But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral
I am the very model of a modern Major-General
Gilbert & Sullivan’s Modern Major-General was adept in maths, knew his classical literature, and begrudgingly knew a little of “elementary strategy” which was from the “beginning of the century”. Suddenly I was given to wonder: what are the desirable qualities of a modern parliamentarian?
Should they be conversant with Economics? “It’s the Economy, Stupid” is more than a motto these days; governments live and die by the twitching of hip pocket nerves.
Should they have a smattering of accounting? If only to read the Budget each year, or to make policy announcements without embarassing $200 million glitches.
What about literature? Is it useful to know a bit of Pericles and Patterson? Or in the modern age is it more sensible to make references to Rambo and the Simpsons?
Maths? Science? Business experience? Law? What qualities, knowledge or experience is ideal for the modern lawmaker on the go?
I look forward to your comments.
I would rather vote for someone who I like as a person than one who adheres to a specific quality. to me a good politician is one who has the ear of all people and not just the so called educated few and I even think that any education rather than a political education perhaps in law would lend it self to politics. But then again who wants a lawyer as politican they are just arrogant in general
No I stick by my vote for the lay person who has acheived much as a person in life rather than some two bit “psuedo qualified” unaware of reality academic as my representative. Anyone who ahs acheived something in their field is always a good politician, thereare very few good politicians, but look at Malcolm Fraser as just one example of an experienced man who has put his time to good use.
I wish Slim Dusty would have given it a go, I would have voted for him hands down.
I think we should be thinking of good austrlians who would or could have made great pollies rather than some label such as a “qualified degree in something”.
I don’t know the answer to your question Jacques, but it reminds me of that other great line in G&S
Your answer suggests that a good parliamentarian is able to serve time at the branch, then in the back benches, before becoming a minister of some sort.
All too common I fear.
Nicholas, you should have linked to the whole of the little song , the fifth verse describes his role in the House.
There was one British Parliamentarian, I cannot recall who, whose only speech was to put forward a motion that a window be shut as it was a bit draughty. He served for forty years or something too.
A knowledge of economics must be very important, but I think Iraq proves that, in our newly interconnected world, it’s very important for parliamentarians to have a working knowledge of foreign affairs.
I reckon Lance has got it exactly wrong. I’d rather have a beer with GWB than his father any day – but there’s no doubt which one was the disaster and which one was the modest success. Go for personal likeability and you quickly end up with either an amiable moron or a skilled conman.
I agree that some education/accounting/law background is a big help, at least at Cabinet Minister level. A Cabinet Minister can make decisions that seriously affect the lives of millions of people. Just as with surgeons they should be valued for their technical skill rather than their nice bedside manner. It’s different at the backbencher level, though – they are more like GPs whose ability to listen and empathise with individuals is really important.
The person of like ability is of course one who has the necessary skills that he is approachable on many issues. Tell me a lawyer who is actually approachable without his hand in his pocket. It is the reason that we should always be looking for captains of industry and commerce and not their academically minded but “follow the pleb mindset ” that we see in the all to common world. Sorry Derrida, I would rather have a beer and/or bottle of the red with the bloke or sheila who I can relate to on many issues. The problem or advantage of politics that the little guy can make it to the top. But when you place preclusive stamps on the politcal bean bag by relagating some qualification in particular to it, then I say No. very bad idea.
People from all walks of life should be able to get into politics should it take their fancy and not some wacko with a degree that says he/she can.
I’m for some egalitariansim when it comes to choosing the right person for the representatives job. There is plenty of history to show that the background of a politican should not be just about some qualification.
Cam, that parliamentarian was Isaac Newton. I think we’ll excuse him is modest contribution to the House of Commons.
I thought Isaac Newton invented the Gold Standard?
I think that most people are excluded from political power in Australia. It seems to me, from the brief experience I have had in the so called “big league”, that the political arena is made up of brawn rather than brains. Perhaps the best pre-requisite is to work out in a gymnasium?
Besides I do not envy those who try their hand at being popular. I would rather be unpopular and maintain my integrity. The two traits are clearly contradictory.
He did move the standard from silver to gold, but as master of the mint, not in parliament.
Also he served in parliament but only for around 3 years, but yes his only contribution was to ask for a window to be shut.
well that settles it then. Libertarians need to mass-clone Sir Isaac and then figure out a way to get the resulting hordes into Parliament.
Was Isaac opposed to fractional reserve banking?
Robert, I dont think it was, it was some son of some son of some son. I cannot recall who, or where I read it. I think it was in one of those “world’s worst” books.
The story is usually associated with Newton, see his wikipedia bio, amongst other places. Although I can’t see anything more authoritive.