Why British Democracy Is An Absolute Joke
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- It’s general election time over here in the UK. But I won’t be talking about that! No, instead, I desire to zoom out and explain why democracy in Britain as a whole is an absolute joke regardless of the time! From the disgrace known as first past the post, the oddities of unequal devolution, and the absurdities of hereditary peers, join me as I discuss such problems, and more importantly, how I think they can be fixed up.
Support the channel: / alexhexagon
>reform 15% popular vote with 4 seats
>liberal dems 12% popular with 71 seats
>SNP 2.4 % with 9 seats
This video aged well.
5 now
And Labour won with a 52% voter turn out.
Meaning over half of England did not vote for Labour
"Lads that is not a parliament that is a bus station." 😂
Britain’s first past the post electoral system is like a modern day rotten borough system.
How do you think Diane Abbott keeps getting elected?
No, it isn't. It has its problems but is nowhere on the level of Rotten Boroughs, when a landlord could just pick an MP.
@@str.77 As opposed to a "Safe Seat" where any idiot can be placed and as long as they lick boot they get in, regardless of their ability, ideology or any other features or facets, chosen and placed by whomever foots the bill.
It's the same thing, with extra steps.
Old doesn't equal bad. Traditions are solutions for problems we forgot we ever had.
Or problems that we used to have.
@@Michael-Archonaeus Yes, but traditions build on top of traditions. Tradition A might not be needed anymore but we do need Tradition B, and it relies on Tradition A to function. Traditions are a tangled knot of strings, you often can't get rid of just one.
@@Michael-ArchonaeusProblems we don't have anymore because of Tradition lol
@@verbosequestion In some cases, in other cases in spite of tradition, that really has no bearing.
@@Michael-Archonaeus yes but you made it sounds like all traditions in an of themselves are bad. "Tradition good" is not the point I'm making
Two 1 hour videos in only 9 days? Your spoiling us Alex 😆
While the British and American election laws are explicitly set up in such a way as to preserve the 2 party duopoly, in Europe we have a situation where if a "3rd party" wins, it's simply forced by the powers that be to abandon it's program and become another run-of-the-mill centrist party. Financial oligarchy and bureaucracy will find ways to severely limit the amount of laws and policies that can be actually be democratically changed by the public.
Correct apart from the fact we don't have any centrist parties they're all extreme left
more like Extreme Liberal, because in terms of economic policy, they are capitalist and therefore right wing, despite being extremely liberal anti-religion
@@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24
Which country is Europe? There are many differences
I tried to explain to my friend that just because a government system claimed to be democratic doesn’t mean it’s democratic. Which confuses the hell out of him.
The "problem" with proportional systems (playing devil's advocate here) is that the relationship between a constituency and their representative is severed and representatives get chosen by the central party from party lists. Of course most countries are so centralised now that representatives are nothing more than vote tokens (which makes you wonder why we even bother to have them), but in a more decentralised country this could be a real problem.
Anyway, party lists is why you wound up with Spain having the first transgender MP; the people didn't pick them, a committee did.
Here in Ireland we have it both ways: transferrable ranked preference votes for individual candidates, no party lists and no FPTP either.
I think if we did have proportional voting it should be split up into areas most likely Scotland, wales, greater London, south east, south west, north west, Yorkshire north east
You don't need party lists. Look at Finland's system
I think the new format is better, I like longer videos/more info packed in and more frequent uploads. Maybe it doesn’t look as clean as the other format but that’s a side priority.
It’s worse
Your lectures are university level. You remind me of my favorite professors.
He remembers me of cuck n cheese
No wonder Just-in Turdeau is still in power.
@@str.77 Canada also uses first past the post.
From a tyrant-hating, constitution loving American, you guys sound like you'd actually be better off under an absolute monarchy at this point 😅
You’re also just British .
As a person with monarchist sympathies, I agree.
The irony with your comment being that America has nearly the exact same issues regarding voting. Even worse in some ways because you only really have two options. Forcing people to always choose the lesser of two evils. Red or blue, the system remains the same. Coke or diet coke, you're still drinking coke. And if you dare want a cup of orange juice instead, you can go diddle yourself
@FredThaSlayer Imagine King Rishi Sunak. That's the absolute state of the people who make up the aristocratic class.
@@freedmen123Rishi Sunak is a bourgeois of immigrant ancestry, I’m what way does he represent the aristocracy?
The First Past the Post system is vulnerable to gerrymandering but I can defend it based on this point: you should vote for candidates, not parties.
I might be a member of the Yellow Party, but let's say a guy from the Turquoise Party is really cool and promised to work really hard for my district. Well then I should be able to vote for Turqoise guy even though I don't like his Party as a whole.
A proportional voting system removes the face of politics and means I'm voting for a party to assign members to the seats they received. It's not exactly democratic even though it may appear to be.
Do people know and/or particularly care about the candidates? In the Netherlands you can give candidates on a party's list a preferential vote. Not many people use this option but it's there and a number of MP's do get in with these votes.
This doesnt happen in reality.
@@ayumu_osaka a lot of people like Trump and Bernie despite not liking the parties they represent.
Here in Ireland we have it both ways: transferrable ranked preference votes for individual candidates, no party lists and no FPTP either.
@@ayumu_osaka Nor does gerrymandering occurr (much) in the UK. In the US, however, it is sometimes written into laws, to give minorities extra seats.
You can always tell whether a country is gerrymandered. If the constituencies look normal, similar to adminstrative districts, it isn't. If the maps looks like modern art, gerrymandering is going on.
Revolutionary development is usually the worst type of development. It destroys the good along with the bad. And I'm saying this as an American, whose revolution is practically the one exception to that rule. Ours was a separation followed by massive internal reforms, not an attempt at throwing out anything but rule from London. And a noble class. That was also thrown out.
Yeah, I think this guy misunderstands revolutionary development. Most of the time, revolutionary development fucking sucks. My country has had four episodes of revolutionary development in the last 110 years and only one of them resulted in a system that wasn't totally dysfunctional.
@@elgenerico6263 Which country is that?
@@Nonamearisto Poland.
We rebuilt our country from nothing in 1918, it resulted in an unstable parliamentary democracy that couldn't get anything done in a crisis and was brought down in a coup.
After the coup in the 20s and 30s we tried to have some kind of a meritocratic "government of experts" which turned to a dictatorial oligarchy and lost the war with Germany and Soviets in a very humiliating way.
After the war we had a Soviet-imposed communist government, I don't think I need to elaborate. It was shit.
And in 1989 we had a democratic revolution, the only one that led to some real success.
All in all, trying to change our country for the better through revolutionary means has a 25% success rate.
It's weird that the American War of Independence is called a revolution but the Protestant "Reformation" is not.
how did america even manage to have a successful revolution? Given the state of the colonies at that time, it honestly should've been a disaster
Good day, sir. I'm a lawyer from Spain that dedicates himself to both national and international political law... Proportional representation is a masterful system where, indeed, proportional % seems much better on the surface... But then, if you dig in, you realize the truth; First, you can't elect your representatives, it is the leader of the party who makes the lists. Second, such representatives do not formally represent, since they don't carry the interests of the districts to parlament (orders.) Instead, you vote for the party (and not them) for ideological identification, giving a white card for them to do literally whatever they want. This is because, lacking district elections, there's no way to punish them individually. No way to control them. Their seats are now secured, giving them free will. You now depend on their virtue to make the laws. The essence of political representation is the order. If they are able to ignore it, there's no political representation. The reason i say is a masterful system, is because it was created by the british empire in the 1800s for Australia after loosing the after called "United States of America" precisely because they didn't have representation on parlament. The empire was scared the Australians were going to do the same as the americans for the same reason, so they created a system that seemed it had representation on the outside, but where, in truth, australians weren't able to control their representatives. The empire did. Two birds killed with one stone. The reason most part of western europe has such system, is because the US wanted so after WW2 to apply the same power dinamics the british empire had, and have Europe controled. The only country that resisted this was France, who implemented first past the post (thanks to Charles de Gaulle.) Be careful of what you wish for... If instead of proper separation of powers (that the UK doesn't have) to solve gerrymandering, you want the proportional system, your cure may be worse than the disease.
Speaking as someone who lives in a country with proportional representation... you can have half the seats via district and half via list. It's called Mixed Member Proportional. Your "problems" solved.
BTW Australia has never had proportional representation. It has preferential (or ranked) voting, which is something quite different.
@@danielstride198 Then the so called "half" via list don't represent anyone, and your system is only "half" good. 101 on political law... Representation is a formal order; Carrying the interests of the citizens to parlament via orders. There's no orders in proportional representation... You give your vote to a party for ideological identification, giving them a "free pass" to apply their "virtue and knowledge." (Or not, since it's free in all sense of the word.) That is not representation. It's the same thing as saying that, because you have a friend who walks like you, talks like you, and thinks like you, he represents you. No, he doesn't... What makes representation is the tied contract where the representative must obbey your orders. Just like a lawyer. That is only posible through first past the post district representatives, because their respective elections makes them obbey the interests of their citizens (their seats depend on it.) Now, on the other topic you mentioned... I didn't say proportional system was applied in Australia, i said it was designed for Australia... Originally by an agent of the british empire; Thomas Wright Hill, and later on his son, Rowland Hill. It's a system invented for the control of colonies. Applied by the CIA in western europe (like in Spain, after the dictatorship of Francisco Franco Bahamonde, in 1978 - Confirmed by declassified documents.)
You're always going to depend on somebody's virtue and character to make laws whether you like it or not. Not sure what your rant about them "now" having free will was about. You either have free will or you don't, regardless of laws.
When you aren't relying on a handful of representatives to make laws, then you are relying on the entire population in the district to make the laws, this population tends to be composed of people who's combined "collective" personality (which doesn't really exist but whatever) is usually never that great. You could say that it doesn't matter and the only thing that matters is for the majority to be able to get their combined "interests" stroked. But... why?
@@dreyri2736 On the contrary... That's the difference between idealism and materialism. The reason why first past the post system works is precisely because, if the representative wants to keep their seat, they have to attend to the interests of the district. Not because of virtue, but because of matter. Without the seat, they will not get paid. In a proportional system such seat doesn't depend on the citizens. There's no mechanisms to control, nor to punish such representatives. They can ignore the wishes of the citizens without any repercussion, and still have their seat for years. Please, these are the basics of law... A representative must never be free. He must be bound to the orders of the people he represents. That's the essence of representation, whether in the civil world (such as lawyers...) or the political one. Do they have free will to break the code? Of course! The cost? Their job. About the topic of districts, read "Community and Society" by Ferdinand Tönnies, founding father of german sociology. Districts are a community, sharing "common" interests, such as wanting the roads fixed, local economical activity to grow, and a large etc... It is an entity by itself. To answer your final question, the reason i support that the people (through representatives) make the laws is because of an ethical view: "We should all have a say in that which affects us all." Simple as that.
@@icecoldwen8630
I fail to see how my post has anything to do with idealism or materialism. I am not talking about whether reality is primarily mental or physical. I also do not see how a factor like virtue or character can be readily dismissed because you claim that one system is somehow more "materialist" because it involves human bodies.
I also fail to see how the "first past the post" system "works" simply because the representative is apparently more bound to the nebulous interests of the public. It's also not clear whether you think that the character and virtue of a representative has any bearing on whether he is elected, or whether you think the public is willing to tolerate a representative who is absolutely devoid of virtue but somehow manages to placate "their interests". Also, do you think that the public can ever work against their interests?
Personally, I tend to think that just because you can or want to do something doesn't necessarily mean that you should (the sole reason why ethics is even a thing). The core of all social relations is the relation between master and servant, and it is not enough for only the servant to be ethical while the master is not or vice versa. In short, your system will never "work", no matter how it is organized, so long as the people who make up your system are, in the final evaluation, worth less than cattle.
I suggest reading philosophy. Start with the greeks.
Found your channel this past week with the WW2 video and was pleasantly surprised. Then I checked out the British Class System video and laughed harder than I have in a stone's throw. Your quality-to-subscriber ratio is noitceably skewed, keep this up and your channels going to blow up soon (in a good way)--- bless you PlusSizedSkeptic, may the Lord continue to Work through you!
26:14 in Romania, this is not how it works.
There is an arbitrary % cap which is set by a government institution so that the smaller parties don't get in.
The cap for parties is at 5% and for independent candidates it's at 3%.
It was an appalling 10% threshold here in Turkey which was recently changed to 7%.
5% in Denmark as well.
5% in Germany (but the voting system is a mixed system) except for European elections (don't ask) - it is set by law, not some government agency
5% in Canada too.
@@djblackprincecdn Canada has majority voting, so a 5% threshold wouldn't make sense.
30:08 another problem is that the welsh, scottish and northern irish get their own parliaments seperate parliaments while the english don't.
Actually yeah true it's funny
Yeah & not only does that make English folk outside London feel under-represented, but for those in the devolved regions, it’s a tacit declaration that Westminster is England’s, & England is in charge of the UK, which isn’t how it’s supposed to be.
@@Will-kt5jkin reality that's how it always was and probably was intended to be. Regardless of whatever fancy words of equivocation or equality are on paper, the UK has always been understood as an empire under British primacy, but just one in which the other imperial subjects (SL, WLs, NI) are treated very well, and occasionally as equals.
No amount of legalese will ever change this, because it's not based on structure but on practical reality. so long as the English are by far the largest most powerful and most wealthy ethnicity within the uk, the state is essentially theirs. there has never been an empire in history that was ruled for the benefit of its less powerful minorities, or even one that wasn't ruled with at least some additional benefit for its power majority.
The harder question to consider is, if in theory, those separate units would have actually done any better on their own, or in fact much worse. i.e. Despite that groaning and moaning, sometimes justified, the welsh, scottish, and Northern Iris ultimately orders of magnitude more benefit from being part of the Imperial system, then anything they could have acquired on their own, and for relatively little cost outside of national dignity.
That's surely a mistake but one that could even be easily remedied under the current system: the Commons devolve some powers to just the English MPs.
@@Laotzu.Goldbug That might be the intention but those "other imperial subjects (SL, WLs, NI)" do have the full vote.
They can't build a high speed rail link between London & Manchester for £120 billion Meanwhile in China they've built an entire high speed network faster and cheaper 🤭
China has done that by pulverising its country's heritage, identity, and human rights. And besides, a lot of those infrastructure projects are very shoddy quality and cause many deaths. Youre nit wrong about our country but if you really want the Chinese system, you wont know whats hit you
28:19 cyprus is not an exsoviet nation, it was formerly a british held territory.
'Many ex soviet countries' was a seperate example, I did not hear that as saying that Cyprus was an ex soviet state.
If you gonna point out ''mistakes'' in 3 separate comments at least watch the video and listen to what the dude is saying like someone already pointed out to you he did not say cyprus is ex soviet state , you just made yourself look like a bit of a fool
Same thing
It's absurd. No doubt about it. Change is needed urgently. Why aren't smaller parties uniting to make PR a reality in the UK?
Shocking that UK elections are so similar to those in the US.
California, with 40 million people, gets two senators. North Dakota, with 779,000 people, gets two senators.
What about the house of representatives? Only the senate works like that that to ensure that states are equal.
The aristocratic peerage was based on the idea loyalty and legacy. Doesn't work as wel now, but "experts" are hardly trustworthy either.
And remember: the life peers - the worst part of the Lords - were created to allow experts and elder statesmen (experts of their own kind) into the Lords without including any potential heirs.
If nobody votes, no party wins a mandate. A new system becomes necessary.
Its similar to the US general election, but the reason we do it in the USA is because each state is supposed to have some amount of sovereignty, so it wouldn't make sense to use the general popular vote because you are putting a Californians vote equal to an Alaskans vote which directly
As an American I thought ours politics were bad but this is just crazy. I pray for your safety hopefully this doesn’t upset the higher powers for spreading awareness. Also what’s the deal with Northern Ireland? sounds interesting af.
Ireland is the crazy cousin of England, and Northern Ireland is Ireland's little brother with ADHD.
The Conservatives and Labour stand in Nth Ireland, but don't win any seats. Those who want to maintain the union with the UK vote for unionist parties such as the DUP or UUP. Non unionists vote for Sinn Fein who get elected but never take their seats in Westminster as they refuse to swear allegiance to the Crown.
Wow this is such this disfunctional system and I thought that me living in the Balkans was bad 😂😂😂
All jokes aside I found the house of the Lord's fascinating and weird!
Don't forget it's still also a theocracy, so we have all the Anglican bishops sitting in there as well. XD
I would like rhe system which is proportional but not every vote is equal - urban voters are counted as 80% of a person, and rural as 120%. Because you are worth less if you are crowded.
Reminds me of the electoral college, designed to literally stop big cities (as they were known back then as least) doing whatever they want.
I say 60%, a new age 3/5 Compromise.
Alex, this video is exceptionally elucidating for me as an American because I do follow UK politics on occasion out of a sense of fascination. My grandpa emigrated from Wales from my mom's side and my dad's side are Trumbulls who fought Britain in our Revolutionary War so it's interesting to learn about UK history and politics. Regardless, it's a common misconception that America has a so-called "separation of church and state" and I will explain why. Our Constitution is the highest law of the land meaning that it applies to all 50 states and supersedes/nullifies all other laws that are in contradiction with the Constitution. However, beyond the Constitution, i.e., where the Constitution is silent, it is left to each of the 50 states to dictate their own laws. OK, well in the Constitution there is something called the Establishment Clause which says that the FEDERAL Government (that's the national Government that is above any of the individual state governments) may not have an Establishment of religion. What that means is, the Fed may not have a religious institution of UNELECTED individuals dictating laws such as a Pope or King or other such person. However, the part of the Establishment clause leftists like to ignore is that it then continues in the second half banning the Federal Government from "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof" meaning, prohibiting any given state from having an Establishment of religion provided that it doesn't contradict Constitutional law. After the Constitution was ratified here, there were lots of states MANDATING forms of religious participation, such as tithing or not working on the Sabbath, and that was legal! Today such things are said to be a "violation of the separation of church and state" but that is an unpalatable fiction that leftists lie about. I would also emphasize that in today's society such mandates would be confronted with widespread unpopularity in any given state but I'm just making the point that if a state wanted to do it then legal "experts" and lawmakers would have to lie through their teeth to assert that it wasn't legal.
Australia’s electoral system is one of the best models in the world. It’s just a pity that we have such numpties as our options when we do go to vote!
Im Dutch, it’s not much better here, it’s really not.
Lol, en bedankt he. Nederland is een miljoen keer beter dan Engeland . Klink jij als een homo je hele leven ? Nee.
Nederland is zo veel beter dan dat achterlijke eiland . Waar heb je het over.
Yeah, I've heard some bad things about the Dutch system.
Well hey, at least we're not belgium
Hell yeah 57 minutes, this oughtta be good. Always love your longer videos.
I’m from Scotland and I agree with the parliaments. I also believe that Britain is united in name only. I wish it were more of a single country, but all the nations are at fault here. We all tend to cling to our individual identities as England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, rather than embracing a unified British identity. In Scotland, Rangers fans often push the Union Jack, and this is similarly seen in Northern Ireland. However, I don't observe any equivalent factional groups in England or Wales. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Absolute monarchy is the best form of government
Nope, Louis XIV and his modern nonsense ruined France before the Revolution ruined it even more.
The British political system suffers from different issues:
1. You have an all powerful House of Commons that could legally sent everybody to labour camps with no one to stop them. The Lords can only delay it and count on the emasculated monarch to rubber stamp it.
2. What parliament can't do is actually elect the prime minister. Theoretically, the monarch appoints the PM but in the last decades, he (or she, as it was) cannot even decide on that person but has to follow what a particular party - not even MPs - decided on under some obscure procedure says).
3. And of course, there being no written constitution allows massive reinterpretation as things love along. As was the case in 2010 when there attempts to keep Gordon Brown in office because he would have to advise the Queen to dismiss him. Or the recent shenanigans around Brexit, such as suddenly prorogation (officially a royal action) subject to judicial review.
I would disagree with the idea that the upper house of parliament should be appointed experts by the people, and rather think it should resemble the US senate.
The upper house would use the FPTP voting system, so as to represent rural areas more.
I agree that the lower house should use PR voting, and should be a better version of the US House of Representatives, to better serve the people writ large.
On the topic of separate parliaments for the separate kingdoms, it seems better to me that, rather than each kingdom getting its own parliament, the country ought to be divided equally by population into smaller kingdoms, perhaps resembling something between US states and counties. This would help a group of people in northern Scotland have different policies than those of Derry.
Okay, so London, Birmingham and Manchester are supposed to elect the Commons .... no.
Why is an upper house required if the state is not a federation?
@@mtauren1 to prevent the cities from dominating the rural areas.
Found you a few weeks ago, and really love all your work man. Please keep it up!
Imagine unironically thinking that political solutions and voting actually works...
Politics affect you and everyone else whether they like it or not.
It works in the real world. Not on friary fruitcake island .
@@jcvastgoed1490 didnt denmark vote to leave the EU 3 times or something?
didnt americans vote for trump in 2020
@@Miranox2 You're not exactly contradicting what he says. Of course it affects us, but do we *really* affect it?
Britain needs 2 systems. Local and National governance, I want to vote for my local mayor/MP equivalent based on their credentials, and I want to vote on a nation scale based on the direction id like the country to head.
A federal government and a local government as it were. you get local and national representation.
A federal government requires a federally organized state, no?
32:40 absolutely true. It’s startling to walk down the royal mile through the charm of Old Town Edinburgh, see Holyroodhouse in front of you, Arthur’s seat off to the right…then you turn around and see that monstrosity.
25:55 I come from Hungary. We have a mixed electoral system. Of the 199 mandates, 106 mandates come from the first past the post system and the other 93 from direct party votes, plus the votes of Hungarians not living in Hungary, plus compensation for losers plus compensation for winners minus all votes for party which not reach 5% of all votes. So, in effect, we have an equally broken system, if not worse. At every election, we are told that if we don't vote for the big parties, our vote will be a lost vote, and if we don't vote for them, the other party will win, which is very evil. In the last EP elections, they scared us by saying that if the ruling party does not win, they will force the Hungarians to use the Ukrainian pound and they will drop the tsar's bomb (atomic bomb) on Budapest.(No they didn't explain how it would happens)
They really did that? What a bunch of crooks.
Of course they would never just nuke their own people, that is ridiculous😂
UKIP, the far right party...that's when you lost me.
I told myself I would watch half today and half tomorrow but I ended up watching the whole thing at once. Very interesting.
23:23 what a gem. You might do a 2024 follow up, which ratio drastically differs from historical data.
From the US. Sounds to me like you should be running one day.
Iterative development can and should clean out old baggage from time to time. It wouldn't be development if it didn't.
If there are no democratic ways of combating corruption, what kind of democracy is it?
The House of Lords should just be a regular senate, a regular house of review, with democratically elected members who can stand for a party or as independents. To be an expert in something is nice but shouldn’t be the sole prerequisite or most desired trait. Life experience in diverse fields counts.
First past the post is a system for a mixed monarchy with low partisanship, which is what England was when the system developed. I think that’s a better place to be as a country, but it just doesn’t work for a highly partisan modern country that has highly competing visions of the future. It kind of works for us in the United States because our parties are essentially pre built coalitions and we have primaries. We also have the Presidency which makes the system more like a mixed monarchy in classical governmental terms in terms of function. The President sets the agenda and Congress is more there to either assist in that agenda or frustrate it until the term is up.
I really don’t like proportional representation because I think it ultimately entirely removes personal selection to partisan political movers instead of voters. Locally popular people can’t resist waves by being locally popular and representative of their community. The party becomes the community. So I don’t think proportional representation is the best solution. I think representative democracy of that nature is just flawed and doomed to be unrepresentative on some level.
You brits and your time zone! At least I know what I’m watching in the morning!
Greetings from Finland! Great video! However a division in parliament (46:20) is not a discussion. Instead it’s a very British type of voting.
In Germany, we have both.
we need to get a party who isn't labour or tories to draft a new constitution, which is probably impossible.
First past the post is a good system. It has actual representation, with each MP being the most popular candidate to represent their local areas needs and concerns. If Reform wants to succeed, it just needs to learn from the Lib Dems and establish local, regional support based on the pressing issues there, rather than trying to spread itself out like an abstract philosophy. It needs to have whole areas and communities that vote Reform, rather than odd minorities all over the place. FPTP sets the high bar for the maturity of a party. Shifts do happen, like when the Liberals gave way to Labour but this was when the insufficiency was enough for people to require a new main party. A similar situation is starting to happen again, but on the right.
@AlexHexagon Fantastic video. The points you talk about seem very similar to the issues faced in India at the Political and Social level.
Like it, but have you considered... Pitt?
The British system in general was built for Geographical concern. Different areas have different problems and so MPs represent a group of people within a Geographical area. So "Disunited Kingdom" should be the case. Is the Point.
MPs are supposed to represent the interest and concerns to greatest benefit their geographical area, so the country gets equal geographical consideration, so the problems within the country get resolved.
Since MPs are terminate, with fixed terms, "Lords" represent long-term visualisation to ensure that short-term issues don't cause long-term problems later, contradict previous decisions, or go out of traditional bounds. They are Linesmen to the game of Politics.
The Monarch was supposed to oversee and, from the MPs, select a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of the most suitable elected people in the House of Commons.
Party is inevitable but it changes the lines; from geographical, everyone-benefits-from-representation, it changes to Ideology, and with likeminded ideology, you quickly find "National" and "International" considerations, with broad, ideological groupings governing decisions.
This doesn't help the country, as the focus goes from identifying and assisting with regional problems to being about "National" and ideological ones.
Harold Macmillan's reforms in 1952 and 1958, mainly intended to give him the power to fix post-war Britain's economy, removed the Monarch and Lords from their roles and oversight, making both roles redundant.
Turning politics to Ideology lets people who fundamentally should not be in control, in to positions of power because they can kiss ass, the "Safe Seat" becoming the return of the Rotten Borough, also meaning people fundamentally unsuitable to lead, put in charge of major facets of the country, leading to a progressive collapse ever since, with large areas of the country not getting valid representation to their regional issues.
Meanwhile, because of the Party political side, the concept of Mandate of the People, the people voting for ideology... It doesn't actually work, as party ideology always becomes a top-down Leader-people position, the Party doesn't represent People, it pushes things down from the top.
Political Party basically throws geography under the bus, and lets the areas with problems be ignored by political class which has a job for life if they can grab on to the leader's coat-tails. Universal Representation just lets this pony show continue.
Revert to Pitt. Actually look at the problems within Geographical areas in the country to be dealt with, rather than wide-reaching ideological approaches that let the country rot for broad-principle economics like GDP.
The first past the post principle is excellent for racing horses.
I think the issue is that Europe only adopted the facade of democratic free government because it was fashionable after the end of WW2 but European nations are not actually free countries. the fact that basic freedoms like speech are not recognized or protected in any way but on paper is an indication of this.
We are witnessing the swan song of democracy...🤨
House of Lords just sounds like a book title to me
Hi Alex, Love the video, Please can you refrain from asking "Right?" after points. you sound a lot more decisive when you don't use it in the video. Keep it up!
I have to say i enjoy your content sir. Im not british or anything but your insight is appreciated. Much love from texas keep it up.
What a quality guy sharing awesome.
so nice to be early for another quality production from alex.
Just looked up that baroness. Wow. She is very suspicious
Britian almost feels like what Yugoslavia was.
You either don't know what you're saying or you're joking.
@@str.77 Joking around.
@@stefan0453 Okay.
Well, there's a question of weather representativeness is even desirable in a democracy. Elections are a competition of marketing rather than ability.
The SNP example is ultimately not a very good example of what you're trying to demonstrate. The SNP only runs in Scotland, a constituent country of the UK with just over 5 million people. With that in mind, about a full 1/4 of Scotland's total population (not voting population) voted for them, and as such are properly representative of their part of the nation.
Most Western countries should reform themselves through a constituant assembly.
Is that baroness owen woman the one with PPE scandal with 60m kickback? Still unsorted.
No one wants a true democracy because popular vote is a bad system. If you use popular vote then the largest city would control the whole country and it’s not truly representative of the country just one area. You explained a democratic republic poorly.
Especially in countries like the UK. London would dominate England while Wales and Scotland would be be silenced.
There is this thing called local elections. The UK could try it out.
Population density has to come into the conversation tbf. The highest populated areas would run the coutry with an iron grip on power and rural or less populated towns would be forgotten and have no say in their own governance
During 1535-1689 Britain was the France of the time.
Today is in the slow process of stable decadence.... until is weak enough for something to happen...
I like this new format of videos you're using, seems more streamlined and standardized.
‘Cause it’s a democracy, read some Aristotle.
Reminds me of the US Electoral College system. The winner of all US popular votes does not necessarily become President. For most states, the winner of the state popular vote gets all its electors and does not become apportioned among the electors of that state. This US political compromise was made to keep states with large populations from gaining domination then turning states with small populations into virtual colonies. Comming from the state of MA, the originator of the Gerrymander by Governor Gerry and masters of the art. The Democrates rare lose control of Massachusetts.
Breath in through nose not mouth when feeling out of breath from speaking.
Hey Alex, I have seen some videos of your channel and I see we could have a lot to talk about.
Where I can talk to you privately? I don't have twitter or any other social media other than discord and facebook.
The same loopy logic was also at work in Spain.
15:00 You're really good at explaining things. This is a very well done PowerPoint.
We have the same f'd up system in the colonies.
This was an excellent video and with reform 2024 came close to the crazy scenario with a massive labour landslide but yes it weren’t the best example.
Only issue I have is regarding the House of Lords. You say if people were more informed it would be abolished… I don’t think so I think there are cultural issues of class deference and social voluntary segregation where people live in their little bubbles and don’t really care about below and above so long as there aren’t visible infringements. The political system in Britain is a reflection of its culture which is insecurity and laziness.
We are not all "one nation", I'm just not British, i am not. I am purely scottish and scots born here voted for independence in 2014.
Ah, but when your King's cousin died 400 years ago he became the King of England as well! So you totally are one and the same, only reactionaries would say otherwise!
@@sassenspeyghel4155 It is mad how many people think the personal lives of royals matter when it comes to national identity and ethnicity. I'm constantly astounded at the ignorance.
You describe USSR on the eve of collapse. From our experience you can easily see the result of such a state structure. You'd better avoid that.
My last comment seems to have vanished, but I'm only more convinced of my solution having considered what usually happens in the devolved parliaments
FPTP would work better with fewer constituencies, so lets break it down ourselves. Reform don't have to run in the entire country to have an impact, or better still, a new party without the baggage.
Norf Par-T (name optional) would probably be the quickest solution, only running in the North of England. Obviously, you can do the same in other constituencies, and the SNPs history might not inspire a lot of faith, but breaking it down into 6 core parties might help us break through this bs
English/Scottish/Welsh/whatever when at home, British when dealing with Johnny Foreigner!
No, I'm purely Scottish. 80% of Scots reject the "british identity"
This sounds like a really important video. I hope it changes something.
If only we'd have copied the French. Vive La Revolution.
quite a massive irony of this entire thing is that as apart of uni studies i learned that british democracy statistically speaking WAS one of the most successful democracies including Norway and Netherlands
That’s not a lie, it just fails to specify for who it’s successful
Would you pls make videos in the old format nothing to much against the new way the point still are pretty good present but I wish it would be like the old videos like ther weher inteetaing but also made you think but now they just make you think
Very solid FPTP analysis. However, I'd argue that FPTP, or the fact that it's still about, is an inherent consequences of what I call British democratic deficit. Let me explain: Members of the Executive branch are also the members of the Legislative branch (Commons typically). The same legislative branch that is supposed to provide checks and balances against the Executive. The head of Executive also appoints members of the upper Legislative (Lords)... which so happens to provide checks and balances against both the Executive and the lower Legislative. Funnily enough, the upper Legislative is also the country's highest judicial body. So there's no proper Legislave/Executive/Judiciary split. It's like letting an industry police itselft.
As a result, you have the Lords, the largest unelected legislature this side of China, and inherent unwillingness of the political system, or the main two parties, to reform itself and that is open to abuse, especially in the absence of a constitution. One might argue that a PM appointing the Lords is not a problem as both parties' PMs get to appoint their lot. But that explanation only works on a partisan level. It fails as a political system argument - the idea of a head of government appointing members of a legislature chamber is as undemocratic as it gets. And it fails on a systemic level - in a democracy, three branches of government are separated, equal and check on each other.
On the subject of unity.... in national (English) media, a sportsman is British if they are Scottish or Welsh...., but English if their English :)
Germans have also different regions.
Bavarian's see themself Bavarian first German second for example.
East / West German divide also exist.
There will be always layers of tribal affiliation. Family > Friends circle > Town > Region > State > Ethnic > Human kind
And there is nothing wrong with this, its human nature.
Unless you want to implement communism, where everyone is the same.
It is odd that the UK doesn't have a national team. That doesn't make any sense.
40:00 This actually made me cry. 😂 You're good at this.
I agree with proportional representation, but back counting vote-share to seats from a previous election discounts tactical voting in marginals and protest votes in safe seats.
That applies less to the Scottish seats in Westminster, but for the other 2, people would likely (can’t say any more than likely) play to the system and vote somewhat differently.
We can only vote to the system we have at the time. Vote for STV or PR whenever you get the chance, so we can try and change it.
(You kinda covered this later in the video)
With all due respect I disagree with the notion that Britains advancement was “incremental.” secondly the reason that the country is backward now is the government mostly Tory decision to become a financial hub and its ties to American culture
A division is a vote in parliament, not a 'discussion'.
Did you want UKIP to win in 2015 and to govern the country?
And how were the boundaries of the consTistencies changed in 2015?
It depends on the election system.
We inherited a lot of these same issues here in Canada. So thanks for that.