Proponents of big government generally like those with supreme power to be everyday kind of blokes who are 'in touch' with the needs of the little guy.
Apparently it would be a very bad to appoint a Prime Minister who didn't know the cost of a loaf of bread, or who had many servants, or who lived in a huge mansion. Or who made too much money, and therefore couldn't understand the trials and tribulations of those who were unemployed, or in the 'mortgage belt'.
Apparently someone who earned a wage (but not too high a wage) makes a better Prime Minister than someone who has run a giant corporation. Which is a bit strange, because their model of ideal government is pretty much like the management of a large corporation.
Q: If you wanted to create a country with full employment would you appoint a
leader
(a) with a proven track record in creating many jobs for other people; or
(b) who had simply accepted a job created by someone else because he
didn't have the ability to create one of his own?
Q: If you wanted to create a country without crippling government debt, would
you appoint a leader
(a) with a proven track record managing massive budgets profitably; or
(b) who struggled to balance his own credit card account, and pay his own mortgage?
Q: If you wanted to create a country who would make the country
internationally competitive, would you appoint a leader
(a) with a proven track record of leading a team competing both nationally and internationally; or who
(b) is unable to even compete with their own team members to get promoted?
However in the leftist mindset, these things are less important than compassion, and a sense of a fair go (whatever that means). Once again, the left is not concerned with the creation or protection of wealth, but merely with its distribution.
It doesn't make much analytical ability to recognize that creating full employment, zero debt and international competitiveness would do far more for the poor than mere wealth distribution. But still the bizarre reasoning perpetuates.
To it's credit, the ALP in 2006 embraced its own ideologically hypocrisy and appointed a rich and powerful leader.
See