say I might be grateful for the actions of the "wonderful" Mr Lowe, but perhaps in this case many of us will be. Perversely, it might be in the country's best interests if Restore manage to charm one in ten voters nationally and lure them away from Reform. Just as long as it's no more than that, of course...

I'm not so sure. Unlike the situation in Gorton and Denton where Reform parachuted in MattGPT "Badlose" Goodwin and thought it'd be a steal, Rob Kenyon is local to the area and that carries quite a lot of weight. He's a self-employed tradesman with "real-world" experience and, to be honest, the misogynist comments that he made won't really matter because much of his voter base will probably agree with him.

 

[Class73Electro]

What exactly is the problem with 'Career Politicians'? Surely the last few years have taught us that it's beneficial to have political leaders with at least a couple of decades' experience in politics, whether as an MP, Mayor, minister, shadow cabinet etc. Recent PMs have had relatively short political careers prior to getting the senior positions, and frankly it shows. The idea that people can spend a career in business or law or whatever, then waltz into 10 or 11 Downing Street and make a good show of it is surely disproven. There are skills you need as a political leader which are very difficult to learn elsewhere.

I would be absurd to apply this line of reasoning to any other line of work wouldn't it? "I don't like the idea of this doctor who's treating me, he's obviously looking to do it as a career". "This guy I've got rewiring my house turns out to be one of those 'career electricians' - if only I'd known I would have found someone else with less vested interests". "Turns out this barrister defending me in court has had a 30 year legal career. Of course once I found out I dismissed them at once!"

As for the idea that a potential PM cannot represent the people in their constituency, why is this suddenly a problem? We've had this arrangement since Walpole. Obviously, yes, they are extremely busy and they're not going to be able to be the 'super-councillor' type of MP who turns up to every local event, but like all MPs they will have a casework team to deal with constituency issues, and there are major advantages too. I remember when they were looking to close one of the two factories that made Challenger tanks, surprisingly enough it was the one close to the PMs constituency which was saved. Let's not forget that back bench MPs with no other responsibilities can be utterly useless when it comes to representing their constituents.

OK so, I know others have put it more eloquently then I probably can but...

I want my local MP, to represent me, my area, and have the best interests of my local area - thats the point of having a local MP, surely.

Taking Andy Burnham as the example - and I full know that there our others - when one of the previous local MPs lost, her next move was to... go represent somewhere else...

is AB doing this because he wants to represent the local people... or does he just want it to springboard himself to the top job...? Its the same with all the MPs that have recently suddenly decided to jump ship to Reform... how many of them are (metaphorical) rats deserting a sinking ship...?

 

[edwin_m]

It's an unfortunate part of our system of government that anyone taking a senior political role has to be an MP and inevitably won't be able to devote as much time to constituency matters as a backbencher. Perhaps even worse if your MP becomes Speaker or a deputy, because the convention is that they are then unopposed at the election so voters don't even have a choice of who represents them. This is one more thing a better electoral system might resolve, for example if we had larger constituencies electing several members.

 

[SuspectUsual]

OK so, I know others have put it more eloquently then I probably can but...

I want my local MP, to represent me, my area, and have the best interests of my local area - thats the point of having a local MP, surely.

Taking Andy Burnham as the example - and I full know that there our others - when one of the previous local MPs lost, her next move was to... go represent somewhere else...

is AB doing this because he wants to represent the local people... or does he just want it to springboard himself to the top job...? Its the same with all the MPs that have recently suddenly decided to jump ship to Reform... how many of them are (metaphorical) rats deserting a sinking ship...?

Any number of MPs choose that career path because they have aspirations to be more than just an MP. Just most of them don't do it quite as overtly as Burnham does.

Did Farage stand for Clacton because he was desperate to represent the people of a town he'd probably never previously visited?

Did Rupert Lowe, who I believe lives in Gloucestershire and who used to run Southampton FC, suddenly decide Great Yarmouth was the place for him and the people whose causes he wanted to champion?

Did Richard "bloody loyal to the north east" Holden, then Tory party chairman, suddenly decide the people of Billericay were the people he wanted to represent when it became clear he'd lose in Durham?

Of course there will be MPs for whom becoming a backbencher is their ultimate career ambition achieved, but I don't think there are that many.....

 

[brad465]

It's an unfortunate part of our system of government that anyone taking a senior political role has to be an MP and inevitably won't be able to devote as much time to constituency matters as a backbencher. Perhaps even worse if your MP becomes Speaker or a deputy, because the convention is that they are then unopposed at the election so voters don't even have a choice of who represents them. This is one more thing a better electoral system might resolve, for example if we had larger constituencies electing several members.

This I think is one benefit of PR with regional lists: you can have some MPs in ministerial positions while others represent the local area, and something those who oppose PR on fears of losing local representation forget is that if you have a minister, or especially the speaker as your MP, your local issue representation is almost nil anyway, just because they can't dedicate the time.

 

[WesternLancer]

Any number of MPs choose that career path because they have aspirations to be more than just an MP. Just most of them don't do it quite as overtly as Burnham does.

Did Farage stand for Clacton because he was desperate to represent the people of a town he'd probably never previously visited?

Did Rupert Lowe, who I believe lives in Gloucestershire and who used to run Southampton FC, suddenly decide Great Yarmouth was the place for him and the people whose causes he wanted to champion?

Did Richard "bloody loyal to the north east" Holden, then Tory party chairman, suddenly decide the people of Billericay were the people he wanted to represent when it became clear he'd lose in Durham?

Of course there will be MPs for whom becoming a backbencher is their ultimate career ambition achieved, but I don't think there are that many.....

And Winston Churchill - what a carpet bagger - over the years MP for part of Manchester Manchester, Dundee, Epping / Woodford....

 

[SuspectUsual]

And let’s be realistic - the vast majority of constituency work is undertaken by the MP’s staff

 

[Cell2025]

Why? Burnham seems to be generally regarded as preferable to Starmer and has a higher chance of restoring Labour's fortunes by the next election.

And the alternatives for winning this by-election are seriously unpalatable. Reform? Restore? No thanks! It's not like a relatively sensible party like the Tories or the Lib Dems will beat Labour here.

What a depressing state of affairs, when you strip it down to basics. Labour because no-one else is any good either.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jun 2026 ==

Any number of MPs choose that career path because they have aspirations to be more than just an MP. Just most of them don't do it quite as overtly as Burnham does.

Did Farage stand for Clacton because he was desperate to represent the people of a town he'd probably never previously visited?

Did Rupert Lowe, who I believe lives in Gloucestershire and who used to run Southampton FC, suddenly decide Great Yarmouth was the place for him and the people whose causes he wanted to champion?

Did Richard "bloody loyal to the north east" Holden, then Tory party chairman, suddenly decide the people of Billericay were the people he wanted to represent when it became clear he'd lose in Durham?

Of course there will be MPs for whom becoming a backbencher is their ultimate career ambition achieved, but I don't think there are that many.....

Rachel herself had no affinity to my constituency before she moved next door to an area that equally has no relevance to where she's from and where she's been. It's not edifying, but it's the way the world is.

 

[quantinghome]

Civil engineering is perhaps a niche career, but it's still "real-world" experience. If you were to suddenly decide that you wanted to have a career in politics, you'd be far better placed to advise a government on matters such as HS2, for example...

Of course, my experience would be useful in particular cases, but that's only a tiny area compared to the whole range of government. How would my experience prepare me to legislate on prison reform, trade policy, regional devolution etc.? It wouldn't.

Councillors and MPs may experience issues through case work, but it's not the same as actually having "lived" experience. A politician who has come from a less well-off background is more likely to have more empathy with constituents on issues such as minimum wage, benefits etc. when wealthier representatives have absolutely no idea what it's like to have to count every penny.

Not really. Human beings routinely understand someone's situation without experiencing it themselves. In fact the reverse is often true - politicians from modest backgrounds are often the worst when it comes to appreciating the difficulties people find themselves in - "I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps, so can you..." whereas people from wealthy backgrounds recognise they were born into privilege. Compare Clement Attlee and Tony Benn with Norman Tebbit, for example.

OK so, I know others have put it more eloquently then I probably can but...

I want my local MP, to represent me, my area, and have the best interests of my local area - thats the point of having a local MP, surely.

Taking Andy Burnham as the example - and I full know that there our others - when one of the previous local MPs lost, her next move was to... go represent somewhere else...

is AB doing this because he wants to represent the local people... or does he just want it to springboard himself to the top job...? Its the same with all the MPs that have recently suddenly decided to jump ship to Reform... how many of them are (metaphorical) rats deserting a sinking ship...?

The fundamental role of an MP is to debate and pass legislation at a national level. In doing so they will hopefully be considering the effect of the legislation on their constituents but also on the country as a whole. The perceived role of an MP as a local champion dealing with the nitty gritty of their constituents' lives is something unique to the UK and Ireland. I heard a story that at some meeting of foreign ministers, William Hague's counterparts from other countries found it completely absurd that his constituents were writing to him about bin collections.

Often the the whole 'I am a local MP for local people' turns out to be a sham. My former MP spent 14 years doing all the local MP stuff, being very present in the area, drinking in the local pubs, fronting the summer fairs and all the rest of it. He then promptly upped sticks in 2024 to a safe seat. And we often end up with ridiculous "I'm more local than you" arguments between candidates at elections. It all becomes very silly.

And let’s be realistic - the vast majority of constituency work is undertaken by the MP’s staff

Yes, MPs get a vast amount of correspondence which would be impossible to deal with without a well-functioning staff team. It doesn't matter how 'local' the MP is if they haven't got a good staff supporting them. This is a whole other issue, but MPs' staff are criminally underpaid and very dependent on having an MP who understands how to be a good employer. It's high time they were employed by a parliamentary body and stopped being classified as part of MPs' expenses.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I want my local MP, to represent me, my area, and have the best interests of my local area - thats the point of having a local MP, surely.

The theoretical point is to represent the local people’s interests at the national level. That’s why there’s no mandatory by-election when politicians change parties.

Of course this is all theoretical. Candidates will all be members of and represent a party. Backbenchers will, by and large, do as they’re told by the leadership of their party. So really, by having a political leader as your local MP, your local area gains influence rather than loses it.

 

[edwin_m]

Of course, my experience would be useful in particular cases, but that's only a tiny area compared to the whole range of government. How would my experience prepare me to legislate on prison reform, trade policy, regional devolution etc.? It wouldn't.

But across 650 MPs it ought to be possible to get coverage of a wide range of "particular cases". Engineers are probably under-represented in Parliament relative to the importance of the subject to the economy and to government.

There's also a good case for having lawyers well represented as MPs, considering part of their job should be to scrutinise potential new laws. Also someone who has had a role in successfully running a business, government body or local council could make a good MP. I'm aware that paragraph includes Starmer...

What I'm a bit more skeptical about is people who've only done unelected political or PR roles and who may be more about winning and selling the dream than actually whether the dream will work. Some of that may be needed and the lack of it is a big part of Labour's problems now, but go too far and you end up back with a Johnson situation where the "vision" was just to get into power without caring about how it could be used wisely.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Of course, my experience would be useful in particular cases, but that's only a tiny area compared to the whole range of government. How would my experience prepare me to legislate on prison reform, trade policy, regional devolution etc.? It wouldn't.

The ability to know and accept the limits of your expertise probably puts you above a decent amount of the rabble we've had over the last few years. But for what it's worth, I don't think all career politicians are necessarily bad, political talent is a real thing and is quite important. I think the issue is with politicians who all come from the same background, a "political class" if you will - a subset of people that grow up believing they are owed power and are born into a pipeline of Eton > Oxbridge > Think Tank > Lobby Group > Parliament, indeed many others will end up in the judiciary or other major institutions that ministers interact with.

 

[quantinghome]

The ability to know and accept the limits of your expertise probably puts you above a decent amount of the rabble we've had over the last few years. But for what it's worth, I don't think all career politicians are necessarily bad, political talent is a real thing and is quite important. I think the issue is with politicians who all come from the same background, a "political class" if you will - a subset of people that grow up believing they are owed power and are born into a pipeline of Eton > Oxbridge > Think Tank > Lobby Group > Parliament, indeed many others will end up in the judiciary or other major institutions that ministers interact with.

"As an engineer... " I would say we need to verify our assumptions. One way would be to compile a list of the most effective politicians of the last 2 to 3 decades, and another list of the most ineffective. Then look at their backgrounds to see whether non-political experience is a marker of effectiveness.

This will naturally be a very simple task as everyone will agree on which politicians should go in each list...

 

[DarloRich]

But if the people of Makerfield choose the Vorderman Bum Sniffer instead then, quite frankly, good luck to the lot of them.

Is the most accurate comment in the thread! Also where is Nige? Must have a lot of constituency work on..............

The best result for the constituency would be the local plumber but it would require the other RW candidates to drop out for that to happen.

Born and bred there apparently. Apart from the part where he wasn't......................

(Also registered company only c.6mths old. Odd. )