Should all elected Politician's careers be time limited?

[RichInSpirit]

This was a suggestion from an informal chat I had with 2 fellow Trump supporters last week in relation to Irish politics and the upcoming Irish General Election.
I was saying that some people in Ireland with the highest ideals starting out in their political life become corrupted when they get the taste of money and power.
And their ideals get left by the wayside.
One of my companions suggested a time limit for all TD's. They were suggesting 5 years but I would think 8 or 10 years maximum.
What do you think?

 

[Purple]

This was a suggestion from an informal chat I had with 2 fellow Trump supporters last week in relation to Irish politics and the upcoming Irish General Election.
I was saying that some people in Ireland with the highest ideals starting out in their political life become corrupted when they get the taste of money and power.
And their ideals get left by the wayside.
One of my companions suggested a time limit for all TD's. They were suggesting 5 years but I would think 8 or 10 years maximum.
What do you think?

I don't think so. It's hard enough to attract talented people to what is an very hard and badly paid job. I do agree with the idea that we limit their numbers but not the number of years they can serve.

 

[odyssey06]

The US system is different, and I think there should be limits on President, Senate, Supreme Court.
The committee based system in the Senate for example, means long servers accumulate power.

I don't see the same need in a parliamentary based system such as here.

 

[joe sod]

I don't think longevity makes for bad politics if anything it's the opposite, some of our youngest politicians seem to have been the worst performers in last Dail. I would consider both enda Kenny and Michael Martin to be far better operators than the likes of their younger replacements such as Leo varadker, Helen mcnamee, Catherine Martin et al.

 

[Purple]

Enda Kenny stands out as a person who served a very long apprenticeship and was ready to take power when he did. That said people often become set in their ways and lose energy and dynamism as they get older. I think generally people are at their peek for leadership roles that require experience and energy between the ages of 45 and 60.

 

[joe sod]

It was probably an issue 20 or 30 years ago where TDs would hold onto seats for years and years and was difficult for a young contender to unseat them . Now it is the opposite the media has a fixation on youth and we now have had 2 of our youngest taoiseach in quick succession. In fact I think the lack of experience in government is now a factor especially in the last government.
Also if you compare us with UK or US they have much older politicians in powerful positions into their late 70s, mitch McConnell, Joe biden, Nancy Pelosi, now trump. The autocrats like China, Russia and Iran are the same with 70 year olds holding the levers of power. If anything ireland is a bit ageist now

 

[24601]

Enda Kenny stands out as a person who served a very long apprenticeship and was ready to take power when he did. That said people often become set in their ways and lose energy and dynamism as they get older. I think generally people are at their peek for leadership roles that require experience and energy between the ages of 45 and 60.

100%. I was fairly disparaging of Kenny at times but he was infinitely better than a Varadkar or Harris. He also had boundless energy for someone that came into his premiership at an older age having been in the Dáil for decades.

 

[Purple]

100%. I was fairly disparaging of Kenny at times but he was infinitely better than a Varadkar or Harris. He also had boundless energy for someone that came into his premiership at an older age having been in the Dáil for decades.

He was very physically fit and always exercised. That really stood to him. I think Harris has far better political instincts than Varadkar.

 

[Peanuts20]

Most positions in the US are not time based ((President being the exception, rather then the norm) and the same applies here.

Personally speaking, when I look at myself 30 years ago and look at myself now, I was a young, clueless, naive "go getter",. Would I have thought I could run the country back then, of course. Would I have made a much bigger mess of things back then, rather if I was to do so now- Absolutely.

And all TDs have a time limit anyway, if we decide their time is up.

 

[24601]

I think Harris has far better political instincts than Varadkar.

This is probably true, but Harris has even less ideaology than Leo, he's good at sniffing out which way the wind is blowing but he has no fundamental political belief system. I'd worry about his inclination to ramp up public spending to follow public opinion at at time when we should be battening down the hatches in anticipation of a rocky time geopolitically. Harris will increase spending & narrow the tax base*, so we better hope for a soft landing on the corporation tax front!

* Of course, all the other parties would be even worse for this, to my utter dismay.

 

[Purple]

This is probably true, but Harris has even less ideaology than Leo, he's good at sniffing out which way the wind is blowing but he has no fundamental political belief system.

I don't like ideology. It causes people make to make bad decisions. I want politicians who make decisions based on data and evidence.

I'd worry about his inclination to ramp up public spending to follow public opinion at at time when we should be battening down the hatches in anticipation of a rocky time geopolitically. Harris will increase spending & narrow the tax base*, so we better hope for a soft landing on the corporation tax front!

* Of course, all the other parties would be even worse for this, to my utter dismay.

That's the point though, isn't it?
I'll be voting on the basis of which party will do the least amount of harm. We've a choice of a left of centre FG, a further to the left of centre FF, far left Labour/ Labour-Splitters, and the crazies or the (former) child killers/ smugglers/ knee-cappers/ racketeering/ Garda-killing, good republicans who aren't really left or right wing, just populist and opportunist.

 

[24601]

I don't like ideology. It causes people make to make bad decisions. I want politicians who make decisions based on data and evidence.

This sort of presupposes that the data and evidence generally support a particular course of action. There might be a range of options/decisions that can be supported by the data, all of which will align to some ideology to one degree or other, and many of those will compete with one another. Since we can't predict the future I find that it is helpful to have a general framework, whether it's a Keynesian interventionism or fiscal conservatism etc etc. I would like politicians with an ideology that leans towards a smaller State with lower income taxes, but there are none of those.

At the moment there is a political orthodoxy in Ireland that centres on an ever-expanding State - pretty much every party in the Dáil are social democrats (with some marginal exceptions like the Trotskyite PBP). For some parties this is ideological (Labour/Soc Dems), but for the likes of FG I think it’s just motivated by electoral gain & Harris's sense of what is politically popular. That orthodoxy might be barrelling us towards a pretty bad time given that it's a world view that is largely dependent on a few US MNCs generating historical corporation tax receipts.

I think FG used to be less interventionist/more free-market oriented with a lower proclivity than most other parties towards profligate spending - an ideology I could support - but that Fine Gael is dead and gone. Who do I vote for?

TL;DR: I would like some ideological politicians, but just ones with a different ideology to the current occupants of Dáil Éireann.

 

[Dr Strangelove]

He also had boundless energy for someone that came into his premiership at an older age having been in the Dáil for decades.

Kenny was underrated and underappreciated.

He spent his time on the road meeting people who mattered rather than schmoozing journalists in the Dáil bar. He got the big picture, set priorities, and let his ministers get on with the work.

Joe Biden went out of his way to hang out with Enda Kenny for a few hours last year which says a lot.

 

[TomEdison]

I don't like ideology. It causes people make to make bad decisions. I want politicians who make decisions based on data and evidence.

Bit of a category error here. Data and evidence can inform you how best to acheive your goals, but they are not so good at helping you to decide what goals you should adopt to begin with. For that, you need ideology or values.

 

[Purple]

Bit of a category error here. Data and evidence can inform you how best to acheive your goals, but they are not so good at helping you to decide what goals you should adopt to begin with. For that, you need ideology or values.

Fair enough. I'm talking more from a perspective of people who think that things should be nationalised or privatised, publicly provided or privately provided etc.
I want whatever method delivers the best services for the public. For example I don't care if the health service is privately or publicly delivered. I just want a good health service. From what I have seen the State is really bad at delivering services and really bad at offering value for money so I fail to understand why so many people want the State to take more money out of the economy and spend it badly.

 

[TomEdison]

Couple of points:

First, obviously, "things should be nationalised" and "things should not be nationalised" are both ideological positions.

You say that you just want whatever works best — i.e. you're not committed to either of those positions; " I just want a good health service." Fair enough. (That's a different ideological commitment, obviously — it's a commitment to the priority of quality of service over other possible goods such as democratic control or fostering economic opportunities for healthcare providers.)

But then you go on to say "From what I have seen the State is really bad at delivering services and really bad at offering value for money". But, when it comes to the provision of health services, the data and evidence suggests, on the whole, that state-run services tend to be more efficient than privately-provided services, delivering better health outcomes at a lower cost. There's much debate as to why this is so, but that it is so is not really doubted, except by those who have a vested interest in the private provision of healthcare, or who have an ideological commitment leading to a preconception that state provision is generally less efficient.

Now, I'm not saying that you're fooling yourself when you say that you don't have an ideological commitment, one way or the other, on this matter. But your position is exactly the same as the position that you would hold if you did have an unrecognised ideological commitment, and "what I have seen" about the efficiency of state provision in this field looks to be at variance with what most people who study this topic see, so there could be a little bit of confirmation bias going on here — i.e. you notice instances of inefficiency in state provision because they confirm what you expect to find. One of the things about relying on the data and evidence is that you have to be rigorously open to all the data and evidence. This can be surprisingly hard to do.

 

[Purple]

Couple of points:

First, obviously, "things should be nationalised" and "things should not be nationalised" are both ideological positions.

You say that you just want whatever works best — i.e. you're not committed to either of those positions; " I just want a good health service." Fair enough. (That's a different ideological commitment, obviously — it's a commitment to the priority of quality of service over other possible goods such as democratic control or fostering economic opportunities for healthcare providers.)

No it's not. Both of those things could deliver better health services. There are always constraints on supply. Those have usually been money but increasingly they are labour supply related so whatever provides the best outcomes overall is the best system.

But then you go on to say "From what I have seen the State is really bad at delivering services and really bad at offering value for money". But, when it comes to the provision of health services, the data and evidence suggests, on the whole, that state-run services tend to be more efficient than privately-provided services, delivering better health outcomes at a lower cost.

What data? Belgium has as excellent healthcare system which is mostly publicly funded and mostly privately delivered. The US is a really bad example of a privately delivered healthcare system so it's stupid to use their system for comparison. That said I don't think that a privately delivered healthcare system would work here given the strength of the vested interest groups (Nursing and Doctors Unions) and the weakness and incompetence of the State at regulating the private sector.

There's much debate as to why this is so, but that it is so is not really doubted, except by those who have a vested interest in the private provision of healthcare, or who have an ideological commitment leading to a preconception that state provision is generally less efficient.

Again, what data led you to that conclusion? That sounds like quite an ideological position.

Now, I'm not saying that you're fooling yourself when you say that you don't have an ideological commitment, one way or the other, on this matter. But your position is exactly the same as the position that you would hold if you did have an unrecognised ideological commitment, and "what I have seen" about the efficiency of state provision in this field looks to be at variance with what most people who study this topic see, so there could be a little bit of confirmation bias going on here — i.e. you notice instances of inefficiency in state provision because they confirm what you expect to find.

"People who study the topic" sound a lot like "people are saying". Again, that sounds like quite an ideological position.

One of the things about relying on the data and evidence is that you have to be rigorously open to all the data and evidence. This can be surprisingly hard to do.

I agree. The more often you find (and accept) that you are wrong about something the more likely it is that you are unbiased.