Should MP's have to come from professional backgrounds rather than taking useless degrees such as PP

Castiel said:
How will that work? How is that representative of the people...the expertise is already there in the Civil Service, an MP is there to represent their constituents, not be an Accountant, Scientist or Economist.

You are talking about removing representative democracy and replacing it with a Technocracy.
Click to expand...

surely its actually just adding a qualification requirement to the role?

anyone can still do it.
 
They should all be ex-fighter pilots like in the film independence day. Then when the dragons comes the PM will all be like "This... is our........ St. Georges Day" then Will Smith will blow up a spaceship with Jeff Goldblum.
 
Tefal said:
surely its actually just adding a qualification requirement to the role?

anyone can still do it.
Click to expand...

Then you are limiting the ability of anyone standing to represent those you may be representative of. It removes the idea of a representative democracy. You are creating a technocratic government, which is likely to be elitist rather than representative.

We have a civil service which already has the relevant qualifications and experience (at least that is their role) pursuant to their department responsibilities within Government.

What people are really asking for is reform of the civil service, rather than the reform or removal of representative democratic process.
 
Last edited:
Totally agree. There should be a minimum 5 years in a real job criteria before being able to run for office. Political adviser does not count as a real job. Nor for that matter does teaching - the 5 years should be spent in the real world.
 
OldCoals said:
I think people do want reform of the political system, one that isn't stacked in favour of the two big parties.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but that would require making it more representative rather than less...in the context of what the OP is asking, I think that reform of the civil service is more appropriate to the question.
 
I don't think that they need qualifications, but they need some proper experience of life. And I don't mean a low-level management post in daddy's company. Once upon a time people went into politics after their career, now it is their career. In some ways I'd like to bring in a minimum age requirement of (say) forty, but I agree with those who say imposing selection criteria on MPs is a slippery slope. Except, effectively there already are selection criteria: for the main parties you have to rich and well-connected.
 
It doesn't matter what their background is, what experience they have, how old they are or if they like milk in their tea.

We have a political system whereby MP's tow the line or it is the end of their career, doing what is right comes way down the list.

How on earth do you change that?
 
scorza said:
No. The last thing we need is more lawyers and accountants in Westminster.
Click to expand...

Actually, it would be great if there was at least one more lawyer in Westminster. The current Secretary of State of Justice is the least qualified person in his position for 400 years.
 
I think youll find that all positions where this matters (e.g. chancellor of exchequer is a history graduate) it's irrelevant, because those politicians are not there to make decisions based on data, research or academic study.

The fact is they are there to do precisely as their party intends.
 
OptimaLnrg said:
I think youll find that all positions where this matters (e.g. chancellor of exchequer is a history graduate) it's irrelevant, because those politicians are not there to make decisions based on data, research or academic study.

The fact is they are there to do precisely as their party intends.
Click to expand...

And then someone points out that what they're doing is unlawful and they're forced into a U-turn (or they change the law retroactively).
 
The health secretary should have a medical degree or equivalent.
The secretary of defence should have served in the armed forces in active war zones preferably infantry. I think it's an insult to soldiers dying due to lack of equipment that the man making the decisions has not risked his life in the same way.
 
Last edited:
Whilst I can see a point in suggesting that MP's should have professional backgrounds, I don't think it's essential (and hell, look at the mess some of the MP's with legal backgrounds have made out of the law...).

But do think that all MP's should be required to spend time working, at the "ground level" if they become a cabinet minister.

IE if you want to be the minister for justice, you should have to spend a few days working on the floor/observing conditions in
A court room
A prison
Policing
At a time and location chosen at random* and without the press.

Of course that doesn't help with the biggest problem we have with the politicians, which is that most of them are pretty much rent a gobs who would sell their grandmother for a nice sound bite, you just have to look at how the MP's who supposedly have law degrees would appear to have forgotten the basics in the past (things like ordering someone sacked without due process because it was politically expedient and they wanted to be seen to do something, or the number of times they've come out with bits like "we're giving the homeowner the right to...." when what they actually come out with is exactly the same as was already there).

I may sound like I'm a little down on politicians, that's not the case at all.
I'm very down on politicians - at least the current crop who I wouldn't trust to do anything more complex than looking pretty (they're not even the old "honest" politicians who would at least stay bribed:p)

*IE you pull a the name of a police force out of a hat, then the town, then the shift (to try and avoid the time and place being "fixed" and the local management etc playing silly beggers with the shifts to make sure that there is more coverage than normal).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom