Should politicians over 75 years of age have required to pass a mental competency test?

No, I would prefer term limits instead

No, mental competency is too subjective

No, this discriminates against older politicians

No, our government needs experienced leaders

No that should be private but if a politician is showing clear signs of incompetence they should be ousted.

Once they get to 80 it should be that they have to no longer be a member of Parliament. People are living and working a lot later in life these days.

No, only over the age of 85.

Yes, but make sure the testing process is fair and revised by multiple groups, who aren't backed by elites, every decade.

No, I would prefer an age limit of 75 instead.

mental competency is subjective and could be abused but there should be total age limits on politicans

Yes, and politicians of any age should be required to pass both a mental competency test and a knowledge test on national and international political systems

all politicians should be going through a psych evaluation. A "test" would be divisive, and could be abused

Mental competency should be required for any politician of any age. This would reduce the risk of any politician with radical views or mental incompetency being able to hold office

No. Ultimately, it is up to the parties who they choose to be contestants for parliament. I would not feel comfortable to be in a party, however, that willingly chooses people aged 75+ but do not do enforce such a mental competency test.

No, mental competency is too subjective, but politicians over retirement age should not be allowed to run for office

All politicians and voters must pass a mental competency test for going into parliament or a voting booth

No, that should be private but if a politician is showing clear signs of incompetence they should be ousted.

No, it should not happen as it would discriminate against older politicians and if they are not sound to be an MP the Public would not vote for them.

Politicians from 70 years old and over should not be allowed to serve, at that age they become separate from the current affairs and their experience is no longer acquired. However mental competency and similar tests are too subjective and the process could be abused to get rid of MPs unfairly. But there should definitely be a age limit for politicians.

I do believe they should be tested and restricted from running over the age of 75. However, mental competency is too subjective and the testing process could be abused, so it should be an open and disputable process.

Politicians over 60 should have to pass a cognitive test, as well as anyone where there is legitimate reason to doubt their mental capacity e.g. someone having trouble speaking

All those years of service that human is putting in and you’re proposing a competency test? Wisdom is very critical to keep on board as a consultant. There’s no doubt the mind ages and humans come to a condition where they can carry on but this can be human managed by the current leaders on the same team. No need to waste or embarrass a good resource. It’s all in the mind at the end of the day.

No, to avoid discrimination, unless they have showed past signs of mental deficiencies such as Biden.

Competency tests can help to establish whether one is fit to run for office, however this would need to be done in a controlled manner and only in circumstances wherein one’s competency comes into question.

No, anyone over retirement age should be banned from running. The third option matches this but doesn't quite make sense in the context of the question. Someone over retirement age is over 75 already.

No, any politician we're not happy with we can (try) and vote them out at an election or they can voluntarily step down

No, but parliamentarians over the age of 75 should retire to let younger people work in government, or move on to an advisory role instead.

There should be measures in place to ensure that politicians are fit for office, but unsure what those should be

Poorly phrased question. Mental competency is too subjective and the testing process could be abused, BUT anyone over the age of retirement should not be allowed to run for office.

Yes, and all politicians and officials entering high office should be required to pass a psychological exam to prove their trustworthiness

I think that the second somebody reaches the age of 65 they shouldn't be allowed to handle any sort of role of political power. They don't have long left on their life and this can remove concern for the future, causing them to act drastically with only profits and personal gain in mind. People over this age also tend to be heavily disconnected from a majority of the younger population which is dangerous when their job is to look after the people of their country and the future generations. I also think there should be a maximum age that our prime minister can be at 50 years old when they start their term.

Automatically Ban over over the age of retirement.requirement to pass the mental competency test would then be unnecessary

No, but should be a mandatory retirement age from parliament inline with national retirement age. House of Lords should not have retirement age as it should be for those with more experience.

Yes, All politicians should be deemed fit and healthy for work, not just reliant on one test though as mental competency could be discriminatory against people with disabilities for example.

No, unless there is evidence to suggest that they may be or are becoming incapable to fulfil the duties they were elected to perform

everyone over the age of retirement should be banned from running for office and politicians of any age should be required to pass a mental competency test

Yes, and ban anyone more than 5 years over the retirement age from running for an office, as well as term limits set at 25 years or 5 Parliaments.

There is more nuance to older politicians than mental competency. Also you don’t have to be old to not have mental competency.

This would be age discrimination. Either politicians of all ages should be required to pass a mental competency test, or none.

no politicians can only serve government max 12 years they only end up in media or law jobs after getting out of politics anyway. it's all about the money we need to reduce the WAGES

No, but all politicians should be subject to a political erudition test that proves that they understand the role, the demographics, political and economic processes, etc.

No, unless they've been diagnosed with a neurodegenerative disorder (e.g. dementia, Alzeimer's, etc.)

If they are capable then yes would you make a 75 year old quit their job if they didn’t want to? No because they need to pay the bills the government messed up

No but yes if they show signs of dementia

No. All politicians should be made to retire. Some elements of the Police are forced to retire at 50 - makes no sense

No, but you shouldn't be able to run for office if over state pension age

That is older than the age of retirement and so they should not be working anyway

There should be a fairly decided system where, if a politician seems to be behaving in a strange, less competent or questionable way, he or should should be given a 'driving test' refresher as it were, to ensure competence not mental acquity. Some illnesses may be temporary, or driven by loss or grief, and this should be included in the checks.

No age limit

no but they should be advised to have regular medical checks

No, mental competency is too subjective and the testing process could be abused but politicians of any age should be required to pass a mental competency test

Over 80s should

All politicians should have to pass one, irrelevant of age.

They should be forced to retire at 68

Yes, and there should be term limits in place

Everyone should regardless of age

Yes, but they show concerns around mental competence and also mandate anyone running for office take a morality test

No, but introduce for those in the legal profession and those in the House of Lords

No, but there should be an age limit to be part of a political party

No, unless there is consensus among constituents/peers that a politician is experiencing mental deterioration.

No, this is borderline ageist.

Yes, but make sure it is a fair test and not discriminatory against old people.

It should be required at any age but also should be unbiased and set but an independent agency so it can’t be abused.

No, however, they should be encouraged to retire.

If they show signs that may make them to be unfit

No, they should not be allowed to stand for election again.

No, it can be abused by political opponents. The people should make those decisions.

Yes, if there are indicators which show that they might be unfit for the job

No, It would not have helped with Boris Johnson or Liz Truss. So what is the point?

only if their, or another, party votes to have a test

No politicians over 75 years of age should be allowed in office.

If you had the power, what criteria would you set for someone to remain in a professional role as they get older?

In what ways might mandatory retirement ages impact the diversity and representation in politics or judiciary?

The UK should reject any discriminatory age-based mental competency tests for politicians and instead implement a comprehensive, transparent system of democratic accountability that ensures all politicians are held to a high standard of performance and integrity, with the public, not the government, being the ultimate judge of their fitness to hold office.

What are the pros and cons of having age limits for high-responsibility roles, like politicians or judges?

Can you share a time when you noticed someone's abilities didn't match with societal expectations due to their age?

How would you feel if your favorite public leader had to retire at a certain age, regardless of their abilities?

How does the concept of 'age equals wisdom' fit into the debate on mandatory retirements for certain professions?

No, but ban anyone over the age of retirement

Yes but only if they are either 80+ years of age, or are recommended to take it by an independent committee, with the test itself also being drawn up by an independent committee.

What alternative measures could be taken to ensure that professionals remain competent in their roles without setting age limits?

Is there an age at which people should no longer make significant societal decisions? Why or why not?

Imagine a scenario where a highly skilled leader is forced to retire due to age. How would that affect society's progress?

How can younger generations benefit from or be disadvantaged by mandatory retirement ages in leadership positions?