Can someone tell me one politician who is qualified to do this job

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

You may feel he was a good or bad PM but a lot of what was said about him at the time (and since) was pure snobbery and I think that is the sort of thing that will continue to hold the UK back until it's addressed.

I agree, and the biggest snobs of the lot were the Tories he had to try and lead. Personally, I found his hypocrisy over Edwina Currie amusing far more than his syntax. Oh yes. A lot of what is said about Prescott is snobbery too (he was no worse than a lot of posher ministers)

nickmason

Wookster wrote: »

I thought you were going to say do like Thatcher and get a moustache

With a username like that, I'd have thought you would advocate a full covering of hair....:D

torontoboy45

robin_banks wrote: »

In many respcts Major was a PM left to drift by his own party, for most of his premiership the Tories were a ****dy shambles and Major alone or anyone for that matter after Thatcher never really had a chance.

while I despised the tory yrs I had some sympathy with major. governing with a working majority of just 21 must have been murder, not to mention the in-fighting over europe or thatch announcing that she'd be a 'very good back-seat driver' on the same day he took the leadership.
the tory back-benchers were like rats in a sack (and probably still are).

he should have stayed in the chief whips office and watched cricket on tv.

oh yes.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I agree, and the biggest snobs of the lot were the Tories he had to try and lead.

It wasn't though. It was all those snide little pieces in the newspapers about his shirt being tucked into his pants and freezing cheese and all that completely pointless rubbish. Attack the guy for being rubbish (I don't think he was personally, he was trying to lead a divided party with a very small majority and winning the 1992 election was an incredible achievement) but all those horrible little comments about how he was just a failed bus driver and all that stuff - pathetic and nasty.

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Personally, I found his hypocrisy over Edwina Currie amusing far more than his syntax. Oh yes. A lot of what is said about Prescott is snobbery too (he was no worse than a lot of posher ministers)

I don't recall Mr Major saying people shouldn't have sex with Mrs Currie*.

John Prescott manages to lose a lot of meaning between his brain and his mouth. I think I know what he means and Mr Prescott is given a bad press too. As an aside I understand that the Chinese that he eats in in Hull has the best value vintage champagne in the UK, according to Giles Coren in The Times anyway.


*Back to Basics, I know. Misjudged and misguided. I can see why it happened from the politics of that moment.

nickmason

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Or John Major... . There is a degree that trains politicians for government, it is called PPE. Or do you mean there should be an NVQ for politicians. BTW, I knew people at Ruskin College, who were most certainly not stupid.

I'm not sure PPE (and I speak as a PPE grad) trains people at all for government. It does train the gift of the blag - like most of the "arts" degrees from Oxford, because of the tutorial system and the intensity of work. That's not the pre-requisite for government.

What is actually required of politicians is:
1) to be able to see the big picture
2) to be able to negotiate
3) to be able to hear and understand the myriad different interest groups that they are elected to represent
4) to be able to challenge, and successfully change, the guidance of civil servants, political agenda, lobbyists
5) to be able to communicate
6) to be able to assess and judge other people's competences
7) increasingly, to be able to navigate extremely complex legislative frameworks

most of these are innate skills, that can be trained, but not learned academically. Some academic or theoretical knowledge is useful (especially to facilitate communication) but the rocket science should be left to the rocket scientists. (Once you've chosen good ones, of course).

One benefit of this is that you can find these skills - leadership, management, communication - in a variety of individuals, so you do get a surprising diversity of politicians.

Self-selection within the groups is a different matter; that has a lot to do with trust and common language.

torontoboy45

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I agree, and the biggest snobs of the lot were the Tories he had to try and lead. Personally, I found his hypocrisy over Edwina Currie amusing far more than his syntax. Oh yes. A lot of what is said about Prescott is snobbery too (he was no worse than a lot of posher ministers)

for a more up to date example of petty snobbery from the tories consider michael martin, speaker, who the yahoo's disparagingly refer to as 'gorbals mick'.

I thought we'd moved on from this type of nonsense.

nickmason

Is this board signalling a return to class hatred as things turn nasty?
Been away for a couple of weeks, and there seems to be much more mud slinging.

Sir_Humphrey

nickmason wrote: »

I'm not sure PPE (and I speak as a PPE grad) trains people at all for government. It does train the gift of the blag - like most of the 'arts'; degrees from Oxford, because of the tutorial system and the intensity of work. That's not the pre-requisite for government.

I am a PPE grad too. There is a lot of truth in what you say there, but it does give a proper grounding in political and constitutional theory, which in my experience, science/engineering types tend to just not understand. Some things you mention as being necessary are a matter of ability and experience, but PPE helps to develop these. It teaches students how to properly evaluate arguments (particularly the philosophy element). Do not underestimate the importance of knowing how to bash out written work when in government. I found the training I gained via Oxford tutorials very useful. People I know in the private sector find it useful too. EDIT: I forgot the biggest skill, which is to wade through books of waffle to get to the argument and do it quickly. Absolutely essential for any policy officer civil servant or minister, and PPE teaches it well.

nickmason

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I am a PPE grad too. There is a lot of truth in what you say there, but it does give a proper grounding in political and constitutional theory, which in my experience, science/engineering types tend to just not understand. Some things you mention as being necessary are a matter of ability and experience, but PPE helps to develop these. It teaches students how to properly evaluate arguments (particularly the philosophy element). Do not underestimate the importance of knowing how to bash out written work when in government. I found the training I gained via Oxford tutorials very useful. People I know in the private sector find it useful too. EDIT: I forgot the biggest skill, which is to wade through books of waffle to get to the argument and do it quickly. Absolutely essential for any policy officer civil servant or minister, and PPE teaches it well.

Sorry, you're quite right - I over-egged it by using the phrase "trains people at all for government". It is a valuable degree, although I do think of it as something of a "gentleman's" or amateur version of the professional MPA etc found abroad.

EDIT: And I completely agree with your EDIT!

Mandark

The reality is that you need politicians from all sorts of backgrounds. Our MPs would be a very limited bunch if all they had were BAs in Political Science. Those people I know who did such courses thought it useless for the job market and of course you probably aren't going to end up as an MP anyway.

My personal belief is that a good grounding on history, law and economics is best. But we need a few people familiar with the sciences as well.