ChatterBank2 mins ago
England
5 Answers
In England, should we ban political parties and form a peoples republic? (It has been done in the world before). And if so, what measures would we need to take to make sure that no other foreign power invaded us.
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by yingsu. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have often believed that the party political system in the UK effectively kills democracy.
In the early days of Parliament each constituency sent its local representative to Westminster to lobby on their behalf. He would vote in divisions according to their local needs and was not bound to a manifesto of measures, or to a party policy as MPs are today.
The current system, dominated by essentially two parties, produces an elected dictatorship. Once elected, the party in power simply goes on to do what it likes, whipping its MPs into line to vote in favour of measures largely determined by the executive (who make up less than 5% of the MPs). Voters have the choice of two packages (which in recent years have become increasingly similar) neither of which might suit them entirely. They may like their MP to vote differently to the rest of his party on certain issues, but (s)he is prevented from doing so by the party Whips. Effectively, everybody gets what hardly anybody wants.
Simply banning political parties (if it were possible) is not the answer. Groups of MPs will still group together to vote, not necessarily according to the needs of their constituents, but according to their conscience or in a manner that will see them and their friends with most power� and that is not their function.
I don�t know the answer (at least, not that I could explain in 2,000 characters) but the current system does little for the electorate or for democracy.
In the early days of Parliament each constituency sent its local representative to Westminster to lobby on their behalf. He would vote in divisions according to their local needs and was not bound to a manifesto of measures, or to a party policy as MPs are today.
The current system, dominated by essentially two parties, produces an elected dictatorship. Once elected, the party in power simply goes on to do what it likes, whipping its MPs into line to vote in favour of measures largely determined by the executive (who make up less than 5% of the MPs). Voters have the choice of two packages (which in recent years have become increasingly similar) neither of which might suit them entirely. They may like their MP to vote differently to the rest of his party on certain issues, but (s)he is prevented from doing so by the party Whips. Effectively, everybody gets what hardly anybody wants.
Simply banning political parties (if it were possible) is not the answer. Groups of MPs will still group together to vote, not necessarily according to the needs of their constituents, but according to their conscience or in a manner that will see them and their friends with most power� and that is not their function.
I don�t know the answer (at least, not that I could explain in 2,000 characters) but the current system does little for the electorate or for democracy.
-- answer removed --
1 to 5 of 5
