How viable is a "driving test-style course" for anyone standing for election?

[brad465]

The next election is currently shaping up to be a right mess in terms of who gets what, with previously small parties potentially holding much larger seat numbers. Then of course Reform UK are currently in contention to be forming a government of some form if an election were imminent. However, for all the faults of the major parties, at least they have some understanding of how Westminster and the Civil Service work, even if how they work needs serious improvement. When they get new MPs, typically they've been surrounded by dozens of veteran MPs who can teach them the ropes, and have a party machine that's known the ropes as well.

A small party with no previous prominence, and certainly no ability to shadow ministers, suddenly becoming a major part of government, will be chaos if they have no idea how things work, even if all the policies they want to pursue are rational and beneficial. The chaos Reform UK councils have descended into in the last year is somewhat proof of this, and is partly why Farage has been keen on former Tories joining who have some understanding of Westminster. Yes they were incompetent, but their incompetence will look like expertise compared to dozens of new ministers who are also new MPs, in a party with no serious Westminster presence before.

So this leads onto the subject, could we make every prospective candidate for election sit a course covering at least the basic functions of government and the civil service? The course would need to be no longer than a week, and if passed the certificate would be valid either for life or for at least 20 years, so once passed one can stand for election repeatedly without having to take the course again. You couldn't give them 5 years of life as an MP in such a course, but it would be a lot more beneficial than going in with nothing. Do some political parties already do this for their prospective candidates?

One big drawback is such a course could be subject to concerns that it's biased and favours certain political positions over others, and also tries to shut out candidates with certain points of view. The content would have to be decided by an arms-length body and have no government interference at all to be considered remotely trustworthy. This would be better and easier though than an IQ test to be eligible to vote, which I think is much more problematic and costly overall.

 

[GusB]

Reverse parking, reverse into a junction, turn in the road using forward and reverse gears... And the new manoeuvre that would be mandatory in the test - the U-turn!

 

[Harpo]

Maybe just:
1 - Modernise the bizarre archaic working practices,
2 - As per businesses, induction courses for new MPs.
3 - Completely avoid all previous Westminster experience and replace it with decent, honest, public service.

 

[The exile]

The next election is currently shaping up to be a right mess in terms of who gets what, with previously small parties potentially holding much larger seat numbers. Then of course Reform UK are currently in contention to be forming a government of some form if an election were imminent. However, for all the faults of the major parties, at least they have some understanding of how Westminster and the Civil Service work, even if how they work needs serious improvement. When they get new MPs, typically they've been surrounded by dozens of veteran MPs who can teach them the ropes, and have a party machine that's known the ropes as well.

A small party with no previous prominence, and certainly no ability to shadow ministers, suddenly becoming a major part of government, will be chaos if they have no idea how things work, even if all the policies they want to pursue are rational and beneficial. The chaos Reform UK councils have descended into in the last year is somewhat proof of this, and is partly why Farage has been keen on former Tories joining who have some understanding of Westminster. Yes they were incompetent, but their incompetence will look like expertise compared to dozens of new ministers who are also new MPs, in a party with no serious Westminster presence before.

So this leads onto the subject, could we make every prospective candidate for election sit a course covering at least the basic functions of government and the civil service? The course would need to be no longer than a week, and if passed the certificate would be valid either for life or for at least 20 years, so once passed one can stand for election repeatedly without having to take the course again. You couldn't give them 5 years of life as an MP in such a course, but it would be a lot more beneficial than going in with nothing. Do some political parties already do this for their prospective candidates?

One big drawback is such a course could be subject to concerns that it's biased and favours certain political positions over others, and also tries to shut out candidates with certain points of view. The content would have to be decided by an arms-length body and have no government interference at all to be considered remotely trustworthy. This would be better and easier though than an IQ test to be eligible to vote, which I think is much more problematic and costly overall.

For this to work, there has to be a basic acceptance on the part of those being taught that those doing the teaching know what they’re talking about. As far as many potential candidates for the particular party concerned goes, I very much doubt this is the case.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2026 ==

Maybe just:
1 - Modernise the bizarre archaic working practices,
2 - As per businesses, induction courses for new MPs.
3 - Completely avoid all previous Westminster experience and replace it with decent, honest, public service.

There’s quite a lot to be said for 1) - but it presupposes that for at least one entire parliamentary term you can devote all the legislators’ and administrators’ time to that alone.
2) Yes - but that requires the inductee to be prepared to listen!
3) Again - sounds wonderful, but I doubt it would last long. “Good honest public servants” come out of a different pool from legislators and representatives.

 

[MP33]

In the book of Yes Minister. Jim Hacker ponders, that he had no experience of being a Government Minister. As his party, had been out of office for so long. The Prime Minister, was the only one who had.

It was said about the 1951 Conservative Government. That since winning their last General election, all the old dead wood had gone. Which could not be said about the Labour Party.

 

[Uncle Buck]

There is already a test which people need to pass in order to become MPs. It is called an election.

The idea that some faceless panel somewhere should have the authority to decide who the people are allowed to vote for is completely anti-democratic. Who would sit on this panel? What would their biases be? Who would decide who sat on the panel?

No doubt questions with an ideological bent would be inserted into the “training” and failure to pass these questions would result in barring people with views the panel disliked from holding office.

Let us be frank, such a test would be designed to ensure that nobody could sit in Parliament who held radical or controversial views; it is an obvious attempt to restrict political participation and preserve the existing institutions in power. This is not a partisan point; both Reform and the Greens would be targets of this innovation, although your reference to the former suggests to me that the whole purpose of the test proposed would be essentially to bar that party from standing for election.

We already have a permanent civil service and judiciary. Our current head of state began his training sixty years ago. We have had almost entirely new governments before, notably the first Labour government, and in 1964, 1997, 2010 and 2024 parties returned to government after very long stretches outside. The 2007 SNP government is generally reckoned to have been the only effective one under devolution. And there is a degree of behind-the-scenes cross-party co-operation that goes on, especially where foreign policy is concerned.

As for IQ tests to vote, I believe literacy tests were a favoured tool of segregationists in the American South. In any event, even unintelligent people have interests which they are entitled to defend.

There was a brutal eighteenth-century Scottish judge who, hanging a few men who had had the audacity to advocate for universal suffrage, stated that “democratic government is the opposite of the system established in this country”. Sometimes “sensible centrists” make suggestions which echo this judge.

 

[RT4038]

There is already a test which people need to pass in order to become MPs. It is called an election.

The idea that some faceless panel somewhere should have the authority to decide who the people are allowed to vote for is completely anti-democratic. Who would sit on this panel? What would their biases be? Who would decide who sat on the panel?

No doubt questions with an ideological bent would be inserted into the “training” and failure to pass these questions would result in barring people with views the panel disliked from holding office.

Let us be frank, such a test would be designed to ensure that nobody could sit in Parliament who held radical or controversial views; it is an obvious attempt to restrict political participation and preserve the existing institutions in power. This is not a partisan point; both Reform and the Greens would be targets of this innovation, although your reference to the former suggests to me that the whole purpose of the test proposed would be essentially to bar that party from standing for election.

We already have a permanent civil service and judiciary. Our current head of state began his training sixty years ago. We have had almost entirely new governments before, notably the first Labour government, and in 1964, 1997, 2010 and 2024 parties returned to government after very long stretches outside. The 2007 SNP government is generally reckoned to have been the only effective one under devolution. And there is a degree of behind-the-scenes cross-party co-operation that goes on, especially where foreign policy is concerned.

As for IQ tests to vote, I believe literacy tests were a favoured tool of segregationists in the American South. In any event, even unintelligent people have interests which they are entitled to defend.

There was a brutal eighteenth-century Scottish judge who, hanging a few men who had had the audacity to advocate for universal suffrage, stated that “democratic government is the opposite of the system established in this country”. Sometimes “sensible centrists” make suggestions which echo this judge.

Quite agree. I think the best that can be done is to ensure that any newbies get sufficient training on procedures, rights and responsibilities, after they have been elected. Of course they may not listen, but if they fall foul of what they should have learnt, then disqualification and ousting will soon teach them. I don't think it would much of a problem.

I see no problem with electing people with radical or controversial views, if that is the will of the electorate. There certainly shouldn't be a test of 'view reasonableness' or conformity of view.

A good example is the large number of Reform candidates to Local Authorities recently. Many were completely taken by surprise at getting elected. In the Local Authority of my residence, the Democratic Services team (the administrators who ensure compliance and administration) did a good job at ensuring all newbie Councillors (of whatever persuasion) knew their responsibilities towards the democratic procedures and their duty of care for constituents. For all the calls for forensic auditing of expenditure, they have quickly found no wastage in Diversity Officers or immigrant parties or whatever. Any waste in their opinion that they have found has been discharging Statutory obligations from Central Govt. that they do not agree with; but that is for them to get a majority in the House of Commons before they can deal with that. Have they made mistakes - yes; have some of the candidates not been up to the job of Councillor for one reason or the other - yes. No harm done though. However, it has shown the public at large that their Council is not some corrupt money wasting outfit.

 

[styles]

I'm in a sort of election purdah at the moment so I won't comment on the individual parties you've mentioned.

But in general I am against qualifications for candidates. I can accept limitations on those with the most severe criminal convictions perhaps; but in general the problem with qualifying candidates is that somebody has to make the qualification rules. We already arguably have a problem with voting systems being decided by those who benefit from them the most. Adding in tests for candidates would be subject to a new form of gerrymandering.

If candidates hold positions you object to, or don't hold knowledge you believe to be necessary, then you should vote for another candidate.

As someone who has worked in a political position previously I'd also say that the professional side of things should be handled by civil servants or similar. It is not reasonable to expect a councillor who is promoted to county treasurer to be a highly-experienced economist and qualified accountant for example; that's what you pay CFOs for. If we require politicians to be highly-qualified in their own remits then we sacrifice the 'everyday person' element of democracy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2026 ==

Reverse parking

My favourite form of parking!

reverse into a junction

Removed from the GB driving test (still used in NI).

turn in the road using forward and reverse gears

Removed from the GB driving test (still used in NI).

... And the new manoeuvre that would be mandatory in the test - the U-turn!

Well now, that should definitely be introduced, not least to understand what the Uber drivers in London are doing

 

[Bantamzen]

There is already a test which people need to pass in order to become MPs. It is called an election.

The idea that some faceless panel somewhere should have the authority to decide who the people are allowed to vote for is completely anti-democratic. Who would sit on this panel? What would their biases be? Who would decide who sat on the panel?

No doubt questions with an ideological bent would be inserted into the “training” and failure to pass these questions would result in barring people with views the panel disliked from holding office.

Let us be frank, such a test would be designed to ensure that nobody could sit in Parliament who held radical or controversial views; it is an obvious attempt to restrict political participation and preserve the existing institutions in power. This is not a partisan point; both Reform and the Greens would be targets of this innovation, although your reference to the former suggests to me that the whole purpose of the test proposed would be essentially to bar that party from standing for election.

We already have a permanent civil service and judiciary. Our current head of state began his training sixty years ago. We have had almost entirely new governments before, notably the first Labour government, and in 1964, 1997, 2010 and 2024 parties returned to government after very long stretches outside. The 2007 SNP government is generally reckoned to have been the only effective one under devolution. And there is a degree of behind-the-scenes cross-party co-operation that goes on, especially where foreign policy is concerned.

As for IQ tests to vote, I believe literacy tests were a favoured tool of segregationists in the American South. In any event, even unintelligent people have interests which they are entitled to defend.

There was a brutal eighteenth-century Scottish judge who, hanging a few men who had had the audacity to advocate for universal suffrage, stated that “democratic government is the opposite of the system established in this country”. Sometimes “sensible centrists” make suggestions which echo this judge.

This. This. And thrice, this....

It's for this very reason that I have no political allegiance. When I start the process of choosing who to vote for, I look at their views on their party's policies, how they might drive those policies, and their understanding of local and wider issues should they be elected. And I wish more people would be a bit more diligent in their choosing of a favoured candidate, instead of simply voting for their party, or in some cases the person in charge of the party or even a single issue. We might then end up with more potential candidates who actually take time to understand issues, develop their own ideas and work within their party's frameworks to get their thinking out there, instead of halfwits shouting about how <insert demographic group should be blamed for everything>. It might also help curtail the cult of personalities forming as demonstrated by UKIP / Reform, making parties develop policies based on what candidates are getting from the electorate. In turn we might even get a functional government....

Oh who I am kidding? A lot of people will vote for the party who shouts most loudly about the things their preferred media channels tell them to be annoyed about....

However back on topic, I don't see that having a test for candidates would work. As others have said, who sets the test, who evaluates the candidates, how could you guarantee neutrality in such a process? And even having experience in the Civil Service won't necessarily help, in fact it could lead to more career politicians who just see it as a progression from the Civil Service. Plus trust me on this, it won't guarantee you the best of the best....

 

[brad465]

Well, I officially concede I ballsed this one up and accept defeat.

 

[3141]

Well, I officially concede I ballsed this one up and accept defeat.

You asked how viable a test might be for those standing for election, and the replies have certainly identified some of the difficulties. But if we look across the Atlantic at the current holder of the American presidency, we see what can happen when a narcissistic megalomaniac whose cognitive abilities appear to be in decline gets elected to a high office. The situation there makes a case for some kind of psychometric test, which might have avoided the current situation.

I appreciate the problems around who devises a test, the likelihood that it would reflect their prejudices, and so on. But those problems may seem insignificant compared to the world-wide mess that we may have headed into before Trump ceases to be president.

 

[Magdalia]

Well, I officially concede I ballsed this one up and accept defeat.

I think that you have raised some important points. I know someone who would go much further, saying that the lack of knowledge of how central and local government work applies not just to candidates but to electors too. Their solution is that the basics of the British Constitution should be part of the National Curriculum!

Having seen some of this up relatively close I'd say that there are some important differences between local and national politics.

The idea that some faceless panel somewhere should have the authority to decide who the people are allowed to vote for is completely anti-democratic. Who would sit on this panel? What would their biases be? Who would decide who sat on the panel?

The party candidate selection panels already do this, we don't have primary elections in the UK. At the national level, in the established parties, the process of getting selected as a candidate exposes the potential candidates to quite rigorous scrutiny. For newer parties, the process of getting selected as a candidate may not be so rigorous. However, at the local level, it is much easier to become a candidate. Sometimes these are "paper" candidates, who don't expect to win, and are there to fill a space on the ballot paper. I know someone who stood as a paper candidate and got elected, fortunately they had been a councillor before. Another way that poorly qualified candidates can become councillors is in safe seats where someone stands against the incumbent who has got "out of touch with the rank and file", and gets selected, a bit like a mini local version of how Corbyn got to lead the Labour Party or Truss got to lead the Tory Party. I knew one of these too.

There is already a test which people need to pass in order to become MPs. It is called an election.

At the national level, this is what happens. The candidates are subject to high levels of scrutiny, especially if it looks like they might win. But at local level, the candidate's agent produces a leaflet, and these days some social media posts, but the suitability of the candidates is unlikely to be put to rigorous test in the election campaign.

 

[Cdd89]

Even though we technically vote for the individual and not the party, in practice people often vote for individuals because of the party with whom they are aligned.

The party is thus the effective check/balance on candidates, since if they appoint someone who becomes a disgraced MP, their party takes the reputational hit.

I suspect there's an argument that this is weakening a bit, as 1) people become innured to scandals or feel they're all as bad as each other, 2) party leadership loses the ability to veto candidates, 3) new parties appoint huge numbers of new candidates in a hurry without much checking.

 

[brad465]

Even though we technically vote for the individual and not the party, in practice people often vote for individuals because of the party with whom they are aligned.

The party is thus the effective check/balance on candidates, since if they appoint someone who becomes a disgraced MP, their party takes the reputational hit.

I suspect there's an argument that this is weakening a bit, as 1) people become innured to scandals or feel they're all as bad as each other, 2) party leadership loses the ability to veto candidates, 3) new parties appoint huge numbers of new candidates in a hurry without much checking.

On further reflection I do think at the very least we need much tougher standards that are both stringently and independently-enforced (at the moment they're mainly enforced by Select Committees who don't always have to investigate). These would in effect force parties to properly vet and train their candidates properly, as if they don't, the party(ies) suffers a reputational hit from multiple scandals, as ill-performing MPs get caught constantly.

 

[Uncle Buck]

I think that you have raised some important points. I know someone who would go much further, saying that the lack of knowledge of how central and local government work applies not just to candidates but to electors too. Their solution is that the basics of the British Constitution should be part of the National Curriculum!

Having seen some of this up relatively close I'd say that there are some important differences between local and national politics.


The party candidate selection panels already do this, we don't have primary elections in the UK. At the national level, in the established parties, the process of getting selected as a candidate exposes the potential candidates to quite rigorous scrutiny. For newer parties, the process of getting selected as a candidate may not be so rigorous. However, at the local level, it is much easier to become a candidate. Sometimes these are "paper" candidates, who don't expect to win, and are there to fill a space on the ballot paper. I know someone who stood as a paper candidate and got elected, fortunately they had been a councillor before. Another way that poorly qualified candidates can become councillors is in safe seats where someone stands against the incumbent who has got "out of touch with the rank and file", and gets selected, a bit like a mini local version of how Corbyn got to lead the Labour Party or Truss got to lead the Tory Party. I knew one of these too.


At the national level, this is what happens. The candidates are subject to high levels of scrutiny, especially if it looks like they might win. But at local level, the candidate's agent produces a leaflet, and these days some social media posts, but the suitability of the candidates is unlikely to be put to rigorous test in the election campaign.

But that is substantively different.

Of course Party X’s selection panel will select people who agree with Party X’s views. But Party Y’s panel will presumably select people who share Party Y’s views and therefore present an alternative, whereas if a panel existed to “ensure the proper education of candidates” you would have candidates who, while nominally in different parties, were only alllowed to hold a particular range of views.

Now you could of course argue that that is what happens in practice anyway, but alternatives do exist and can cause change. To use an obvious example, it is unlikely that this country would have left the EU, had UKIP not existed. All the main parties supported the EU, but the electoral pressure of UKIP changed that.

That constitutional knowledge should be taught in schools is something which is definitely necessary. I am amazed at the number of supposedly intelligent people who have absolutely zero knowledge of it. I have even encountered university students who thought our head of government was “the President” and either didn’t know that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom or thought that all of Ireland was (I didn’t want to push too far!!)

 

[zero]

As long as all pertinent facts are disclosed up front, if the people vote for a known convicted criminal in a fair election, I would accept the convicted criminal as validly elected.

So rather than a test that must be passed I would want a list of information that must be disclosed in order to stand, and if later found to have lied or omitted anything then they would automatically lose their seat.

I'm not going to think too hard about exactly what I'd want to be revealed - basically anything that is currently likely to cause a scandal when it comes to light later, such as tax and financial issues, and whether the candidate could have been influenced by any special interests. I expect at least the larger parties already screen candidates in this way but I would like it to be a formal rather than ad hoc process for everyone who stands.

 

[perstreperous]

This is a non-runner. IQ tests have been mentioned, and it took 50+ years to get bias out of them, largely by making them completely abstract. (An early but forgotten book by Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, is fascinating on early IQ test bias and gives many examples. Immigrants to the United States in the 1920s were, among much else, expected to know what a tennis court looked like).

Although similarly blatant errors would probably not occur in a "prospective politician IQ" test, there would be more subtle ones.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that the Blair government (1997) was widely expected to fall apart in months because it had only one previous Government minister (Margaret Beckett) in it.

 

[MP33]

Again, in Yes Minister. Sir Humphrey informs Bernard, that the electorate do not choose the Government. In the Labour Party, it is chosen by men in smoky rooms. And in the Conservative party, it is chosen by women, wearing silly hats.

 

[styles]

As long as all pertinent facts are disclosed up front, if the people vote for a known convicted criminal in a fair election, I would accept the convicted criminal as validly elected.

So rather than a test that must be passed I would want a list of information that must be disclosed in order to stand, and if later found to have lied or omitted anything then they would automatically lose their seat.

I'm not going to think too hard about exactly what I'd want to be revealed - basically anything that is currently likely to cause a scandal when it comes to light later, such as tax and financial issues, and whether the candidate could have been influenced by any special interests. I expect at least the larger parties already screen candidates in this way but I would like it to be a formal rather than ad hoc process for everyone who stands.

Yes I would agree with this actually. Not something I've thought of before.

Once elected, most politicians have to declare things like registered interests, properties, etc.

I see no great reason this shouldn't be made public at the time of nomination.

For my particular example - criminal convictions - a standard list of convictions to declare could be taken from one of the existing pieces of legislation or policy. I don't think this would even be open to abuse by Westminster deciding what to include or not because any change would likely only affect a tiny number of candidates, and things like court cases are already effectively public record and in the case of politicians are likely to be uncovered by the media anyway.

I'm with Ian Hislop on the transparency of gifts and things though. That needs word for elected politicians though, let alone candidates.

 

[bluenoxid]

For councillors, I was a little irritated at the number of resignations last year from Councillors who could not take up elected office because of a conflict of interest with their job role. It would be nice to understand what could be done to reduce the number of people who make that mistake.

I would like the ballot paper to move from address of the candidate to an options box stating if the person standing is a Council Tax “payer” living in the ward and have they moved into the ward in the past 6-12 months.

I would also like prospective candidates to have to publicly share if they are in arrears to the Council.