UK Liberty

Thought for the day

Posted in politicians on liberty by ukliberty on October 3, 2008

The point of a representative democracy is to have informed representatives make considered, reasoned, and fair decisions on our behalf, in the interests of us as individuals and as a nation.

Our representatives should not be slaves to the whims of their constituents or the electorate at large – although of course they should take our thoughts into account.  In a sense the electorate can’t be trusted with certain decisions – we have neither the competence nor the time nor the information to make the best decisions, so we delegate them to our representatives.

Since Gordon Brown attacked David Cameron for his lack of experience, I’ve been thinking about the experience and responsibilities of politicians, particularly Cabinet Ministers – even more so since Brown’s Cabinet reshuffle (ongoing at the time of writing). What are their responsibilities, what qualifications are needed / desired, and so on?

In the sense of, what makes a former lecturer and current affairs editor a suitable candidate for the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer?

What makes a former head of economics and GNVQ coordinator a suitable candidate for the post of Home Secretary?

What makes someone who left school at 15, eventually becoming a union official and then MP, a suitable candidate for the posts of Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, Minister for Higher Education, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Secretary of State for Productivity, Energy and Industry, Secretary of State for Education and Skills, or  Secretary of State for Health?

Perhaps it doesn’t matter that they don’t seem to have the relevant qualifications and experience for the fields in which they end up.  Perhaps all that matters is their ability to effectively lead any department that they are made responsible for and that they have a sufficient number of competent advisors to help them make the best decisions.

I wonder…


Chris Dillow:

Healey’s implication that individual savers are not intelligent or well-informed is, therefore, not based in the evidence.

It is, however, based in the ideology that underpins not just New Labour, but our entire political and boss class – the presumption that ordinary individuals are hapless saps who need rules and orders from well-informed experts to protect them from their own folly.

But one lesson of the financial crisis is that this is plain false. What ordinary individuals need protecting from is not their own folly, but the reckless stupidity of spurious experts, be it in town halls or bank boardrooms.


2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. shadowfirebird said, on October 3, 2008 at 3:47 pm

    You imply that if everyone were somehow allowed to vote on every issue then our uninformed, populist nation would do a much worse job than the current politicians — and if that was deliberately implied, I agree with you.

    But *I* wonder. Did the majority of the general public become that way, in part, because of a belief that they did not *have to* understand the issues — because the politicians would do that for them?

    Roman circus; Greek parliment. The ancients have a lot to answer for…

  2. ukliberty said, on October 6, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    There doesn’t seem to be much point in having representatives if they are going to do a worse job than the general public.

    I trust the public when they are informed and given time to reach a decision – say when they serve on juries.

    I think the public are naturally uninformed because they choose to spend their time in other ways.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: