h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Much earlier in this thread people were advocating a system of elected monarchy coupled with department heads taken from within whichever area of expertise they had ~ eg Doctor to be in charge of the NHS etc.At least then( unlike ministers who increasingly seem to be professional politicians with no experience of working outside the political system) we'd have people running departments who had some kind of practical experience of what it means to work in their particular field.
Not an absolute dictatorship ~ a head of state chosen by and answerable to the people.
I'm glad that you seem to think its ok for politicians to keep only some of their manifesto promises ~ and that you think the majority are kept.I don't agree ~ if a definite promise or pledge is made ~ such as in the case of top-up fees, it should not be allowed for politicians to break faith with the people who elected them by going back on their promises.
Such behaviour should not be tolerated from those in whom we've placed so much power and trust.At the moment any government with a large majority can ignore the people for as long as they're in office this must change ~ they have not been chosen to think for us they are supposed to represent our views and needs.

I suppose it might be permissible to break a manifesto pledge if the greater good of the country required it and if it was genuinely pledged at the time of the election. One example might be tax rises if something really unexpected happened to the economy, or if some kind of unforeseen national emergency happened.

For the record, I don't believe that it's acceptable to break manifesto pledges under most circumstances, and I certainly don't defend tuition fees. My wider point was to try to demonstrate that although there are elements of dishonesty, incompetence, and corruption in the current system (which I don't defend), it's (a) much better than it's given credit for and (b) nowhere near as bad as some people would have us believe.

The problem with an elected monarch and a technocracy is how the monarch can be held to account between elections. Parliament can bring down the government any time it likes - who could bring down the monarch mid-term? King Bomba has made some going points about the problems of government by expert earlier in this thread, and I've also already made some comments about the differences between questions of fact and questions of value. Also, I don't think it's true that many ministers have never worked outside politics, and I don't see that trend changing.

Getting back to the core of the argument against MP's. Can ANYONE explain the sense of having a bricklayer operate on your apendix or a lawyer deliver a baby? So why oh WHY put a politician in charge of the NHS, or transport, or the exchequer? It is plain stupid and NO amount of eloquent argument is ever going to make it sensible!

An MP is an MP is an MP and will never be anything but. As I think it was Pixel said they (MP's) are elected to represent OUR views, values etc NOT what they think is best.

As for controlling the Monarch, I have already spelt out the ultimate option several times. Also it would be simple to include a suitable statutory instrument in our reform. I don't see why in this day and age in a civilised country that a Monarch couldn't or wouldn't help to run a country in a benign way for the benefit of their subjects. Already being in a position of great wealth the MAJOR motivation for corruption is removed.

Remember the quote from my anonymous American;" In the US you must have money to get into politics, in the the UK they get into politics to make money".