In the news

Also: blames snow, not shit driver clearly incapable of driving in a manner that compensates for prevailing conditions.

I think being forced to stay in lodgings would put off more people than the shit salary.

A lot of MPs' work is in Westminster, especially if they're in government/shadow roles/on committees or APPGs, so not being able to have a London home would be punishing the more diligent MPs.

Oh, and move the House of Commons to Hull.

I really like the idea of moving Parliament.

It would be something else which would help the idea that people were making a commitment to being an MP (not that living outside of London requires dedication, but London is an easy option sometimes).

It might help get rid of the idea of the 'liberal elite' and the ivory tower kind of reputation that MPs (I think unfairly) have got.

And more diversification and dispersal of business, jobs and industries across the UK can only be a good thing, I think the UK is probably the most over-centralised country in Europe.

I remember reading or hearing (possibly on here), that while if you removed London's economy from the UK it would obviously tank the whole nation, if you removed Berlin's economy from Germany it would actually get a boost overall. I'm not sure that's true given the tourist money they must get, but the fact that it's even conceivable says something.

2) remove pension benefits

Why?

I remember reading or hearing (possibly on here), that while if you removed London's economy from the UK it would obviously tank the whole nation, if you removed Berlin's economy from Germany it would actually get a boost overall. I'm not sure that's true given the tourist money they must get, but the fact that it's even conceivable says something.

Most of the former GDR bits require funding as I understand it

Lots of them have already had a lot, there are very nice roads and bridges in a lot of the former East. Wessis are still paying their Solidaritätszuschlag to the East as well as far as I know.

Germany does seem like a successful model of decentralisation though, with no real dominant city: media in Hamburg, finance in Frankfurt, industry in the Ruhr, politics and stag weekends in Berlin, and drunk Australians in Munich.

Meanwhile, what is Birmingham for?

There's been a few of these on BBC recently, I wonder if it's some misguided style guide that attempts to not blame the driver before a verdict. This one really stuck in my throat as the driver is only mentioned as if the car somehow got them too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-42645601

Question (not loaded): we demand expertise of the people who do everything from fix our plumbing to provide us with health care. People with training and experience. What is it about running the country which we feel doesn't demand any such training or knowledge? That you can pop out of your own work on sabbatical and still be a success at it?

I guess because democracy is about rule by the people. As soon as you start demanding training and/or qualifications you are drawing distinctions between the ruling and the ruled.

It's only relatively recently that we've established universal suffrage and property qualifications for voting, and given up the tendency for Prime Ministers to be from the Lords rather than the Commons.

Meanwhile, all our laws are still signed off by a family who have only just discovered they can marry outside of their own bloodline, and over 100 of our lawmakers are still in their positions because they've inherited a title or because they're senior figures in the Church.

Anything seen as a step back towards making politics more elitist and we'll probably have to give up our pretence at being a democracy altogether.

Finally, there's a tacit acceptance that politicians set the direction, and the real decision making and country-running is done by civil servants, who are experienced and well trained.

Everything Tom said, plus- our current political class are experienced professionals, and look what a terrifying shit-show they’ve made of things.

None of what Tommmmmmmm said was actually an answer to the question I asked though (barring the last sentence). Or the question I mean to ask - I didn't mean to suggest demanding qualifications in any formal manner. I can demand things of people without any legal constraints.

And elected experts are people to, so I'm not sure why that would risk not having a country ruled "by the people."

There seems to be an opinion here that we shouldn't worry about expertise in the case of governing (although we demand it in pretty much every other situation - from child-minding to food preparation). I'm curious as to why that is as it seems to fit nicely in with Gove's infamous position re: Brexit.

Re: politicians setting direction (@tommmmmmm) - this is the historical/philosophical crux of the issue, perhaps. Surely knowing what direction is the correct direction is a skill in itself. See the ship-of-state metaphor.

our current political class are experienced professionals, and look what a terrifying shit-show they’ve made of things.

Can't disagree with this on the whole. But maybe it's not their qualifications that are the problem. I'm thinking "baby" and "bathwater" here.

Surely it's up to the electors if they want to elect experts or not?

Or is your question actually "why don't electors seem to want to elect experts?"

I answered a question about why politics isn't restricted to experts, but if your question is about why people (rather than the system) don't demand them, I refer you to the quotation by my man Gove.

Or is your question actually "why don't electors seem to want to elect experts?"

Sort of.

It was why "we" (we being the people on here dismissing the idea) don't want experts.

(It was literally this: "What is it about running the country which we feel doesn't demand any such training or knowledge? That you can pop out of your own work on sabbatical and still be a success at it?")

Are you suggesting political philosopher rulers?

You are Plato aicmfp

Nope. But the ship-of-state was a reference to him (and many, many, others who've made use of the metaphor to make their own particular claims with regard to who should rule).

our current political class are experienced professionals, and look what a terrifying shit-show they’ve made of things.

Can't disagree with this on the whole. But maybe it's not their qualifications that are the problem. I'm thinking "baby" and "bathwater" here.

A slightly more serious answer:

We have a system level issue here, I think - DAG has pointed out on Twitter that the EU are issuing comprehensively researched, reviewed and worded documents on Brexit - what it means, in detail, in a legally binding format. We're issuing speeches that feature jokes about carrots.

Why is this? Why are our ruling class playing to the gallery whilst doing absolutely nothing of any substance? It's because this is how politics is done, in the modern day, here in the UK.

The level of basic competence on display is essentially zero - yet there is no nationwide call for the government to be replaced as we consider this normal, and indeed it is normal.

We have not elected these people on the basis of competence, we've elected them because of partisan reasons and (in my experience of right-wing voters) an existential terror of higher income tax making anything other than a Tory vote totally unthinkable.

Until such a time as the needle swings the other way then selecting members of the public who are driven by a desire to serve the country for four years isn't, I suspect, going to actually find people less competent at the whole governing lark - the bar being set to a negative height does help here I admit.

Maybe it’s the other way round. Why don’t experts want to become politicians?

I'm not sure they don't, so maybe a further refinement could be, why aren't experts becoming politicians?

I think we could find lots of evidence for it not being salary, btw. I also think that here the problem of career-politicians does come into play, and we might get towards an answer re: the gut-reactions people have expressed above.

The skills needed to be a politician are media based - two ex-journalists (Gove, Johnson) and one PR flack (Hunt) in the cabinet.

They've got the connections and the backing in the right-wing press, and that's most of what they need.

An expert on (say) social housing would never get anywhere in an election campaign as they'd reveal unpalatable truths that would be destroyed in the Sun/Times/Mail as an assault on house prices/income tax/society/the memory of Lady Diana.

Empty soundbites from an old Etonian on the other hand - boom, MP before you know it.

On the salary thing - MP's earn £76,000 according to Google, this is significantly above the national average, but it's a significant decrease for some career paths.

A barrister, for example, is going to have to think long and hard about the impact to his or her life if they go into politics. Make the salary a non-issue that allows for a period of re-adjustment, and the service period strictly limited and you have a possible career break that could attract a broad cross-section of society to give their time.

I'd anticipate the civil service providing institutional expertise.

Like a sort of second job ?

I'd anticipate the civil service providing institutional expertise

(Only kidding, really - I'd rather leave it in the hands of the civil service than the career politicians!)

A lot of politicians are ignorant on areas they make decisions about. Amber Rudd and encryption is an example. So they have an education (in NI it's often politics or law) which should fit their job but it's not always any use.

Either everyone can do it as her education didn't help OR expertise should mean you have a background that fits your ministerial post perhaps?