Thanks for taking time to


Thanks for taking time to look at these ideas Candace

You ask “Why for a limited time?”

I am suggesting that an expert has a limited tenure before being replaced by another expert. This serves two purposes. Firstly, this reduces the opportunity to become corrupt. There is an assumption here that the appointments committees have done a good job in ensuring that candidates do not enter the job already corrupt. Secondly, it gives more people a chance to influence government policy. In doing so it is enhancing the democratic principle of distributing influence/power. One of my observations is that the influence the average person has over government policy in one vote every few years is negligible. It is better to drop votes and politicians in favour of more ordinary people having a direct influence on policy by taking jobs in government. This is partly done by subdividing government into more roles, but also by changing the people in them often. You could look at this as an improved balance of power. In a representative democracy almost all the power is wielded by a few politicians. Very little power is then distributed among everyone else as votes. In my scheme all power is distributed to many more people than there are politicians, but at the cost of votes of negligible value. This is closer in an important sense to the most fundamental democratic principle of influence in the hands of the ordinary people. I know that some people will say the vote is not worthless as it excludes poor politicians and parties from government. However, there is plenty of evidence that it does not do a good job, such as UK politicians in prison for corruption, and effectively a choice between just two parties for government. There is a constant sequence of problems caused by incompetence that risks throwing the UK into a disaster situation. It is only a matter of time before it happens. We should act to change this crazy system before it happens, not after. We need evolution, not revolution.

You also ask “How do the people correct abuse without a vote?”

Policing units are empowered to investigate and remove members of government who are abusing their influence. Anyone from the government or outside of government can request that a member of government be investigated. People can check that members of government are acting correctly by examining the meetings and output of government, as all activity in government is open to examination by anyone. Multiple independent policing units divide this important power up, so that even if corruption gets into one policing unit, multiple others can be asked to check it. Many detailed rules must apply to policing units to ensure their integrity, but this scheme is less corruptible than the current system where politicians are just about untouchable. UK politicians even have parliamentary privilege to escape the laws that apply to the rest of us. The current system certainly is very much more open to abuse.

You ask “What sort of influence would be considered criminal?”

A lot of detailed guidelines need to be created on this. My current thinking is that a range of measures are required from feedback that behaviour is unsuitable, for example being seen as aggressive or overly assertive, thought issuing guidance and reprimands, eventually culminating in exclusion or even criminal proceedings. I believe in early and staged intervention rather than late and severe intervention. Sometimes people are not aware that they are not acting as they should be, and the feedback will stop an escalation to a more problematic scenario. As described above, the police are subdivided into separate units that can be called upon to moderate each other. One of the important principles of policing is well defined and narrow influence. This helps prevent them from becoming corrupt. So the police I have been discussing so far only deal with matters of behaviour of government members. I see a role for a distinct policing unit to enforce changes in policy that does not conform to the citizen-government contract. They would have power to dismiss all members of a specialism that were shown to have created policy that was intentionally against the contract. At the other end of the scale they could simply require a policy to be changed where for example a technical infraction occurred.

You say “… replacing the ability to vote and the presence of authority figures in government … would turn your expert government into a front for a police state which couldnt possibly be more democratic than representative democracy.”

Remember these policing units only have influence over members of government and in very well defined and narrow circumstances. They have no influence over anyone else. It is essential to restrict their power to prevent any abuse of it. They are distinct from the criminal police and have no influence outside of government. I certainly want to avoid creating an authoritarian police state. I have an egalitarian and liberal agenda.



  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <h2> <h3> <div> <span> <blockquote> <!--break--> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <hr> <br> <table> <td> <tr> <img> <map>
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.

More information about formatting options

Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.