Plus they get a generous salary plus expenses, such that they couldn't possibly earn in a 'real' job.

This is our first General Election, normally each type of politician has a different election date so a person could stand for Senator, not get voted in, then stand for Deputy. Now instead of most likely doing a stint at being a Deputy then going for an island mandate now they have to put their current job on the line if they wish to step up. I have to find up to ten people to vote for out of 26 candidates, eight Senators from nineteen and two Deputies from seven. The Connétable for my area was returned unopposed.

Like many posters, I'm inclined to doubt the suitability of a Member of Parliament (or a Deputy in the States of Jersey) who has only recently reached the age of 20.

None the less, the median age of the electorate in the UK is now 46, and the median age of people who actually vote is thought to be 50 or more. I have seen some reports suggesting that about half the population between the ages of 18 and 25 is not registered to vote. So these inexperienced legislators seem to have the confidence of an electorate of fairly mature years (and, in the UK, probably of a political party too).

William Pitt the Younger is generally supposed to have made a reasonable fist of his job in his early twenties, and the "life experience" of an increasing number of political high-flyers seems to consist entirely of jobs in their party machines.

So I wouldn't be too ready to decry younger candidates. Or maybe I should say I don't think older candidates necessarily have any greater aptitude. As I've often said, the only person I would put into Parliament would be Guy Fawkes (in his mid-thirties)!

I do agree with you flopsy, but even those MPs in their 40s don't necessarily have the life experience behind them. Too many have never actually had a real job. Many come from what a lot of us would regard as a privileged background, if they have worked it's been in family firms. Others, like David Cameron, have gone University, straight into working for the party machine. He went straight into the Conservative Research Department, then became one of those "Special Advisors" we hear so much about. That sort of career path is the reason so many people feel that Politicians are out of touch with the real world of work, trying to balance a household budget, that sort of thing, and the truth is, they are out of touch.

I know, Westminster ain't what it used to be. Of course, it used to be full of stuffed shirts who measured success in terms of how many peasants pheasants they shot in the season so it may actually be better now.

Actually David Cameron did have a proper job for a while, he worked in PR/Communications for a TV company in the south. And before anyone says that PR and/or Communications isn't a proper job, I'll point you at my CV and get ready to bite you on the ankles.

Personally, I always thought age limitations on office are rather silly, or arbitrary for that matter. As long as one is a legal adult in their country they should be allowed the chance to run. Likely their inexperience will show during their campaign and eliminate them as a candidate if they are not up to the task. I don't believe that just because someone is 35 or 40 means that they will be better suited for office than someone who is 25. And if someone who is young and inexperienced gets elected and their behavior in office reflects that, then they won't be re-elected to office.

I've got to agree with trident there - if someone is allowed to vote, they should be allowed to run.

All I can say is thank goodness they haven't lowered the 18 to 16 in line with the voting age.

When you have such a small electorate a group of peers can make a vast difference even if no one else voted for them.

My problem isn't their age, just their profession or lack of one - I just don't think that being a politician is a career that should be the only one the person has ever had. On the other hand I don't think they should all be lawyers either.

This might sound a bit daft but our problems in Jersey started when they introduced salaries for politicians. It used to be voluntary so we would find in the main that people who had made a success of their professional/business lives and were willing and able to give something back. They were experienced people. Once they introduced salaries it all went wrong, these people were reluctant to offer themselves up, the salaries were not high enough to tempt professional people who hadn't made a fortune already but for others it was higher than they could earn in their old jobs. We ended up with a load of people 'doing it for the money', currently approaching £50,000 pa. Some of them are a total nightmare.

I agree, but having said that, when they become an MP that should then be their only job. No Directorships, no Consultancies or Advisory positions. They should concentrate on doing the job they were elected to do and nothing else.

True enough, but as the son of a former very successful PM he came from a political background and this probably compensated to some extent for lack of experience. He became PM in 1783 just after the loss of the American colonies and there was a widespread and strong feeling that the country needed a fresh start. All this helped. Moreover, in those days there was no cult of adolescence. (In fact, the concept wasn't invented for another hundred years or so). At the time, people were expected to behave as adults by about age 14.

________________


Incidentally, there's an interesting article on todays's BBC website about Scotland. The first half or so echoes much of what you said, Tom, on the rise of Scottish nationalism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29300724

Is that the law in the UK? Is that part of the constitution?

According to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/Queenandvoting.aspx


"Although the law relating to elections does not specifically prohibit the Sovereign from voting in a general election or local election, it is considered unconstitutional for the Sovereign and his or her heir to do so.

As Head of State, The Queen must remain politically neutral, since her Government will be formed from whichever party can command a majority in the House of Commons.

The Queen herself is part of the legislature and technically she cannot therefore vote for members of another part of the legislature."


From the same website regarding the voting rights of her family:

"With the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords in 1999, the Royal Dukes (The Dukes of Edinburgh, York, Gloucester and Kent) ceased to be members of the House of Lords and therefore became eligible to vote in elections, and to stand for election.

But members of the Royal Family do not exercise these rights. To vote or hold elected positions would not be in accordance with the need for neutrality."

Thank you for the earlier reply Christinap and for the expanded explanation MiraJane. It's not my place to debate the point but... I'd think a secret vote by the monarch could be allowed. After all an open democracy would insure every member of the country would be franchised to vote, no matter their status. But, as I said it's not my position to have a say and if it is a tradition in the UK that works for there, fine.

I wonder out of curiosity, had the resolution passed, who would have gotten title to Scotland Yard?