The failure of the Lemming Party & the case for a Meritocracy

Readers of my blog will know my fear that Democracy has now run its race as the preferred means of government. In this year's UK election we have a good example of why.
With just a week to go, the electorate have not been given any detail of how each Party will tackle the huge budget deficit that faces the country in the world-wide recession. It is inevitable that no one party would wish to be associated with the bad news when they are trying to appeal to the electorate, but it is equally clear that huge savings will have to be made in the public sector. In consequence what we have is a sham that does not adequately serve the interest of the people of the country.
Nor do I believe that allowing voters to exercise choice on the basis of their needs is the best way. Voters for the Lemming party, would inevitably find themselves in deep water if they won the election. So would all the rest of the country. Now, in place of Lemmings, put the Labour Party. After thirteen disastrous years under the Labour administration led first by Blair and latterly by the unelected Brown, 30% of the populace would still vote for them. It's crazy!!
Another example of Democratic inefficiency would be the disproportionate sharing out of the votes in the 'first passed the post' system currently favoured. Last time Labour formed a government despite only receiving 27% of the popular vote. This year, with the same number of voters they would have about 260 seats in the House of Commons but the Liberals with the same share of the vote would get about 60 seats. How can this be right?

I believe that the way forward is a form of Meritocracy with a constitutional Monarchy. The Monarchy is necessary to give the nation the stability that comes from heritage, history and continuity. The present Queen Elizabeth is a shining example of how it should work.
The Country would be administered by a Cabinet, headed by a Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister would lead a Cabinet of maybe five Secretaries of State,each with their own department.
The Secretaies, people of the Country with more than two generations in residence, would have proven credentials of honesty in public service, experience in affairs of the world and an unshakeable belief in the well-being of the Country. They, like Mrs Thatcher, say, would put the Country first, before their own self interest. They would be appointed by a committee, established by the throne, assembled from the Learned and Good of the country, traditionally, leaders of the Armed Services, the Church, Seats of Learning and Commerce. The Committee would have exceptional powers to remove a Secretary of State for malpractice, insanity etc.

Beneath the leaders would be a directly elected chamber. The Chamber would discuss and debate all the issues of interest to the people. All measures voted for in the asembly would be put to the Leaders for consideration where decisions would be taken strictly in the Country's interest.

The armed forces would owe their allegiance to the Monarch but take their orders from the Prime Minister.

It is my belief that this is a more efficient way of Government allowing decisions of National Interest to be taken quickly, unlike say the debate over a third runway at Heathrow which has taken years.