Latvian Political Monitor

Simple. You need to see whether the officials are carrying out your instructions. And there are two options. If you are a slogan-spouting monkey, they will never carry them out. Then you're to blame. No one will ever listen to a manager-monkey. If that's not it and you see resistance, then you can't work. Then you have to resolve the personnel issue. In practice, I have observed that officials do not refuse to meet with any significant political force. And they don't even hide it. They already don't know which monkey or human will be the next boss. But in everyday work, of course, the current manager determines the progress. Everything goes to the Saeima through the political filter. Which is logically correct.

@ivars_auzins @akberzins @AndrisKulbergs That is indeed true. From my (financial) sphere — take the budget deficit, for instance. Social media holds the view that 'let's fire civil servants', put all salaries at the minimum at best, and everything will be fine. That is classic financial illiteracy. And on a truly apocalyptic scale.

No, quite the opposite. People vote for ideas, not for implementation. Those are different things. They vote for promises. A deputy is a legislator, defines ideas, elects, and sets the big framework (laws). They are elected for that. No one asks — and how will you implement it, can you show that you can? And mostly they can't, because few have experience, understanding, and management skills. Running ministries is something completely different. It is a complex mechanism, requiring a skilled manager. Completely different skills. Show me 5 politicians who have managed it in 35 years? If there are, then why is so much botched? Those are different things. And since they are mixed, what results? The answer is the dominance of technocracy. Civil servants are professionals of their craft. They outplay the formal 'leader' and wait for the next minister. Because with sprinkling ideas and sloganism in meetings, in the eyes of civil servants you are just another clown. Without authority.

Not only me or Aiva Vīksna, Kulbergs himself, then neurosurgeon Putniņš, civil servant Brencis, the prime minister's adviser Bolēvics, former health minister Meņģelsone. They elected us, but what? None of us are party members; the government is led by non-partisan Andris with his own personal understanding. So what? Bad? There are other people working in the office who were not elected. And? If they don't cope, they'll be replaced. The United List is a special construction. Others don't have one like it. The boundary between a professional and a party member practically does not exist. A mix. Is it bad, then, that professionals hold positions (elected or otherwise)? I support @AndrisKulbergs's position. In every case it is better than when there are only professional talkers without doers. Then all positions are filled with only pleasantly (re)speaking people.

Accountability before voters is nevertheless easier to achieve if you can replace an incompetent minister/manager. One who does not implement your plans, which you promised to the voter. You are answerable for promises; no one elects you for an ability to run something. If you put yourself in, then it comes into conflict with yourself and is practically impossible. We have seen that very often. The problem is even more nuanced. If you put someone other than yourself as minister, then you are not the one basking on TV. But electability is proportional to visibility, which the minister gains more of. And then in the next elections... Right now there is an interesting situation with the defence minister, for example. He is a true professional, but he is not in parties. Is that bad? Or maybe fresh air?

I am fascinated by politicians' phrase “first we must agree on the tasks to be done.” Dear people, for the last twenty years those tasks have been almost the same, it's just that so far carrying them out has been poor. Let's hope @AndrisKulbergs finally shows how things should be done.

What is this? Why should I mark someone down if I don't know them? There is no reason either to single out or to disparage. Neutral attitude. Otherwise it becomes Winnie the Pooh. Slapping a friend in the ear just because we seem to be thinking bad thoughts. But yes, there are people who do that, who have that attitude toward any stranger. The basic attitude is negative. But that, I think, is not characteristic of most people, because people are archetypally social beings and tend to seek understanding. If a party has put a person on the list and you vote for this party, then you basically trust that choice (and show a neutral attitude, because you don't know the person yourself).

I disagree, and here is why. A professional in the ministerial post works with a party mandate. Politically supervised. That will always be so by definition, because no party will put in someone who does not promise to implement the party's directives. If they fail, they are recalled. If they turn out not professional enough, too. The problem with MPs who become ministers is that they are harder to recall. Even if they totally ruin everything. There are many examples. Why are they not recalled? Because they are usually party bigwigs, leaders. They essentially put themselves in 'a bigger salary and more TV time'. Who can recall them then? That is why in the end there are various messes and incompetence.

@ppkordenis 🤷🏽

That has nothing to do with a locomotive. Mutual crossing-out (internal competition) so that one can climb up oneself. This can be shown with high confidence mathematically. For example, the simplest is to take candidates unknown to the public and calculate the average number of their minus votes (separately in each district). Unknown candidates will be crossed out mainly only by competitors and their friends/relatives. This average can then be subtracted from everyone. It will give a truer picture (the 'mutual settlements' removed).

@VirtuvesSarunas @armandsbrants @tv24_lv @presesklubs No worries. Everyone has their own motives for their choices. AS's overarching goal has been achieved with interest… nuances/personalities +/- etc. are of secondary importance 👍

@10Salaca @VirtuvesSarunas @armandsbrants @tv24_lv @presesklubs I'm smiling! :)

@ivchix @SatoriLV @pucej I am talking about Satori's own professionalism, not my candidacy, my diploma or my previous occupation. Clearly biased, an exemplar of short-sighted thinking. It isn't about Kulbergs, but about the development of thought as such. I read Satori, and overall I like it.

@10Salaca @VirtuvesSarunas @armandsbrants @tv24_lv @presesklubs You mean those few thousand?😅 Please, if there's nothing to pick on, then skip🤝

A real step to reduce bureaucracy – at my proposal, the Cabinet of Ministers decided to abandon the separate Public Benefit Commission. From now on, the evaluation of organizations will be fully carried out only by @vid_gov, which already now collects and analyses the information needed for decision-making.

A rhetorical question or a question motivated by stupidity?

@AgneseMargevica The rooms can still be somehow cobbled together from several faction rooms, but the discussion halls are not that large, so it really can turn out that the Red Hall will have to be used for faction meetings.

If we lose Latgale, we may lose all of Latvia too... https://t.co/QvDsIXRBPa