Anyone can become an MP. No training is required, and then they set the rules for everyone else. That's absurd. All prospective parliamentarians and councillors should have to take an exam to prove their competence.
This is the audio version:
And this is the transcript:
How do we get competent politicians?
What we all know is that we haven't got them. What we need is a way to guarantee that we get them.
My idea is that we should require that politicians take an exam before they're even allowed to stand for Parliament.
After all, you can't drive a car without a licence.
You can't do a great many other things in this country without having proved your competence to do so. I required a piece of paper to prove that I was qualified to be a practising accountant. A doctor requires a qualification, a lawyer does, a teacher does, and on and on. But when it comes to politics, we don't require any proof of competence whatsoever.
The people who are actually setting the rules for this country don't need to prove they know how to do so. And that is absurd.
Just imagine what the job of a politician is for a moment. Most of the time, they're looking at law. And yet, they need no training in what the law is.
Most of the time, they're engaged in activities in the House of Commons, but nobody trains them in what those processes are before they get there.
They arrive and learn on the job.
Most of them have no idea about economics at all, even though the biggest political concern of most people in the UK is about economics. They don't even know what money is, where it comes from, how the government creates it, how it expends it, and why tax exists to help control the economy as a whole and not to fund government spending.
When it comes to interest rates, which are one of the big concerns of most households in the country, they know they've abandoned responsibility for this to the Bank of England and therefore don't worry themselves about what it is they should know.
And, as for inflation, most of them are deeply ignorant as to its causes and why it invariably passes if, as was the case in the recent bout of inflation, it was created by a source outside the UK.
These people are then deeply unable to appraise the problems that this country faces because they have no training in them.
They do not know how to appraise the problems, work out solutions. and enact them. As a vote of confidence goes, those last statements are pretty staggering. What they show is that we have people who are completely unfit to govern us, sitting in the House of Commons.
And that's because we have not bothered to provide them with training.
Yes, I know that when they get to the House of Commons, they do get training on how to fill in their expenses form. And they are required to undertake some training on ethics in the House of Commons. Ethics including things like, wear a tie, and don't say that somebody is lying, even though they obviously are.
But in the core subjects I've just referred to, there is no training at all. And my suggestion is that rather than require that people put up a deposit when they wish to stand for Parliament, which they have to at present and which they lose if they do not collect 5 per cent of the votes in a general election, they are instead required to take an exam to prove their competence to be a member of that Parliament.
We might even do the same, although somewhat less rigorously, of those who want to stand for councils, particularly large councils like county councils, because, again, the people who serve on those institutions need to know how they work. And they are, just as are politicians in parliament, responsible for the creation of law and for the expenditure of very large sums of money, which most of them will have little understanding of.
Why couldn't we do that? Why wouldn't we want to require that people take a training course?
The training course could be onerous. Why not? It should be. They want to become serious figures in our public life. If it takes a year for them to learn the material, and they have to sit an exam, which they must pass with an adequate mark, to be able to stand as a candidate, is that a problem?
I personally don't think so. I think that's the precondition of becoming an MP or a councillor. It would also stop the curse of people being dropped in by political parties late in the day on local constituencies who don't really want them to be their MPs because those people would not have been prepared for this role. To be a politician in Parliament you need to have done your groundwork and preparation long before you ever get there.
Don't we just know that from the failure of Labour? Now, it has a vast majority in the House of Commons but very clearly very little competence to govern.
This idea is a simple and straightforward one. It's incredibly low cost. It would undoubtedly improve the quality of public life in this country. It would reduce the number of mistakes that politicians make and the stupid comments that they pass through the media. And we would all be better off as a result.
So, come on Parliament, change the rules, put this idea into operation, require that new members of Parliament should in the future have to pass an exam to be able to stand for election and that those who are already there should prove their competence through undertaking dedicated training to ensure that they know the same things that new candidates should.
Unless Parliament is willing to do that, it really doesn't believe in its own importance or the requirement that it be competent to undertake its tasks. And unless it does that, it's failing us all.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Who would set the training course?
How do we ensure these (unelected?) assessors do it fairly?
If those settings the course were neoliberal economists, could it not make matters worse rather than better?
Maybe it would be better to provide training and education after election – and then publish the scores?
The Deepsink AI tool has been in the news this week for being a cheap to operate “chain of thought” software, which means that when you give it a query, it talks itself through the answer or answers. Neoliberals attack MMT as being idiotic because it’s believed to be automatically inflationary yet they never bother to analyse and put forward a framework how price level and inflation are linked together. Here’s one of the founders of MMT Warren Mosler attempting to do just that:-
https://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/A-Framework-for-the-Analysis-of-the-Price-Level-and-Inflation.pdf
It would seem logical to use a “chain of thought” AI tool or tools to A) go through the logic of Mosler’s paper and B) ask Neoliberal economists to respond to Mosler’s paper on this topic of price level and inflation linkage with their own papers and then subject them to the same “chain of thought” AI tools analysis to see what arguments hold up and what don’t.
The benefit of this is the most logical arguments can form the basis for training individuals who want to become politicians on the key issue of how a monetary system affects the success of an economy.
surely it would be more relevant that a ‘would be’ candidate is trained and ready before an election – at least this would sort out the ones with purely self-interest, the ones with little or no brains, and those who could possibly put themselves forward as intelligent and worthy candidates to properly and unselfishly represent the constituency with some modicum of intelligence? The Seven Principles of Public Life need to be read, learnt and inwardly digested before being let loose on the public.
Much to agree with
Susan,
You suggest that passing some entrance criteria would ensure/encourage
“worthy candidates to properly and unselfishly represent the constituency with some modicum of intelligence? The Seven Principles of Public Life need to be read, learnt and inwardly digested before being let loose on the public.”
These qualities are not a high bar. Many of the MPs have knowingly broken existing rules. Many of our bad MPs are able to pass exams. Some of the worst have studied degrees covering much of the syllabus proposed (though from a neolib perspective). But still our MPs do not follow the rules or deliberately sail too close to the wind.
Demonstrated competence in an exam isn’t good enough. Ethical behaviour, complying with standards seems more important.
Richard mentioned that other professions have to pass competence exams. Most also have professional standards and they can be struck off if they fall foul.
Testing knowledge of, and ensuring compliance with, ethical standards, with consequences for failure seems quite useful. Like doctors, nurses or Teachers, MP registration could only be attained by passing some agreed criteria. This might have a desirable effect of transferring some power away from parties and whips.
We supposedly have professional standards for MPs
We need to enforce them
At the moment the main test that candidates have to pass is the “conformity” test – conformity to the opinions demanded by the leader and the party’s donors, and a clean (or well laundered) social media history. It makes for very dull incompetent MPs.
I am seeking the opposite
Ignorance is being used to control
I agree but I have no doubt that your suggestion will cause a great deal of harumping. A start (apart from having people in parliament that know the basics) might be to use to the full, those with expertise in a particular area.
The HoC has MPs with various backgrounds, some of them have even been doctors. You would think that a select committe on health would thus tend to have on it – some people (not all) that are doctors. This is not the case, Indeed, the reverse, govs’ don’t want experts on select committees – they might then start coming out with sensible (not consultant-driven) stuff. They might start asking difficult to answer questions. & we don’t want that – do we?
Your cynicism is justified.
The whips are destroying democracy.
Passing a rigorous training course( including modules on economics, the meaning of democracy and ethics and morality in public life) should be a legal requirement for prospective MP’s. Then if they are elected they should swear to uphold ethical values, while they are in office, in a court of law and it should be made clear that if they fall short of the standards they have sworn to, by lying or involvement in corruption for example, they will be prosecuted under a new Treason Act and could face fines or imprisonment. I don’t think this would scare off genuine people.
There is a serious problem with your proposal. It entails a contradiction; it makes democracy exclusive, when democracy is inclusive politics. The current flaw in our politics is FPTP, a two party cartel designed to exclude all other political parties from power.
I understand the attraction of the proposition, but it is scarcely an advance to replace a qualification of property ownership, which we abandoned long ago, only to replace it with a qualification of examinations. The failure is one of the level of literacy of the voter; and that speaks to the flaws in our education system; but remember, the most expensive education money can buy does not buy wisdom, or even common sense.
Your proposal leads inevitavly to exclusion (and bitterness, and everything that goes with that); but we used to do that with the excluded. Already, in the last eighty years, our democracy has seen a decline from 85% of the electorate voting in general elections, to near 60% – and falling. We have de-democratised our democracy already, and voters can see this has benefited only a series of elites, writing the script for themselves. In the nineteenth century our forebears distinguished too readily between the “deserving poor”, and the “undeserving poor”.
It never ends well.
Sorry John, but in this one I think you are wrong.
If you think property ownership equates to possession of intelligence I am worried.
And since almost no one becomes a political party candidate with any serious chance of election on a whim, then in reality those standing are already filtered by their willingness to put in the requisite hours. I am simply suggesting they be focussed. And I am nit suggesting that the required standard be absurdly high. The driving test is designed to ensure most people pass it. So would this test be. But invaluable knowledge would have been acquired on the way, compensating for the problems you note.
I really do not think your objection passes scrutiny.
“If you think property ownership equates to possession of intelligence I am worried”
I did not write that. You have completely misunderstood what I wrote. I struggle to understand how you could form that interpretation. I was pointing out that it is very easy to select a characteristic in order to exclude people from participation in democracy; property, examinations; whatever. Arguments can be created to justify it for almost any reason, and they needn’t be good arguments, but serve a purpose, and persuade some interest group.
We will have to disagree John.
The problem can only be decided by the elector. What you are trying to do, Richard is select for the voter who they are allowed vote for. Democracy cannot protect electors from their decisions. The problem here is not where you believe it to be. The problem is that electors are subject to propaganda, to social media algorithms, to New Agendas set by vested interests in order to vote for pre-selected political candidates by political parties, their vested interests and financiers. You are looking in the wrong place for answers. End FPTP. Do not allow political parties to use a party list system of PR. Then turn to the difficult stuff; how to stop the propaganda and manipulation overpowering our politics. You are looking in the wrong place for the answer.
You know I think we need electrical reform John. But that will it prevent ill-informed and unprepared candidates standing. I think voters have the right to know the people they vote for have prepared themselves for the task they want to do. All the other issues need addressing but they are unrelated to the issue I am addressing and I am surprised you cannot see that, and even disagree with it. I am seeking to enhance the quality of our democracy. Why would you want to oppose that?
“But that will it prevent ill-informed and unprepared candidates standing”.
No it will not. How do I know? Rachel Reeves will no doubt pass the exam.
Arguments in absurdum have never made a case for anything, John.
“I think voters have the right to know the people they vote for have prepared themselves for the task they want to do”.
If you really want to make a fist of that hope, then as a matter of practical effect, banning the Daily Mail or Sun would be more effective, and no less illiberal – than banning electors.
We are now [propsing banning electors. Banning electors!
No one is banning electors John
It is as absurd to claimn that as to say the driving tyest bans car passengers.
Isn’t the fundamental issue here that we don’t teach a subject which the US refers to as ‘Civics’ at school. So, US school children learn about the constitution, the three pillars of government (Executive, Senate and Congress) and the relationship between them, and so on. When I watch current affairs stuff on US TV they often refer back to ‘you’ll remember this from you Civics classes at school’, or similar. But we have nothing like that.
And I know the outcome, having taught public administration/government and politics to undergrads and post grads. Even students who choose to study those subjects often came to university with hardly any knowledge of how the polity and the UK works. And their ignorance of local government was even worse!
As far as educating our politicians goes, I’m very sceptical that it would be possible to put in place some form of post political candidacy education that all those potentially involved would agree to sign up to – particularly in an age of such drastic and violent partisan divides. Anything put together by people suspected of being progressives would be attacked by those on the right – it would, by definition, be ‘woke’ to them. And vice versa.
Indeed, this was the issue we had in HE from the early 1990s. Any course in a social sciences subject that could in any way be interpreted as left wing was purged. Thus, when I studied politics and economics (as a mature student) in the early 1990s there were courses I took which included the word ‘Marx’ and ‘Marxist’ in the title and/or introductory blurb (e.g. our second year political economy course covered Adam Smith, Riccardo, Marx, etc), but by 1998 the management of the university had forced the removal of all of these course – or a change in title and introductory blurb, at the very least – and political economy had been purged completely. And that was all to do with the Thatcherite approach to education and universities knowing they would be punished if they didn’t fall into line.
But I digress. My solution would therefore be Civics taught in schools and then MPs having to do a compulsory six month introductory course on politics and economics before they take their seat in Parliament. This would obviously mean that we’d need to move to a delayed change over of administration, much as in the US. But that would be a small price to pay if we end up with competent politicians.
Much to agree with
I do think that John has a point about exclusivity.
If someone has failed the exam, that could and perhaps should be known, but if they can get the nominations and stand and the public votes for them anyway then that should be allowed to happen in a democracy.
So you could make the course compulsory, just as general education is compulsory for children, and publish the grades, but you can’t then exclude from being a representative based on the outcomes.
Why?
We don’t let drivers who have failed their tests drive.
I am utterly baffled by comnments like yours. Your argument only worksd in absurdum
@John S Warren @ 10:12 am
“Then turn to the difficult stuff; how to stop the propaganda and manipulation overpowering our politics.”
If people CHOOSE to believe a BREXIT from UE will allow additional funds of £350 million to be spent on the NHS then there is not much you can do about unless their beliefs in false propaganda is exposed as a lie and slaps them across the face. It is then usually to late to do anything as in it is too late to get off the BREXIT bus. I guess one could vote Labour looking for and demanding change but Starmer does not seem to want to change anything
@ Ivan Horrocks,
In Scotland we have “Modern Studies”, which fits the bill.
AI overview:
“Yes, “Modern Studies” in Scotland is quite similar to “Civics” in the USA, as both subjects focus on teaching students about contemporary political and social issues, including citizenship rights and responsibilities, but with the key difference that Modern Studies has a more prominent Scottish and UK focus, while Civics is specifically centered around the US government and political system.”
Thanks
Richard, I started off having sympathy with your view. John W’s comments made me pause.
Would it help if everyone was more competent in their role? Of course. The factors you choose for the curriculum are very much aligned with the consensus here … But not the MSM — so who sets what test is good. (Look at the nonsense UK citizenship test).
But if we are to make MPs “better” shouldn’t we clarify what seems to be the problems? I suggest that accountability and scrutiny are lacking. The committee overseeing additional jobs and next jobs is ignored/has no impact. Vested interests and funding of politicians and parties is distorting policy priorities away from ‘the people’. There seems no consequence for misleading / blatant falsehoods. I’m sure the list could go on …..
Addressing these issues seem more of a priority than the ability for an MP to have demonstrated an ability to pass a test on economic “theory”, UK history, “parliamentary constitution”, etc. Particularly so when many of them (parachuted in) don’t seem to know the realities of their constituency public transport, price of a pint of milk, realities of getting a local dentist or GP appointment and if the local school is about to fall down.
So where is the right place to start to make our MPs better? All this whilst the Daily Mail (etc) will ignore the manifest failures of those it favours.
“No one is banning electors”.
You are proposing that electors can vote for a representative; but if they they wish to stand for election themselves (and may be popular in their community, and could be chosen to represent electors); you still wish to be in a position to set an exam that could ban them. That is banning electors from playing their full part in a democracy; you wish to steer it. Democracy is not perfect; it cannot be perfect. It is open to electors to choose the wrong people, and they do. If it isn’topen to error – whatever it is, it isn’t democracy. There have always been arguments against democracy; because it is difficult and does not allow for complacency. I really didn’t didn’t expect this here. The problem is as old as history: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes (Juvenal); who will guard the guards themselves……………………….? My answer is, it has to be the electorate, because they always pay the price, including for their mistakes – and that is reality, as just as we can approach it
I fundamentally disagree
In fact I think the argument is absurd
And as a matter of fact there are people we already ban
They are prisoners
You also have to be:
– a British citizen
– a citizen of the Republic of Ireland
– a citizen of a commonwealth country who does not require leave to enter or remain in the UK, or has indefinite leave to remain in the UK
And you have to be 18
And those elected can also be ejected from office
You are tryting to make an dieal world, John
I want one that works as well as possible
I think my option is better, and you do yours
I suggest we leave it at that
Citizenship (let us pass over the ‘subject’ pedantry) is the entry fee. The fact that there are specific penalties, for crime or corruption does not affect my argument at all.
It is not an ‘argumentum ad absurdum’, that is tied to your proposal. I shall now stop writing on this matter, as you request – I have made my protest.
Any other points made me were made before this one; there were a lot, because the issue exercised me.
“… remember, the most expensive education money can buy does not buy wisdom, or even common sense.”
Isn’t that meant to be the whole point of developing AI tools that set out their “chain of thought” (reasoning/logic) to get us as near to a wisdom or wisdoms that can be undisputed at this current stage of human knowledge?
If so why not test candidates to see whether they concur with these AI wisdoms? If they don’t concur the opportunity given to refute the AI reasoning.
Thank you for an impressive improving idea!
Might it also be relevant to include a section indicating a significant degree of competence at a valid non-political occupation/activity which might give M. Ps some background really relevant to regular voters?
Might it also havé the benefit of making Parliament more democratic/ less undemocratic by weakening the oligarchic/plutocratic grip of the Single Transferable Party/ConLab Party controlling group(s)?
“Unstated caste is dividing our society: its diminution will so improve our society in so many ways.” (From Vijay Sethupatathi)
This probably won’t go down too well I reckon on this blog but given the politicians we’ve endured for many many years and that continues with the present incumbents I’d rather wish they’d stay out of my life altogether .
That in itself sounds a bit Thatcher but as a 62 year old man from South Yorkshire I’m never going to give that women any accolades that’s for sure .
I’m more inclined these days to wish for a more regional kind of government , devolution to me should be the future .
Local politicians making local decisions and accountable to local people .
Build on the Mayors and go further , Westminster is out of touch , self serving and frankly no longer fit for purpose .
up to a point, Andrew, one can agree. There is a need for devolution but wealth and resources are unequally distributed and we need a central authority to mitigate the regional inequalities. How to make that more competent is the problem Richard is addressing.
I believe there will be a turn towards localism in the future. However in the next 20 years political power will still be maintained by the nation state. The idea of the nation state is extremely powerful and even when the institutions that make up the nation state are abused by nationalists and authoritarians, the state finds a way to endure.
My biggest concern about localism is that it becomes a type of manorialism/feudalism/serfdom. Authority transferred to local administrators (sheriffs, mayors, lords by other names) without a democracy keeping them in check.
Localism is fine, all other things being equal. But they aren’t equal. They are anything but equal.
Devolving power DOWN TO the nation state would be a good start (from supra-national corporations).
May present Paula Barker so clueless
She doesn’t even understand what she is reading and Saying
Have a listen and weep
https://youtu.be/KuZ0LoH5jk4?si=jebe5QpeFvq1l4DL
Mr Traynor, perhaps I watched a diff video – the lady sopke a great deal of sense & was prescient with respect to the right.
I have now listened and realised the crap Traynor was saying. I agree with you Mike.
Core of the problem lies in the amateurish way that Political establishment select candidates
without any formal commercial training whatsoever. Compare this to
the French Civil Service, all of whom have to take rigorous exams and show evidence of business acumen.
Political Parties select whom they wish to represent them. This is an infinite regress. Educate the people who select the candidates. Educate the people who join the Parties. Educate the people who select the people who join the Parties. Educate the people who run the Parties.
The English civil service also requires staff to pass quite rigorous testing, at least at the levels where the work is done. I am not sure about the higher echelons?
It does
An exam for candidates is a slippery slope leading to exams for voters.
Exams for voters, part of the Jim Crow Laws, was outlawed in the USA probably over a 100 years ago.
I disagree
@Richard,
With all do respect, please hear me out.
The Yank perspective is different from the Brit perspective on this matter due to the way the USA conducts elections.
The Parties do NOT select candidates to run in general elections. The states hold primary elections and the voters choose the candidates stand in the general elections. Voting rules for whom can vote and whom cannot vote in a primary election differs from state to state but the voters still decided who stands at the general election. I think the questions is one of a UK Parliamentary Democracy system versus a USA Democratic Republic system.
The only benefit I can think of for mandating a qualifying exam for protentional candidates at all election levels is that Donald J. Trump could not pass such an exam.
But we have a very different system….
They should also have to have a DBS check.
Absolutely! Almost any other role involving contact with children and vulnerable people would automatically require a DBS check. It’s a scandal that that does not apply to MPs and all other elected roles too.
And ban a candidate who,aged 18, made a mistake and committed a crime, 30 years earlier? What crimes would exclude a candidate? driving offences? shoplifting? state benefit crime? Many ‘ordinary’ people may have a criminal record. That does not necessarily mean they are unfit to represent their fellow citizens. Without considering wrongful convictions. What about the Just Stop Oil protestors – I would vote for any one of them to be my MP.
At the very least cabinet members should have some experience in their department too
Are not Cabinet Ministers appointed by the Prime Minister?
If so, the “Buck Stops” with the Prime Minister if he has a lousy cabinet.
Agreed
But (see my other post in this thread) the PM can only appoint ministers from amongst the elected MPs of the governing party (or coalition parties). This offers a talent pool of some 300 – 400 people. Not that many for the number of positions that should require well qualified & experienced managers.
The UK PM can have anyone in the Cabinet, from either house of Parliament.
He made John Timpson a peer, so he could become Prisons Minister (in Home Office). Timpson employs a lot of ex prisoners in his key-cutting/shoe repairing kiosks and wants to reform the system. He will be an interesting one to watch.
Unfortunately the same system also gave us Lord Walney (ex MP John Woodcock). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Woodcock,_Baron_Walney
I’m more worried about bias and corruption than qualifications.
Professional lobbyists as in today’s example from OpenDemocracy would likely have no problem passing an exam, alas.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/ex-city-lobbyist-mp-pushed-pro-city-policies-after-meeting-with-former-employer/
It’s possible for more than one thing to be wrong in Westminster. ;-P
I suspect that having more informed MPs would help in the fight against corruption, because the honest ones would be better equipped to challenge the corrupt ones.
The only way to stop UK Parliament and USA Congressional corruption is for corrupt UK MPs and corrupt USA Congress Critters to be thrown in jail for their corruption.
FYI: Just to get specific with semantics: The term “US Congress” correctly and collectively refers to both chambers of the USA legislative branch of the federal government.
I did a BTL on that post in Open Democracy. Bascially – both LINO MPs were talking utter garbage (retail investors buying shotks and shares will help the UK economy grow) – the question is – how to censure them & one of ’em is a bloody minister. Personally, if they believe in what they are saying then they are too thick to hold office – if on the other hand what they say is perfomative – then that make ’em liars (congenital or otherwise).
My personal view is that we should not fetter the discretion of the electorate I might also add that from time to time we end up with some ‘outsiders’ who might not otherwise have made teh grade.
I suggest Martin Bell & Mahri Black as examples.
Conversely we have had a lot of Oxford Graduates who seem to be making a complete hash of it.
My suggestion is that we go back to Ancient Rome and the Cursus Honorum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursus_honorum
Clearly were we to expect that candidates for Parliament had achieved certain things in public and private life eg been a Councillor, had an employment history outside Politics etc
I would suggest that this needs to be done in such a way that it doesnt ‘exclude’ people.
So, for example we could have someone like Caleb Cooper (Clarksons Farm) being considered by a party as a Candidate for Chadlington against some sort of Cameron Clone.
The other thing of course is how we set up Political Parties, do we want them to be mass membership organisations again with the local party chair reporting the mood of the constituency back to their MP?
I would want to exclude no one – as is also true of the driving test for most people
This is not exclusionary – it is protective.
This is a great idea but the head winds are strong.
Firstly, I have come to see a strong relationship between ignorance and happiness or anger. Ignorance makes things simple for people you see.
Let’s ramp this up a little. If you eat meat, and saw how they slaughtered your turkey or the pig that gives you bacon, would you still eat it having heard the squealing, seen the panic in the animals, seen the blood and smelled it and seen the faeces from animals in their last throes of life? I wonder?
What would you think if we made you watch and be there? Would you change your mind? Do you think that your ignorance of that helps you to eat meat? I don’t know! It’s an extreme example to make a point. I’m a vegetarian – if you eat meat, that it your business and I’m OK with it because there are other things we can agree on.
You can be happy not knowing stuff and take the airliner abroad for yet another trip, go around buying more houses to let and moan about carbon and homelessness at expensive dinners only ever in an abstract way whilst not changing your lifestyle. I see this in a lot over-50s and middle classes and with two young people who are my children, I am troubled by it.
Or, you might be just as happy being convinced that it is immigration dragging the country down and not austerity because of either your own bias (racism) or because opinion about the apparent effects of immigration of everywhere and easy to read whereas the discussion (there is no debate) about austerity is rather muted.
In politics, ignorance invites puppetry or should we call it ‘political avatarism’ – so onto my second point – if some rich dude wants to ply you with money and promises for your post political career, your ignorance will enable you to say outrageous things contrary to factual evidence and turn bare faced lies into truths on behalf of your funder(s). It’s very simple – this is why Starmer will not talk about the EU. He is being told not to by the people who pay for his party and provide his clothes and other easements.
Until we insist that politicians have one job, one source of sufficient State pay and accommodation, and an exit strategy from politics supported by the state or local authority that acknowledges what the ex-politician has given time to the political role , I don’t think things will change.
The other issue is that as so often spoken of here, it is the party apparatus that seems to rule. No one seems to ask the fundamental question ‘What is the system of politics that we have for?’. ‘As politicians who are we looking after? To whom do we owe a duty?’ That answer is actually very narrow.
In dear old England, despite a parliament, parliament is still configured to protect the status quo – the rich and its head of state. In the U.S. despite an anti-monarchical start, they have more or less arrived at the same point (although in the U.S. I think there is more hope than in Britain).
At times of crisis, increasingly and axiomatically, state apparatus is called into use to protect the rich – that is what 2008 taught me. It will protect their interests despite what needs to be done AND protect them from the consequences when it is not done (global warming for example).
This is ‘political avatarism’ at scale – a democratically elected government acting exclusively on behalf of a small powerful number of its constituents. How can that be better than a Soviet system or a Chinese one? The Western system may not kill as many people, but thinks that it is OK that many of its people live miserable, ever-shortening lives, hungry, cold, poor and with out hope, living in tents in cities like Paris?? The West just kills its people more slowly and subtly that is all. It also thinks that genocide is a solution to geo-political problems abroad.
If we are to educate and dig out ignorance in politics we may not be able to do so before we have dealt with those who use their financial power to pervert democracy. All I’m saying is that we need to come at the problem from all sort of angles.
Riffing off my opening point, it is the super rich and their avatar politicians all too often swaddled in the good life who are the people who need to be made to come to the (policy) abattoir of British life and see the consequences of their decisions, their desires, their POV, their concerns, their greed, their money, their anti-social behaviour, their ignorance and their high opinions of the themselves.
There is a film about Robert Kennedy on Netflix, and there he is going on a fact finding mission in America’s deep South and the Appalachian mountains in the late 1960s – a period where we sent men to the moon – and there he is looking at poor black and white people wearing no shoes, kids with distended bellies, living in nothing less than huts and filth all caught unsparingly on B&W film. And he even has the time to actually touch one of these emaciated kids as if checking if what he was seeing was real.
When did we last see a British politician amongst the poor? They are always seen in factories, building sites, riding tanks, at ports. I don’t know. Maybe it just me. But ignorance is dangerously rampant at the moment at a time when we are apparently so ‘information rich’.
Anyhow, thanks for reading.
Thanks
Frankly, i do not really understand what you are saying, save you seem to agree with Richard on this one (I can’t)). And that you do, on a test fully to participate in a democracy astonishes me.
There is one thing I have always believed. I detest all ideology; because it is cultish. Everyone will have idiosyncratic views that fits ill with blanket ideology. It is what makes humans human. And that is why I have always believed we must always agree on matters we agree about, and accept there are always be differences, even where you least expect it. That is why I do not believe in perfection; but compromise and consensus. But I confess, on this – here – I am astonished with the warmth toward this exclusionary idea.
There is nothing exclusionary about what I am saying.
You are wrong, John, unless, you think, educatiion and a requitement for basic competence is exclusionary.
And actually, you are being deeply ideological, contrary to what you claim – which is rather annoying when you are using your claim not to be as a cudgel.
I am not claiming this is perfection – and I have already qualified the post to make clear what I mean – but I am claiming we need to ensure democracy works when it does not. You dont agree. I am clueless as to why, bit then you want to destro parteis and that too would destroy democarcy – as I know well from what I saw in Jersey.
Mr Warren
I think that you need to read what I have said more slowly, and then strip out any emotion from your discussion with Richard. I don’t like to see you and our host not agree on matters but it happens, same with Clive Parry but the exchanges do add value and learning, to a point. To say that you do not understand seems just another way of telling me that I’m talking nonsense or that I am just agreeing with Richard for the sake of it? We all know what you are capable of John, so if you do not understand, ask me some questions instead to clarify.
My tuppence worth alludes to a few more things being done that complement Richard’s proposal.
My stance is based – as a working person, working in post Covid, austerity addled public sector in Britain – on what I’ve seen working with managers and councillors who seem to becoming more and more remote from the people they are managing and supposedly serving.
I see far too many people coming in with business/private sector skills but with no domain knowledge, and carrying an awful lot of presumptions with them that even you note are not helpful or based in fact. And on top of that, they are increasingly working from home with no proximity to the consequences of their decisions or what conditions their teams are working in.
We live in a queer time. Politics is blamed for everything, it cannot solve problems it appears but also, it is a Trojan horse for its own inability to solve those problems because we have an entryism problem in politics – an entryism problem John! – I am sure that you are conversant with this problem?
So, we have almost anyone coming in off the street at central government or local level to essentially take charge of complex services based on what exactly?
If you want me to provide an example of what this system does for the country John, then think about our current shadow home secretary the one Rt Hon. Chris Philp MP. Can someone explain to me the phenomenon of Chris Philp? Because I cannot. It’s not his estuary English that I find interesting (Priti Patel was pretty estuary too), but the fact that every time he opens his mouth he talks absolute shite.
You will see John that my post tries to get us to go back to basics and ask what politics is for? This is not just because there is an intellectual vacuum or mono culture, it is also because of a lack of morality, an issue of a lack of principles that guide the intellectual conclusions that good politicians, a good polity should be guided by.
Richard’s suggestion is a platform to address these problems – it’s not just about (say) how money works or the law. It is fundamentally that our parliament carries the sovereignty over this nation – the MP’s are part of an institution of immense power which must be – should be – dispensed fairly and squarely over the realm and is not. It should be about reciprocal obligations between state and the individual . Is it? No!
If we do not address this, then to me it seems that we continue to de-value politics and this will continue to create a vacuum of ideas, morality, ethics, principles that will be filled with God knows what. Well, it leads to fascism.
Ultimately though I have to give a verdict on your stance. And I what I am seeing is what Carl Schmitt saw in his own summary of Liberalism; a fundamental unwillingness to take effective action against individuals or ideas that actually threaten its own existence because of an overriding concern with principle that renders it blind to persons and ideas who are not worth it. This is a fundamental problem with Liberalism, a fundamental weakness that is exploited time and time again by bad actors – the concept of curbing freedom, to protect freedom is not possible it seems, but when comes down to it, it is rather essential. Unfortunate. But essential.
That’s why I support Richard really.
Thanks
Appreciated
@Pilgrim Slight Return
“Ignorance makes things simple for people you see.”
To continue your thought train: The desperation of people makes it easy for politicians. Desperation gave us Donald J. Trump, Nigel Farage, BREXIT and prejudice against immigrants.
So we need to deal with their desperation.
Very Very fine post PSR. 100% agree.
PSR,
I said to Richard I would not comment further, so I shall have to beg forgiveness for this breach of my undertaking; but my response was – I think – called for by your addressing me directly, and providing a “verdict” on my position. I shall be brief.
In the long comment you wrote, what stands out is the reference to Carl Schmitt; a man who defines extreme right wing views, of the most sophisticated kind. Richard’s proposal and my criticism have nothing to do with Schmitt’s extremism.
Richard is not proposing a test for extremism (nor does my challenge to Richard). Richard is proposing a test for proficiency; and the example he chooses as illustration, is the driving test. This is a test for a functional technical proficiency. Indeed such a test would not catch the most dangerous extremists. Carl Schmitt would pass the test with flying colours (what is most terrifying about Schmitt is his penetrating understanding of the limits of constitutional government, and the treacherous problem of where its power begins, or ends). In principle I have no difficulty with a test for extremism, but that is a quite different debate – and it isn’t this one. My objection is to a test for technical proficiency, that must be taken by an elector to participate as a candidate in an election, at all. Who is sufficiently privileged to decide on the questions to be set, or the required answers? Who is entitled to decide that the preferred candidate in an election, whom (it is reasonable to hypothesise here), may well have the support of a substantial majority of the electors in a constituency, is not fit to represent them (ie., sufficiently technically proficient to pass an exam set by an arbiter of proficiency over their heads) to be allowed to win? Who possesses this special, privileged gift of wisdom, to choose whom the electorate may be allowed to vote for?
Please do not say political parties choose the candidates; because they do not choose ALL the candidates; and currently, independents may stand in an election, and in local elections they often do stand, and win or lose. Standing in an election is considered a RIGHT. It seems, perhaps not here.
Sorry John, but you are most definitely letting perfection be the enemy of the good. It is never a good position to hold.
That MP’s should know something about what they are dealing with would be a good thing.
But not sure about the pre – qualification test. It might look exclusionary.
Maybe it would be an optional thing – but would have to be published whether they have taken and/or passed the test on their publicity and on election slips . That would give more information to the electorate – who should still be free to choose whom they want.
Surely it would be much more urgent that corporate and millionaire donations’ have to be made illegal, and a parliamentary oath instituted for each MP to vote with his/her own conscience and not to be influenced by external pressure – which should cut down the mafia that is the whipping system.
A driving test is marginally exclsuonary but we think it worthwhile to protect people
Don’t we want to protect democracy?
I can learn to drive on private land. I can take a driving theory test without driving on a road anywhere.
I can’t see that Richard is arguing for a Civics test (for want of a better phrase) that is open only to those who will later stand for election. And the course material should be available to every household in the land. Enable the voters of today and tomorrow to learn about what every voter should have: knowledge to hold MPs to account.
Every child in school used to be given a Bible, through the Gideons. Are they still? Is it time to build a society that takes as much care of its polity as it does its faith?
I agree – the material should be open to everyone
Make it a mutiple choice test and anyone could take the exam
The indoctrination of children into relgion is already bad enough without forcing them to own (and, presumably read as truth) a work of fiction.
I’m beginning to think you should have to pass an exam to vote!
I would disagree with that.
The biggest hurdle in Richard’s excellent proposal is getting the questions right in setting the exam. When the majority of economists are still thinking that taxes must pay for expenditure there may be a problem. Showing that austerity cuts are are totally ineffective and negative may be another problem for example.
“The biggest hurdle in Richard’s excellent proposal is getting the questions right in setting the exam.”
What you argue is correct which is why we should take an interest in using “chain of thought” AI software which sets out the logic used in reaching a conclusion.
I absolutely disagree with using chain of thought chatbots as a teaching tool. A chatbot is not a human, and does not understand human concerns and thought processes, and totally lacks wider context, so learning to debate a chatbot will not offer useful skills to prospective learners.
When chatbots lay out their own logical inferences and grammatically correct but not necessarily substantial output, that’s not helpful because we ought to want people representing us to be able to build and explain their own inferences, understand the value of reading official documentation and statistics, and to deeply understand what this means, not rely on a textual summarisation tool. Simply interacting with and reading the output of a chatbot is not a useful way to learn this skill.
While I agree that competence is important in politics, I’m not happy with the idea of imposing constraints on elected representatives.
However, government ministers are in a different position, and for me I find the constraint in the UK that ministers must be chosen from the ranks of MPs somewhat strange.
I believe the historical reason is that only MPs may speak in the commons, so a non-elected minister would be unable to address parliament and answer questions. Why can this not be changed, so that experienced, qualified professionals can be appointed to run govt departments?
Also, when an MP is a minister, how much time do they have to devote to constituency matters? I don’t believe it’s possible to effectively represent your constituents and run a govt department. It can also introduce conflicts of interest.
Is it likely to change? Probably not!
It would certainly seem true that Neoliberals/Libertarians have used blackmail to weed out people who oppose their beliefs just as Trump is now very visibly demonstrating. It therefore seems correct that a way to stop this happening is to look for a way of making sure that politicians have a bias free view of how the country’s economic and monetary system works and what biased views don’t. The question is whether “chain of thought” AI tools can be a way of doing this. Otherwise if they are not going to refine logic but simply perpetuate myths what’s the point of them?
A problem for such a course would be its contents. So much can be seen from a left or right perspective… include both ?
eg how “government finance works” part of the course is to agree to what to put in it :
– mainstream neoliberal economics “no bank” model – Finance intermediation or Fractional reserve
– heterodox MMT Modern Monetary Theory, the role of bonds, direct government spending, double entry accounts
In the USA, the elected politician represents the voter not the party.
In the UK, does the elected politician represent the voter or the party?
Officially the voter – but actually the party
@BayTampaBay
Do you want the constitutional answer, the actual answer or the political answer?
Constitutionally I think the MP is elected by the voters as a representative (not a delegate). Occasionally independents get elected or small new maverick parties (Respect/George Galloway). Eg: Martin Bell (Tatton), or an NHS Candidate, or more recently, sev independent pro Palestine candidates, and of course, Corbyn. They are then supposed to make their own mind up. ReformUK are an example of a new party making rapid progress electorally which is unusual in UK up till recently.
Party MPs are the creatures of the Whips, even more so nowadays. Toe the line or get disciplined/expelled from the party. There are only about 100+ gov jobs available for bribing MPs into loyalty & Starmer has 420+/- MPs so that”s 300 MPs with no hope of preferment.
Then there is the MPs’ loyalty to their donors or sponsors, who have jobs for them when they lose/leave their seats.
And their fear of the MSM.
Getting re-elected seems less of an issue nowadays, and MPs seem less interested in the priorities of their constituents than ever before.
Politics in UK is very bound up by tradition and precedent, but that is all creaking at the seams, just like the physical fabric of Parliament. It could all break up v rapidly indeed.
@RobertJ
“Then there is the MPs’ loyalty to their donors or sponsors”: This I can understand.
“Party MPs are the creatures of the Whips, even more so nowadays. Toe the line or get disciplined/expelled from the party.”: This I cannot understand.
Then again, I’m a Yank! LOL! LOL!
I am more concerned with social media that with MPs, I think we should definitely have some constraints on who can comment on this type of platform as it is so influential, particularly for the young.
E.g we could definitely require bloggers to have some form of competence or pass an exam and then their websites could have some form of accreditation to allow them to comment on political or economic issues?
I was a professor of political economy, have been a visiting professor of sustainability, a professor of accounting, and a chartered accountant for 42 years. What qualifications do you desire?
To paraphrase that well known saying ‘If I was trying to get to Wareham* I wouldnt start from here’
* Other towns can be used instead
I am rather reminded of H’Angus Mayor of Hartlepool
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Drummond
Who according to the Chief Exec knew nothing on election but knuckled down and learnt ‘on the job’ so it can be done.
If I was to think about Richards idea though I wonder if what we do need is something like an idea I have proposed, a ‘test’ for Company Directors, rather along the lines of a driving test some sort of course that outlines the expected behaviour of an elected representative
I support that idea as well
Knowledge is power, and we all benefit from it.
But I’d be concerned if the Bank of England provided the economics training, and The Daily Mail “sponsored” the politics training.
But there are better reasons why political literacy is desirable, as demonstrated by many of today’s MPs.
Just to add my sixpennyworth as a still-just-about practising teacher of 16-19 year olds. We DESPERATELY need a Civics education for ALL kids starting in Year 7 secondary school (11-12). I am teaching an age group that are nascent voters and the ONLY political education they are getting is from Farage on TIKTOK, misogynist posers like Peterson and bloggers of the far right. Do not be surprised if the burgeoning interest from the under 30s in authoritarian leadership hands the UK to Farage or worse. I can only influence about 70 of them, gently.
I so agree
As a mining engineer I value knowledge and expertise so I think this is an excellent idea.
Remember that polatitions make decisions which could adversely affect the electorate and even cause death.
Stupidity and ignorance amongst politicians is rife. In his previous term of office Trump claimed he’d stuck it too the Chinese with the increased tariffs he imposed on their imports. In reality American importers paid the tariffs which simply increased the prices for American manufacturers and retailers most of which were passed onto consumers. Even worse the Chinese retaliated by imposing tariffs on their sweetcorn and soya imports from American farmers which resulted in lost trade to these farmers. Trump then compensated the farmers for their loss with government subsidies which appear to have mounted to the value American consumers were forced to pay! Trump still has learnt that increasing tariffs to boost home grown production can only be done gradually to give American manufacturers time to adjust their supply chains and there will also need to be disincentives introduced to encourage American manufacturers to wean themselves off sourcing from abroad for lowest prices.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/92-percent-trumps-china-tariff-proceeds-has-gone-bail-out-angry-farmers
BayTampaBay ought to answer the question whether many voters knew Trump was having to pay government money to farmers for lost export income because of the way he implemented his tariff policy against China. Having lived in the United States I’m pretty confident most voters didn’t know this!
Richard
I’ve been thinking about this a bit more, mostly whilst cleaning the downstairs bathroom.
My first suggestion might be, ‘Be careful what you wish for, you might get it’ clearly it could be Professor Murphy writing the economics bit or it might be Liz Truss.
BUT
We have about 17000 Councillors in the UK & 650 MP’s plus the Scottish & Welsh Assembly members.
So thats quite a lot of people plus of course when an election comes up usually at least 3 candidates for each seat.
Local Authorities lay on training courses for new Councillors so I suggest that we could start by using these as a model. Given that we know when Local Authority elections are due we can work out roughly when they need to be organised for Council Candidates and I suggest subject to discussions about 2 years into a Government for potential Parliamentary Candidates.
Syllabus, well ‘The Constitution’ how to behave, what might not play well with the voters, as one Council Employee who was responsible for expenses said rather memorably he was often asked by Councillors ‘Can I claim for this’ he often replied ‘yes, BUT would you want your electors to know’ without exception they thanked him and decided not.
Given that its going to include everyone from Parish Councillors upwards its probably not going to be a long or detailed course but it might start a move in the right direction.
I might add to my suggestion that there should be some information that election candidates should be required to provide eg outcome of a DBS check and participation in this course
This could be done as multiple choice, as are online driving theory tests. This would really nit be hard to organise.
And all training could be online too.
I would rather have in person sessions partly because you have to make an effort but also for the interaction
Not just in the classroom but over lunch and breaks
@John Boxall
“We have about 17000 Councillors”
I am willing to bet good money that the 17,000 local Councilors are more responsive to their constituents than the 650 UK MPs.
Possibly
But few are known in their communities, I suspect
But less well resourced, no office, no staff to do constituent emails for them, so harder to get responses from, so it SEEMS like they don’t care.
My ward councillors were/are good people, but getting replies from them is not easy!
Accepted
I understand the sentiment, and I agree that something other than pay-to-enter is needed.
But I am not sure that a test alone will solve anything. The powers that currently benefit from having MPs that you feel don’t understand things (the big parties that are often here referred to as the single transferrable party) would be the ones in charge of building such a test. They would have the funds to ensure their own MPs pass such a test. Nothing changes, but the bar gets higher for new people who are not already aware of the ‘correct’ way of thinking politics.
In order to adequately verify that MPs are competent in a way that isn’t just a meaningless tick-box exercise, the only way I can imagine would be to require the general public to quiz them on the issues they feel are important to them, e.g. at a hustings event in their local area prior to election asking about local history, local statistics, etc. as well as professional competency. But the problem here is you then need the general public to be in a position where 1) a majority of them are also competent enough to judge the answers, 2) are prepared to make allowances for people who can’t answer questions in that way but who are competent, and 3) can agree on whether someone is meets the minimum standard of suitability. And at that point, I don’t see that things are all that different from how they are now, other than making a preliminary hustings mandatory.
I have suggested some training for applicants for a job open to all, with intention being that the vast majority should be able to pass. I am baffled by this hostility to training. What is the issue with requiring something so basic? I am genuinely baffled.
Perhaps I misunderstood what your original suggestion was asking, if I am reading this right, you are suggesting some form of training, which is then examined. I agree that training is a good idea, but I am not sure that doing so for the purpose of completing a test or an exam is a solution by itself.
In your opening you mention driving licenses – Just passing the test doesn’t guarantee you’ll be a good driver (we all routinely see people who can’t indicate, run red lights, speed etc). If MPs did go through this process, they can just learn to pass the test (and their parties can pay for extra tutoring, assistance to do so), and that’s why I suggest without some form of follow-up scrutiny from the electorate, I don’t see the test by itself being a meaningful new addition.
Or maybe instead of additional scrutiny after test, there is regulation / monitoring, like drivers licenses. If they make a mistake that shows deliberate disregard to or misunderstanding of the basic information the training gives, and an independent body takes a point off them. Too many points off and that MP is recalled.
The driving test confirms you have done the training and absorbed it.
Then you learn to drive.
I am not pretending it will solve anything. But I think evidence if the training is key – and can do no harm.
I’ve run 3 GE hustings. They get v unwieldy w several “no hope” candidates and are not easy to manage. If you want good coverage of issues and fair crack for minority candidates you need to control questions and timing but then public say its been fixed by the chair. Some incumbent MPs refuse to come. Some behave abominably when they do come (due to weak chairing). Don’t have a big reach, cf the social media campaign – a few hundred people amongst 70,000 voters?. A candidate may tank at a live hustings, but they will still win if their party is in the lead.
Agreed
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/02/01/how-do-we-get-competent-politicians/comment-page-1/#comment-1004795
@BayTampaBay
We have tried “open primaries” once or twice. It didn’t end well, as we didn’t change our whipping system. The last time it produced a good MP though. Unfortunately, she had opinions, and wanted what was best for her constituents.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Wollaston
She and the Conservatives parted company.
The devil will be in the detail but it appears to me that you are falling into the trap of an academic. That of equating the ability to pass an exam with the possession of intelligence.
Over the course of my life (I’m 59) I have met many highly intelligent individuals with barely an exam certificate to their name. I have also met some incredibly dumb people with higher degrees. It is a fact of life that some people just aren’t suited to passing exams. My older sister and younger brother are cases in point. Both understood the material they studied at school but were hopeless when under the pressure of 2/3 hour examination. They were just psychologically unsuited to that method of assessment. Multiple choice or long form was irrelevant. (Incidentally both passed the driving test first time – it is a poor example for comparison with your proposals – I’ve also known some very stupid people pass the driving test)
I very much agree that politicians need an education in the matters they will need to consider – ethics, law, economics etc. I disagree with selection by exam as a means of selecting candidates.
I have argued for a long time that there should be mandatory education ( ages 11-18 ) in Civics encompassing all of those things. I think there is also a case for taking a leaf out of the Americans book i.e. Rather than taking power on day one after an election there should be a pause of maybe a month or two to allow for the proper training of new MPs/Councillors etc
There is then a question of who sets the course material and who will be the examiners/assessors not a trivial question.
In short, I agree with you that our politicians need training, I disagree with you that anyone should be prevented from standing for election because they couldn’t pass an exam. Who is elected and upon what criteria is a matter for the electorate alone
I am equating this to a driving test, and I am not sure that is academic (), but it does expose a person to necessary training before being given responsibility. What is wrong with that?
The skills and behaviours needed to be a tolerably competent driver are largely practical, mostly uncontested, and in principle straighforward to define, learn and test. Of course passing that test does not guarantee appropriate behaviour – practical consequences might, but in practice legal constraints are necessary. So with politicians – except that even starting to define criteria that might result in a citizen being excluded from putting themselves forward for election is in itself a profoundly political interference in a democratic process. Wouldn’t the current crop of fascistic wannabes love that to play with ?
You think knowing how government works is undesirable then? Why?
I am not opposed to the training. In fact I am very much in favour of it. I am opposed to the method of assessment i.e. an exam and of being prevented from standing for election if you are unable to “pass”.
In a democracy I think that who stands and on what basis they are elected is a matter for the electorate.
To enable the elctorate to make the necessary assessment of whether or not a person is an acceptable candidate the training materials should be available to them and not just prospective MPs and that should be accompanied by mandatory Civics education at school. Alongside hustings and media interviews etc that should be the assessment method for the training not an exam.
I disagree
The electorate needs to know they have put in the hours.
Isn’t the voter entitled to know a candidate for Parliament or Congress understands how economic and monetary systems work by taking a test? It would have saved the Americans and the world installing Donald Trump who cost Americans twice over with his ill-thought out MAGA policy:-
https://www.cfr.org/blog/92-percent-trumps-china-tariff-proceeds-has-gone-bail-out-angry-farmers
“…how economic and monetary systems work… ” is a matter of political dispute, and “training” as a qualification for standing for election simply a potential method of idoctrination, if successful, and exclusion if not, waiting to be exploited by whoever controls the training, credentialisation and examination processes. The only valid examination in a democratic state is the election process itself. A more relevant question, IMHO, is how to make the election processes less subject to the weight of money and established power.
Hello Richard, isn’t the functioning of government characterised quite well by the old TV series “Yes Minister”? Do the elected politicians really control government activity or is the process and agenda controlled more by permanent secretaries and civil servants and the BOE?
I could imagine utopia being a public sector working properly and funded by an informed macro economics treasury supported by a similarly minded Central Bank. The elected politicians then jusr have to guide fiscal policy based on the needs of their constituents?
Government is dependent on a good civil service
But that has to reflect society and the needs of that society
Our Treasury does not
That is part of government disfunction now
I don’t think we’ll get ‘competent politicians’ until democracy re-connects with people in their everyday lives, which means far more local democratic control of budgets and decision-making than we have now.
Mid-1970s “local government reform” severed that connection and we’ve been incrementally paying more and more for it ever since.
I think having an exam for elected representatives would exacerbate the problem, which I believe is ‘professional’ politicians. Elected representatives are meant to represent the people of the constituency who elect them.
Careerist professional politicians however have a first loyalty to party leadership, who have the power to promote them.
Being an MP is viewed as a career choice, rather than as a public service.
Jury’s are not ‘qualified’ in the law or in social sciences or forensic science or anything else, yet we put our liberty in their hands.
I would limit MP’s to serving two parliaments and any other regulations necessary to make it impossible to have a ‘career’ in parliament.
The wider problem across society is that neoliberalism has dishonoured the concept of public service and integrity. If greed is good and ‘winning’ is all that matters, then what value is there in public service that may involve self-sacrifice?
Having a driving licence to show you have learned the basics of what you want to do does not make you a professional driver.
This test would not make you a professional politcian and would be a lot more accssible.
And how do you think we will ever have competent ministers if you can only have ten years at most in parliament?
Sorry – but your idea does not stack. And what is it that you do not like about training? Can you explain? I really do not get it.
Alcohol not being available in the workplace ie Parliament would be a good start.
Electorate having core stem O and A levels in General Studies, would help reduce ignorance.
Candidates for parliament need both, and then the follow up qualification diploma in general studies.
For ministerial posts, the need to know what they don’t know, would require a degree standard of General Studies.
I like that
I’ve been thinking about this issue and trying to decide what I think about it and why.
To start with common ground…
The quality of MPs, Ministers and Government has deteriorated drastically, and it is doing real harm to the quality of life of large numbers of people and is affecting our future quality of life too.
Those of us suffering at the sharp end are being treated with contempt by politicians and those who are benefiting from the current chaos. Our suffering is disregarded, and we are also disrespected in terms of the part we can play in the political process – politicians don’t care about our wellbeing, and they aren’t interested in our opinions, and they don’t want us having a say in “their” political parties. This is especially noticeable in the Labour Party (a promise of grass roots democracy has turned into authoritarian party dictatorship) and in Reform UK – which doesn’t have any party democracy, because it is a corporate fiefdom of its two controlling shareholders.
There is a painful history around the development of the franchise itself, in terms of who should be qualified to vote. This is particularly raw in the USA, with the history of the Jim Crow laws and the reforms in the 1960’s to ensure a genuine universal franchise with respect to race. A similar painful history in the UK revolved around gender and the franchise, and also around the possession of property.
There is a regrettable tendency amongst the better educated and neuro-typical members of the population to feel that they are better qualified for most roles in life, than those with a more working class background who have not achieved graduate status, or who are in various ways, not “typical”. Those of us who live in such communities are very aware of such attitudes and the way they provoke resentment. They are typified by the way US Democrats referred to “the deplorables” during the 2016 Presidential election, and the way in which Reform voters are often referred to in political discourse in the UK as bigots or uneducated. Reminds me of Emily Thornberry’s famous jibes about white vans and St George’s flags. What an election winner THAT was.
But getting the franchise is not the same as standing for office. But nevertheless, emotions are involved, and feelings can and do run high.
It is undeniable that the current quality of MPs is very poor. Their grasp of economics, how business works, how education or health work, is almost non-existent and they do not seem able to listen to those who have the experience that they lack. Their lack of ability seems to have nothing to do with their lack of education – private schools seem to be able to produce bad MPs just as well as state schools. It’s the worst I’ve known it since the 1970s.
It isn’t true that “anyone” can be an MP or councillor or that “anyone” can stand. We do have certain restrictions, including certain citizenship and residency qualifications, the need for sponsors, a financial deposit, restrictions on mental capacity, and a bar associated with certain convictions. Parties also impose their own conditions such as approved candidate lists, along with reputational and political vetting, and ability to interact with voters. But the bar is low.
I am sure that we do not wish to impose conditions that prevent mavericks or eccentrics from standing for public office. There have been some notably eccentric local candidates in recent years, some of whom have subsequently served with distinction. It was Johnson’s ignorance and dishonesty I objected to, not his eccentricity.
I also think that all of us would support the availability of better training for prospective and serving public representatives, and we would be comfortable with requiring candidates to take part in it as a condition of their public service. I think it would be good if candidates did that training after their election but BEFORE taking up their seats because I don’t want to raise the financial bar for candidacy by adding extra time to the period they might have to stand down from their day-job to “train” to be a candidate. We have a weird system whereby we change the entire government in 24 hours, and MPs start work in complete ignorance of how to do their job. That does seem crazy. In the USA it takes over 70 days. Where coalitions are common under PR in Europe, then it takes time to form them – look at Belgium!
But now I get off the fence.
I get uncomfortable at the idea of imposing an exam because I don’t like the idea of one group of people telling another group of people what skills they MUST prove (by examination) that they have, in order to get elected by their peers to public office. I’ve seen Hillary Clinton call her opponents “deplorables”. I’ve seen how the franchise can be manipulated racially by gerrymandering and voter suppression. I think something similar would happen over qualifications for candidates. In fact, I can see it already happening in the Labour Party, with candidate selection – that’s one of the reasons the party is in the mess that it is in now a party of clones all of whom who have passed Starmer’s quality-control test.
I’m aware that people are very diverse. There are neuro-typical & neuro-diverse people, dyslexic people, disabled people, people of colour, people with varying levels of literacy and numeracy, as well as different physical limitations. Whatever “test” was set, there would be a whole raft of candidates who would be disadvantaged by the style of the exam – “selection bias”. Who would approve the test? Who would set it? Who would decide the pass-mark? How could one challenge it? How often would it be changed? Would the test to be a rural candidate be the same as the test for an urban ward with a high immigrant population? Would MP’s have to approve it?
I’m thinking about my fellow omnibus passengers. Many of them, highly intelligent people, have great difficulty with literacy or numeracy, sometimes because they left school early, sometimes because of neuro-diversity. Others are intelligent and educated but see life very differently from their peers and contribute to creative thinking in unique ways. They contribute originality and creativity – they help groups break out of hidebound ways of thinking. We sorely need them! I’m very good at exams. But that doesn’t make me better suited than someone who is useless at exams. But it does give me an unfair advantage. And those of us who are good at these things generally end up making the rules for those who aren’t.
My conclusion is that I am 100% in favour of developing a way of exposing candidates to training to better equip them for their role. I think such training should be mandatory and certified – but not by a TEST. Take the horses to the water trough. Make substantial amounts of potable water available to them. Require them to show that they did in fact go to the water trough and that they DID taste the water. But no drinking competition!
What would be very interesting to see here, would be a discussion about what a core training syllabus (without an exam but with an element of compulsion) would look like for council candidates (although I wonder how long we will be allowed to elect councils under Starmer’s centralisation plans), and for MP’s, Mayors, and Police & Crime Commissioners. How could we make it both relevant and genuinely inclusive? Perhaps we could all agree on that as a topic for further discussion?
Ok. So we get somewhere. Training is good. Certification of participation is good. Testing is bad. That’s a good compromise.
I don’t mind a handful of ordinary people entering Parliament. I am more worried about the Oxford elites that have run the country since Churchill. Since 1955, twelve prime ministers have been to Oxford. Look at the mess they’ve given us!
[…] By Richard Murphy, part-time Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School, director of the Corporate Accountability Network, member of Finance for the Future LLP, and director of Tax Research LLP. Originally published at Fund the Future. […]