The parliamentary model used at Westminster is probably about 200 years old. It functions because the FPTP model encourages just two blocs of interest in the House of Commons - Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The Oppositions job is merely to oppose. Because the election system practically eliminates other varying views we end up with a system that is practically totalitarian - except that every five years the opportunity is given for the other side to play dictator for a while.
Surely, the rational way for a modern state to be governed is by a representative assembly trying to achieve objectives by argument and co-operation - not by steamrolling over a single impotent opposing voice. Let us have a new Parliament building which doesn't try to imitate medieval church choir stalls and fill it by using a voting system which permits a variety of voices to be heard and decisions to be obtained by consensus.
And as for a "parliament which simply ceased to function properly" - when did we ever have one of those?
Thank you for your response, Harrowby.
Just a few points:
My opinion is that any democratic system of voting has both strengths and weaknesses, whether it be FPTP, PR or whatever. You quite rightly state one of the major weaknesses of FPTP, although I would not go along with you in suggesting that we end up with a system which is 'practically totalitarian'. I have seen no sign whatever that any dominant party has been so centralised and controlling that it requires complete subservience and bans all opposition. These are, after all, the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime. A huge safeguard against the above is the fact that any government can be replaced every 5 years or so by the will of the people who wish to vote.
My own personal preference would be something along the lines of AV because that at least allows MPs to be chosen who represent their constituencies while allowing the preferences of voters to be taken more into consideration than FPTP. Indeed, I voted for AV in the referendum of 2011, but, unfortunately, 2/3 of those who voted, voted against. I was quite willing to accept the result of such a democratic vote, of course.
It would be most pleasing if your idea that parties could come together in a rational and co-operative way to reflect the wishes of the voters could lead to a spirit of consensus in reaching decisions. I fear that your view is too idealistic, and would be extremely hard to achieve, as most parties seek power to pursue their ends. Even in the last 3 years, when there was opportunity for the varying groups to come together, there were clear differences which led to stultifying votes where nothing but Brexit delay was achieved.
As far as your idea of a new parliament building divest of the old trappings of antiquated power goes,I have long been in favour of such an idea. I would not have it in London however, but somewhere more central to the UK, perhaps in Manchester for instance. For me this would clearly give the signal that the seat of power did not rest in the South, but was for the whole of the U.K. something which has been lacking for a long time.
Finally, I think that you have misinterpreted my statement a'parliament which simply ceased to function properly'. I quite accept that my use of the word 'properly' is open to various interpretations, and for that I take responsibility and apologise. A much better word in the context of what I was saying would be 'effectively'. So, to answer your question, when did we have a parliament which governed effectively?, I can think of Macmillan, Blair, Thatcher to name but three.
PS.
If you haven't seen the series of Reith Lectures 2019 by Jonathan Sumption on Law and Politics, you might find them interesting.
