[Closed] Politics question

The political system has been broken for a long time. Hence Brexit.

I think the turn out would need to be so low for any change it would be impossible. Many people vote along tribal lines, the over 50's are particularly set in the two party system and will vote for or quite often against who they want / don't want in power that the over 50s turnout alone would allow government to say they were legitimate.

Mandatory voting. Like Australia. Don’t like any of the candidates? Draw a cock and balls on your ballot paper.

And proportional representation. I used to be against this, as it gives rise to fringe/extremist parties, but given the power the current nutters hold, it can’t be any worse.

Not voting as a protest is a terrible idea. The career politicians love non voters as it maintains the status quo. People aren't voting because they are dissatisfied with the system but in pretty much every constituency there are more non voters than voted for the winner. People need to stop voting labour/Tory just because no one else will win so anything else is a "wasted vote" and start voting for what they actually want. Start voting for the independent, the green, just something else

Root and branch reform. Proportional system, vastly slimmed down lords, federal UK, written constitution, total transparency in what money mps touch and total ban on second jobs

perhaps an electorate who are not as self interested as the politicans would be good ...
And a shift to people who do give a damn and want change ... rather than saying it is the fault of everyone else

Blimey! I agree with TJ! This is a first!

Unfortunately, the very people who would have to instigate any of this are the very last people in the country who want to see any of that happen

We accuse politicians of never thinking beyond the next election and yet the voters do the same. That's why we are largely stuck with a two party system. If folk voted according to the policies they wanted to see implemented then more, smaller parties (like the LDs and Greens)  would get a look in. All those folk who say "I'd vote for X if they had a chance of winning? Start voting for them. It might take a few years before enough folk catch on so you just need to encourage others.

There was a party once, who tried to make a step in the right direction, a move away from the toxic FPTP votes we have now. They went in a to a coalition with this goal in mind - dealed, compromised and lost. RIP Lib Dems.

Nose.

Spite.

Face.

I think we should start with a well informed electorate first.

I think we should start with a well informed electorate first.

I would agree with that. One of the reasons I'm against mandatory voting. Not sure how you would implement it. A quiz on the voting form? Hiding the party names would be a start so you at least have to know the name of your labour/tory candidate.

I'm pretty sure party names weren't always on ballot papers.

For a well informed electorate, we need a better education system. Focusing schools on narrowly defined exam results has not worked. Teaching the finer points of English grammar is pointless. Kids need to be taught life skills, understanding the world. They need to be motivated to learn by telling them why they need to know stuff and how it will help them in life, not just stuffed with things to pass exams.

It will take a while before that filters through to an informed electorate though.

In the meantime we need to find a way to make representative democracy work, and ensure that our representatives use the advice available to them from the civil Service and act in the interests of the nation, according to the broad ethos they stood for election on, not what the they or their Party funders want. We need to find a better way to fund politics, but I can't think of one.

I don't agree the system is broken. Brexit is something completely separate, its an issue that transcends all political parties and exercised by referendum which is a clumsy and ineffective mechanism...however I accept that the political elites ignorance and arrogance around the issue of Brexit and ignoring the clearly high degree of the publics opinion on the matter has actually caused the current problem....they should have dealt with it a long time ago, but instead kicking the can down the road and pretending it doesn't exist has not worked out well. We got a referendum 40 years ago to join the EEA, but treaty after treaty was signed away behind the electorates back without consultation or discussion and not surprisingly the electorate feels ignored, left out and that the political elite has exercised their own agenda's. If they had 'educated' us along the way and involved us then we wouldn't be where we are today where a lot of the public (on both sides) are ignorant of the EU and its workings, have strong feelings and ill-informed opinions about it, and suddenly out of the blue asked to vote in a referendum on it....it is completely outside of our normal political discourse.

But outside of Brexit I think the system works pretty well, not perfect but it never will and certainly better and more effective than any other nations system.

Its strength is that decisive majority governments are mostly created which means the government of the day actually has the power to do things and effect change...if you don't like the change they get voted out at the next election. The alternative is some form of colition or proportional representation government, which is government by committee which slows the whole process down, often ends up with Brexit like impasses on tough issues and just ends up with compromises all the time which in the long run is not good. As has been said before, its the least worst option.

I think we should start with a well informed electorate first.

Yeah, right, because there are a lot of those around the World aren't there? You're talking about people here and for any democracy to work every vote has to count equally whether you agree with them or not. Otherwise you just end up with something like communism, fascism, dictatorships or rotten boroughs for instance.

As hard as it is for some to stomach on here the groundswell for UKIP which prompted the EU referendum was an indication of how things can be changed. No doubt many will respond "for the worse" but that's just tough shit, that's the way democracy works. The majority get their way and the minority just moan about it on internet forums.

Also in agreement with TJ, but I doubt the majority of those with their snouts currently in the trough would vote those measures through.

I also agree that mandatory voting should be brought in, spoiling your paper is a better option as protest as it still gets counted and so you could then at least put a figure against those who feel disenfranchised/not represented by the available choices...

The other things I would like to see

Better controls on campaign funding and controls on the channels political campaigns can promote themselves through. Its all Social meeja these days innit... slapping them on the wrist after they break the rules isn't really a deterrent...

More politicians/campaigns taken to task for lies or miss representation of facts, the half-truths they reel off in an interview (or write on the side of a bus) are all but forgotten by the next news cycle, but they'll have illicited someone's support by effectively lying to them which is tantamount to fraud IMO.

The problem is, like everyone else with an opinion on "what should be done" beyond my vote and gobbing off online I lack the time, connections or frankly enough will to do anything more about it...

Probably nothing. They are people and while i would love to thing the majority of people are altruistic and broadminded, evidence would suggest otherwise.

We got a referendum 40 years ago to join the EEA, but treaty after treaty was signed away behind the electorates back without consultation or discussion and not surprisingly the electorate feels ignored,

You seem to be operating under the illusion that the majority were concerned about this, they weren't. But:

Its strength is that decisive majority governments are mostly created which means the government of the day actually has the power to do things and effect change…

Here lies the actual problem. This is the system that creates partisan confrontational politics which when people watch the antics in the House of commons, turns them off. When you have a FPTP system where an elected Government can effectively ignore in a lot of cases a majority of the population who didn't vote for them, add in stuff like austerity, then they will jump at the chance of using the "clumsy mechanism" called a referendum.

But outside of Brexit I think the system works pretty well, not perfect but it never will and certainly better and more effective than any other nations system.

How can a system the relies upon supporters being clustered in geographical areas to gain representation work well? This is the fundimental problem with our system. An idea or party could have wide and significant smsupport over the country but unless the supporters are clustered can have virtually zero representation. Democracy is about representation at the end of the day. Not winner takes all tyranny of the majority.

one quick way is to adopt what they did in Scotland over expenses. Everything is itemised and open for inspection. You are not allowed to buy a second house.

Next is much tighter scrutiny of second jobs honorary directorships and so on. Reform of party funding.

Royal commission on constitution and reform of parliament.

I'd lie to see a federal uk within the EU Strong national parliaments and a small senate. Proportional representation obviously.

any democracy to work every vote has to count equally whether you agree with them or not. Otherwise you just end up with something like communism, fascism, dictatorships or rotten boroughs for instance.

Or, indeed, the UK or USA currently. To take 2017 (which was less unbalanced than 2015).
SNP get the most bang for their buck with only 27.7k votes needed for a seat.
Tories came in at 43k and Labour 49.2
Lib dems way behind 197.7k and the Greens 525.7k

Well you can discuss this until the cows come home but there is no "right" answer and never will be. There will always be some disgruntled proportion of any society who will be disenfranchised. Even if the candidate/party you voted for gets into power, there's no guarantee they're going to govern wisely and do what you want them to. In fact, more often than not they don't which is why you then vote the next lot in to make another hash of it. And so it goes on...

I'm a big advocate of making all politicians have magic mushrooms every day for Brexit breakfast. It would sharpen their creativity and enhance empathy. PMQT would be much more entertaining too. Otherwise I think we'll forever be stuck with career politicians with no integrity.

Start voting for the independent, the green, just something else

How does that avoid this

What can we do to get politicians to represent the people that vote for them rather than exercise their own personal agendas?

It doesn't. Get rid of parties all together and vote who you want to represent you based on what they say and then what they do. Have an election every 2 years to see if that person has done what they said, acted as they said etc,. If not, out and in with another person.
Problem is most voters are not actually interested enough to keep track of all that and easier just to vote for someone who is in party x or party y.

Otherwise I think we’ll forever be stuck with career politicians with no integrity.

Being a politician is a career. Unless you are very wealthy and have good contingency plans for when you lose the next election, it is your job and you need to keep it.

I think we should start with a well informed electorate first.

Who decides how they are informed and who does the informing?

Maximum of 2 terms for MPs. Kills off the notion of career politicians. Should make them more accountable rather than just sitting back in a cushy seat knowing its a job for life that requires way less than what is actually needed for the role

Controversial and possibly unpopular view warning:

We live in a parliamentary democracy - we vote for our choice of representative to represent us in parliament. Our MPs are not necessarily duty bound to do exactly what we tell them, they are obliged to act in the best interests of constituents so for example if you want your MP needs to support a no-deal Brexit then it's up to your MP to decide whether this is in the best interests of the constituency and country as a whole.

Unfortunately, we are seeing an increase in grassroots activism - we are seeing candidates from both parties deselected by a growing number of local activists. We're also seeing the malign influence of some sections of the media. Voters are being influenced by the media which is pushing a certain agenda very hard. As such, we're less likely to organize ourselves to lobby hard for affordable housing, better welfare and state support because these issues are contrary to the agendas of some media outlets. Back to Brexit for a minute, anyone who spends any time on Facebook or Twitter will have encountered semi-literates who are self-appointed experts on the issues of world trade, as evidenced by the recent micro-targetted ad campaigns that have cost an estimated £1m but which are largely untraceable in terms of origin and the poorly fact checked and completely unbalanced coverage in newspapers like The S*n, Express et al.

So far as I can see, it's not democracy per se that's broken, but our politicians are subservient to an aggressive media and the threat of deselection that may or may not be driven/funded by minority interests that happen to have access to vast amounts of cash.

So, how do we address this?

Again, controversial and possibly unpopular opinions ahead, but we need a media that holds politics to account and to do so must be compelled to be unbiased, balanced (and by balanced I do not mean simply hosting two talking heads with extreme opposing views to attempt to humiliate one another on news programmes a la Question Time for example) and should place more emphasis on verifiable fact and less on opinion, a review of media standards is long overdue and there needs to be accountability and culpability for when a newspaper or news channel presents opinion as fact. Talking heads like James Delingpole, Toby Young et al may well have opinions but rarely offer anything of value, their purpose is to manufacture outrage.

Tech firms also have a huge responsibility towards ensuring that the data they harvest is not used to influence votes - few can argue that democracy is subverted by micro-targetting of subliminal political adverts.

Finally, we need to look at ways of ensuring that all political advertising is clearly flagged as such and that the sources of funding for lobby groups and adverts are declared up front. once again, tech firms, the media and the proliferation of "think tanks" like the TPA, Global Warming Policy Foundation etc are denied access to platforms and politicians unless they are completely open about their funding sources and donors.

Once we have the above nailed down then we will be better placed to ensure that our politicians are better able to do the jobs that they're elected to perform.

Maximum of 2 terms for MPs. Kills off the notion of career politicians.

And ensures that only the already wealthy would ever be interested in becoming an MP

vastly slimmed down lords,

They won't like that, and some of them are a bit old to be suddenly getting in shape. Fnar fnar...

That said, while I agree in principle, the Lords has shown itself over the course of the last 2 governments to be about only check on voice of reason on the government's increasingly right wing thinking.
So I think it'd be a case of fix the House of Commons, *then* slim down the lords.

Written constitution where the welfare of the individual is the purpose of government.

Get rid of parties all together and vote who you want to represent you based on what they say and then what they do.

It's quite appealing, but who would set the agenda in such a system?

I would very much like to see some more evidence* based politicking rather than the current media driven shambles.

*actual evidence rather than whatever poorly executed study is in the papers this week.

Maximum of 2 terms for MPs. Kills off the notion of career politicians.

Can't see the current crop of turkeys voting for that particular Christmas.

As I said, we need political, philosophical and economic education in schools, even to a basic level. How the hell do we expect people to vote well when they often have no idea what principles they are voting for? People are always complaining about fat cats looking after themselves and screwing the common man/woman, and yet we still get Tory governments. This makes no sense at all. Most people love the NHS (or at least the idea of it) and yet we somehow still vote for governments whose principles are opposite to anything socialised.

I'm not one for conspiracies but I believe this stuff isn't on the national curriculum because its in governments' interests not to include it.

I’m not one for conspiracies but I believe this stuff isn’t on the national curriculum because its in governments’ interests not to include it.

There's no national curriculum for PSHE - it's up to schools to decide what to teach.

Maximum of 2 terms for MPs. Kills off the notion of career politicians.

So the PM would have either zero experience or just one term. At best in a ministerial role but most likely backbencher. Cant see that going wrong at all.

sitting back in a cushy seat knowing its a job for life that requires way less than what is actually needed for the role

Seems it would be better to target the idea of safe seats instead.

It’s quite appealing, but who would set the agenda in such a system?

The elected MPs. Bit like the indicative vote thing the other week with parliament setting the agenda rather than a party setting it.

As I said, we need political, philosophical and economic education in schools, even to a basic level.

The problem with that is not imparting a heavy bias in the pupils, especially young ones. You run the very significant risk of teaching what to think not how.

People are always complaining about fat cats looking after themselves and screwing the common man/woman, and yet we still get Tory governments. This makes no sense at all. Most people love the NHS (or at least the idea of it) and yet we somehow still vote for governments whose principles are opposite to anything socialised.<blockoquote>

Many also think that none of the options available will do any differently in ways that matter. It'll be different fat cats, it'll be different ways of trashing the NHS, education and so on but the outcome will be broadly similar.

 

Get rid of parties all together and vote who you want to represent you based on what they say and then what they do

Why would it work this time and in this place? The only places which have a non party system are very small countries (plus autocracies but they dont really count). Its been tried many times (often as the default starting point eg UK and USA) but never stuck.
How would you select a government if you dont have parties for example.
Also two years? As a minister I suspect it would take that long to start having a clue. Half the problem now is people needing to show they are doing something before they actually understand it.

Teaching people (not just young ones ) to think critically about this stuff would help but as long as you've got politicians terrified of people like Murdoch using his media as a bully pulpit to flat out lie about the party that doesn't kiss his rear enough, they won't have any genuine facts to base their judgements on.
Reducing the influence of people like that would be a start.

Then some genuine alternatives through per vote subsidies or AV/PR.

No second jobs, no horse paddocks on expenses. No more of that. You have one job
Then move power away from the leaders office.

Lots of good comments here... I think the thing we need the most, is consequences for MPs and governments when they lie. I mean real consequences, in a meaningful timescale- it's not much use if you've already won your referendum or election by the time the decision comes through. The lesson of the Leave rulings is that lying is still a really good idea.

One problem with that is incompetence; frinstance Leadsom may genuinely believe a lot of the horseshit she spouts. Not all of it, but how do you legislate for that? Even so, there's a lot of good to be gained by jumping on innocent mistakes too.

But we say it's the media's job to hold them to account. How's that going so far? Half the media are happy to let lies pass, and even if the other half do call it out, who even cares? Especially when it's mostly cancelled out by the rest of the media. Someone can tell an obvious lie but it then ends up getting reported both ways and people think "ooh controversial" or "well not everyone thinks it's a lie"

Why this idea that the press- generally privately owned- should be enforcers of right and wrong in the first place?

Making promises binding, with penalties, would be another thing worth considering. We all know manifestos go in the bin the day after the election and only ever come back out when a party wants to say "But we promised to do this"- even while they ignore 20 other promises. But again it's totally inconsequential, the Tories ran on the exact same immigration promise for several elections in a row and never intended to implement it, and the worst that happens is people make fun of them a bit. In fact they were even able to use it as a campaigning point, bizarrely- "we promised to do this last time, we haven't done it, vote us back in so we can do it"

Maybe every manifesto promise should have a forfeit beside it. It'd certainly put force behind your words if you said "We will do this, or we will give X amount to charity/the opposition parties"-