Should MP's have to come from professional backgrounds rather than taking useless degrees such as PP
- Thread starter NinetyOne
- Start date
Research it.
No desire to.
They had their chance in 2011. They didn't take it.
Why does the Secretary of State for Justice need to be a lawyer?
Our justice system is necessarily complex. It's very hard for someone without a background in law to come along and do the job well.
Chris Grayling is currently trying to make sweeping changes to justice system despite having a very limited knowledge of how the justice system works. He wants to restrict access to legal aid for the poor, he wants incompetent firms like G4S to run courts and he wants to stop people challenging the decisions of the government. Everyone has told him that his ideas are bone-headed, will lead to miscarriages of justice and actually won't save any money. He's ploughing on with them regardless.
He also keeps making statements about what he's going to do about that are blatantly unlawful. Virtually every decision he makes is going to end up being challenged and cost this country a lot of money.
You wouldn't want some random guy off the street as your doctor. Why put up with someone with zero experience or knowledge running our justice system? Perhaps there are non-lawyers out there with a deep understanding of the legal system but Chris Grayling isn't it.
The thing that bugs me most is there are very few individuals in politics nowadays, politicians just take the position of their leader whether they agree with it or not. I think they are more interested in holding onto their jobs and cushy lifestyles than having a positive influence on the country.
how much of what Chris Grayling is doing is what Chris Grayling is doing?
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 2,014
- Location
- Peterborough
Must say I agree. Though this is down to the way politics works now I think. If everyone was individual I fear nothing would ever get done. That being said the Tory back benchers haven't done a bad job of speaking up lately. There is a lack of strong personalities (Boris aside) in politics nowadays though.
I think there is a problem with the way our politics system works and the way it interfaces with the various departments it's meant to govern. With the current political system I feel it is a nigh on impossible task to reform the NHS, education system etc. in one term or even two for that matter. I feel the likes of the NHS don't cope with mass change very well and generally would work better with a much longer term strategy put in place for it. However this does not fit in with the frequent changes in government. This combined with each government's need to change absolutely everything in order to be seen to be doing anything is not conducive to the re-form of any department. As such I sympathise with those saying MP's should have experience in their departments but it's hardly practical and doesn't guarantee better results as the decision is still left to party politics. Also as other's have said their primary role is to represent their constituents. Nerdy scientists and engineers etc. often don't make for good public speakers and good business leaders will be off making money.
Unless either the political system changes or the way that ministers interface with their departments changes I don't see our problems going away at all. As for a solution well now that'd probably require a greater mind than mine. I have a few ideas but can't say I've really thought them through in detail.
There is also the separate issue of specialisms within the civil service. In my experience the direction of the civil service is a move towards civil servants being generalists. This is entirely due to the fact that if you want to work your way up the pay scale (who doesn't?) then you have to be. The role of the specialist is very much undervalued and there is very little in the way of career progression for those looking to be specialists within the civil service. As such those with those niche skills generally don't stick around or just don't join all together. Why would a talented ambitious scientist want to work for the civil service when he can be paid much more to do the job he actually enjoys in industry and have future prospects? This example can be applied across many professions bar those that are generally public sector only. (doctors etc.) I don't think doing away with pay spines will help retain these individuals either. Ofcourse there are many who stay due to the unique nature of some of the work but you're going to lose out on a lot of talented individuals with this mentality towards the specialist.
Last edited:
We have the civil service to tell him the technical details. Everything Grayling is doing was talked about before the election, if you don't like it - don't vote for his party. Tbh as much as I disagree with what he's doing, the last thing we need is another legal establishment figure at the top turning a blind eye to all our legal system's failures. It's not like Grayling is the Director of Public Prosecutions, who I agree should be a lawyer.
None of these policies were in the 2010 Conservative manifesto.
I totally disagree. The only kind of person likely to be in a position to fully understand what's wrong with our legal system is someone who's had day-to-day experience of it. It's a complex system with many subtleties. Even if someone from outside is able to identify the problems, they're unlikely to be able to provide a capable solution.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
It sounds as if you're suggesting the MP should do much of the technical work here - that would be a terrible use of their time. The civil service is there to implement the policies of the government of the day, contrary to what some believe there is a substantial amount of expertise in the civil service.
In your scenario what happens if the MP has specialised in law but there are no positions available to head up the MoJ? Do they just have to sit on the bench until such time as one of the MPs there retires/moves on/disgraces themselves/cabinet reshuffle/whatever? What if there aren't enough suitably qualified MPs in health? Do we need to have a country-wide trawl for suitable candidates? What if the best people under these particular requirements don't fancy the role of being an MP?
Essentially you don't need to be an expert in any given field to make good decisions provided the advice you get is sound and you evaluate it logically and fairly before acting coherently based on it. If you don't follow a logical and sensible approach then I'd suggest that being an expert in the field will make no difference anyway.
Yeah but you know that the Conservative party stood on a platform in favour of the privatisation of public services.
But Secretary of State for Justice is a political role, not a technical one. Exactly the same could be said of practically every ministry but you wouldn't want say, a benefit scrounger to be social security minister
In an ideal world all you would need are MP's with some common sense (not career politians created from the local party machine) who have the ability not to tow party line and make judgements based on common sense - you dont need the qualification to understand something once the main facts are distilled down with some pros and cons. Then they would represent the people
You're on a hiding to nothing with that one, trust me.
+1 unless he means time served in that job - all those that I have met in the civil service hit about 40 then are on the run down to retirement
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I know but sometimes I just can't help myself.
I actually mean in the sense of being experts in their subject area - some of them are in such specialised areas that they're the expert, they are the resource that anyone with a query on the subject goes to. When you're talking about an employer as large as the wider Civil Service there's a huge spread of experience and expertise in there in an absolutely huge range of areas. There are of course some who will no doubt just be looking for retirement but you'll find them in most jobs.
The Civil Service is far from perfect but the fact that the country carries on running as smoothly as it generally does is due in no small part to the efforts of civil servants. I know it's not a popular view but it doesn't alter the situation, I'm with Guido Bruno on this one "Truth does not change because it is, or is not believed by the majority".
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
I would much rather have a Technocracy than career liars, sorry PR men, running the show. But i am sure that would have its faults as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
The most recent governor appointed to Jakarta did something similar, he had ran a province, did it well, with no corruption, so he stood on an anticorruption platform.
He was voted in, and randomly started without notice showing up at governmental department offices, realising the lazy sods were not coming in on time, or turning up at all some of the time.
Started sacking anyone who wasn't there. Started moving people around, and making his civil service work for their jobs, and has cracked down on corruption (a little, this is Jakarta after all, like any Muslim dominated society there is a massive under current of corruption and bribery as a simple means of getting things done)
He gave no warning, showed up and investigated.
I reckon if that happened here the unions would have everyone on strike before 5pm.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Indeed, Castiel mentioned similar, has there ever been a case of such a government?
This doesn't even run or work within universities and similar does it?