The Only True Way To Reform Politics

Ah, I get it - instead of democracy, what you'd like is an unelected self-perpetuating committee representing just one section of society (big business) appointing a Dictator to run the country. No input from anyone else, such as employees' organisations, the voluntary sector, small businesses or the self-employed, or those who might have a real need for the provision of services, such as the elderly or chronically sick.

If you haven't noticed, the skills and values required to run a large company are quite different to those needed to run a complex society; a CEO may decide to close down a factory or whole division; those affected have no say, and cease to be part of the enterprise. But the government cannot decide to 'close down' Yorkshire and exclude it from future policy decisions (despite Thatcher's attempts to shut the industrial and mining base of certain regions). The government can't simply decide to cut education from its 'product range', for example, or to 'sell off' Surrey to the Japanese as a non-core activity.

But worst of all, your idea is based on ignoring some of the worst faults of British (and global) business; the tendency to make short-term decisions is just as common in the corporate world, where this year's bonus seems to be all that matters, and major companies can be majorly wrong on the big questions of strategy - ask anyone who owned GEC shares from the Weinstock era and held onto the bitter end.

The biggest winners from the biggest UK companies over the last 15 years (in percentage terms) have been that tiny, narrow class, the directors and senior managers, whose remuneration has skyrocketed out of all proportion to either their own performance or the performance of their companies relative to the rest of society or the international business community. Quite why you'd like to hand them the collective assets of the nation, I can't understand. Why not go the whole hog and call for the restoration of absolute monarchy, the recognition of the 'divine right' of kings, and feudalism ? I'm sure you'd volunteer to be the first of the serfs, but quite honestly, I'd rather recognise big business for what it is - just one element in a complex society - and keep its methods quite separate from the management of the nation.

My own view of how to improve politics would involve your suggestion, but only as part of the solution. Instead of having the decisions made by politicians who are advised by experts, I'd have the decisions made by experts who could be advised, if necessary, by politicians. Doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen, businessmen, clergymen, housewives, labourers and lay people would make up the government. Double jobbing would be encouraged and genuine experience valued.
I also agree with Nedsoar. The Upper House is already focussed on long term benefits to the country and in the past ten years they've done a better job of representing our needs than our elected 'representatives' in the Commons.

tiredoldbroker: I think the article was written with the author's tongue pretty firmly in his cheek...

nedsoar: To me, the big argument for making a new upper house elected is simple: it would get rid of the justification for the present arrangement under the Parliament Acts for the House of Commons to be able to override opposition from the House of Lords after a year... So I would be in favour of a fully-elected upper house, with full powers to block House of Commons legislation - but I would like the elections to be done in such a way as to try to retain as many of the advantages of the present House of Lords as possible. For example, require candidates to state their area(s) of expertise, not their party affiliation; don't allow those elected a second term under any circumstances whatsoever, nor to re-enter the House of Commons or any other political body after their term has expired (so they're freed from any "do what we say or we won't support your re-election" blackmail by political parties); possibly make the terms quite long, both to compensate the new "lords" for the inability to go back into politics afterwards and to encourage a long-term view; do the elections on a "rolling" basis such as 1/10th of the members being re-elected each year with a 10-year term to ensure that there are always members with such a long-term view.

Of course, given that the system will be set up by politicians, I strongly suspect there are two reasonable descriptions of my chance of getting what I would like: "fat" and "slim"...

Gengulphus

Bring back the rest of the hereditary peers. At least they acted (in the main) unpaid, out of a benign disinterest, and with a genuine long-term view. Not only are our elected parliamentarians wont to exhibit spectacular misjudgments on expenses, but so evidently are a fair few of their un-elected (but appointed for life) colleagues in the upper house. And their misjudgments aren't confined to expenses - even the pink 'un considers Brown's economic stewardship to have been an unmitigated disaster.

It’s a great mistake to imagine that running the government is like running a business. Business is about getting wealthier at the expense of your customers and competitors, but government is about everyone getting wealthier together. If the value of every aspect of life could be measured with money we would not need government - private enterprise could provide everything. But it can't, and government is there to provide those things for which there is no obvious financial reward. The man at the top should not be a business man or a financier - he needs to be an all rounder with organization and financial skills, but mostly a social conscience.

Schoen! Sprachen sie ausgezeichnet! Ein Fuehrer! So gehen wir gut!

Scottish independence would be good too.

They have their own parliament, but still inflict loads of Labour MPs on the rest of us.

I would like a referendum to vote on this.

Notwithstanding the pros and cons (both very valid) in these posts, it would be valuable to see the equivalent of an annual report for "UK plc". Where / how do the international credit rating agencies get their info from? From disparite sources? Is there a publically available report encompassing cash flow, debt, blah blah and etc as in a company report?
It may be longer than "War and Peace" but I'd like to see it.

Please point me in the right direction is this exists outside of the office of the Chancellor.