Government by argument, not evidence.

Anyone who has watched Prime Minister's Questions has seen it: two benches jeering across a room, scoring points for the cameras while the question itself goes unanswered. It is embarrassing to watch. A firmer Speaker would not fix it, because the incentives reward exactly this behaviour.

An elected chamber runs on re-election, party discipline and exposure to campaign money. Those pressures pull members towards the next headline and the party whip, and away from the slow, unglamorous work of getting a decision right. The behaviour is a product of those incentives.

A two-party contest sharpens all of it. Every question becomes a side to take rather than a problem to solve; evidence that helps the other lot becomes inconvenient; a sound idea wearing the wrong rosette is opposed on principle. Short-termism follows automatically: why carry a cost now for a benefit that lands after the next election, in someone else's term?

So British Intelligent Governance does not ask MPs to behave better. It changes the machine. The people set the ends; competent bodies work out the means inside published, reversible limits; and a sortition chamber, citizens chosen by lot, immune to re-election, lobbying and campaign money, scrutinises and can pause. Accountability, without the incentive to perform for it.