UKC

Am I alone in thinking that what's occurred is no less than a crisis of democracy as it is interpreted in the United Kingdom?

My thinking is this - FPTP has allowed communities to be marginalised for years, leading to people's concerns being effectively ignored. They've witnessed change for the worse in their communities and rising inequality and have been denied a voice. Look at UKIP's results in 2015 - 1/3 as many votes as the Tories, but only one seat. Growing anger and resentment were inevitable. A sensible, level-headed debate on immigration and how best to deal with the pressures that result was needed, but denied.

The referendum robbed us of all possibility of that debate. Finally given an equal vote, all that worry and resentment and anger has been voiced, but unfortunately misdirected. The EU was never the elephant in the room in the UK.

There are clearly many lessons to be learnt from all of this about immigration, inequality, voter representation. My big worry is that who ever takes the reigns will simply decide they've been given a mandate to leave the EU, instigate Article 50 then continue to ignore the real elephant in the room.

I like Gove's words when he says the following:
"They rejected politics as usual and government as usual. They want and need a new approach to running this country.

There are huge challenges ahead for this country but also huge opportunities. We can make this country stronger and fairer. We have a unique chance to heal divisions, give everyone a stake in the future and set an example as the most creative, innovative and progressive country in the world."

But then I remember that this is a man who continually repeated a series of massive lies, made promises that could never be kept, stoked xenophobia and claimed that we'd all had enough of experts.

Is a system of proportional representation the way forwards from here? FPTP was supposed to return strong governments. At the last two elections we've seen a coalition government, and a weak majority that has made numerous U-turns, and that has allowed a central party division to tear the country asunder.

In reply to Trevers:

I'd favour the adoption of the Scottish electoral system - seems fair and maintains the constituency link which is the best feature of FPTP.

In reply to Trevers:

If people could vote using P R,then there would be a balance of power between left,centre and right.
When I stood as a Green candidate in Hillsborough, Sheffield council elections,the Tory ,Labour,and Liberal candidates all shuffled up to me,separately,and said that if there had been PR they would be voting Green.Just a tad frustrating.With the threat of UKIP outnumbering Labour,which is currently unelectable,we should be campaigning for PR.That is,unless we want Tory ''austerity'' for ever. Mitch

In reply to Dr.S at work:


The Scottish system sounds fairly similar to the German system. I like the idea of a mixed system which maintains the constituency link.

In reply to paul mitchell:



What can I do to get involved with campaigning?

In reply to Trevers:

They were offered political grain and rejected it in a referendum and were offered 'Christmas' in another referendum and agreed to it (not realising they were part of the main course).

In reply to Trevers:

I voted for PR in the electrol reform referndum. Still would now.

In reply to Trevers:

you're not alone. But may be alone in not groaning at the thought of trying to debate it again given we've been shot down so much about it.

It's definitely a time to look at it again. The Conservatives got into power this time with 24% of the electorate vote. Of the votes made they were opposed by 59.4% of voters.

Until recently FPTP wasn't so bad, you were basically choosing between Labour and Conservatives and the winner got in. Now with so many extra parties, marginalized voters, and a Labour party that is not seen as representative of it's members (you could argue they've lost their way or you could argue that really we need another party as Labour can't cover all the 'left of Tory' voters as it's such a wide spectrum...either way irrelevant to this discussion), you end up with the majority of voters not being happy with who gets in. PR is really needed.

But given we DID have a vote about it not too long ago and stuck with what we've got, despite very big criticisms in how that went down - rushed through, options given not satisfactory and missing what most supporters wanted from the list, not explained properly to the voters etc - I don't know if there's enough heart to get it forced through the inevitable back lash.

In reply to Trevers:

100% agree. FPTP is isolating and marginalising. Creates the notion of a protest vote, which is how more than one leave voter I have spoken to voted.

FPTP is no longer fit for purpose as society moves on from the Tories and the Whigs.

In reply to Scarab9:



Key objection I thought was that it wasnt PR but AV which could magnify the problems FPTP has rather than reduce them.
Its a shame Cameron didnt show the same talent when setting the question for Europe as he did in that case.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

The problem with the constituency link is that it only works if the candidate gives a toss about their constituency.

Unfortunately many - and my own MP is one - don't. Their careers are in Westminister. Us mere voters outside the M25 are useful every five years or so - providing we vote the way we are told - but otherwise we get ignored.

I think PR - as has been suggested - allows the disaffected to feel that their views are represented.

In reply to Trevers:

I don't think anything would ever get done in parliament without a government majority.

The problem is the whip is too strong and government ministers don't seem to be able to vote the way their constituents want them to.

The actual problem is the power of the media and their ability to push their own agenda.

In reply to Trevers:
'We have a unique chance to heal divisions' Well, he's certainly had a major hand in creating them. so it would be nice to think he could make reparations. However, I suspect its just strategic rhetoric from someone who has his own fundamentalist type views and is thoroughly nasty according to a friend who has worked with him.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/21/writing-michael-gove-boris-...

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Lots of things can get done without a single party majority. Formal and informal coalitions work fine in many countries, and there's no good reason why they shouldn't work more often here. There might also be those who argue that it wouldn't be a bad thing if parliament didn't actually do very much - taking the politics out of education, for example, might be a wise move.



I think it's a big mistake to thing there's a single 'actual problem'. There are a number of problems - media influence is one, but lack of representation and accountability is a significant other.