'Stunning' number of MPs lack experience

[Leafless]

Current members of Parliament are suffering from a "stunning" lack of political experience, according to a Public Policy Forum study to be released today.

A mere three per cent of MPs have more than 15 years' experience.

Not only have the vast majority of MPs not been on the Hill for very long, but most of them also don't come with much other political experience either.

More than 61 per cent of MPs come from business or the private sector, while almost 14 per cent come from academia. The remaining one-quarter of members come from public and health services areas, non-profit organizations or other areas of politics.

In the House of Representatives, a whopping 70.7 per cent of representatives come from other political jobs and only 17. 3 per cent come from the business and private sectors. Only a third of them have less than five years' experience -- compared to Canada's two-thirds -- while one-quarter of representatives have been in Washington for 15 years or more.

The fact is that not only do U.S. representatives have more tenure and political experience than Canadian MPs, but they are also more highly educated. Almost 93 per cent of U.S. representatives have university degrees, while only 66 per cent of MPs make that claim, although 84.7 per cent say that they have some post-secondary education.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Stunning...0257/story.html

Seems Mr. Ignatief is following the Canadian trend.

[Borg]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Stunning...0257/story.html

Seems Mr. Ignatief is following the Canadian trend.

Seems our stunningly inexperienced people are doing a fairly decent job over all - perhaps it is that business experience - something that runs this country.

I saw how well the last nut from academia performed for the libs - seems they want to put another one in the same place.

God help us all if he gets elected as PM

Borg

Edited May 4, 2009 by Borg

[Muddy]

Experienced politicians may not be the best choice for Canadians. Ordinary people are usally grounded in practical experience,where those who have been in academia and or life long civil servants are found to be wanting in how the real world of ordinary folks live in..

[g_bambino]

Experienced politicians may not be the best choice for Canadians. Ordinary people are usally grounded in practical experience...

True. Though, I'm often distrubed by the general lack of knowlegde amongst MPs on matters related to our constitution and governmental systems, starting right from the oath they must swear before taking their seat in the lower chamber. Not all MPs, of course, but a still uncomfortably noticable number.

[Leafless]

Experienced politicians may not be the best choice for Canadians. Ordinary people are usally grounded in practical experience,where those who have been in academia and or life long civil servants are found to be wanting in how the real world of ordinary folks live in..

All politicians care about the ordinary folk.

They need your problems.

This is how they make their money and spend yours in the process.

[Machjo]

Under a partisan system, as long as the party leader has experience and an education, the rest is unimportant. If an MP can think for himself, he'll never move up party ranks and so will likely drop our eventually. It takes a simpleton to satisfy himself with following the party line.

Last federal election, I'd done my rounds to meet the candidates. In one candidate's office, I'd asked him a question about his ideas on a particular subject. What did he do? We went straight ot the party manual to read it out to me!

I cold have got that information on-line for crying out loud! Is that what we'd be paying him a salary for?

Another candidate (the one who won) wasn't in his office, so I wrote the question on a piece of paper and handed it to one of the campaign workers there. The next day I get aphone call from some supposed profesor to answer my question. Well, that professor was not on my ballot; I wanted to know what the candidate had to say about it, not some professor friend of his.

And a third candidate, also a party member, though still somewhat of a party hack, did sometimes venture into thinking for himself.

I was unable to get info on thefourth candidate, but all four of them were members of a political party or other (no independents). With that kind of mentality, they don't need any intelligence; that's what the party's for.

[Machjo]

Plenty of voters too couldn't care less if the candidate has half a brain, as long as he has the right brand name (oh, sorry, I meant party name) under his name, he's guaranteed to get alot of votes.

If we got rid of the partisan system, each candidate's character woud be stripped of its party colours, making the candidates own personal blemishes and strenght of character shine bright as day for all to see. That alonw would improve the quaity of candidates considerably.

Now as for the US, in spite of their experience, I'd say Canada has done better overall, which shows that character surpasses experience or education. Just look at the Iraq fiasco. We managed to stay out of it. Harper supported it, and he had a degree.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Now as for the US, in spite of their experience, I'd say Canada has done better overall, which shows that character surpasses experience or education. Just look at the Iraq fiasco. We managed to stay out of it. Harper supported it, and he had a degree.

So does/did Michael Ignatieff.

[Machjo]

So does/did Michael Ignatieff.

Well, there ya go!

[Machjo]

Under a non-partisan system, Harper and Ignatieff would be but simple MPs with no more influence than any other in Parliament, as it should be.

[Machjo]

Scary stuff. I was just readig Ignatieff's Wikipedia page. I'm not a pacifist myself, but Ignatieff makes me look dovish in comparison. I never realised how militaristic his ideology really was.

[August1991]

Under a partisan system, as long as the party leader has experience and an education, the rest is unimportant. If an MP can think for himself, he'll never move up party ranks and so will likely drop our eventually. It takes a simpleton to satisfy himself with following the party line.

In the parliamentary system, a political leader without caucus support is dead in teh water. Just ask Joe Clark or Margaret Thatcher. I bet that Stephen Harper spends more time on keeping his caucus happy than any other task.

Bambino seems to think that people should read our constitution. In fact, our system of government (and the way power is exercised) is more complicated than the constitution.

Another candidate (the one who won) wasn't in his office, so I wrote the question on a piece of paper and handed it to one of the campaign workers there. The next day I get aphone call from some supposed profesor to answer my question. Well, that professor was not on my ballot; I wanted to know what the candidate had to say about it, not some professor friend of his.

The average federal riding in Canada has about 60,000 voters. How could any candidate possibly answer each one individually, even less on the specific issue of interest to a particular voter?

The nature of government is that frequently we have to make a one-size-fits-all decision for the collective. Invariably, some people will be happy unhappy with the decision.

----

As to the OP, the Americans have argued about "term limits" for many years. I'm inclined now to vote systematically against the incumbent. I reckon that throwing the buggers out might teach them a lesson.

[g_bambino]

Bambino seems to think that people should read our constitution. In fact, our system of government (and the way power is exercised) is more complicated than the constitution.

Um, yeeess... it is. But, I don't think I said, or even implied, otherwise. The constitution is, however, from where everything starts, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect those becoming part of the legislative process to know a little bit about the core of the system they'll be operating in.

_[copyedited]

Edited May 5, 2009 by g_bambino

[Machjo]

In the parliamentary system, a political leader without caucus support is dead in teh water. Just ask Joe Clark or Margaret Thatcher. I bet that Stephen Harper spends more time on keeping his caucus happy than any other task.

So how do we explain the success in Nunavut and the NWT?They have no parties at the territorial level.

As to the OP, the Americans have argued about "term limits" for many years. I'm inclined now to vote systematically against the incumbent. I reckon that throwing the buggers out might teach them a lesson.

I'm almost inclined to vote systematically for independent candidates, but I know some party candidates are sometimes smart. But either way, I always vote for the candidate, not his party. And if I see he's a party hack, he loses my vote. I want independent thinkers, not borgs, certainly not for the salary they get.

[Machjo]

The average federal riding in Canada has about 60,000 voters. How could any candidate possibly answer each one individually, even less on the specific issue of interest to a particular voter?

I realise that. But how is it that a candidate can't give his own answer? Is the official party answer necessarily better than his?

The one candidate that had shown a brainwave had tole me the party line and also was not afraid to tell me his ideas on things, and admit that he didn't know much on some of the topics but was willing to look further into it. Now that's the kind of candidates we need to elect, those who can think, not those who just turn to the party Bible for the answer to every question. There are just too many party hacks among our MP's now.

[Griz]

Factor in that most don't even have a clue when it comes to the truth on aboriginal issues. They just believe all the stero-types and this pure ignorance has wasted billions of dollars

[August1991]

So how do we explain the success in Nunavut and the NWT?They have no parties at the territorial level.

They have the population of Red Deer and their budget is financed largely by other taxpayers. The NWT is a "functioning" democracy because other people pay for the small bunfight.

Machjo, here is the secret to government: it is all about spending other people's money. If you can get one cent from each Canadian each year, then you will have $300,000 annually. Few (if any) Canadians would notice whether their tax statement had one cent more or less. Such is government.

When Leftists argue in favour of socialism or more government, this is what I think of.

----

IMV, I don't want politicians with experience, or without experience. I have no opinion about term limits.

Rather, I want politicians who have the courage to say NO! This is very hard to do when one is spending other people's money. Believe me.

Edited May 5, 2009 by August1991

[Smallc]

They have the population of Red Deer and their budget is financed largely by other taxpayers.

NWT is the richest jurisdiction (per capita) in Canada...the main reason they have to be subsidized is because they don't get to keep any of their money because they aren't provinces.

[August1991]

NWT is the richest jurisdiction (per capita) in Canada...the main reason they have to be subsidized is because they don't get to keep any of their money because they aren't provinces.

Richest in potential. Oil under the ground 8000 km from a consumer is, well, oil under the ground.

[Smallc]

Richest in potential.

No, richest in per capita GDP.

[August1991]

No, richest in per capita GDP.

They may be "richest" when the numerous subsidies from the south are included.

For example, why is there a northern basic personal exemption? More generally, how many people in northern communities depend on federal government largesse?

----

BTW, the Soviet Union in part went bankrupt choosing this route.

[Smallc]

They may be "richest" when the numerous subsidies from the south are included.

Ummmmm....no. They are the richest jurisdiction in Canada per capita....their per capita GDP is just as hair under $100K per person.

Also, northern allowance and the Territorial Financing Formula have very little in relation to the Soviet Union.

[Sir Bandelot]

Although there are many things I dislike about the conservative party, bringing in new blood is not a bad thing, per se. That way the old guard can be replaced, by a new old guard.

[August1991]

Ummmmm....no. They are the richest jurisdiction in Canada per capita....their per capita GDP is just as hair under $100K per person.

Statistics to justify your claim?

[Smallc]

Statistics to justify your claim?

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/econ15-eng.htm

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/0...90326a2-eng.htm

Actually, given the latest numbers, it appears that the per capita GDP in 2008 was actually closer to $125 600 per person. If NWT were a country, it would have the highest per capita GDP in the world.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Smallc