Our political class is a joke!

Kohoutek

markharding557 wrote: »

The point is if the business secretary was a businessman and the education minister was a headmaster etc etc then we would have a better qualified government.

Yeah I don't know why people single out George Osborne for criticism when the current Chancellor and ex-Chancellor have basically no experience outside party politics either.

aelitaman

Kohoutek wrote: »

Yeah I don't know why people single out George Osborne for criticism when the current Chancellor and ex-Chancellor have basically no experience outside party politics either.

Do not worry Cameron has shown good management skills and put the "Experienced,done it before" Ken Clarke to make sure he gets it right.

Whereas Brown when faced by having put someone in as Chancellor has more talent than him or Ed Bollxxks just seeks to smear them.

markharding557

I would agree if he made ken clark the shadow chancellor but alas he has not:(

lostinrates

markharding557 wrote: »

I would agree if he made ken clark the shadow chancellor but alas he has not:(

Clarke's appointment is, imo truely clever, one of Cameron's few really good moves....he ''counters'' Mandelson. who do you feel has more ...sway, presence, in the Labour cabinet....poor beleaguered nd possibly quite decent Darling, or slimy mandelson?

CLAPTON

Kohoutek wrote: »

I simply meant that literally none of these people have ever been involved in a business at any meaningful level, let alone run a business, or worked in a profession field for any serious length of time.

How can you have effective policy decisions if the people at the top of government have only ever worked in government?

Also, if you mention big money and greed as a negative for the private sector, have you heard of the MP's expenses scandal?

I understood what you meant

what I meant was if one wants people who have achieved significant accomplishments in commerce, business, engineering, science etc the they are likely to be people earning over £200k, with prospects of say £1m and they would be used to travelling 1st class and wouldn't be too pleased about job security of only 4-5 years.

One needs to make choices ... trashing MPs, cutting their benefits and paying much less that reasonably successful people would expect, is not a recipe for recruiting good people.

markharding557

Darling could be a good chancellor if he didn't have a loon for a boss

moggylover

I am in agreement with the principle of people needing to have a "wider" experience of life than perhaps they currently do in order to govern a Country effectively.

However, my worry is that without those who have PhD's in history and politics and who can actually look back and see what certain policies and moves have meant to the general public then Government would begin to just pander to certain specific interest groups and NOT to the majority that a democratic Government is supposed to serve.

The interests of big business are seldom good for the Countries economy in the long term (as we have recently had proved to us graphically despite the resistance to placing the blame where it truly belongs on this particular part of the forum) and they are even less commonly in the interests of the general population.

The exceptionally greedy manage to run things their way just as well without overt presence in Government don't you worry;).

Kohoutek

CLAPTON wrote: »

I understood what you meant

what I meant was if one wants people who have achieved significant accomplishments in commerce, business, engineering, science etc the they are likely to be people earning over £200k, with prospects of say £1m and they would be used to travelling 1st class and wouldn't be too pleased about job security of only 4-5 years.

One needs to make choices ... trashing MPs, cutting their benefits and paying much less that reasonably successful people would expect, is not a recipe for recruiting good people.

Ah sorry, I see what you meant.

I'm sure the extreme public attention/scrutiny and of course the media is a significant detractor too. I heard Ann Widdecombe talking about 'the decline in the reputation of Parliament' as she put it, and she mentioned the media for putting people off.

The job security wouldn't be a problem for people looking for a career in politics after 25-30 years in another one, but unfortunately in this country we've got something against politicians that look older than late 50s. In America, it's the other way round, they really value experience. They had a senator that retired at 100! There's even a 92 year old in the Senate now and the average age in the Senate is probably 60 something.

Kohoutek

moggylover wrote: »

However, my worry is that without those who have PhD's in history and politics and who can actually look back and see what certain policies and moves have meant to the general public then Government would begin to just pander to certain specific interest groups and NOT to the majority that a democratic Government is supposed to serve.

The interests of big business are seldom good for the Countries economy in the long term (as we have recently had proved to us graphically despite the resistance to placing the blame where it truly belongs on this particular part of the forum) and they are even less commonly in the interests of the general population.

Yeah, but unfortunately people with academic or journalistic backgrounds tend to think they know all the answers because that's what their job entails basically. People like Harriet Harman are the worst example of top-down social engineers who think they can solve all of society's problems by discriminating against white men. When it matters to them, Labour don't care about democracy - who wanted the Iraq War?

I agree that big business can capture government - it's pretty bad in America because of the way election finance works, leading to near corruption sometimes. Although it seems to happen here too - Bernie Ecclestone, cash for honours etc. Labour seems to have a tendency to overregulate (although clearly not big banks) and overcomplicate which doesn't help businesses of any size.

moggylover

Kohoutek wrote: »

Yeah, but unfortunately people with academic or journalistic backgrounds tend to think they know all the answers because that's what their job entails basically. People like Harriet Harman are the worst example of top-down social engineers who think they can solve all of society's problems by discriminating against white men. When it matters to them, Labour don't care about democracy - who wanted the Iraq War?

I agree that big business can capture government - it's pretty bad in America because of the way election finance works, leading to near corruption sometimes. Although it seems to happen here too - Bernie Ecclestone, cash for honours etc. Labour seems to have a tendency to overregulate (although clearly not big banks) and overcomplicate which doesn't help businesses of any size.

I think our own Governmental system has ALWAYS been just as corrupt and manipulated as the one in America: we have just been much slower to realise it! It certainly was when I started out in the 70's and much of the corruption had been around for years.

Furthermore, whenever any policy that involves the good of the masses at the cost to the few is suggested those few just start thowing their toys from the pram and suggest they will "take their money elsewhere" so it is difficult to do the "right" thing and it often ends up a cynical watering down.

In the face of the extreme greed and manipulation involved, regulation would initially appear to be the only way to go. Unfortunately many times the "regulations" are written by those with hands on experience but a vested interest in ensuring there are lots and lots of loopholes;)