freediver wrote:
No he hasn't. He has merely demonstrated an inability to comprehend an ex-MP doing anything other than what they did prior to winning office.
What I have done is thoroughly refute the myth posted by JM that 2/3rd of MPs have law degrees, by going through a handful and listing their largely vocational, non-professional level qualifications.
Separate to that, you have asserted that a majority of MPs would take a pay rise if they lost office. You have suggested the evidence of this abundant and is easy to locate, but have not provided any of it. You have essentially recited a myth and when asked to support it have tried the old "it's common knowledge" chestnut.
The burden of proof lies on you to support your assertion, not on me to refute it. This is good because I don't have the time or resources to conduct a study of how long MPs are out of work after losing office, and how much they earned when / if they finally did. To my knowledge no such research exists in Australia, but
these guys did to the research in the UK, where
The study found some former MPs struggled to find work and many earned less after leaving the House of Commons. Around half of those who did not retire voluntarily from the Commons said it had taken three to six months to find a new job. Just one fifth said they were able to find work immediately or almost immediately. One in seven took over a year to find employment.
..
Professor Theakston said: "The report will help puncture media and popular myths of the 'political gravy train' variety by showing what the real situation is in terms of former MPs' employment, earnings, pensions and so on."
Therefore, I stand by the assertion that all of them have a strong vested interest in winning their seat at the next election. Very few would prefer to lose their seat and have Julia at the stick, than win their seat and have Kevin running things.