I read an article which I can’t find at the moment that said that people, especially young people, are less disenchanted with democracy in countries where there is a form of proportional representation than in countries with first past the post
I can understand that, I’m pretty disenchanted with democracy myself at the moment
Yes, in Britain and parts of Europe, democracy simply isn’t delivering the will of the people.
I saw a debate with a Swiss constitutional expert arguing theres now a very cosy Establishment/ big biz / NGO / Institutional Blob that carries-on regardless of public sentiment.
Take for example the UK where it’s perfectly ok to shoplift without any repercussions. This is unthinkable in very safe nations like Singapore or Qatar, where the slightest illegal act is come down on hard.
Progressives over-complicate things like law n order, whereas Singaporeans apply simple common sense with far superior outcomes.
Progressives like over-complicating things because it produces careers for themselves as rehab experts etc.
New York was lawless, and this was addressed wit Broken Window policy. London is now lawless, I see endless vids on my timeline showing unbelievable levels of violence such as a gang pushing a boy onto a live train line having beaten him senseless.
Labour will be even softer on crime so I expect major political consequences for this and other epic failures which will lead to a Reform Govt in 2029.
PR is definitely what we need
How do we get the message through to them, they will not listen unless it is made clear and then only if enough want the change from FPTP, people vote according to their bank balance it seems.
why change what has worked for many years? I can’t see the point of changing for change sake only
Working for who? FPTP works for the privileged, vile being an excellent description for most in politics. I do believe MP’s are going to be under scrutiny more than ever before; the(hoi polloi)many are angry. They need to be wary every word or action will be noted, will not be allowed to get away with the corrupt activities, abuse of power that FPTP allows for much longer.
The problem is that the parties have a vested interest in the status quo. They don’t know what the outcome of a change will be.
I think getting rid of the House of Lords and installing an elected upper house to become a democracy is a more urgent issue in the UK.
It would also provide the opportunity to experiment with a different voting format.
I see two problems with your statement here. First, the current FPTP system obviously does not work in the sense it does not fairly deliver a representative body of MPs that reflect the actual voting of the population. A party can, and often does, gain a significant majority and power with a lot less that 50% of the vote. How can that be called “working”?
Therefore change would be to attempt to address this sort of issue.
There are constituencies where the sitting MP is pretty much guaranteed to return because the majority there will always vote for him/her. That means the remaining voters effectively have no say, their vote means nothing and counts towards nothing. There is universal franchise but extensive useless franchise. Changing that would surely not just be for the sake of change.
It’s PR for me every time, even if it produces stagnation.
Nothing could be worse, properly thought out. Clarity is most needed to avoid any misunderstanding for a fairer alternative.
I think I’d go further. There must be a way to address the disconnect between Westminster and the people across the country. If the upper chamber also becomes an elected body, could that mean the house of commons moves more towards clearer representation from different parts of the country? Assume you could have 7 or 8 such groups of representation (South West, South East, Midlands, Wales, North West, North East, Scotland, N Ireland) - each reflecting a regional power base. These regional bases would have budgets, local tax raising powers, local investment powers.
Then the role of the executive might change so that the role of who determines would new legislation could be any of the three levels - executive, or lower chamber, or upper chamber.
Big shake up to curtail the two major parties, to push decision making back out to local areas, to reduce London’s influence.
Ok, the idea needs refinement.
This doesn’t apply to me per se, except to say that if we spent as much time vetting candidates as we did the voting system, we would be in much better shape.
My brother is always complaining that Scotland, Wales and Ireland have their own Parliaments but England doesn’t, it being ruled solely by Westminster where representatives from Scotland, Wales and Ireland also have a say.
Perhaps the UK could benefit from a Commonwealth system like Australia where the States rule themselves and the Federal Parliament deals only with issues laid out in the Constitution such as Immigration, taxation, defence etc as laid out in Part V of the constitution
On a personnel statement by very good friends that have lived in Australia for many years.
…As a young family two of their children suffered being Bullied at Junior level school…The wife being the Mother and emotionally involved with this situation went and visited the School…Apparently these days with changing views of what they class as locals which are the off springs of the Aborigines… are some of the locals now where they where living in Perth . And why not…you have to expect some bullying to occur to foreigners… as yourself, she was informed!..now is that normal in Australia …sure all people have rights to live and breathe in their own Country, but is this the changes that can affect everyday life in Australia now, then moving into Politics is that also how blinkered the world is becoming about rights and actions of everyday people…put up with stuff or wot?
I agree, afterall Remainers argued that a 52% majority was not a mandate and needed a re-run.
Labour will get around 35% at most. Is that a mandate?
We need PR and also to do as Norwegians and Swiss do, referenda to decide important matters
This begs the question, can the vetters be trusted? I think not. In the UK we have fact checkers who are hideously biased, eg not being as rigorous when dealing with claims from progressives / using flawed information such as studies carried out by naive left wing students who have never experienced the real world
Local groups are
Local groups do there best. They organize town meetings and invite candidates to put their feet to the fire on policy plans. I am no babe in the woods though, and understand that the PACs and lobbies wield the most power.
Its good agree but such a pity that you blithely ignored my “a lot less than 50%”. Or is 2% a lot less in your opinion. Gaining 48% of the total vote is getting quite close to a decent share. And for a referendum on a very major issue then typically 55%+ is viewed as a minimum.
None of that negates the conclusion a far smaller than 52% share for Labour, could well be argued to be not a mandate, using Remainers logic. Note I do not agree with such logic persee.
Labour Wales shows us how badly Labour runs things for more spending per capita, but alas the sheep are voting Labour on the grounds ‘they can’t be any worse’.
Labour Wales demonstrates they can be worse but hey ho, muppets gonna muppet.
RETIREES ON HERE, Labour will come for you as never before
Here ends the broadcast on behalf of the Reform party / Tory party.
Strewth, make it less obvious matey
Political Reform - what would be your preferred voting system?
Nigel Farage coalitioning with left, right or anyone who’ll have him.
