Are you summing up the situation there marco ? We have Arts candidates, not engineers, scientists or even economists (not accountants)? At least we don't have movie stars or journalists..... Oh... those too.Darn.[/quote]
Yeah, well of course Sen. Fielding is an engineer of sorts! The largest group of Politicians are either Lawyers, or Unionists. (or both). In recent years journalists ('specially ABC)have taken over from farmers in numbers elected. (mostly ALP)
Part of this is because these are easier profession to return to once if the member loses his seat.
Scientist miss out, probably because they usually are highly focused in one area and lack the social desire to spend years getting elected to a job that holds no particular interest for them.
Anthony Albanese has a Bachelor degree in economics, but has always been a professional ALP functionary. The same goes for Cris Bowen, and Greg Combet who has degrees in engineering and economics but has been a union or party functionary all his career.
In fact the current AlP has an overwhelming number of MP's, (more than 80%), who have had no other job after Uni, but AlP or Union politics. More than at any time in it's history, which probably accounts for it's greater discipline in recent years.
On th other side, the lib/Nats seem to have a more widespread group of businessmen,small businessmen, engineers, lawyers, farmers,accountants Doctors even the odd scientist or two. Some like Andrew Robb have degrees in economics, but mostly with a Law degree. Dr Dennis Jensen has a Phd in a Science based Discipline. The Nat have several MP's with degrees in Agri related Science.
In general the Lib/Nats have a greater spread of backgrounds and previous professions, because the professional union/party based uni to Parliament machine doesn't exist. Often this makes the Lib/Nat politicians seem more amateur and eccentric.(often they are!). In both party the trend toward younger candidates in both parties has produced more uni-to-politics politicians.
Lib/Nats do have a greater proportion of MP'S who have been Mayors or local councillors.
Peter C wrote: So which politicians actually report being influenced by advice from scientists? A study by the University of Queensland
"Labour politicians are more influenced by scientists than Liberal/National politicians - 85 per cent of Labour politicians are highly influenced by this group compared to 44 per cent of Liberal/National politicians,"
Which party is full of scientific illiterates whose leader thinks global warming is "absolute crap" and can only be relied upon to pay it lip-service?
Well now, it's good to see that you are so unbiased!
I would say that the University of Queensland 'study' was fairly subjective. The study was complied by members of leftist associations, and one actual subsequent ALP official!
But the study could also reflect the diverse nature of the LIB/Nat's in answering as individuals, and the more disciplined response along party lines by the ALP.
The other piece of spin in this report was the phrasing of the questions. IE; The response to a question like, " Are your influenced by Scientific Opinion? when answered as "it would depend on whose opinion, and what diverse scientific opinions were available was marked as a negative".
Such reports are 'scientifically' valueless when the result has already been determined and the questions engineered to suit!
A careful study of both parties would show that they both are deficient on hard core scientists,(although the libs score with more science grads).
I realise that to an committed lefty, this maybe hard to comprehend by it just maybe that scientists by training are not good at understanding the irrational behaviour of their fellow citizens, and would therefore lack the patience and human skills to put up the onerous task of being an MP.
Most people imagine it's all about power, but in reality as Bob Hawke said its more like trying to herd cats!