UKH

Beyond the detail of the Brexit process, I feel that political parties have been exposed,  parties divided to express differences and a more co-operative political process becomes a necessity, with Parliament having to have a bigger role . 

Is this a painful process to a more grown up politics that seems to have advocates across the board,-  Hilary Ben, Yvette Cooper, Dominic Reeve, Rory Stuart, Scottish representatives, Welsh representatives, Northern Ireland representatives? Old style party political hackery is really exposed as un-beneficial.

Does it ultimately benefit  us ,the electorate?

I feel I will have more political choices in any future vote { referendums or General elections} and that feels like an improvement ultimately to me.

I’m hoping you’re right. But we face a time of great uncertainty and risk.

As well as the individuals you mention there are organisations like Compass who are working on progress with this. 

I think anything that breaks the self-serving two party system and establishes a system where smaller parties can be heard would be a bonus.

Unfortunately the red and blue teams will want to keep their positions, and I sadly can't see PR ever being established across the UK.

Government by committee will just result in the paralysis that is Brexit. It’s a nice idea. But government isn’t in the business of being nice.

Quite a lot needs changing in the political system.

*elected second house,  no more house of lords.

*Phasing out of monarchy, shiny tip of a rather murky iceberg that really doesn't help democracy. (get rid of the pomp, wigs and other trappings, its democracy not pantomime )

* Peoples commissions to deal with difficult questions such as Brexit, the housing crisis, NHS funding etc. They would be like a jury of citizens chaired by civil servants and would consult with experts, their results would be advisory but summarised for all to see and if the sitting government wanted to go against their recommendations they would have to prepare a paper justifying their reason and put their name to it.

* proportional representation two party politics is a little stale now.

*Unions to be positively reformed especially with regards service industry and casual contracts.

* tax reform, trickle down economics really hasn't worked for large parts of the country.

I think that it's shown that, up to and including f*cking the entire country for a generation, the two major parties will put their own survival over all else. Ergo no reform until a currently inconceivable GE result comes along.

Perhaps a bit of paralysis is what we actually need? I'm fed up to the back teeth of parties pushing their sad little ideologies that they learned in sixth form, so obviously the only correct ones, co-operation be damned. The dismantling of the party system would go a long way to government by pragmatism, by agreement, by compromise, which would disappoint only the extremists on both wings.

Maybe...

Yes, your system sounds like a very refreshing idea. One that perhaps a sixth former would come up with 

FPTP means that a party can neglect a safe seat they will always hold and another party's safe seat they will never hold.

It's crap at representing major viewpoints that are geographically diffuse.

well forms of PR are already established across most nations in the union of the UK... for a variety of different levels of government

 

Does the house of lords actually do things you dislike or do you just object to their existence on principle? Throwing out something imperfect but actually pretty good in favour of an idealistic principle is basically the motivation for a huge chunk of the pro-Brexit votes ('take back control!!', 'freedom to negotiate our own trade deals', etc) and we all know how that's turning out.

What would you replace them with? What would be the point of a second elected house on top of the first one?

There's bugger all left of our national identity as it is. The monarchy costs a grand total of 65p/year/taxpayer and has basically no political influence anyway.. If you want to get rid of damaging, free-riding institutions I think there are several religions you should take a look at first..

The voting system is the thing that's got to change Everything else should fall out from that.

I expect the next GE will see a hung Parliament....and the next. I think the days of parties with 50 or 100+ majorities have gone for a generation.

Democracy is a multilayered, evolving and  complex thing, not just a ballot box, the house of lords is not democratic I'm not saying we just just abandon it we need to come up with a replacement (maybe set up one of those peoples commissions?), just say the name slowly and think about its implications, the same with the monarchy, there is a lot about the history and institutions around parliament in the UK that is set up around the people being ruled by their betters and the monarchy is just a shiny distraction from the layers of entitlement underneath. Just think about who has actually been taking back control, is it the people?

I not talking about revolution but gradual and considered evolutionary change, However we may have missed our opportunity because the revolution may have already happened and the system might have been irretrievably broke.

I am not entirely happy that our future is being dictated by fundemental religious extremists because the tories couldnt countenance a more inclusive compromise.

Without any intent to be racist in the least and using the term in its every day meaning, we are seeing DPP, the Defeat of the Political Pygmies. 

I hope this is the Turn of The Tide, in the Churchillian sense, 1942 instead of 1922

I am always astounded at how badly the British / US flavours of representative democracy deal with unclear majorities. Of course, FPTP normally helps avoiding that problem arising in the first place, but it also appears to render politicians unable to deal with situations requiring compromise once that safeguard fails, e.g. in case of a hung parliament in the UK or a split congress in the US.

The way the Brexit negotiations have worked over the last couple of years out is just the latest example for that structural deficit. Constructing a dogmatic interpretation from a binary referendum returning a narrow majority was always bound to cause trouble internally, but was even more clearly not helping the UK side in negotiating with an organization entirely based on compromise, political procedure, and PR. From Florence to Chequers and Lancaster House, and especially since failing to ratify her "deal", May addressed the EU under completely misguided premises or concepts, almost as if speaking a different language.

Other things clearly are better in the UK version of representative democracy. I like e.g. the more engaged and lively debates in the HoC vs. the Bundestag, but overall continental style PR with its default mode of coalition governments seems to be more crisis proof if boring.

CB

edit> Forgot to add, the formal and traditional way of parliamentary business criticized by others on this thread is great as well, it emphasizes continuity and sets a framework, much like liturgy in church. Don't ever get rid of that!

What, the idea that party politics has outlived its usefulness? 

This is manifest horseshit.

Government by inflexible leadership and party game playing is what has lead us here.

This is manifest horseshit

A referendum, a complacent electorate, complacent campaigning, political opportunism, inter party division and paralysis is what has led us here

It's good to hear someone enjoys all that braying and hawing!

The braying is poor form, but e.g. PMQ puts both PM and opposition leader on the spot, and they have to respond off the cuff. Nothing like that in the Bundestag, all the "Regierungserklaerungen" are purely scripted.

CB

It would be great if you're right but I doubt we'll see much change, Brexit will happen, or it won't and we'll be back to where we were, with many disenfranchised people, believing politics has nothing to do with them, and a load of people in London not listening to the people they are supposed to represent.

We need some sort of PR and a different less adversarial system, but I don't see much common ground between the two camps, Tory belief in privatisation and "the market" is too far away from what we need.

I disagree, continuity can become stagnation, a system of formal practices and rules that have their roots in a system that believed a small minority had a god given right to rule over the rest of us is not a healthy or progressive for true democracy. It seems to have worked upto now but surly some gradual change to the pomp would allow people to feel more connected to their democratic representatives.

Might aswell give it a whirl, seeing as our government isn't in the business of governing.

eh?  caring for the country is exactly what they should be doing

Isn't the number one priority to get rid of the principle that a 50.1% majority in Westminster can do whatever it wants?

And then devolved parliaments in regions of England. And PR.

I'd be interested in hearing from the Scottish independence supporters here whether independence is still a priority once the rights of the Scottish parliament are protected by 67% supermajorities in Westminster.

That's because the government shouldn't be a business at all.

Those politicians who disagree -- those who feather their nests and refuse to cooperate beyond their own, personal agendas, thinking nought for the people who they represent -- are also the ones who are squarely responsible for the dire state of UK politics, today.

Anyone who considers cooperation in order to fulfil their responsibility to govern the land is just "being nice" should kindly get the hell out of public office.

A move away from two party politics and the UK population understanding that in coalitions you can't have everything each party promised. 

Why many regions don't want this. It's just another layer of people making decisions or being paid to make the same decision that others currently make, there already are district and county councils, with elected members. 

Shrinking and refining the system would put people closer to the decision, not adding in more taxpayer funded layers. 

I agree we don't need more layers but we do need to improve what we have. Local government in particular...... the current system relies on a lot of volunteer work, while council leaders and chief execs pull in fat salaries.

As an ex unpaid town or parish councillor I could agree. But also being voluntary ensures the right motives. It's tough to strike a balance. 

Look at the charity sector, where it's become a career option. 

The UK is very district and county obsessed. Individual services, High waya depts, police, fire, health. There is some sharing and merging but no where near enough.

County boundaries that are hundreds of years old often aren't logical lines to draw on a map to decide which region serves what area etc.  

Local government should be one of the main centres of attention. It's been absolutely trashed by successive governments. 

Agree usually motives are good, but there is still the potential for corrupt practices re favoured businesses etc.

Yeah. Or as I found, lots of great intentions but absolutely zero administration and organisational skills. 

I agree wholeheartedly Xharlie. But I expect you might have taken my last sentence out of context.