1. Limit the amount of career politicians
Why – Running the country is essentially the biggest and most important business in the country. There are no businesses that reach out to every area of society like government does. Therefore it seems logical for its members to have had experience in the real world. People who have actually cut their teeth in the world of business you would think could make a better job of running the country than a career politician, who’s less likely to have the tenacity to make those tough decisions. If someone is up for re election every few years they are less likely to make bold decisions – it’s that fear of ‘rocking the boat’ that leads to a stagnant political climate, in which it becomes hard to address social injustices and create an atmosphere for change.
Basically you’re facist.
Basically you’re facist.
+1
Godwin’s.
I think it’s a great idea to limit career politicians; people who rule us should understand what it’s like to be us, however that doesn’t mean government should only be made up of businessmen. We need people from diverse walks of life with expertise in many areas. Hopefully the jobs of MPs and ministers will become more respectable so that experienced people from across society will aspire to join government.
Also, Larusso and John, you spelt F-A-S-C-I-S-T wrong.
George – I’m amazed no one else has picked up on that gaffe. Funnily enough John & larusso are quite right (wing…not correct!)…let’s just say it is quite appropriate that these two inparticular can’t spell what in some way, or another they are so close to!
Isnt this supposed to be a ‘left’ blog, I mean okay, I accept labour and the utter hackery on this blog is anti-political, but seriously.
“Running the country is essentially the biggest and most important business in the country. ”
AND
“Therefore it seems logical for its members to have had experience in the real world. People who have actually cut their teeth in the world of business you would think could make a better job of running the country than a career politician, who’s less likely to have the tenacity to make those tough decisions.”
So essentially you dont want anyone who has opinions or a political position. You want a manager. Thanks for that, I guess you are new labour on here or closet conservatives.
I wasn’t aware that all people who have had experience in business are inherently conservative? Isn’t that a rather naive assumption? Anyone who enters the world of politics, be it from any background, does so to represent what he/she believes in.
Generally the career politicians are only interested in one thing – power, and maintaining it – would it not be very easy for that person to back out of making a bold decision, especially if it was an unfriendly media bill. It’s that fear that can create a stagnant political climate.
In any instance, is it not beneficiary to have a range of decision makers in a legislative body? Surely it would be preferential for decisions to come from a body that has many diverse decision makers?
In fact, ensuring decisions are taken by as broad a consultative process as possible is enshrined, or one of the endearing elements of democracy. Our constitutional monarchy allows us to only elect our representatives, which lets face it is a rather watered down version of a classic version of democracy – although possibly the most real or likely to succeed. Thus I would support any process that has the benefit of being influenced, or passed by other experts.
It’s not about supporting ‘big business’ either (a criticism of Blair) – perhaps it should have been titled – ‘Measures to introduce representatives with business experience’, instead of what sounds like a MP bashing notion.
History, especially recent history is full of high profile businessmen/women who lend an ear to government – most obvious example Lord Sugar.
I never said anyone whos involved in the ‘business world’ is inherently conservative. I was criticising your inference that people who are managers would take the correct, ‘evidence based’ decision. You describe the country as a business, and political representatives should treat it as such. Thereby removing all ideology and actual politics from our governance and has the side effect of removing political decisions away from the clutches of politics and democracy into the realm of experts. It is inherently apolitical, which is a characteristic of average conservatives and new labour types. Conviction politicians have the tenacity to take tough decisions, not managerial types or experts who hide behind their ‘evidence’ to give a policy decision a veneer of legitimacy it doesnt have in the democratic sphere.
I don’t think that you can say Conservatives and New Labour types are apolitical; their political positions are simply watered down and centrist.
It is surely preferable for those in power to understand what effect their policies will have on the real World; something that people who have just moved up the party ranks are not capable of.
Parliament could be filled with so called ‘conviction’ career politicians, but that does not mean that they will make sensible choices.