Oakeshott warned that politics is a practical activity, where tacit knowledge acquired with experience and close observation is the primary criterion for success. The idea that there is some set of reading that will serve as a guide is a misplaced “rationalism.”
Having PMs with PPE (Cameron, Sunak, Wilson), Law (Attlee, Blair) doesn't appear to be an advantage over no degree at all (Major, Callaghan, Churchill (?)).
Eg Pitt the Younger seems to have been the last prominent prime minister not to go to school before university. Bertrand Russell was perhaps the last major figure in public life to receive a classic informal education from tutors at home.
Many books warn of the dangers of bookishness unmoored from reality (Bovary, Casaubon, don Quixote). And Dr Johnson’s essay on the young scholar entering society has particular weight given his own trajectory. A proper appreciation of literature includes an appreciation of its limits. Henry James may well have been right to say that art makes life, makes interest and makes importance. But it does not put food on your table.
I’m with Mary Warnock re. Thatcher the Milk Snatcher, but, to Thatcher’s credit, her Chemistry degree meant she immediately comprehended the importance of the newly discovered hole in the ozone layer and cajoled other world leaders into taking meaningful action. In our current environmental crisis, the more Prime Ministers with science degrees the better, as far as I’m concerned.
Robert Habeck, who served as Germany's Federal Minister for Economic Affairs from 2021 to 2025, holds a doctorate in literary studies. He wrote his master's thesis on Casimir Ulrich Boehlendorff (1775-1825). Before his political career, he published children's books. His tenure as economy minister has naturally drawn mixed reviews. He ran as the candidate for chancellor in the 2025 federal election. After receiving only 22.6 percent of the vote in his constituency, he withdrew from politics.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Gladstone, the only British Prime Minister (as far as I know) who actually published original literary scholarship (on Homer) while he was Prime Minister. And a pretty good Prime Minister, in my view ... though I'm not sure one can realistically claim that it was BECAUSE of his Homeric scholarship.
Some of us Australians long for eloquence, less buffoonery, more substance. The problem is that the media like performative gobblespeak, largely because too many of them don’t know George Eliot , Karl Marx or Admiral Dheng. Could we be sure they know who Mao Tse Tung was? Most, sadly, would never have heard of Judith Wright.
I am reminded of some lines from literature addressing the tradeoffs between the practical and the poetic, if you will:
“Monseigneur, you are always anxious to make everything useful, but yet here is a
garden box that is of no use. It has flowers and not vegetables. It would be much better to
have salads there than bouquets.”
“Madame Magloire,” replied the bishop, “you are mistaken. The beautiful is as useful as the useful.” He added after a moment’s silence, “perhaps more so.”
Burnham has had a career in Parliament - a steady rise in parliamentary politics before coming second to the notorious Jeremy Corbyn for Labour leader in 2015 - and then two terms as Mayor of Greater Manchester, a real administrative position, in the years since he left Westminster. He himself does not credit his degree in English as one of the influences shaping him (which are, in his order, his loyalty to the Liverpool football club, the Labour Party and his Catholic upbringing). English is not a vocational degree subject generally, like Classics in that respect, but it does portend a more impressive command of rhetoric than poor Sir Keir Starmer could muster.
Unlike with Boris Johnson, who obviously made a lot out of having studied Classics at Oxford, is there any record of Burnham crediting his English degree from Cambridge with much? Is he known for his language, rhetoric, originality or ability to tell stories? It hadn’t really seemed that way to me.
Apparently Burnham is more relatable than Sir Keir, hence he can tap into the populist trend in UK politics. But who knows? He won his recent election impressively enough that the Labour MPs seem to think he will help enough of them retain their seats in 2029, or earlier if he wants a new general election. Unlike Boris, of course, Burnham is neither a journalist (an elastic term for Boris, actually) nor a buffoon.
Before his barnstorming comeback in the Midlothian campaign, Gladstone took a few years out to write up his eccentric theory of how Homer had predicted the Gospels. It’s kind of like if Andy Burnham had spent his years as mayor of Manchester writing a book with a startling new theory on George Eliot… which, er, didn’t happen.
There’s an argument that people who are around a B+ academically make the best political leaders (Thatcher, Reagan, FDR) because they’re more decisive and less likely to be swayed by elite group-think.
Lincoln did alright with a few years of grade school.
There’s a fun graph showing negative correlation between years of education and eminence in US Presidents
Yes but Lincoln was a lawyer. Whether you like it or not, it’s good background for a politician.
Sure
Where your graph may work the best, Woodrow Wilson , perhaps our best educated president.
Lincoln was also a practising attorney unlike the recent run of lawyer-politicians (Clinton, Blair, Obama).
They all practised
Did Blair or Obama ever defend or prosecute someone? Perhaps I should have said trial lawyer
Oakeshott warned that politics is a practical activity, where tacit knowledge acquired with experience and close observation is the primary criterion for success. The idea that there is some set of reading that will serve as a guide is a misplaced “rationalism.”
I thought Johnson missed out on a first.
Having PMs with PPE (Cameron, Sunak, Wilson), Law (Attlee, Blair) doesn't appear to be an advantage over no degree at all (Major, Callaghan, Churchill (?)).
Have we ever had a Mathematical prime minister?
Lord Salisbury—and his nephew Balfour was a philosopher.
A great PM
Salisbury combined PM with foreign secretary, didn't he?
He did
Yes there’s a good case for lack of formal education being an advantage
Eg Pitt the Younger seems to have been the last prominent prime minister not to go to school before university. Bertrand Russell was perhaps the last major figure in public life to receive a classic informal education from tutors at home.
Many books warn of the dangers of bookishness unmoored from reality (Bovary, Casaubon, don Quixote). And Dr Johnson’s essay on the young scholar entering society has particular weight given his own trajectory. A proper appreciation of literature includes an appreciation of its limits. Henry James may well have been right to say that art makes life, makes interest and makes importance. But it does not put food on your table.
sounds like my mom.
Good to know that he can read, I suppose.
I’m with Mary Warnock re. Thatcher the Milk Snatcher, but, to Thatcher’s credit, her Chemistry degree meant she immediately comprehended the importance of the newly discovered hole in the ozone layer and cajoled other world leaders into taking meaningful action. In our current environmental crisis, the more Prime Ministers with science degrees the better, as far as I’m concerned.
Robert Habeck, who served as Germany's Federal Minister for Economic Affairs from 2021 to 2025, holds a doctorate in literary studies. He wrote his master's thesis on Casimir Ulrich Boehlendorff (1775-1825). Before his political career, he published children's books. His tenure as economy minister has naturally drawn mixed reviews. He ran as the candidate for chancellor in the 2025 federal election. After receiving only 22.6 percent of the vote in his constituency, he withdrew from politics.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Gladstone, the only British Prime Minister (as far as I know) who actually published original literary scholarship (on Homer) while he was Prime Minister. And a pretty good Prime Minister, in my view ... though I'm not sure one can realistically claim that it was BECAUSE of his Homeric scholarship.
Some of us Australians long for eloquence, less buffoonery, more substance. The problem is that the media like performative gobblespeak, largely because too many of them don’t know George Eliot , Karl Marx or Admiral Dheng. Could we be sure they know who Mao Tse Tung was? Most, sadly, would never have heard of Judith Wright.
Longing for intelligible speeches here, I'll bet you'd have some.
I am reminded of some lines from literature addressing the tradeoffs between the practical and the poetic, if you will:
“Monseigneur, you are always anxious to make everything useful, but yet here is a
garden box that is of no use. It has flowers and not vegetables. It would be much better to
have salads there than bouquets.”
“Madame Magloire,” replied the bishop, “you are mistaken. The beautiful is as useful as the useful.” He added after a moment’s silence, “perhaps more so.”
—from Les Miserables, by Victor Hugo.
Boris was mortified to get a mouldy Second
Burnham has had a career in Parliament - a steady rise in parliamentary politics before coming second to the notorious Jeremy Corbyn for Labour leader in 2015 - and then two terms as Mayor of Greater Manchester, a real administrative position, in the years since he left Westminster. He himself does not credit his degree in English as one of the influences shaping him (which are, in his order, his loyalty to the Liverpool football club, the Labour Party and his Catholic upbringing). English is not a vocational degree subject generally, like Classics in that respect, but it does portend a more impressive command of rhetoric than poor Sir Keir Starmer could muster.
Unlike with Boris Johnson, who obviously made a lot out of having studied Classics at Oxford, is there any record of Burnham crediting his English degree from Cambridge with much? Is he known for his language, rhetoric, originality or ability to tell stories? It hadn’t really seemed that way to me.
Apparently Burnham is more relatable than Sir Keir, hence he can tap into the populist trend in UK politics. But who knows? He won his recent election impressively enough that the Labour MPs seem to think he will help enough of them retain their seats in 2029, or earlier if he wants a new general election. Unlike Boris, of course, Burnham is neither a journalist (an elastic term for Boris, actually) nor a buffoon.
Before his barnstorming comeback in the Midlothian campaign, Gladstone took a few years out to write up his eccentric theory of how Homer had predicted the Gospels. It’s kind of like if Andy Burnham had spent his years as mayor of Manchester writing a book with a startling new theory on George Eliot… which, er, didn’t happen.
This appears to be an argument for politicians who have read PPE, which I find surprising.
Not necessarily
So what degree would craft the perfect politician, in your view?
There’s an argument that people who are around a B+ academically make the best political leaders (Thatcher, Reagan, FDR) because they’re more decisive and less likely to be swayed by elite group-think.
Hope for me yet