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

[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.