Is It Time For A New System Of Politics?

[Ms Macbeth]

I tend to agree re PR, but there is perhaps an issue around who is actually on the list of candidates? No one in Sheffield can forget Labour’s fairly recent booboo in selecting the wrong parliamentary candidate.  That ended in tears.   
 

Scotland has a ‘National’ party, and as a Scot, I don’t believe they got in solely on policy, but on the Scottish brand.  England could have an equivalent, the difference being the Scot Nats are left of centre, English nationalists tend not to be.  But PR would give more people a voice.

 

Anna mentions percentage increases not being helpful to the low paid.  I’m old enough to remember the strongest unions insisting on differentials.  I don’t remember them promoting any sort of levelling up.  

 

 

[m williamson]

It is difficult to see how change can be brought about. The system as it stands is not fit for purpose, but it suits the two main party's and they have no intention of changing it. Their priorities are clear, themselves, their party - because that is to their personal advantage -  and hoi polloi only when it's unavoidable  in order to continue at the trough.

 

When an alternative was offered in 2011 to FPTP they were very careful to avoid offering PR+STV,   the fairest most representative voting system as yet devised.

Instead they offered AV, another flawed system which could be argued against. When you take into consideration the fact that PR+STV has been the voting system used in Northern Ireland - which is currently in the UK - since 1973 it is crystal clear that the politicians intend to retain a system which doesn't represent the wishes of the electorate but suits their purpose.

 

The public are regarded with contempt by the political class.

[Anna B]

21 hours ago, m williamson said:

It is difficult to see how change can be brought about. The system as it stands is not fit for purpose, but it suits the two main party's and they have no intention of changing it. Their priorities are clear, themselves, their party - because that is to their personal advantage -  and hoi polloi only when it's unavoidable  in order to continue at the trough.

 

When an alternative was offered in 2011 to FPTP they were very careful to avoid offering PR+STV,   the fairest most representative voting system as yet devised.

Instead they offered AV, another flawed system which could be argued against. When you take into consideration the fact that PR+STV has been the voting system used in Northern Ireland - which is currently in the UK - since 1973 it is crystal clear that the politicians intend to retain a system which doesn't represent the wishes of the electorate but suits their purpose.

 

The public are regarded with contempt by the political class.

Indeed they are. 

The politicos unwillingness to change proves it.

 

The problem is any party with high ideals is going to split and split again over arguments over how those ideals are to be attained. Hence we now have more different parties, that have split the vote. If we are not to have PR, but they all want what is best for the country, they need to coalesce again into one party (including the SNP and GreenParty) to stand any chance of winning.

 

The Conservatives however have a more pragmatic approach and simply concentrate on getting elected. They're willing to promise anything to get into office, then forget all about it when in power. So their vote stays firm, doesn't split, and they continue to serve their own agenda and that of their wealthy doners . 

Edited July 10, 2022 by Anna B