Is a 20 year old appropriate as a Parliamentary candidate?

Cleaver

wymondham wrote: »

... interesting several have said why not, and then gone on to say they would however not vote for them purely on their age ..........

I think that's quite a logical stance. Along somewhat similar lines, I'm quite happy for a racist to stand as my local MP. It's a free country. However, I wouldn't chose to vote for them.

It's not her age per se, more the fact that I personally don't think you have enough experience at age 20 to do that job. Others may disagree with me and vote for her.

vaporate

Devils advocate here:

How about doing away with MP'S altogether. Bring a new system into play.

Just corrupt overpaid idiots anyway who got put through private schools. 'Paying for their 'education'.

Cleaver

vaporate wrote: »

Devils advocate here:

How about doing away with MP'S altogether. Bring a new system into play.

Just corrupt overpaid idiots anyway who got put through private schools. 'Paying for their 'education'.

That's not really playing devil's advoacte, that's just a completely different debate.

princeofpounds

I don't think the problem is with her standing as an MP in itself.

The problem goes back to candidate selection within the parties. Time and time again you see it where local parties have some central figure parachuted in (usually with nepotistic connections). I'm not quite sure how they fix it, but apparently they can and do. Often you get better candidates in hopeless seats to fight as a result, as they are left to the 'real' people rather than the inner circle.

Experience does have a value in life, and so all else equal I would prefer someone with more life experience (and a career politician might have less life experience than someone younger who has been in the real world for a while!). But if the advantages outweight the disadvantages, fair enough.

In this instance, I'd be unlikely to vote for Benn even if I was a labour supporter.

But in reality you are voting in someone who will support a central manifesto enforced by a party whip, so to an extent they are just a body on the bench.

cogito

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm sort of one of those. Its not purely on age but the age defines that, its partly on experience.


There was I suppose, Pitt the Younger...

Who represented the Rotten Borough of Appleby, got parachuted into the job of PM by George 111, crossed the floor and was basically only notable for his youth.

Pobby

She seems to remind me of a younger version of someone on telly Now what was her name? She used to hang about with some bald bloke and went on about eating hats.;)

lostinrates

cogito wrote: »

Who represented the Rotten Borough of Appleby, got parachuted into the job of PM by George 111, crossed the floor and was basically only notable for his youth.

Never mind Pitt......we'd had one hundred and eleven George's by then?

Kohoutek

tomterm8 wrote: »

I think that whether you elect people should depend on their capabilities. People should have the right to stand; the electorate should decide from those who stand, and chose the best candidate.

I wasn't saying she doesn't have a right to stand, I was pondering whether a 20 year old can ever be appropriate in the role and responsibilities of a Member of Parliament. Obviously it's ultimately down to the electorate.

Like Exocet said, I don't she was selected by her constituency party for the right reasons. When she was selected she was 17 - how could she possibly be the best candidate for the job when she was still at school? Nepotism is likely the answer.

ninky_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

When she was selected she was 17 - how could she possibly be the best candidate for the job when she was still at school? Nepotism is likely the answer.

i don't think you can say that without knowing who the other candidates were.

it's not like she's got a hope in hell of getting elected in that constituency anyway.

Kohoutek

ninky wrote: »

i don't think you can say that without knowing who the other candidates were.

Are you being serious? Presumably the other candidates were grown up, for a start. The idea of someone at school being a Parliamentary candidate is just absurd - why would you choose them over people who have experience of the world outside the education system?

People who are still at school aren't well equipped to understand the complexities of the world we live in, and influence legislation and policy that affects the whole UK. Isn't that just common sense? I don't believe in the 'every person/every opinion is equal' socialist claptrap.