The difference is not that Boris is political, but that he is elected. And that's what seems to bother a hefty chunk of you. You'd rather be governed by "experts", however lamentable their results. Coppers who think that speed cameras are more important than foot patrols? Judges who see it as their chief duty always and everywhere to overturn deportation orders? Teachers who think that literacy is a bourgeois hang-up? Nothing you can do about it, I'm afraid. And don't come complaining to me: you were the one cheering the dolt on Any Questions who wanted to "let the professionals get on".
It sounds like Master Hannan has finally lost his rag, and I'm not surprised. Is anyone surprised at the reaction of this audience? I certainly am not. Depressed? Certainly—but not surprised.
As Churchill had it, democracy is merely the least worst form of government; even so, it's a pretty fucking long way from being even satisfactory (especially when socialism is pursued).
But how to improve it? Well, that's a difficult question and I'm not sure that it has an answer. However, I would advance this suggestion: only those who are nett contributors to the Treasury should be allowed to vote.
This would bring the putative voting age to 16, of course, which is not entirely unjust: if you work, you should have some say in how your money is spent.
It would take out of the equation those who languish on Benefits and who will thus vote readily for the party that promises them the most free money; the loss of the vote may even provide an incentive that is not purely money-based to make an effort to get work (and if they view their vote as so unimportant that it is not an incentive, do we want them voting anyway?).
The government is able to exist only because it extorts money from those who earn it: it is thus only fair that only they should be allowed to vote on how their money is spent.
This measure might also lead people to regard the vote as something that must be earned: like everything that is given freely, people do not value their vote. Because it is regarded as simply something that is your right, innit, people do not feel that they should actually go and find out what they are voting for.
Like everything that is simply given away, the right to vote is not viewed as something important: all too many people do not see that they have a duty—both to themselves and to the society in which they live—to understand the implications of how they cast their vote.
I believe that reserving the vote only for those who contribute to society (and yes, there may be issues around unpaid carers, etc. I'd be willing to take suggestions on that one) would make people more politically aware and would curb the spendthrift nature of our governments.
UPDATE: OK, instead of nett contributor to the Treasury, let us say that anyone who pays tax can vote. This would allow the police, etc. to vote and would also provide an incentive for millionaires not to avoid all tax.