I asked if you wanted polls. The answer was yes. Here's a mega one on a mega issue to get the ball rolling.
You can vote up to four times.
Democracy is in crisis. What would do most to restore it?
- Using proportional representation? (22%, 518 Votes)
- Funding political parties so they are free of donor influence? (16%, 383 Votes)
- Capping donations to political parties? (13%, 300 Votes)
- Restoring the power of local government? (11%, 256 Votes)
- Abolishing the House of Lords, replacing it with a Senate? (9%, 223 Votes)
- Regulating the media? (9%, 221 Votes)
- Granting independence to countries within the U.K. that want it? (8%, 187 Votes)
- Encouraging people with real life experience to be politicians? (5%, 126 Votes)
- Providing the BBC and local media with long term, secure, funding (4%, 94 Votes)
- Giving MPs the resources to undertake real research to challenge government? (2%, 59 Votes)
Total Voters: 657
Loading ...Feel free to comment.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Anything anything at all that decreases the risk of popularist elites funded fascists like trump Johnson or farage from getting into dictatorial power. The rule of law and democracy may well be imperfect, but the madness of what the likes of Johnson, farage, trump, and Starmer are inflicting on ordinary folk is infinitely worse.
I didn’t vote for proportional representation, even though first past the post is broken and undemocratic.
There are many proportional representation systems. Many involve a party list. A party list gives undue patronage to the party leader. It could make the bad situation of FPTP worse.
Yes, I would like a more proportional system. But not if it involves a party list!
I wondered whether to qualify that chocie and decided nuance was not required
But I agree with your point
PR is done in some countries with the popular vote deciding on the choice of candidate from the party list.
So you vote Labour, then select your favoured candidate from the party list.
Weakens central control and makes responsiveness to “local” issues a point of selection.
I don’t like lists….too much control for parties
Hi Tim Kent, I’m glad that you chose PR in spite of your reticence about listening to systems. I’m more than ok to let a commission or citizens’ assembly make the choice. It was actually done in 1976 by the Hansard Society Commission Report on Electoral Reform. À very sound commission with good members. It was swept under the carpet rather rapidly at the time by the duopoly. Now there’s a surprise…as it unanimously recommended a change to PR. I have my hard copy from then. I also have the report online. It was a seminal moment for me in my understanding of the politics of it all.
Citizen’s assemblies are fine if you really din’t like democracy, because they have nothing to do with it if given decision making power.
I wanted an “all of the above” and “none of the above” button. I think all of these would be a good idea, and would help to some extent to improve our democracy, but on their own, none would be sufficient to restore our democracy to the level we should hope and expect.
Noted
I suggest that most of them are related to Constitutional Reform in the UK so have to be taken together to form a coherent whole.
IE you have to do the lot probably with another video to link them all together
🙂
Before the 2024 general election the Labour leadership were casting around for ideas for policies that wouldn’t cost much – they are terrified of spending money, as we have seen. They could have been super-radical at relatively little cost by going all-in for constitutional reform in the manner Richard sets out, and lots more besides, such as Votes at 16. But they have shown no interest in constitutional reform at all. As far as the current LP are concerned it is apparently a non-issue. What is the matter with them – why can’t they see that so much is broken and failing in this country? Are they really so content with the status quo that they will continue to let things slide? How myopic, gormless or self-satisfied do you have to be to be in Kier Starmer’s government?
We need economic and political literacy on the school curriculum. I believe that the political apathy of many young people is down to them thinking that “it’s not got anything to do with them”.
This is high on my agenda
I do know HMRC did send some years ago a few assistant officers out to the local secondary schools to explain the tax system (how tax codes etc, work) to the pupils. A brilliant idea. Not sure if they still do so, having been retired from HMRC for over a year. Maybe it was a local initiative? The feedback from the schools was very positive.
It would be great of they would doi it again
But, are there enough people left?
This is absolutely true.
Apologies for my poor understanding of economics, but…
If the “money markets” (whoever they may be) are the real arbiters of what economic policies individual governments are permitted to deploy.
If those markets will only permit governments to maintain neoliberal policies that benefit the very wealthy, to the detriment of the rest of us.
If these people with the real power are truly international in their reach.
Then, what scope is there for any individual government like the UK’s, to break this neoliberal stranglehold? Wouldn’t any attempt to do something different, be immediately “punished” by the markets?
And if so, does that mean that any successful movement (grassroots or otherwise) which might challenge this neoliberal orthodoxy, must also be international in scope?
And therefore, would any of the items on the above menu really have any significant effect?
PS. This probably makes no sense at all, but I’m happy to corrected
It is in my videos to do list now
But that is getting quite long!
Richard has covered this before.
Essentially the government hasn’t the ‘cojones’ to face down the City. It could say “you don’t want our gilts, fine we’ll run an overdraft at the BofE. You go find some other safe place for your funds”.
(If my understanding is correct )
Spot on
This is a very interesting question, and for me very relevant to the question of how we fix things. Also the question of de growth and/or a steady state /circular type economy, and could it ever happen in a country on its own ?
Alan it makes a lot of sense. Capitalism is the root of our problems. It’s steeped in greed, selfishness and exploitation. It’s the elephant in the room
I think we need to consider a complete renewal of the social contract.
Tech bros are pulling at the fraying strings and once it goes, I feel all bets would be off.
It’s time government actually was for the people, not the donors.
Implementation of all of the above at a minimum
What does it even mean in the age of AI?
Reading Carol Cadwaller’s newsletter today, it feels like the Techbros have already won in America. They have backed a coup and no one is stopping it. Our only protection from rapacious corporate greed that the US will export as foreign policy is government, and our government is determined not to govern.
One change you didn’t list which I think would be very worthwhile would be a law criminalising ‘deliberately or recklessly misleading the public’. (Recklessly included to avoid the defence ‘I didn’t know’ when the truth is easily ascertained.) Whilst prosecutions would be rare, and probably restricted to the most egregious cases, as with libel such a law would make people and organisations more cautious about the accuracy of what they publish or state in social media. I suggest a threshold of say ten thousand followers/subscribers below which the law does not apply, although it would be good to include bot farms somehow.
I like that
I chose ‘capping donations’ over ‘Funding political parties’, as capping donations puts a hard upper limit on donations (and therefore donor influence), whereas funding political parties doesn’t have that built in. I suspect ‘funding political parties’ has implicit in it “and therefore adding a donation ban/cap”, but went for the more explicit version.
Likewise with the ‘restoring power of local gov’ vs ‘granting independence to countries within the UK’. The first is a clear route to the second (if the first were not enough), whereas the second excludes change for all of England.
Me too for the first. For the second I chose both (which meant reluctantly leaving out something else)
Here and in the US the winner takes all mentality leads to catatrophic outcomes. Brexit vote was clearly a demand for the softest possible but the hapless May demanded Brexit means Brexit. Trump win by tiny margin is not a mandate for totalitarianism. PR would better reflect public sentiment even if Irish politicians manage to use it to ignore it but that’s a debate for another day.
This isn’t a political reform suggestion but maybe the younger generation need to learn how to think critically instead of being led what they should think by the mainstream media. For example, Ed Milliband’s political career fell off a cliff due to they way he ate a sandwich – like what? The media jumped on it and the public followed suit. (Note: I’m not saying he’d have been a good PM or whatever, but a sandwich?) We as a population need to get smarter and not so distracted by what the mainstream media shoves in our faces. I guess this ties in with Richard’s suggestion of Regulating the Media – but I didn’t vote for that as this regulation can be abused by the wrong parties.
Thank you and well said, Ray.
I would add, some years later, the character assassination of Jeremy Corbyn, including by many centrist and even supposed, but not really, left wing hacks. One of the worse and, something which has long puzzled me considering how many people have one, want one and enjoy gardening, was Michael Crick mocking Corbyn for having an allotment and saying most people would find activity that odd. REALLY?!
I have had an allotment in my time – when living in London.
BBC Funding – if it were a regular tax that everyone paid and was collected in the usual way (part of income tax), I wonder how much would be saved by not outsourcing contracts to debt collectors and thugs that go around bullying the elderly. Even if not saving much, I think that would be a moral victory.
Local Government – I read an interesting article from common weal over the weekend. I don’t know if I agree with everything they suggest, but one of the interesting points was allowing people to create councils at any local level they wish, and giving them the right to choose which policy areas they devolve power from. https://commonweal.scot/a-different-democracy-for-scotland/
More power at a local level seems like it would be more likely to engage people in discussing and planning democratic processes that actually affect them rather than a 5-yearly popularity contest of vague promises that go nowhere.
My first instinctive reply was not listed in your options. Given the dangerous situation in the US, and here in many European countries, including the UK, I want to see extra-parliamentary action by grassroots opposition. Sometimes we have to take to the streets, and I am relieved to see it happening across the US, and in Germany right now.
Constitutional change requires a healthy polity, which we have lost to the blatant lying of so many of our elected representatives, the press, and those who fund them.
I make no excuses for advocating non-violent direct action, when circumstances demand. I cite my own involvement over decades, protesting Vietnam when I lived in the US, supporting Greenham and CND in the 1980s, February 15th 2003 against the Iraq war, and now protesting the genocide in Gaza every Saturday.
When our voices are not heard, and our protests are outlawed, it takes courage to take to the streets, but to those who say protesting is futile, I strongly disagree. Politicians fear the anger of the people, and they need to feel it. Now that the Labour Party no longer offers us solidarity, we need to express it in other ways.
As with others – we need a root and branch constitutional reset . Certainly have to get money out of politics which is corrupting both main parties.
Would have added some kind of MP’s oath – to vote with their own judgment and conscience on behalf of their constituents – not the whips.
Also clean up public institutions which are corrupted by political appointments, and prospects of future corporate jobs, – including those in health and education and broadcasting.
Should be open job descriptions, and competition for leading appointments, and independent awarding panels.. (Streeting will rope in a crony to head @UKHSA).
In addition to the heading ‘Granting independence for those countries in the UK that want it’ perhaps a middle ground might also be a Federal structure for the UK, rather than the current spatchcock system of devolution in Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland plus regional mayors in other areas, all with different levels of authority/accountability.
No thank you….
Only someone in England could say that
Ha! thanks for that. I’m English but haven’t lived in England for 45 years and I’m very much a supporter of Scottish independence. If we’re talking about evolutionary change within the UK however and leave to one side the right to self-determination route, which Scotland is likely to go down at some point if the current relationship with England doesn’t change, then for many people independence would be a step too far. Federalism potentially fills the gap. It would also be good for England as, at present, the English seem to believe that they subsidise the rest of the UK. The reality is that it’s London that, sort of, does that (since many companies that earn their profits around the UK, present their accounts in London giving a somewhat distorted view of the ‘London’ economy). Federalism would provide a much more realistic view of the economic reality of English regions which would, in my view, be a welcome wake-up call.
More than 50% of Scots would disagree with you right now.
Is that to be ignored?
Why? Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not English regions and cannot be equated with them.
Any attempt to equate sub-state English units (however constituted) won’t be accepted by Scotland, Wales nor NI.
Scotland is a signatory to the 1707 Act of Union.
It has its own legal, political, educational, governmental, social and environmental systems run from Edinburgh.
Saying Andy Burnham has equal standing to John Swinney is, frankly, a joke.
I agree with you
Some random points that seem pretty straight forward to me:
— improving democracy might start with use of citizens assemblies is for examination, discussion and recommendation on major policy – end of life assistance; – funding and provision of social care etc. These are long term issues governments often balk at tackling (remember Theresa May’s death tax?) They should be commissioned from within Parliament by cross party committees with some clout. There should be a presumption that something will happen as a result of their recommendations.
There are some simple admin reforms aimed at increasing voter participation;
1) automatic voter registration ( there are many proposals extant)
2) on line voting (I already report regularly to my Local Authority on who is eligible to vote in my household via a secure online system). Also many studies extant on this.
There are some further more far reaching admin possibilities:
1) citizens obligation to vote – this is already in use in several democracies – notably Australia. There should be a ‘none of the above’ option in every vote. The question of sanctions is difficult – mostly it’s a slap on the hand – a modest fine or official rebuke. Perhaps we could ask for a citizen’s assembly to make recommendations on this one.
2) state funding for political parties coupled with total ban on any other funding of politicians, parties or parliamentary interest groups by any means except party membership fees. Already in operation in several democracies. Perhaps another one for a citizens assembly…
Note that so far we have made no material change to constitutional issues. So what follows are more difficult reforms.
— increase proportionality of the voting system so voters get a chance making their votes matter. My vote doesn’t matter – my MP has second largest majority in the country. Lots of solid work on this by Electoral Reform Society. Lots of campaigning groups eg Make Votes Matter. Lots of different voting systems used in UK already. The much favoured Single Transferable Vote already quite widely used (including within Parliament for electing the speaker). We had an abortive crack at this with Tory/Lib coalition – doomed by choice of system, lack of real voter interest or understanding. There are more parties represented in the current Parliament than ever before. Shallowness of the winning Labour mandate is glaring example of deficiency of first past the post system. Now is the hour for this reform to be pushed. Any one for a march on Parliament…
— and lastly second chamber reform. I run out of ideas at this point- it seems to me the main question is how it is composed, selection or election. It’s purpose to review proposed legislation and vote on it seems about right to me; one does want the government to think again but also to be able to govern.
The most resistant area for democratic reform is, I suspect, in the reform of parliamentary procedure. It’s obviously absurd as it stands. The whip system is the instrument of tyranny.
None of this is political – it’s just procedural reform. Unfortunately it needs politicians to act on it.
Please don’t talk about GRANTING independence. We are in a union of supposedly equal partners so it is up to each partner to decide if it wants the union to continue. In a marriage union you would not say it is up to only one partner to decide if the other can be granted the right to leave.
I was referring to s30.
I’m not a fan of centrally funding parties. The ruling party could change the rules to suit itself. I would limit them to membership fees only. This way, the most popular parties get the most funds and can then do the most. It may even force the party HQs to move outside of London.
– flat fee membership
– no donations
– no loans
It won’t stop other groups doing the party’s work for them, but we have that now anyway. That could be addressed in part or in whole with Kim SJ’s suggestion.
It would certainly stop some of the corruption inherent in the current funding system.
Some problematic (for me) choices in your poll, Richard.
I) Between Funding political parties so they are free of donor influence? and Capping donations to political parties?
I have thought for a long time that funding political parties would be a good move to eliminate political donations, so that’s what I went for.
2) Between Providing the BBC and local media with long term, secure, funding and Regulating the media.
I chose providing BBC and local media with funding, though I don’t think it quite eliminates the possibility of the sort of political bias we have seen in the BBC, with it’s politically appointed Director and other key posts.
Would media regulation do the job? I’m not sure. Would it solve the problem of media ownership by wealthy non doms (or the wealthy sons of former KGB agents) with an interest in promoting their own political agenda?
I didn’t vote for replacing the Lords with a Senate. I am wary of a fully elected House as it could just reflect the political make up of the House of Commons (though PR in some form might take care of that) .
I’d be in favour of getting rid of the hereditaries and the Anglican bishops and having a partial elected element, but I think there should be a place for experienced legal professionals and politicians (and others my brain isn’t suggesting at the moment) who understand the constitution and the process of law making. I would want the vetting of the non elected section to be far more rigorous than at present and a cap on the over all numbers of House members.
I can’t help feeling that the Lords have, over the past few years, been the only part of the Legislature that hasn’t rolled over to the Executive, but has attempted to keep it on track and within the law.
But let’s not call it a Senate… I do not admire the US constitution
I had to laugh at the question which polled the fewest votes, ‘Giving MPs the resources to undertake real research to challenge government?’ Wasn’t there a very high profile European Research Group which hoovered up £1,000 s of public money and produced no research based evidence at all?
I’d also be worried about impartial use of research, as many people seem to cite only research that confirms their own biases. (and I’m sure I’m as guilty of that as the next person)
I was not trying to offer easy choices
And, thank you
I would like a written constitution. One of my reasons for this is that it should not be understood only by lawyers. If it is written down anyone can read it and know what’s in it.
The starting point for any progress is for a coalition of parties to stand at the next GE on one issue: Proportional Representation. Once in place, call a new GE and we have a representative Parliament. The best system is probably single transferable vote.
Multi member constituencies are required – maybe ten members.
I’ve chosen 4, but in reality I wanted to tick more boxes.
Having seen the way Trump has behaved, I am struggling to see how, if an analogue series of events occurred here, it is unclear what could be done to protect our society.
I am really worried by this thought.
It is perhaps a topic to return to?
Yes
More than once
Electronic Democracy or Direct Democracy
‘The People’ E-vote on all policy. All of the time.
Leashes executive power. Representation has failed, unless it is about representing the highest bidder. Infrequent elections are easily bought.
Real democracy in this electronic age?
Puts The People in control.
You should read Gnonom by Nick Harkaway. It covers that idea, but it goes very wrong.
Do we have a political party with just a few of the above options as a manifesto or core pledge?
Vaguely the Greens
Excellent, I wanted to tick more than 4, how about a written constitution to tie them all together?
I should have added that
A halway house to full PR could be a trial 2nd chamber elected by PR halfway through a Commons parliament, with power to delay (as with the Lords). It could have appointed experts if required as an addon but with a limit on numbers and NOT giving patronage power of appointment to the PM.
Then after 5 years the public could choose PR for the Commons having seen it in action.
It would be difficult to make a case against such a chamber, except the obvious one that it threatens the hegemony of the status quo that FPTP delivers.
They find it so threatening I can’t imagine they would even consider it. There is currently a petition I have signed along with over 40,000 other people in the UK to switch to a proportional representation voting system.
After 10,000 signatures the government responded with the below;
This response was given on 6 December 2024
The Government has no plans to change the voting system for UK Parliamentary elections.
Both Labour and Tory are full of politicians that seem far too terrified of losing the two party system we currently have.
What we really need is tax reform, as our tax system is beyond bat guano crazy. Taxing productivity is one sure fire way to ensure nothing productive gets done.
Here’s an example:
Replace Council tax, business rates, stamp duty and the 20% rate of income tax with Land Value Tax (1% of land value, paid annually, should be a good starting point). For the 45% income tax rate, set the starting threshold to 3x that of the projected FTE of the lowest paid (i.e. minimum wage) and bump it up to 60% (or higher). Money raised should be distributed nationally in an inverse way to how it’s collected (poorer areas get more funding, whereas richer areas get less).
Basically, rebalance the game.
Also, for non-homeowners, set up a mandatory (tax free) deposit scheme at 20% of earnings (basically, what was the 20% income tax rate) – and use the money raised to buy up and redevelop old (mouldy) housing stock, with a premium for non first-time buyers if they buy the redeveloped housing. This would have a “Mario kart” effect, where those at the back get a helpful boost, so they don’t fail miserably.
And make sure that those who work full time, even on minimum wage, are able to buy their own house.
There’s several other areas I’d like to address (e.g. nationalise temp agencies & subsume them into the DWP), but I’ll leave that for another proverbial day.
Sorry, but LVT is not an answer to any question ever yet invented.
If you really think all value comes from land then you are completely and utterly mistaken.
Please don’t waste my time again.
Actually, no, I don’t think that all value comes from land – it’s the root dependency of everything, but it’s people that give value to things AND produce that value – but I do recognise LVT as the most efficient and fair form of taxation.
The issue I have with the current taxation regime is that it discourages value creation, whilst giving those wealthy enough the means to not ‘chip in’. Land value tax provides a mechanism that can’t be dodged, whilst not disincentivising value creation.
I am sorry, but we will, have to disagree. LVT might have a role in replacing council tax, but beyond that it has nothing to offer, and your claim re value is intensely value laden. What is value? And since this has been discussed here before, please don’t try again.
I support the idea of “Giving MPs the resources to undertake real research to challenge government” but I didn’t select it. I think it should only come after the whipping system has been abolished, and I suspect that’s less likely to happen than any of the options presented.
Fair comment
One of my biggest gripes has always been the socioeconomic background and education of MP’s. I personally still struggle with 20% still being Oxbridge educated. However, looking at The Sutton Trust Parliamentary Privilege 2024, the commons is currently more socioeconomic diverse since 1979. It also makes recommendations for improvement eg ‘The provision of citizenship/democracy education should be improved in state schools, to create a better understanding of politics, democracy and government.’
https://www.suttontrust.com/our-research/parliamentary-privilege-2024/
I was hoping for an “All of the above” option, the opportunity to offer “Other” options, and then to rank them in order of (a) importance and (b) sequence. We’ll done for eliciting such erudite comments and suggestions. You’ve struck a rich seam here!
I got that wrong
There should be more participation from electors such as citizens assemblies