actual experts in their area being in control of those areas?

PeakOutput

ok the thread title is not very clear but ill try to explain.

i was talking about government yesterday and i cant remember what country but it could be sweden or norway or one of those. but basically there government is half elected and half appointed/hired

so the people vote say for a minister for health AND then the top professional in the health industry is hired by an indepandant body i assume and they BOTH run the health service.

the same i assume happens for their department of finance a minister is elected and then the top economist / accountant in the country is hired with equal power to actually run that part of the country

people are giving out alot about consultants right now but at the end of the day these consultancy companies hire the best thinkers in their particular area which the government is severely lacking so they do seem necessary.

would this be a way of saving alot of money on consultancy firms and does it work as a method of government?

Red Hand

It's hard to know how much influence a Minister or even the top professional in their field actually would have on ministerial departments. Here in Ireland and Britain, it is mostly civil servants that work on drafting policy and implementing it, not the minister as far as I know.

PeakOutput

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

it is mostly civil servants that work on drafting policy and implementing it, not the minister as far as I know.

as i said im no expert but would it not be the civil servants draw up initiatives / legislation for the government in line with whoever is in power at the time's stated policies

the way i see this working is there is a top mind there who can not only tell a politician why their idea is crazy and simply wont work but can stop it being implemented and put threw an idea of their own

like having the best economist in the country sitting beside brian cowen with no vested interest tell ing him why bailing the banks is or isnt a good thing and who has the power to act on it himself (obviously compromise will occur but you can see what im getting at) just because someone is the head of a political party does not mean they know how to run a country

SkepticOne

PeakOutput wrote: »

so the people vote say for a minister for health AND then the top professional in the health industry is hired by an indepandant body i assume and they BOTH run the health service.

In Ireland the health service is run by Professor Drumm, an unelected consultant appointed by the department.

How would this change under your scheme? Would the minister get more involved in the day-to-day running?

brianthebard

PeakOutput wrote: »

like having the best economist in the country sitting beside brian cowen with no vested interest tell ing him why bailing the banks is or isnt a good thing and who has the power to act on it himself (obviously compromise will occur but you can see what im getting at) just because someone is the head of a political party does not mean they know how to run a country

I have to stop you there, there's no way of objectively saying such a person is the best economist, and there's no way of them not having a vested interest, or at the very least a bias. I could pick a person and you could pick a person to represent the economy in this manner, and they could be from different ends of the spectrum politically, economically, ideologically. There's no possibility of consensus. Its hard enough to believe (nay impossible, for me at least) that one single professor is smart enough or good enough to know what's best for the health service, a relatively politics/ideology free zone. Once you get into economics, foreign policy, etc, its impossible to ever find a way of hiring someone who would be representative.
And thus we have elections.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

If you want to get actual experts into the jobs, you'd have to increase the salaries quite a bit.

Manic Moran

I think you have to distinguish between guidelines and policies, and actual operational knowledge. It's fine to have a politician in charge of a department to set general policies, that's what he was elected for. But ultimately running anything requires a vague idea of what you're running about. It's why I really hate the American system of giving ambassadorships to political appointees, for example, instead of to career civil servants (Although the difficult/dangerous positions are still given to the mandarins, probably for the best). On a similar note, many eyebrows were raised by Obama's selection of Leon Pinetta to run the CIA. The man doesn't know a damned thing about gookwork, but he's a great administrator. There is great concern about whether or not he's going to administer the CIA into ineffectuality, coming from both sides of the aisle. Problem is that CIA head is not a policy-making position, it's an administrative position, which should be left in the hands of the professionals.

NTM

brianthebard

What's gookwork?

BlitzKrieg

is this the sort of government your looking for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_(bureaucratic)

PeakOutput

brianthebard wrote: »

I have to stop you there, there's no way of objectively saying such a person is the best economist

we can objectively say which is the best economic consultancy in ireland / the best economic school in the world why not the best economic thinker in the country? either way saying the best was a way to get my point across people in the field express interest and a panel select the best applicant you encourage the top minds with good salaries and obviously the chance of putting their theories into action

and there's no way of them not having a vested interest, or at the very least a bias.

no more than anyone else

I could pick a person and you could pick a person to represent the economy in this manner, and they could be from different ends of the spectrum politically, economically, ideologically.

economics is one example but from how its been explained to me it is a science. a good economist can apply this science to anything and explain why its like it is or how a change should affect it. their ideologies can be kept in check by the elected representatives

There's no possibility of consensus. Its hard enough to believe (nay impossible, for me at least) that one single professor is smart enough or good enough to know what's best for the health service, a relatively politics/ideology free zone.

but one politician does? in my mind having a politician to represent the people a business person to run the administration and a doctor to represent the practice of medicine all with equal or almost equal input sounds like everyone gets represented equally. pay increases arent given to secretaries when a cancer unit is needed

Once you get into economics, foreign policy, etc, its impossible to ever find a way of hiring someone who would be representative.
And thus we have elections.

thats why you elect who you want to represent you and they represent your views in partnership with someone who actually knows what they are talking about in their area.

If you want to get actual experts into the jobs, you'd have to increase the salaries quite a bit.

i dont see a problem with that i also think that alot of the top minds would love a chance to be able to stop politicians making party driven decisions that they know will have a detrimental affect but because the politician thinks it sounds good or will get him a few votes in his constituency he does it anyway

is this the sort of government your looking for?

that wiki page is blank but i dont know the name of the system either

BlitzKrieg

sorry about that, bad link

this one should work

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

PeakOutput

technocracy; a form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control.

pretty much with the addendum of 'in conjunction with elected politicians'

Manic Moran

brianthebard wrote: »

What's gookwork?

Geek/Spook.

CIA isn't just spies any more.

NTM

IRLConor

PeakOutput wrote: »

economics is one example but from how its been explained to me it is a science.

It's really not. At best it's a social science, but social sciences often play fast and loose with the science end of things.

PeakOutput wrote: »

a good economist can apply this science to anything and explain why its like it is or how a change should affect it.

Economics is not even nearly that well nailed down. You're making it sound like it's an analogue of 'F = ma' in the classical physics world. In reality economics is much more complicated and unpredictable than that.

brianthebard

PeakOutput wrote: »

economics is one example but from how its been explained to me it is a science. a good economist can apply this science to anything and explain why its like it is or how a change should affect it. their ideologies can be kept in check by the elected representatives



but one politician does? in my mind having a politician to represent the people a business person to run the administration and a doctor to represent the practice of medicine all with equal or almost equal input sounds like everyone gets represented equally. pay increases arent given to secretaries when a cancer unit is needed

Economists think they are practising a science, but they're not. And no a politican probably doesn't, but why double up the bureaucracy by bringing in "experts"?

brianthebard

Manic Moran wrote: »

Geek/Spook.

CIA isn't just spies any more.

NTM

Sounded somewhat racist first so I thought I'd ask.

PeakOutput

brianthebard wrote: »

Economists think they are practising a science, but they're not. And no a politican probably doesn't, but why double up the bureaucracy by bringing in "experts"?

ok i accept that its not a science in that you work out a formula and then everything exists in relation to this formula but they are able to be very very accurate from the books iv read and the economists iv spoken to. admittedley these are the books that are written by economists for general consumption so im not professing to know it inside out or anything

either way i dont think that part is the big deal


what is stopping the taoiseach the minister for finance the minister for health doing something they believe is the best solution but every expert can see it will be detrimental right now?

hayyman

PeakOutput wrote: »

ok the thread title is not very clear but ill try to explain.

i was talking about government yesterday and i cant remember what country but it could be sweden or norway or one of those. but basically there government is half elected and half appointed/hired

so the people vote say for a minister for health AND then the top professional in the health industry is hired by an indepandant body i assume and they BOTH run the health service.

the same i assume happens for their department of finance a minister is elected and then the top economist / accountant in the country is hired with equal power to actually run that part of the country

people are giving out alot about consultants right now but at the end of the day these consultancy companies hire the best thinkers in their particular area which the government is severely lacking so they do seem necessary.

would this be a way of saving alot of money on consultancy firms and does it work as a method of government?

It doesn't matter what the people of this country say about the government and how many things they have got completely wrong things will never change.They tell everyone to tighten there belts, when are they going to tighten there belts and stop destroying the country.

PeakOutput

hayyman wrote: »

It doesn't matter what the people of this country say about the government and how many things they have got completely wrong things will never change.They tell everyone to tighten there belts, when are they going to tighten there belts and stop destroying the country.

ye but this is about theory

i dont mean will ff implement tomorrow i mean that forgetting the way things are done right now and who is doing could this work in theory or are their fundamental problems that we dont have now that it will cause

brianthebard

PeakOutput wrote: »

what is stopping the taoiseach the minister for finance the minister for health doing something they believe is the best solution but every expert can see it will be detrimental right now?

Civil servants.
Public Outcry.
De Meeja.
Economists who aren't employed by the government but who still come out and say its a bad idea.

PeakOutput

brianthebard wrote: »

Civil servants.
Public Outcry.
De Meeja.
Economists who aren't employed by the government but who still come out and say its a bad idea.

that dosnt seemed to have stopped any decisions i can think of, in relation to the health service it seems every one of their decisions results in public outcry and doctors explaining why its a mistake and yet they still happen.

maybe if it was a doctor deciding were services were provided and how and micheal oleary running the administrative side in support of the doctors advice things would run alot smoother and efficiently?


dont jump down my throat for saying micheal oleary its just to get my point across

nesf

PeakOutput wrote: »

maybe if it was a doctor deciding were services were provided and how and micheal oleary running the administrative side in support of the doctors advice things would run alot smoother and efficiently

Honestly, doctors simply aren't trained to run huge public medicine machines. Neither they nor nurses would necessarily do a good job at running the HSE (you'll have individual exceptions but as a general rule their training is in a very different area).

The better question is asking whether you want something as big and awkward as the HSE centralised and whether it's worth doing it this way. Would a universal health insurance approach like the Netherlands be a more efficient and overall better system for both patients and the country at large? (link). The problem might be that there's no perfect way to run something like the HSE and it just ends up as a black hole into which public money is thrown (where this money might do more good per euro if it went into other areas or stayed in people's pockets).

Manic Moran

brianthebard wrote: »

Sounded somewhat racist first so I thought I'd ask.

Just what sort of relevant context could you have come up with for a racist overtone? The only thing close is the old term for NVA, but I don't think CIA spends all that much time and effort in that direction these days, certainly not remotely near enough to think that was the generalisation I meant.

NTM

Kama

ok i accept that its not a science in that you work out a formula and then everything exists in relation to this formula but they are able to be very very accurate from the books iv read and the economists iv spoken to.

As in so many matters, an important rule with economists adice is Caveat Emptor: Buyer Beware!

Economics for general (or policy) consumption is far (imo) from being a disinterested science. Best to assume one is being sold something, although it's not always certain what that something is. Plus, who the 'best' is depends on your yardstick, there's a wide variance of views as to what the 'correct' approach is in these circumstances, from fiscal conservatism to Neo-Keynesian, fr'instance.

So even before factoring in that its a chaotic, reflexive, interdependent system, and that what works in theory, or previously, may not work now, it's tough to agree on what the 'right' move would be. Depends on your priorities, or utility function, or ideology, etc.

That being said, I've heard a lot of support lately for the idea of a CEO-style 'Dream Team' or technocratic junta as a necessary step, given the politically unacceptable nature of hard decisions. I'll admit I twinge a little when hearing of the suspension or limitation of democracy due to an 'emergency', no matter how rational the case may be...

PeakOutput

Kama wrote: »

the suspension or limitation of democracy due to an 'emergency', no matter how rational the case may be...

we live in a republic though not a true democracy so we already elect people to make decisions for us. i find it strange that the the people running the country are not necessarily the smartest people in the society but simply the ones who know how to get people to vote for them and sadly in this country that means some sort of mix of you scratch mine and ill scratch yours and horribly short sighted local influences affecting national issues

dont get me wrong this system works to a large extent i just think it could work better

a comment was made today that in america the presidents do not seem to appoint people who are going to sit there and agree with him and make his job a little less stressfull by not having to argue and debate every decision but they appoint people who have experience in the area they are responsible for and have their own ideas and ideals that they will stand up for thus bringing wide ranging opinions and views rather than a load of yes men telling brian cowen hes walking on water

Kama

a comment was made today that in america the presidents do not seem to appoint people who are going to sit there and agree with him

Not sure if that's a necessary feature of the American political system; something similar seems to happen in a lot of organizations. When an incompetent is in charge, they promote other incompetents who they can rely on to agree with them and feel better about themself. Competent people are less worried about their own feelings, and are willing and want to have someone smarter than them around to contradict them. Obama is on record as saying he needs people smarter than him around, I remember no such statements from Bush.

(Not that I'm calling Cheney dumb)

[/offtopic]

nesf

PeakOutput wrote: »

i find it strange that the the people running the country are not necessarily the smartest people in the society

I don't find it in the slightest big surprising. Then again, I'm very cynical about the wisdom of the people.

PeakOutput

nesf wrote: »

I don't find it in the slightest big surprising. Then again, I'm very cynical about the wisdom of the people.

i dont know how to say this right i dont find it suprising that they are not running the country(they are smart after all they are off making the big bucks) but i do find it strange that there is not a system that accounts for this and is able to attract them

nesf

PeakOutput wrote: »

i dont know how to say this right i dont find it suprising that they are not running the country(they are smart after all they are off making the big bucks) but i do find it strange that there is not a system that accounts for this and is able to attract them

Nah, I mean it more in that the people tend to like voting for people they can relate to. Not always or anything but enough of the time to guarantee you get a few crazies in every parliament the world over.

TGPS

PeakOutput wrote: »

ok the thread title is not very clear but ill try to explain.

i was talking about government yesterday and i cant remember what country but it could be sweden or norway or one of those. but basically there government is half elected and half appointed/hired

so the people vote say for a minister for health AND then the top professional in the health industry is hired by an indepandant body i assume and they BOTH run the health service.

the same i assume happens for their department of finance a minister is elected and then the top economist / accountant in the country is hired with equal power to actually run that part of the country

people are giving out alot about consultants right now but at the end of the day these consultancy companies hire the best thinkers in their particular area which the government is severely lacking so they do seem necessary.

would this be a way of saving alot of money on consultancy firms and does it work as a method of government?

It's a nice idea in theory and probably works well in such as the Scandinavian countries but have a read of Transparency International's report on Ireland published earlier this week and you'll see why it would never work here - http://www.transparency.ie/

The ministers would just hire their mates. And even if there was an "independent body" that would be stacked with their mates too!!

As I see it, politics in Ireland is not treated as a profession in the same way as it is in the US or on the Continent - people don't work their way up learning it as such. You only have to look at the current government - who in the cabinet is a successful business person, academic or professional?

While the the top 3 - Taoiseach, Tanaiste and Minister of Finance all "inherited" their seats from fathers.

http://thisgruntledpublicservant.blogspot.com/