Are they qualified to be an MP !!!

[gatesmr2]

Just a thought i have been having for a while :?

Was listening to Wogan the other morning so i am not saying this is right or wrong but can quite believe it to be true.
A listener asked why he didn't get the job as Chancellor of the Exchequer Wogan has actually got a finance degree or something like it when Brown, Darling etc etc do not?
This also got me thinking about schools and NHS etc where i doubt very much if they have a relevant background to run what is a multi million pound company.
Going by this i am thinking of applying to Microsoft as there new CEO :shock: i may know nothing about computers but i am sure i could give it a go.
Ok may sound a little OTT but it amounts to the same thing.
I know they may be well educated but please surely they also need to understand the business they are in affect running, i am a chef and have seen so many people open up or take over a pub, hotel etc with little to no knowledge of what it involves. Most then end up bankrupt or having to sell at a huge loss.
And yes i know they have thousands upon thousands of people advising them but they also tend to ignore this advice when it suits there interests not to listen. Or get so much conflicting advice from different sides they have to make an informed choice, but how can you if you do not understand how a business actually works from either experience or at least an education in said business.

Just a thought and i am not being political against any one party this is a generic question involving all parties and who in fact is qualified or not.

Martin

 

[matt]

Not true of all jobs but I would say that if you're managing/running then you need to be a good manager before you need to have an in-depth knowledge of the subject itself. The degrees of relevance of this statement varies according the size of business, of course. Obviously a one-man-band needs to manage at a high level the strategic direction of his business whilst having the in-depth knowledge to do the job. At the other end of the spectrum, the CEO of MSoft is as good as his ability to bring together his strategic understanding of the industry he's operating in whilst listening to and managing those within his company with the in-depth knowledge of their respective areas.

EDIT... On the subject of being an MP, PM, President, etc... I think you need to be a very special type of person to want to do that job. Ironically, in my opinion, the very person you need to be is the type least likely to do a good job (at least from the electorate's perspective).

 

[Digit]

This, plus the money of course, is why the Tory party are opposed to the idea of banning outside jobs for MPs.
It gives them a foot in the more real world than sitting in parliament does and brings expertise to debates and committees.
A valid argument I think but also open to abuse no doubt.
Chancellors of the past have also been unqualified, this is the reason for the existence of the senior civil servants, the Chancellor is supposed to act on their advice, one of the criticisms of GB was that he never did, whether that is true or not I know not.

Roy.

 

[Jenx]

Thinking back on it ... 'YES MINISTER' was probably an extremely representative illustration of the truth !

 

[Digit]

And much more amusing!

Roy.

 

[Rich]

imo. the only minister ever suited to the job was Tom King, minister for northern Ireland, he had actually served in the armed forces, and performed his office well, Paddy ashdown was another good MP.

Rich.

 

[Digit]

It's a tale worth the telling Rich that Abe Lincoln stated that he only became a politician 'cos he'd failed at everything else!

Roy.

 

[Ironballs]

Rich is this the very same Paddy Pantsdown!? Unbesmirchable character...

Don't kid yourselves about senior managers/directors/CEOs of private companys, some are good leaders and sensible, some seem to have risen to the top like scum. I've seen both, often in the same company, the big difference is that they are not in the public eye

MPs have their faults but they're not unrepresentative sadly

 

[Rich]

Rich is this the very same Paddy Pantsdown!? Unbesmirchable character...

Don't kid yourselves about senior managers/directors/CEOs of private companys, some are good leaders and sensible, some seem to have risen to the top like scum. I've seen both, often in the same company, the big difference is that they are not in the public eye

MPs have their faults but they're not unrepresentative sadly

I take your point. but have to say that just because a man has "foibles" does not mean he is not good at his job, Ms Smith and McNulty and others are out of their depth, it's like asking a plumber to carry out electrical works, the reason the government costs so much is that the ministers have to hire consultants to tell them what to do, this is over and above the civil servants who are there to do the same job but are not used.

Rich.

 

[Jenx]

'Wardrobe Mishaps' aside ... I thought Ashdown was a pretty good bloke too.

Among the current crop - the only decent character that has any kind of high profile is his fellow liberal, Vince Cable.

Serious thought - would it be beyond acceptability that the 'Yellows' might be worthy of an opportunity ?
My guess is that they would ..... what think the great prophets, philosophers, wits and raconteurs of this erstwhile forum, to that premise ?

 

[Rich]

'Wardrobe Mishaps' aside ... I thought Ashdown was a pretty good bloke too.

Among the current crop - the only decent character that has any kind of high profile is his fellow liberal, Vince Cable.

Serious thought - would it be beyond acceptability that the 'Yellows' might be worthy of an opportunity ?
My guess is that they would ..... what think the great prophets, philosophers, wits and raconteurs of this erstwhile forum, to that premise ?

Well Jenx, I think he would certainly make a good job of chancellory.
but the party itself has no depth and no clear platform to run on, admittedly they have not had the chance to prove their theories as yet and I don't think they would have done the damage that the present administration has done to this country.

Rich.

 

[smithrdn]

Just don't got your thought!!!!

 

[sliver]

Matt wrote: EDIT... On the subject of being an MP, PM, President, etc... I think you need to be a very special type of person to want to do that job.

I just remember one of Billy Connolly's ramblings about politicians, He said "Just wanting to be a politician in the first place should preclude you from ever BEING one". :lol: :lol:

cheers, sliv.

 

[dunbarhamlin]

The point is that before the recent crop and before the queen (uncapitalised intentionally) reneged on her constitutional responsibilities, MPs receieved but a modest income and the upper house (disinterested - NOT uninterested) but a trivial allowance - consequently a significant proportion were attracted by a sense of duty - and had both the conviction and necessary mental accuity to stand up for their principles.
Now democracy is effectively dead, the monarchy an expensive joke and control in the hands of faceless mandarins and rogue security moguls.
With less than 2/5 of the population getting paid by anything other than tax dollars, we're stuffed.

 

[Digit]

A pretty good summation I think.

Roy.

 

[head clansman]

Hi all

I want to know who says that for a candidate to do job (a) he/she have to to have (x) amount of qualification , and to do job (B) you have to have amount and so on . now who decided those people who made those rules were qualified to make those rules . the people who have run this country in the ground,? hmm god help us all .

there the ones with all the qualifications , and look what they have doing to us all .hc

 

[Doctor]

Hi all

I want to know who says that for a candidate to do job (a) he/she have to to have (x) amount of qualification , and to do job (B) you have to have amount and so on . now who decided those people who made those rules were qualified to make those rules . the people who have run this country in the ground,? hmm god help us all .

there the ones with all the qualifications , and look what they have doing to us all .hc

is it just me who's confused...

 

[BradNaylor]

is it just me who's confused...

No.

On the subject of qualifications, I've never thought that they mattered too much.

Just because you took a course at 18 doesn't neccesarily mean you can do the job 30 years later. Ability, experience, character, and 'nous' are far more important, and a paper qualification is no proof of any of these.

Brunel for instance, had no formal training in engineering. Ulimately, if you can do the job well, you're good enough - regardless of what qualification you got years ago.

I would exclude things like medicine from this generalisation, of course.

 

[Anonymous]

No.

On the subject of qualifications, I've never thought that they mattered too much.

Just because you took a course at 18 doesn't neccesarily mean you can do the job 30 years later. Ability, experience, character, and 'nous' are far more important, and a paper qualification is no proof of any of these.

There speaks a man without qualifications methinks :roll:

I have an idea, why not over generalise eh?

 

[woodbloke]

Dan - very much and over generalization I'm afraid...try applying that argument to the people who work here here and see how far you get. Additionally, would you want the guys at Aldermaston who design the UK's nuke bombs to come straight out the dole office? 8-[...probably not. These are examples of an extreme sort of course, but the days of intuitive, Brunel type engineers of 170 odd years ago are long gone - Rob