5 ms·

Truly, Australia is governed by morons. Would it be asking too much for a highly paid minister of the crown, who supposedly is supposed to lead government polic

Truly, Australia is governed by morons. Would it be asking too much for a highly paid minister of the crown, who supposedly is supposed to lead government policy in an area, to have substantial knowledge of it? Instead, we have these lawyers who treat maths, science and technology with contempt, who legislate for us, and don't understand what the fuck they're even talking about.

jacques_chester 8y ago
The tech portfolios are a regular dumping ground for dunderheads who are too well-connected to drive to the outer ministry, but too stupid to be entrusted with ... well ... anything. I remind people here that they should join a political party and consider seeking preselection, or at least influencing policy. It's important that you join the party you otherwise most agree with. At different times, different parties will hold Government. Concentrating expertise on any topic in one party is a solid-gold guarantee that the other party will reject that expertise.
oldcynic 8y ago
> Would it be asking too much for a highly paid minister of the crown, who supposedly is supposed to lead government policy in an area, to have substantial knowledge of it? Apparently yes, and it's not just Australia. When Amber Rudd was Home Secretary in the UK she only opened her mouth to put her foot in it technically speaking. She came out with a hugely comical technical point after pretty much every incident, like the NHS virus a couple of years back, or when the government, iirc, "needed people with the necessary hastags". Needless to say she was of the view mere citizens should not have encryption and that encryption needs backdoors for the good guys. You get the same dangerous lack of awareness for science, environment and energy ministries as well as tech. Which makes me think the others, that I know less about, are much the same.
afarrell 8y ago
People keep saying "We need more scientists in government", but I think that trying to make that happen is running into a brick wall: those scientists will also need to be lawyers and there just aren't that many people who are competently both. Without an understanding of the law, they'll end up drafting laws without basic things like mens rea requirements. We live in a highly specialized world; Can anyone here can butcher a hog, design a building, and plan an invasion with a rock-solid level of competence? No. So stop looking for a unicorn who is able to: * Sell themselves to a wide and fickle audience of stangers * Manage a campaign staff * Understand problems in the context of history * Read and write legislation in a way that avoids unintended consequences or misaligned incentives * Negotiate against people with whom they have fundamental philosophical differences * Complete a PhD program in science or engineering That last one isn't necessary for our actual goal... and it doesn't even help when you consider that this person will also need to be an expert on military grand strategy, healthcare administration, procurement, urban design, and agriculture. We don't need a congress full of subject-matter experts. What we need are people who respect and can work effectively with subject-matter experts. So what is it that Senator Ron Wyden and Judge Aslup do that others should copy?
- Jedi72 8y ago
  I would be happy with a politician who can accomplish even one of these things.
  - chopin 8y ago
    I'll take the first two for granted. Otherwise they wouldn't be in charge, isn't it?
    - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
      * Sell themselves to a wide and fickle audience of stangers * Manage a campaign staff It is not necessary that politicians can do either / both, it is just that they appear to be the least worst option for at least a brief moment in the past. I'm often reminded of that single panel comic where small child says "Dad, I'm considering a career in organised crime" and the father, holding a news paper, says "Government or private sector?".
- walterbell 8y ago
  What could someone like Pam Samuelson contribute, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Samuelson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Samuelson?
- oldcynic 8y ago
  Need to be lawyers? Vast numbers of politicians nowadays have done nothing but be a professional politician. Many were lobbyists, or in PR before politics. In the UK under 15% have done any law. Not sure about Australia. The key point is really only "Sell themselves to a wide and fickle audience of strangers" That's really the only skill our unicorn needs to stand for and win election. The policy or manifesto is set in party HQ outside of scientific or any other expert advice or specialist knowledge. In the hope it'll win votes. Then a series of staged interviews, sound bites and dog whistles seek to move the Overton window to their policy and preferred direction of travel. Nothing to do with competence, truth, Civil Service advice or the presence or otherwise of a PhD in the Ministry. Politicians get promoted and senior roles because of ability to control a debate, and their media friendly features and abilities. The better laws on the books often come from hard won experience, case law and Select Committee recommendations. Those tend not to be the laws of policy headlines, manifestos and high profile Ministry interviews. Hence we get ridiculous policies and political grandstanding on a whole range of topics. Climate change and Brexit being just two examples where fact and consensus are irrelevant.

jacques_chester 8y ago

The tech portfolios are a regular dumping ground for dunderheads who are too well-connected to drive to the outer ministry, but too stupid to be entrusted with ... well ... anything. I remind people here that they should join a political party and consider seeking preselection, or at least influencing policy. It's important that you join the party you otherwise most agree with. At different times, different parties will hold Government. Concentrating expertise on any topic in one party is a solid-gold guarantee that the other party will reject that expertise.

oldcynic 8y ago

> Would it be asking too much for a highly paid minister of the crown, who supposedly is supposed to lead government policy in an area, to have substantial knowledge of it? Apparently yes, and it's not just Australia. When Amber Rudd was Home Secretary in the UK she only opened her mouth to put her foot in it technically speaking. She came out with a hugely comical technical point after pretty much every incident, like the NHS virus a couple of years back, or when the government, iirc, "needed people with the necessary hastags". Needless to say she was of the view mere citizens should not have encryption and that encryption needs backdoors for the good guys. You get the same dangerous lack of awareness for science, environment and energy ministries as well as tech. Which makes me think the others, that I know less about, are much the same.

afarrell 8y ago

People keep saying "We need more scientists in government", but I think that trying to make that happen is running into a brick wall: those scientists will also need to be lawyers and there just aren't that many people who are competently both. Without an understanding of the law, they'll end up drafting laws without basic things like mens rea requirements. We live in a highly specialized world; Can anyone here can butcher a hog, design a building, and plan an invasion with a rock-solid level of competence? No. So stop looking for a unicorn who is able to: * Sell themselves to a wide and fickle audience of stangers * Manage a campaign staff * Understand problems in the context of history * Read and write legislation in a way that avoids unintended consequences or misaligned incentives * Negotiate against people with whom they have fundamental philosophical differences * Complete a PhD program in science or engineering That last one isn't necessary for our actual goal... and it doesn't even help when you consider that this person will also need to be an expert on military grand strategy, healthcare administration, procurement, urban design, and agriculture. We don't need a congress full of subject-matter experts. What we need are people who respect and can work effectively with subject-matter experts. So what is it that Senator Ron Wyden and Judge Aslup do that others should copy?

Jedi72 8y ago
I would be happy with a politician who can accomplish even one of these things.
- chopin 8y ago
  I'll take the first two for granted. Otherwise they wouldn't be in charge, isn't it?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    * Sell themselves to a wide and fickle audience of stangers * Manage a campaign staff It is not necessary that politicians can do either / both, it is just that they appear to be the least worst option for at least a brief moment in the past. I'm often reminded of that single panel comic where small child says "Dad, I'm considering a career in organised crime" and the father, holding a news paper, says "Government or private sector?".
walterbell 8y ago
What could someone like Pam Samuelson contribute, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Samuelson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Samuelson?
oldcynic 8y ago
Need to be lawyers? Vast numbers of politicians nowadays have done nothing but be a professional politician. Many were lobbyists, or in PR before politics. In the UK under 15% have done any law. Not sure about Australia. The key point is really only "Sell themselves to a wide and fickle audience of strangers" That's really the only skill our unicorn needs to stand for and win election. The policy or manifesto is set in party HQ outside of scientific or any other expert advice or specialist knowledge. In the hope it'll win votes. Then a series of staged interviews, sound bites and dog whistles seek to move the Overton window to their policy and preferred direction of travel. Nothing to do with competence, truth, Civil Service advice or the presence or otherwise of a PhD in the Ministry. Politicians get promoted and senior roles because of ability to control a debate, and their media friendly features and abilities. The better laws on the books often come from hard won experience, case law and Select Committee recommendations. Those tend not to be the laws of policy headlines, manifestos and high profile Ministry interviews. Hence we get ridiculous policies and political grandstanding on a whole range of topics. Climate change and Brexit being just two examples where fact and consensus are irrelevant.