Nice ideas but ....

The previous post asked inter alia the question if countries can be treated (ranked etc) in a similar way to corporations.

Let's stay on this comparison, but for a different reason.

Political parties like to differentiate themselves on policy ideas not policy implementation ability. They compete to attract voters based on their ideology, their policy ideas and in some cases, specific policy agendas (aka manifestos).

Would it not be interesting though to see somewhere 2 political parties compete on their ability to actually implement a certain policy agenda?

Of course, when a political party, alone or in coalition (eg Tories-Libs in the UK or CDU/CSU-FDP in Germany, etc) wins a majority to govern it does so with Ministers and Deputy/Junior Ministers and in some countries with Secretary Generals of Ministries. And advisers. A government does not get, normally and properly, to choose or hire/fire most of the human resources (public servants) a state has.

Much like a new corporate CEO or Board cannot claim to manage a corporation by hiring/firing most of it staff. What good is a football manager (in any type of football, US or soccer) if to do his job he needs to fire most of the current players? That is actually one of the reasons it is managers that get fired, not whole rosters!

Thus back to the original thought. Why are political parties competing on ideology, policy ideas and at beast policy agendas (manifestos)  instead of their ability to implement a certain policy agenda? Because, after all, it is easier. Or has been.