Michael Gove's Qualifications

Thank you sir, at least you see my logic!
About the Liam fox thing I said " an exceptional doctor " not any old doctor. Being a doctor isn't enough. Not only do you have to pick people at the top of their respective field, they also have to be exceptional and wise. Please don't tell me no one like this exists because if that is true we are doomed

"Sir?" I'm a woman. See my Avatar. That is me.

"Sir?" I'm a woman. See my Avatar. That is me.

I am very sorry please accept my sincere apologies I swear I never looked at your avatar. Again I apologise for the mistake.

LOL, don't worry about it, you're grand. Markova refers to Dame Alicia Markova, who was Britain's first Prima Ballerina. [ Her real name was Alicia Marks, but in those days it was fashionable for all Ballerinas to give themselves exotic Russian sounding names].

I never knew that. Very interesting. But you do see my point and if more people realise how messed up this system is, the better the country can be run better and smoother
. If what I say happens, this country would be unparalleled, we would reach the top at everything. What do you think?

I understand your argument. It's just that the Government must already take advice from Generals etc in military affairs. But to have such people also running other areas of Government too, where they have no knowledge would be madness. I can only think of these tin-pot Dictatorships around the world; where the leader stands there, surrounded by his top Generals. These are usually the countries where there is no valid opposition party, and the leader's face beams out at you on posters absolutely everywhere you go. The military must always be separate and impartial to Government, or else the Government, if any time people decided to revolt, would set their own army on the population, who if they were one and the same, would be only to happy to cut down any dissenters and protect their own interests. That isn't democracy.

Nice one I must admit. But there is a simple solution to this: as soon as the military personnel is instated as minister of defence they would automatically relinquish their position in the military an become an ordinary citizen temporarily until they get voted out of the position and again I never said that all Minsters would be from the army only minister of defence would be from the army. There rest of the Minsters would be from their respective fields. What do you think about this idea? Do you have any more input I really want to hear your ideas. You seem like a reasonable person. I don't know why most people don't get me. I try my best to look at things for their true value and nature. I don't care how people look or dress. The most important thing is the core, the true nature. appearances can be deceiving.

This isn't driving a car or operating a washing machine this is much more serious each decision no matter how small can have a tremendous impact and potentially catastrophic effects maybe even for years to come for all the people and the country as a whole. A car if crashed for instance could cause harm to a few people at most not the whole country. And even with a car you need a driving test but being a minister it seems you don't need anything even related to your field of work. You go figure..
And anyway a driver drives cars engineers design and fixes machines. if you let your driver fix your car he'll probably put it's face in its butt and it's butt in its face with Catastrophic effects. I say this again put the right person in the right place.A good example of putting the right person in the right place is the Russian minister of defence he is an actual army general Sergey Kuzhugetovich Shoygu. I could get you more examples from around the world. Let's face it, an army general is what he is and it's what he is best at but I wouldn't trust him with my health care though. You see what I'm getting at?

And when you have appointed your Minister of Defence from the ranks of generals will you be surprised when he wants to spend his budget on tanks rather than frigates and fighter jets?

The reason for having politicians rather than "experts" as ministers is to prevent regulatory capture.

You want hospitals to be run in the interests of patients, not doctors; schools to be run in the interests of parents and children not teachers; and the military to run in the interests of national defence, not soldiers.

Politicians can disagree about what serves the public interest and opposition politicians often make common cause with producer interests, but politicians tend to have the voter at heart.

There is one caveat to this and that is that politicians need to know what the issues are, and in recent times some of them have not been close enough to their subjects. Special Advisers were originally supposed to be that, but they have tended to become wet behind the ears wannabe politicians with little experience of the real world.

When some years ago, a Health Secretary negotiated an overgenerous G.P. contract, it was obvious he didn't have any pals who were medics or any special advisers able to give any advice.

It is one of the reasons the best Lord Chancellors are non-practising lawyers; close enough to understand the issues but not beholden to the legal profession.

I don't know if you're trolling or just a simpleton but you clearly don't understand delegation or management chains.

Personally if I was PM I would appoint an ex-military man as Secretary of State for defence, a doctor or other medical professional as Secretary of State for health, an ex diplomat as Foreign sec, ideally a high ranking police officer to Home Sec, an ex
teacher/lecturer as Sec of State for Education, you get the drift.

These are crucial cabinet positions, people are sick of politicians acting like they know what’s best when they haven’t a clue.

I am neither. You are just getting annoyed because you clearly can't put forward a good argument against my last comment so Who is the simpleton? You are a person who thinks that running a country is like driving a car you go figure!! Delegate by using someone that represents you or a people as a whole, someone that voices the opinion of the people, you have your elected area mp for that. Please give me a break now you are just clutching at straws

I make decisions at my level based on the advice of engineers, economists, and so on. I am much closer to my policy area than any minister could ever be.

He needs to give strategic direction. He needs to hold us accountable. He needs to be able to ask the right questions. He does not need to get involved in the minutiae of hundreds of policy areas. He does not need to know how to do statistics to interrogate the findings and assumptions.

More to the point he would be unable to regardless of his academic background. What I described requires decision making skills, vision and the ability to push it through a hostile parliament. Technical knowledge is totally irrelevant. This is obvious to everybody here who isn't you.

Personally if I was PM I would appoint an ex-military man as Secretary of State for defence, a doctor or other medical professional as Secretary of State for health, an ex diplomat as Foreign sec, ideally a high ranking police officer to Home Sec, an ex
teacher/lecturer as Sec of State for Education, you get the drift.

These are crucial cabinet positions, people are sick of politicians acting like they know what’s best when they haven’t a clue.

I said wise. You seem to be describing a bunch of absolute lunatics in office. Spending your whole budget on tanks isn't very wise is it?

So why would you be PM? What previous running-a-country level experience do you have?

Now now, it’s not the PM who runs the country. It’s the Queen, and she delegates the authority, equally to the cabinet/HM Goverment who are led by the cabinet anyway. They say power is equally distributed yet the PM is ‘first among equals’, I guess that also sums up gender equality. We’re all equal but men are just first among equals, criticise me but I didn’t write the law.

The PM simply leads the cabinet and speaks as a whole on their behalf. Maybe Chairman of a company will qualify me. You just need leadership skills to command the cabinet. I’m sure the royal family would guide me along my quest. Clearly someone hasn’t read the constitution of the United Kingdom.

So if you can lead the heads of departments based on having lead something before, why can't the heads of those departments also work to the same theory?

Do you disagree that sometimes outside opinions can help an organisation, rather than hinder?