Recently Ed Miliband’s Labour Party TV broadcast expressed his frustration that the world of politics wasn’t like the real world. Considering that the entire broadcast was along the lines of painting Ed Miliband as an ordinary guy, it got me thinking on the subject of whether we really want our politicians to be ordinary people. It seems common sense that we want the people who represent us, to be like us. I would question this assumption, especially when we look at some of the other requirements we place on them.
The first requirement is obviously that they are knowledgeable about the issues facing the country and the public. We often cite the requirement that in order to know about these things, the politician needs to have worked in the ‘real world’. But when one thinks about it, most people only work in one or two industries, and is someone who worked as a lawyer or engineer really more connected with the particular struggles faced by a pub owner or a nurse than someone who has worked as a special advisor (SPAD) to a minister? To me it seems obvious that the answer is no. This sort of broad knowledge can only really be gained by engaging with the public as a whole, something that one really should do before and during standing for election, rather than over a lifetime.
It is clear that this strategy, of really talking to people and getting to know constituents, pays off electorally and often makes you a better politician. Perhaps notable examples of Lib Dem MPs who fought to win their constituency consistently over several elections are Tim Farron and Norman Lamb. Both now sit in relatively safe Liberal Democrat seats, and both are respectable politicians who are well known for their good presentational style. In comparison most people would find little openness if they just went out from their non-political day jobs to knock on people’s doors and find out what they think, and thus would learn little.
There is also a sub point on this matter. We demand that our MPs are passionate about politics. It would be hard to be elected if you seemed disinterested in the whole affair. It therefore seems common sense to me that the sorts of people who are passionate about politics are often attracted to ‘political’ jobs. As well as former SPADs, obvious people who have been engaged in political jobs include Vince Cable, who as well as being a Councillor was also a lecturer in economics, treasury finance officer to the Kenyan government and Chief Economist at Shell. Others include Nadhim Zahawi who co-founded YouGov and is now a Conservative MP. Whilst both jobs are within the ‘politics bubble’, one involves immense economic expertise and the other specialises in finding out what people think. Both of those are skills and experiences that I would say make you more qualified as a politician, not less.
We also demand that our MPs are intelligent. Nick Clegg and David Cameron are often attacked for having gone to public schools and Oxbridge. In general there is much decrying of the over representation of people who went to independent schools and top universities in parliament and government. I’ve never really understood the problem some people have with politicians having gone to Oxbridge, UCL, LSE, Edinburgh etc. To me it seems obvious that often the same people who are motivated, intelligent and hard working and get into the top universities are likely to be motivated, intelligent and hard working enough to win elections.
Obviously there are the problems inherent within our education system: that frankly, state schools are not good enough compared to the independent sector, and thus a disproportionate number of people in the top universities are from private schools. This then reflects on the makeup of politicians. However I’m not sure we can really blame politicians for being a product of society. What matters is how they want to address these problems, not that they themselves received unusually good educations.
So in conclusion, we often moan about how MPs aren’t ordinary people but by definition, we require abnormal and extraordinary people. We need someone with extreme motivation and expertise who despite personal abuse and little privacy still works tirelessly at their job. I’m not sure that sort of person is very common in the “real world”.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The street in Australia named after my great great grandfather
Lib Dems pick Richard Kilpatrick as candidate for the Greater Manchester Mayoral election
Matt Wardman
David Warren
Roland
David Raw
9 Comments
Sorry but I disagree with the vast majority of this article.
The experience of getting to know how decisions impact on a particular field, how healthcare works in practice etc is invaluable as a resource when making decisions regarding the structure and allocation of resources.
We need MP’s with a whole variety of backgrounds and experiences so that policy does reflect the needs of society as a whole.
It is only once someone has that kind of experience that they should then begin the long process of understanding the needs of the people that they are going to serve.
A background interest in politics is a good thing but it should never be the basis for your working life from leaving school onwards.
@Ian James
I’m not saying that say a position in the armed forces doesn’t give you a special knowledge of defence, or a position in the NHS doesn’t give you a special knowledge of healthcare. I think the point I was more trying to get across is that someone who has worked in those fields doesn’t have any more of a knowledge of other ‘real world’ fields than someone from a political background. I was objecting to the lumping of backgrounds into ‘real world’ vs ‘politics bubble’. Especially since lots of the things a politician needs to do involve specialised ‘political’ knowledge. So for instance an NHS doctor might not have much experience of press relations or scrutinising legislation for instance.
Of course we need extraordinary people to be MP’s but that doesn’t preclude them from having ‘ordinary experiences’ e.g. getting their first job through fair and open competition.
@AndrewR
I think that is perhaps an argument for making political advisory jobs more open, somthing I fully support. Plus I don’t just mean SPADs when I talk about political jobs.
There is the ‘Desert Island’ question, as featured in the film the’ Admirable Crichton’.
If 50 politicians and 50 ‘ordinary people’ were marooned for a year on a desert island – who would end up running the place?
Oh – for those that haven’t seen the film – it was the ‘butler’ !!!!
Thank you for taking the time to reply Ben
The point I was making is that politics needs people with expertise from all walks of life if the right decisions are to be made. A parliament of doctors would be just as useless as a parliament of people that only thought about things through political theory.
We need a balanced mix and that is something that the present political structures dont give us.
@Ian James
I think it is true we need a balanced mix, but your average politician needs to be a bit of a polymath. Thus whilst I agree there should be a mix, it is understandable that those within the ‘politics bubble’ of journalism, economics, polling, spads etc. are over represented
We need brilliant people. The very best possible people. The people who are going to make the very best MPs. And we need to remove artificial barriers that prevent some of the best people from coming forward. What we don’t need is people posing as “ordinary” when, if you scratch the surface, they turn out to be not to be “ordinary’ after all, whatever that actually means. Like the great excitement in The Guardian about a well-known “chick lit” novelist being a Conservative Parliamentary candidate, because this is apparently exciting evidence of greater diversity, when the individual in question went to public school and was Secretary of the Oxford Union, and so fis rom an entirely conventional background when it comes to Conservative candidates!
To be an MP is to be at the top of one’s game, like a great footballer, an eminent surgeon or an Oscar-winning screenwriter. So I want exceptionally talented people to stand for Parliament. And I want to ensure that the maximum number of exceptionally talented people not only come forward, but are also headhunted and persuaded to stand.
For me, the most interesting thing about Barack Obama is that he is brilliant. His story does not prove that anyone can be president, it proves that an exceptionally brilliant individual can become president. He was Editor of Harvard Law Review, which suggests that he is very clever. He did not eschew conventional politics; rather he chose to climb the political ladder from within the system as a senator, rather than standing on the outside shouting anti-politics slogans. His experience proves that a great education, an exceptional attitude and a commitment to politics can take a gifted individual to the top. There is a lesson there for anyone who wants to advance politically.
To stand for Parliament is a privilege and an honour. As many gifted, talented people as possible should be encouraged to come forward to seek selection, from the most diverse range of backgrounds possible. Regarding oneself as ‘ordinary’, whatever that actually means in our magnificent, increasingly diverse and extraordinary society, does not, for me, have much to do with becoming a Member of Parliament. Just as if someone wanted to be a screenwriter, an account ant or a nurse, my question to any aspirant would be: “Do you have the knowledge, skills and experience to succeed in this position?”. If the answer to that question is “no”, then the aspirant needs to go away and aqcuire that knowledge, skills and experience – nobody would question that need if I suddenly wanted to be a film director, so why is it different for someone who wants to be an MP?
I care more about the needs of the electorate than I do about the needs of people who want to be MPs. What the electorate needs is excellent MPs who are good at representing people in Parliament. We cannot, as a nation, afford to compromise on that.
Re:- Oxbridge. I went to Oxford University from a comprehensive school. I did this by working hard and passing examinations. This was in the days before tuition fees existed, so it had nothing to do with money – you didn’t pay to go to university in those days, so no university cost more or less than any other. Getting into Oxford was indeed a privilege, but it was one that I earnt, not one that someone bought. So to compare someone’s being an Oxford graduate with someone’s having been at a fee-paying school is actually quite offensive; the former is a reward for hard work and academic success, while the latter is simply a reward for having parents who could afford the school fees and has nothing do with the academic ability of the student concerned.
It would be entirely stupid for someone to say that too many people from Oxford and Cambridge Universities are seeking to get into Parliament. If Oxbridge graduates are among the most academically gifted people, then of course they are going to be among the best people who seek selection as Parliamentary candidates and that is nothing to do with the issue of some other people being from fee-paying schools. Even under this tuition fees system, you still don’t pay upfront to go to Oxford or to any other university; Oxford and Cambridge are actually not the universities with the highest percentage of private school pupils among their intake.
One of my grandfathers was a railway worker who left school at thirteen. My other grandfather was an asylum seeker. Surely it is progressive that those men’s two grandchildren both went (from state schools) to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge? Just as it is progressive that Barack Obama went to Harvard. Obama’s Harvard education is a plus point, not a negative. If we ever reached the point at which anyone criticised politicians for having worked hard, passed examinations and gone to great universities, then things would have gone badly wrong.
I want MPs who are as brilliant as Roy Jenkins. Roy Jenkins was a miner’s son. He was also incredibly clever and well-educated and was rarely described as ‘ordinary’.