We are by this definition at risk in this country. Our so-called democracy not only embraces feudal institutions, it also quite deliberately fails to reflect the opinion and will of the electorate, for which leading politicians show open contempt. This creates a fertile breeding ground for the right.
So, perhaps drain that breeding ground by having government that reflects the will and opinion of the electorate then.
Control immigration, dump net zero, have schools that teach, health care that treats Granny, stop fussing over 0.4% of the population, and, well, write your election manifesto here.
But if we did all of that ‘Tater would insist we were all right wing fascists, wouldn’t he?
Our so-called democracy not only embraces feudal institutions…
NHS, BBC, Celebrity Whinge Island.
…it also quite deliberately fails to reflect the opinion and will of the electorate…
which is for a glorious workers’ and peasants’ paradise
…for which leading politicians show open contempt.
because they saw what it did for the Absolute Boy.
This creates a fertile breeding ground for the right.
Everybody barring Capt. Potato!
Free Willy 2: The Legend of Curly Fries
Sounds “Popular”. No doubt the lefty papers would be wailing the very ressurection of Adolf.
This “fertile breeding ground for the right” seems to have a very long gestation period.
Our so-called democracy not only embraces feudal institutions, it also quite deliberately fails to reflect the opinion and will of the electorate, for which leading politicians show open contempt.
“Feudal”?
So says the guy who spent years chasing a gong with the fervor of a rat in heat.
FYI Ground rents are a relic of feudal institutions: they are even called “feu duties” in Scotland.
However, our representative democracy did reflect the will of the electorate viz Brexit, the only specific example of the electorate showing its will. I seem to remember Murphy being unhappy about that …
Its been said that the genius of the British establishment has been to allow the proles enough of what they want, for them in return to refrain from parting our dear leaders from their heads.
Yes, of course it deliberately fails to reflect the opinion and will of the electorate – because the electorate is full of idiotic monsters.
The best way to do this is to ensure there is a constant tension between the ‘elites’ and us ‘proles’ while not allowing either to run roughshod over the minorities.
“NHS, BBC, Celebrity Whinge Island.”
Taxation, the distribution of alms to the poor…
(Ah, but those are different, because reasons.)
I should have noticed immediately that Murphy implies that the establishment is heavily biased to the left when he says that its contempt for the will of the electorate creates fertile breeding ground for the right.
When did he wake up to this?
If we want a government that reflects the will and opinion of the electorate, then we need to get rid of FPTP in favour of STV. The last general election resulted in one party getting an 80-seat majority with only 44% of the vote (and it has been worse – in 2001 Tony Blair got only 41% of the vote, yet had a majority of 167 seats!).
Anything else is merely re-arranging the deckchairs.
When did he wake up to this?
He didn’t. Richard Murphy never reads what he writes.
@Charles
I quite like STV actually, but you have to accept that there’s a gap between “electing a government that does what people want it to do” and “electing a parliament that’s not utterly disproportionate to the votes”. If we had permanent coalition government with a very proportional parliament, for example, you cam still end up with politicians not doing what people actually want, and able to blame their ditching of promises on the necessary compromise of coalition negotiations.
Since you see similar trends across Western countries with PR, STV and FPTP parliaments – not to mention presidential vs parliamentary vs semi-presidential political systems – it seems even drastic constitutional changes would be a bit deckchairy.
A Swiss-style system of referenda on almost everything would probably be the best way of keeping policy and voters aligned, but there’s not a lot of appetite for that in Britain (although they were very keen on a Second Referendum, I don’t think Remainers will be wanting more referenda on other policy areas any time soon) and one disadvantage I can’t see a way around is that it does add a lot of uncertainty that makes it hard to commit to long-term, high-value projects. Imagine if the UKAUS nuclear submarine deal, for example, or a new generation of nuclear power stations, could get quite far along to implementation then suddenly enough signatures get found to trigger a referendum and the whole policy got turned on a hat. It seems to work okay for Switzerland but I wonder how much of that is because they’re a relatively small country and their domestic policy choices rarely have major international ramifications.
@Anon – It would allow us to register a remit for Net Zero (i.e. none)
It would prevent further spunking of money away on White Elephants like HS2.
Where the country fails to have a plurality (i.e. on most subjects), there could be no action.
That sounds like a winning (albeit not perfect formula) to me.
John77; what makes you think he has?
Is there anybody I can vote for who would rid us of net zero and ESG compliance? Did anybody vote against the climate change act?
Deal with real crime? Give Scotland independence?? Disenfranchise the church???
@Anon – “you have to accept that there’s a gap…”
Of course, but the goal is to make the election result reflect the wishes of the electorate. If it doesn’t do that, why would you expect the elected officials to implement those wishes?
Referendums are difficult to get right. If you split things up too much you find that people vote for lower taxes, higher pay of nurses, more public services etc. But once you put a bunch of individual things into a package of policies, you’re almost back at the point of electing representatives. However, I think that the electorate would display a lot more responsibility if there were routine, binding referendums. When you get what you ask for, and know that you will get what you ask for, you’re a lot more careful about what you ask for.