Has he got a point or is it cap? Thoughts?
View attachment VID-20220625-WA0000.mp4
View attachment VID-20220625-WA0000.mp4
That's interesting. There are some parallels to serving an apprenticeship. Plumbers, carpenters and some other trades people serve an apprenticeship to gain experience. Maybe not the best analogy but wouldnt it be better if a politician receives some sort of training before serving in a method similar to that of tradespeople.I'd add to that and suggest that they shouldn't be paid either but prove their worth by outcomes and only be allowed to claim a means tested capped expenses allowance on receipt of valid tangible receipts. The constituents they serve should set the criteria for code of conduct and parameter for scope of representation regarding what they can fight for -no degenerative lifestyles, or anti black anything. I've always held this rationale. It would certainly end corruption and nepotism and cripple WS 👍🏿👊🏿
No, because entry level should be comprehensive understanding of government, constitution, law and history of the country they want to serve. A university degree should cover the knowledge required. Experience would ensure from on the job. The point is to prove their commitment without the monetary, privileged trappings conducive to corruption and bias. They should go in qualified.That's interesting. There are some parallels to serving an apprenticeship. Plumbers, carpenters and some other trades people serve an apprenticeship to gain experience. Maybe not the best analogy but wouldnt it be better if a politician receives some sort of training before serving in a method similar to that of tradespeople.
Right. An undergraduate could have a work placement as part of the degree to accelerate their learning.No, because entry level should be comprehensive understanding of government, constitution, law and history of the country they want to serve. A university degree should cover the knowledge required. Experience would ensure from on the job. The point is to prove their commitment without the monetary, privileged trappings conducive to corruption and bias. They should go in qualified.
The issue is that it doesn’t address the problem with Politicians in the first place which is campaign financing. All licensing does is reduce the pool of candidates the corporations could buy out.Has he got a point or is it cap? Thoughts?
View attachment 7475
Food for thought, no doubt.The issue is that it doesn’t address the problem with Politicians in the first place which is campaign financing. All licensing does is reduce the pool of candidates the corporations could buy out.