Are Political Leaders Detached From Reality?

later12

My question largely pertains to the Irish situation, but may be further examined in light of foreign leaders' policies and reflections upon their time in office.

To begin, I'm pretty sure anyone who has read Tony Blair's autobiography must have asked themselves this question, particularly in relation to his foreign policy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The man seems so utterly convinced that although the reasons for war were wrong (I think he says 'misguided'), Ultimately he does not regret the decision.
Whatever your political viewpoint, his personal conviction and his belief that out there in every town and village there are ordinary (and very silent), decent folk who agree with him entirely, seems astonishingly misguided. This belief is usually backed up by some random member of the public who pats him wisely and knowingly on the back at a constituency meeting, which Blair takes as a true extrapolation of the general, ordinary public mood.

You can apply the same question to Ireland.

I'm sure I am no different to anyone else who has discussed the economy and the Government with ordinary members or representatives from Government parties. Generally, they retain an astonishing ability of self-belief and justification of the party's actions in office.
Admittedly, it tends to be more of a barstool lamentation; an assurance that the media are out to get them and that the real Joe Worker, for whom they acquired a medical card or a university grant, will be forever grateful and quietly thankful. In my experience this is not just a characteristic of those at senior level, but amongst councillors and (particularly ambitious) party activists and youth members too.

They seem completely detached from reality, and from the anger that is out there. Why - and, indeed, how - can this still be? Party loyalty? Surrounded by yes-men all the time? Self delusion? How, in this political climate, can such denial still exist?

ednwireland

yep, when you get to be leader you have spent prob 20 years working throught he system you cant be anything but be detached.

just look at our tanaiste about the same age as me and spent all her working life except a year working in the health board, how can she be anything but detached

maxwell smart

Not only are they detached, they are dangerously under qualified for their jobs. I had this discussion with someone the other day and James O'Reilly(FG health spokesperson) came up.
He is a doctor, but that does not mean he is qualified to be minister for Health. Remember, he is the person who negotiated the massive pay deal for consultants with the HSE.
So now he is going to be the person who wields the axe to this deal?
I'm using him as an example, I could name practely any politician. I guess some of the newer TD's have a better understanding of the real world, but the system swallows them up.

I'm beginning to believe we need a new Republic to sweep out the political class and their ilk in business and public service to really get this country back on it's feet.

Dannyboy83

maxwell smart wrote: »

Not only are they detached, they are dangerously under qualified for their jobs. I had this discussion with someone the other day and James O'Reilly(FG health spokesperson) came up.
He is a doctor, but that does not mean he is qualified to be minister for Health. Remember, he is the person who negotiated the massive pay deal for consultants with the HSE.
So now he is going to be the person who wields the axe to this deal?
I'm using him as an example, I could name practely any politician. I guess some of the newer TD's have a better understanding of the real world, but the system swallows them up.

I'm beginning to believe we need a new Republic to sweep out the political class and their ilk in business and public service to really get this country back on it's feet.

An elected leader who is free to pick his cabinet would be nice.
Could avail of the non-political for health and the political area for foreign affairs for example.
Slash the presidency, combine it with the Taoiseach's role who would then act as the PR man.

Uuuh Patsy

A scarier thought its that they know exactly what they are doing. I guess we will know when they get some plush job in Brussels as their payoff.

"A system can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive "treason" from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. The"traitor" moves amongst those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself, for the "traitor" appears not a "traitor" ? He speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a system, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of its nations, he infects the body politics so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. Beware beware, beware..." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero 42 B.C

pclancy

They have their reality and we have ours. They often cant remember hard times they might have had. Are any political leaders originally from lower classes? If so, do they even remember their poor childhood or early life at all? I think many of them live in such a different world to the majority of us that it just doesn't occur to them that bills might not be paid or kids might not go on trips etc because they don't have the same money problems as most of us.

The same applies to work, would the minister of health have to have spent 8 hours in Casualty recently to get seen and then spent the next 48 hours on a trolley in the corridor? I think not. They would be seen quickly in a private facility or their own home without fuss. Therefore they cannot possibly understand how the funding cuts to hospitals actually impact ordinary people. Its just not something thats going to affect their own lives.

They are detached from our reality, quite happily floating through their own.

Noreen1

pclancy wrote: »

They have their reality and we have ours. They often cant remember hard times they might have had. Are any political leaders originally from lower classes? If so, do they even remember their poor childhood or early life at all? I think many of them live in such a different world to the majority of us that it just doesn't occur to them that bills might not be paid or kids might not go on trips etc because they don't have the same money problems as most of us.

+1000.

The cost of running for election in this Country ensures that the "ordinary Joe" cannot realistically form a new Political party.

The established political parties continue on their merry way with their political dynasties, comprised of people who have a very privileged background, but who are, on the whole, completely unqualified for the positions they hold.

We need a system that is representative of the population, with qualified, independent advisers, who can give realistic either/or budgetary advice.
Said advisers need to be accountable to the people, to avoid cronyism.

How to arrange this with transparency built in, though? And how to ensure that corruption cannot feature to any significant degree?

I'd suggest a method of sacking any individual TD/adviser - by the electorate - for starters. Then add a method whereby the Government can be sacked, if enough of the electorate call for it. (Say, 55%?)
In short, the power to vote "no confidence in the Government" should be given to the electorate.

Noreen

Brussels Sprout

Noreen1 wrote: »

+1000.

The cost of running for election in this Country ensures that the "ordinary Joe" cannot realistically form a new Political party.

The established political parties continue on their merry way with their political dynasties, comprised of people who have a very privileged background, but who are, on the whole, completely unqualified for the positions they hold.

We need a system that is representative of the population, with qualified, independent advisers, who can give realistic either/or budgetary advice.
Said advisers need to be accountable to the people, to avoid cronyism.

How to arrange this with transparency built in, though? And how to ensure that corruption cannot feature to any significant degree?

I'd suggest a method of sacking any individual TD/adviser - by the electorate - for starters. Then add a method whereby the Government can be sacked, if enough of the electorate call for it. (Say, 55%?)
In short, the power to vote "no confidence in the Government" should be given to the electorate.

Noreen

I agree with a lot of what you have to say but that piece in bold is absolutely ridiculous. A government has to make unpopular decisions from time to time. This would not be possible under your system.
A lot of the reasons why we are where we are is because FF were unwilling to make unpopular decisions in the past and so kept burying the problems until they couldn't be hidden any longer.

Noreen1

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you have to say but that piece in bold is absolutely ridiculous. A government has to make unpopular decisions from time to time. This would not be possible under your system.
A lot of the reasons why we are where we are is because FF were unwilling to make unpopular decisions in the past and so kept burying the problems until they couldn't be hidden any longer.

There are unpopular decisions, and there are ridiculous decisions.
At present, any elected Government can basically do whatever they like for the duration of their term of office.
That has led to the ridiculous, and unjust situation that Irish people, from OAPs to new-born babes, now find themselves in.

I acknowledge that Governments sometimes have to make unpopular decisions - however, there is a huge difference, IMO, in an "unpopular decision", and the absolute financial train-wreck that the current government has bequeathed on us.

We seriously need a system whereby the electorate can call a halt, in times of crises.

How to define "crises", and what criteria are applied before a Government can be forced to resign are open to debate, and I'd love to hear suggestions as to how it could be achieved.

What is not open to debate, IMHO, is that a system must be devised to ensure that no future government can derail either the public finances, or the security of the Nation - ever again.

Theoretically, the opposition is meant to act as a balance. We have seen proof - disastrous proof - that this balance sometimes proves insufficient.

Fear of the electorate might just provide the extra impetus required!

Noreen

Brussels Sprout

I agree with the thrust of your argument-I've felt absolutely exasperated with the lack of control that we as voters have had over the past year, first with NAMA and now all the latest mess.
The issue that I really have is your choice of 55%. That figure is far too low. For me it would need to be in the order of 75-80%*. I have absolutely no idea how you would go about polling it in a fair and accurate way though.


* This still may not be enough though. Some government decisions are universally unpopular but nonetheless have to be taken for the greater good. A classic example is raising the retirement age in a country.

Noreen1

I have to admit, I had initially thought of a figure of around 70%.

Then I got around to A: Factoring in "loyal" party voters, currently at around 18% nationally if polls are to be believed in the case of the current government.
Factor in voter confusion/media spin/downright lies - and 70% suddenly seems very hard to attain.

Fair enough, 55% may be low - but I think whatever figure might eventually be arrived at needs to be attainable, and attainable with a margin factored in to recognise that governments A: Don't always tell the full truth, and B: Have access to sophisticated marketing teams, with "persuasive" powers.

If Democracy is to survive in this Country - we, the electorate, must never again be left in the position of being powerless, and impotent.

Noreen