How to fix UK broken political system

I don’t think PR makes for the sort of revolutionary changes that certainty Western Govts need to make. We’ve essentially been captured by Corporate and Wealth interests, and until we make changes to that system of self-interest; tinkering about with how MPs are elected seems premature and a bit pointless. We have to at least, and not limited to:

Limit the effects of faceless policy think tanks – The Tufton mob (for example), limit corporations from acting as persons, increase penalties to corporate executives for liabilities, reduce opportunities for wealth to buy political power* increase inheritance taxation** to reduce the size of the wealth-hoarding class, re-nationalise monopoly industries/services, re-distribute or devolve power downwards  as locally as its possible.  How you then vote in the national body is maybe something to look at. The end point has got to be law-abiding stable govts, how you achieve that is less important than the outcome IMO.

*make corporate donations illegal and limit amount of personal donations, and make it a law so that you can either vote or be very wealthy, but not both.

**either a 3-generational limit to encourage spending inherited wealth, or a 100% inheritance tax – I’m not bothered which.

Re the mp hotel becoming a hot bed of debauchery and degeneracy. Possibly or we could expect them to act like adults. They have free access to their room for the duration of the government. All mod cons to a luxury hotel standard. They agree to certain standards.
A robust whistle blower system where any suggestions of blackmail or levering for favours is strongly dealt with. Obviously if you’re being leveraged over something illegal then you face the consequences like a grown up.
If they don’t like it then accommodation is at their own expense.

Get rid of the whip system.

I suggest you look into how pr works.  It’s  the morm worldwide.

I know how it works, and everywhere I look in the western world they have much the same problems as we do whether they have PR or not (even in Scotland too). Thinking that changing the voting system will magically solve all our deep rooted problems s a fantasy. PR doesn’t remove power from corporate elites and billionaires. In some cases it helps them to gain more.

Limit the effects of faceless policy think tanks – The Tufton mob (for example), limit corporations from acting as persons, increase penalties to corporate executives for liabilities, reduce opportunities for wealth to buy political power* increase inheritance taxation** to reduce the size of the wealth-hoarding class, re-nationalise monopoly industries/services, re-distribute or devolve power downwards  as locally as its possible.

All of this. I’d also add removing the vote from over-70s and giving it to 16-18 year olds. That and much more involvement of voters in policy formation. The role of an MP should be limited to a functionary to deliver policy and hold govt to account.

I agree with @dazh I don’t see any govt that has PR in Europe doing so much better than the system the UK operates currently, that makes the change unquestionably better other than a personal belief that it would.

All the studies generally show that if you want political parties to enact change then shared power isn’t that great, if you’re maintaining a system that avoids political extremism; then PR is the way forward. I think that we forget that lots of European PR is there largely to put the brakes that very thing, while n the UK we’ve largely avoided political extremism [arguably until now, but they’re also wildly unpopular]

removing the vote from over-70s

So, making the system less democratic?

If we’re just tinkering around the edges, I’d also require the “great offices” to be filled as minimum of the life of the administration. So [for instance]  the Schools Minister, or Transport Minister is appointed and expected to be in place for at least the term of office (unless they die, or do something illegal or whatever) but the endless re-shuffling of cabinet positions for petty-political purposes does untold harm to long term planning and policy direction. IMO

So, making the system less democratic?

I think both myself and @dazh would be terrible PMs but yeah I’d be happy to loose a bit of ‘democracy’ as a return for a fairer society i.e. one that does not use hoarded wealth to use as political weapon against the less wealthy (however innocently acquired or wielded)  and that does, currently at least – include a generation of folks who’ve ended up with (mostly) unearned wealth.

So, making the system less democratic?

Yup. I fail to see what’s so great about a bunch of old people voting in their own redundant interests or to put everything back to how it was 50 years ago.

So we’re back to ignoring folks whose opinions don’t agree with ours. This is the same as banning political parties for the same reason.

I’m out.

So we’re back to ignoring folks whose opinions don’t agree with ours.

Oh they can express their opinion, they just won’t be able to exercise it at the ballot box. 😀

Seriously though, the over-70s have had an entire lifetime of voting and other opportunities for engagement with the political system. If they haven’t achieved the change they want to see before they’re 70 then I doubt they have much more to offer after that. Politics is about the future, and time and again we see the older demographic looking to the past rather than seeking to move forward. Nothing will ever change if we allow the older generation to decide what’s in our/their interests.

We already ban political parties that have opinions that we don’t agree with.

Personally that’s why I’d place a limit on wealth as the exclusion criteria rather than age, but I don’t disgree  that while the Venn diagram of hoarded wealth and age isn’t going to be two exactly overlapping circles, it won’t be far off

 Politics is about the future, and time and again we see the older demographic looking to the past rather than seeking to move forward.

Nailed it.

I don’t think PR makes for the sort of revolutionary changes that certainty Western Govts need to make.

Be careful what you wish for. Currently the revolutionary change required here will require a strong stomach and examples made of some people “pour encourager les autres”.

As for not permitting the over 70’s to vote, words fail me. Not all older people want whats best just for them. Some of our elders are wise enough  to know that enlightened self interest is beneficial to them indirectly by making other parts of society more equitable all of society benefits.

Politics is about the future, and time and again we see the older demographic looking to the past rather than seeking to move forward.

Unfortunately todays 16-18 year olds also get old and, if politically active, will louse things up like my generation did for todays young folk.

Not all older people want whats best just for them.

Of course not, but they’re in the minority. I would have absolutely no problem losing the vote at 70. In fact it might even motivate us to be more politically engaged when younger which would be a good thing. If there are other ways to address the ‘grey vote’ problem I’m all ears but I haven’t heard many.

“putting more money into undoing the effects of a long period of Conservative austerity caused by them Replacing a Labour government”

What effect does endlessly increasing public spending have on an economy?

Doesn’t look particularly austere really:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-statistics-release-may-2023/public-spending-statistics-may-2023

I think your analysis might have one or two flaws.

The main problem with UK politics is the two party stranglehold. Anything that allows new parties a chance is worth a try, which means something other than FPTP.

What effect does endlessly increasing public spending have on an economy?

Doesn’t look particularly austere really:

@rone to the thread please! 😂

Anything that allows new parties a chance is worth a try

Including fascists?

Including fascists?

Why shouldn’t you have a party representing your anti-democratic views?

which means something other than FPTP.

I don’t think the particular system of voting makes a huge amount of difference frankly. The point of the exercise is that you need a system that produces/encourages: Law-abiding stable govts that operate for the masses rather then narrow interests, and have a mandate that is supported by a majority of the citizenry.  Whether that’s PR or FPTP is largely IMO fiddling around the edges.

If the Green Party (for example) were actually interested in making change, then they’d have joined the Labour party years ago. Which is at least, a more pragmatic approach than endlessly complaining that the voting system puts you at a disadvantage.

Why shouldn’t you have a party representing your anti-democratic views?

Removing the vote from the over 70s would enhance democracy by removing the disproportionate power that demographic exercises. There’s nothing democratic about allowing any specific cohort in our society to control policy in their own interests and that is exactly what is happening with the over 70s.

In addition to a PR type reform,

pay people to go to the polling booth.

Not a lot. £10?

Include a “none of you, just here for my tenner” option on the polling card.

Anyone not bothering to toddle down to the polling station (or have wherewithal and foresight to organise a postal vote) lacks either the mental capacity or the interest to have their say in the running of the country.

I think its hard to overestimate the detrimental effects to our society that capture of our political system by cooperate wealth or individual inherited wealth has had. The subtle change from discussion about policy development to a discussion about the financialization of policy development – i.e. the rights of wrongs or effects of policy decision making has been replaced with how much its going to cost (see @rone banging his head over there in the corner) has been very deliberately engineered by a part of our society that sees any spending other than to forward its own aims, as bad spending.

This, for me at least is the change we need to affect.

removing the vote from over-70s

So, making the system less democratic?

So taxation without representation yeah?

If you don’t like how people vote then you need to up your game, not exclude them

This, for me at least is the change we need to affect.

Nail on the head. Almost all political debate at the moment is about what we can afford and where the money is coming from, rather than what we need to do and how and when we do it. It’s completely bonkers.

Why the hell are voters concerned about where govt money comes from or how much it can spend? All we should be asking ourselves is do we want a better health service, schools, infrastructure etc, and then it’s up to the politicians and civil servants to figure out how do deliver that stuff without collapsing the economy.

So taxation without representation yeah?

If your wealth insulates you from policy decision about how to spend taxes, why should your voice be heard above those who will benefit from your taxes. When you receive your wages (or for example; I give money to beggars) you don’t expect or would allow them (or me) to follow you around the supermarket commenting on how you spend it, would you?

Again, our political landscape has been captured by endless questions of “But how much is it going to cost?” with the unstated insinuation that unless it turns a profit (or can be made to turn a profit by a corporation) then it is bad. This has been the effect of the sustained propaganda of decades by a group who’re determined that govt spending only flows to them, or that the little as possible that is diverted away from them can be profited by them

If you’re drawing a state pension which I think most would agree is insufficient, you might take a part or full time job to up your income. Let’s say Tesco or b and q for example, so your on minimum wage or suchlike. So your probably paying tax too. I don’t think people in that situation, and there will be many, are shielded from policy decision by their wealth. Very much the opposite

I agree totally that the older vote has the power…. because they actually bother to do it, religiously. If you want policy that better reflects the ‘young’, they need to vote in the large number that they are. Currently they don’t.

Iirc a certain chap did enthuse younger generations to participate, so it’s possible. You just need to be making a good offer and put the effort in. I don’t see anyone doing thst

I don’t think people in that situation, and there will be many, are shielded from policy decision by their wealth.

I don’t either, which is why I said so. I disagree that age should be an exclusion criteria, I think it should be wealth. That they cross over is still a failure of politics though

If your wealth insulates you from policy decision about how to spend taxes, why should your voice be heard above those who will benefit from your taxes.

So we want to exclude the wealthy from voting, not just the elderly? Keep going. It’s always amusing when the fascists start outing themselves.

The cost of an mp hotel makes it a non starter. A room in central London is around £300 a night, then you would have to add on costs of breakfast and dinner, say another £50 a night. Times 500 most (guessing the rest live locally enough to just commute), times 365 days a year is £64mm -127k per mp. Hotels make some money but do not make massive profits on these rooms.

The max an mp can claim on expenses is £25k for a flat for themselves in London. The hotel idea would cost £125k per mp.

Yep, I’d want to remove the influence of wealth as part of our political landscape, as I said, if your wealth insulates you from policy decision making, your voice shouldn’t be the loudest.

I think you’ll find that makes me a commie, rather than a fascist/capitalist running dog though. The fascists were/are totally in bed with big money

Anyone not bothering to toddle down to the polling station (or have wherewithal and foresight to organise a postal vote) lacks either the mental capacity or the interest to have their say in the running of the country

You can be interested yet still consider voting a complete waste of time on an individual level. I have a good level of interest in the politics of this country, but choose not to vote as my personal vote (which is all I can influence, not the actions of “but if everyone did that”) will demonstratably make no difference at all

Removing the vote from the over 70s would enhance democracy by removing the disproportionate power that demographic exercises. There’s nothing democratic about allowing any specific cohort in our society to control policy in their own interests and that is exactly what is happening with the over 70s.

That’s what the MP is supposed to do as our representative, currently we have populists in power (or Fascists if we’re not being polite) who pander to large self-interested groups withoout addressing the whole picture. When we select the representatives carefully this will go away.

We don’t become more democratic by removing the vote from sections of society. What next women, people of colour, Jews? You can see where that leads can’t you?

Keep going.

Have to agree. Widen the vote… don’t narrow it… and make votes count.

I used to have an MEP that I’d voted for, who would answer my concerns and stood for things that reflected what I voted for.

I have NEVER had a MP that I’ve voted for. In fact I’ve always had an MP from the party that least reflects what I vote for… and not just that.. in each case…. was one of the worst MPs in that party. Current one has blocked me on social media and emails aren’t replied to. Who do I take things to? Who represents me?

A voting system where most voters do not have a representative that they voted for is an odd one. A voting system where a party has majority control on a minority vote is also an odd one. If you genuinely care about people having representation in parliament, and genuinely think that voters should choose who is in government, then our current system fails on both counts.

And the way to give young people agency in the voting process is to let them vote, and ensure their votes result in representation. So lower the age that people can vote… and don’t simply throw away their vote because they happen to live in a constituency stuffed full of oldies.

I’m confused.
How does removing a group of the populations right to vote on any basis lead to a country becoming more democratic?

It doesn’t. Some people want “revolution” even if that means reducing and enfeebling democracy itself.

Inclusion not exclusion, every single time

It’s the only way

I think its hard to overestimate the detrimental effects to our society that capture of our political system by cooperate wealth or individual inherited wealth has had.

I disagree in that as far as I can tell our political system has always been controlled by corporate and personal wealth. You can go as far back in history as you can and its always been the same

and make votes count.

Towards what though? Both FPTP and RP will give you the same thing; broadly representative, broadly centrist non-extreme stable administrations. One will be able to do more of it’s manifesto pledges than the other. That’s it.

That’s not what’s killing our political environment.

You can go as far back in history as you can and its always been the same

The immediate post war period in this country is about as much as founding myth of “modern Britain” as you’re likely to find. We swept away hundreds of years of traditional failure and half measures. Most of Europe did the same, and it was a period of almost unheard of prosperity and social revolution. Nearly everything that we ‘enjoy’ as a state provision comes from these 10-20 or so years. The last 30 or so have seen more and more of our discussion being hijacked by wealth; “trickle-down economics” anyone? (or alternatively “Yes I’d like the very wealthy to piss on me from on high, thanks”) we’re probs. overdue a review of that.

It’s not oldies fault that the kids don’t turn up to vote. Seem’s perverse to punish them

Austrailia has an approach to address this…mandatory voting. If you don’t vote, you get a fine, ditto for not being on the electoral register