[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by frogus23

I'm competing in a debate in a few weeks against Magdalen College *spit*
<snip>
Do we need committed, pure, undistracted MPs, or do we need MPs who are current experts, at the tops of their chosen fields?

I thought Magdalen College was supposed to be a very good collage?

My opinion is that MP:s, and especially the ministers, should be experts at their field. In Sweden, it was suggested some years ago by the youth organisation's of Sweden's next largest party, that people who were approved ministers should have a formal education relevant for the area, ie the minister of justice should have studied law, or the minister of finace should have an economic education. In the anti-intellectual Sweden this was however heavily critisised in the entire parliament including the mother party, since it was viewed as "eilitist" that only people with an education should be eligable for minister posts. As if anyone "from the people" could become a minister today. Being a politician is no different from other professions inasmuch as you have certain tasks that you are expected to fulfil. Thus, I think it is of utter importance that a politician is competent and knowledgable in the area when s/he is making decisions - even more so because those decisions affect so many more people that decisions in most ordinary jobs.

Regarding other committments, I agree with Xandax and Moonbiter that an MP should not be allowed to have another job outside the government. An MP should be loyal to the task of representing people's will and must be able to execute this with full integrity, without risking conflicts of interest with other entities than the voters. What's the point with "representative democracy" otherwise?

Good luck with the debate!