The Disaster that is British Politics

[PeterRS]

I have in the past railed against parts of the so-called democratic system as practised in the USA. Let me now redress the blaance a little by looking at the present disastrous situation that exists in the UK.

For those  who do not know much about the UK policial system, it is largely dependent on a series of constituencies, each of which eoects a Member of Parliament. Although there are more than two parties at Westminster, as in the USA there are two dominant ones - the Conservatives (often called the Tories) and Labour. Members of Parliament are elected on a first past the post system. So it can happen that the governing party has a minority of all votes cast. The outgoing Prime Minster Boris Johnson frequently boasted about he had created his party's large majority at the last election. If he were being truthful, he would admit that less than 30% of the electorate actually voted for that party.

There was a very perceptive article in the Sunday edition of the Observer newspaper. Titled "The lesson from Johnson's tenure - British politics needs dragging into the 21st century", John Harris writes of the country's various crises - 

"One of our crises goes back centuries. The UK’s structures of government are based around an antiquated and centralised state, much of which was built during the distant days of empire, and that now barely functions. Swollen Whitehall departments cannot possibly do what ministers and civil servants claim. The Houses of Parliament are a shabby symbol of institutional decay. Thanks to the continued existence of the House of Lords, our legislators include a Russian-British newspaper proprietor, Ian Botham and 92 hereditary peers. And the way we elect the Commons is a creaking joke: the 'personal mandate' Johnson recently cited to try to keep himself in office amounted to the support of less than 30% of the electorate.

"Worse still, there is a deep, symbiotic connection between the institutions of Westminster and Whitehall and the structures of privilege centred on a handful of private schools, and the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Together, they have churned out people trained in the arcane ways of the establishment and how to network their way into power, but who usually turn out to be dangerous bullshitters and chancers. Johnson, obviously, was all this incarnate: once he had got to the top of a system that grants prime ministers mind-boggling levels of power, he could trample over constitutional conventions, push through legislation nullifying basic civil rights, and champion the breaking of international law . . .

"Drastically altering our systems of power – and, via radical thinking about private education and Oxbridge, breaking up ancient networks of privilege and influence – would open the way to changes that would start to pull us out of our endless malaise: a huge housing drive, a basic income, security both within and without work, the kind of moves towards a closer relationship with Europe that the stupidities of current politics rule out. It would also quash the chances of another entitled would-be Tory autocrat wheedling their way into power. This is surely the lesson of the past three torrid years – that if Johnson’s time in power demonstrates one thing beyond question, it is the fact that British politics has to finally leave the 20th century."

Johnson had been widely reviled virtually before he became Prime Minister. Like Trump in the USA whom he often resembles, he has lied, cheated, been beset by scandal, broken his own government's covid isolation rules, not once but several times, and was felled by his major character flaws. He is the first Prime Minster in history to have been fined by the police whilst in office. Two of his party members had recently to resign in disgrace, one for sexual offences against a teenage boy and another for watching porn on his mobile phone in parliament. Johnson was also caught changing his story on the way he handled allegations of sexual misconduct by a senior member of his government. Long seen as a redeemer, his own party has now dropped him like a stone. It was unfortunate for the UK that his Labour party opponent in the last general election was regarded as weak and unelectable because of his strong left-wing and other less than savoury views. 

Inmore countries, democracy without strong democratic institutions seems in serious danger of becoming close to some form of autocracy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/10/lesson-boris-johnson-british-politics-21st-century-democracy

[Vessey]

Although the Observer is primarily a champion of the left, so I find their views unsurprising. 

The current system has two advantages:

First it usually provides a clear 'winning party' that is able to form a reasonably stable government for its term of office (although dependant on the size of its parliamentary majority).

Secondly each constituency elects its own member of parliament who is accountable to those people living in that constituency - some MPs are better at that than others. But generally they make themselves available to their electorate to advise on their problems.

Labour and the other smaller parties are keen to change the system, largely, I suspect, because, historically, they 'win' far less often than they believe they deserve to. 

No system is perfect, but when I look across the pond at the political system there, I am glad that I live this side of it.

[tassojunior]

Not so sure the American "Strong President" system is better where we elect a dictator every 4 years between two similar candidates presented to us by the establishment regime.