Getting ahead in politics

[thinfourth2]

Now before i start this i will say I am no fan of Brown but i believe he is not really any worse then other politician. So i am neither defending the man or berating him. I choose to focus on him as he is current head turd, I could of easily choosen many other names. So while slagging brown is fun its just a wee bit pointless in this thread

Numerous Pistonheaders said:

Gordon Brown is a complete idiot and the current financial crisis is 100% his fault He is a moron

He has no idea about the real world

Now if our system is perfect (which it must be if the credit crunch is 100% Browns fault) then how did such an idiot get to be in charge? To simply jump up and down pointing a finger at (insert name of person incharge of something) is slightly pointless when you ask how did he get to be incharge.

I personally think the system we currently have is far from perfect. Not only from who our current leader is but also through my own experiences of the local village committee. I joined the committee as i hoped to be able to make some contribution to the local area but i quickly discovered it to be mostly about blaming others and infighting so i quickly became disillusioned and left.

So what attributes and skills do you think are needed to become successful in politics and are those skills and attributes actually of any use what so ever to lead a country or run a government department, or even run a local council.

Also what would you have as an alternative.

[fathomfive]

Leadership. Pure and simple. You can be crap at every other facet of life but you must be able to lead. How else are people going to listen to you and believe what you tell them?

Which is where Mr G Brown falls down, and to an extent, in my view, so do the rest of the contenders (from any political party).

I'm no advocate of Maggie Thatcher, but she at least knew how to lead. Or at least that's how it seems to me, I was 5 when she came to power.

Edited by fathomfive on Monday 23 February 08:12

[Jasandjules]

thinfourth2 said:

Now if our system is perfect (which it must be if the credit crunch is 100% Browns fault) then how did such an idiot get to be in charge?

He was placed by the person in charge to be second in command. When the person in charge left he assumed the position. He was not voted to lead the country.

[Dr Jekyll]

First of all GB concentrated on building up a power base, particularly with the unions, so that made him a shoo in for Tony's job.

Secondly anyone really capable is unlikely to go into politics in the first place, they can earn more in a proper job.

Thirdly GB may not really care what happens to the economy. He may have calculated that in times of crisis he can accuse the tories of lacking the necessary experience to deal with it and so gain electoral advantage.

[thinfourth2]

Jasandjules said:

thinfourth2 said:

Now if our system is perfect (which it must be if the credit crunch is 100% Browns fault) then how did such an idiot get to be in charge?

He was placed by the person in charge to be second in command. When the person in charge left he assumed the position. He was not voted to lead the country.

So the guy before him was perfect and somehow this idiot became second in command. Is that what you are saying?

Anyway it was prescott who was second in command

Oh and we don't elect the prime minister we elect our local MP

[crofty1984]

Mandatory minimum of 5 years in a non-political job for all MPs. I don't care if it's as a brain surgeon or stacking shelves. Career Polititians are not a good thing.

[thinfourth2]

Dr Jekyll said:

First of all GB concentrated on building up a power base, particularly with the unions, so that made him a shoo in for Tony's job.

Does this make him a good or bad choice?

Dr Jekyll said:

Secondly anyone really capable is unlikely to go into politics in the first place, they can earn more in a proper job.

You want to give them MORE money

[V8mate]

Limit a central organisation to providing national defence and the minimum level required for the rule of Law.

Privatise the rest.

[Dr Jekyll]

thinfourth2 said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Secondly anyone really capable is unlikely to go into politics in the first place, they can earn more in a proper job.

You want to give them MORE money

I didn't say that, I was simply trying to answer the original question as to why we get incapable people at the top of politics.

[900T-R]

Dr Jekyll said:

Secondly anyone really capable is unlikely to go into politics in the first place, they can earn more in a proper job.

B*ll*x - there's any number of very capable & driven professionals who earn a fraction of what an MP gets. There's also a few who are full of hot air and 'earn' a multitude of that. I'm not naming any specific sectors.

[Dr Jekyll]

If they have the experience in managing large organisations which a minister ought to have, I find it difficult to believe they are earning much less than £65000. If they are, and want to earn more, there are better options than politics.

[thinfourth2]

Dr Jekyll said:

If they have the experience in managing large organisations which a minister ought to have, I find it difficult to believe they are earning much less than £65000. If they are, and want to earn more, there are better options than politics.

So should we pay them more?

Or something else

or maybe a unlimited expenses account

Oh hang on

Edited by thinfourth2 on Monday 23 February 09:10

[900T-R]

Dr Jekyll said:

If they have the experience in managing large organisations which a minister ought to have, I find it difficult to believe they are earning much less than £65000. If they are, and want to earn more, there are better options than politics.

Maybe management is vastly overrated and overpaid in today's society, to begin with? Most of the time the sort of folks that have actually learned a trade are a lot more level-headed when asked how something should be run. With management types, the best you can hope for is common sense - there's any number who think of themselves as visionary, the vast majority of them being dangerously misguided.

To be bluntly honest the first thing I'd do to dispose with this so-called 'crisis' is to cut away at least 50% of 'management' - having as many management layers as corporations and governmental bodies in Western societies have, not only burdens us with far too many improductive employees, but also with an inert mass which is more likely to be obstructive towards what needs to be done at a certain point than facilitating necessary change.
For starters, the main reason all of us are clogging up the road network to get to an office and back every day when teleworking is a 100% viable alternative is middle managers unwilling to give up being able to control their workforce to the nth degree (or at least retain the illusion that they do. )

Apart from this, for most people salary is of secondary importance when choosing what they want to do in life - at the age you're supposed to make a choice and are on pocket money from your folks and/or whatever stacking shelves on Saturday mornings earns you, any number sounds good. Most of times, people choose something that they're talented at, like doing and is in line with expectations of teachers, parents and peers.

Edited by 900T-R on Monday 23 February 09:49

[Gunny Sergeant D]

thinfourth2 said:

Now if our system is perfect (which it must be if the credit crunch is 100% Browns fault)

Does not follow at all, our system could be crap and it still be Browns fault.

thinfourth2 said:

....then how did such an idiot get to be in charge?

Many of the electorate do not do Politics, they do tits on page three and what the Red tops tell them to do.

What you are asking for is impossible in a democracy. You cannot be qualified to be a politician. The process decides who gets in. If you restrict who can stand, then that limits democracy as you are excluding people.

Edited by Gunny Sergeant D on Monday 23 February 09:35

[TankRizzo]

What irks me is that you have regular Cabinet reshuffles where people are placed into jobs which they have zero experience of. Geoff Hoon, for example, has been Defence Secretary, Minister of State for Europe, and now Transport Minister, yet he has no relevant defence or transport experience - IIRC he has a law degree.

I wouldn't be able to get a specialised job with no relevant experience, so I'm not sure why our politicans are different. You'd think the best person to be the Defence Secretary would be someone with good military experience and sound international relations.

Our current Chancellor, for example, has no relevant financial qualifications. The mind boggles.

[Dr Jekyll]

900T-R said:

Most of times, people choose something that they're talented at, like doing and is in line with expectations of teachers, parents and peers.

But that is exactly the problem. People go into politics because they 'like' having power for it's own sake.

Someone once asked Michael Heseltine why he wanted to go into politics having made a fortune in business. His answer was that decisions in cabinet affect more people than decisions in the boardroom, so he found it more satisfying.

Whether those decisions were right or not didn't seem relevant.

[900T-R]

Dr Jekyll said:

900T-R said:

Most of times, people choose something that they're talented at, like doing and is in line with expectations of teachers, parents and peers.

But that is exactly the problem. People go into politics because they 'like' having power for it's own sake.

Sadly, I think you've nailed it there. But I'm not naive enough to suspect the motives of the folks in large corporations' board rooms are any more in line with 'the satisfaction of a job well done'...

[Dr Jekyll]

900T-R said:

Dr Jekyll said:

900T-R said:

Most of times, people choose something that they're talented at, like doing and is in line with expectations of teachers, parents and peers.

But that is exactly the problem. People go into politics because they 'like' having power for it's own sake.

Sadly, I think you've nailed it there. But I'm not naive enough to suspect the motives of the folks in large corporations' board rooms are any more in line with 'the satisfaction of a job well done'...

No, but their motives are to do with making money. In a reasonably free market this should be a good approximation.

[900T-R]

Dr Jekyll said:

No, but their motives are to do with making money. In a reasonably free market this should be a good approximation.

From a certain level on, the market is all but free. That goes for the corporate world as much as for politics - IMHO they're as bad as each other.

[thinfourth2]

Gunny Sergeant D said:

thinfourth2 said:

Now if our system is perfect (which it must be if the credit crunch is 100% Browns fault)

Does not follow at all, our system could be crap and it still be Browns fault.

Then it would be 75% browns fault and 25% the systems fault for letting the fker in in the first place

But the mantra here is 100% brown