Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes to stand down as MSP

[ProfessorDavey]

My take is that in a representative democracy we should strive to make it possible for people who get elected to be ... erm representative. And if the job is set up so that it excludes people wanting to live 'normal' lives then we are excluding normal.

A lot of the changes in how the idea of representation has been ti extend that. So paying MPs as the Chartists campaigned for was all about ensuring that people from different backgrounds, and situations could  choose to run for election, and thinking about how parents of young children can do that seems related to me. As already mentioned there have been a number of reforms in Westminster, many introduced by thd Blair govt, to make it more supportive of 'nornal' life, and unless you think that was wrong, taking a position that further reforms might be beneficial is just hypocritical.

And I want people involved who think they can do a good job, not just because they are willing to 'serve' or give up a 'normal' life, else we are not just losing representation, we are making it elitist and based around an idea of service that isn't for me a beneficial one. I note that Prof D selects two MPs who should not be thanked, and that both of them went to Eton, and I would suggest too much of the approach of give up any chance of a normal life flips the system to people whose idea  of public service is based around that approach.

Being an MP, MSP, and others is if you do it right a brutally hard job which is badly rewarded in comparison to what many who might consider standing can make so it's encouraged people who are either already rich or want to abuse the job to do it.

Moving on from my previous post about your misunderstanding of what 'representative' means in a representative democracy.

I don't disagree that we should remove unnecessary barriers that might prevent certain groups of people from being able to become and be successful as MPs/MSPs etc. But you can only go so far. The job requires the elected official to work in two separate places (their constituency and wherever the assembly is) unless you think that MPs can do their job without ever meeting other elected members face to face (which I don't) or not visiting their constituency and meeting constituents face to face (which I don't either). So they have to work in two places and that will necessarily curtail what we might consider as normal family life. And the challenges will be greater for MPs/MSPs representing constituencies that require considerable travel distance/time to the assembly.

I'm sorry but there is no getting away from this fact. We can try to limit the disruption to family life (and plenty of changes have been brought in) but it cannot be eliminated if we want our MPs/MSPs to do their job properly (which I do). And there is always a tension between MPs/MSPs whose main base is in their constituency (who will want to work long hours over few days when at the assembly) and those who base themselves closer to the assembly who would prefer shorter hours over longer days as they can go back to their family each night when working at the assembly.

[Nearly Sane]

Moving on from my previous post about your misunderstanding of what 'representative' means in a representative democracy.

I don't disagree that we should remove unnecessary barriers that might prevent certain groups of people from being able to become and be successful as MPs/MSPs etc. But you can only go so far. The job requires the elected official to work in two separate places (their constituency and wherever the assembly is) unless you think that MPs can do their job without ever meeting other elected members face to face (which I don't) or not visiting their constituency and meeting constituents face to face (which I don't either). So they have to work in two places and that will necessarily curtail what we might consider as normal family life. And the challenges will be greater for MPs/MSPs representing constituencies that require considerable travel distance/time to the assembly.

I'm sorry but there is no getting away from this fact. We can try to limit the disruption to family life (and plenty of changes have been brought in) but it cannot be eliminated if we want our MPs/MSPs to do their job properly (which I do). And there is always a tension between MPs/MSPs whose main base is in their constituency (who will want to work long hours over few days when at the assembly) and those who base themselves closer to the assembly who would prefer shorter hours over longer days as they can go back to their family each night when working at the assembly.

See previous post on your misreading of me post which led you to misreprsebt it, and again you have managed the same here. At no point does I suggest that it is possible to make a perfect system, just that we should make all efforts to make it as open as possible, and merely saying 'Tough' is the same approach taken by some people before previous reforms that I would suggest you will have supported.

[ProfessorDavey]

See previous post on your misreading of me post which led you to misreprsebt it, and again you have managed the same here. At no point does I suggest that it is possible to make a perfect system, just that we should make all efforts to make it as open as possible, and merely saying 'Tough' is the same approach taken by some people before previous reforms that I would suggest you will have supported.

The classic 'something should be done about it' grump which I and others pulled you up on earlier in the thread. So what should be done NS - pointless to simply grump about something without any kind of solution.

When we pushed and pushed you on this earlier all you came up with was firstly more Zoom. Well news for you on-line meetings are already used extensively where appropriate (and they cannot be used in all circumstances without significantly impacting the ability of parliament to function effectively). Over the past few years I've held Zoom (well actually Teams) meetings with several ministers in the Department for Education as this was the most effective way to hold the meeting as there were invitees from all over the country.

Your second suggestions was regional hubs - which I pointed out would often make the situation worse as travel would be just as difficult (or even more difficult than to Edinburgh or London) and you'd end up with even greater logistical complexities of having to work in three places (constituency, regional hub and assembly location) rather than two.

[Nearly Sane]

The classic 'something should be done about it' grump which I and others pulled you up on earlier in the thread. So what should be done NS - pointless to simply grump about something without any kind of solution.

When we pushed and pushed you on this earlier all you came up with was firstly more Zoom. Well news for you on-line meetings are already used extensively where appropriate (and they cannot be used in all circumstances without significantly impacting the ability of parliament to function effectively). Over the past few years I've held Zoom (well actually Teams) meetings with several ministers in the Department for Education as this was the most effective way to hold the meeting as there were invitees from all over the country.

Your second suggestions was regional hubs - which I pointed out would often make the situation worse as travel would be just as difficult (or even more difficult than to Edinburgh or London) and you'd end up with even greater logistical complexities of having to work in three places (constituency, regional hub and assembly location) rather than two.

Your position is that it's not worth making the effort. Just to point out the more Zoom meetings is actually you quoting Jeremyp not me from his reply no7, where he is saying not to say it. So your account above is wrong.

[Gonnagle]

My take is that in a representative democracy we should strive to make it possible for people who get elected to be ... erm representative. And if the job is set up so that it excludes people wanting to live 'normal' lives then we are excluding normal.

A lot of the changes in how the idea of representation has been ti extend that. So paying MPs as the Chartists campaigned for was all about ensuring that people from different backgrounds, and situations could  choose to run for election, and thinking about how parents of young children can do that seems related to me. As already mentioned there have been a number of reforms in Westminster, many introduced by thd Blair govt, to make it more supportive of 'nornal' life, and unless you think that was wrong, taking a position that further reforms might be beneficial is just hypocritical.

And I want people involved who think they can do a good job, not just because they are willing to 'serve' or give up a 'normal' life, else we are not just losing representation, we are making it elitist and based around an idea of service that isn't for me a beneficial one. I note that Prof D selects two MPs who should not be thanked, and that both of them went to Eton, and I would suggest too much of the approach of give up any chance of a normal life flips the system to people whose idea  of public service is based around that approach.

Being an MP, MSP, and others is if you do it right a brutally hard job which is badly rewarded in comparison to what many who might consider standing can make so it's encouraged people who are either already rich or want to abuse the job to do it.

Dear Sane,

Good at their job, willing to serve and give up normal life because as you so rightfully say Being an MP, MSP, and others is if you do it right a brutally hard job if they do it right!

You cannot have a normal life if you choose to be a MP/MSP, it is not possible, once again, not a job, not a career, not a profession a vocation

To end Sane auld son! anyone can be a MSP/MP but kiss goodbye any normal life especially in this modern world where even if you cough wrongly someone is watching.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your position is that it's not worth making the effort. Just to point out the more Zoom meetings is actually you quoting Jeremyp not me from his reply no7, where he is saying not to say it. So your account above is wrong.

JP certainly mentioned Zoom in reply 7:

"And please don't say "Zoom meetings"."

To which you replied (my emphasis):

"As to an alternative system, j think that pountnh out that we have an issue, and that it shoukd be looked at doesn't carry the burden od proposing a whole solution but as a start, looking at regional hubs for some business, restructuring attendance (Note some of that happened during Covid and was then rolled back). Appropriate use of communicatio technology is no bad thing, and understanding how that would best be used would be part of any solution."

So can you enlighten us as to what you meant by 'communication technology' if not remote conferencing/meeting technologies, i.e. Zoom and similar. And you seemed to think that what was put in place during covid should be used more ... which was ... err ... remote conferencing technologies, i.e. Zoom and similar.

So pretty clear to us that your solution was effectively 'more Zoom' (although other similar platforms are available).

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Sane,

Good at their job, willing to serve and give up normal life because as you so rightfully say Being an MP, MSP, and others is if you do it right a brutally hard job if they do it right!

You cannot have a normal life if you choose to be a MP/MSP, it is not possible, once again, not a job, not a career, not a profession a vocation

To end Sane auld son! anyone can be a MSP/MP but kiss goodbye any normal life especially in this modern world where even if you cough wrongly someone is watching.

Gonnagle.

I agree - and any person considering becoming an MP/MSP will need to consider the impact it will have on normal life and would presumably consider that the upsides of being and MP/MSP outweigh the impact of normal life. And for a person considering not just being a back bencher, but in an executive role then the impact will be greater still.

And here is my issue with Forbes. So just  a couple of years ago (when her child was even younger) she has comfortably enough to stand for leader which would have impacted normal life even greater. Since then what has changed - well not impacts on family life, so it is hard not to conclude that the key determinative here isn't the downside of impact on normal life (which hasn't changed and she was prepared to take an ever greater hit as she wanted to be leader).

Rather what has changed is that she has hit a road-block in her ambitions, recognising that the 'greasy pole' is perhaps greasier than she'd previously thought. So the balance between her political ambitions and the impact on normal life has become tipped, due to her ambitions not being able to be met rather than any change in impact on normal life.

And of course a person's priorities between professional ambition and a focus on family life will often change over time. Now I'm not saying this isn't unreasonable and it is of course her choice, but I feel there is a lack of honesty here. But it is hard to accept that someone prepared just a couple of years ago to take an even greater hit on family life to become leader (and then agreed to become deputy) now considers the hit (which hasn't changed) to be too great to even be involved in politics at all without considering that a change in perspective on her professional ambitions is a key determinative here.

[Nearly Sane]

JP certainly mentioned Zoom in reply 7:

"And please don't say "Zoom meetings"."

To which you replied (my emphasis):

"As to an alternative system, j think that pountnh out that we have an issue, and that it shoukd be looked at doesn't carry the burden od proposing a whole solution but as a start, looking at regional hubs for some business, restructuring attendance (Note some of that happened during Covid and was then rolled back). Appropriate use of communicatio technology is no bad thing, and understanding how that would best be used would be part of any solution."

So can you enlighten us as to what you meant by 'communication technology' if not remote conferencing/meeting technologies, i.e. Zoom and similar. And you seemed to think that what was put in place during covid should be used more ... which was ... err ... remote conferencing technologies, i.e. Zoom and similar.

So pretty clear to us that your solution was effectively 'more Zoom' (although other similar platforms are available).

You wrote that after bring pushed I wrote more Zoom meetings. I didn't and communication  technology is a lot wider than conferencing.

None of which gets away from the issue that you think that it is not worth making any effort to make sure that we can make sure that we aren't excluding people from paric8oatung fully on the democratic process

[ProfessorDavey]

You wrote that after bring pushed I wrote more Zoom meetings. I didn't and communication  technology is a lot wider than conferencing.

Then explain what you meant by 'communication technology' if not more Zoom (or other similar remote working platforms). Noting that you linked this to technology used during covid which was rolled back afterwards. Given that that only technologies used in covid that have been rolled back since that I'm aware of are remote conference-type technologies I'm really struggling to see what you could have meant other than 'Zoom'. Please help us out here - maybe you mean carrier pigeons?