It's in human nature to stand behind a strong charismatic decisive leader. I think Terry Pratchett joked about it in his books: As a leader it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, as long as you are certain, people will follow you. Yet indeed that kind of dogmatic certainty that people admire is not very practical in politics.

How to transform the system is the question. No longer voting for faces is a good first step. Vote for resumes without a picture. Although you also don't want a bunch of qualified yet socially akward people that can't convince eachother struggling to make policies. Voting for someone that can get their point accross does have its benefits.

Luckily elections are only a small part of the democratic process. Electing people that want to stay in power is more beneficial than having qualified people that simply do their job. The first group will listen to public opinion, petitions, strikes, etc. The second wouldn't neccesarily care about all that.

It's not a religious issue. Everyone agrees that murder is wrong. It's a matter of science on when life begins.

So he is saying Christians must vote pro choice...what if they are agnostic or atheist and yet it is in their minds better to be pro life? What then? Should not a politician in areas where science is yet unclear vote his conscience? Abortion is not cut and dry, that's why it is one of the most hotly debated issue. What this guy is really saying is "I'm right, you're wrong, vote like I say or shut up.". Which is directly opposed.

I disagree. People who want to be in power are exactly the wrong people who should be in power. They make decisions based on what will keep them in charge, not what is best for the situation. It is merely a matter of chance that sometimes the interest of the people and the interest of the power-hungry allign. I'm not interested taking those chances. A person who is well qualified but has no interest in power will be more likely to base decision on evidence and research, and they will take account of public mood when that is a relevant factor. Sometimes a policy that is very sound in theory fails in practice because the public does not buy into it. So any time you are putting in place a policy that requires public engagement, public sentiment and willingness to comply is a very important factor to take into account. The power hungery will only tend to listen to the people they think are likely to vote for them. Right-wing politicians are more likely to use strike action as a reason to disempower unions than to actually listen to the grievances of those who are striking. Because they know unionists aren't going to vote for them, and they know taking an anti-union stance will appeal more to the base of their support

If climate change policy was determined by evidence and scientific research and not populist power hungry politicians we'd be in a better situation.

It isn't a matter of science at all because you can always scientifically justify the moment of the "beginning of life". The moment of conception can be justified as the beginning of life because at that moment you have a complete, but not formed, human. The basic needs of that single cell are the same as any other human at whatever age: nutrition, shelter and elimination of waste. That's one extreme. Then at the other extreme are those who say life doesn't begin until there is conscious self awareness, and therefore killing a baby after birth up to X weeks/months of age should not be regarded as murder and be a matter of personal choice. And there is a very mechanical scientific justification for that position. You could even argue that for as long as a child is fully dependant on someone else to live that child has no rights and no recognition as a human, which could allow infanticide to be legal up to perhaps 2 or 3 years of age. And it could allow involuntary euthenasia for any severely disabled person at any age. Then you have considerations like the capacity to suffer or experience pain, irrespective of whether there is self-awareness.

Ultimately the decision about a right to life of the unborn/newborn is a moral one that must be determined by a moral consensus. It is not possible for pure science to determine the answer to this question. And that is why the question of abortion is not a straightforward one. Even among people who are pro-choice there are different views about how far a pregnancy can progress before abortion should be restricted from being free choice to purely medical necessity.

One of the advantages of religion is that it sets moral boundaries and therefore establishes parameters for the operation of society. Ultimately that's what all laws are, but the problem with laws of a moral nature (the age at which you can have sex, the age of marriage, abortion, same-sex marriage) there is an inherent acceptance, among the believers that God knows best and therefore His moral boundaries are the ideal ones. Wheras when parliament or congress sets moral laws they are just a collective of people who are hopelessly flawed, often corrupt, pandering to the public or worse to comercial interests and mostly less intelligent than me. Why should I cede moral decisions to a bunch of people who are mostly morally questionable? Ceding decisions on moral boundaries to a divine higher power makes a helluva lot more sense. But then the argument becomes one of whether there is such a higher power. So in the last couple of centuries we have been facing that previously non-existent connundrum of how (or whether) to establish moral social boundaries in the absence of an all powerful central point of authority. It's a bloody minefield and I'm damned glad it's not my job. I have sympathy for people who have chosen to make it their job, but at the same time I think they're fools to choosing to put themselves in that position.

Good points. I was thinking along the lines of motivation. What motivates those qualified persons, who will they listen too? The idea of calculating scientists running the country sounds a bit scary to be honest. Yet why not give it a try. Can't be worse than corporate politicians.

Btw isn't this what democracy is about in a nutshell "Right-wing politicians are more likely to use strike action as a reason to disempower unions than to actually listen to the grievances of those who are striking. Because they know unionists aren't going to vote for them, and they know taking an anti-union stance will appeal more to the base of their support" That's the whole point of political parties, to represent the views of their voters. Unless that base of their support is 'donations' /  corporate sponsors instead of votes.

The problem with climate change is that its a long term effect. The way politics work nowadays pretty much prevents long term thinking. It's also a failure from the scientific community. 97% of scientists are convinced of climate change, yet they can't think of a way to convinve the public that something should be done. All it takes is a few populist nay sayers to sway public opinion.
Maybe making this part of the educational system would help https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1037798999/eco-global-survival-game/description