Good contribution. It's more complex, just to continue the debate though I see no problem in businesses offering their sales staff a "we pay 10% commission on all revenue generated by your efforts". Employees who generate £0 get £0, those whose generate £1M get £100k. i.e) strike out min wage and piece work directives.

who gives a hoot?

Hard to argue against a meritocracy, so I wont. But an interesting debate can be had when discussing "how to decide who is merit worthy". Classic question like who moderates the moderators*. Who is merit worthy enough to judge merits?

[size*This is by no means a criticism of the moderation process and is posted within the guidelines of the AUP. [/size

Nah you're right. Fook it, doesn't affect me.

The BNP don't have much of a problem with Jews, they actually have a Jewish councillor in Patricia Richardson and many Jewish members.

bloody ell . i bet there as tight as a camels bum in a sandstorm.

if you have a collection of good merit worthy people they (in theory) should police each other. Still though like you said, how do you know if they are merit worthy ? as one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. I think firstly you find all the leading professors in each of their fields and they choose who they think is the most morally suitable. After that they put the case to the people as to the reason why they chose that person and then let the public decide if that is a merit worthy reason.
It would make sense for the health minister to be from the health service and the guy running the budget to be a master of economics. Who says the Vulcans are dull

being dull is logical, captain

if you have a group of say 6

and you all want to be the top dog, you all fight you might come out on top but you might get beat.

a savvy person says what i'll do is align myself with 4 of them and get rid of one. now there are 5

Then he has a word with 3 and gets rid of another one. (you see where im going here).

The BNP are not all neanderthal supremacists some of them are well educated and manipulative.

And therein lies the problem. The public choose who is most merit worthy without neccessarily being in the best place to comment.

As an aside, is that an accidental oxymoron?

How to make sure you get a fair slice of a pie

one person cuts it, the other person chooses the slice.

If you cut the bigger slice the other person might chose it so you have to make sure it's fair and equal.

We need to equate that to politics somehow.

Good answer. But say if the public wanted a slice of a different, unoffered, pie?

i know, the trouble is with the majority of public is that they are reactionary (facebook groups for proof) and sometimes quite dangerous. im stumped to be honest. In theory life's answers are so simple but the reality is people want different things and to get a consensus on anything is a major achievement