The fall of Jared O’Mara has been like a slow speed train wreck. There was something inevitable about the whole thing. What’s interesting is that his coke habit and indebtedness to dealers appears to have been something of an open secret. So why did he ever got selected to be a parliamentary candidate as it’s fairly obvious – much like other recent convicted MPs – that he was entirely unsuitable. That lack of suitability showed up pretty soon after the election. Is there no sort of pre selection check on suitability? Or is is as with the others recently, to do with minority representation. O’Mara may be a white dude, but he has a disability – cerebral palsy. And that was probably good enough. Tick the minority box and you’re in. Never mind if you are suitable and competent.
Although this box ticking over competence something that is prevalent in the Labour party, the others aren’t immune to poor performance due to sheer incompetence and venal self-interest – just look at the current leadership of all three main parties. This case highlights just how awful parliament is. I’m not saying that they are all criminals. However, recent events expose their paltry abilities. In any industry that had to make a profit to survive these wasters would be out of the door, yet here we are, paying them a decent salary to screw up our lives and they get away with it – apart from those who end up in jail, of course.
As with the police perhaps…vet all politicians very strictly, check their phones for offensive pictures,trawl their social media etc etc
As a percentage the Houses of Parliament have many many more criminals than other government organisations.
Politicians go through a party selection process and a voter selection process, but neither seem to be as rigorous as an ordinary executive recruitment process.
“Why did he ever got selected to be a parliamentary candidate “? Because with his inclinations, contempt for the electorate, drug taking and corruption, he fitted into the club without any training. As far as the Labour Party and Parliament are concerned, what’s not to like?
My daughter has just got a job doing admin for the NHS. The amount of vetting and form filling that she has had to do, both before and after being offered the job, was beyond belief. You would think that actually running (ruining ?) the country would have equally stringent background checks in place at the very least.
I see this as a tricky one, especially for those at the top of government who have regular access to material rated towards the higher end of the classifications.
Most people who work with this material are required to undergo some very detailed and fairly invasive checks, which is all very sensible. However I’m not sure what the process is for elected politicians – what if they don’t pass? Do we want a situation where the elected PM can be vetoed by a very closed, state controlled vetting process?
And it’s not feasible to vet all candidates to this level at the outset as it takes ages and costs a fortune.
But yes, basic vetting should be applied; it’s not unreasonable to expect all candidates to pass a basic security check as you have to for many public sector roles.
I would expect parties to exercise some basic due diligence, which clearly didn’t happen in this case.
Maybe the parties should consider primary elections, where the electorate selects the candidates. Not so many charlatans would slip through the net. Nah, the political leaderships wouldn’t like that; too many indepenently minded people might enter Parliament.