Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Do you agree that the country would be better run by somebody who actually knows what they are doing and not a law graduate who really just craves media attention. Why isn't there a board of real certified experts with no political allegiances in place of the government, who would be prepared to run the country for the good of the country. Instead of having ministers attached to a certain party who have studied politics or economics or law etc, and whose studies are inevitably clouded by personal beliefs and ridiculous inner party politics, why not have a real life economic expert or a real life education expert etc who can govern effectively and without political bias. Although this perhaps does encroach on democracy or freedom of speech, there wouldn't be any pointless cover ups or ridiculous rumours and instead an effective state. I may be wrong, do you think that this is preferable to stupid party politics and unnecessary squabbling?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I sometimes wonder about this. George Osbourne did History at Uni, yet he runs our country's finances.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Harold)
    Do you agree that the country would be better run by somebody who actually knows what they are doing and not a law graduate who really just craves media attention. Why isn't there a board of real certified experts with no political allegiances in place of the government, who would be prepared to run the country for the good of the country. Instead of having ministers attached to a certain party who have studied politics or economics or law etc, and whose studies are inevitably clouded by personal beliefs and ridiculous inner party politics, why not have a real life economic expert or a real life education expert etc who can govern effectively and without political bias. Although this perhaps does encroach on democracy or freedom of speech, there wouldn't be any pointless cover ups or ridiculous rumours and instead an effective state. I may be wrong, do you think that this is preferable to stupid party politics and unnecessary squabbling?
    What you're thinking of is a technocracy:

    ''Scientists, engineers and technologists who have knowledge, expertise or skills, would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen and economists.''

    I too would like to see the UK become more technocratic, but as you've suggested: it isn't very compatible with democracy. I don't expect that we'll get to the stage whereas most elected officials would have, say, a PhD in something related to their job. Why? I can't see someone with such high qualifications working in a system whereas sensationalism and emotions are valued more than the facts.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Harold)
    Do you agree that the country would be better run by somebody who actually knows what they are doing and not a law graduate who really just craves media attention. Why isn't there a board of real certified experts with no political allegiances in place of the government, who would be prepared to run the country for the good of the country. Instead of having ministers attached to a certain party who have studied politics or economics or law etc, and whose studies are inevitably clouded by personal beliefs and ridiculous inner party politics, why not have a real life economic expert or a real life education expert etc who can govern effectively and without political bias. Although this perhaps does encroach on democracy or freedom of speech, there wouldn't be any pointless cover ups or ridiculous rumours and instead an effective state. I may be wrong, do you think that this is preferable to stupid party politics and unnecessary squabbling?
    They're called civil servants.

    It's called the house of Lords.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    What you're thinking of is a technocracy:

    ''Scientists, engineers and technologists who have knowledge, expertise or skills, would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen and economists.''

    I too would like to see the UK become more technocratic, but as you've suggested: it isn't very compatible with democracy. I don't expect that we'll get to the stage whereas most elected officials would have, say, a PhD in something related to their job. Why? I can't see someone with such high qualifications working in a system whereas sensationalism and emotions are valued more than the facts.
    Possibly something to do with the fact that having a PhD means you're an academic. Have you ever met an Academic who has the aility to interact with other people and lead effectively?

    Believe it or not, other people do pick up academic journals and articles and read these things up. Politicians also have advisers who advise. Alan Sugar for example is a government adviser as is Mary Portas is another. Enoch Powell was one of the brightest politicians that this country has ever produced. He studied Latin yet somehow managed to understand the Geopolitical status around him as well as economics.

    Lord Carrington is one of the finest Foreign secretaries this countries ever produced. He was deemed too stupid by his father and sent off to join the Army.

    Winston Churchill led this nation through a world war and never went to University.

    Politicians are more to do with leadership and skills like that don't always come along through higher education.

    All of the above were well rounded personalities who had significant amounts of real life experience that they were able to build on. Most of the Academics I've met I wouldn't trust to change a light bulb, let alone run a country.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Because when we elect people to office, we aren't choosing based on qualifications but on what we want them to do. The essence of democracy is that the settled will of the electorate, however ill-advised, is the law.

    While we elect our government, there is no chance of what you describe coming about. The best that can be done is surround the government and the House of Commons with institutions that can offset its shortfall - such as the monarchy, the House of Lords and the professional civil service.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    They're called civil servants.

    It's called the house of Lords.
    I mean in government.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    What you're thinking of is a technocracy:

    ''Scientists, engineers and technologists who have knowledge, expertise or skills, would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen and economists.''

    I too would like to see the UK become more technocratic, but as you've suggested: it isn't very compatible with democracy. I don't expect that we'll get to the stage whereas most elected officials would have, say, a PhD in something related to their job. Why? I can't see someone with such high qualifications working in a system whereas sensationalism and emotions are valued more than the facts.
    Thanks for the information. A technocracy just seems so logical to me but unfortunately I can't see it happening in my life time sadly. It would perhaps be a bit too similar to a one party state just a lot better.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Harold)
    I mean in government.
    Nothing. But that's why we have a world beating civil service and the House of Lords for checks and balances. Just remember that next time somebody starts banging on about the house of lords. Even John Prescott, who originally wanted it abolished and now sits in it is a huge advocate of it.......pity he didn't research the issue before he tried to dismantle it.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Lord Harold)
    Do you agree that the country would be better run by somebody who actually knows what they are doing and not a law graduate who really just craves media attention. Why isn't there a board of real certified experts with no political allegiances in place of the government, who would be prepared to run the country for the good of the country. Instead of having ministers attached to a certain party who have studied politics or economics or law etc, and whose studies are inevitably clouded by personal beliefs and ridiculous inner party politics, why not have a real life economic expert or a real life education expert etc who can govern effectively and without political bias. Although this perhaps does encroach on democracy or freedom of speech, there wouldn't be any pointless cover ups or ridiculous rumours and instead an effective state. I may be wrong, do you think that this is preferable to stupid party politics and unnecessary squabbling?
    Isn't that the civil service? As a case example, Belgium survived for a whole year just fine with not government.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Nothing. But that's why we have a world beating civil service and the House of Lords for checks and balances. Just remember that next time somebody starts banging on about the house of lords. Even John Prescott, who originally wanted it abolished and now sits in it is a huge advocate of it.......pity he didn't research the issue before he tried to dismantle it.
    You still don't get that I mean that the actual government itself is a technocracy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Harold)
    Do you agree that the country would be better run by somebody who actually knows what they are doing and not a law graduate who really just craves media attention. Why isn't there a board of real certified experts with no political allegiances in place of the government, who would be prepared to run the country for the good of the country. Instead of having ministers attached to a certain party who have studied politics or economics or law etc, and whose studies are inevitably clouded by personal beliefs and ridiculous inner party politics, why not have a real life economic expert or a real life education expert etc who can govern effectively and without political bias. Although this perhaps does encroach on democracy or freedom of speech, there wouldn't be any pointless cover ups or ridiculous rumours and instead an effective state. I may be wrong, do you think that this is preferable to stupid party politics and unnecessary squabbling?
    There would be no cooperation; these people may not have allegiances to a political party, but would believe in a certain political school of thought. For example we could be in a situation where the Chancellor is a socialist and the Prime minister a capitalist. The only solution to this is making sure all the officials have the same political beliefs, but would indeed destroy the democratic state.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by natninja)
    Isn't that the civil service? As a case example, Belgium survived for a whole year just fine with not government.
    It's not dissimilar to the civil service however it is as if members of them assumed ministerial roles under a non political government. For example you may appoint Sir Peter Wall as the defense secretary or Sir John Thomas as the Secretary for justice etc. This would then rid of any political motivation and subsequently sloppy decisions and instead allow the top level of expertise to be applied to the governing of the country.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Harold)
    It's not dissimilar to the civil service however it is as if members of them assumed ministerial roles under a non political government. For example you may appoint Sir Peter Wall as the defense secretary or Sir John Thomas as the Secretary for justice etc. This would then rid of any political motivation and subsequently sloppy decisions and instead allow the top level of expertise to be applied to the governing of the country.


    There's no right or wrong in politics generally. Just different opinions. Take any political ideology/policy and they'll be positives and negatives to that policy. Politics now is playing the blame game to try and get voted in next time. If there's any crazy policies then I'm sure the civil service step in. The goverment is like a big company. It takes years to drive through changes, the CS controls that.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.