> What happens in practice is, parties do control the government. There are these things called "whips". Also, voters watch national media and mostly vote based on the leadership, stated manifesto etc of each party at the national level.
Don't patronise me. I'm fully aware of all of these things.
But it doesn't actually change who we vote for. If you want Reform to have more MPs, they have to have locally electable MPs. Because we vote for MPs.
If you change the system in any way that means people get candidates that parties choose on some proportional basis, you break this crucial link with the local area. We vote, locally, and we choose a person who is best for us. Time and time again this has proved to be valuable and to have generally selected quite good candidates and very good parliamentarians.
As soon as you have any other system than, locally, "I choose this person to be my representative", important things break, IMO.
But, again, this only upsets right-wingers now because they are on the losing side of it. Hasn't bothered them in the slightest before.
The idea that parliament has shifted "hard to the left", as you said earlier, is absolutely delusional, given the Centrist Dad government we now have.
Interesting to even concede that Labour and Conservatives are basically the same, but no desire for third parties being able to enter. I'm definitely not a fan of Reform in particular, it's just highlighted the issue with new parties having no chance in the UK unless they are strongly local like the DUP or SNP. Geographic distribution seems to be the biggest factor in whether a person's vote is counted or not.
> Interesting to even concede that Labour and Conservatives are basically the same, but no desire for third parties being able to enter.
Did I? You're projecting.
I voted for a third party. And that third party candidate got elected. In one of the formerly safest Tory seats in the country. Because we wanted change and we are aware of the trends of our own local politics.
New parties have no chance because first time MPs -- of all parties -- have no chance. It's rare to get selected on your first try, or to get a winnable seat on your first try. Across all parties. Because it's a process that requires practice and proper infrastructure -- competent agents, competent support, competent canvassing.
So a new party will have to find exceptional candidates, or media-addicted fame chasers, or defectors who rarely get elected because defection is frowned upon, to get anywhere in its first general election campaign. By that measure, Reform did exceptionally well.
Everyone's vote gets counted. Everyone's vote has equal weight. The system, again, elects local representatives as its method of operation. If you want a local representative of your chosen party, find someone who is locally electable to run for that party. Or run yourself.
Don't patronise me. I'm fully aware of all of these things.
But it doesn't actually change who we vote for. If you want Reform to have more MPs, they have to have locally electable MPs. Because we vote for MPs.
If you change the system in any way that means people get candidates that parties choose on some proportional basis, you break this crucial link with the local area. We vote, locally, and we choose a person who is best for us. Time and time again this has proved to be valuable and to have generally selected quite good candidates and very good parliamentarians.
As soon as you have any other system than, locally, "I choose this person to be my representative", important things break, IMO.
But, again, this only upsets right-wingers now because they are on the losing side of it. Hasn't bothered them in the slightest before.
The idea that parliament has shifted "hard to the left", as you said earlier, is absolutely delusional, given the Centrist Dad government we now have.