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.