Could political parties be done away with altogether?

[778]

Would it be better to have 650 independant MPs in Parliament and abolish all of the politcal parties? People could have 2 votes in General elections. They could vote for who they want as Prime Minister and another vote for who they want as thier local MP. The Prime Minister could then choose who he wants in the cabinet from the 650 MPs that have been elected.

If all MPs are independant then policiticans would not be too scared to say what they really think. Can't ever see it happening though.

 

[AlterEgo]

Political parties are an inevitable consequence of assemblies. How would you stop them being formed?

 

[JonathanH]

If all MPs are independant then policiticans would not be too scared to say what they really think.

They would still form groupings in Parliament. I've often thought that there is no place for party politics in local government, but the people who would stand would still be those who look to get involved in national politics, so it would be very difficult to achieve. (The premise of this thought is that voters would be forced to vote on local rather than national issues.)

 

[Sorcerer]

Theoretically you could if you made political parties illegal. But that would be anti-democratic, so in reality it would never happen. It's natural for people who share the same ideals to organise in a group to further strengthen the pursuit of their goals, so the idea of MPs not being able to say what they really think because they're a member of a particular party isn't really going to be much of an issue. It may sound tribal, but humans are naturally tribal creatures.

 

[birchesgreen]

No it would be terrible, most people vote for a party not the individual as they are lazy and want something nice and easy to disgest when they make their decision.

 

[Snow1964]

Having 650 Independents is Bonkers

There are other alternatives, Netherlands has about 50 National parties and about another dozen that are regional. You vote for a party, and seats are allocated in proportion. In practice they form groups for good of country, rather than doing their own thing. The 4 biggest parties have about 80% of seats in Parliament, and many obscure parties have no seats (much like obscure parties in UK)

 

[greatkingrat]

Officially the Nebraska Legislature is non-partisan and no party names are shown on the ballot paper. In practice everyone knows which candidates are actually Republicans and which are Democrats so it doesn't make any difference.

 

[Essan]

I totally oppose political parties. It's why I refuse to vote. We have an undemocratic system whereby MPs do not represent their constituents, they represent their party/party leader. And the ludicrous situation whereby if I vote for the best candidate to represent me, I am deemed to also be voting for their party and their party leader to be PM.

I have no problem if, once elected on their own merits, MPs form parties on various issues. So, for example, my MP may be in a conservative party on financial issues, and Green party on environmental ones.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jul 2024 ==

No it would be terrible, most people vote for a party not the individual as they are lazy and want something nice and easy to disgest when they make their decision.

Most people shouldnt be allowed to vote. And that includes many of the candidates! We're supposed to have a Representative Parliamentary Democracy, not a Particracy.

 

[APT618S]

Officially the Nebraska Legislature is non-partisan and no party names are shown on the ballot paper. In practice everyone knows which candidates are actually Republicans and which are Democrats so it doesn't make any difference.

This used to be the case in the UK.
I remember my late parents telling me that in the past only the candidates name used to appear on the ballot paper and there was no mention of which political party they were affiliated to. So you had know in advance the name you were voting for, rather than simply voting for a party.
A google search suggests party names first appeared on the ballot paper in the 1970 election.

 

[Ianigsy]

I think that what possibly needs to change is the broad church approach to political parties, which makes politicians look like liars or idiots as they repeat the party line in spite of what they themselves believe. The four largest parties in the Commons all have centrist elements but they aren’t allowed to work together pragmatically.

The by-election system on the death of an MP strikes me as wasteful, however- I’d allow the deceased MP’s party to nominate a replacement for the rest of that Parliament.

 

[Busaholic]

This used to be the case in the UK.
I remember my late parents telling me that in the past only the candidates name used to appear on the ballot paper and there was no mention of which political party they were affiliated to. So you had know in advance the name you were voting for, rather than simply voting for a party.
A google search suggests party names first appeared on the ballot paper in the 1970 election.

Seeing the election results being announced by the different Returning Officers on TV shows there are still some who don't read out the party names, which can be annoying for non-locals! It should now be a requirement for them to do so imo.

One reason for introducing party labels to the ballot paper was the possibility of candidates sharing not only surnames, but forenames, by accident or design. This actually occurred before the rule change.

Incidentally, I have discovered two candidates named as Angela Rayner both standing as Independents in S.W. England at the recent election. I assume they weren't the same person, otherwise there'll have to be new ballots!

 

[Purple Train]

I think that what possibly needs to change is the broad church approach to political parties, which makes politicians look like liars or idiots as they repeat the party line in spite of what they themselves believe. The four largest parties in the Commons all have centrist elements but they aren’t allowed to work together pragmatically.

The issue there, I think, is more the whipping system than the parties themselves, and I'd definitely support reform of that to some degree.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Here our system is independent, we don't have political parties to speak of.

The system is that the electorate select 24 Members of the House of Keys (MHKs) who, once elected, then choose amongst themselves who will be Chief Minister. The Chief Minister then chooses all the other ministers to form their government. The Chief Minister retains the power to hire and fire ministers at their discretion. The Council of Ministers are expected, by convention, to always vote in favour of the government.

This means that all 24 MHKs are elected on how they are going to change the Island but, in reality, none of that matters. The only thing that matters is who they intend to elect as Chief Minister. Some candidates will tell you before the General Election but many will not ("we'll see who gets elected first").

It'd be a lot easier and a lot more transparent if we had political parties.

I think that what possibly needs to change is the broad church approach to political parties, which makes politicians look like liars or idiots as they repeat the party line in spite of what they themselves believe. The four largest parties in the Commons all have centrist elements but they aren’t allowed to work together pragmatically.

It's the nature of First Past the Post that power concentrates in one or two political parties. So those parties remain a broad church and the negotiations/compromises all happen behind closed doors.

In many ways Proportional Representation would solve a lot of these problems. I think we'd splinter into more political parties but it would make the negotiations and compromises involved in forming a government a lot more transparent.

 

[Howardh]

Are we unique in the world in that you, and I, as long as we can pay the deposit, can stand for election??

 

[birchesgreen]

The by-election system on the death of an MP strikes me as wasteful, however- I’d allow the deceased MP’s party to nominate a replacement for the rest of that Parliament.

I'd put a time limit on it, maybe within 6-12 months of the election the party can nominate a replacement, after that there has to be a by-election.

 

[zero]

Are we unique in the world in that you, and I, as long as we can pay the deposit, can stand for election??

I believe the UK is unique in that you don't need to be a citizen to stand for election.

But I would have thought than in countries where politicians are not hand-picked by the (de facto) dictator/party, anyone could in theory stand

 

[Blindtraveler]

Would it be better to have 650 independant MPs in Parliament and abolish all of the politcal parties? People could have 2 votes in General elections. They could vote for who they want as Prime Minister and another vote for who they want as thier local MP. The Prime Minister could then choose who he wants in the cabinet from the 650 MPs that have been elected.

If all MPs are independant then policiticans would not be too scared to say what they really think. Can't ever see it happening though.

We I speak an identical language on this subject, I would love to see this system adopted

 

[Cross City]

I've often thought that there is no place for party politics in local government

Likewise, how can something like bin collection or road maintenance be politicised.

Same goes for police commissioners.

 

[birchesgreen]

Without political parties for local elections you will need a much greater level of civic engagement so people know who the candidates are rather than at present most people just vote on party lines.

This wouldn't be a bad thing at all of course.

 

[Cross City]

Without political parties for local elections you will need a much greater level of civic engagement so people know who the candidates are rather than at present most people just vote on party lines.

This wouldn't be a bad thing at all of course.

It would lead to a lot more accountability for the actual people running the councils IMO. As it is now they can hide behind the party name. I couldn't tell you who my local councillors are but I can tell you the party who runs it and how poor of a job they're doing.

 

[deltic]

Having 650 independent MPs would be a disaster. We have seen the chaos since 2016 when party discipline broke down. The amount of horse trading and pork barrel politics that would occur as the PM tried to get policies enacted would be ridiculous.

We already have too many difficult decisions kicked into the long grass now - it would be far worse if every MP was just looking after their own interests and not the country's as a whole.

So called independents at local elections are often in reality part of a loose coalition who vote together. Would be interesting to hear from our Irish colleagues as they have a lot of Independent councillors.

 

[AM9]

It's naive to think that some form of individuality rule would prevent the continuation of political alignment. As soon as a person is elected, by a majority of course, you have a following of a group of voters. That person doing what they were elected for in parliament aligns with others of the same opinion and hey ho, there's the political party that some might want prevented. I can understand some being tired of the continual party-led arguing in the run-up and aftermath of a general election, but ranting because of that frustration without a proven suggestion of a solution for a country of the UK's size won't change anything. In reality, the electorate look for a simple package to support. Random submission of multiple members' bills and pleading in parliament would be absolutely chaotic.

 

[brad465]

Tribal behaviour is an inherent human trait. It's existed for as long as humans existed, but always taken different forms as societies and technology have advanced. Political parties is one form of this tribal behaviour. Therefore no matter how hard you try to abolish it, it will never go away; at best as society develops the tribalism in question will take another form.

 

[simonw]

Are we unique in the world in that you, and I, as long as we can pay the deposit, can stand for election??

You need 10 people to sign your nomination papers as well.

 

[Howardh]

You need 10 people to sign your nomination papers as well.

Yes, thank you!

 

[birchesgreen]

There was an amusing by-election a few years ago where one of the candidates only got 7 votes, so not even all of his nominees voted for him, i just found it quite amusing.

 

[Howardh]

There was an amusing by-election a few years ago where one of the candidates only got 7 votes, so not even all of his nominees voted for him, i just found it quite amusing.

Can a nominee sign for more than one candidate? No idea which is why I ask, but I can't see why not, if I thought two candidates would make good MP's couldn't I vouch for them?

 

[spyinthesky]

There was an amusing by-election a few years ago where one of the candidates only got 7 votes, so not even all of his nominees voted for him, i just found it quite amusing.

They probably didn’t even vote for themselves.

 

[Howardh]

They probably didn’t even vote for themselves.

Probably happened a few times over the years, example if a candidate is taken ill on election day and can't physically get to the booth, and insufficient time to produce a proxy vote? What is the lowest number of votes a candidate has ever got?

 

[birchesgreen]

Probably happened a few times over the years, example if a candidate is taken ill on election day and can't physically get to the booth, and insufficient time to produce a proxy vote? What is the lowest number of votes a candidate has ever got?

1 vote!

Catherine Taylor-Dawson got that in Cardiff North in 2005*. The bloke i was thinking of who got 7 was Dorian Vanbraam in Putney in 1997.

* she apprently did not vote for herself as she was registered in vote in another constituency.