Is the average person up to the job?

[thirdcrank]

... It's true that a technocratic government, with experts informing policy for the long term general good, would make wiser decisions than our corrupt version of democracy does. But what is to prevent those technocrats from becoming megalomaniacs?

I reckon that our version of democracy could be greatly improved by some simple tweaks, mostly controls on conflicts of interest, party funding and media ownership.

But if you are right about the educational standards of the general population, it's a pretty damning verdict on our schools. What the hell have they been teaching in all those thousands of hours in the classroom?

They do say that every man has his price and I imagine that's equally true of women. Even if experts aren't as open to "lobbying" as are many politicians, they are selectable in that they can be picked on the basis of which version of science and technology they support.

A few weeks ago I saw a programme about the use of aerial photography during WWII. Not being an expert, you never know how accurate something like that is, but it described how the analysis of aerial photographs - pre-satellite of course, so taken by high-flying RAF pilots - was used to follow up reports from resistance groups on the ground of unusual German military activity. One biggy here involved the V1 flying bomb and V2 rocket programmes. It seems this evidence was largely dismissed by Churchill's chief scientific advisor pretty much on the grounds that we hadn't invented anything like that so nobody else could either. One of the reconnaissance pilots who was surprised by a missile flying almost vertically in front of his plane was treated as a daydreaming fool. (I think that advisor was chosen purely on the basis of being a top scientist.)

[mjr]

But if you are right about the educational standards of the general population, it's a pretty damning verdict on our schools. What the hell have they been teaching in all those thousands of hours in the classroom?

Is it in the interests of those controlling the current school system to educate the population better in democratic practices and thereby change the selection process for who would control the school system in the future?

[bovlomov]

One of the reconnaissance pilots who was surprised by a missile flying almost vertically in front of his plane was treated as a daydreaming fool. (I think that advisor was chosen purely on the basis of being a top scientist.)

I once heard an argument between military historians, in a bookshop. One collected only documentary evidence, while the other used documents but also collected personal accounts. The first historian's position (slightly simplified) was that if the word of the soldier failed to tally with official records, it must be that the soldier was misremembering (or mad, or lying...).

It's true that the general population harbours some views that are misinformed, ignorant, mad or wicked, but overall I think I prefer government to be led by a range of opinion than by a single, officially agreed view. Strength in diversity, and all that.

[bovlomov]

But if you are right about the educational standards of the general population, it's a pretty damning verdict on our schools. What the hell have they been teaching in all those thousands of hours in the classroom?

Is it in the interests of those controlling the current school system to educate the population better in democratic practices and thereby change the selection process for who would control the school system in the future?

I suppose it could be accidental, but I expect it takes a lot of careful work to produce citizens so ill-prepared for life. By the way, that's not aimed at the current crop of young people. It applies equally, across the whole population.

[thirdcrank]

It's the difference between policy and the technology to carry it out. Transport is a pretty good case. A big example would be the cross-Channel transport link. The bridge versus tunnel debate against the background of did we need either? Another example would be the Humber Bridge which was an engineering marvel but commissioned for largely party political reasons by Barbara Castle.

At a more mundane level, as cyclists, we are on the receiving end of this all the time because it's where policy and technology overlap. Politicians say cycling is a good thing, but often hide behind the experts when not making decent provision. The experts like to extend their empire as widely as possible but hide behind the politicians when it comes to pursuing their own goals.

On the subject of education, there's more money in being able to argue persuasively that black is white than, say, engineering. I'm not talking only about the law but other professions such as accountancy.

[bovlomov]

It's the difference between policy and the technology to carry it out.

I think ethics are an important consideration. Experts in a particular field have no more expertise than the layperson in the ethical choices for the application of the technology. More often, their closeness to the field makes them quite unable to view the situation clearly.

I don't think heart surgeons should dictate organ transplant policy, or that farmers should dictate agricultural policy. They should inform the debate, and it is for the general population (in the shape of Parliament, alas) to decide, hopefully taking a broader view.

And no one would ever suggest that brain surgeons should make policy on cycle helmets!

[bertgrower]

Therefore CUK members should have no influence on appointmet of trustee or policy?

[[XAP]Bob]

If we had an election system that actually represented the populace then we might get a bunch of politicians who have to get on with each other...

But we have a system that is ridiculously weighted - and which encourages a partisan voting system. One thing that means is that for the majority of the population we can't actually vote for who we would like to...
We can only vote to keep the less objectionable local MP out of office...

If we had an STV for local elections, or even an STV for local *and* and STV for the manifesto we supported - then we might end up with some interesting results...

Because the 'minor' parties don't get a fair chance at representation we actually have no idea how 'minor' they are.

[thirdcrank]

... I think ethics are an important consideration. Experts in a particular field have no more expertise than the layperson in the ethical choices for the application of the technology. More often, their closeness to the field makes them quite unable to view the situation clearly.

I don't think heart surgeons should dictate organ transplant policy, or that farmers should dictate agricultural policy. They should inform the debate, and it is for the general population (in the shape of Parliament, alas) to decide, hopefully taking a broader view.

And no one would ever suggest that brain surgeons should make policy on cycle helmets!

A lot of elected politicians are lawyers - something to do with advocacy skills - and lawyers have a strong grip over legal reforms: no suggestion of a parliamentary committee of lawmen saying "This is what we want, make it happen." After all, the law of the land isn't the laws of physics (Jim ) eg When there was concern that the relatives of vulnerable people were exploiting them, a work creation scheme for lawyers was set up so that the possibility of being fleeced by your next-of-kin whatever was replaced by the certainty of eye-watering legal fees. The lawyers' solution tends to be more paid work for lawyers. Most of us are like that, but without our hands on the levers.

[bovlomov]

Therefore CUK members should have no influence on appointmet of trustee or policy?

How does CUK work? In a comparable situation, the board would seek expert opinions on a range of options, and present them to the members for approval (or otherwise). But are CUK subscribers members? Or are they just supporters?

[Ben@Forest]

How does CUK work? In a comparable situation, the board would seek expert opinions on a range of options, and present them to the members for approval (or otherwise). But are CUK subscribers members? Or are they just supporters?

Our cycle club has a committee which makes decisions but all decisions have been informed to some extent by the members and one committee officer has no role (e.g. treasurer or secretary) other than to broaden the committee's outlook. I imagine CUK works a similar way.

[bovlomov]

How does CUK work? In a comparable situation, the board would seek expert opinions on a range of options, and present them to the members for approval (or otherwise). But are CUK subscribers members? Or are they just supporters?

Our cycle club has a committee which makes decisions but all decisions have been informed to some extent by the members and one committee officer has no role (e.g. treasurer or secretary) other than to broaden the committee's outlook. I imagine CUK works a similar way.

What happens if there's a conflict between the committee and the members? Do the members wait for the elections to choose a committee that they feel will be closer to their views? Or can they block decisions in other ways?

[thirdcrank]

Like other charities, this one is under the direction of its trustees. They have a personal duty to act in the best interests of the charity (my wording) and may be financially liable if they do not fulfil that duty. They are subject to reappointment but the arcane procedures adopted by Cuk don't amount to democracy, in the normal use of the expression.

I suppose the explanation is that to be acceptable as candidate trustees, they must demonstrate they are "up to the job."

[bovlomov]

Like other charities, this one is under the direction of its trustees. They have a personal duty to act in the best interests of the charity (my wording) and may be financially liable if they do not fulfil that duty. They are subject to reappointment but the arcane procedures adopted by Cuk don't amount to democracy, in the normal use of the expression.

I suppose the explanation is that to be acceptable as candidate trustees, they must demonstrate they are "up to the job."

Good! This should help answer the OP's question. Are CUK Trustees making wiser decisions now that they are unencumbered by the duty to pander to an ignorant electorate (CTC members)?

EDIT: Perhaps it's hard to measure, as they have a different job description.

[bertgrower]

There is still the unanswered point should the CUK do away with elections by members but insteaf let the board of trustee make the decision who up to the job. Whilst at it lets do away with the AGM . There is no legal requirement for a charity to have AGM. We would have to change the articals , that would a easy process with proxity voting.