Am I the only one...

wretcheddomain

You guys are still missing the point.

I did say in my original post that the concept of party politics should be abolished.

No one running under 'Fianna Fail' or 'Fine Gael', or 'Republican'.

The country should be run by divisions and not by parties.

My No.1 goes to

Ms Lucinda Goat

canny jock stewart

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Bertie has serious educational qualifications, so does Richard Boyd Barrett, so did Charlie as seen above, Gerry Adams passed his O levels, Mick Wallace graduated from UCD with a degree in English and History he even went on to get a teaching degree, education means squat if you are a corrupt fcuker, or in some cases dumb as ****e.

Did he??

He received his third level education at the College of Commerce, Rathmines, part of the Dublin Institute of Technology. Ahern has claimed or it has been claimed by others in circulated biographies that he was educated at University College Dublin and the London School of Economics but neither university has any records that show Ahern was ever one of their students.

He worked in the Accounts Department of the Mater Hospital, Dublin but though a self-described accountant, as in a TV interview with Bryan Dobson in 2006[10] and radio interviews during May 2008 with George Hook and on his party's website,[11] he never qualified as a member of any accountants' association.

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

wazky

Have a drinking competition for the various ministerial positions.

Oh wait, isn't there enough of that already in the Dail?

wretcheddomain

Richard Boyd Barrett only has a masters degree in English literature - interpreting poetry and writing reviews of novella's is totally irrelevant to running the country and under my system he'd be reprehensibly underqualified.

RobbingBandit

canny jock stewart wrote: »

Did he??







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

This is Bertie we are talking about, the man is guilty of treason for the ****e he pulled, wouldn't be surprised if he didn't go to any of those places, that's some good snooping there Lou, you'll make Sargent for this.;)

Karl Stein

wretcheddomain wrote: »

You guys are still missing the point.

Hey, who elected you as boss of boards?

Why should we listen to you?

What are your credentials?

Where does your mandate come from?

donegal_road

Meauldsegosha wrote: »

What would you consider a relevant discipline?

a degree in Political Science wouldn't be a bad start.

And for the minister for finance, a degree in commerce should be entry level requirement. They might not have to call round to David McWilliams

(while Im on the subject, why isn't Peter Mathews the minister for finance? Is he not the most qualified and experienced in FG?)

Jimmy Garlic

Two tests that wouldn't go amiss - 1, An IQ test. 2, A psychopathy test.

kneemos

wretcheddomain wrote: »

You guys are still missing the point.

I did say in my original post that the concept of party politics should be abolished.

No one running under 'Fianna Fail' or 'Fine Gael', or 'Republican'.

The country should be run by divisions and not by parties.

Who picks the people to run the divisions?suppose they are doing a piss poor job who gets rid of them and who decides what's the right policy?

RustyNut

Aineoil wrote: »

I'm voting for the goat too. She's called Lucinda.

I knew a Lucinda once but she was a fox. She was very good with elections, and she was Japanese.

JustAddWater

mango salsa wrote: »

Why should a politician be university educated? To me that is elitism and false assumption that university educated = competent

If I want the creme de la creme of jobs in my profession, I need a degree. That's not elitism

wretcheddomain

kneemos wrote: »

Who picks the people to run the divisions?suppose they are doing a piss poor job who gets rid of them and who decides what's the right policy?

Within say the Economic Division of 50 relative experts - given that every member will already have been appropriately educated in economics, preferably almost equal - the roles automatically rotate at random.

This isn't a perfect model but any version akin to this is much more satisfying than having some goon called the Minister for Finance in some washed up Party who only got elected because of being in the Party rather than what individual expert difference the person could make.

Given that most of the TD's at the moment do nothing at all - by abolishing the current system and installing divisions ensures that every member can make a difference depending on which division he or she managed to get into.

bnt

wretcheddomain wrote: »

If I want to run a country, I'm already fully qualified but just need to be nice to a few thousand people for them to trust me to do so.

Elected politicians don't actually run a country. That's what a qualified but un-elected Civil Service does.

wretcheddomain

I'm still waiting for people to justify why we should accept that the most important job in the country should require no qualifications.

People can criticise, mock, jeer my suggestions all they want, but if they can't justify the current system then they should either come up with a solution to it itself or don't bother trying.

wretcheddomain

bnt wrote: »

Elected politicians don't actually run a country. That's what a qualified but un-elected Civil Service does.

When I refer to elected politicians, I'm chiefly referring to those in positions of power such as Ministers etc. We all know the other lot are just screaming dogs with no power.

In my system, every member of the parliament has power with no meddling party politics or cheap bickering across a chamber.

catallus

It seems to have been mentioned on thread already but the position you are describing as being necessary to have advanced qualifications for seems to be that of a civil servant, not an elected representative.

kneemos

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Within say the Economic Division of 50 relative experts - given that every member will already have been appropriately educated in economics, preferably almost equal - the roles automatically rotate at random.

This isn't a perfect model but any version akin to this is much more satisfying than having some goon called the Minister for Finance in some washed up Party who only got elected because of being in the Party rather than what individual expert difference the person could make.

Given that most of the TD's at the moment do nothing at all - by abolishing the current system and installing divisions ensures that every member can make a difference depending on which division he or she managed to get into.

It would certainly take away the self interest and cute whoreism.What about local issues such as a road repair?

Annasopra

Yellowblackbird wrote: »

The relevant qualification that politicians don't have is that they have no track record of competently and successfully running private organisations - business.

College courses?! rote learning what you're told is coming up in the exam.

The country isn't a business and shouldn't be run like one!

Annasopra

JustAddWater wrote: »

If I want the creme de la creme of jobs in my profession, I need a degree. That's not elitism

It is. It's about restricting politics to so called professionals.

It's absolute nonsense.

I'd rather have early school leaver Nye Bevan as Minister for Health anyday than Dr James Reilly

Having a University Degree does not necessarily make a person a competent politician.

wretcheddomain

mango salsa wrote: »

It is. It's about restricting politics to so called professionals.

It's absolute nonsense.

I'd rather have early school leaver Nye Bevan as Minister for Health anyday than Dr James Reilly

Having a University Degree does not necessarily make a person a competent politician.

There you go again, bringing up politics and democracy.

Stop looking at it as wheeling in different politicians, look at it as having an organised effective body of experts, in terms of divisions, with no party affiliation whatsoever. Then maybe you'll see that managing the economy and other such matters should be left to a separate body to those who want to make us look good abroad.

Nodin

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Within say the Economic Division of 50 relative experts - given that every member will already have been appropriately educated in economics, preferably almost equal - the roles automatically rotate at random.

This isn't a perfect model but any version akin to this is much more satisfying than having some goon called the Minister for Finance in some washed up Party who only got elected because of being in the Party rather than what individual expert difference the person could make.

Given that most of the TD's at the moment do nothing at all - by abolishing the current system and installing divisions ensures that every member can make a difference depending on which division he or she managed to get into.

The hole in your plot has already been pointed out - you might address it.

Nodin

wretcheddomain wrote: »

There you go again, bringing up politics and democracy.

Stop looking at it as wheeling in different politicians, look at it as having an organised effective body of experts, in terms of divisions, with no party affiliation whatsoever. Then maybe you'll see that managing the economy and other such matters should be left to a separate body to those who want to make us look good abroad.

....if you replace party politics with "bodys of experts" this bodies effectively become political parties. They may be based on outlook - social or financial - personal loyalties, or most likely both.

wretcheddomain

Nodin wrote: »

The hole in your plot has already been pointed out - you might address it.

My plot may have many holes but at least I'm making an effort compared to those who appear quite content with the status quo.

Annasopra

wretcheddomain wrote: »

There you go again, bringing up politics and democracy.

Stop looking at it as wheeling in different politicians, look at it as having an organised effective body of experts, in terms of divisions, with no party affiliation whatsoever. Then maybe you'll see that managing the economy and other such matters should be left to a separate body to those who want to make us look good abroad.

But I still really haven't seen any reason as to why politics should be restricted.

Essentially your suggestions are just about centreing power in the hands of a few rich people.

Nodin

wretcheddomain wrote: »

My plot may have many holes but at least I'm making an effort compared to those who appear quite content with the status quo.

I'm not remotely content with it. However education is no guarantor of character or effective decision making. Human interactions are characterised by politics of one sort or another, and what you suggest would just remove overt labels.

There is also the fact that there is rarely agreement on what is the solution, or indeed the problem, in many situations.

Jimoslimos

wretcheddomain wrote: »

There you go again, bringing up politics and democracy.

Stop looking at it as wheeling in different politicians, look at it as having an organised effective body of experts, in terms of divisions, with no party affiliation whatsoever. Then maybe you'll see that managing the economy and other such matters should be left to a separate body to those who want to make us look good abroad.

I'm guessing you've never had the pleasure of working with a "body of experts". Even in small organisations, especially ones that require close cooperation, political structures, rifts and alliances will form naturally. Without effective management it is a recipe for disaster.

Does a football manager need to be able to score the cup-winning goal in the final minute of extra-time? No. Does he even in fact need to have been a decent player? No. What he needs to be able to do is get the best out of his players. To an extent the same applies to politicians and ministers in government.

kneemos

mango salsa wrote: »

But I still really haven't seen any reason as to why politics should be restricted.

Essentially your suggestions are just about centreing power in the hands of a few rich people.

A lot of politics is petty and pointless and about getting elected.An administration would be about what's good for the country.

Annasopra

kneemos wrote: »

A lot of politics is petty and pointless and about getting elected.An administration would be about what's good for the country.

Essentially an "administration" is about taking power away from people and giving it to a few rich people.

Democracy is certainly not ideal but in no way is a few rich people running the country good for the country.

Nodin

kneemos wrote: »

A lot of politics is petty and pointless and about getting elected.An administration would be about what's good for the country.

....that presumes that an "administration" would act in a totally fair and correct fashion.