I think there is a 20/80 split between blue collar and white collar workers here at the HQ in Westphalia. So mostly a cubicle-farm of sorts.

I asked around and my german colleagues tell me it is a Bavarian thing with the beers.

> 4pm doesn't mean that work ends then though. Many people continue working after that beer.

We are also offered a beer a few times at official Company events etc. and most can have a beer and do proper work after. It is also legal to drive after a single normal-sized beer.

Or you could do like a ancient Greece where serving in the Senate was more like jury duty & people are appointed by random ballot.

I think representative democracy is fine, it's career politicians I'd do away with.

There was a party in Australia that wanted to elect MPs (or whatever equivalent) whose only job would be to delegate decisions to a panel of independent experts in each field (I think the panel would be elected as well, don't remember the details, but it would be something like doctors deciding what public health decisions should be, for example), and IIRC sometimes decisions would be made by having polls where every member of the party could vote if the policy was not related to some field in particular. I think that didn't get anywhere though, unfortunately, as the idea sounds pretty damn superior to having a bunch of know-nothing but charismatic people who decide on all sorts of things pushed by lobbyists whose interest not always reflect that of the general population (or very rarely do so).

This approach does appeal to me in some ways, one of the things that excites me most about the current government is seeing people with experience being appointed to position in cabinet.

I’m pretty sure you’re not serious in suggesting a technocrat class who are sheltered from the real world, but let’s assume you weren’t. The end result of this is likely to be stagnation because you lack the introduction of new people and new views into positions of power. I’d also add that in a functional government we already have that class of people who are purely focused on implementation and looking at options in the Civil Service. Rarely is a cabinet minister themselves really coming up with ideas, they’re waving their arms and describing vibes to the Civil Service, who then go and work how they’re meant to achieve it.

Unfortunately for the last 14 years we’ve had a government asking them to do ever more unhinged things, with predictable results.

What you're describing is a form of technocracy (rule by a class of dedicated scholars). It has been tried occasionally, but it is essentially the same thing as any non-Democratic rule: the technocrats do what is best for themselves, and using their knowledge and expertise, are able to invent convincing reasons on why that is supposedly best for the country as well.

This is especially true when the "science" they are supposed to study is economics, a notorious pseudo-science whose real purpose is to act as justificationa for policies desired by whoever is paying the research.

There is no way to ensure that rulers align with the people unless the people have a say in who rules. Scientific authorities have a long history of being negative even for their own fields ("physics advances one funeral at a time"), and that doesn't change when they are given power over an entire country.