Should MPs have to sit an entrance exam?
Discussion
It is painfully obvious to me that there are many MPs, in all the major parties, who are unintelligent, ill informed, poorly educated, etc. and yet these people wield power over the rest of us.
We have 'competency tests' (required qualifications, entrance exams, etc.) for doctors, lawyers, pilots, HGV drivers, magistrates, financial advisors, etc. and many of these roles also require CPD too. As far as I am aware though, there is no such basic standard for MPs.
Looking at the state of many of the MPs we currently have, I think that there ought to be an entrance exam for potential politicians that - in a politically neutral way - tests basic knowledge/ability in areas such as critical thinking, geo politics, the history/workings of the NHS/education/military, economics, religious beliefs, law, etc. Thereafter, retests prior to each election for current MPs.
Surely that would go some way to ensuring that whether or not we agree with their politics, we can all at least accept that those that rule us aren't complete idiots (which I can't say for many of the current lot).
Thoughts?
We have 'competency tests' (required qualifications, entrance exams, etc.) for doctors, lawyers, pilots, HGV drivers, magistrates, financial advisors, etc. and many of these roles also require CPD too. As far as I am aware though, there is no such basic standard for MPs.
Looking at the state of many of the MPs we currently have, I think that there ought to be an entrance exam for potential politicians that - in a politically neutral way - tests basic knowledge/ability in areas such as critical thinking, geo politics, the history/workings of the NHS/education/military, economics, religious beliefs, law, etc. Thereafter, retests prior to each election for current MPs.
Surely that would go some way to ensuring that whether or not we agree with their politics, we can all at least accept that those that rule us aren't complete idiots (which I can't say for many of the current lot).
Thoughts?
Isn’t their alleged job to be a representative of the people.
So in theory they shouldn’t all be smart as they are a representation of the general population.
It would only further alienate them.
If it was my choice I wouldn’t let them be lifelong politicians, two or three GE’s, we need more people with real working experience, I would also expect Parliament to actual represent society (trades, non-University educated, etc).
Obviously it’ll never happen as what we have is a merry go round of Public Service for the well to do who can’t succeed in business or the private sector.
IIRC aren’t 60+ percent of Senior Civil servants privately educated, against what 10-15% of the population.
So in theory they shouldn’t all be smart as they are a representation of the general population.
It would only further alienate them.
If it was my choice I wouldn’t let them be lifelong politicians, two or three GE’s, we need more people with real working experience, I would also expect Parliament to actual represent society (trades, non-University educated, etc).
Obviously it’ll never happen as what we have is a merry go round of Public Service for the well to do who can’t succeed in business or the private sector.
IIRC aren’t 60+ percent of Senior Civil servants privately educated, against what 10-15% of the population.
efcgriswold said:
There’s an argument to say they should be volunteers rather than paid but that brings up even more accusations of bribes than they get now.
I'd go the other way and ban anyone who actually wants to be a politician from being one.Alternatively, remove all their personal assets, after 5 years if the economy has improved return their assets plus interest to match that growth, if it's fallen remove the percentage.
efcgriswold said:
There’s an argument to say they should be volunteers rather than paid but that brings up even more accusations of bribes than they get now.
Not a very convincing argument as then only people rich enough not to need a salary could afford to become a MP.One of the demands of the Chartists in the 19th century was for MPs to be paid a salary so that anyone could become a MP.
sociopath said:
I'd go the other way and ban anyone who actually wants to be a politician from being one.
This. The 'average intelligence' MP qualification argument only grants credibility at the voter end. It's not much use when MPs go on to try and create credible policies for governing and running the country. It's UK plc and should be run as a business by business-qualified people who have no vested interest (ie who are banned from any financial involvement). Unfortunately those people don't exist. For the record, I think anyone should be able to become an MP, with the one caveat that they should reach a minimum standard. The resources to study for and take that test should be available free to all, so nobody is excluded because they can’t afford it.
Magistrates are a good (unpaid) example; anyone can apply but there’s a test, interview, etc. then training and assessment before you qualify. Seems sensible; I want magistrates who represent the general population but not ones who are too stupid to be able to discharge the duties effectively. Same for MPs, just (much) more so.
It cannot make sense for the most powerful decision makers in this country are not required to meet a minimum level of knowledge or demonstrate a minimum level of intellectual capability.
Magistrates are a good (unpaid) example; anyone can apply but there’s a test, interview, etc. then training and assessment before you qualify. Seems sensible; I want magistrates who represent the general population but not ones who are too stupid to be able to discharge the duties effectively. Same for MPs, just (much) more so.
It cannot make sense for the most powerful decision makers in this country are not required to meet a minimum level of knowledge or demonstrate a minimum level of intellectual capability.
High salary attracts higher calibre of candidates. I wouldn't do the job for £100k, but would for £1M.
In addition, pay should be performance related. £1M pa x % approval rating voted by constituents each month on a MP salary app. Do good work for the people you have been elected to represent - get paid more.
In addition, pay should be performance related. £1M pa x % approval rating voted by constituents each month on a MP salary app. Do good work for the people you have been elected to represent - get paid more.
The news this week that private school educated students are more than twice as likely to get top grades than state school educated pupils surely shows that setting the bar high for MPs simply means more toffs, more people that are aloof to the population in these jobs? I guess the opening statement of this thread needs clarifying, essentially that all MPs are stupid. Most have come through education with great qualifications and would cruise through any entrance exam, most aren't stupid and in fact most could demand jobs with much higher salaries outside of politics.
What the OP has confused I think is the politics within politics that can easily be conceived if as a casual observer as idiocy. That most MPs have to deal with the politics of their own party, their own leadership, their own spin doctors, their own constituents before they even get to the job of being a politician. I would watch 'The Thick of It' its a great eye opener, yes its a satirical comedy but apparently it isn't far from the truth!
What the OP has confused I think is the politics within politics that can easily be conceived if as a casual observer as idiocy. That most MPs have to deal with the politics of their own party, their own leadership, their own spin doctors, their own constituents before they even get to the job of being a politician. I would watch 'The Thick of It' its a great eye opener, yes its a satirical comedy but apparently it isn't far from the truth!
There's a good argument for MP's to be experienced in some way in the brief over which they manage, and to be at some level a technocrat rather than a people's representative. That way at least we'd get people who broadly know and understand what they are in charge of and make objective and well based decisions on making genuine improvement and advancement in the area they are responsible for rather than bend to whichever way the opinion polls tell them the general public are leaning. It would lead to unpopular public decisions no doubt, of the sort many politicians wouldn't ever consider these days, but history is littered with examples of where intelligent qualified people have made unpopular but effective decisions that have, in the end, turned out to be the right thing to do. It seems bizarre to me that we end up with 'ask the people' policymaking, 99% of which either don't care, don't have a clue and almost always are not in possession of actual facts and routinely pedal out nonsense sourced on Faceache and the like.
We get the politicians we vote for, whether at local council level - and there are some monumentally idiotic muppets at that level, or national level. Under the current system, we are all able without any qualification able to make our case and stand up to represent. i suppose that is a good thing, but no point in moaning about the current system if you're not prepared to stand up yourself to do it. You are at the mercy of those who are, and they quite often have many many personal agenda's and personality flaws.
And yes, I am a hypocryte as I haven't stood up. I'd far prefer the benign dictatorship approach.
What I would also like to see is that no MP is allowed to be voted in unless they have had at least 10 years in a non-political job doing something meaningful that exposes them to life. It is simply wrong to float out of Oxford with a PPE degree and into Government or elected office within a short period with no experience other than the privilege bubble you happened to grow up in.
We get the politicians we vote for, whether at local council level - and there are some monumentally idiotic muppets at that level, or national level. Under the current system, we are all able without any qualification able to make our case and stand up to represent. i suppose that is a good thing, but no point in moaning about the current system if you're not prepared to stand up yourself to do it. You are at the mercy of those who are, and they quite often have many many personal agenda's and personality flaws.
And yes, I am a hypocryte as I haven't stood up. I'd far prefer the benign dictatorship approach.
What I would also like to see is that no MP is allowed to be voted in unless they have had at least 10 years in a non-political job doing something meaningful that exposes them to life. It is simply wrong to float out of Oxford with a PPE degree and into Government or elected office within a short period with no experience other than the privilege bubble you happened to grow up in.
Edited by biggles330d on Friday 13th August 09:28
LimaDelta said:
High salary attracts higher calibre of candidates. I wouldn't do the job for £100k, but would for £1M.
In addition, pay should be performance related. £1M pa x % approval rating voted by constituents each month on a MP salary app. Do good work for the people you have been elected to represent - get paid more.
Love it. I think you (or someone else) has suggested similar before. In addition, pay should be performance related. £1M pa x % approval rating voted by constituents each month on a MP salary app. Do good work for the people you have been elected to represent - get paid more.
Salary decided in part by approval of constituents.
I suppose the trouble is that the MP would be punished for cabinet or prime minister decisions beyond their own control or influence?
My plan would be to get rid of the House of Lords and replace it with people randomly selected for a year like jury duty but they get well paid so people want to do it.
Then reduce the amount of MPs but pay the remaining ones the saved salaries and link it to performance as you’ve suggested.
It's certainly tempting to say it's better to have high calibre politicians than low calibre ones. But to frame the question differently, do we want the high calibre people in politics rather than a proper job? There are better things for the brightest to do than study focus group reports and try to manipulate the headlines in the Daily Mail.
Given that the US survived having Trump in charge running a country can't really be all that difficult.
Given that the US survived having Trump in charge running a country can't really be all that difficult.
biggles330d said:
There's a good argument for MP's to be experienced in some way in the brief over which they manage, and to be at some level a technocrat rather than a people's representative. That way at least we'd get people who broadly know and understand what they are in charge of and make objective and well based decisions on making genuine improvement and advancement in the area they are responsible for rather than bend to whichever way the opinion polls tell them the general public are leaning. It would lead to unpopular public decisions no doubt, of the sort many politicians wouldn't ever consider these days, but history is littered with examples of where intelligent qualified people have made unpopular but effective decisions that have, in the end, turned out to be the right thing to do. It seems bizarre to me that we end up with 'ask the people' policymaking, 99% of which either don't care, don't have a clue and almost always are not in possession of actual facts and routinely pedal out nonsense sourced on Faceache and the like.
We get the politicians we vote for, whether at local council level - and there are some monumentally idiotic muppets at that level, or national level. Under the current system, we are all able without any qualification able to make our case and stand up to represent. i suppose that is a good thing, but no point in moaning about the current system if you're not prepared to stand up yourself to do it. You are at the mercy of those who are, and they quite often have many many personal agenda's and personality flaws.
And yes, I am a hypocryte as I haven't stood up. I'd far prefer the benign dictatorship approach.
What I would also like to see is that no MP is allowed to be voted in unless they have had at least 10 years in a non-political job doing something meaningful that exposes them to life. It is simply wrong to float out of Oxford with a PPE degree and into Government or elected office within a short period with no experience other than the privilege bubble you happened to grow up in.
Good post. We get the politicians we vote for, whether at local council level - and there are some monumentally idiotic muppets at that level, or national level. Under the current system, we are all able without any qualification able to make our case and stand up to represent. i suppose that is a good thing, but no point in moaning about the current system if you're not prepared to stand up yourself to do it. You are at the mercy of those who are, and they quite often have many many personal agenda's and personality flaws.
And yes, I am a hypocryte as I haven't stood up. I'd far prefer the benign dictatorship approach.
What I would also like to see is that no MP is allowed to be voted in unless they have had at least 10 years in a non-political job doing something meaningful that exposes them to life. It is simply wrong to float out of Oxford with a PPE degree and into Government or elected office within a short period with no experience other than the privilege bubble you happened to grow up in.
Edited by biggles330d on Friday 13th August 09:28
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff