Politicians now take it for granted that they have a career in politics - just like any other job.The problem with this is that we, their employers, don't get to chose them, and they don't need to have any qualifications for the job. All candidates, usually party employees or hacks, are selected by a party. We get no say at all, merely voting along party lines; there is no way we can avoid party nonense and look for people best suited to serve.

This doesn't seem to be working anymore, if it ever did. One suggestion I have seen is that would-be politicians should have a track record in service to others - as opposed to being self-serving, or serving a party ideology - and remaining in goverment for a limited time, after which, they would go back to their previous occupation else. Surely we have seen that time-serving drones of all persuasions are no longer cutting the mustard? How many of our politicians would you employ in any job, let alone running a country, protecting it and its
inhabitants?

Politicians and wanna bee politicians have 3 important tasks or jobs.

1 Is to get elected.
2 Is to get re-elected.
3 Is to represent the electorate.

Sadly number 3 is a very low priority to them.

You need a degree to practice being a doctor, lawyer, accountant , engineer and had at least 5 years experience in that field.

Yet we have pollies who have never had a real job, running the country.

From University to Union member to party hack to pollie.

It should be law that you have had to worked in private enterprise for at least 5 years before you can run for politics and have a degree in either law, economics, business or environment.

ttbn: You are aware that we live in a democracy right? It appears from what you said that you don't know this.

You are completely incorrect when you say "The problem with this is that we, their employers, don't get to chose them, ...". An electorate does, as a collective whole, chose who represents them in parliament by way of the voting process.

What I think you seem to be confusing is: 1) the lack of options we have to chose from, with 2) the act of being able to chose between them. These are two completely different things. The lack of options is not mandated by the system. The vast majority of citizens of voting age may become a candidate on the ballot paper. Indeed, if you think think they are doing such a bad job and that you could do better then why don't you have a go at become a politician.

Another confused idea you have is that we should pass laws that severely restrict who is eligible to become a politician in order to, according to your strange thinking, increase the available options. This is obviously self contradictory. But not only that, if you introduced mandatory controls requiring that candidates prove they have some track record of service to others, it would very soon be deliberately used to achieve the exact opposite result that you seek. Because, whichever body has the power to determine what deeds qualifies as a self-less "service to others" would effectively have control over the make-up of parliament. Thus, whoever controls this body, which would most likely be the current incumbents could potentially control forever the future of parliament.

Please excuse my quoting once again from -
The Costello Memoirs," written by Peter Costello with
Peter Coleman. However I feel that Peter Coleman's
words in the Preface to this book are relevant to this
topic.

Coleman explains that - "Whatever they may say, most politicians
do not go into Parliament to bring about particular reforms;
they go in because they find the life irresistible. They want
to be in it all their lives. They enjoy its exhilarating highs
and take its 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
that 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."

Still Coleman does point out that there are exceptions to
that rule. There are politicians who belong to a different
parliamentary tradition. Who do go in to try to make changes.
Not all of them are seat-warmers, hacks, careerists, or
adventurers.

I do feel however that we have to be careful in attaching
overwhelming importance to educational qualifications of
various kinds. Most people pick up the necessary skills on
the job, not in the classroom, and the characteristics that
make for a successful career (such as initiative, leadership,
drive, negotiating ability, willingness to take risks, and
persuasiveness) are not even taught in colleges and
universities. Many graduates actually work in fields they
consider unrelated to their major subjects.

Also lets not forget that politicians can always get expert
advice from professionals in their required port-folio areas.

You are the confused one, thinkabit. You talk absolute twaddle. Nonsense that exists only in your addled brain. You don't appear to have the slightest idea what democracy means.

Foxy,

Coleman is a wise old bird, and probably got it right. Please note that I said nothing about "educational qualifications" . Experience and proven track records in business and money making. Management. Leadership. These are the qualifications needed. The riffraff that we have always had couldn't run a soup kitchen, yet we allow them to bungle the running of our country.

ttbn: I'll say it again: If you think that you would make a better politician than the one currently represents you, then at the next election apply for the job. ie: become a candidate at the next election and let the electorate you give a fair and frank appraisal of what they think a you.

In other words, to put it is school yard parlance-- Put up or shut up!

thinkabit,

You really should change your pseudonym and start thinking more than a bit. Your ignorance of the political process is appalling! You are clearly a ratbag who contributes nothing worthwile, but gets his kicks from running down people with something useful to say. Your own reference to the schoolyard is very appropriate to your attitude and intelligence.

ttbn,

Hey ttbn play the ball and not the man. Thinkabit does have a point. Just because he disagrees with you doesn't make them wrong. We do live in a functioning democracy and anybody can stand for election. Although, I wouldn't vote for either of you.

Perhaps we get the politicians that we deserve?

janesopinion, "Perhaps we get the politicians that we deserve?"

If you are representing the union factions in Labor you would be right in saying that.

However if you are a humble member of the Labor Party, one of the rank and file, it would be 'NOT happy Jane'!

Because it doesn't matter who the Labor members prefer, the factions always get to over-rule popular membership in pre-selections and in the choice of leader too.

janesopinion,

Hey, janesopinion, just because he disagrees with me doesn't make him right, either. Let thinknot speak for himself.

And you probably do get the politicians you deserve. I and many other Australians deserve much better.

What I would like to see us do is try to
get rid of the divisions between us politically
and just judge people by their capabilities. for
example - if its a good policy - who cares which
team suggested it. This is not a football game.
And why do we make judgements and label people -
Left or Right, and so on. That is such an old
model and way of arguing and really in this day and
age should be put to rest.

Jeeze you are a cantankerous old twit ttbn. Have you got any friends, anywhere?

CH,

Have you answered my questions on your religious ideas, yet? Me cantankerous? You must be used to dealing with real pussy cats.

I do think we have options however my impression is that the system is stacked in heavily favour of the parties and it's a tough thing for a local candidate not associated with a party to win. It happens but few of us have the resources to pull that off.

I'm pondering what the cutoff should be if we were to limit the term in office. My impression is that first term pollies don't generally do well as ministers or leaders so at least 2 terms. Even then I suspect that a forced turnover of the leadership of a party that was perceived as doing well in office would not be popular.

I have a lot of sympathy for the idea of maximum periods in office however its worth remembering that being out of a field of employment or business for a period of years would leave many unable to return to that field without substantial retraining and or the fun of restarting a business that was shut down or in caretaker hands while they were in office. I wonder how many of those with the experience suggested as requirements earlier in the thread would find that hurdle a show stopper.

Overall I'd prefer to see options explored that gave more direct control to the voters. The means are either currently available or within reach to make electronic voting a secure option for the vast majority of the voting public, we could be voting on issues rather than just for politicians.

As a starting point perhaps any measure supported by at least 1/3 of the house but not supported by a 2/3rds majority of the house could be put to the electorate. Also provide a measure for citizen initiated proposals that avoided the frivolous but allowed a vote if sufficient interest could be demonstrated.

Whilst there are concerns about emotive swaying of the public on issues leading to poorly considered votes I'm not convinced that elected pollies are free from the same weaknesses.

R0bert

ttbn... can I take from your reply, you don't have any friends and admit to being an old twit?

CH,

No, you cannot take it that way. And, you leave me assuming that you are unable to substantiate you ill-informed ideas about religion. What you do show is that your already expressed dislike/contempt for me and my opinions is more important to you than contributing useful comments.

To all sensible respondents, thankyou for your views. I think that the party system is the main problem. As a conservative, I am not very impressed by the the Abbott government. As a conservative, I am sometimes in agreement with comments and thoughts of individual Labor MPs. Apart from John Howard, I think the outstanding recent PMs for achievement were Hawke and Keating, although I disliked both of them as people. It is possible to do what is best for Australia, but not under the current system.

My view is that politicians have absolutely no decision making influence what soever. Politicians are no more than entertainers. Democracy doesn't work. Google "Boss Tweed"... I've watched an SBS documentary on Tweed, Tweed was known to be corrupt. Real democracies would be corrupt and media bosses would be in on the corruption.
Modern democracies (controlled by old ruling classes) are there to create confidence in capitalism. Retired investors seem to be often losing their savings. Recessions we have to have blamed on democracy government treasurers.
Education teaches children to believe what authority states as truth. Blind faith is a conditioned behaviour.
Christian priests prayed to a god in order to allow people to believe priests were actually talking to god, that a god was actually listening to priests. Politicians are doing the same, talking like there is an actual real democracy.
If there were dictators running things, when events went wrong, populations would know who to blame. In democracies, there are many people to blame; many separate authorities to blame; many banks; many brokers; many overseas share markets; 2 political parties arguing with each other. The church used to blame god for bad events, now politicians blame market forces for bad events.

Dear ttbn,

I would love to go back to my familial roots
of voting Liberal. There is so much about that
Party that I admire. However, I find so many
of the Abbott-led Coalition's policies disturbing.
And the Labor Party under Mr Shorten doesn't
attract me either. So it's a bit of a conundrum.
If anyone can suggest a future leader - with the
qualities we need in this country (long-term vision).
Speak up.