WHO do the political parties represent

@ daphnedill, can I ask where you get your news from? I feel I've been forced online due to the blatant bias of the BBC & the largely right wing press, & feel like I've been walking round blindfold most of my life - it is through social media I've had the chance to discover news from different sources. Sites like The Canary are left wing, & I'm not stupid enough to assume they are unbiased, however I regard it as a counterpoint to the relentless onslaught of right wing news from the traditional sources. If you know of a truly unbiased news source, please enlighten me - I'd love to follow it. No sarcasm intended - I really mean it

I do keep thinking I have said things but then get an acerbic reply so wonder if I am talking a foreign language [sigh]. I did say that my definition "... doesn't matter if this is totally accurate it's just meant as a starting point" and, in that sense, nor does yours M0nica - matter I mean.

What I was wondering is where we go from here. I don't agree with your simplistic way of how you see it now either; you just seem to be seeing the current parties through your own political views . I think roses "I want a bit of all those reasons mixed together" is where many people have got to but that would probably mean an organisational change in how we run the country. I just thought some might have ideas about that.

If we look at Organisational Behaviour (the study of) historically we will see that politics is just an organisation. Historically these have run on tribal formats, hierarchical (Kings, dictators, presidents for life,)flatten out and are now moving into a more fluid structure. What would this look like politically I wonder?

Are you a frustrated Liberal Democrat, Gg?

I cant agree that politics is just an organisation. I think they are far more than that.

If anyone is actually interested - and it could just be me on here - I have just heard the first question on Any Questions and it was very much about the changes taking place with some interesting answers.

I think we are all taken for mugs by the politicians and they represent their own interests (and pockets) and not much more. We're slowly learning not to be taken in by charismatic figures, be they politicians, priests or self-appointed gurus and a good thing too. But there's a vacuum now when trust is lost and it's hard to see where we go from here. The right-wing is trying to reinstate something pretty much akin to medieval serfdom while the left's ideals tend to lead to the greed and manipulation we see in government now being mirrored in the populace. I give up, I shall live out my life quietly and stay extremely sceptical of anyone in power!

@littlefierce

Gggrrr! I've just written a lengthy reply, but my post disappeared due to some glitch. I'll try again a bit later. I don't get all my news 'off the peg'. If I read something which involves statistics or a report of a report, I try to go back to the original report or look up statistics from the ONS (Office of National Statistics) wherever possible.

One question worth asking is whether MPs are delegates or representatives.

In other words, are MPs representatives of a handful of political parties with a 'package' of policies and we choose the one closest to our or own beliefs, knowing that MPs will almost always make decisions based on the party's policies

OR

Are MPs delegates of the people who voted for them and it's their role to reflect the views of their constituents in Parliament, even if the views don't coincide with their own?

The system we have is that MPs are representatives of their party, which sometimes conflicts with the views of their own constituents.

A further complication is that constituency members don't necessarily coincide with the views of ALL the voters in a constituency.

PS. Hope that makes sense.

I think the big problem is that politics is now a profession. Most of those in high places in politics have been at it man/woman and boy/girl. Few if any have any life experience outside politics.

In the past there have always been professional politicians (read the novels of Anthony Trollope) but the majority of MPs have come to politics after decades doing other things. Some of them have been the local squire or union apparatchiks (excuse spelling) but all of them have brought an experience of lives, professions and regional experience completely lacking in most of today's politicians.

Not only have today's politicians only ever worked in politics their friendship circles are all political. Once again in the past MPs had hinterlands. The labour MP was down the pub in the constituency with his mates, most of whom continued to work in the factory or works where he once worked. The Tory landowner or mill owner knew about their industry whether land-based or industrial. Their friends and associates were more likely to be fellow landowners or working industrial or professional. Given that all politics is self interest, Tory or labour, they did at least know what they talked about when they rose in the House to talk about agriculture or industry, even defence or education because they were grounded in their locality and constituency and had their fingers on the pulse of their constituents.

I do not see how any change can be effected unless we can deprofesionalise politics. How I am not sure. Limit MPs to two terms in Parliament unless selected for a cabinet position? Make 35 the youngest age for serving in Parliament? Insist that every candidate provide evidence of 10 years working right outside politics (that would exclude those working for political PR companies, lobbying companies and the like)? Make MPs come up through local politics - 10 years as parish/district/county councillors?

I honestly do not know, but I do think for most MPs it would help if politics was first their hobby, not their profession. An MP should define themselves as a software developer and MP or doctor and MP, but their definition should be first their profession.

My MP is a professional politician. I have no idea whether he ever has ever earned his living any other way.

We've certainly been through a phase when top politicians had little experience outside politics, but that's beginning to change. Both Theresa May and Philip Hammond worked outside politics for a couple of decades.

Gracegran I like your reasoning I think the political parties represent the donors who donate the most money I have been really angry with the political parties recently they all seem to be telling the voters that no matter what we want they will decide so much for democracy.I'm going to be voting a completely different way in any future elections

That's how a representative democracy, especially one with a 'first past the post' system works. If you and a number of like-minded people object to the way your MP votes in Parliament, you need to get together and write to him/her. If enough people object, your MP will be concerned that he/she might lose at the next election and vote against the party whip. If few people agree with you, I'm afraid it's tough luck and you have to accept the majority decision. By the way, that's why I think democracy isn't the 'be all and end all' of political systems - it can easily be manipulated by mob rule.

I am concerned that the country is being ruled by a party voted in by about 25% of those eligible to vote and there is no effective opposition.

This was one of the comments on Question Time that I thought was interesting. Not sure it gives any answers though.

Q: Are we seeing the death of centrist politics
Tim Montgomerie: I think if, seven or eight years ago after the global financial crash we had seen a massive reformation of our politics I don’t think any of us would have been surprised. Here was the banking system dragging down the whole of the western world to a huge extent with many people suffering. We didn’t see it because I think at that time people chose sort of stability and people like Angela Merkel and Barrack Obama, David Cameron. I think some people thought, therefore, the crash wasn’t going to have long term implications but actually, you know, a lot of history of revolutions is people don’t rebel when they are starving, they rebel when their immediate hunger has been addressed but the memory of injustice is still very strong in their minds. I think we are now beginning to get to that point. The situation has been stabilised in the world but people are still angry that the problems that occurred and hurt so many people in 2007 and 2008 haven’t been addressed. On top of that, if that wasn’t enough, most economists now agree that we are probably entering a period when economies don’t grow by two and half or three per cent as they did during most of the post war period but perhaps just by one, one and a half percent.

We are seeing a change in our media culture, so that people don’t always necessarily listen to Ritula and Radio 4 for their news, they go to twitter and social media and that often isn’t to the high standard that perhaps the BBC offers, so politics is operating in an incredibly volatile atmosphere. I don’t know where it will lead, but I think it means that politics is going to change because what we had before isn’t addressing the new circumstances. I think the revolt we are seeing in the Labour Party, the revolt that I have been seeing in America with the rise of Trump and Sanders while I have been there reporting for the Times, the splitting of parties across Europe, we are at a fascinating and frightening stage in global politics.

Nobody said democracy was perfect, just that it was better than any of the alternatives, but that is the way in so many things in life, we have to settle for the least bad.

I have always supported some form of proportional representation. It would enable smaller parties to have some say in Parliament and dilute the power of the big parties, which would probably both split into left/right wing parties and two centrist parties.

Countries with proportional systems have much more diversity in their systems and on the least worse basis it does have problems. One or two countries now have more parties than voters making coalition building almost impossible, but for most it works pretty well.

But I am a minority. In the UK a referendum on the subject the proposition was resoundingly defeated. The biggest vote being the 75% or so who didn't vote because they really didn't give a toss one way or the other.

I think more and more people share your concerns dd. Perhaps if Trump gets in they will really start to realise people will not be stroked by bread and circuses - you would have thought those seeking power might have got the message by now.

sylviann there is democracy and power. The only thing I can suggest at the moment is PR so that people feel as if their vote counts in a way more like the referendum. This picks up on dd point too.

However, even though that may seem more democratic, there would be a loss of power to the currently ruling party and I don't think they will ever vote for it. I'm afraid I only think the other parties would if they felt it would offer them more power, sadly.

Sorry M0nica I hadn't seen your post before I replied to sylviann so a bit of a crossed post. The vote was for AV and not PR and it was made to seem very difficult. More of a "give us back our country" type of presentation - as in the referendum - would have to be made I feel. Perhaps just "give us our country we are old enough to make our own decisions" would work - or perhaps the offer of even more direct democracy ... more referendums anyone?

AV is a form of proportional voting. It has the same effect and could have been stage 1 of a move to a much fairer voting system.

The key point is whatever the question was the vast majority of the population were too uninterested in improving our electoral system to bother to vote.

WHO do the political parties represent?

Themselves I would say, it's not me, that's for sure.

We had a referendum where every vote did matter. Which resulted in a high turnout.
The result? Many many people complaining about lack of democracy? Because their side lost.

Obione:

'We had a referendum where every vote did matter. Which resulted in a high turnout.
The result? Many many people complaining about lack of democracy? Because their side lost.'

how democratic is a vote based on lies and more lies. When the promises made (re NHS for a start...) are kept by those who made them, we can talk again. Democracy cannot be based on pure lies and mis-representation...

No! I disagree with you on principle (see previous post).

Democracy isn't just about putting a cross in a box. It's also about fully understanding what you're voting for and not being lied to on an industrial scale (£350,000 a day to the NHS, hordes of Turks, etc hahaha). As somebody who advocates wallowing in ignorance, I'm amazed that you think that everybody's vote matters (or maybe not ).

We had a referendum about AV, where every vote did count and the majority of the electorate didn't bother to vote.

definition of democracy

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives

which is what we have. The meaning of democracy is quite basic if you ask me.
It is not about a whole load of things.

Yes, I know. I thought it was incredibly sad that so many people hadn't even thought about their role in democracy.