how do we solve the problem of career politicians

[egb_hibs]

one of the upsides of the generally undesirable historical position, where political office was the preserve of the independently wealthy, was that those people were able to act and express themselves, unconstrained by their livliehood being dependent on retaining their place in parliament.

I tend to think that public discontent with democratic govt is hugely inflated and influenced by the infantilism of that same public which is the legacy of the social engineering of the last few decades. But....there is also a core of substance there too. One that is the product of many symptoms, one of the causes of which (certainly not the only) is political careerism.

this seems to me to be an intractable problem. does anyone else have any bright ideas that may suggest otherwise?

[Daddy'O'Hibee]

How about Vlads rotation technique, let people serve in legislature briefly, then send them back into public domain.

[part/time supporter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by Daddy'O'Hibee

How about Vlads rotation technique, let people serve in legislature briefly, then send them back into public domain.

That is the short version of my idea.

[BurbankHibee]

It should be like jury duty. Everyone takes a turn.

[wee 162]

Don't fecking vote for them!

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by BurbankHibee

It should be like jury duty. Everyone takes a turn.

most people are neither competent nor interested.

[BurbankHibee]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

most people are neither competent nor interested.

Then do away with jury duty.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by BurbankHibee

Then do away with jury duty.

That's being talked about for technically complex cases, such as some frauds.

Adjudicating on legislation is closer to that. Plus the whole idea fails to take into account the things involved in managing any large enterprise - the years of lobbying and work involved to get issues onto the table, initiatives sponsored to look for solutions, budgeting for those solutions against a whole bunch of competing priorties, managing the complex interrelationship between different policies and the instruments used to enact them.

It couldn't work. Not a chance.

At best you'd have to narrow down on the bit the juries operated on to such an extent that they would hold no power.

In any case, I think the problem will be taken out of our hands. I think about 20 or 30 years from now the pressures from global warming issues, demographic problems, geo-political tensions, declining resources, and terrorism will cause a swing to a much more authoritarian mode of government.

The class of 68 dropped the ball. We're in unprecedented territory in some issues, and the auspices ain't good. The genie can't go back in the bottle. Democracy in it's current state cannot fix it's own problems. When evolution fails, revolution is always round the corner. We're in our wiemar era right now.

[BurbankHibee]

Career politicians need to held to account. It's not enough to vote them out. If they aint performing, fire them, fine them and jail them.

[Briant]

Was talking about this with a mate last night and we came to the conclusion that politicians, front bechers especially, give more aliegence to their party than their constituents. Ideology must go out of the window if they want to progress to higher positions in the party so those politicians in power have to give up their regard to the masses they represent.

Spin rules in all parliaments

I really want a box to tick at the next election that says "I have faith in none of the above"

[Dr Shrink]

Hold them to account.

What happened to the "bigger they are the harder they fall" routine?

People who abuse power need a good kicking.

The pension funds are plundered by bent cops 'retiring early' and public funds are squandered on 'elected members' lining the pockets of themselves, their chums and their kin.
When exposed, do them.



Nah.

Only kidding.

Just a wee outburst.

[egb_hibs]

to be more specific, I think a cocktail of 60s social 'reforms', pc and globalisation (shock admission from egb?) is failing. I think some of the problems we have created for ourselves - global warming and demographic decline, cannot be tackled by a society shaped by this formula; a supine, self-interested, atomised victim culture does not possess the moral resources to deal with these issues. simulataneously, there is a rise in alternative social models which seem better equipped to deal with the challenges of the 21st century, to beat us at our own free market game, but also to aggravate global warming. game's a bogey.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

Now now

No one is leaping to the defence of western democracy this time round, I notice. Do we all agree it isn't working then?

to be more specific, I think a cocktail of 60s social 'reforms', pc and globalisation (shock admission from egb?) is failing. I think some of the problems we have created for ourselves - global warming and demographic decline, cannot be tackled by a society shaped by this formula; a supine, self-interested, atomised victim culture does not possess the moral resources to deal with these issues. simulataneously, there is a rise in alternative social models which seem better equipped to deal with the challenges of the 21st century, to beat us at our own free market game, but also to aggravate global warming. game's a bogey.

ps I seem to have inserted this post further up the thread? how did that happen - have i fallen through a worm hole in time and space?

[egb_hibs]

ok - now i'm puzzled - my posts are appearning out of chronlogical sequence!

[BurbankHibee]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

ok - now i'm puzzled - my posts are appearning out of chronlogical sequence!

Aye, something is up.

[gun ainm]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

most people are neither competent nor interested.

we could restrict it to those with a university degree?

[Bartok]

timecheck

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by theselkie

we could restrict it to those with a university degree?

that might address the 'not interested' bit

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

that might address the 'not interested' bit

Now now

No one is leaping to the defence of western democracy this time round, I notice. Do we all agree it isn't working then?

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

No one is leaping to the defence of western democracy this time round, I notice. Do we all agree it isn't working then?

Depends what you mean. If you are asking whether it works for ordinary people, of course it doesn't, that's not what it's there for, and it never has been.

On the other hand if you are asking if it is good at keeping the current system of government it's perfect.

"Democracy" in terms of the current western political system means give someone your vote, and then they do whatever they want until they have to get re-elected. That's not "the rule of the people", that's abdication of responsibility by the people who can then blame others for the things they implicitly agree to.