People standing for parliament should have to prove they’re competent https://youtu.be/JhUcUt15eB8?si=JE8edr_-9S4EcZTk
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.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from RichardJMurphy@mas.to
@RichardJMurphy personally I think they should take a test to prove they're not psychopaths. "Through interviews with experts and individuals diagnosed as psychopaths, Ronson examines the traits that define psychopathy, such as lack of empathy, superficial charm, and manipulativeness. This exploration raises critical questions about the nature of psychopathy and the challenges in diagnosing it accurately." https://andrewggibson.com/2024/06/10/comprehensive-review-psychopath-test-jon-ronson/
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Research_FTW@sciences.social
@Research_FTW @RichardJMurphy Not sure that the answer to "anyone can become an MP" is Ronson's equally absurd "anyone can become a psychiatrist"
https://psychopathysociety.org/page/ArchivedCommentaries
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from skeuomorphology@mastodon.social
@skeuomorphology @RichardJMurphy obviously tested by a trained professional. But my point was that there are too many politicians that are manipulative with no empathy and that should exclude them from running a country.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Research_FTW@sciences.social
@RichardJMurphy Completely agree with you on this. Been advocating this for a while.
There should also be a strong and enforced code of professional conduct which most professions have.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from james_tweedie@mastodon.cloud
@RichardJMurphy
It’s only common sense, right?
(sarcasm)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from guardeddon@mas.to
@RichardJMurphy unfortunately, in practice this gives non accountable power to the people who set the exam. If the exam is set by an incumbent government then it can be set in a way that favours them.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from pbarker@social.afront.org
@pbarker @RichardJMurphy
There are ways to avoid that trap.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from KimSJ@mastodon.social
@KimSJ @RichardJMurphy such as?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from pbarker@social.afront.org
@pbarker @RichardJMurphy
How to depoliticise an exam for MPs? Off the top of my head… Use a select committee (which has cross-party representation) to set the syllabus. Or maybe have the Civil Service run a public consultation. Take input from relevant professional bodies, including perhaps the exam boards who run GCSEs, etc…I’m sure there may be better options worthy of consideration. Maybe some will be suggested by others in this thread.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from KimSJ@mastodon.social
@RichardJMurphy Like the exams we used to give to admit people to Australia; because by the same reasoning you wouldn't want incompetent immigrants. Oddly enough, only white people could get a passing mark.
I imagine much the same would happen to a MP exam, with people without a neoliberal understanding of politics being removed. For example, "What is the function of the police forces?"
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from glent@aus.social
@RichardJMurphy Have been on about this for ages. Qualifications and a track record might help. For example, a graduate party politico could be part of the team running a small town. If the town does well, the assistant politicos lead town management teams. If their performance is up to scratch, they get to stand as local level politicos, then at county level and finally, at national level. Should create quite competent politicos, should it not?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from alexproe@mastodon.uno
@RichardJMurphy Very strongly disagree. The people who set the exam would then control the mindset of people elected to parliament. You would not like it at all of the exam required detailed knowledge of classical economic theory.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from simon_brooke@mastodon.scot
@RichardJMurphy absolutely!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Katenockles@toot.community
@RichardJMurphy
Honest!
You forgot to include Honest!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from GregDance@mastodon.green
@RichardJMurphy
There are procedures in place for selecting parliamentary candidates for the main parties. You may not like them, but they do exist and are subjected to review.
In any case, certification of competence is no guarantee of political intelligence.
see https://www.britpolitics.co.uk/a-level-uk-political-party-parliamentary-candidates/
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from TimMason@mastodon.online
@RichardJMurphy Very, very tricky, for all the reasons I'm sure others will point out.
There is btw some compulsory training you have to undertake (as a councillor; I don't know about MPs) before you can undertake certain roles.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from TimWardCam@c.im
@RichardJMurphy
OTOH there are many examples across history worldwide where such exams have been used to ensure only "the right sort" (ie in line with the current ruling class) can get into government.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from HighlandLawyer@mastodon.social
@RichardJMurphy sortition.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from markfoodyburton@mas.to
@RichardJMurphy
If go further and require ministers to have pre-politics experience of the field they are going to be in charge of. It's madness that ministers move across unrelated departments and rarely stay longer than a couple of years in any of them.
@Maker_of_Things
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from pthane@toot.wales This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini