Should MP's have to come from professional backgrounds rather than taking useless degrees such as PP

[Castiel]

Indeed, Castiel mentioned similar, has there ever been a case of such a government?
This doesn't even run or work within universities and similar does it?

The only two countries that I can think of that may be considered a form of technocracy are China and the former USSR.

There have (according to the following article from the LSE) also been several technocratic governments in the EU in recent years where interim Governments or leaders have been appointed rather than elected.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2...-the-failure-of-mainstream-political-parties/

The problem with a Technocracy is that it removes representative Democracy, we would effectively be ruled by an elite ruling class.

 

[gropingmantis]

MPs doing PPE at uni is hardly the main issue with the political system.

The biggest issue is the general population's ignorance of how the system is supposed to work.

You are supposed to vote for the candidate in your constituency that you feel will most accurately give your views and ideals in parliament, whether this is through their existing manifesto or by you petitioning them to stand up for you in the house.
However what happens is people vote for the party they like most...or even worse, the party their friends/parents vote for. You should never be voting for a party or its leader as PM in a general election.
Voting for a party is for local elections as that determines how your local area will be governed.

Sadly until people realise this our system is totally broken.

 

[Housey]

They should be world class at Mario Kart or Sonic the Hedgehog.

 

[Meridian]

this is Jakarta after all, like any Muslim dominated society there is a massive under current of corruption and bribery as a simple means of getting things done)

Wow. A thread about the qualifications of MPs, and by page two you've gone to Muslim-bashing? Even by the standards of this forum that's impressive. It's also cobblers, if you think there isn't rampant corruption here. The big difference between first-world and second/third world corruption is that the pool of people on the take is restricted to the rich over here. Most of Britain operates on a few rounds of mutual back-scratching, under-table deals, nods-and-winks, and who-knows-who. Nothing as blatant a brown paper envelope (well, not usually); just a quick donation to the Party, then a two year wait, then a gong. Or a round of golf or two and that planning permission just sails through.

 

[Destination]

You might be right, but corruption is such a large part of life there and people are so sick of it, they have elected this guy on the back of it, he ran his province well, and now seems to be doing a decent job of cleaning up Jakarta, and it looks very likely he will be badgered into running for the next presidency.

 

[Xordium]

The problem with a Technocracy is that it removes representative Democracy, we would effectively be ruled by an elite ruling class.

Instead of two opposing but highly similar teams who went to the same school and came from the same privileged background and therefore despite their protestations actually fulfill the same agenda.

 

[Tunney]

Indeed, Castiel mentioned similar, has there ever been a case of such a government?
This doesn't even run or work within universities and similar does it?

When Brazil was controlled by the military, it was run as a technocracy for quite a while. It worked pretty well apart from all of the people who 'disappeared'.

 

[Castiel]

Instead of two opposing but highly similar teams who went to the same school and came from the same privileged background and therefore despite their protestations actually fulfill the same agenda.

Many MPs come from very disparate backgrounds, particularly in the opposition. However, there is a case to reform Party based politics, although I do not think creating an appointed technocracy is it.

 

[Destination]

I wonder in a supermodern era, could the public ever be trusted to have online referendums on each parlimentary act?

Not in my lifetime most likely.

 

[Castiel]

I wonder in a supermodern era, could the public ever be trusted to have online referendums on each parlimentary act?

Not in my lifetime most likely.

Switzerland do something similar to that, I think I read somewhere.

 

[anything I don't mind]

The only two countries that I can think of that may be considered a form of technocracy are China and the former USSR.

There have (according to the following article from the LSE) also been several technocratic governments in the EU in recent years where interim Governments or leaders have been appointed rather than elected.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2...-the-failure-of-mainstream-political-parties/

The problem with a Technocracy is that it removes representative Democracy, we would effectively be ruled by an elite ruling class.

I never saw technocracy as a removal of democracy, I just saw it as voting for scientists and engineer rather than public speakers.

You mention China. Don't know if you caught this recent ted talk. Thought you might find it interesting. Following from the video is my response i made on other platforms.

I agree with the general point and his criticisms of western democracy are spot on. But as an anarcho-capitalist. I would definitely not want to replace western democracy with a single party system. Although I do agree that it may have many more merits than western democracy. But going from a communist system to a more free and pragmatic modern single party system would be an improvement. Changing western democracy in to a single party system would not have similar results. The transition would be problematic and lead to a much different system than the Chinese have ended up with. He also left out some of the major issues with having a single party system, the fact that freedom of speech is limited is very authoritarian. This problem definitely seems related to the single party system as it is the single party system that must be up held and respected at all times. It is the single party system that results in repercussions due to political criticism.

I think most of the improvement in china are not a result of the single party system but a result of more free market economic policies. The country improved in spite of the single party system not as a result of it.

However i do agree with his points on western democracy and how it has ended up as such a terrible system.

 

[Castiel]

I never saw technocracy as a removal of democracy, I just saw it as voting for scientists and engineer rather than public speakers.

You are aware that MPs come from a myriad of different backgrounds, including Science and Engineering?

A technocracy would remove the representation of the public in favour of an appointed group of experts to determine governance. Ideally we would have a publicly elected Government who acted on behalf of the Public using the advice of experts to best deliver what the electorate need and want......and have you considered what qualofications an expert in governance needs?....A PPE perhaps?

What you are suggesting is removing the rule of the people in favour of the rule of the expert.....the latter forming an elite ruling class, the former being disenfranchised from governance. It would exacerbate the issues we have with our democracy rather than heal them.

 

[Xordium]

I really don't know where you get the idea they are currently representing the people from Castiel other than in name because it's certainly not in action. Do you really think this?