It has become so futile. We're in the process of a swing back towards conservative, as the country is sick of labour, just how in the 90s, we got sick of conservative and voted in labour. Our ridiculous first past the post system ignores the majority by allowing the votes of ~30-40% dictate the flavour of government. But in my opinion, the system is a lot sicker than just a lack of proportional representation. So we have this god awful 2 party system. Though saying that, seems as though Labour are moving aside as party number 2.
The main problem for me is 3 things:
1) Government staff behave like rulers and barons rather than public servants, which is in essence, their actual remit.
I wrote to my MP a while basically throwing my chips into the pro-porportional representation basket and am told that despite it being nigh on universally thought of as the fairest way to do things, that it will not likely happen as it is up to the party in power and "turkeys don't vote for christmas". The government essentially ignores calls for referenda that it knows it will lose, sends soldiers to US instigated conflicts that do not concern any kind of security. Afghanistan essentially invaded after 9/11 ostensibly to find Osama and then became a "no actually we're displacing the Taliban" mission, despite the US being perfectly happy with equally brutal regimes existing elsewhere (note a lack of interest in Darfur, Sudan etc..). Iraq invaded under the guise of WMD, despite Hans Blilx et al being hurried out to make room for a war, just as he reported that Iraqi officials were being cooperative. Also, US totally fine with Israel developing nuclear arsenal with no mandate whatsoever. No referendum for either of those conflicts. Our public servants are not working for the public.
The expenses row. I don't think that anyone should be losing their jobs over it or being prosecuted, as they were essentially enjoying the benefits of a flawed system, as would a lot of people in the same situation. The quality we are recoiling at in that case is one that is prevalent throughout people in general, just like how the proportion of racism in institutions is not likely to be different from that of the general public, just that it takes on a different character when highlighted. However, the real issue for me is that nearly all of the defensive statements employed cired out that claims were "within the rules" or "in the spirit of the rules". The rules, made by those who would benefit from them no less. Rules that should be created and enforced independently from the government. Just like the proportional representation issue, it's a built in flaw. I'd like the expenses system changed, rather than MPs being sacked etc.. that way, there's just less incentive for perk-seekers to head for government, without the whole country losing its head.
2) Regardless of who sits in the allotted seats, the country is essentially run by the super rich.
The system we live under is very similar to a feudal system, only the ruling class have found progressively more effective ways to keep the livestock from complaining. Everything about the system is designed to ensure the maximum amount of money flowing up to the top and as little as can be got away with trickling back down. It's the cause of boom and bust and is why we're in a recession - the bottom and middle layers are not only relied on to keep things running, but also to take a large part of what they are given in return and feed it right back into the system. The status quo with just that clearly wasn't enough for the human mosquitos hovering above, so a culture of using credit to stretch it even thinner is promoted and encouraged - "it's good for the economy!" being the clarion call for those who benefit from the upwards flow, and worse still, those who think that keeping it healthy will keep their downwards trickle dribbling in. The government can not find a few billion to put towards better hospitals, improved education, free university, a good dental network, adequate police service or, you know, anything which actually benefits the vast majority of people paying in to the tax system; but some companies that got too greedy and begin to ail start sobbing, and suddenly daddy's wallet is open so wide you can park a hire purchase car in it. I can't remember exactly where, but can dig it out if I find time, but I read a report that found that the average MP receives 80% of their annual income from sources other than their salary from the consituency they (supposedly) serve. The majority of MPs seem to receive salaries from businesses, usually for honorary roles, a good example being on the board of a company, and receiving a salary, but not having to turn up unless they want to. It's an elaborate way to give back-handers basically. In essence, it would be surprising if these people were to decide to serve the people who voted for them, as there is far greater incentive to serve the needs of their main income. The only incentive towards the voters is to get voted in, so that the honorary jobs don't mysteriously evaporate. This of course is done by paying lip service to voters' needs. The alternative is generally to actually be an MP and live on the salary from that, which I'm sure some do.
3) Democracy is fundamentally flawed by allowing the government to be chosen by the masses.
The masses are easily led and prone to hysteria. In the UK, a large amount of reality management is achieved by the media. Phrases like "no smoke without fire" take root in the minds of mobs than "the evidence suggests otherwise". People like to knee-jerk. People love scandal. Due to this, democracy is essentially run by the press. The factors which decide which party gets in, are essentially: is leader charismatic? Does leader have normal wife and kid scenario going on? Has leader ever said or done anything they regret? What sounds bites can we use to make this person sound good bad? What alliterative superlatives can we use to make this person sound good or bad? (note, public will often use catchy nicknames as a reason to like or dislike someone, regardless of boring stuff like proof)
Not only does democracy essentially give a large percentage of the nation's vote to the press (thus giving some for-profit organisations direct control over government), by allowing easily led fools the same choice prospects as those who research actual ramifications of the process; but it also screws over those who do vote by policy, not only by the winning party assuming that if you like more of their policies than anyone else's, then that means you accept ALL of their policies; but also by parties reneging on policies without anything in place to bring them to account, apart from a vote in 4 years' time, by which point, they'll count on people having forgotten.
Also, in concert with point 2, donations by certain outisde interests kind of ensure again that the needs of the rich are always superior to those of the majority.
In my ideal world, voting would not be for a party, in fact, parties would not exist. There would simply be MPs, all of whom are effectively indfependent. "The Government" would be a set of procedures and / or rules decided upon by a changing panel of politics, science, history, philosophy, sociology etc.. scholars, who should be prohibited from benefiting in any way from the ruels they define. This can be done by paying them well and introducing laws that any involvement in government comes with the strict proviso that you have no privacy when it comes to finances and that no anonymous payments are allowed. Any persons paying money are subject to the same scrutiny. So there are no FOIA requests for MP finances - it's just public domain. This slightly diminishes the rights of government staff, but ensures that financial incentives are harder to get through and easier to pick up when they do. Voting will take the form of a mandatory (I'm not too sure about this - maybe you just only get to partake in referenda if you vote) document which gives a simple overview of policy set out by those wishing to become prime minister. These overviews are anonymous, so there is no way to vote for who has the nicest hair, and there is not way for the press to get involved. It removes the party from the politics and also the stupidity from voting. Lastly, the overviews should bullet point some commitments which become monitored legally to ensure that they are not reneged upon without reasonable cause.
Probably riddled with flaws, as no system is perfect, least of all one dreamed up at a desk on a Monday morning. Thing is, everyone seems to be pacing massive emphasis on things like BNP getting seats. I don’t think it will make much difference. Those BNP counselors will be under the same pressure from business interests as anyone else. This is why our current Labour government is, despite their socialist roots, the most right wing government the UK has had post-WW2.
Those people are compromised because the system is set up to allow the wealthy easy access to avenues of heavy influence. We pay attention to the external mechanisms while assuming that the underlying clockwork is making them perform as they should. I think it's the underlying mechanism that needs changing. We need a shift something like a meritocracy, as democracy is just plutocracy with a voting pantomime to keep people interested in the game.