New form of government

[chaz wyman]

The Biggest Problem with the UK at the moment is the lack of diversity in the representatives. But this is a problem not being faced, as such.
This immediately seems like a false statement given the increased and increasing representation of women and minorities that the UK Parliament has enjoyed, especially during the last Labour Government.
What politicians have managed to achieve is to divert attention form the real issue, by classifying representation as a gender and race issue, they have diverted attention away from the class issue. This has been achieved by the central parties controlling the local parties and imposing candidates from the centre rather than allowing local people to put up their own candidates.
The result has been that the "public-school boys" from Eton, Harrow, and other fee-paying establishments, who went to Cambridge or Oxford and got first class degrees in PPE, fill the upper ranks of a new political Elite, having cut their teeth as a Parliamentary Advisor and then groomed for leadership. This club of elites tend to choose more of their own kind. To me it does not matter is they are women, asian or black- none of these people know what it is like to have to scrimp and save to put dinner on the table; they don't know about hardship and going without. As far as all that goes - Labour, Liberal, Tory - they are all the same whatever colour or gender they are.

[chaz wyman]

I am seeking constructive comments on a theoretical new form of government I have been developing, called Expert Government.
Its principal feature is that all policy is devised by experts that act only within their specialisations. Expert Government is a single entity with no politicians or parties, just experts and some administrative staff to help them. Otherwise it is dogma free to enable it to adapt to changing needs and circumstances. Structurally its experts are grouped according to their respective specialisations, and all experts have equal influence within their specialism, but none outside of it. Influence is not organised into hierarchies.
The web site has a more information http://expertgovernment.org.uk/ .
There are two significant observations that influenced the principal feature of Expert Government. Firstly, most problems that befall us seem to be within our ability to prevent, because they arise from our own actions. Take for example recent sovereign debt problems. Secondly, humans have constructed very sophisticated and necessarily complex systems that enable advanced civilisation. Those systems are based on the principle of collaboration between many experts acting in their own specialisms. Indeed, it is hard to see how else such sophisticated systems could be organised. It is my opinion that a country is also a sophisticated system. I believe that the problems that befall us are because we do not use a system of collaborating experts as government. Instead administrators are making decisions. These administrators are not sufficiently aware of all the sophistication and complexity in the system, so problems appear to them to come out of nowhere.
Thanks for reading, and for any useful thoughts you can offer.

This is a hideous idea. No.

We already have this. It's called a civil service. Such a government is conservative, moribund, ossified. Little change is possible from such a government.
It can only respond to its self preservation, and has no concern for the welfare or democratic sensibilities and needs of its citizens.
The body of civili servants is an impediment to change, growth and progress. It is the elected politicians that are turned from well meaning idealistic movers and shakers into the pale wretches - the Gollums of the establishment who regard the system as precious.
What interests do such people serve if not their own personal wealth?

[John]

We already have this. It's called a civil service. Such a government is conservative, moribund, ossified. Little change is possible from such a government.
It can only respond to its self preservation, and has no concern for the welfare or democratic sensibilities and needs of its citizens.
The body of civili servants is an impediment to change, growth and progress. It is the elected politicians that are turned from well meaning idealistic movers and shakers into the pale wretches - the Gollums of the establishment who regard the system as precious.
What interests do such people serve if not their own personal wealth?

Is this an attack on the civil service as it is now (UK I assume) or on the civil service in conceptualizers proposed state?

I get a bit touchy about the constant attacks public servants get from the Daily Mail, Express and other Tory rags constantly describing then as bowler hatted toffs when the average civil servant actually earns £24,695 per year £1,015 less than the average private sector pay, and 61% earn less than £25,000 with 31% earning less than £20,000.

Believe me, for the vast majority of people a career in the civil service is not the best option if all you're interested in is the pursuit of wealth.

[chaz wyman]

We already have this. It's called a civil service. Such a government is conservative, moribund, ossified. Little change is possible from such a government.
It can only respond to its self preservation, and has no concern for the welfare or democratic sensibilities and needs of its citizens.
The body of civili servants is an impediment to change, growth and progress. It is the elected politicians that are turned from well meaning idealistic movers and shakers into the pale wretches - the Gollums of the establishment who regard the system as precious.
What interests do such people serve if not their own personal wealth?

Is this an attack on the civil service as it is now (UK I assume) or on the civil service in conceptualizers proposed state?

I get a bit touchy about the constant attacks public servants get from the Daily Mail, Express and other Tory rags constantly describing then as bowler hatted toffs when the average civil servant actually earns £24,695 per year £1,015 less than the average private sector pay, and 61% earn less than £25,000 with 31% earning less than £20,000.

Believe me, for the vast majority of people a career in the civil service is not the best option if all you're interested in is the pursuit of wealth.

I'm not talking about the pay of low level civil servants - I'm talking about the Whitehall Mandarins, that Humphreys that operate behind the scenes - the EXPERTS of government that conceptualiser recommends that ought to run the government. They already do.
As for the Daily Mail - I would not wipe my backside with it in a shortage of toilet paper.

[John]

I'm not talking about the pay of low level civil servants - I'm talking about the Whitehall Mandarins, that Humphreys

I thought you were but, like I said, I'm probably just a touch sensitive about it.

that operate behind the scenes - the EXPERTS of government that conceptualiser recommends that ought to run the government. They already do.

I think I said something similar and was concerned that he wanted to remove what little democratic oversight we might actually have. Like all large organisations the civil service has an agenda or it's own and within it different factions have their own agenda's and interests.

[conceptualizer]

I would appreciate more comments just on the principal idea used in Expert Government. To refresh your memory:

Civilisation has advanced in a large part due to specialisation of human activity. As this paradigm is so successful I suggest government comprises only specialists. As government has far reaching effects, Specialist Government should be improved by only using experts, and so the idea became Expert Government. I may be overoptimistic about the value of my trade of some egalitarianism for ability, by moving from specialists who have random ability to experts with good or better ability, but I note that employers generally try to pick the best candidate.

[Thundril]

With regard to government; I am not a consumer, I am a citizen. I don't want the most efficient execution of administration, I want to have a say in how we govern ourselves.
With regard to the role of 'experts'; It is true that government often doesn't pay enough attention to the 'experts' whose opinions it solicits, but that is, IMO, better than obeying them blindly and always.

[Notvacka]

With regard to government; I am not a consumer, I am a citizen. I don't want the most efficient execution of administration, I want to have a say in how we govern ourselves.

Well said.

Also, experts tend to have narrow focus, which makes them biased, while government needs to consider the larger picture. (Due to the ever increasing amount of human knowledge, an expert is somebody who knows almost everything about almost nothing. )

Actually, I think the real problem is that government depends too much upon experts.

For instance, the present debt crisis facing nations as different as Greece and the US, is probably due to politicians listening too much to economists when deciding upon economic policy. And the proposed solutions (proposed by IMF experts) will probably only make things worse...

[John]

For instance, the present debt crisis facing nations as different as Greece and the US, is probably due to politicians listening too much to economists when deciding upon economic policy. And the proposed solutions (proposed by IMF experts) will probably only make things worse...

This highlights one of the problems that it wasn't necessarily that the government was listening too much to economists but that it was listening too much to the economists who were telling it what it wanted to hear and dissenting voices were effectively sidelined.

[Arising_uk]

I would appreciate more comments just on the principal idea used in Expert Government. To refresh your memory:

Civilisation has advanced in a large part due to specialisation of human activity. As this paradigm is so successful I suggest government comprises only specialists. As government has far reaching effects, Specialist Government should be improved by only using experts, and so the idea became Expert Government. I may be overoptimistic about the value of my trade of some egalitarianism for ability, by moving from specialists who have random ability to experts with good or better ability, but I note that employers generally try to pick the best candidate.

You are promoting Platos idea of the 'philosopher kings' and the Republic.

Employers generally try to pick the best candidate who fits in.

[chaz wyman]

I would appreciate more comments just on the principal idea used in Expert Government. To refresh your memory:

Civilisation has advanced in a large part due to specialisation of human activity. As this paradigm is so successful I suggest government comprises only specialists. As government has far reaching effects, Specialist Government should be improved by only using experts, and so the idea became Expert Government. I may be overoptimistic about the value of my trade of some egalitarianism for ability, by moving from specialists who have random ability to experts with good or better ability, but I note that employers generally try to pick the best candidate.

You are hopelessly naive

[artisticsolution]

Mick:This is the kind of thing people often say out of anger, but I'm not sure it is true. It isn't easy to quantify the levels of corruption in government, let alone the levels of brazenness. Can you say why you think the problem is increasing, AS?

Hi Mick,

I agree that the levels of brazenness and corruption are hard to accurately pin point. I think it's just more an accumulation of laws, policies changes in ethics, government and business that I have seen going on in my country in my lifetime.

It used to be that it was considered unethical (poor taste?) for Doctors and Lawyers to advertise. Now they advertise.

It used to be it was unethical for business to give money to political campaigns...now it is common. In fact last year...or was it two years ago the supreme court rolled back campaign spending limits on corporations.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =122805666

There are other examples which I can't think of at the moment. It just seems to me that unethical behavior is fast becoming the new shrewd and ambitious political and business desired prototype. It has become glorified as the way to be. The problem is most everyone will be a victim of this unethical treatment at some point in their lives. The ones who are taking advantage now will be the same ones who will be taken by the next generation of brash young businessmen who have a hankering for greed. Let's face it...age gets us all. You don't stay on your game forever.

I believe we have allowed the smooth talkers to dupe us into accepting a new brand of "ethics". One that is not ethical at all.

[chaz wyman]

Mick:This is the kind of thing people often say out of anger, but I'm not sure it is true. It isn't easy to quantify the levels of corruption in government, let alone the levels of brazenness. Can you say why you think the problem is increasing, AS?

Ironically, it is exactly his form of non representative government that is the direct cause of the financial crisis. Economist 'experts" devises systems of financial products, allowed by de-regulation, that has opened the door for corrupt practices that has led to the current Crash.


Hi Mick,

I agree that the levels of brazenness and corruption are hard to accurately pin point. I think it's just more an accumulation of laws, policies changes in ethics, government and business that I have seen going on in my country in my lifetime.

It used to be that it was considered unethical (poor taste?) for Doctors and Lawyers to advertise. Now they advertise.

This might be unseemly, but it is hardly corrupt!

It used to be it was unethical for business to give money to political campaigns...now it is common. In fact last year...or was it two years ago the supreme court rolled back campaign spending limits on corporations.

The experts you are talking about donated 5 billion dollars the the American political funds last year. That is why Ben Bernacke (the man that allowed the current financial crisis to happen (and made millions himself)) has been reappointed by Obama.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =122805666

There are other examples which I can't think of at the moment. It just seems to me that unethical behavior is fast becoming the new shrewd and ambitious political and business desired prototype. It has become glorified as the way to be. The problem is most everyone will be a victim of this unethical treatment at some point in their lives. The ones who are taking advantage now will be the same ones who will be taken by the next generation of brash young businessmen who have a hankering for greed. Let's face it...age gets us all. You don't stay on your game forever.

I believe we have allowed the smooth talkers to dupe us into accepting a new brand of "ethics". One that is not ethical at all.

[conceptualizer]

With regard to government; I am not a consumer, I am a citizen. I don't want the most efficient execution of administration, I want to have a say in how we govern ourselves.
With regard to the role of 'experts'; It is true that government often doesn't pay enough attention to the 'experts' whose opinions it solicits, but that is, IMO, better than obeying them blindly and always.

Thank you Thundril
On your first point; a single vote once every few years obviously has a negligible effect on government policy. Tell us, what effect your last vote had on government policy, for which party you voted, and was your constituency considered ‘marginal’ or ‘safe’.

On your second point; I would like to know why you feel that someone who does not understand a matter as well as an expert would be likely to come up with a better decision. Comments like yours are common, but when I ask why I never get a sensible answer. People often say something like ‘experts sometimes get things wrong’. That is due to a number of common factors:

1 At the limits of understanding even experts sometimes make mistakes. This does not mean that a non-expert will do better.

2 Asking the wrong expert, for example, asking a financial services expert for financial advice. Their expertise is in separating you from your money legally using financial services. They are guessing which way the economy and particular investments are going. They make money from your belief that they know. If they did know they would not need your money as they would be rich.

3 The assumption that government is trivial, and so we should have fun voting on who gets power. Government is not trivial, as demonstrated by how often politicians get things wrong. People with this view should be restricted to voting on programmes like X-Factor where they can do less damage.

[conceptualizer]

... experts tend to have narrow focus, which makes them biased, while government needs to consider the larger picture. (Due to the ever increasing amount of human knowledge, an expert is somebody who knows almost everything about almost nothing. )

Actually, I think the real problem is that government depends too much upon experts.

For instance, the present debt crisis facing nations as different as Greece and the US, is probably due to politicians listening too much to economists when deciding upon economic policy. And the proposed solutions (proposed by IMF experts) will probably only make things worse...

Thank you Notvacka

Experts do have a narrow focus. If they are consulted only on the area they understand well they are the correct people to ask. It is foolish to ask people who are not experts on a matter for their views. I suspect that you may have a misunderstanding of my intent. I am not suggesting we simply replace politicians with experts. Government responsibilities need to be partitioned into many specialisations. Experts deliberate only on their specialisation. Also, do not confuse 'real' experts with so called 'advisors' who may have a quite different agenda.

I am curious as to why you feel that government depends too much on experts. Please expand.

I think John answered your point on the debt crisis reasonably well.
Also my last reply addressed it.