Why Is The Uk Not A Democracy?

[Colmc54]

Please watch the above. If you do you will realise how fundamentally undemocratic this country is.

I believe the best solution would be to allow the leader of the party who win the most individual votes to form a government. As in the present government, which has members at cabinet and committee level from all the main parties, nothing would have to change. The main thing is that people like me would feel that the democratic principle had been observed.

As it stands now I don't think UN observers would think much of our attempts to continue to refer to ourselves as the oldest democracy in the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4eTl2eq1T8

[New Judge]

"As in the present government, which has members at cabinet and committee level from all the main parties..."

No it does not. The current coalition government is formed of MPs from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties only.

I have not watched the clip (at 16 mins it's a bit long) but I assume you are suggesting that the party which receives the most votes does not necessarily form a government. This is the fault of party politics. Voters in the UK d not elect a government; they elect individual MPs to represent them at Westminster. The Queen invites the person she thinks is most able to form a government (usually the leader of the party with the most seats) to become Prime Minister and he or she forms a government of ministers.

So long as there are more than two parties there is always the likelihood of a "hung" parliament and negotiations have to take place between the politicians to elect a government. The original idea of the Westminster parliament was constituents elected their MP and he would vote on individual issues according to the needs and requirements of the electorate. Where it all went wrong was when parties were formed and people across the land were stuck with a package of measures which suited very few of them entirely.

Your suggestion that the party receiving the most votes form a government would have to be a form of proportional representation (because presumably the MPs would be chosen pro rata according to the votes cast for each party). It has at least two drawbacks: (1) the link between constituents and an elected MP would be broken (2) it would consign the UK to a permanent coalition government. With the experience of the last four years I cannot imagine too many people agreeing that this would be a good idea.

[New Judge]

And I forgot to add that yes, the current system is undemocratic. The UK is effectively governed by an elected dictatorship. And that is because party politics have dominated proceedings to such a degree that MPs have far more loyalty to their party than to their constituents. This was demonstrated clearly when, shortly after assuming power in 1997, Tony Blair made it clear that it was his MPs job to spread the word of the party to their constituents and it was not to represent thir views at Westminster.

[New Judge]

And so we have the situation today where the main parties treat the electorate with contempt, telling them what is good for them and what they will think, say and do. Then they wonder why so-called "fringe" parties steal their votes.

[DrFilth]

.
when you have a great leader you get 100% turn out and he gets 100% of the votes
.
.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lzZwP4DODI

[DrFilth]

sorry forgot to put that smiley face thingy on :-)

[treetops68]

Well put, New Judge, totaly agree with you.

[ToraToraTora]

it is, don't be a plonker rodney!

[Colmc54]

You know something, it took me a lot longer than 16 minutes to give you guys the opportunity to watch the clip- so watch it please before you reply.

Also Frank Field and Margaret Hodge (both Labour), would appear to contradict your inaccurate view of the coalition government.

Non-tribal me observes these things objectively, and I see the coalition as being a positive result DESPITE our electorally undemocratic anachronistic farce.

I want to be governed by a PM whose party has won the most individual votes. Constituency-based government is a joke that nobody is laughing about anymore.

[Kromovaracun]

" that is because party politics have dominated proceedings to such a degree that MPs have far more loyalty to their party than to their constituents. "

I agree with this completely.

[jeffa]

"I believe the best solution would be to allow the leader of the party who win the most individual votes to form a government."

How would that work at a constituency level? Supposing that Labour were to win the next election - who would be the local MP in a constituency where the Labour candidate lost his deposit? Would a Labour MP be imposed upon that constituency? Or would you abolish constituency representation altogether?

[Colmc54]

Go on, get out on the street and ask your local constituents who their MP is. I bet more than half of them wouldn't know who he or she was and what party they were members of.

The need for a fairer system of democracy has been transformed by technological innovations like Facebook etc. Constituency politics may work for politicians but it totally doesn't work for the electorate, especially if you are cursed with living in a 'safe seat'.

Check out what former Speaker Tony Martin's constituency was like after being a 'safe' Labour seat for over 75 years!

[jeffa]

That doesn't actually answer my questions, though.

[ToraToraTora]

any suggestions for how it may work? The FPTP is the best system there is, flawed but it usually produces a government.

All forms of PR are a disaster, so do you have any better ideas?

"I want to be governed by a PM whose party has won the most individual votes"

Odd as it may seem The tories did get the most votes numerically and the PM is actually a Tory so it seems your wish is already granted.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/partycand.htm

[ToraToraTora]

has the penny dropped yet?

[ToraToraTora]

looks like it's already as you wish colm:
2005:http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge05/partycand.htm
2001:http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/e01/partycand.htm
1997:http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge97/partycand.htm
1992:http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge92/partycand.htm

looks like we already have the system you desire!

[Colmc54]

Thanks TTT, I look forward to exploring your leads tomorrow.

I think a strong reliant population, ready to begin to believe in itself, if such a thing is possible, has to believe that it's leaders were fairly elected.

That is all I wish for. In that I believe I am not alone.

[ToraToraTora]

so we have the system you want, Although theoretically possible, I doubt there has ever been a PM not from the party with the most votes at the preceeding GE so with that knowledge do you withdraw the assertion that we are not democratic?

[Colmc54]

I've always believed that the UK is a shining pinnacle of democracy. But that assessment is relativistic. Yes we are more democratic than N. Korea or Iran, but the clip shows, by our own standards, our electoral system is not democratic. Never was, and most likely never will be.

[Old_Geezer]

Don't need to watch it to know Democracy isn't tried anywhere in the world. It's difficult in large communities. Nor to know that anyone who mentions party politics is clearly not discussing a democratic system.

[Colmc54]

So when the BBC report talks about a 'huge bias' in favour of Labour in our present electoral system we see nothing wrong with that?

Certainly if you're a supporter of the party that has bankrupted this country twice in my lifetime you have a pre-election advantage in your party's favour which should bolster your belief in UK democracy. If you plan on voting for any other party you will feel very differently.

TTT- I looked at the leads. Who would have thought the Telepathic Party lost their deposit- surely they must have known how people were going to vote!