You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
With the forecast of a Labour landslide in the next election and the assumption that they will be putting more money into undoing the effects of a long period of Conservative austerity caused by them Replacing a Labour government which reversed the previous Conservative government and years of austerity and so on do we think that there is an answer to basically having 2 electable parties , each with polar opposite financial theories that come in and undo the work of the previous government . Basically is there a different , workable system , where the main options are not so far apart with their political ideas ?
If we can get to the point where the LibDems are the official opposition, and the Conservatives are just a rump of a third party in parliament, we could see moves away from this swinging between the same two parties pattern.
It’s hoping for a lot, but the voters of the UK could make that happen, if they wanted to.
the main options are not so far apart with their political ideas ?
Isn't that why the whip's office is overseen by the Royal Household...
Proportional representation in some form. The Scottish system works
Ban all the legalised corruption of second " jobs"
I want more voting on big things like whether we go to war with a country.
Also separate votes for your local mp and the Pime Minister.
The Prime Minister should be able to pick the best MPs for the key roles from all parties, even independents. Not just from their own party.
If you have a key roll in government, as well as being an MP, you shouldn't be able to have another job. As there is no way you can dedicate yourself to all three sufficiently IMO.
MPs and political parties should have to stick to their manifesto, not sure how this could be policed.
You should not be able to change the Prime Minister without a another election.
Politics should be taught on the national curriculum, including debating.
Either reduce voting age to 16 or change the law so that you're not classed as an adult until you're 18. If you're old enough to work and pay tax, and be treated as an adult in the courts then you're old enough to vote IMO.
A Conservative party that comes third, or even fourth, in seats, based on coming second in the popular vote might start to agree with you TJ. Opposition to PR might crumble across opposition benches then… which could lead to voting system reform.
Career politicans (ie people who once elected are dedicated to service) is what we need… we have lawyers working in the Bahamas that occasionally show up… etc.
Voting reform is only likely to happen if forced by the electorate as a key issue when deciding who to vote for.
It's really high on my list of things needed.
Any government is only concerned with can they get elected at the next election, so they can't implement any longer term strategies which may be unpopular otherwise they get kicked out and their work undone by the next election. Obviously that doesn't answer the question...
Proportional representation in some form.
This would be the important first step. But I am generally of the view that a large part of the electorate does not really understand the nuances of the fptp system, and so there needs to be a significant campaign to raise awareness of that. We see more talk of lords reform, yes, important, but it deflects from the issue we really should be discussing.
That, and increased investment in punctuation
This is worth a good read through.
The leader of the LibDems was in Chippenham the other day, appearing on BBC Points West news, which, considering there’s no council elections coming up, is most unusual. I think they can taste blood in the water, they hold the local council, percentage-wise there’s about 5% between them and the Tories, with Labour on 4% and the Green Party on 5%, so I can see them annihilating the Tories here.
Proportional representation. FPTP , combined with the tribal tendencies of voters has encouraged extremist politics in both parties in the US and UK.
I think it needs to get worse before it gets better.
There are still too many people that do okay at the expense of many others.
It's not the political parties as such these days (they're following a similar path) - it's the economic system they both adopt which is built on a totally irresponsible concept of running the country - certainly for the good of most of us.
It will break at some point. It won't be pleasant but hopefully we can rewire the whole thing.
Guy Fawkes has a good idea for a fix.
Career politicans
We don't need this class of MP, we require vocational politicians. Ones that are dedicated to public service and have had life experience outside of the Westminster bubble to avoid group-think. Those who have been to college then MP's staff/researchers then straight into election are not fit for purpose.
No second jobs for any sitting MP (including being a landlord), but make the pay commensurate with the responsibility. No London housing bought by the tax payer and profits going to the MP on sale, that's public money and goes back to the treasury.
Hours of attendance at consituency and Westminster to be formally laid out with recesses trimmed in length but overnight sittings in the house to be abolished.
Reform of the lobby (with prison for breaches) and off-the-record briefings banned (if one doesn't want ones' loyalties known) don't talk to the press.
Power of the whips to be reduced, my MP is there to serve contituents first, country a close second with party a distant last.
Anyone attempting to out orientation, or use an MP's proclivities against them shall be cast out of society (as long as it's legal, decent and honest it's not our business).
Unlikely to happen but a useful wish-list
I think it needs to get worse before it gets better.
Even with this wording I think you're being very optimistic.
Require all MPs to cycle everywhere, or take public transport, even the prime minister.
This would fix politics in a number of ways.
As we all know, cycling makes you cleverer because of the increased blood flow to your brain.
It also makes you less miserable - hard to be unhappy when riding a bike, even (especially?) in the rain. A happy politician is a good politician as my old grandad used to say.
And travelling on public transport would mean our politicians meet the people they make decisions for on a daily basis, rather than only when out campaigning.
Barrels of gunpowder?
Edit: goddammit, beaten to it.
Guy Fawkes has a good idea for a fix.
No London housing bought by the tax payer and profits going to the MP on sale, that’s public money and goes back to the treasury.
After the expenses scandal put a stop to flipping homes, the latest wheeze is that MPs buy a London house, promptly rent it out privately and then they rent a house nearby - because rent counts as an expense that you can claim back. So they're living in a rented house (paid for by the taxpayer) but also receiving thousands in rent per month on their own property.
No second jobs - if being an MP is as demanding as they constantly claim, you don't have the time to be doing second/third jobs, appearing on reality TV or having your own "news show" on a far-right TV channel.
An end to expenses. No other job permits the sort of expenses free-for-all that MPs have. I'd create a nice "MPs hotel" near Westminster and when they're on parliamentary business, they have to stay there. There'd always be a room, it'd be private and secure but they can have a home in their constituency and free use of the "MPs hotel". That's it - no-one else is having rent paid, second homes done up etc at taxpayers expense.
Lords Reform - an end to the tradition of Prime Ministers stuffing it full of lackeys as soon as they leave office. Of course it's worse in recent times cos we've had so many short-lived PMs who've still managed to rinse the system...
No lobbying. Being an MP is about representing your constituents and the interests of the country, not being a mouthpiece for Big Oil or any other corporate interest. Apart from anything else it's a security risk.
And a simple way of disciplining and sacking MPs when they're shit. Currently there's a whole traditionalist thing of losing the whip for a bit, being told you've been a bit naughty and then coming straight back after a half-hearted apology. Again, no other job allows that sort of leeway.
That's a start anyway.
As usual, most suggestions are left biased, which is one of the reasons nothing ever happens, like it or not, the UK has a large right wing population, the tories are their party of choice, so you need a strong opposition, no matter who the sitting government is.
Proportional Representation sounds great, but has just as many negatives as it has positives, for every green MP you'd get, you'll get a Nigel Farage.
Remove any benefits from MPs sounds good, but you're talking about wanting to find 650 people, with some having a lot of power, being paid not a huge amount for that, and you may drive out the normal candidates, leaving those with their own funds who see the pay as pocket money.
Personally, i'd like to see labour come in and do what they say in pushing power away from London, i'd also like to see a little more move to minimise the impacts of voting on departments in certain circumstances, where they have to make wholesale changes due to some populist vote, or the media vote of the day, make them go through more justification, again reducing the workload on MPs who can do more locally then, and have less worry about blind voting.
Change the rules on contributions to political parties:
None from foreign nationals, non-dom taxpeyers
Limit size of donations
Funds for elections paid from central funds and each party gets the same amount.
No seats in the Lord's for just giving parties money (but we've reformed the lord's up thread haven't we?)
An actual written constitution that can't be picked around for political goal scoring
the tories are their party of choice
People on the right should have a choice as well. Lots of people vote Tory only because FPTP only gives them one route to representation. Having 2 or 3 right of centre parties in parliament would be totally legitimate… the idea that everyone on the right wants a majority Tory government is rubbish… many just want to avoid a Labour government… and under FPTP that means voting Tory, even if you think the current Conservative government is corrupt and inept and can’t deliver for you or your family.
I want more voting on big things like whether we go to war with a country.
What you want more bellends invoking the "will of the people" you sure about that?
Also separate votes for your local mp and the Pime Minister.
So you could (theoretically) end up with a PM from a different party to the majority of the sitting MPs? We already have a largely symbolic head of state in Buckingham palace, why do we need another in the commons?
The Prime Minister should be able to pick the best MPs for the key roles from all parties, even independents. Not just from their own party.
They already can can't they? They just pick their chums because that's what anyone would do TBF.
If you have a key roll in government, as well as being an MP, you shouldn’t be able to have another job. As there is no way you can dedicate yourself to all three sufficiently IMO.
Agreed.
MPs and political parties should have to stick to their manifesto, not sure how this could be policed.
It can't be, perhaps they should be independently scored/reported on delivery of their manifesto pledges in the run up to the next election(?) which is sort of the point of the press...
You should not be able to change the Prime Minister without a another election.
I respectfully disagree, you vote for your local MP, the party they represent wins enough seats they get to govern (or a coalition is formed), the governing party/coalition pick a PM from their own ranks, and if necessary change that person during their term in power, it actually sort of works. As chaotic as the Tories have been during this last parliament, it would have been even worse had we been constantly holding GEs and had all MPs in campaign mode 70% of the time.
Politics should be taught on the national curriculum, including debating.
Either reduce voting age to 16 or change the law so that you’re not classed as an adult until you’re 18. If you’re old enough to work and pay tax, and be treated as an adult in the courts then you’re old enough to vote IMO.
Meh, I'm not sure politics is really a teachable 'subject' the rest of the curriculum however should equip kids to identify bullshit as they get older, between history, sociology, physics, mathematics and English all the basic tools are there. Individual judgement can't really be forced into kids by teachers, maybe parents should accept their role in shaping individuals too?
My own gripe is the direct links between certain MPs and either paid roles/business interests and/or media (propaganda) organisations. The likes of JRM should be booted for blatant corruption and bias.
This is a very small thing, but if you're an MP or local politician, no politics via social media.
They're toxic pits of shithousery and an utter distraction from actual work and politics.
Some may not like that but the divisiveness of those platforms isn't helping anything.
That would go those not currently in office a path to building support that sitting politicians would be barred from.
Require all MPs to cycle everywhere, or take public transport, even the prime minister.
Most definitely! No helicopters, no private planes, you have to travel on the same dysfunctional overcrowded, unreliable rail network as everyone else
… and no private education for their kids or private medical care. They have to have their precious offspring educated in the worst performing state school in their constituency and they have to spend 24 hours waiting on a trolley in a corridor in an NHS A&E, just like anybody else
I reckon theyd soon have an interest in properly sorting out the NHS and the education and transport system, if they had no option but to actually use it!
People on the right should have a choice as well. Lots of people vote Tory only because FPTP only gives them one route to representation. Having 2 or 3 right of centre parties in parliament would be totally legitimate… the idea that everyone on the right wants a majority Tory government is rubbish… many just want to avoid a Labour government… and under FPTP that means voting Tory, even if you think the current Conservative government is corrupt and inept and can’t deliver for you or your family.
Flip side is you're allowing the fringe lunatics to set up their own parties and gain some power, if they join to form a majority, you then get some complex manifestos due to this, not to say it can't work, or doesn't work elsewhere, but what we've seen in the UK over the last few years does provide a fair few worry beads!
FPTP again has issues, but lets not pretend PR is a silver bullet for this, it needs proper thought and roll out if it ever gets in, if i had a choice, i'd prefer more proportional power sharing across central and local governments.
The dream of PR is not always great in reality as while it can stop the sort of bullshit the tories get up to it can also stop any progression. If you end up with 10 parties with 10% of the votes each then very little gets agreed and the few things that do are set in stone and nobody ever wants to change them even if they are clearly not working as getting an actual agreement on them in the first place was such a major achievement.
I would spilt the country in two with a left and a right so at least you can live in a sub country that you largely agree with the approach of, where money is spent, how people are looked after etc,. rather than for example me having to live in a ****ing awful tory country for most of my life.
UK has a large right wing population, the tories are their party of choice
That remains to be seen although currently it is true they are easier scared into banding behind the tories regardless of how varied their politics are.
Proportional Representation sounds great, but has just as many negatives as it has positives, for every green MP you’d get, you’ll get a Nigel Farage.
And? Whilst I have no time for him why shouldnt those who like that crap be able to vote for him rather than having to vote for the tories. I suspect though he wouldnt do so well after an election or two when he is held to account. He only did well under PR in Europe since he could just shout about the nasty EU and their fishing laws whilst not turning up to the fisheries committee. Its a harder trick to pull at a country level.
It can’t be, perhaps they should be independently scored/reported on delivery of their manifesto pledges in the run up to the next election(?) which is sort of the point of the press…
Yeah, there'd have to be press reform at the same time and that didn't go down well at the last attempt (Levenson Inquiry).
I'd run a live factcheck on all MPs interviews and claims though. Scrolling text up the side so that when someone stands up in Parliament and claims they're giving record funding to the NHS or that waiting lists are down, more police on the beat etc, it'd scroll up something to say "that's total shit" with all the reasons why.
This would be prominently reported in the press the following day as well - there'd have to be a summary of what was said in PMQs, the answers given and the reasons why it was all bollocks.
Again - no other job permits that level of bullshit. If I stood up at work and gave a presentation to a room of colleagues based on wishlists, imaginations and what I wanted the truth to be, I'd be fired in minutes.
It'd shut that insane Susan Hall up too in all her wild fantasies of removing ULEZ on Day 1 - no, you can't do that, there's a process to go through. Problem is that many people don't know that, they just hear the words coming out of her stupid mouth and think it's fact, it's achievable.
Move parliament into a purpose built building that works. It seems Westminster is expensive and not fit for purpose. Also move it around the country. So it sits in 6(?) major cities in a term, or 5 if one a year makes it easier.
Proportional Representation sounds great, but has just as many negatives as it has positives, for every green MP you’d get, you’ll get a Nigel Farage.
This is often cited as negative of PR but conversely it also puts the likes of farage firmly in the light, and as we know, daylight is the great disinfectant. And besides, the bending of UK politics in a ukip direction has taken place despite his likes not having a parliamentary seat. (Clacton aside). Keeping a system in place so as to prevent particular politicians entering parliament demonstrates the weakness of the system and the weakness of the mainstream parties to make their case in particular.
It's also I think difficult to visualize the political landscape post a PR based general election when we are so used to our FPTP vision.
Personally I'd like to see both Tory and Labour leads significantly shrunken. A melting pot of all walks of life is what we need, if that means someone ends up with a right wing dingbat as an MP it should be a wake up call for better people to work out what went wrong and how to correct it. Unfortunately that's exactly what hasn't happened in Sheffield and the council have basically ignored the only conservative seat which has helped the "they only care about their own" narrative and strengthened the Tory vote.
PR could let someone like Farage in but I'd prefer him elected as MP for some backwater under some ineffective party than as an even more vile conservative party which is growing more and more likely by the day.
The Lords needs an overhaul but let's not forget they've put a halt on quite a bit of the current government's mess, we've already seen an group of elected MPs ride roughshod over a lot of stuff, thinking an elected lords would be somehow a massive left wing coup.
I’d run a live factcheck on all MPs interviews and claims though. Scrolling text up the side so that when someone stands up in Parliament
I am also tempted by having mps have to wear a top listing their current sponsors so we know when they are speaking out on behalf of the gambling company or whomever they have just accepted cash from them.
What's the political equivalent of zip ties and an old bit of tyre?
Flip side is you’re allowing the fringe lunatics to set up their own parties and gain some power
Psst… fringe lunatics are in power right now… helped by people who don’t want a left of centre government in power so voted for these people while holding their noses… it was the only option they had given the voting system.
“The scottish system works”
I will vote against any party that proposes the Scottish system. I want people to be able to vote for each candidate, rather than have unelected party loyalists appointed by government.
That wall for when the revolution comes ?.
Could at least make a start by picking the wall.
I will vote against any party that proposes the Scottish system. I want people to be able to vote for each candidate, rather than have unelected party loyalists appointed by government.
You get to vote for a candidate in Scotland. There is no system where you get to vote for every candidate. Having a directly elected representive (or multiple representatives) for your seat/area can still be kept with a move to a more proportional system.
And we have people in government in the UK chosen by the PM and not directly elected, eg Cameron.
How will you run PR? All of the UK votes, and the results are divided up? By region? How are you defining them? If it's by nation, you've got Cornwall, London and Newcastle sharing candidates. And voting for a party list means you give up any chance to vote out a particular candidate.
Personally I'd go for FPTP for the first chamber, and PR for the second. PR would be based on regions of equal population. But even then you run the risk that the second chamber is basically a sinecure for parties to send their second-rate or otherwise unelectable politicians.
Party politcis aside I cannot abide the situation whereby my MP is also a minister. How the hell can he concentrate on putting my constituency first when he is buggering about with transport.?
All ministers must have considerable commercial experience with their ministry. Defence must be ex forcers, health must be ex medic etc. Better still have professional ministers (ie the civil service) not amateurs.
The big thing won't ever be fixed. The population is self centred and to expect other wise is stupid at best. The so called working classes are the most right wing until their perks are threatened and the so called upper classes are the same.The so called lefties are the middle classes as seen here in STW land. No idea how everyone else thinks.
Reducing the voting age is wrong. Young people cannot vote without experience. Ideology helps nothing. Voting should be mandatory but equally a priviledge. Got a criminal record? No vote.
Go and read Nevil Shute's "In the wet". There exist up to seven votes. You get a basic, one for staying in work, one for higher education, one for raising a family etc. The seventh vote is in effect a knighthood.
MPs should be forced to have some dignity and not slag each other off as a matter of principle. They should also be expected to live by their principles. We have the tech to have more votes about things which would enable us to regionalise. I care not a stuff about London or the hard up North. Let politics be more regional and get rid of stupid new fangeled ideas.
Would PR mean that a city would have more influence than a rural area? If so, crap idea.
Ultimately of course any one in politics has to be suspect. If they want to do that I have no faith in them. Maybe our leaders should be drawn by lot as a form of national service.
And we have people in government in the UK chosen by the PM and not directly elected, eg Cameron.
He has no constituents though, he is basically a figurehead for what he's doing, and in all fairness, that isn't a bad thing as he has a reputation on the world stage.
So many wrong-headed ideas here, and tbf some good ones.
The idea of an MP Hotel in London is a terrible one. You do not want 650 MPs cooped up in the same building, on their own, away from their families. That's a recipe for absolute degeneracy and blackmail.
PMs already can appoint whichever MP (or peer) they want to be a minister. They don't pick MPs from other parties to be ministers because they believe fundamentally different things about how the country should be run, and because it would be impossible to have collective responsibility.
It would be weird to demand ministers must have "commercial experience" in their portfolio. Aside from the fact you'd be limiting the talent pool, that's a recipe for industry capture of government.
"It’s also I think difficult to visualize the political landscape post a PR based general election when we are so used to our FPTP vision" - not if you're Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or a Londoner!
That’s a recipe for absolute degeneracy and blackmail.
Good point aside from the minor detail of it being nonsense. At least in one place a)we would be paying less for the degeneracy and b)if anything there would be less chance of blackmail since they would all know who was shagging who vs it happening in a random flat instead.
“It’s also I think difficult to visualize the political landscape post a PR based general election when we are so used to our FPTP vision” – not if you’re Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish or a Londoner!
That doesnt really help translate it to the UK level. All of the ones you list still have fptp as a major factor at that level.
It is unclear what the outcome would be.
Government (along with the law) needs to get away from the adversarial approach. Standing up shouting and scoring cheap points is childish. Proportional representation and an acceptance that coalition will become the norm seems the only way to provide that and, along with it, some semblance of long term planning.
"That doesnt really help translate it to the UK level."
Sure, it does. aside from the rest of England already being on PR, how much closer could you get than the UK capital and ¾ of the UK nations being on PR? And don't forget that European elections across the UK were already run on PR.
"Government (along with the law) needs to get away from the adversarial approach. Standing up shouting and scoring cheap points is childish."
That's a tiny sliver of the political process.
how much closer could you get than the UK capital and ¾ of the UK nations being on PR
In all those cases the power is limited to a greater or lesser degree and the ultimate power lies with PR. Hence whilst you can make some guesses it is just that.
And don’t forget that European elections across the UK were already run on PR.
Farage
7 for 0.
vs
6 for 5
See the problem now?
How about a parliament building that can accommodate all the MPs.
All MPs must attend parliament when it sits and must cast a vote on all policies.
I also thought a roving parliament whilst West Minister is being done up would be good, it'd be much cheaper for the tax payer if the parliament is in Newcastle or Liverpool or Dundee or Cardiff or Bradford etc, for a year or two. Would also allow more local people to attend parliament, to witness UK politics first hand.
[How will you run PR?]
Well you could do worse than look at how it works in Europe....many democracies in Europe do this successfully, and it clearly prevents outcomes that the wider population don't agree with - gert willders in the Netherlands as an example....
And interesting that the system in Germany was designed in large part by British/allied lawyers post-war who wanted a system that wouldn't allow totalitarianism to have a chance to rise again. Broadly successful...
I live in a constituency where, because of fptp, my vote has effectively been meaningless for the 22 years I've been here. And I suspect that applies to many of us on here. If we want the UK body politic to reflect the broad population rather entrenched interest groups, then PR makes sense
I think it was mentioned up-thread, but the only European states using fptp are the UK and Belarus........
As usual, most suggestions are left biased, which is one of the reasons nothing ever happens, like it or not, the UK has a large right wing population, the tories are their party of choice, so you need a strong opposition, no matter who the sitting government is.
Proportional Representation sounds great, but has just as many negatives as it has positives, for every green MP you’d get, you’ll get a Nigel Farage.
I don't think you understand how PR actually works. I'd say that while UK politics has drifted right, the electorate when polled comes out pretty central. But that isn't catered for by FPTP as the first and most important hurdle to clear is the local party, so you need to spout some pretty extreme nonsense on either side to get past those, but those then become the policies of government by default.
That why you get this now - 'Flip side is you’re allowing the fringe lunatics to set up their own parties and gain some power'.
In most implementations the real fringe don't get across the hurdle of 3% or whatever of the national vote to actually get anywhere.
Having Farage in operation in the commons would probably reveal how vile he is. He was on show in the Euro Parliament for a long time, and didn't cover himself in glory with his circus tricks
Re. 'I want more voting on big things like whether we go to war with a country.' Yes , that ends well. Brexit? How do you fancy that working weill after some terrorist outrage and someone proposes banning mosques?
On a lighter note, all MP’s ,when being interviewed, should be wired up to an electrocution machine. When they can’t answer a bloody simple yes / no question they get a low level shock. The further they pivot ( thanks Matt Hancock )from the question , the level of intensity increases until they do answer it !!
Some of you folks need to read up on pr systems. There are many systems each with positives and negatives.
The beauty of pr tho is every vote counts.
Ypu can have open or closed lists. You can make it regional or national. You can have hybrid systems.
I like the system used in Scotland. You still have a constituency link and its reasonably good on proportionality.
Note despite the pr system in Scotland no ukip or other hard right has been elected to Holyrood and we have had single issue msps. Proper socialists and a good number of greens
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_constituencies_and_electoral_regions
All political parties to be publicly funded no fund raising activities or donations permitted.
Agree. Anyone can start a political party (as long as they pass whatever requirements are required) and then that party gets an amount of money which his exactly the same amount of money Labour or Conservatives or anyone else gets.
The beauty of pr tho is every vote counts.
Ypu can have open or closed lists. You can make it regional or national. You can have hybrid systems.
I honestly don't get the reticence for PR with it being something where nothing would get done, when theres a large number of working real world examples.
The politician is just a front facing part of the organisation. The decision making is all done in the background by economists, business leaders etc
In fact I’d bet that any of the policy makers / influencers work for which ever colour is in office
Yes idealistically you would want politicians to be vocational but why would they? For <£100k a year and take all the abuse they get
Anyone can start a political party (as long as they pass whatever requirements are required) and then that party gets an amount of money
That would seem a dream for scammers unless you change the requirements at which point its whether that is corrupting democracy.
I would stick all the big donors (say 5k and above) into a shared pot. I mean they are doing it for the country, right?
Party politcis aside I cannot abide the situation whereby my MP is also a minister. How the hell can he concentrate on putting my constituency first when he is buggering about with transport.?
It's all about delegation, appoint a few SPADs and get your spouse and maybe the kids in the payroll if possible.
That would seem a dream for scammers
Nope, see my point about passing whatever requirements. What are the requirement today to have an official political party. Don't ask me but then it is just an idea I put on an MTB forum and won't be implementing it so won't be wasting time on any detail but would seem a much fairer way of a)allowing parties to form and b) have the same money available for election campaigns and other stuff.
Proportional Representation sounds great, but has just as many negatives as it has positives, for every green MP you’d get, you’ll get a Nigel Farage.
If that is who a contituency chooses then that's democratic. We can choose not to visit or contract with that constituency but not gainsay them their deomcratic choice.
it can also stop any progression.
Having seen the "progress" we have been subjected to and are currently experiencing I'm not currently seeing a downside.
If one chooses the social media route for expounding your views as an elected representative one is not permitted to block contituents on the platform. The elected person is there at our behest and works for us.
They don’t pick MPs from other parties to be ministers because they believe fundamentally different things about how the country should be run, and because it would be impossible to have collective responsibility.
Under PR this is a normal state of affairs and they seem to manage. The minister needs to present a compelling case in a mixed party cabinet to get something done not just have the other cabinet members nod it through because "party first". Frankly some stasis in decision making is a good thing as too much change can be unsettling. The constant changing of ministerial personnel has a detrimental effect on stability for things like health and transport where projects can take years to complete and ministers can change 2 or 3 times a year.
Don't see why people are so scared of the prospect of Farage getting a seat. We already have a bunch of absolute roasters in the house of commons. It might have kept him off prime time telly if he'd had a minor job to do as an ineffective backbencher. The idea that it's better to have a landslide (of any political persuasion) on the basis of perhaps 13 million votes out of a country of 70 million is ridiculous IMO, it's an utterly backward system and there's good reason that there's a bare handful of countries worldwide that have followed our example (and none that are particularly enviable).
It'll never change, because most people don't like to think too hard and the vested interests that hold power don't want to lose their grip.
If you are relying on the electoral system to keep people you don't like out of parliament then you need to up your game.
What might be a good idea is that the general public didn't throw their teddies out of the pram so much. Once something is voted on and "wins" it is a go. No whinging or wanting best of three.
Hitler would agree.
[ no apologies for invoking Godwin at this stage ]
Once something is voted on and “wins” it is a go. No whinging or wanting best of three.
That worked so well with Brexit didn't it...
Actually, I'd add that one into the mix. No more referendums or at least a rule that a referendum is basically a "sense check" of how the public feels on an issue and is totally non-binding. The general public is, by and large, too stupid to be allowed a say on important matters.
I think the pressures on democracy are across the world, not just the UK. Here in Germany it is the same, not as far gone as the UK but very much on the same path. So while I support proportional representation, it isn't the solution to the core problem.
IMO the biggest problem is 40 years of neoliberalism has created such financial disparity that the mega wealthy have ownership of politics and the media message, and they use that power to further rig the system in their favour, very effectively bypassing democracy.
The solution is to change political funding to stop these high wealth individuals and corporations having such a massive influence, however seeing as the people with the power to change it, are the people taking the money to do the bidding of the rich, I don't know how we can have change without a revolution.
Yea, the system isn’t broken - it’s operating exactly as intended.
Bringing in PR now would be utterly mental. We’ve allowed inequality and injustice get to the point where large numbers of voters are turning to two-bit fascist populists for ‘solutions’ and now some want to bring in an electoral system which will hand them power???
You fights fascists by denying them a voice and blocking them from acquiring power, not by polite argument and handing them 50-100 seats in parliament. 🙄
A good start would be to stop this tribal left vs right squabbling. It's us vs the political elite and those that fund them. Does anyone really feel represented right now? The right are disenfranchised with the tories who are on track to be annihilated and rightly so. Judging from talk on here and elsewhere the left are already disenfranchised and labour haven't even got into power yet.
My possibly foolish hope is that enough people realise that we're all getting screwed no matter who you vote for and that both main parties are completely destroyed.
IMO the biggest problem is 40 years of neoliberalism has created such financial disparity that the mega wealthy have ownership of politics and the media message, and they use that power to further rig the system in their favour, very effectively bypassing democracy
I would argue about some of the wording and timescale but in a nutshell this is what we are stuck with. All we get is a corporate vision of what the world should be, **** the consequences. A two-tier system of order, where poorer/normal people are made to jump through endless hoops and dealt with in an increasingly brutal fashion. Sadly this is old ground retrodden with a modern surveillance lead twist. Of course and most importantly, money is made mostly unhindered by those in positions of power. Any kind of power is kept away from the disgusting legacy plebs (who are left arguing the toss over trivial matters), unless they are puppets, brutalising and/or stitching up their own.
The biggest change I've noticed is the amount of public money unashamedly handed over to private sector businesses who aggressively covet it. How certain industries have intertwined themselves with politicians and the operation of government to the point where they are almost beyond criticism, can dictate policy/legislation and are given carte blanche to cover up any kind of wrong doing. Even when caught red-handed are allowed to carry on pretty much business as usual.
We're not gonna make it, are we? Humans I mean.
John Connor T2
Bringing in PR now would be utterly mental. We’ve allowed inequality and injustice get to the point where large numbers of voters are turning to two-bit fascist populists for ‘solutions’ and now some want to bring in an electoral system which will hand them power???
Other way round. Pr denies them power by being representative. We would not have tory majorities. I suggest you look into how pr works. Its the morm worldwide.
No 2 bit fascists in Scotland under pr. Ukip have never had a seat.
PR is essential to the future prosperity of the UK and the best way to stop extremism
People voting in there own interests would be a good start.
My possibly foolish hope is that enough people realise that we’re all getting screwed no matter who you vote for and that both main parties are completely destroyed.
PR is one way that could help with that. See my Green vote that gets nowhere, with PR there could be 25 Green MPs so that is 25 less for the main parties and also gives me a feeling that my vote was actually worthwhile. More other options for people to vote for and less and less votes for the two main parties until there are not the two main parties anymore.
People voting in there own interests would be a good start.
This - but things are so messed up now that there isn't a good option for that.
What is good for the system - and what is good for us perhaps an overlap, but in the same way most people struggle to keep weight off because they won't do what's actually good for them versus what is the easy option.
So we all just end up blundering through.
IMO the biggest problem is 40 years of neoliberalism has created such financial disparity that the mega wealthy have ownership of politics and the media message, and they use that power to further rig the system in their favour, very effectively bypassing democracy
This.
It's funny you don't hear politicians talk about the ills of Neoliberalism and that's telling to me. But you do hear plenty talk of the problems of socialism. Again the noisy minority always cut through.
The powerful have control of a system which simply benefits those with assets. It's no more complex than that. And the housing market is the supply limited bridge between the haves and have nots.
There's a lot to fix though.
I think another thing that's a bit of an issue is people's expectations of what change might look like- we've been so conditioned to accept low standards that change seems absurd. People just struggle with the concept of it. There's a negative feedback loop in there.
This is why Starmer's Labour seems like a way out when it's simply not - it's going to be breath of fresh air for about 5 mins. Parties aren't interested in change they're interested in the staying/gaining in power. That's two different objectives.