Right to Run.

Sev

How on earth could you, or any other person, possibly know that without carrying out an actual referendum on the topic?

Im not saying for definite that the majority disagree with you, I'm presenting a hypothetical situation in which they might, and trying to get the point accross, that regardless of your views on the issue, you too are at the mercy of the democratic system.

Secondly, you're point requires that those living in a democratic society be wholly powerless to ever change the nature of their government - and that does violate a central tenet of democracy, which is that the people decide on matters of government.

Eh? If the majority of the poplulation dont agree with the minority, then the majority wont see any need to change the system of the government to suit the minority's beliefs either.

Sparks

Sev,

regardless of your views on the issue, you too are at the mercy of the democratic system.

Well, obviously! As I said several times over the last few posts, I'm not dictator just yet!

If the majority of the poplulation dont agree with the minority, then the majority wont see any need to change the system of the government to suit the minority's beliefs either.

Ah, but that's assuming that the majority don't want change! My point was that if they do, then that change happens. As I said,

But if I desire it, and a sufficent number of other people desire it, then that's a whole other ball game.

PHB

That would depend heavily, if not entirely, on the actual job. Minister of Finance and Minister of Sport, for example, would need wholly different qualifications.

Ok, so lets just take the minister for Finance, what qualifications would they need?

That is simply not true.
Look, a degree shows that you've passed an exam in a subject after a set course of study. Now for some subjects, that's arguably not as good as real-world experience without academic qualifications. IT for example. But not for all subjects. For example, engineering (excluding computer engineering). Or medicine. Or science. Or economics (as opposed to running a business).

It means according to that college you have passed a compentency test in that particular field. Do you not think its possible that someone who has, for example, run a shop for a couple of years, would be more suited to being the minister for finance than someone who has a degree in business?

Ah, but my point was that the majority would prefer a qualified candidate.

I think you're generalising from self. I think the public would prefer the candidate which most closly agree with their personal opinions, not someone who has 57 extra letters after their name.

Actually, that's not democracy's central tenet.

I have always thought that the principles of democracy are that everyone is equal and that they all have the right to choose? What exactly is the central principle?

Well, if you want that opinion, it's yours - but that's not legal in our country in reality. All manner of jobs have legislation saying who can and cannot do those jobs - GPs, surgeons, lecturers, engineers, soliciters, barristers, even driving instructors (though they only need a valid licence).
In fact, I think TD is the only "skilled" job in the country that you can get with absolutely no qualifications whatsoever.

You assume because you don't have a degree in something you can't be good at it.
You meantioned lecturers, do you think that the college will not invite people who have run business' themselves and have become successful to speak?
Do you not think its possible to "learn the ropes" so to speak without having done a course at it?

Totally correct, that situation could arise. But the fact of the matter is that in our current system, we don't have it any better.

Maybe we don't have any better with the current system but the beauty of this system is that I can decide tomorrow that I want to run for office, I want to get elected and become the new minister for education as I feel I could do a better job at it.
However in your proposed system I could not do this, even if, god forbid, somehow those with "qualifications" weren't running the country as well I'm happy with.

Indeed, but one that took place in a court of law. Horgan v. Ireland showed that policy regarding the use of shannon over the last 50 years was significantly different from the policy enacted by Ahern in the pre-Iraq-Invasion months. It's a matter of public record.

My point was that Irish neutrality has always been a joke, ever since the 1937 constitution.

I'm not sure you can say that. How do you know that the single sole reason that FF were re-elected was the promise of a new referendum?

I never claimed it was. However when the people elected FF they gave them a mandate to call that referendum, and despite that you might disagree with it being called, the people decided, and inturn accepted it.

(This is the single most serious problem with representative democracy in our country - you are taking many complex issues over several years and multiple future issues and giving the public one single chance every five years to have any say. There is no way to do that - to put it in engineering terms, the information is lost and unrecoverable.)

The reason why it is for 5 years is so that the government actually has a chance to govern without having to be constantly concerned with being re-elected.
They have a chance to make a difference in the first couple of years as DeValera well knew when he made the constitution.

----

Ultimately this comes down to what you think these "qualifications" are? Continuing this debate until there is a definition from you is utterly pointless.

Sev

Originally posted by Sparks
Well, obviously! As I said several times over the last few posts, I'm not dictator just yet!

Well that's all I was doing, stating the obvious in case it had been neglected.

Sparks

PHB,

Ok, so lets just take the minister for Finance, what qualifications would they need?

Well, I'm open to debate on this, but I'd like to see a BA-level degree in economics as a baseline, 2.2 or better. Ideally, you'd want someone with more qualifications than that I suppose, but I'd be happy with a degree in economics. *points to McCreevy's B.Comm* Something like that would be fine as a baseline.

It means according to that college you have passed a compentency test in that particular field.

And that you were trained by them in that field for N years.

Do you not think its possible that someone who has, for example, run a shop for a couple of years, would be more suited to being the minister for finance than someone who has a degree in business?

Nope. Running a shop and running the Ministry of Finance are totally different skillsets, you're talking (at the risk of oversimplification) about the difference between accountancy and economics.

I think you're generalising from self.

Nope, I'm saying that I think the majority would vote for this arrangement.

I think the public would prefer the candidate which most closly agree with their personal opinions, not someone who has 57 extra letters after their name.

Yes, but (and this is not the first time I've said this btw) :
1) Right now the public don't get to choose any Minister.
2) Under this system, the public would get to choose a Minister from a pool of qualified candidates. Who would have a range of political ideologies. So you'd pick the one that most closely agreed with their personal opinions...

I have always thought that the principles of democracy are that everyone is equal and that they all have the right to choose?

No to the first, and not quite to the second.

What exactly is the central principle?

That the people choose in matters of government, not some ruling elite. (I use elite here to mean people that are not selected by the people, ie. warlords, kings, etc.)
Equality before the law, and the "one person, one vote" ideas are recent additions (though highly important ones) to the idea of democracy. (Recall that the idea started off with the greek equivalent to nobility being the ones with votes, not everyone - slaves and women didn't vote).

You assume because you don't have a degree in something you can't be good at it.

No, I don't. I am saying that in our society, we choose not to depend on someone's ethical choice not to practise a profession they are unable to do. We require that doctors and engineers and a host of other professionals be trained and have formal qualifications, because their jobs have direct and serious impact on people's lives. I'm saying that we should extend that to those that run the country, for the same reason.

You meantioned lecturers, do you think that the college will not invite people who have run business' themselves and have become successful to speak?

To speak? Yes. To act as a lecturer (ie. to teach a course, to set and grade academic papers and to form a part of the academic faculty)? No. In fact there are rules against it. Lecturers have to have a degree.

Do you not think its possible to "learn the ropes" so to speak without having done a course at it?

Oh, indeed. But in doing so you make mistakes and it's a costlier way to learn. I'd rather not have a politician with responsibility for the economy learn how to prepare a budget by making a dogs dinner out of two or three before getting it right by the end of his term, you know?

Maybe we don't have any better with the current system but the beauty of this system is that I can decide tomorrow that I want to run for office, I want to get elected and become the new minister for education as I feel I could do a better job at it.

PHB, you DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT. You can run for TD, of course - but you cannot run for a ministerial post.
With my idea, however, you could. For the first time.

However in your proposed system I could not do this

Where the hell are you getting that from? That's completely, and utterly the opposite of the situation!

My point was that Irish neutrality has always been a joke, ever since the 1937 constitution.

True, but I can blame Ahern for continuing that state of affairs, because he had to take active decisions and overrule precedent in order to do so.

I never claimed it was. However when the people elected FF they gave them a mandate to call that referendum, and despite that you might disagree with it being called, the people decided, and inturn accepted it.

*sigh*
My point was that you can't say that FF's reelection was an endorsement of the second referendum, it could have been seen as the lesser of two evils - in other words, you're saying that if the choice was a Sinn Fein candidate or a FF candidate, that voting for the FF candidate was an endorsment of the second referendum. Which most people would recognise is not necessarily the case...

The reason why it is for 5 years is so that the government actually has a chance to govern without having to be constantly concerned with being re-elected.

I have little problem with the length of the term - I have a problem with the fact that we have no means to voice our opinion in a binding manner on any topic during those five years unless the government wants to ask us. Take our membership in the PfP for an example. FF stated before being elected that entry into the PfP would require a national referendum. After election, they changed their minds and signed us up. Now I'm not arguing about the PfP - I'm pointing out that we had no means by which we could have effectively prevented that decision.

Ultimately this comes down to what you think these "qualifications" are? Continuing this debate until there is a definition from you is utterly pointless.

But that would require two things:
a) I'd have to define what each and every ministerial post would be (and they do change from election to election)
b) I'd have to list a seperate list of qualifications for each and every ministerial post.
That's a substantial body of work. And frankly, discussing the topic without a finalised list of qualifications is not pointless. Qualification lists could and probably would change over time; and we're talking about a new governmental structure here. The actual list of qualifications is a minor detail - agreeing that the qualifications should be relevant and should be achievable without needing to be a part of a social elite is pretty much sufficent.

PHB

Well we're not going to get anywhere in this argument.

I believe it is possible for a person to run a department, if he has good morals, support from his people, and with no qualification. His advisors are there for a reason.
You however disagree, so lets leave at at this

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
No, I said that running a corner shop didn't give you experience with large projects. You might have run large projects and then retired to run a corner shop, after all.
(Not that unlikely, I've known of a nuclear physicist that retired to become a cooper).

Again you are evading my point by, ruling out the cornershop man or woman and still insisting someone has to run a large project to qualify for the job-thats elitist.
My point regarding Joe Jacob, you haven't got either.
He only has his leaving cert and ran a local pub, he's excluded from the job aswell unless he's run a large project??
you say he cannot represent people as minister for finance unless he's got experience running the likes of the building of the M50 or similar-thats elitist.

For one thing, at the moment only an elite of the population have a realisitic chance of going into government. My system would change that to a qualified minority, ie. Instead of it being "who you know" , it would be "what you know".

I disagree,if Fianna Fáil had've done slightly less well at the last election they would have been depending on independents.
As there were many first timers, they might have been offered a junior post.
I don't believe anyhow that it's as bad as you say regarding how to get on in politics, ie "it not what you know it's who you know".
Most T.D's come up through the ranks as councillors.
Candidates for the Dáil were up until recently usually proposed by a democratic vote of the party members.
FF,FG and Labour don't operate like the Ba'ath party you know;)

Now regarding how you are going to sell your plan to the masses.
I'm glad you are taking on board some of my advice in relation to what it might or might not be a good thing to say...
Rather than emphasise how wealthy those that you propose should run the country would be, as you did to me a few posts back you are now saying:

How about I tell them this instead: "If you make sure your kid goes to school and works hard, he can one day have a real chance at running the country. In the meantime, you'll know that a qualified professional is running the economy instead of one of bertie's pals, plus you can apply directly to run any aspect of the country that you're qualified to run. Have you run a sports club, and coached soccer or played GAA for donkey's years? Minister for sport. You've been a fisherman for donkey's years? Take a night course or two in the local FAS and go for Minister for fisheries. "

Of course that doesn't rule out , all the debate you are going to have with those that will emphasise the elitist nature of your proposals if, you suggest only those who have had big salary managerial jobs can be minister for finance or Taoiseach.
Because whatever about poor old Joe Jacob's abilities, his voters mightn't want to apply for the job, but they will always like one of their own to be able (as they are now ) to get the job.

And again,regarding Big business people being more qualified to do a certain job than small business people:
It was you who suggested that, earlier in the thread and now you are saying

No, I'm not. Again, you're looking at "qualification" and seeing "degree" or "runs a large business". Those would be qualifications for one ministerial post - but not for another.

Clearly I'm influencing and persuading you to adapt your policy, thats nice , glad to be of service
In relation to the second Nice Referendum you said:

My dislike was not for the result: my dislike was for the fact that two "binding" referenda were called on the same question.Either change the rules to require a mandatory turnout, or accept the result. But stop throwing the rules out if the answer doesn't suit!

Or put it another way, you are saying don't allow people to change their mind on an important issue, I would disagree with you there entirely.
mm

Sparks

Man,

Again you are evading my point by, ruling out the cornershop man or woman and still insisting someone has to run a large project to qualify for the job-thats elitist.

Three things are wrong with that sentence.
1) I'm not evading your point. I'm trying to answer it.
2) I'm not ruling out the cornershop man or woman or insisting that someone has to run a large project. I'm saying that running the cornershop, in and of itself is insufficent qualification for running the country.
3) It's not eliteist because elitism is based on someone being given something for a perceived inherent superiority. A qualification is not a perceived inherent superiority, it's a recognition of an earned and real skill in a specific area. And I'm not suggesting that you be given anything for having that qualification, I'm suggesting that that qualification be needed before you apply for the job. That's standard practise for any professional job.

My point regarding Joe Jacob, you haven't got either.
He only has his leaving cert and ran a local pub, he's excluded from the job aswell unless he's run a large project??

Nope. The point with Joe Jacob is that despite his success, he will never be chosen as Minister for Finance, or Minister for Justice, or whatever, because he's not qualified for that specific job.
I fail to see, however, how being a TD gets to be considered a failure...

you say he cannot represent people as minister for finance unless he's got experience running the likes of the building of the M50 or similar-thats elitist.

Nope, that's not elitist - see above. It's demanding that the best person be chosen for the job - and assuming that the best person would be qualified. Now we can argue (oh look, we have been! ) that the best person for the job may not be qualified - but face it, in most fields, that's highly unlikely.

I disagree,if Fianna Fáil had've done slightly less well at the last election they would have been depending on independents.
As there were many first timers, they might have been offered a junior post.

Proving my point - you can't run for a ministerial post, you're dependant on an offer from the ruling party.

I don't believe anyhow that it's as bad as you say regarding how to get on in politics, ie "it not what you know it's who you know".
Most T.D's come up through the ranks as councillors.
Candidates for the Dáil were up until recently usually proposed by a democratic vote of the party members.

It's during the "coming up through the ranks" that the connections are made... with the exception of those who have family connections, of which there are a significant number.

FF,FG and Labour don't operate like the Ba'ath party you know

In what respect?

Now regarding how you are going to sell your plan to the masses.
I'm glad you are taking on board some of my advice in relation to what it might or might not be a good thing to say...

Indeed? The idea hasn't changed...

Rather than emphasise how wealthy those that you propose should run the country would be, as you did to me a few posts back

Their wealth is irrelevant (or would be, if we fixed the blasted educational system...). The point was that working for a large and successful business is where most people with the experience needed would have gained that experience.

Of course that doesn't rule out , all the debate you are going to have with those that will emphasise the elitist nature of your proposals if, you suggest only those who have had big salary managerial jobs can be minister for finance or Taoiseach.

Argh! Why are you thinking that this is the case? This is a coincidental fact regarding how they get employed given their qualifications. And I never said that an economics degree was the necessary qualification for Taoiseach - what is, well, that's a matter for further debate.

Because whatever about poor old Joe Jacob's abilities, his voters mightn't want to apply for the job, but they will always like one of their own to be able (as they are now ) to get the job.

Which is made more possible, not less, by this idea.

Clearly I'm influencing and persuading you to adapt your policy, thats nice , glad to be of service

:rolleyes:
You're not, you know.
You're just not reading my posts fully.

Or put it another way, you are saying don't allow people to change their mind on an important issue, I would disagree with you there entirely.

The point with a binding referendum is that it's binding. If it's not going to be binding, don't call it that. And that's why referenda are important things. And you're assuming that the reason for the change in decision was because people changed their minds.
Now I'm not saying that the referendum couldn't have been repeated - but the condition under which I'd have agreed with that is rather specific - namely that there be a minimum mandatory turnout. And we don't have that - and that's now been shown to be something we'd want.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,

Three things are wrong with that sentence.
1) I'm not evading your point. I'm trying to answer it.
2) I'm not ruling out the cornershop man or woman or insisting that someone has to run a large project. I'm saying that running the cornershop, in and of itself is insufficent qualification for running the country.
3) It's not eliteist because elitism is based on someone being given something for a perceived inherent superiority.

errr sparks, You are ruling out the cornershop man or woman, unless they get what you see as further qualifications, thats elitist...and you say I'm not reading your posts.
You told me earlier, that, a small business man or woman shouldn't get the job if theres someone thats run a large project to take it instead-thats elitist.
you are now modifying that asertion by saying you'd give them the job because they are more qualified, and yet at the same time maintain that theres no perception being given that one is better than the other at the job.
It's the perception that , the public would have.

Nope. The point with Joe Jacob is that despite his success, he will never be chosen as Minister for Finance, or Minister for Justice, or whatever, because he's not qualified for that specific job.

He could be Taoiseach( and the minister of finance's boss), if he became leader of Fianna Fáil in the same way Enda Kenny ( Heaven forbid ) could be...but not under your plan.
Heck, Bertie, the man from dromcondra was finance minister, but couldn't have been under your plan..

Proving my point - you can't run for a ministerial post, you're dependant on an offer from the ruling party.

I'm not argu'ing that ,just on the extent, you want for qualification.

Indeed? The idea hasn't changed...

lol:p

Argh! Why are you thinking that this is the case? This is a coincidental fact regarding how they get employed given their qualifications. And I never said that an economics degree was the necessary qualification for Taoiseach - what is, well, that's a matter for further debate.

I never even mentioned an Economics degree.
But rather that,people would perceive, ruling out all the people you would rule out in the system you are advocating would be elitist.

Because whatever about poor old Joe Jacob's abilities, his voters mightn't want to apply for the job, but they will always like one of their own to be able (as they are now ) to get the job.
Which is made more possible, not less, by this idea.

Maybe if you require, them to get a three or four degree which they don't have.
so the builder/blocklayer would have to give up his €600( into his hand) a week job, live on a pittance for four years and then work his way up the ranks of a managerial job before you would consider him for a ministerial job of some sort.
and you are claiming that is easier, it's no more difficult and it's not easier,than joining his local cumann if he's interested in politics, and campaigning for the job as he can now.
For the purpose of the example we'll assume that because this same builder can go to college( ie he's intelligent enough ) that he could use your system as well as the existing one.
Theres lots of bugs in your proposal before I can let you loose on the masses:D

The point with a binding referendum is that it's binding. If it's not going to be binding, don't call it that. And that's why referenda are important things. And you're assuming that the reason for the change in decision was because people changed their minds.

are you trying to tell me that the result of the second referendum doesn't /shouldn't count because it was called to over turn the previous one.
That sounds pretty much to me like you are saying that peoiple should not be allowed to change their position on a subject.
mm

Sparks

errr sparks, You are ruling out the cornershop man or woman, unless they get what you see as further qualifications

Yes...

thats elitist

No, it's not. Not unless you change the definition of elitist.

You told me earlier, that, a small business man or woman shouldn't get the job if theres someone thats run a large project to take it instead-thats elitist.

First off, I've gone back over the full thread and I never said that, and secondly, that's not an elitist act that you're describing.

yet at the same time maintain that theres no perception being given that one is better than the other at the job.

On the contrary, I'm saying that there isn't a perception that one is better than the other at the job - I'm saying that one is better than the other at the job, it's not a perception.

He could be Taoiseach( and the minister of finance's boss), if he became leader of Fianna Fáil in the same way Enda Kenny ( Heaven forbid ) could be...but not under your plan.

Well, yes, he could be Taoiseach - if he arranges for Cowen, McCreevy and Martin to all do a Buddy Holly...

Heck, Bertie, the man from dromcondra was finance minister, but couldn't have been under your plan..

And shouldn't have been. Why the hell would you trust the finances of the entire country to a man that lied about his academic qualifications?

I'm not argu'ing that ,just on the extent, you want for qualification.

Okay, hold on. Are you arguing that the idea is sound and we just need to agree on the level of qualification? Or that the idea is off?

Maybe if you require, them to get a three or four degree which they don't have.

And again, I never said this.

so the builder/blocklayer would have to give up his €600( into his hand) a week job, live on a pittance for four years and then work his way up the ranks of a managerial job before you would consider him for a ministerial job of some sort.

No, not unless he wanted a ministerial job that required a degree as qualification, and then he would have the option of night courses (though that may or may not be feasible). And why exactly should the system be set up so that any Tom, Dick or Harry can stroll in off the street and run the country's economy or police force or army?

and you are claiming that is easier, it's no more difficult and it's not easier,than joining his local cumann if he's interested in politics, and campaigning for the job as he can now.

Man, for pete's sake, he cannot campaign for a ministerial job. It cannot be done. You can campaign to be a TD - but to be a minister, the leader of the ruling party has to offer you the post.

For the purpose of the example we'll assume that because this same builder can go to college( ie he's intelligent enough ) that he could use your system as well as the existing one.

Not if he want's a ministerial post.

Theres lots of bugs in your proposal before I can let you loose on the masses

LOL - I don't think we'll be going to the polls next weekend Man

are you trying to tell me that the result of the second referendum doesn't/shouldn't count because it was called to over turn the previous one.
That sounds pretty much to me like you are saying that peoiple should not be allowed to change their position on a subject.

Actually, that's a horrible mangling of what I said. I'm saying either make it a binding referendum (and act on what the people say), or else call the damn thing a poll and be done with it.
If you're worried about the referendum being unrepresentative, make a 50% turnout mandatory.
But having two "binding" referenda on the same topic in succession makes a mockery of the idea of a binding referendum.

Regarding ruling out small business people as opposed to larger business people.

Originally posted by Sparks


First off, I've gone back over the full thread and I never said that, and secondly, that's not an elitist act that you're describing.

You must have missed this:

No, it rules out those that have no experience with large projects. There is a difference in running projects the size of (say) the M50 constuction, as opposed to running a corner sweetshop

That implies the bigger the business in which they have been involved in, the more qualified the candidate-thats elitist.
Completely ruling out anyone,self employed or employee who is not or hasn't been involved in a large project is also elitist.
How can you categorically rule out individuals who are running a corner shop and insist that they need further training for high political office without assessing their acumen/record-thats elitist.
You would ask people to change the current system to allow that to happen.

On the contrary, I'm saying that there isn't a perception that one is better than the other at the job - I'm saying that one is better than the other at the job, it's not a perception.

I'm not talking about your perception sparks.
All along I've been talking about the perception of the voter, and the need to convince them that your proposal is not elitist.

And shouldn't have been. Why the hell would you trust the finances of the entire country to a man that lied about his academic qualifications?

Have you ever lied? Is there anyone in the country that has never lied?
Can you trust the ethics of all the private sector people from whom you would draw candidates for the position in the system you are advocating?
He who casts the first stone etc...

Maybe if you require, them to get a three or four degree which they don't have.
And again, I never said this.

That was a typo on my part, it should have read " a three or four year degree" and in relation to that, it would be the quickest way for them to get into a significant managerial job meritorious of a job in cabinet, should they get elected under your system, there by creating a significant life hurdle for them versus continuing their €600 building job and joining their local political party branch.

And why exactly should the system be set up so that any Tom, Dick or Harry can stroll in off the street and run the country's economy or police force or army?

Here we go again , you are pre-judging Tom Dick and Harry which is elitism.
Tom, Dick and Harry have to vote on your proposal before it's passed.It's the likes of them that you are now more directly than ever giving the impression of being inferior.

Man, for pete's sake, he cannot campaign for a ministerial job. It cannot be done. You can campaign to be a TD - but to be a minister, the leader of the ruling party has to offer you the post.

Of course you should be competant to run for political office, but the current system generally weeds out those not cut out for the job.The election process to the Dáil being the first significant hurdle.
which leads me on to:

Okay, hold on. Are you arguing that the idea is sound and we just need to agree on the level of qualification? Or that the idea is off?

I'm saying you will have dificulty getting the proposal past the electorate unless you can show Tom, dick and Harry, that you mentioned above, that you are not asking them to sign away their right to have one of their own in the job of running the country without the hurdles you would impose.
Everybody may not be equal in their talents but that does not mean that they should be ruled out of the democratic process of the governance of their country with an artificial barrier to entry.
The system you advocate, would make it more difficult for my builder friend to attain high office regardless of his competancy just because his CV says he is only a builder.
That quite frankly would not wash with the great Joe Public.
Thats why I can't let you loose with this one yet:D
mm

Sparks

Man,

You must have missed this

No, but you're quoting that all out of context and giving it a meaning that I didn't attribute to it initially. It was in response to :

That rules out any sucessfull business person then whose turnover is (while admirable for the area they operate in) considerably less than a government department

And I was trying to point out that you didn't have to run a business with a turnover greater than N euros annually to qualify, because the qualification called for a skillset different to that needed to make a large profit in the private sector.

Completely ruling out anyone,self employed or employee who is not or hasn't been involved in a large project is also elitist.

Once again, there are multiple errors in that sentence. First, it is NOT elitist, because elitism means giving someone favorable treatement for a perceived inherent superiority, whereas I'm talking about allowing someone to apply for a job if they have the necessary real qualifications... haven't I already said this a half-dozen times?

How can you categorically rule out individuals who are running a corner shop and insist that they need further training for high political office without assessing their acumen/record-thats elitist.

No, it's not, but it's also not what I'm suggesting. In fact, I specifically stated that running a corner shop didn't rule you out - it was lack of relevant qualifications that rules you out, and that's not elitist, because elitism is .... well, you ought to know what I'll say next!

I'm not talking about your perception sparks.
All along I've been talking about the perception of the voter, and the need to convince them that your proposal is not elitist.

Well, it's certainly easy for people to throw mud at it, but the only ones that would actually do so when they know what the proposal is are those who have a vested interest in the status quo - and they'd have to argue that it's irresponsible to put the choice of who actually runs the country into the hands of the people instead of the hands of the Taoiseach. Which is, in and of itself, an elitist stance, because it gives preferential treatment (in that he gets to choose and we don't) to a person (the taoiseach) because of a perceived inherent superiority (ie. he's in charge of his party - which has nothing to do with selecting the most qualified candidate for the job).

Have you ever lied?

On a resume while applying for a job? No. Not ever.
We're not talking about a little white lie here - the man faked his credentials when applying for public office!

Can you trust the ethics of all the private sector people from whom you would draw candidates for the position in the system you are advocating?

Of course not - which is why we mentioned peer review up above. In other words, we do what every private sector company does when interviewing applicants for an important job - we check their resume and references.

He who casts the first stone etc.

Well, I've never lied regarding my qualifications, so if you'll excuse me, I have to go grab a rock...

That was a typo on my part, it should have read " a three or four year degree"

Ah!

and in relation to that, it would be the quickest way for them to get into a significant managerial job meritorious of a job in cabinet, should they get elected under your system, there by creating a significant life hurdle for them versus continuing their €600 building job and joining their local political party branch.

And again you're totally missing the point.
Under my system, he or she would have an actual, real, tangible chance at getting the job. Under the current system, they would not have anything more than a theoretical chance that has less of a probability than winning the lottery, unless they have "connections". Now me, I don't think that the current system is fair and I'd like to see it changed.
But I have yet to see a convincing arguement that says that getting a ministerial post should be an easy thing to do.

Here we go again , you are pre-judging Tom Dick and Harry which is elitism.

Incorrect. The phrase "Tom, Dick and Harry" is generally taken to mean "a random individual or individuals". Now that means that if we give a ministerial post to a random individual, we will get a minister whose skill at the job is a random variable.
Now, given that these people decide on tax levels, public spending, how the health system and education system get run, who represent us in foreign affairs and who basicly have a lot of impact on our daily lives, the question is:
Are you sure you want to trust that much influence to a coin-toss?

Tom, Dick and Harry have to vote on your proposal before it's passed.It's the likes of them that you are now more directly than ever giving the impression of being inferior.

Incorrect, as explained.

Of course you should be competant to run for political office, but the current system generally weeds out those not cut out for the job.The election process to the Dáil being the first significant hurdle.

And yet, not one hurdle is specifically designed to select the most qualified candidate for the job. Instead, a small group of men - or even a single individual - gets to decide. Now that's elitism at it's height!

I'm saying you will have dificulty getting the proposal past the electorate unless you can show Tom, dick and Harry, that you mentioned above, that you are not asking them to sign away their right to have one of their own in the job of running the country without the hurdles you would impose.

But they currently do not have that right to sign away!!!!
How many times must I repeat myself man?
NO-ONE IN THIS COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHT TO RUN FOR A MINISTERIAL POST AT PRESENT!!!
:rolleyes:

Everybody may not be equal in their talents but that does not mean that they should be ruled out of the democratic process of the governance of their country with an artificial barrier to entry.

And they're not being ruled out. I've not said a damn thing about competency tests or qualifications for TDs, just ministers.

The system you advocate, would make it more difficult for my builder friend to attain high office regardless of his competancy just because his CV says he is only a builder.

Now there's an arrogant statement! Who the hell said you had the right to decide what your friend can and cannot accomplish in terms of gaining qualifications? My father started his life digging holes in the side of the road for telephone poles - he's now got twenty-odd letters after his name and he's one step shy of running the company - and not one person thought that someone that worked with a shovel would get anywhere, not when he started. So I'd say that the person here that needs to deal with his preconceptions of what people are capable of is you!

whereas I'm talking about allowing someone to apply for a job if they have the necessary real qualifications... haven't I already said this a half-dozen times?

and I've said at least as many times that that means you give the person dis allowed and his/her peers the impression that they are too inferior to run for the governance of their country.

No, it's not, but it's also not what I'm suggesting. In fact, I specifically stated that running a corner shop didn't rule you out - it was lack of relevant qualifications that rules you out,

But you went on to say then:

it rules out those that have no experience with large projects.

and:

I'm saying that running the cornershop, in and of itself is insufficent qualification for running the country.

which rules out the owner of the corner shop regardless of his abilities unless he does something else-That would not by you obviously, but by a great deal of others be perceived as elitism. you may understand aswell where I am coming from on this finally ( phew ! ) by the end of this post and it's certainly not from an attack whatever Sparks thinks angle - far from it! because, I can see a lot of good in your reasoning, but feel it necessary to show you my take on it.

Well, it's certainly easy for people to throw mud at it, but the only ones that would actually do so when they know what the proposal is are those who have a vested interest in the status quo - and they'd have to argue that it's irresponsible to put the choice of who actually runs the country into the hands of the people instead of the hands of the Taoiseach. Which is, in and of itself, an elitist stance, because it gives preferential treatment (in that he gets to choose and we don't) to a person (the taoiseach) because of a perceived inherent superiority (ie. he's in charge of his party - which has nothing to do with selecting the most qualified candidate for the job).

No not necessarilly, if you allow everybody, yes Tom, Dick and Harry too, to run if they want to.
The electorate have a clear choice and they can choose the unqualified if they want to and they are stuck with their democratic decision untill next time.
But they would probably with a bit of luck choose the most qualified.
If you stop ruling out people, you stop any perception of inferiority dead in it's tracks.

NO-ONE IN THIS COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHT TO RUN FOR A MINISTERIAL POST AT PRESENT!!!

In the technical way you are describing, but , nobody is ruled out completely in the current system.
If we clear away the smoke here, theres not too much difference between where you and I stand on the issue or the proposal you are putting. I am just putting in a speak here for the people you would rule out or otherwise make the job of attaining high office more difficult, after all my builder friend *might* do as good a job as any of your preferred candidates, if he didn't have to down tools,and go get what you might describe as the requirements for the job.
If he's allowed stand without having *special* requirements to get on a short list, I'm sure the public will make the right choice, each one of them have the same right to choose as you or I and theres no possibility of anyone feeling left out or alienated.

Now in relation to me saying:

The system you advocate, would make it more difficult for my builder friend to attain high office regardless of his competancy just because his CV says he is only a builder.

You reply:

Now there's an arrogant statement! Who the hell said you had the right to decide what your friend can and cannot accomplish in terms of gaining qualifications? My father started his life digging holes in the side of the road for telephone poles - he's now got twenty-odd letters after his name and he's one step shy of running the company - and not one person thought that someone that worked with a shovel would get anywhere, not when he started. So I'd say that the person here that needs to deal with his preconceptions of what people are capable of is you!

Now who's taking, what I say out of context!
I'm not dissing my builder friend at all, or saying he has no right to get a college education, or saying what he can or cannot acomplish, thats up to him and fair play to him.
He has chosen to take the €600 a week instead of going to college.
Under the current system if he wanted to get into politics he could continue that job and join whatever local party he wanted .
Now is he or is he not entitled, to run for Taoiseach as a builder under your system if he wants to? , or will he *have* to gain further qualifications, uproot his existing life, and ditch the high paid job that he loves to do that, regardless of how capable he may be in a ministerial job??
From my view point, your system would serve him and his peers better if it were tweeked to allow him to run as is.
It would probably mean you would get what you want Sparks, whilst at the same time, calming some of the mud that could be thrown at your proposal and thats me trying to be helpfull
mm

bonkey

Regarding the concept of "must be business-qualified to be a Minister of Finance" vs "capable of being Minister of Finance through experience", I would ask you to consider this.

A 22-year old, fresh out of business school with his degree in hand would be technically qualified to run for the position.

Bill Gates, were he Irish, would not be.

I have no doubt as to who would be more capable of actually doing a good job (assuming equal levels of integrity).

jc

Sparks

bonkey,
Leaving aside the fact that Gates would be amongst the last of the people we'd ever want in the job (as a detailed look at the ethical choices made regarding Microsoft's business policies will show), there's the fact that your assessment is incorrect.

Firstly, I have said that the actual qualifications were open for debate (I certainly don't have a well-thought-out list sitting on my desk!)

Secondly, there's no reason why a 22-year-old shouldn't have the right to run for the post with the right qualifications - if that person was sufficently exceptional to be able to compensate for lack of experience, then his or her record would show that. (Case in point, there's a 13-year-old kid in the states who's graduated with honours from college, has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize twice and has founded an international youth advocacy program. He's not qualified to be a Minister of Finance, obviously, but the point is that his record shows that he's an exceptional person - it's not like exceptional ability hides away unseen...)

Victor

Originally posted by Imposter
Or are you suggesting that all the polital parties give up on their individual candidates in constituencies and that everyone votes for a government based on the potential cabinets put forward by the various parties?

He must be a FF supporter

Sparks

Victor,
Who?

Victor

Which would be more qualified a 20 year old with his BA (who lives at home, hasn't had a 'real' job and is a mummies boy) or a 50 year old with a lifetimes experience?

Originally posted by Man
How can you equate Brain surgery with , the running of a government

Both f*** with your brain.

Originally posted by Man
That doesn't apply in the same way to management skills, youdo not need a college education to have or apply management skills, it's something you either have or you haven't.

Indeed, politics is primarily managerial, not technical, while there is merit of having a minister qualified in their specific area, it is not essential.

Who would be in charge of social welfare? A 19 year old, unemployed, single mother in a wheelchair?

Would the (ex-)Generals run defence?

Would the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism be run by an artist, a sportsman or a tourist?

And Justice, Equality and Law Reform - would it rotate between judges, barristers and solicitors, then Gardaí, prison officers and probation officers, then shop lifters, armed robbers and rapists?

Sparks

Victor,

Indeed, politics is primarily managerial, not technical, while there is merit of having a minister qualified in their specific area, it is not essential.

That would be true if a manager needed absolutely no knowlege of the process he or she was managing, but it's simply not.

Who would be in charge of social welfare? A 19 year old, unemployed, single mother in a wheelchair?

I wasn't aware that we had a Minister of Social Welfare!

Would the (ex-)Generals run defence?

As I understand it, they'd have to be retired from the Defence forces, but they should certainly be eligible to run for the post.

Would the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism be run by an artist, a sportsman or a tourist?

Which is why I said earlier that ministerial posts should be more focussed, even if that means having more than 15 ministers.

And Justice, Equality and Law Reform - would it rotate between judges, barristers and solicitors, then Gardaí, prison officers and probation officers, then shop lifters, armed robbers and rapists?

I'm not sure how you came up with the last three...
As to the first six, there's a valid argument that people with backgrounds in those areas would be qualified for the job. The Equality bit though - I've never understood how a Minister is supposed to be responsible for Equality as a seperate issue from Justice... and the Law Reform bit is a bit funny too.

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
I wasn't aware that we had a Minister of Social Welfare!

Obviously her PR budget was cut

Originally posted by Sparks
I'm not sure how you came up with the last three...

They would have strong experience in the judicial system and many would have 'qualified' from Mountyjoy.

Originally posted by Sparks
The Equality bit though - I've never understood how a Minister is supposed to be responsible for Equality as a seperate issue from Justice... and the Law Reform bit is a bit funny too.

there had been a Minister for Justice and a separate Minister for Equality and Law Reform under the rainbow government, they were merged in 1997. Equality and Law Reform was designed as a counter balance to the Law & Order types and to progress the rationalisation of existing legislation.

Sparks

Victor,

They would have strong experience in the judicial system and many would have 'qualified' from Mountyjoy.

Well, actually they would have experience of having the justice system applied to them, as opposed to managing the justice system; and the qualifications you get in Mountjoy seem inappropriate for public office ... not that that seems to have deterred Martin Ferris. :rolleyes:

there had been a Minister for Justice and a separate Minister for Equality and Law Reform under the rainbow government, they were merged in 1997. Equality and Law Reform was designed as a counter balance to the Law & Order types and to progress the rationalisation of existing legislation.

Ah. So we had a system with checks and balances (well, with a watchdog in theory at least) and then FF said "erra, sure, you can trust us" and did away with it.
You know, I miss being surprised....

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Firstly, I have said that the actual qualifications were open for debate (I certainly don't have a well-thought-out list sitting on my desk!)

Sure, but the point I'm making is that Gates has no formal qualifications. He has (I believe) several "conferred" degrees - where the college "gifts" you a degree cause you're famous and its good publicity for them.

Gates differs from the man running the corner-shop only in that his shop is bigger. Both of them have nothing but practical experience and/or natural talent to fall back on.

Unless, of course, your "qualifications necessary" standard would permit someone to pay for a degree in order to qualify? Surely not...that would be tantamount to saying its a job only for the qualified or those who can buy their way in...which I'm sure you'll agree is not the desired end result.

Secondly, there's no reason why a 22-year-old shouldn't have the right to run for the post with the right qualifications - if that person was sufficently exceptional to be able to compensate for lack of experience, then his or her record would show that.

So, someone with qualifications may be able to compensate for lack of experience, but you still maintain that someone with experience can't compensate for lack of qualification....they have to go and get it rather than just being able to show that they dont need it?

Thats hardly a balanced point of view surely?

jc

Sparks

bonkey,

Sure, but the point I'm making is that Gates has no formal qualifications. He has (I believe) several "conferred" degrees - where the college "gifts" you a degree cause you're famous and its good publicity for them.
Gates differs from the man running the corner-shop only in that his shop is bigger. Both of them have nothing but practical experience and/or natural talent to fall back on.

Bonkey, Gates is a member of one of the richest families in the US. When he dropped out of college in his second year, he was already a millionaire by dint of his trust fund.
I think he's not a good example of someone that succeeded through hard graft and innate talent - especially as his business ethos has landed Microsoft in a lot of lawsuits.

Unless, of course, your "qualifications necessary" standard would permit someone to pay for a degree in order to qualify? Surely not...that would be tantamount to saying its a job only for the qualified or those who can buy their way in...which I'm sure you'll agree is not the desired end result.

Indeed, though a degree conferred for contributions to a field, as opposed to contributions to a college budget, might warrant examination.

So, someone with qualifications may be able to compensate for lack of experience

No. Someone with an exceptional level of innate talent might be able to compensate for lack of experience.
Two different things.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
No. Someone with an exceptional level of innate talent might be able to compensate for lack of experience.

But not for the lack of a degree....

Two different things.

Indeed - you are still putting a formal qualification on a pedestal and claiming it as an absolute, whilst claiming that other virtues may be substituted in exceptional circumstances.

Most definitely two different things.

jc

Sparks

But not for the lack of a degree....

Perhaps. A formal degree in an established subject is simply not trivial bonkey. While that doesn't seem to apply to IT degrees, I personally feel that that's a function of the age of the course. Civil engineering, for example, has the core of the subject pretty well nailed down after two hundred years or so of teaching it to students. IT has a history of around 30 years by comparison. The fact is, a formal degree in an established subject does give a level of education about that subject that is rather difficult to obtain through self-study by all but a minority.

Indeed - you are still putting a formal qualification on a pedestal and claiming it as an absolute, whilst claiming that other virtues may be substituted in exceptional circumstances.

I am not the person putting formal qualifications on a pedestal, they had that status long before either of our grandparents were born bonkey.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
A formal degree in an established subject is simply not trivial bonkey.

I never once claimed it was. What I am saying is that there are no grounds for making it an absolute requirement.

You argue on one hand that ability can offset experience, but at the same time that nothing can offset the lack of a university degree, or other comparable formal qualification.

I agree with the former, and vehemently disagree with the latter, as it is nothing but elitism. Degrees are not sacrosanct.

And before you continue knocking IT degrees to try and explain why I have a somehow skewed view, I should point out that my formal qualification is in Applied Mathematics, which has a history at least as credible and long as any you have mentioned as "established".

I am a qualified mathematician. I have absolutely no pretences that my qualification makes me a better mathematician than anyone without a degree. Hell, I knew several people who flunked out of university who had an intuitive grasp of some of the more arcane principles of mathematics far greater than I ever expect to obtain.

While in a subject like medicine, there is a clear case to be made for requiring formal qualifications before allowing someone to risk other people's lives directly.

However, there is no comparable logic that I can see - nor which has been presented here - to say why a business degree would be so sacrosanct for a Minister of Finance.

jc