A new type of political system?

TheInquisitor

I do wonder sometimes why we elect people to certain postions of influence and power when they have little or no knowledge of the area they are in charge of.

For instance Willie O'dea was never in the army
Mary harney was never a nurse etc

Should we not elect people based from the Area they are going to be in charge of.

Lets say we elect 5 people to be in charge of Health. These people are top consultants who between them know everything there is to know about the health system etc and can make more educated choices

In charge of Finance should be top accountants

In charge of the armed forces should be the best soliders/ generals.

We should only be able to elect a taoiseach from people who have been or are in charge or a company with 100+ employees. Someone who knows how to run a successfull company. Someone that knows how to cut costs and maximise profits.

Instead of having randomers with no qualifications for the job they are meant to be doing we should have people that know their stuff in charge.

The Inquisitor

Eutow

TheInquisitor wrote: »

I do wonder sometimes why we elect people to certain postions of influence and power when they have little or no knowledge of the area they are in charge of.

For instance Willie O'dea was never in the army
Mary harney was never a nurse etc

Should we not elect people based from the Area they are going to be in charge of.

Lets say we elect 5 people to be in charge of Health. These people are top consultants who between them know everything there is to know about the health system etc and can make more educated choices

In charge of Finance should be top accountants

We should only be able to elect a taoiseach from people who have been or are in charge or a company with 100+ employees. Someone who knows how to run a successfull company. Someone that knows how to cut costs and maximise profits.

Instead of having randomers with no qualifications for the job they are meant to be doing we should have people that know their stuff in charge.

The Inquisitor

This would require a complete change of our political system. What if people with these qualifications were not elected to the Dail. Look at how people currently vote. Some people vote for any old gob****e because he is a bit of a rogue, he likes a pint, he likes football etc.

Firstly I would reduce the amount of TD's to 100 - 120, and have about 80 elected through a similar system to what we have now (though I think our PR system can be improved)
As for the other seats, there should be a list system, and should only include people with the necessary qualifications and experience to hold cabinet positions such as health, finance etc. The candidates on this list will be elected on a national level by people, so it reduces local politics in deciding this result.

The way political parties elect their leader should be made transparent and televised. TD's trying to become a leader of their party should have televised debates and set out their policies before they are elected as party leader.

dotti_bunker

but shur in the current scheme, don't all the ministers have so called experts with the relevant qualifications and experience advising them on all the decisions to be made.
The problem is that these 'advisers' have a political affiliation with the party that is employing their services, they should remain independent hence bringing unbiased views and not simply generating the required results to retain their roles as advisers??

whynotwhycanti

i remember readin an article a few years ago and i can't recall where but it basically said that all politicians should have to use public services if they are in office and then they can experience first hand what they are really like. It suggested that they would have to use public transport to get around (not chauffeur driven limos with police escorts), and then they would fully experience what the public transport is like and be able to better it if needed. They would have to use public healthcare (not visit blackrock clinic with their private health insurance), and experience what the average citizen does so they can fully understand where problems are.

I'm so sick of their rhetoric, their dodging of questions and ridiculous use of semantics. They are so detached from their electorate, the everyday person, the people they are suppossed to represent and more in touch with big corporations, banks, developers to whom they really represent.

cavedave

Your idea sounds a bit like corporatism

Corporatism is a system of economic, political, and social organization where corporate groups such as business, ethnic, farmer, labour, military, patronage, or religious groups are joined together into a single governing body in which the different groups are mandated to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of the multiple groups within the body

which we have sto some extend in social partnership

Examples of modern neocorporatism include the ILO Conference, the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union, the collective agreement arrangements of the Scandinavian countries, the Dutch Poldermodel system of consensus, and the Republic of Ireland's system of Social Partnership.

and also slightly in the seanad

evercloserunion

cavedave wrote: »

Your idea sounds a bit like corporatism


which we have sto some extend in social partnership

and also slightly in the seanad

And which, of course, was a cornerstone of Mussolini's fascism.

mega man

well i think you could elect those people to a house like the seanad. they could advise whats best for the country.

TheInquisitor

evercloserunion wrote: »

And which, of course, was a cornerstone of Mussolini's fascism.

Corporatism has been supported from various proponents, including: absolutists, capitalists, conservatives, fascists, progressives, reactionaries, socialists and theologians.

It has been supported by almost every group under the sun at some stage it doesnt mean they implemented it properly. Mussolini hardly implemented it since he was a dictator