Westozzy,

You are quite right there about unqualified politicians heading very complicated departments.
Another little issue is the Senate being a supposed house of review.
I can appreciate Senators having different political viewpoints but being a department head sounds all wrong to me.
How can you honestly review yourself.
Our system needs a shake up as it attracts those of little talent when in fact it needs to attract the best.
With a few exceptions most would struggle in any sort of genuine small business.
All talk, ego, and little else appears to be the main qualification.
SD

In Australia it almost doesn't matter anymore which party is in power because the majority of the voters are swinging voters who really don't give a crap about the country.
An extremely poor base indeed but how can it be changed ? Tougher econonomics could possibly make people here think because nothing else has thus far.

Hi there SHAGGY DOG...

I've heard it mentioned many times before, that most politicians have very little or no talent ? I was wondering therefore, what type of talent does a politician need ? I might add this is a legitimate question, I don't mean to be impertinent to you at all, SHAGGY DOG.

Most of our politicians are well educated, in fact many possess a degree, sometimes two. Certainly, innumerable number have a LLB, some even dual degrees, therefore they're obviously not academically 'wanting'. So what further qualities do you suggest they need in order to become effective politician ?

Is it a good education ? John Joseph CURTIN, one of the very finest Prime Ministers Oz has ever had, was (I believe?) a mere railwayman ? Moreover, he led this country through the worst features of the second world war - truly a great man ! Others though possessing sound academic credentials, proved useless. Others still, were thought to be corruptible ?

So what are those VITAL principles necessary to be a really effective politician ? Besides the usual, common sense, probity, ethics and integrity, all of these personal qualities are important. If a politician wished to be considered, equal company with the like of, the great John CURTIN, one of Australia's formost Prime Ministers, he would need to have all of these qualities, plus a few more, I believe.

OSW,
Damn good question.
I think leadership is something that exists in certain people. Education certainly helps but that said I have met many highly educated people who do not appear to have any leadership qualities and often appear to totally lacking in a practical approach to most things.
I think leadership ability is recognised by most, I know I have seen it in many groups, that stand out person, not necessarily loud or pushy but one who people naturally defer to.
I have worked for my fair share of dodos and a few brilliant, practical leaders. Most were quiet calming individuals, loudness did not appear to be part of their brief. The latter are hard to find, especially in political circles.
I can point out examples but what that inner strength is, that ability, is very hard to define.
SD

You guys have raised some good issues.
Thank You.

You're so right about government
departments, various portfolios, and the needed
expertise in each.

Take a look at the Defence
Department for example - Dennis Pryor once wrote
that this Department "devotes itself to the purchase
of costly military equipment from the USA. This gives the
armed forces something to play with and keeps American defence
contractors in the style to which they have become
accustomed." (Tongue-in-cheek, of course).

Then there's the Department of Foreign Affairs - this we're
told "is the Department of government concerned with the
implausible task of persuading foreigners that Australia
matters. Its a useful portfolio for a loyal party
member who must be made to feel important while having
nothing 'significant' to do. Ministers for Foreign Affairs
require the capacity to cope with overseas travel, dysentery,
diplomatic hypocrisy, sudden changes of policy and alcohol..."

But enough satire.

As to the qualities that we'd like our politicians to have?

We'd all like them to go into Parliament to bring about
particular reforms - and many do try to do just that,
but many also go into politics because they find the life
irresistible and they want to be in it all their lives.

Peter Coleman told us in the Preface to "The Costello
Memoirs," Some pollies, "enjoy the exhilarating highs
and take the miserable (and tedious) lows in their stride.
They face long years in the wilderness with equanimity.
They take for granted the slander of fools. They also
believe the voters will get it right in the end. Their
day will come. They are politicians in the way others
are poets. They can't help themselves."

Coleman points out -
we get the seat-warmers, the hacks, the careerists,
the adventurers, and so on. But once in a while we get
those that belong to a different parliamentary tradition.
And those are the people we remember. People who did (and
do) make a difference.

Dear O Sung Wu,

My health - is a work in
progress, but having positive people such as yourself on my
side certainly helps.

As you say SHAGGY DOG, leadership is a quality you either have, or you haven't got. I don't believe you can train a person to be a leader. Though a leader can be trained to be a better leader, but that's it I reckon. And most effective leaders are pragmatic, with many of the issues they need confront. Good leadership is everything I believe.