Comments by "Andrew Sainsbury" (@andyinsuffolk) on "People standing for parliament should have to prove they’re competent" video.

  1. If it was comprehensive then being taught about critical thinking would probably apply to exporing all the main economic schools and allow them the freedom not to be limited by ideological factions.
    2
  2. Voters make choices for themselves or however they prefer - MPs are employed by voters to make better choices for all. Being led by morons is not a requirement in democracy. There is no democratic principle that everyone is qualified for government - it's mostly just a job like any other.
    1
  3.  @nameberry220  'Qualification to become an elected representatives is the antithesis of democracy' - democracy has little core diktum. Basically its about shifting power down the hierachy which means the people can decide if they wish to discriminate about their reps (but not between themselves). The 'freedom to rule or represent' serves no democratic purpose. The constitutional choice to raise the minimum age from 18 in the UK would not threaten democracy - democracy is about people power they can make collective decisions about collective standards or statute even if it limits their own choices.
    1
  4. Should the choice include people who have proven they do not understand maths & statistics but have incredible charisma?
    1
  5. This is a basic suitability test like for driving not to find the highly qualified.
    1
  6.  @xwhateverx666  - The evidence indicates that the PPE route doesn't provide qualified politicians so the test needs to be more focused. Boris Johnson might pass or not but that doesn't matter - we need a basic competence level which then might leave BJ never getting an executive office because there are so many better people to choose from.
    1
  7. The training would be in knowledge not opinions - statistics doesn't have much ideology. There could be different courses from different providers and different exam/interview boards just like any other academic area; centralised training is not required.
    1
  8. If we have an open electoral system people can choose good people which will still be an opinion. But when they get into office they need to be able to understand stats, law, political process, reasoning etc or they are useless.
    1
  9. 'Wanting to do good' is not a qualification for anything The training/exams can be provided by many qualified independent organisations. For a start people without basic maths & stats skills should not be making bureaucratic decisions.
    1
  10.  @xwhateverx666  - Nobody has a right or entitlement to govern or make choices for others. The requirements would be pretty basic in academic terms.
    1
  11. Absolutely, something I can finally agree with Richard. The parties will hate it because it restricts their freedom to rule. I have suggested that the same thing could be achieved by having a formal interview by mandated bodies like universities; who could test the areas of knowledge in one session and issue a pass or fail - insistence on completing an onerous course for people to learn stuff they already know just limits candidates to suit the bureaucratic process.
    1
  12. There's no reason that organisations or charities, parties in the current system - whatever, couldn't fund their favourites.
    1
  13.  @michaelchampion936  - so the cost wouldn't really be an issue. The other barriers are far higher now.
    1