I think the main problem is one of attracting people addicted to institutionalisation: a lot have gone to religious private schools, entered university, got involved in student politics, got jobs in well-defined, well-regulated institutions - unions, law, politics (local, state or federal), or journalism predominantly - and become "day-by-day event jockeys".

Another issue is the strangling of politics by the state-federal over-lap and blame-game.

Poxy people in poxy institutions
.

The problem is that the rewards of power are much larger and easier to get in private enterprise than in public administration, while the burdens of power are as great or greater. Either we need to pay our administrators -- at least from ministerial level upwards -- a comparable rate to the CEOs of large businesses, or we need to find some way of rewarding them which is not open to other occupations. The Brits have an honours system, which must help a little bit, but what can we offer to tempt a bright boy or girl to go into politics rather than banking, mining or service industries?

All I can suggest is that we revive the harem system which was used to motivate rulers of the Middle East for many years, and allow our politicians to take their choice from a bevy of attractive, eager, sex partners. It has to be cheaper than paying them as much as the directors of BHP.

"All I can suggest is that we revive the harem system which was used to motivate rulers of the Middle East for many years, and allow our politicians to take their choice from a bevy of attractive, eager, sex partners."

LOL. I don't think it'll do much for the quality of decision-making but it should certainty solve the incentive problem.

@ JonJ - an issue with better remuneration is: will it really attract a better quality of politician, or will it just create more shenanigans from a few more dubious types, including undermining better quality candidates than them?

As to "a bevy of attractive, eager, sex partners" that could just end up attracting more Blanches and more cat-fights.

Definitely agree with this article. I guess the two-party system has been instrumental in giving us the narrow backgrounds of today's politicians.

Basing my image of internal party structure on news reports, you could not be an average person and succeed in those horrible factional battles. You would need to be someone with years of connections or start as a staffer and work your way up.

Also makes me wonder how many of the policies that Gillard or Abbott espouse are simply to please the party heavyweights and prevent any new leadership spills...whoever said Russia was an oligarchy?

http://www.currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

Politicians are given the title of "Honourable" because, back in the old days, they were honourable people, chosen by voters who trusted them to "honourably" transmit their wishes to Parliament, thereby transforming the said wishes (hopefully) into Law.

Politicians today, at least a large percentage of them, no longer give a damn about the people who elected them and, as for being "honourable"......!