Dr Phillip Lee is a
practising GP who has further degrees in Human Biology and Biological
Anthropology and has been on the Conservative Party’s Priority List of
Candidates since its inception in May 2006. He looks at the
professional backgrounds of Conservative MPs and candidates and notes a
worrying lack of those who have experience in the realms of science.
Margaret Thatcher is rightly remembered for many things. Primarily, it is because she was the first female British Prime Minister. Of particular interest to me, however, and somewhat surprisingly, Mrs Thatcher was the first Prime Minister to hold a science degree. I stumbled across this piece of information whilst watching the ‘Thatcher Night’ on BBC 4 recently. Armed with this new fact, I thought it would be interesting to ascertain the academic backgrounds of present Conservative MPs and those of Parliamentary candidates. In view of the many successes of the Thatcher government, based in her own words upon a combination of those qualities needed for good scientific study, that of logic and instinct, the results of my brief review make for interesting reading.
I should declare up front that I am a proud possessor of a few science degrees, and as a priority candidates list member from its inception, I undeniably have a vested interest in highlighting the absence of scientists on the Opposition benches and amongst our group of selected candidates! However, despite admitting to my naked ambition, I do genuinely believe that the absence of scientists from the Conservative Parliamentary party is far from ideal.
Like any good scientific paper, it would be appropriate to detail my methods and materials prior to presenting the results and making any conclusions. This is not a good scientific paper by any measure; however, an outline of how I arrived at the results below seems appropriate. The MPs’ academic achievements were easier to determine. By use of Wikipedia, personal websites and the Party website as sources, I was able to ascertain all of their academic backgrounds. I did, however, fail to determine the degree subjects taken in 39 instances. The candidates’ academic records were not so readily available, and hence, their figures are less detailed. In the case of the candidates listed, I have included those that are predicted to be successful in the next General Election (and by-elections) if the present Conservative Home Poll of Polls is introduced into the Electoral Calculus predictor tool (Conservative overall majority = 76). A brief outline of the results now follows:
Shadow Cabinet (N =28)
- Politics/Economics - 7 (25%)
- History - 6 (21%)
- Law - 5 (18%)
- Science - 1 (3.5%)
Members of Parliament (N = 194)
- Law - 46 (24%)
- Politics/Economics - 40 (21%)
- History - 24 (12%)
- English - 6 (3%)
- Agriculture - 6 (3%)
- Science & Mathematics - 5 (2.5%)
- Classics - 4 (2%)
Candidates (N = 182)
- Law - 22
- History - 17
- Politics/Economics - 16
- Science & Mathematics - 7
- [Not determined 76]
From a predicted total of 376 Conservative MPs after the next election, there appears that there will be only twelve science and mathematics graduates (3%) on the future Government benches. Furthermore, there is little evidence of a scientific background amongst the 76 candidates whose academic records were unobtainable. In contrast, there will be at least 68 qualified lawyers in the next Government (18%). With the recent resignation of David Davis, the number of science graduates in the present Shadow Cabinet has been halved, leaving Dr Liam Fox as the solitary scientist. Although the candidates’ results are far from complete, they do (sadly) suggest a continuation of those academic representation trends that are already present on the Conservative green benches.
Good governance involves good legislation. Invariably, this requires legal expertise, so the presence of a good number of lawyers is undoubtedly a positive thing. Good foreign policy decisions are often made in the light of past historical experience, so the presence of many historians must also be an asset. Furthermore, the way that the present Labour government is poorly spending money that the country does not have, indicates that the Conservatives will have tough economic decisions to make when in power, and hence having plenty of economists to draw upon will undeniably be invaluable. I would argue though, that it is only with proper methodology and rigorous analysis that practical solutions to seemingly intractable social problems will be uncovered. The individual skills found in those who have undertaken the considered and logical approach often found in scientific learning and investigation, are the very ones the Party should now endeavour to acquire.
Clearly, the next Conservative government is going to inherit a challenging economic and social situation. Making tough decisions and undertaking challenging calculations will be daily experiences for all future Conservative Ministers. Hence, is not knowledge of science and mathematics valuable to the Party? In light of Michael Gove’s recent speech on the importance of science and mathematics for the future health of the British economy, I believe it would be a worthy goal to place more scientists and mathematicians on the Conservative benches in 2010, to ensure the long-term health of David Cameron’s first Conservative administration.
