A Govenerment run via the security services and Academics / Universities

[HiveSentinelApis]

Given politics as they are now, Would a country be improved or not if the main Govt was made up of the security services personal and various university's members filling different posts, overall would this be a better way to govern ?

One of the problems is that people who have the intelligence, people skills and social motivation to be an effective MP/ minister can make a lot more money doing something less toxic where they’re not getting abused on social media everyday and where they’re not constantly being taken out of context/ deep faked for political capital. Also, expecting people to be an MP alongside a minister is ridiculous. It’s like telling someone they’ve got to be the anaesthetist as well as perform the surgery. Constituency MPs made sense in a previous era when communications were harder. I’m not sure they are still such an important thing, or at least they could be bigger and then ministers are relieved of constituency duties. Also, they need to minimise the impact of reshuffles so as few ministers change jobs as possible.

I am an academic and if universities ran the country, here is how it would go.

We would firstly spend many years defining things. Endlessly. Preferably in conferences. We’d only make decisions based on peer reviewed articles, which would be three years out of date by the time they were published. Then we would reflect on our decisions. Also endlessly. Preferably in conferences. And you’d have 98% of getting an out of office if you email anyone, because ‘annual leave’, and ‘working on a deadline’. Oh, and ‘conferences’.

And don’t forget that the real engine rooms of universities are the professional services staff, who need six months notice to buy a train ticket and a form signed in triplicate preferably by God himself.

Also, my vice chancellor currently earns three times what Rishi Sunak does, so no savings there either.

No OP, we’d be better with the current clowns. Or prison inmates.

Tell me you've never worked in a university without telling me you've never worked in a university.....

This lot are a shower of shite but at least they've been voted for and we can vote them back out. I'll stick with democracy thanks.

Two of my friends are academics at lecturer grade (?) and have been for a long time. The bullying and harrassment by some senior managers in Universities is the next big scandal waiting to happen. Apparently the problem seems to be that its not physical bullying but it's more like gaslighting, patronizing people in meetings, unfair promotions, and giving them an unmanageable workload and watching them flounder. It sounds horrendous to be honest.

Why not ask the country’s dinner ladies to form a government. Are security services personnel a type of higher being? Why them? Do you mean police or spooks? If police then no way, post David Carrick/ Wayne Couzens revelations.

30 or more years ago, I'd have considered your university academics idea with interest.

These days, however, too many of them are not that clever and have some very strange ideas.

God no, have you met any of the security services or academics?

I do get your point, and yes I think you have a good one. Our political system is designed to be self-serving. I did a politics degree and we all (only half-jokingly) agreed that a caring dictatorship would be best!

My unpopular opinion is that we should pay politicians a lot more. Change things so getting elected is free (average cost to run is about £30k to the individual at the moment).

One of the problems with our politics currently is (IMHO) the number of people who go straight from university into SPAD type roles+ possibly local politics and then Westminster. All parties, with people who have had no real experience other than politics. The days of someone like Dennis Skinner, a working miner, being elected MP seem to be largely over.

However, the idea of some of my (lovely, hugely clever but daffy) old lecturers running the country has made me smile.

Haven’t RTFT so apologies if someone has already said something similar. Definitely not to the OP’s suggestion, but I do think a small number of national core services - I’d suggest health, education and criminal justice - should be removed from the sole control of the government of the day and “managed”, FWOABW, by some kind of cross-party mechanism, with spending protected and outwith the spending review process, and with political parties forbidden from using those issues as part of their electioneering or in their manifestos. They’re simply too critical and too big/difficult to swing round and round on a political whim, they need long term plans to be sense-checked and then seen through to fruition to provide some stability and clear direction, both for those who use those services and those who work in them.

Pleased to see it's not just me who finds academics difficult to work with.

In order to choose the respective leaders of the country, to have a standardised test for the current policies of the prospective candidates and adjustments for people that would need assistance with the tests, that then would give the public the knowledge to make informed election choices on who they were voting for.

As in Spooks

Nope, because you mention Universities and academics, and though they are great, they do not have the best answer to everything. You should expand the idea.
Look up Technocracy.
It is a government form by highly experienced individuals, in each ministry. So Health Care Ministry run by a respected senior NHS manager, for example.
The experts are technical, with actual long standing hard core proven work done in the field they are assigned in government. Some will be from Universities, some not.

I don't think that would help.

For one; many people vote based on a single issue (i.e. Labour/Tory, upping/lowering taxes, putting Rishi on a catapult🤞).
For another; knowing a policy is one thing, but knowing (or even having an informed expectation of) the consequences of said policy is something else entirely.

There's also the issue of manifestos being ignored completely elected.

Personally, I think you'd get better results by creating consequences which will dissuade idiotic and frivolous decisions.

For instance: a 'Hypocrisy Penalty' for all politicians, councillors, civil servants etc; wherein if they support or bring in a policy/law and are found to have contravened it, they either get an automatic 15 year prison term, or are shot.

I mean, honestly, academics are not cut out for actual decision making. Prolonging a debate and introducing more positions than there are participants into it: yes. Getting weirdly pedantic about minor details: yes. Making big statements about ‘the political’ that have no practical implications: yes.

But no. Not governing.

You would be much better assembling a council of dinner ladies and posties. Seriously. These people (and many other roles) understand what it takes to actually deliver services and what the gap between policy and reality is.

Note: I say that as someone who
was an academic for many, many years and is now a consultant. Absolutely no way is this technocracy backed up with the intelligence services going to be a good idea.

As an academic I’d agree with this. I see how badly universities are run, you don’t want these people running the country.

This is bizarre
Academics and military?

You clearly have a very different opinion about academia than I do! I'm not knowledgeable on the military.

I think all industries are seeing high levels of incompetence, but the academics came from a place of inefficiency to begin with!

So…you’re talking about the end of democracy?

still democracy, just different methods and candidate's as the ruling elite

@HiveSentinelApis what's your reasoning for wanting academics though?

I think people with good practical skills are what we need, especially working class people who understand the daily lives of the majority.

although your mention of Spooks makes me think...half term.

forget the half term arguement, why cannot people have different perspectives etc ? heaven forbid

In Summary :

the executive branch would be primarily composed of individuals from the security services and academia, chosen for their expertise and merit. However, the head of the government and other key leadership positions would be elected by the public through democratic elections. These elected leaders would provide political oversight and set the overall direction of the government, working in collaboration with the executive branch. Robust oversight mechanisms, including parliamentary committees and an independent judiciary, would ensure accountability and prevent the concentration of power. Decision-making processes would involve collaboration between elected leaders, the executive branch, and other stakeholders, with a focus on transparency and public engagement. This hybrid model aims to leverage expertise while maintaining democratic legitimacy, promoting effective governance while upholding democratic principles.

Hope this helps explain my points