Another reason why the current party system is poisoning Britain

[fpb]

The one good thing about the British parliamentary system is the stake that every MP is supposed to have in his or her constituency. They are supposed to be ambassadors for the needs and interests of their constituents. However, in order to have a career at all they have also to be subservient followers of the party line, and, where the government is in power, of the government line. The two positions are contrasting and often incompatible. Good constituency MPs will give ministers trouble and will not be promoted to the exalted position of Parliamentary Private Secretary (individual crawler to a Minister who has already in his/her turn been a PPS and a crawler). Selection will work in reverse: the best will remain to warm the back benches and the worst will be rise through the ranks till their mediocrity and "team spirit" has got them to an interchangeable ministerial role. Because of course any politician good enough to be Minister for Education is equally able to be Minister for Defence or Minister for Agriculture. And if you think I am fantasizing, study the careers of genuinely good constituency MPs such as the late Gwyneth Dunwoody.

Comments

[annie-from-aust.livejournal.com]

We in Australia also use the Westminster Parlaiment like the UK.

I agree with everything you said. Here there are 2 main parties and one smaller Greens, which can influence the Senate. So my local candidate follows the party line run by people in the Eastern States you couldn't give a toss about my state and certainly my electorate.

We do have about 5 Independents in the Federal Parliament. 2 are from Right ring chrisian organisations. Another one Nick X from my State is Anti Poker machines. He is very good at representing the interests of our State, especially if he has time left from self promotion.

I am sure you are nodding your head at my descriptions.

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

Once again, could not agree more. I'm going to have to get a medical, that's twice in a row we'ver agreed about something political ;)

[fishlivejournal.livejournal.com]

While it is convenient to blame the party system - and there's no doubt that the party system makes the problem worse - a more serious problem is electorate apathy. I've been to 'meet and greets' where I was the only person present who wasn't a party member; and despite the meet being moderately well advertised. If a politician repeatedly has their efforts to represent their voters rebuffed, then naturally they are going to grow cynical.

Fortunately, this is a problem that the churches can help solve. Each election, invite the candidates to each give a 5 minute presentation to a congregation! It benefits everybody - except for the Christian hating extremists.
Last local election, my electorate went one further and recorded a meet and greet to broadcast it through multiple curches. (Sadly I didn't find out about it until afterwards). This sort of thing could revitalise local politics.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Electorate apathy is a by-product of the party system. When the political process is monopolyzed by two or three elephants none of which has much to do with the viewpoints of the electors, the electors are quite right to stay home. To do otherwise would be to admit that they have a duty to select a master from a limited and unrepresentative choice, and it would be taken to mean support for someone whom they, at best, regard as the least bad of two or three very bad evils.

[fishlivejournal.livejournal.com]

Your argument will work in situations where other candidates are excluded from running - however when independents can run, this is merely an excuse. The electorate can and has voted independents in. The political monopolies only exist because the electorate permits them.