Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
FPTP is fine, as long as it isn't the only way we have democratically elected parliament. We need a PR style upper house as well to oversee this rather than a heriditary system or one whereby the party in govt can elect new people to the upper chamber to gain control.
For me the benefit of FPTP is not necessarily strong govt but the election of a representative of a particular area in a constituency. Other systems can result in people not get the person/party most people actually want.
IMO on the larger scale it's our version of the electoral college, leading to skewed overall results. Plus a party that has control for a significant of time can also abuse their power. Gerry-mandering of boundaries to maximise your elected officials rather than represent the voters. Just this week in the Queen's Speech we've seen quite a few things that would consolidate power for the ruling party - voter ID for a non-existent problem that would only disenfranchise those less likely to vote for them. PM deciding when to hold an election so can pick and choose a time when they seem popular (like a footballer looking for a new contract in the middle of a purple patch). There were also parts about adding in further restrictions for protests and judicial reform. Plus in recent years the threat over the BBC funding that has resulted in far less scrutiny and criticism of the decisions or actions of the Tories plus the installation of a DG who is very much a follower of Tory ideals.
So basically, more power to govt, harder to vote for those who are less likely to vote for them, less opportunity to report or protest their actions or to take them to court. This is what 'strong governance' gets you in the end - autocracy and a shift towards extremes.
