Or just as an all-round clear-talking political advisor/commentator with unobstructed exposure to all media - so EVERYONE can understand what needs to be done politically to save Britain.
Very nicely explained. I gave up trying to campaign for any political change after experiencing how Westminster really functioned back in the 1970s. The era just before a flourishing Scottish Independence movement was hijacked by a London controlled shady Salmond and the rising pressure for replacing First Past the Post by PR was curtailed whenever Thatcher bought off that burgeoning discontented voting base with financial deregulation and the selling off of the postwar British common good. From 1969 until 2007 an awful lot of ongoing political corruption in high places was easily covered up by deploying the Get Out of Gaol Free Card ruse of crying ‘national security reasons’, proffered by Northern Ireland’s Operation Banner legislation. Why else were the British establishmemt created party, Paisley’s DUP (est 1971), so strangely central to the successful delivery of a full Brexit ? All this back history is just to give you fair warning that if you are sincere in wanting to deliver much needed political reform in the UK you need to get to know your enemy.
It was not Salmond who was shady (he was acquitted on all counts by a majority female jury) but Sturgeon.
She was captured by the British Establishment and worked for them to deny and delay Independence, while continuing to promise it as a carrot for votes.
FPTP is just a tiny part of the problem. Absolute power makes Britons serfs: abolish it. Right to put topics on the political agenda? How dare you try to speak up! Do what the people want? No, we serve our donors.
There are so many things wrong that we have to admit: the system has failed. Once we accept this, then we can think constructively about what to replace it with. I would suggest a written constitution for a federal State, power to the people, abolition of the Lords and Privy Council (which makes law by the backdoor, called "Orders in Council"), an elected People's Council to give the People's Consent to legislation instead of the farce of Royal Assent ... there is much more, all in my book REINVENTING DEMOCRACY. Guess what? The Establishment and all their lackeys don't want to know.
As a very young man I was inspired to join the Liberal Party by the advocacy of PR by Jo Grimond.
What we have witnessed in the last 60 years (or arguably more) is the blame game played by Labour and Conservatives. In the 1980’s, one of my heroes, David Penhaligon, described this process as “…a demolition job” - each Party blaming the other and reversing or destroying much of the legislation enacted by its predecessors.
FPTP not only disenfranchises the vast majority of the electorate but is the undermining cause of political short-termism, resulting in promises and policies designed to win the next Election.
PR is of course not an elixir of itself but is the sine qua non, without which we will never sort out the mess in which this country finds itself.
FPTP in fact rarely produces results on a par with 2024, 1945 and 1997 are the only realistic comparisons. Proportional Representation is not some magic solution, The Netherlands held an election last week under PR, there is no guarantee that the party that won most votes will form government and the losing Prime Minister has said he doesn’t think a new government will be formed before Christmas. The coalition keeping Netanyahu in power in Israel includes figures who openly support the extinction (Final Solution) of the Palestinian people. Do we really want that in our country? A more practical solution would be to reduce the power of the Whip to allow members, as in the US Senate, to vote their conscience without fear of retribution or punishment.
But surely PR acts to stymie the more extreme voices in the form of voting blocks and firewalls like in Germany. There you can at least vote for your representative and not so much for who will be PM like many people do in the UK. They need to build consensus, and would hopefully form a government that focuses on the majority and not fringe interests.
What we have at the moment, and what seems more likely at every election going forward is a mandate for absolute power on less than 50% votes.
Look at Labour right now. Voted in by only about 25% of the electorate (34% of total votes in 2024) and effectively slightly left of the former Tory government. An absolute majority of voting power based on a minority of the electorate, and when we see that every time, you can easily see why people don't turn out.
As it stands presently, i’d rather see political limbo whilst concessions are made than absolute rule that allows the government of the day to steam role over all of us who aren't millionaires
No it doesn’t, look at The Netherlands, the People’s Party is in government, despite being avowedly fascist, it’s only the current desire to stop the AfD from being in government in Germany that forces the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats to work together, but you effectively do vote for the Prime Minister because you know that if you vote for a party that has a chance of governing the first candidate on the Party list is going to be the head of government. You also get parties in government with a minute share of the vote, until recently there was an Australian Senator elected on 0.5% first preference votes. Turnout everywhere isn’t much different to ours (except Australia where voting is compulsory).
If you’re referring to the budget shutdown in a sense it is, the Senate could pass a bipartisan budget today, but they know that there are enough flamethrowers in the House of Representatives that any Senate Continuing Resolution would be dead on arrival. The other roadblock is unrelated to the electoral system, it’s the filibuster rule that requires 60 votes to proceed with budgetary legislation. And indeed during the current impasse over the budget the Senate has passed two Motions of Disapproval expressing opposition to Trump’s tariff policy with some Republican support, something that would likely get a UK MP suspended from their Party caucus and potentially not allowed to recontest their seat at the next election.
Some good points here, but fails to mention the fact that when voters were offered the opportunity to change the system via a referendum (2010?) they by & large didn’t bother to turn out. Offered the same opportunity to turn out when Brexit was on offer, they turned out in record numbers…
They were, but it was largely ignored by the Coalition govt (especially the story majority) and just seen as a sop to the Lib Dem’s. No real explanation to the public or anything.
Excellent analysis on the UK's yawning democratic deficit, written by one who lives in a 'safe' seat, the modern equivalent of a rotten borough. My one criticism is the use of the term 'cost of living crisis', which suggests we are simply facing temporary head winds which will soon abate. But crises don't go on, year after year, decade after decade, even from generation to the next (consider the UK's low social mobility). No, what the UK has is entrenched and structural poverty, and this is a deep embarrassment. Describing it as a 'crisis' allows politicians to pretend that we are merely a little of course, suffering a temporary departure from the norm. Acknowledging the much more intractable problem of deep-seated poverty and inequality just seems to be a challenge too far, but should certainly be calling it out.
There is another point worth making. If you have read Mark Kieran's well argued and persuasive piece you might be tempted to wonder why, if it such a good idea, there isn't more response from some of our MP's. I suspect the answer is that some will think, "I wanted to be an MP; I am an MP; if we change the system all the numbers may change and I may no longer be an MP. I think I'll just adopt a low profile on that one!"
VERY interesting reading voters, you need to look at this article.
Wages. Tax. Housing. Bills. Public services. If your vote rarely counts, your needs in these fundamental areas rarely register in government priorities.
The beginning of this post I picked from the article just to INFO -Not all voter in the U.K. in Lancashire area are getting a say in May 2026 election in our area -thanks to Labour-Tory-Lib-Dem Govt party Cllr.
**
They passed blindly the Already -Corrupted -Devolution -Deal to move our area under a Govt Burnley Puppet Mayor we also did not get a vote on so some off us residents of Pendle-Colne think Labour Govt is rigging the vote in our area to keep Nigel and reform from taking over in our area (Pendle voter may wish reform too Take over?)
Concluding
Uglypolitix—What is the point of a vote if the Govt and their party Cllr-Mayor-M.P. alike of local areas in Lancashire -Pendle-Colne area Cllr Stop us resident from voting is this NOT vote rigger to hold onto our areas by dodgy Labour Cllr and Labour Govt Y.N.
I’m a great supporter of PR and agree with this article wholeheartedly. However can you substantiate the claim that marginal seats tend to be older and wealthier? I would have thought that many older and wealthier seats are safe Tory seats.
Can we have Mark Kieran as PM, please?
Failing that as Chancellor?
Or just as an all-round clear-talking political advisor/commentator with unobstructed exposure to all media - so EVERYONE can understand what needs to be done politically to save Britain.
The Nation Needs Him!
Very nicely explained. I gave up trying to campaign for any political change after experiencing how Westminster really functioned back in the 1970s. The era just before a flourishing Scottish Independence movement was hijacked by a London controlled shady Salmond and the rising pressure for replacing First Past the Post by PR was curtailed whenever Thatcher bought off that burgeoning discontented voting base with financial deregulation and the selling off of the postwar British common good. From 1969 until 2007 an awful lot of ongoing political corruption in high places was easily covered up by deploying the Get Out of Gaol Free Card ruse of crying ‘national security reasons’, proffered by Northern Ireland’s Operation Banner legislation. Why else were the British establishmemt created party, Paisley’s DUP (est 1971), so strangely central to the successful delivery of a full Brexit ? All this back history is just to give you fair warning that if you are sincere in wanting to deliver much needed political reform in the UK you need to get to know your enemy.
The UK establishment plays dirty.
no, it plays filthy.
It was not Salmond who was shady (he was acquitted on all counts by a majority female jury) but Sturgeon.
She was captured by the British Establishment and worked for them to deny and delay Independence, while continuing to promise it as a carrot for votes.
Please read REINVENTING DEMOCRACY. More information at sparklingbooks.com/rd.html Thanks
FPTP is just a tiny part of the problem. Absolute power makes Britons serfs: abolish it. Right to put topics on the political agenda? How dare you try to speak up! Do what the people want? No, we serve our donors.
There are so many things wrong that we have to admit: the system has failed. Once we accept this, then we can think constructively about what to replace it with. I would suggest a written constitution for a federal State, power to the people, abolition of the Lords and Privy Council (which makes law by the backdoor, called "Orders in Council"), an elected People's Council to give the People's Consent to legislation instead of the farce of Royal Assent ... there is much more, all in my book REINVENTING DEMOCRACY. Guess what? The Establishment and all their lackeys don't want to know.
As a very young man I was inspired to join the Liberal Party by the advocacy of PR by Jo Grimond.
What we have witnessed in the last 60 years (or arguably more) is the blame game played by Labour and Conservatives. In the 1980’s, one of my heroes, David Penhaligon, described this process as “…a demolition job” - each Party blaming the other and reversing or destroying much of the legislation enacted by its predecessors.
FPTP not only disenfranchises the vast majority of the electorate but is the undermining cause of political short-termism, resulting in promises and policies designed to win the next Election.
PR is of course not an elixir of itself but is the sine qua non, without which we will never sort out the mess in which this country finds itself.
FPTP in fact rarely produces results on a par with 2024, 1945 and 1997 are the only realistic comparisons. Proportional Representation is not some magic solution, The Netherlands held an election last week under PR, there is no guarantee that the party that won most votes will form government and the losing Prime Minister has said he doesn’t think a new government will be formed before Christmas. The coalition keeping Netanyahu in power in Israel includes figures who openly support the extinction (Final Solution) of the Palestinian people. Do we really want that in our country? A more practical solution would be to reduce the power of the Whip to allow members, as in the US Senate, to vote their conscience without fear of retribution or punishment.
But surely PR acts to stymie the more extreme voices in the form of voting blocks and firewalls like in Germany. There you can at least vote for your representative and not so much for who will be PM like many people do in the UK. They need to build consensus, and would hopefully form a government that focuses on the majority and not fringe interests.
What we have at the moment, and what seems more likely at every election going forward is a mandate for absolute power on less than 50% votes.
Look at Labour right now. Voted in by only about 25% of the electorate (34% of total votes in 2024) and effectively slightly left of the former Tory government. An absolute majority of voting power based on a minority of the electorate, and when we see that every time, you can easily see why people don't turn out.
As it stands presently, i’d rather see political limbo whilst concessions are made than absolute rule that allows the government of the day to steam role over all of us who aren't millionaires
No it doesn’t, look at The Netherlands, the People’s Party is in government, despite being avowedly fascist, it’s only the current desire to stop the AfD from being in government in Germany that forces the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats to work together, but you effectively do vote for the Prime Minister because you know that if you vote for a party that has a chance of governing the first candidate on the Party list is going to be the head of government. You also get parties in government with a minute share of the vote, until recently there was an Australian Senator elected on 0.5% first preference votes. Turnout everywhere isn’t much different to ours (except Australia where voting is compulsory).
THe Whip system is a disaster in terms of democracy.
I am not sure the current US senate is a great example
If you’re referring to the budget shutdown in a sense it is, the Senate could pass a bipartisan budget today, but they know that there are enough flamethrowers in the House of Representatives that any Senate Continuing Resolution would be dead on arrival. The other roadblock is unrelated to the electoral system, it’s the filibuster rule that requires 60 votes to proceed with budgetary legislation. And indeed during the current impasse over the budget the Senate has passed two Motions of Disapproval expressing opposition to Trump’s tariff policy with some Republican support, something that would likely get a UK MP suspended from their Party caucus and potentially not allowed to recontest their seat at the next election.
Some good points here, but fails to mention the fact that when voters were offered the opportunity to change the system via a referendum (2010?) they by & large didn’t bother to turn out. Offered the same opportunity to turn out when Brexit was on offer, they turned out in record numbers…
They were, but it was largely ignored by the Coalition govt (especially the story majority) and just seen as a sop to the Lib Dem’s. No real explanation to the public or anything.
An excellent article by Mark Kieran who talks a lot of common sense. Common sense is severely lacking in Government.
Great analysis. How dowe get it implemented when there are such vested interests against it
Very good explanation - but how do we get it implemented.
Join Make Votes Matter
Crumbs - that's what Westminster is leaving us with,
And fertile ground for reform(sic) to cultivate...
Excellent analysis on the UK's yawning democratic deficit, written by one who lives in a 'safe' seat, the modern equivalent of a rotten borough. My one criticism is the use of the term 'cost of living crisis', which suggests we are simply facing temporary head winds which will soon abate. But crises don't go on, year after year, decade after decade, even from generation to the next (consider the UK's low social mobility). No, what the UK has is entrenched and structural poverty, and this is a deep embarrassment. Describing it as a 'crisis' allows politicians to pretend that we are merely a little of course, suffering a temporary departure from the norm. Acknowledging the much more intractable problem of deep-seated poverty and inequality just seems to be a challenge too far, but should certainly be calling it out.
There is another point worth making. If you have read Mark Kieran's well argued and persuasive piece you might be tempted to wonder why, if it such a good idea, there isn't more response from some of our MP's. I suspect the answer is that some will think, "I wanted to be an MP; I am an MP; if we change the system all the numbers may change and I may no longer be an MP. I think I'll just adopt a low profile on that one!"
Very succinctly and powerfully put.
All we get under FPTP is 'tough choices' forced upon us by ideology and think tanks.
Never tough choices for Millionaires, for ever profiting Energy companies, for polluting water companies, for billion dollar companies
VERY interesting reading voters, you need to look at this article.
Wages. Tax. Housing. Bills. Public services. If your vote rarely counts, your needs in these fundamental areas rarely register in government priorities.
The beginning of this post I picked from the article just to INFO -Not all voter in the U.K. in Lancashire area are getting a say in May 2026 election in our area -thanks to Labour-Tory-Lib-Dem Govt party Cllr.
**
They passed blindly the Already -Corrupted -Devolution -Deal to move our area under a Govt Burnley Puppet Mayor we also did not get a vote on so some off us residents of Pendle-Colne think Labour Govt is rigging the vote in our area to keep Nigel and reform from taking over in our area (Pendle voter may wish reform too Take over?)
Concluding
Uglypolitix—What is the point of a vote if the Govt and their party Cllr-Mayor-M.P. alike of local areas in Lancashire -Pendle-Colne area Cllr Stop us resident from voting is this NOT vote rigger to hold onto our areas by dodgy Labour Cllr and Labour Govt Y.N.
I’m a great supporter of PR and agree with this article wholeheartedly. However can you substantiate the claim that marginal seats tend to be older and wealthier? I would have thought that many older and wealthier seats are safe Tory seats.
Yes, true, but prior to the recent big swing away from the Tories were the marginal seats really wealthier? That’s my question
I'm not sure there are any safe Tory seats left