The parallels are self-evident to you, but unfortunately, largely illusory. Governments don't "win" the economy, or win anything in particular. Judging economic performance is a complex business, because there are so many variables, and so many measures. A focus on government debt, as any economist will tell you, is simplistic and, as at present, economically reckless.
It is pointless to compare the business of government to the business of teams playing one another according to a clearly defined set of rules by which one determines which has been successful.
Maybe it is too simplistic but the paralells are there and IMO they are quite relevant.
Sports clubs dont allow their member base to vote on club strategy. If they did, Mick Malthouse probably would have gone before he achieved premiership, Nathan Buckley was put in place ,ultimately, I believe, because Collingwood had lost faith in MM, but decided to make use of him to eventually install a better
new coach, rather than just drop him altogether.
Mark Thompson the same, Alaister Clarkson was on the chopping block before 2008 .... etc.
John Worsfeld at West Coast survived calls for his head & has turned around some ordinary seasons post 2006.
WE, the voting public, are the problem in so far as no govt, left or right leaning, is allowed the time to get a long term strategy to come to fruition. Once pain reaches a certain threshold, we vote them out. Back to square one.
Why do we do this ? Ultimately, because we can. So it becomes like letting the membership of a sports club run the place. They dont see the results they want, heads must roll.
We dont see the things we think we want / need .... heads must also roll .... in the political arena.
This then leads to lots of fresh pollies each time, who spend the first term, just coming to grips with their extremely complex new work environment & equally complex new job. They arent terribly effective for quite some time & are often given an altogether new role, voted out in the case of one term govts or sacked in disgrace, just as they have completed their 'apprenticeship' ... so to speak.
So in my view, the problem is democracy. People who do not really know what is going on, other than what they read in the papers, get to ultimately choose and they base their choice on short term results. They also vote with their wallets, which isnt great, but it does seem to be the human nature we are stuck with.
IF, we moved away from democracy towards a centralised, work together government that wasn't subject to the whims of a largely selfish public, we could see results similar to what sports teams, who dont constantly chop & change their leadership roles, are able to achieve.
They would also get to spend alot more time doing what needed to be done & not carrying on like children (question time) or having to convince one another that they are onto a good thing. Looking at how many pages the Climate Lies thread generated .... its not hard to see that being in opposition to one another produces endless hot air. Heck, if we had a centralised work together govt, I'm 99% certain they would have just looked at the IPCC reports & said "better do something about this then & do it quickly".
It would save a lot of time, money, needless hostilities & disillusionment. Labour looks set to lose the next election for just that reason. "there will be no carbon tax" ..... we have a carbon tax. No one likes it, even if it might be the best thing to do, so out Labour go. (obviously this remains to be seen, but hopefully you get my drift)
If nothing else, its pretty tasty food for thought.
We entrust a work together govt to do what is best for us, if some of us dont like it then drink some cement and dont act so spoilt, its better, its cheaper, it gets rid of the clown factory & if we stick with it, we can all live happily ever after.
Edited by ayou2, 01 June 2012 - 01:08 PM.