When it comes to choosing the government, it’s not always the party (or parties) with the best ideas that wins. Often it’s the party with the most convincing arguments. I say “most convincing” and not “best” because – unless you can convince the electorate that you’re the best people for the job, it really doesn’t matter that you have a much better case or any objective view of reality would see that you are far superior to that other mob.
Take Barnaby Joyce… Ok, I know that some you find him hard to take but he has definite appeal to a certain type of voter. The sort of voter who doesn’t like politics or politicians, and applauds him when he complains about “career politicians” and says that he wants to get government out of people’s lives. Of course, the obvious question is how many years can you spend in Parliament before it can be considered a career, but I’m happy to accept that Barnaby sees himself as an amateur and that his twenty plus years going in and out of Canberra are just a hobby.
It’s not about what’s true; it’s all about winning the debate. And we all know from our school debates that you don’t need to believe in what you’re saying, you just need to be able to impress the audience and it doesn’t matter that in debating the topic “God Has A Sense Of Humour”, you argued that why else would he have created the bubonic plague or allowed Trump to become President. It’s a strong argument and you win! This is why we have a problem with the way the country works!
Now I have this brilliant idea! Instead of awarding government to the group with the best debating skills, we give the AFL who’s managed to win the Premiership all the seats in Parliament and they have to make all the decisions for the next twelve months. Perhaps we need to add the winning soccer and rugby teams to the mix in order to keep the non-AFL states happy but the point remains. They could take a fresh look at things without being bogged down by the stupid arguments they presented in order to get elected. They could look at each problem with fresh eyes and seek advice and attempt a solution.
Yes, some of you are probably reducing these elite sportsmen to a stereotype and protesting that they wouldn’t possess the intellectual capacity to run a country. However, I’d simply ask if you really think that Marcus Bontempeli or Scott Pendlebury couldn’t match it with Angus Taylor, Richard Marles, Pauline Hanson or Ralph Babet…
At the very least instead of the futile point scoring that takes place in Parliament, there could be genuine reflection. The sportsmen could look at things and say, “Mm, this housing situation seems a real problem. Does anyone have any ideas?” And then they could work through the ideas without immediately denouncing it simply because the other side came up with it first. Unlike governments, which are meant to behave as though they’re always right and have all the answers, they could seek advice and…
Oh, I just realised that I completely forgot about including women… I guess that’d mean that it might be as terrible as Tony Abbott’s first ministry…
David Pocock is proof that the idea has possibilities, although I’d be more inclined to go with the Sheffield Shield (or whatever they call it these days) holders. A more fully national competition.
leefe, Id be very dubious about including anyone from NSW in that team…once they are selected they can only be removed by death or a coup, certainly not on form.Catholics need not apply.
That mug in the photo at the top just skulled that cup full of beer,no wonder he’s got a shit eating grin.
He looks like the slow bloke I stood in my final game. He was no match for me: the fast leading, high leaping, long kicking full forward that I was. I kicked 12 goals on him. He bought me a beer after the game.