I don't write much about politics, probably because I don't think much about it. I'm fairly apathetic really, but I think this might be because I share the commonly held belief that there isn't much room for political change in even the best democracies in the world. Our systems have already been determined, and even though better ones are out there, they depart so far from what we currently have that we would have to re-trace our steps a long way to take those roads. So I am really just apathetic about the current political system, but necessarily politics as a subject.

One thing I don't get about politics is this: Why is it that we elect members of parliament based on their political beliefs, oratory skill, competence and general likeability, and then these people are entrusted with jobs that they haven't received any training in or shown any skills in at all? For example, an MP is appointed Defence Secretary by the Prime Minister, but usually that person will have never displayed any aptitude for such a job. That they will be good at it is simply a guess. Meanwhile, our chief admirals, generals and air chief marshals have to report and receive instruction from somebody who has been elected by a single constituency of citizens for their political beliefs, oratory skill, competence and general likeability. But surely none of these traits are very highly correlated with being a good Defence Secretary? It seems to me that there must be at least 200,000 people in the UK (of 61 million) who are better candidates for this role than the current incumbent. They are simply in virtue of having some experience and training in that field.

I still think there is a place for MPs, but their place should be as the jury of the country. Experts should propose what they think is the best solution to some problem, and advise the MPs on what to do, but ultimately the MPs should choose. They are the expert decision-makers, because we have elected them to do the best for our country. They haven't been elected as the foremost expert on transport or immigration or military tactics, but on decision-making for the country, and also working for the interests of their constituency.

What I would propose is this sort of system. We keep the House of Commons, but we also have another larger system working in the background, a house of experts. None of the MPs enjoy any special priviledges, except the Prime Minister whose power is greatly reduced and who basically just represents the MPs. For every member of the cabinet we currently have, we ought to have a resident expert. One for defence, foreign affairs, justice, health, business, children and family, transport, energy etc. These positions would be held by people that the UK has collectively chosen as the best expert in the kingdom. How do we do that though? Well, for each department we could have a large section of society who elect a group of people who will then elect the expert. Consider our expert on justice for example. We ought to have 100,000 people who qualify as Level 1 Justice electors. Who are these people? Well they should be common people who have some understanding of the law. Everybody who has a law degree automatically gains membership of the group for 5 years. Many other professions will also allow membership into the group, but perhaps not as quickly as a law degree. After 5 years there will be sufficient reason to see whether a law graduate qualifies as having a good reason to still be an elector. If they have moved out of law and not done anything in the legal profession then they will no longer have a place. Public officials, experienced police officers and chiefs will also have routes into Level 1 membership. Being a member at level 1 is not really anything to brag about, and there are so many departments that a lot of people will be a member of some level 1 group. Some people will be in two or more Level 1 groups but they will be rare. Every 4 years or so, the Level 1s all vote on the individuals they believe to know the most about the law. Everybody in the country can be voted for, they can even vote for themselves, but for most of them, if they do vote for themselves, they are will be the only one who does. They could vote perhaps for the professors who taught them law, and their law firm bosses, because these are the people they personally know who are the best and most experienced. Perhaps they each get 20 votes, that's 2 million votes cast in total. Once the votes are counted, the 1000 people with the most votes gain Level 2 membership. These people could all probably be called real experts on the law. Level 2 membership is a small brag. It comes with no income, but would probably look good on a CV. The 1000 members of Level 2 then get to vote on a top 10, who gain level 3 membership, and the highest-placed individual becomes the official British expert. Moreover it should be a duty for these 10 individuals to fulfil their new roles, and they ought to be compensated accordingly. The reason for this level 1/2/3 business is that I don't personally know who is the foremost expert on law. I suspect even most lawyers don't, although they have a better idea than me. It's probably one of the law lords, but I don't know any of them. However, I suspect that lawyers and law graduates do know people who really could elect the best expert in the law.

Then what happens is that these 10 experts debate what the best action is for the country in their discipline. The representative expert then reports the advice to the House of Commons. If any of the other experts are divided on what should be done, then they will be called to the House to debate their point. In the end the MPs judge the arguments of the experts and vote on what to do. Some of the MPs might have already decided which way to go, possibly because their constituency feels very strongly about a certain issue, and they have already decided that they will have to side with their constituents rather than with the experts, but on the whole, the guidance of the experts will persuade and inform the MPs. Furthermore, the debates and arguments of the level 3 experts will be a matter of public record, as will the votes of each individual MP. So the people of the country will know whether their MP has listened to the advice of the experts or not, and this could influence their collective decisions to re-elect the MPs.

But how should we choose what motions to address? Surely MPs should be allowed to come to government with a campaign given to them by their constituents, and if they were simply required to vote on other people's motions then their voice would never be heard if their particular campaign didn't come up. Well, when a new Level 3 committee is elected, their first concern ought to be in coming up with some motions and their priorities: the changes that they think are most important to the country. They should come up with about a year's worth of motions themselves, and address these to the MPs when it is the time of their particular department. (remember the MPs have to hear from all the departments whenever they want to argue and pass a motion). At the same time the MPs should argue amongst themselves any motions they want passed. Collectively they will come up with a few, and pass these onto the committee of experts. The experts will then pass their judgment on it. How important is this debate? Does anything need changing? If they decide that there is an important issue there then they will pass it as a motion to be discussed by themselves, then debate it, and them present their findings back to the House of Commons who then vote on it. The experts should be able to reject some motions from even being discussed by them. Possibly they already realise, as experts, that the discussion is pointless, or that the best system is already in place to deal with it: any changes would only alter it for the worse. Now if they continually reject the motions discussed by the MPs in favour of their own motions then there will be repurcussions for them, since they are themselves elected by 100,000 people, a very large chunk of the population.

One other thing: I would like to see in this country more opportunities for the people to vote on an actual issue. In the USA quite often you see advertisements on TV and in public saying things like "YES ON PROP 25" or "NO ON PROP 133". I don't know how their system works but somehow there are some issues where the laypeople are allowed to directly vote for or against a law being made. We should have the same here. I don't know what sorts of laws should be voted for by the public and which by the MPs, but it should definitely be a practice of a good democracy to do that sometimes.