What should be the government's (or a politician's) role?

[gingerjedi]

All govts have only one policy.

Get themelves re-elected at any cost.

HTH BIDI

WHS^

At one end of the political spectrum you have a party that panders to the filthy rich and at the other end one that panders to the piss pot poor and both try to pull votes from the centre, either way the 'hoi polloi' end up paying.

How did this happen?

[vetran]

Governments should use all means to stay in power.
They should use their position to gain financially by handing out projects to companies in return for directorships when they retire.
They should ignore the electorate and listen only to banks and oil companies.
They should accept cash for re-election from media companies.
They should use the police force to protect their policy from public criticism

You forgot to sign it Mr B'liar

[Troll]

Ensure that the country is a meritocracy
Make Business play by the rules (not sure if there are any now)
Defend the Realm
Govern for the majority rather than minority interest groups

[Paddy]

Governments should use all means to stay in power.
They should use their position to gain financially by handing out projects to companies in return for directorships when they retire.
They should ignore the electorate and listen only to banks and oil companies.
They should accept cash for re-election from media companies.
They should use the police force to protect their policy from public criticism

[DimPrawn]

All govts have only one policy.

Get themelves re-elected at any cost.

HTH BIDI

[DodgyAgent]

Following a manifesto is basically "following public opinion" though... say for instance we had the death penalty and people were generally in favour if it but a party wanted to remove this. That was the example in the article I read, the DP was revoked when 80% of the public were in favour of it, a decade later 80% were against it.

Another example would be a country where homosexuality is illegal and the population want it to stay that way. Should the government take a part it changing the population's view, or just wait until the population change their minds?

There is another question should people who's lives are affected by problems that the majority of the population have no connection with give way to the majority? Fox hunting and badger culling are two such examples.

[d000hg]

Following a manifesto is basically "following public opinion" though... say for instance we had the death penalty and people were generally in favour if it but a party wanted to remove this. That was the example in the article I read, the DP was revoked when 80% of the public were in favour of it, a decade later 80% were against it.

Another example would be a country where homosexuality is illegal and the population want it to stay that way. Should the government take a part it changing the population's view, or just wait until the population change their minds?

[tractor]

...

The way it is supposed to work is that they develop a manifesto and put it to the people prior to an election, whoever has the most popular manifesto shouled in.

Trouble is, there has always been a disconnect between a manifesto and the propensity for all politicians for doing what is in their own best interest after they have won and screw the public.

Manifestos should at a minimum explain how the objectives are to be achieved. Most don't and that's why they are worded as they are. They can mean all things to all people so it's easy to wriggle out of them once an election has been won.

[Mich the Tester]

Make sure the roads, rail, and sea, waterways and air routes are run properly. Provide for defense of the realm. Provide for a policing system. Run the NHS and the education system. While doing this, balance the books with the amount of money the taxpayer provides and otherwise, get the bloody hell out of the way.

[vetran]

Good question - I think its actually more complex than that.

They should follow the Public's aspirations then shape and explain policy to satisfy that based on honourable and intelligent actions.

[d000hg]

In one of Bill Bryson's old columns I read on a plane the other day, he or someone he referenced said "politicians used to shape public opinion, now they simply follow it".

It made me think, other than grubbing money to their own pockets, which way should a democratically elected government (or an individual MP) work? As we elected them, should they then follow what the public wants? Or as we elected them to govern, have we given them authority to shape the nation according to their own opinions?

Poll coming...