![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueThe problem with democracy, is that 50% of the population is of below average intelligence. (I was going to say 'sub normal, however it appears that the definition of sub normal when applied to intelligence has a different meaning of below 80 IQ.)
In the UK, we don't really live in a democracy. Our prime minister is elected from within his party by the rest of the party. The parties themselves gain power on the basis of gaining consituency seats around the country.
The problem is, that everyone wants a free lunch. Oh they agree that the UK must become great and economically powerful, but don't like the idea of building an airport near them.
They want to have good public services, transport, healthcare, benefits but dislike the idea of having to pay more tax.
They want freedom do what they want, except in situations where someone is doing something they don't like, in which case they must be stopped and laws made against it.
And at a pretty fundamental level, politics is a popularity contest, rather than a question of who's going to be best to run our country.
I would propose that the right way to run a country, is the same as running a company. You pick a person who you think would do a good job. And you call them Prime Minister. You find someone with good financials knowledge, and make them the budget minister.
And you appoint people to your 'board of directors' not from the popularity contest, but in the same way as would would any other job - advertise, interview and appoint. Choosing a selection of 'experts' with real life experience of how the world works, to give their viewpoint on a subject.
A teacher to advise on the education system.
An IT person to advise on information policy.
A solider to advise on defense policy.
But through it all, operational guidance comes from the 'top'. Tasks may be delegated downwards, in a 'I trust you do deal with this' kind of way.
The political system as it is, gets turned into a 'citizens forum for issues' to allow the free and fair discussion of services vs. taxes etc. But their opinion is treated as advice, rather than doctrine.
Obviously there will be those who object to such a radical change in the way things are done in this country. Not least of which, those that are currently in charge at the moment.
However, it should not be forgotten that in the UK we have a reigning monarch. And the majority of our armed forces and police are primarily loyal to the Queen. Dissent will occur, and the masses will object. They will also be oppressed, and will hate their lack of political choicese. But lets face it, election turn outs have dropped so significantly, that it's only a minority that even care any more, who's running the country. At least this way we get someone competent running the show.
In the UK, we don't really live in a democracy. Our prime minister is elected from within his party by the rest of the party. The parties themselves gain power on the basis of gaining consituency seats around the country.
The problem is, that everyone wants a free lunch. Oh they agree that the UK must become great and economically powerful, but don't like the idea of building an airport near them.
They want to have good public services, transport, healthcare, benefits but dislike the idea of having to pay more tax.
They want freedom do what they want, except in situations where someone is doing something they don't like, in which case they must be stopped and laws made against it.
And at a pretty fundamental level, politics is a popularity contest, rather than a question of who's going to be best to run our country.
I would propose that the right way to run a country, is the same as running a company. You pick a person who you think would do a good job. And you call them Prime Minister. You find someone with good financials knowledge, and make them the budget minister.
And you appoint people to your 'board of directors' not from the popularity contest, but in the same way as would would any other job - advertise, interview and appoint. Choosing a selection of 'experts' with real life experience of how the world works, to give their viewpoint on a subject.
A teacher to advise on the education system.
An IT person to advise on information policy.
A solider to advise on defense policy.
But through it all, operational guidance comes from the 'top'. Tasks may be delegated downwards, in a 'I trust you do deal with this' kind of way.
The political system as it is, gets turned into a 'citizens forum for issues' to allow the free and fair discussion of services vs. taxes etc. But their opinion is treated as advice, rather than doctrine.
Obviously there will be those who object to such a radical change in the way things are done in this country. Not least of which, those that are currently in charge at the moment.
However, it should not be forgotten that in the UK we have a reigning monarch. And the majority of our armed forces and police are primarily loyal to the Queen. Dissent will occur, and the masses will object. They will also be oppressed, and will hate their lack of political choicese. But lets face it, election turn outs have dropped so significantly, that it's only a minority that even care any more, who's running the country. At least this way we get someone competent running the show.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-03 06:33 am (UTC)Welcome to my random diatribe of utter tosh :)