Britain in need of a change in mindset
When much of England went to the polls last week to vote in the local elections, it was generally accepted that the Conservatives would take a beating — and indeed they did. They lost more than 470 councilors and the control of 10 councils, and also failed to hold the parliamentary seat of Blackpool South, where the party lost a by-election to Labour and were almost beaten into third place by Reform UK, the successor to Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party.
After such success, it would be reasonable to assume the current Labour opposition is headed for a landslide victory in the coming parliamentary general election. But it seems that Labour leader Keir Starmer still has a long way to go— some pollsters say that, even with last week’s wins, a massive landslide is probably not on the cards. So Labour may have to form alliances in a hung parliament if it is to form a government.
The problem with this is that the UK political system is not built for this — many believe that the country’s first-past-the-post system creates “strong government.” But the past three decades have shown that “strong” is not the best way to describe Britain’s seat of power. For example,
Boris Johnson won a huge majority in the 2019 election but lasted three years.
The British voting system, more than 200 years old, is designed to create a single-party majority government. Every election is fought on the basis of single-party politics and the blinkered “we are right, they are wrong” attitude that comes with it. Every aspect of politics is built for confrontation — even the House of Commons, where the government and opposition are seated directly across from one another, set up to squabble rather than discuss.
While the British people have traditionally voted for a party and its leader, it is evident that they are now more inclined to vote locally for their MP of choice. And that is more likely to return a hung parliament, something last seen in 2017, when Theresa May and the Conservatives formed an alliance with the Democratic Unionist Party.
That is why the British system of democracy needs a serious rethink; not just the way the government is elected, but everything attached to it. If Parliament is to be a modern democratic assemble that serves not only its people but the wider world, then it needs to be more collaborative: it is hard to see how Britain can expect to be taken seriously internationally when its own population constantly calls it broken. If the British cannot hold themselves in high esteem, how can they expect the world to do so?
Before the next election, each party will publish its manifesto — a list of pledges and policies that outline what they are standing for. The problem is that there is no obligation for a party to honor these pledges, or be able to. The only people with access to all the information needed to make honest, informed decisions are those already in the government. Once elected, parties often renege on key pledges, claiming that the previous government had not provided the correct information.
Voters will cast a single vote the candidate they most want to represent their constituency in Parliament. The MP is the person with the highest number of votes, but not necessarily an overall majority. And the party with the most MPs will either form a government if it has a minimum of 326 seats — or, if fewer, enter into negotiations with smaller ones.
Then they will sit in the ancient Commons chamber, one side facing the other, and debate — although to many it sounds more like a cacophony of zoo animals at feeding time than one of the most powerful governments in the world.
Britain needs to stop resisting change. The British public needs to get over the notion of superiority and embrace collaborative discussions. The election needs to represent all instead of a few, maybe through a system of regional assemblies with representatives who sit in Parliament.
If people were voting with an expectation of hung parliaments, then it is possible that they might start voting for the people they believe would be the best collaborators, rather than personalities and those who wield power. Government should return to a fixed term — a policy abolished by Johnson — so that the public vote when it is required, not when the prime minister thinks it is tactically preferable to give them the biggest gains.
And the building MPs sit in should create a mindset of positive constructive debate, with lawmakers facing the front of the chamber and the speaker holding court.
Britain needs to move away from a situation where only a small number of people are represented and where the few do not make life-changing decisions for the many (such as war) without collaborative thought.
If the country is to move forward, then it needs to stop arguing — although, in defense of democracy, I write this in the knowledge that I can be critical without fear of reprisal or intimidation.