Davids' theory of political half-life.

[davywavy]

I have a half-formed theory of political half-life, which states that the half-life of a government is about 3 years. When first elected, a government puts all its best talents into place in ministerial roles. From there, natural attrition from scandals, human failings and retirements mean that the quality of people in those roles will decline in a steady fashion thereafter, halving approximately every three years.
This problem is compounded by the lack of new talent which rises whilst a party is in power, as sitting MPs rarely leave voluntarily to make room for new blood. As an incumbent government loses overall seats over time, new talent can only enter an existing party when it is out of power and gaining seats from a low start.

As such, a party which has been in power for 12 years will have only 1/16 of the talent in managerial positions than it did in its first year of office, and the only way to change that is losing an election to clear out old MPs from either seat losses or natural wastage.

Thoughts?

Comments

[fried-chicken.livejournal.com]

An interesting way of looking like it, and possibly quite a valid one. The problem they also have as time moves on is that once they get to the position they're in now, any new talent may no longer want to be associated with sitting on the front bench.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

People who want to go into politics will go into politics, and the smart ones will go where the power is. There's a generation of smart, young slimeballs right now calculating the chances of a total conservative majority and a Libdem opposition.

These are people who, ten years ago, would have joined the Labour party as a matter of course.

[rssefuirosu.livejournal.com]

Yet another good argument for performance-based euthenasia.

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

We are then assuming there is talent in the first place?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I didn't say how much!
However, I'd advise you to look at the immediate post-election cabinets in both 1997 and 1979, and their final incarnations and compare the quality.

[(Anonymous)]

Successful companies re-invent their products before they get stale (Ipod Nano gen 4, case in point. Apparent)

Politicians serve themselves, not the public, so want to keep ramming the same crap down our throats until forcibly removed. if they were running a shop, they'd be bankrupt. as it is, they're 'running' the country, and we're... er... bankrupt.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

That actually isn't logically consistent. If they were serving themselves, it would be in their interests to continue to give good value so they wouldn't be forcibly removed.

[(Anonymous)]

Really? Next you'll be saying Terry Leahy isn't an out and out imbecile.

Another problem with politicos is they tend to be the shouty kids from skool / college who think they kno it all. Y'kno, the sort who never have a proper job, but think teh world owes them a living?

[raggedyman.livejournal.com]

I don't think they give £1.3 million a year saleries to 'imbeciles', and the strategy of expansion that he has been involved in since 1992 seems to be doing quite well for them.

[(Anonymous)]

If only the country had been so capably run.

[raggedyman.livejournal.com]

So you want the country to be capably run by an expansionist imbecile because shop keepers are a public service who re-package the same product rather than try to sell us the same old thing?

Right, all clear now. Thank you.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I'm glad you understood whatever it was you think you were saying.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

If there's one thing that Terry Leahy is not, it's an imecile.

And if the question you're asting is; would I like our country to be run under a strict financial regimen with every step considered and costed as to be affordable from current resources, whilst at the same time being aggressively but sustainably expensionist at the expense of our competitors (i.e. foreigners), then yes, dammit, that's exactly what I'd vote for given a chance.
I don't understand why anyone wouldn't.

[(Anonymous)]

Hmm,
That's why I didn't get Andy's post. I thought he was referring to teh Broon as an expansionist imbecile, but I couldn't make sense of it. Hence the mockery.

I would be less draconian. Sometimes the state must act out of principle, and sometimes that will cost money and not net a return. (WW2, abolition of slavery) Hence: to be able to afford principled action when necessary, we should not run a habitual defecit. Au contraire, we should aim to run a small surplus.

[raggedyman.livejournal.com]

Your working on the assumption that people can only get into politics for selfish reasons and that they can never do so to serve the public. This is inherently not true as many people are honestly involved in trying to take action for the betterment of those who voted for them. Whilst I am not going to pretend that all those involved are Saints I firmly believe it is just as blinkered and foolish to assume everyone of them is a Sinner as well.

[(Anonymous)]

Intentions and results are sadly separated by the gulf of incompetence.

[raggedyman.livejournal.com]

So things are either black or white, and even the slightest hint of grey makes it the deepest of blacks?

Do you have a better solution for how to run things then?

[(Anonymous)]

"Do you have a better solution for how to run things then?"

Yes. Do less. My prime criticism of the current bunch of politicos is they think they have to have the answer to everything. 'Everything' is a pretty broad remit, and would be beyond they capability of, well, anyone.

Like a successful company, a successful state should decide what it is for, and focus on doing that as well as it can (sort of like a mission statement) whist avoiding getting bogged down in stuff beyond that remit.

Right now, the state's reach exceeds it's grasp, so everything it touched turns to poo.

[supermouse.livejournal.com]

I think someone could hang some research on this idea, certainly.

I won't, my current area of historical interest is more the civil service.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

As loath as I am to blindly insult people who hold public office, the "what talent?" question is a frustratingly pertinent one. We ostensibly elect MPs on the basis of how they will represent us in parliament, (or more realistically on the basis of what colour tie they wear and how our parents have previously voted). Assuming a parliamentary majority, that gives us a pool of what are essentially 323 busybodies who self-assemble themselves into the government.

There should at least be an exam, or a proper vocational accreditation or something. Even compared to 1997 the world is a staggeringly more complex place than it used to be, and it's not going to get any simpler. Why should we trust it to a bunch of lawyers and arts graduates?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

One of the thing I woulds do If I Were In Charge^tm, is pass some sort of rule that people had to have some sort of experience outside of politics; for example, wouldn't it be nice if the business secretary had some experience of business, the health secretary of the NHs and the Defense minister had been in the Navy (or similar)?

I have no idea how I'd make such a rule, I just think we need one.

The other problem we increasingly face is that the real talent has no desire to go into politics due to the lack of privacy and the press intrusion into private lives. I've met a number of people who in earlier generations would ahver gone the politics route but now won't as they don't want the papers camped on their doorstep every day, trying to get photos of them in their underpants.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm a real fan of 'not telling people who they can and cannot vote for' - which is hard to reconcile with a 'respectful' press.

Perhaps a good compromise would be to try and educate people with some sort of basic understanding of politics & economics, so when someone stands up and promises 'jam today, and more jam tomorrow' and 'you only don't have jam because the nig-nogs are taking it' they will laugh and walk away.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

A couple of months ago, I had an idea. Rather than party political broadcasts, ministers and shadow ministers should write and film informative documentaries about political issues, with the intent of appealing to a wide audience.

This serves three purposes:

1 - it will educate the public (we hope)
2 - it will expose a candidate's knowledge to critical appraisal and review
3 - it will allow voters to develop a more direct appreciation for who their leaders and would-be leaders are.

I genuinely don't know why this isn't being done already. Maybe it is, and I just don't notice.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Well, Al Gore famously did it...

The problem I forsee is that minsiters and such are sufficiently busy to make this impractical. What would happen is that the requirement for film making would be farmed out to the same researchers and film production companies who currently do Party political broadcasts, and the minister would roll up on the day to read from an autocue, whilst taking full credit for all aspects of production.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

They're not too busy to carry out other asinine acts of populist publicity-mongering.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I'd've thought that the process of writing and making a documentary is a time-consuming one, unless they should be five minutes long? I think the Beeb commissiong lead period for an hour long doc is something in the region of six months, unless it's being rushed to TV in which case the resource use rises proportionally.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

I'm not asking for the production values of Blue Planet; I'm not even asking for World in Action, and I'm not saying they have to be solely responsible for its entire production cycle. I just want them to write the material, and I want them to present it. This shouldn't be too divergent from their actual skillset.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

I think there's an additional depreciation angle here you're missing. Like inflation. So they lose an extra percentage point of good people every year that compounds.

Compounded negative interest on talent. So the dour presbyterian is actually at some kind of talent vacuum.

[applez.livejournal.com]

Pretty good theory, I had a similar one applied to bureaucracy, but found other variables such as size and scale of the organization, and demand growth which can force rapid expansion (occasionally meaning immediate talent increases for a period of time).

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Oh, heavens, there are more variables than anything like the ones I list above - I did say it was half-formed as theory :)