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

Sir_Humphrey

nickmason wrote: »

...I do think of it as something of a 'gentleman's'; or amateur version of the professional MPA etc found abroad.

Fair comment. It was created to replace Classics in the 1920s for that very purpose AIUI.

Sir_Humphrey

Mandark wrote: »

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.

I agree.

Mandark wrote: »

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.

Having studied 'proper' science (Chemistry and Biology) at A level, I found it impossible to take political science seriously as a rigourous methodology. Comparative politics is a particularly weak methodology IMO.

Mandark wrote: »

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.

The purpose of a degree is to train the mind as well as teach facts. The drawback with Arts grads is that they do not understand that science is far more rigourous than arts subjects, and it's conclusion more objective. You can see this whenever they argue against global warming. On the other hand, Science grads tend to treat political theory as too black and white, with too great a theoretical purity (the great philosopher of science Karl Popper is a good example of this failing IMO when he turned his hand to political theory).

lostinrates

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.

Sir Humphrey, I think it teaches that to some of the people with the capacity to learn that. I am frequently astounded by th narrow margins well known 'thinkers' argue in. I follow some of the arguments in press and sometimes th margins in which they frame their arguments are as narrow as thos found in thrads here. I've shared a few personal anecdotes from the very people lecturing and tutoring PPE at Oxford, and I have found them to be alarmingly illinformed and closed as often as inspiringly complete and intelligent.

e.g: this discussion with someone we probably both know.

Oxford Don to LiR,: before Catrina noone knew there were poor people in America
LiR: , er, I knew, I knew as a kid living in and visiting southern states of America
Oxford Don: no you didn't, you didn't know how poor people were, no one did.
LiR: I think I knew, my parents often talked about it, I think the people themslves knew.
Oxford Don:No you didn't, neither did they. Their own political representatives didn't.
LiR: are you talking about conception, i.e. I'm no poorer than the guy in the trailer/tent/cardboard box next to mine?
Oxford Don: well, not really, though I see what you mean, but no, no one knew they were poor.
LiR: hmm. There are poor people pretty much everywhere aren't there.
Oxford Don: No, There are no poor people in England for example, everyone here has support and noone has to be homeless.
LiR: OK, I give up.

JayScottGreenspan

Vince Cable gets my vote.

Sir_Humphrey

lostinrates wrote: »

Sir Humphrey, I think it teaches that to some of the people with the capacity to learn that. I am frequently astounded by th narrow margins well known 'thinkers' argue in.

The Don who sticks in my mind was a tutor I had (a leading expert in French politics) who, in between slagging off my essays, swore blind that the French far right was 'finished'. This was in late 2000...

nickmason

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I agree.Having studied 'proper' science (Chemistry and Biology) at A level, I found it impossible to take political science seriously as a rigourous methodology. Comparative politics is a particularly weak methodology IMO.

Again entirely agree! You'll note that I put PPE firmly in the arts category.

I take a similar view on economics. Lots of patterns, but it really isn't very rigorous in a scientific fashion. Or maybe that's because I struggled with the bizarre world of econometrics.

My first degree started off as Maths & Psychology - I went from a maths lecture to a psych lecture at which we were taught two completely contradictory theories (no problem there), which were then - both - "proven" using some extraordinary statistical legerdemain. I looked at my fellow Maths & Psych students, and they all seemed to think this perfectly fine. I challenged the lecturer, and was told that (the challenge) was MA stuff, that we should just learn that both had been "proven". It was at that point that the student bar beckoned.

A few months later (esp after an ethical position stopped us from any experiments on people), I quit psych. Which was frustrating, because as "armchair science" goes, it's fascinating.

nickmason

Okay, continuing the huge veer off topic, but my brother tells a story of his tutorial partner rushing off an essay on Racine. As was fairly common practice, he got hold of someone else's, and paraphrased. (Maybe that's a lesson that shouldn't be learnt in government....)

What he didn't realise was that "Ibid." is used in references to show that the reference is to the same work as a previous reference.

So his essay was littered with such phrases as "the central piece in Racine's oeuvre, Ibid., illustrates this point perfectly".

The typical oxford tutorial starts with one essay being read out. So this chap read out the essay in its entirety, all the while unaware of the smile spreading across the tutor's face.

His tutor was the world expert on Racine. At the end of the essay, he asked quietly - "I'm fascinated by how much store you put by the play Ibid. - I'm not sure I know it very well. Could you tell me the story".

The tutee didn't realise the huge trap he was walking into, and with the chutzpah and arrogance of a young Oxford undergrad, proceeded to try and blag the story. "Well, it's a fascinating investigation into the conflict of love and death, and is considered by most to bring together most of Racine's themes..." etc.

Eventually, after what my brother describes as an excruciatingly long time, the tutor asked whether the guy whether he had studied Latin, whether he knew what Ibidem meant, and slowly it dawned on him what he'd done...

Sir_Humphrey

nickmason wrote: »

Okay, continuing the huge veer off topic, but my brother tells a story of his tutorial partner rushing off an essay on Racine. As was fairly common practice, he got hold of someone else's, and paraphrased. (Maybe that's a lesson that shouldn't be learnt in government....)

I remember a tutorial partner of mine, who had had a Swiss public schooling. She copied an essay off the internet, and read it out. Unfortunately, she forgot to remove the Americanisms. Whoops. She ended up with a better degree than me. It seems to me that realising that some of what you have been taught is nonsense either gets you a 1st or a 2.2. Not realising gets you a 2.1 or a 3rd. I released that a lot of political science was balls, but did not get a 1st.

Sir_Humphrey

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

It seems to me that realising that some of what you have been taught is nonsense either gets you a 1st or a 2.2. Not realising gets you a 2.1 or a 3rd.

Actually, thinking about that, that is probably nonsense. The only person I know who got a third was drunk in his finals exams BTW.

Spirit_2

There are some crackingly good constituency MP's, John Denham is one such and has held a few senior jobs in the labour government. That he also had the backbone to resign his post over Iraq, and did so with dignity commends him as a representative of "the people".

I did not vote labour, and John Denham is not my local MP. If he were, I would vote for him to retain high standards in government. I have no idea of his academic attainment and would not care if he does not have 2 O levels to rub together.

We need a balance of intellectual disciplines and experience to determine economic, social and legislative policy so I would not favour all coming from the same stable.

I do think we , like the USA, should directly elect the Prime Minister as it is madness that this can be "handed on".