B0ycey wrote:Just change FPTP to proportional representation. That is all you need to do. And something anyone who supports democracy should be advocating in any case.
I wish that were true.
I have opposed FPTP since I first joined a political party (Liberal) as a youth member in 1983. But it isn't a magic bullet and one could say it was putting the cart before the horse. FPTP endures because it gives disproportionate and sole power to one party, and both governments and oppositions in our warped, two-party system are more interested in wielding sole power, according to their ideological playbooks, than they are in representing the people.
First we need to radically reform our parliament and legislature before we determine the method by which we elect people to it. For a start, I would disband or repurpose the Whips' offices. This would force governments to make a clearer, more coherent and collegiate case for any legislation or policy they proposed, because they could not rely on their seat majority. Furthermore, it would liberate MPs to vote for what they believed was right and/or what they believed their constituents would want.
I would also require two-thirds majorities for any Act of Parliament or amendment thereto, again forcing the ruling party to be more honest and have to recruit support from other parties.
I would support an elected upper chamber...but only if all members were independents. The purpose of an upper chamber is for (generally) older, wiser, less ideologically zealous parliamentarians to look at what the lower chamber has produced and have scope to moderate it and to identify and highlight any flaws or the potential for unintended consequences.
I would also call for an overhaul of the parliamentary schedule. True story; about fifteen years ago I was secretary to a committee that oversaw military mental health in the UK Armed Forces and, at one meeting in London, we were unexpectedly interrupted by a delegation of lawyers and civil servants from both the MOD and the Dept of Health. They were working concurrently on a new Armed Forces Act and a new Mental Health Act and they needed our specialist, professional advice...but they had to have the answers they sought within ninety minutes, because they then had to dash back to their respective ministries and have the final drafts complete by 5pm, because of the tight parliamentary timelines. That's not just silly...given the gravity of what it was they were asking about (specifically, the deprivation of liberty on the grounds of mental health of service personnel - or what's called 'sectioning' someone here in the UK) it was grossly irresponsible and dangerous. Subject Matter Expert advice on matters of grave import should be sought weeks, if not months before any legislation is drafted.
But what's also needed is more education about politics. Just as a small example, the media and many individual electors put a lot of store by an MP's voting record, but what many fail to appreciate (I think the media appreciate it, but like to manipulate it to generate good headlines) is that a legislature is about making laws and many politicians will vote against
a law, not because they disagree with the intent of the law but because they have concerns about the wording, lack of scrutiny or planned implementation of it. So it's easy to say, "Tory MP votes against outlawing <choose anything despicable that fits>" when in fact the MP may be passionately opposed to whatever it was, but sincerely believes that the proposed law, as drafted, would have negative unintended consequences and/or make the problem worse rather than better.
- By annatar1914
- By Godstud