In an unprecedented move aimed at elevating the intellectual rigour of political debates, a daring member of Parliament has proposed a revolutionary piece of legislation: all politicians must now pass a “Common Sense” exam before engaging in any kind of debate.
The bill, cleverly dubbed the “Sense and Sensibility Act,” was introduced by MP Hector Nuttingham, a man known for his no-nonsense approach and penchant for mismatched socks. In a lively press conference, Nuttingham explained, “It’s quite simple really. If you wouldn’t trust someone to successfully assemble an IKEA bookshelf, should they really be orchestrating the nation’s policies?”
The proposed exam is set to feature a range of questions designed to test basic reasoning and decision-making abilities. Sample questions include critical scenarios such as: “Is it wise to sell the nation’s gold reserves because you need loose change for the vending machine?” and “Are you sure you want to press ‘Reply All’ on that internal email?”
Nuttingham assures skeptics that the exam is neither politically biased nor overly complex. “If you know the difference between a breadbasket and a basket case, you should sail through,” he asserts confidently.
Rumors speculate that the exam will be administered by none other than Patricia P. Commonsense, a fictional character Nuttingham created specifically for this purpose. Her carefully curated online persona features an extensive background in solid judgment, extensive experience nodding sympathetically at people in distress, and over 13 hours of YouTube videos entitled “How Not to Be a Numbskull.”
Reactions to the bill have been mixed. Supporters eagerly point out that such a move could drastically reduce the number of face-palming moments during parliamentary sessions. On the other hand, a few dissenters argue that mandatory exams might unfairly exclude those politicians whose charm lies in their befuddlement.
Critics are also quick to question the subjective nature of “common sense.” One political analyst quipped, “Given the disparity between common sense and actual practice in politics, perhaps Nuttingham should consider including a module on unicorn husbandry.”
Nevertheless, the idea is gaining traction, particularly among the general public. Polls suggest that 87% of citizens are in favor of any initiative that promises fewer debates about whether pigeons or owls are more suitable as national symbols.
In a surprising turn of events, several veteran politicians have expressed reservations about the proposed exam. One anonymous MP lamented, “What if we discover common sense was never our strong suit?” Meanwhile, whispers of pre-exam tutoring have emerged, with seasoned politicians reportedly offering “crash courses” on sensible thinking. Although, it’s rumored these sessions often devolve into perplexed discussions over the correct way to eat a Kit Kat.
As Nuttingham’s proposal continues to make waves, it remains to be seen whether this comedic yet practical bill will become a reality. However, one thing is clear: the Sense and Sensibility Act amplifies the truth in the old adage that sometimes, reality is stranger—and funnier—than fiction.