AIBU to want politicians with strong academic and business backgrounds?

[Catsandjkr]

AIBU to want politicans to be highly academically successful And have experience in running a business?

I'm so tired of these low grade politicians ruining our lives. They can lie (as Starmer exempifies), they don't need qualifications or experience to get the job. In inexplicable in other areas of life.

What a joke. But I suppose when its politicans like Lammy, Starmer, Reeves in charge, it won't ever change.

I think we need a mixture of politicians from as many different walks of life as possible. It's dangerous to have too much of the same type of person, we need politicians to understand and represent the needs of all of society.

I know from my line of work that running a business does not necessarily mean you are capable, intelligent or understanding of the economy. Nor does being an academic mean you understand how to balance the practical needs of a society.

@CatsandjkrI agree with you. Politicians do very little before being politicians. Starmer did but became a civil servant. I really think we need better business acumen and many MPs are just mouthpieces for poorly informed constituents. They will not tackle the big questions or long term issues - I think John Major will say this today at 3 on radio 5. Politics is in danger of being a side show that never changes anything. If MPs just see the role as campaigning for constituents, they have no true grasp on what large scale changes need to be made., let alone make them. They just look after their votes. They should work for the good of the whole country and that includes business and employment. Reeves does not have a clue.

In the UK or the US? None that I know of. Do you? Any in Mainland Europe?

As a consequence of the relatively low pay for an MP, politicians often have multiple side-hustles which one way or another inevitably leads to conflicts of interest which heavily influence their policy priorities.

...and why we end up seeing things like the PPE scandal.

Oh of course not 🙄

No I can't think of any that would meet your particular criteria and interpretation of that criteria which is why I was asking.

Thanks for responding

@Winederlust Not that many have the stupidly termed “side hustles “ now. Many will do some work to keep professional contacts and knowledge up to date. These people are valuable because their knowledge is often broader and can be utilized in parliament. I don’t like MPs who have just been SPADs or have held no positions of responsibility and just graduate from student politics. It’s not good enough.
to date.

I say we need more politicians who have worked a minimum wage job at some point in their life. Too many of them were born into wealth and privilege; then Eton, Oxbridge, parliament, and at no point lived in the world many other people live in; always protected from the real world by money. What did Boris Johnson know about living in the same world as everyone else? We need more of those who worked their way up from humble beginnings. While they whisper about “national service”, I say we need a “national service requirement” for parliamentarians: that people can only run for parliament if they have worked in a customer-facing, preferably less well paid job.

He did study at Oxford though. Your statement suggested he was stupid because he ‘only’ got into Leeds rather than Oxford for his bachelors which is obviously bullshit. He’s an incredibly intelligent man. I don’t like or support him, but you can’t argue against his intellect just because he studied his bachelors at Leeds. He did well enough to get into a masters programme at Oxford, which ain’t easy.

Your misplaced snobbery reminds me of Rory Stewart calling Gary Stevenson out because he ‘only’ went to LSE (one of the most selective universities in the country), despite the fact he then also did a masters at Oxford. As soon as Rory found out about the masters, Gary suddenly became acceptable. It’s ridiculous.

I asked politely three times and he didn't answer.
Called him an arsehole and bingo.
So there you go.

Quite. They’re supposed to represent their constituents. Basically no one goes to Oxbridge. Many go to uni now, but barely any Oxbridge (disproportionate amount of private school kids though!).

Go back into the 80s/90s, I don't recall quite so many senior politicians with economics degrees and/or public school attendance. It seems to have become endemic in the 00's onwards. I don't think it's a coincidence that we've had an awful crop of ministers/prime ministers over the past 20-30 years who seem to have achieved bugger all in terms of actually improving the country and life for the voters - in fact, in most respects things are worse now than they were 30 years ago in so many ways.

The only example we got is Bill Clinton but that was down to the team he build around him?

Who in his team met the criteria?

So someone who spent years in customer service, in low pay jobs, possibly with no education, will know how to run a country? How to manage budget, the impact of policy decisions, etc? ok then

I'd still strongly prefer excellent education and business experience. Education alone doesn't cut it, as proven by the current lot. They need to understand the consequences of decisions they make, not only ideology.

ETA: we actually had an example of politician you want, no education, only worked in a low paid job. Achievements - Workers Rights Bill which strongly contributed to rising unemployment and attempts to concrete green belt. Not much built still.

There is a thread on Angela Rayner for this nonsense in aibu

I also don't think those things should be discounted but I still strongly believe it needs to be representative, a country is not a business otherwise we fuck off the arts, put apartments over every playground, scrap NMW, privatise everything etc

So it's important that quality of life etc is prioritized for all and representative politics helps achieve that.

It's also clear a country isn't a money tree so yeah if someone is doing the accounts I'd rather they trained in kpmg than they were just good at saving for their summer holidays.

But I think the narrow definition of the OPs with regards to business experience which would exclude those who haven't run a business is nuts.

People point to Sunak as someone with a good record in business, hard to disagree, as far as I know he never ran one so out he goes. Keir starmer, barrister and head of DPP, undoubtedly managing a huge amount of people and an important role .... Doesn't count, he didn't have to organize a payroll.

By their own assessment there's isn't one politician in the last decade that meets the criteria

There is a giant chasm between a minimum wage job and someone born into privilege including private education at elite schools and universities.

You don't need to have worked a minimum wage job in a supermarket or shifts in an Amazon warehouse to have the empathy and imagination to picture the struggles and challenges of bringing up a family while on the bones of your arse, or having to make ends meet while managing a disability.

Heidi Alexander (currently Transport Minister) is a very credible and compassionate member of the current Labour government. Whenever I hear her speak, I believe she talks a lot of sense and sounds extremely switched on and tuned into the challenges of the people in this country.

Comprehension should not rely on guesswork by the reader. The original post was not clear - either to me or to other posters.
No need to be embarrassed for me, thanks. Your energy would be better spent editing your posts.

@TopPocketFind It’s not nonsense. It’s policies without understanding consequences and, even worse, not caring. It’s political dogma at its worse. It’s not helping the growth agenda and it’s foolhardy. Long term growth policies are needed and that means not trying to obstruct business and understanding business needs. Most MPs are incapable of that.

The bit about Rayner was the nonsense part, the ETA

I want politicians with intellect, life experience and compassion.

@MrsShawnHatosy They have too much compassion. It’s why a minority get a lot of benefits that others pay heavily towards. It’s not just about listening to complaining constituents. We need people with vision to unpick the issues and take long term decisions. What we don’t need is knee jerk compassion.

I agree.

Get some healthcare professionals (people with recent on the ground experience, not band 8s or professors who haven’t changed a bedsheet or spoken to a patient in years), emergency services, civil engineers, tradespeople etc. involved.

DH and I have a theory that they need a bloke called Jason who is a generic man (or woman tbf) that they run things by before announcing policies. If Jason who is a scaffolder, with two kids, a wife, and cares about his local community thinks something sounds a bit ‘off’, it probably is.

I don’t think self-serving billionaires/millionaires and aristocrats represent the vast majority of society.

Yes. And look where we are.

It is in the first sentence of my OP babe

'AIBU to want politicians to be highly academically successful And have experience in running a business?'

Now I am not sure where you got confused, but here we are.