Of course, as with all hypothetical questions, there is no correct answer.
Whether it will be a liberal One Nation Tory party, ongoing coalition governments or the Labour party that will be the political beneficiary is not yet sure.
However, looking at the present state of England against the problems facing the world one would have to say the horizon is far from looking bright.
The longer-term questions about the UK’s relationship with the EU will still need to be addressed no matter what the result of the current general election.
This very question itself will pale in comparison to the coming nexus environmental and energy problems facing us all.
Even if one was to ignore climate change it is truly impossible to overstate the havoc—financial, social, cultural—that could be brought about by peak oil if sufficient renewable energy is not in place to make up for declines in fossil fuels.
By the middle of the next decade or so, we will either all be starving, and fighting wars over resources, or our global food supply will have changed radically.
The bitter reality is that it will probably be a mixture of both.
The one thing we can be sure of is this:
No matter how wacky the predictions we make today, they will look tame in the strange light of the future. From the web to wildlife, the economy to nanotechnology, politics to sport, will see technological change on an astonishing scale.
All this assumes that environmental catastrophe doesn’t drive us into caves.
With over 60% of global GDP will be digitized by 2022 it is a total waste of time for countries such as the UK to attempted to pull up the drawbridge, to increase national production and reducing reliance on imports. These world-changing technologies are already creating more interconnected, interdependent and rapid business networks.
How far beggar-my-neighbour competitive devaluations and protection will develop due to a hard Brexit is hard to predict, but protectionist trends are there for all to see.
The question is, will Britain outside the EU be a more global, more deregulated, more free-trading country five years from now.
Presently nearly half of the UK’s total trade is with EU countries.
Leaving the biggest free trade area with over 500 million consumers won’t be cheap no matter what the divorce bill is. The EU has 53 trade deals worldwide the UK has zero.
The consequent rebalancing of the British economy will therefore take years and more than likely create a food underclass.
Because it is as yet unclear when the UK will have the legal authority to begin negotiations; when the UK will leave the EU customs union; and what the trade arrangements between the UK and the EU will be after that point.
It is therefore difficult to see how third countries could engage seriously with the UK until these decisions have been taken. In addition, there are significant obstacles to meaningful trade deals with most of the countries.
The world will be more complicated even if these projections assume an orderly exit from the EU.
Only when we stand together can we secure our prosperity in a competitive world as the distinction between the country, town, will blur, with Artifical intelligence not to mention sea levels rising.
Because if I’d been writing this five years ago, it would have been all about technology: the internet, the fragmentation of media, mobile phones, social tools allowing consumers to regain power at the expense of corporations, all that sort of stuff but artificial intelligence is proving itself an unexpectedly difficult problem.
To describe EXACTLY what they will be doing in 1,820 days never mind that a second financial crisis in the 2010s – probably sooner than later – that will prove not just to be the remaking of Britain but the whole of the EU.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
British elections are decided using what is known as the First Past the Post (abbreviated FPTP, 1stP, 1PTP or FPP) voting system.
Along with no written constitution, it is the primary cause of all Britain’s dysfunction.
You would think that a General Election is how the British public decide who they want to represent them in Parliament and ultimately run the country.
First past the post is a voting system designed to keep the electorate/country under the control of a two-party dictatorship while giving the delusion of democracy.
The candidate with the most votes in each constituency wins and becomes the MP for that seat. All other votes are disregarded.
As there is only one candidate from each party, voters who support that party but don’t like their candidate have to either vote for a party they don’t support or a candidate they don’t like. This means the number of MPs a party has in parliament rarely matches their popularity with the public.
Westminster’s voting system creates two sorts of areas. ‘Safe seats’, with such a low chance of changing hands that there is no point in campaigning, and ‘swing seats’, that could change hands.
Parties design their manifestos to appeal to voters in swing seats, and spend the majority of their funds campaigning in them. But, policies designed to appeal to voters in these seats may not help voters in the rest of the country.
Voters who live in safe seats can feel ignored by politicians. The more candidates with a chance of getting elected the fewer votes the winner needs.
Under Westminster’s First Past the Post system it is common for constituencies to elect MPs that more than half the voters didn’t want.
As the number of MPs a party gets doesn’t match their level of support with the public, it can be hard for the public to hold the government to account.
To combat this, voters try to second-guess the results.
If a voter thinks their favourite candidate can’t win, they may vote for one with the best chance of stopping a candidate they dislike from winning.
Democracy is the political system where the government represents the will of the people. There never has been a perfect democracy, there are only degrees of approximation, and democracy goes far beyond discussion of the voting system. Nevertheless, the voting system is an important element in shaping a democracy, and First Past the Post (FPTP) is woefully inadequate in expressing the will of the people because the vote never gets beyond the constituency boundary.
Worse still, a Government can be elected on the basis of 33% of votes cast, but considering turnout, this falls to 22% of those entitled to vote.
22%! One in five!! Yet idiot conservatives of right and left still defend FPTP.
Words fail to describe such a form of democracy.
What’s immediately needed to resolve the impasse on Brexit is a second referendum, since Brexit is a single issue and referendums are a ballot on a single issue.
First past the post (FPTP) is the first step to full radical reform in the UK.
It is time to change the system.
Most countries around the world use proportional voting systems – a party winning half the vote would win half the seats in parliament.
All comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
Here we go again.
The right person to lead the country is being selected without any democratic scrutiny by the people of England.
It is no wonder that Brexit is tearing the country apart when so many are denied a voice.
Millions of voters go without a say in crucial national decisions – excluded not only from government but from holding the government to account.
In 3 of the last 4 general elections IN ENGLAND at least 50% of votes went to losing candidates.
First past the post.
A seat won by a 40,000 vote majority has the same outcome as a seat won by a single vote: both elect just a single MP.
Parliament in allowing an internal election of a new Conservative leader to become the Priminister is not only failing to reflect the people it is supposed to represent it is a form of Populous Dictatorship.
A minority ruling over the majority goes against our most basic ideas about democracy.
The latest developments to vindicate a New Primister for the country (who will, in fact, represent the choice of hundred thousand or so Conservervate members out of which 60% are over 50 years of age) isn’t just bad for democracy; it’s bad for politics and society.
First Past the Post is completely undemocratic severing the link between votes and seats.
Bipolar politics is designed to promote argument, not thought.
So it’s not surprising that we are now witnessing the election of a New Priminister with an out of date spluttering system that is unable to represent its citizens or to negotiate England’s withdrawal from the European Union without a mandate that represents the country as a whole.
Its no wonder England has politicians who most of you didn’t vote for and don’t agree with have the power to govern the UK however they like.
Its no wonder we see the construction/ imposition of one ideology for a period, followed by another, quite different ideology.
Its no wonder we see both main parties cling to their roots with extraordinary tenacity, even when confronted with the obvious fact: the conditions in society giving rise to these ideologies have long gone.
But First Past the Post keeps them in business and allows them to continue to indulge their emotion-based policies – with taxation paying for this indulgence.
Unchallenged by a more competitive electoral system, the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ parties remain trapped in their histories and beliefs, seeking differentiation through adopting the opposite of the other.
First Past The Post has many hidden direct and indirect costs. These are unrecorded, unstated and considerable, in taxes, wasted economic capacity, and wealth appropriation. The costs of all of these zigzags are borne by taxation.
First past the post is a non- linear system a dazzlingly stupid way to organize a modern democracy. It provides the bare minimum of democracy, is unrepresentative for the majority, and distorts the allocation of power.
Finally, First Past The Post is the best electoral medium for preferential lobbying.
This scourge of democracy is near universal.
Its elimination can only be achieved through a complete redesign of systems of government.
It may be simple to write an “X” next to a chosen candidate, but it’s incredibly difficult to know what that vote will mean. Millions of voters are forced to try to vote tactically by anticipating the decisions of other voters.
PR makes sure the share of seats each party gets matches the share of votes they receive. If a party gets 20% of the vote, it wins 20% of the seats. Parliament would accurately represent the people’s range of views and perspectives.
The opposition to PR Says:
We need the strong government that only first past the post can give’ and, by inference, not the namby-pamby government from coalitions and other inadequacies.
Sounds good, does it not?
Flutters the spine?
Makes one stand up straight.
I would say that the voting population of England is intelligent, much more has to change in all of these systems, including the EU.
Systems of government with PR suffer from many of the same failures and poor performance as the UK’s First Past The Post but,
does not allow the lending of votes to one candidate in order to knock out another to become Primisister
The unseen consequences are about to be seen.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
Here is a country with growing numbers of food banks, people sleeping on its streets, trying to negotiating its way out of a market with over 500 million people while renewing its worthless Trident missiles at a cost of anything between 30 and 200 billion.
A country that voted by a small majority to take what it calls sovereignty back from Brussels while giving the green light to letting China Huawei 5G network get involved in domestic infrastructure.
It also beggars belief that on the very same day Donald Trump is threatening to veto a United Nations resolution against the use of rape as a weapon of war, Theresa May is pressing ahead with her plans to honour him with a state visit to the UK.
Mr Donal Dump to visits ( His first visit costs £18 million) this visit will cost the Conservative party a political price with social liberals, ethnic minorities, the young and Remain, voters.
It’s difficult, to put it mildly, to see what the overall benefit of a state visit by Trump is from a British perspective never mind Chinese surveillance.
Readers will have noticed that there is never, these days, the money to properly fund schools and hospitals, and provide the elderly with the care and dignity they deserve.
But, always, billions are available to the military.
HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The two ships have cost more than £14bn to build and equip, double the original budget.
Both might well be floating piece of sovereign territory, but “gunboat diplomacy” on steroids is not what the world wants.
Then we had the debate in the House of Commons marking the 50th anniversary of the UK’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, Trident.
To use the fabrication of a threat from North Korea as a justification for the renewal of Trident is beyond defence.
It’s no wonder that a General Election is needed not just to give the people a voice on whether to remain in the EU or not but to drag an out of a dated system of governance into the twenty-first century.
Members should be elected to represent their constituencies, their country and not a queen or king who ascends by heredity birthrights.
According to “The Parliamentary Oath” even if the entire country were to vote in a general election for a party whose manifesto pledge was to remove the monarchy, it would be impossible by reason of the present oath, and current acts of parliament, for such elected MPs to take their seats in the House of Commons.
The oath of allegiance has its origins in Magna Carta, signed on 15 June 1215.
If an MP refuses to take the oath or the affirmation to the Queen they will be unable to take part in parliamentary proceedings and will not be paid any salary and allowances until they’ve done so.
By swearing allegiance to the unelected monarch, her heirs and successors. It is an insult to democratic values, to all voters who participate in any General or other election.
It has to change.
It’s one of the great ironies of a political system that is in dire need of a written constitution.
In parliamentary terms, a pledge of loyalty to the state is invalid without a pledge of loyalty to the monarch.
The Queen is responsible for appointing the Prime Minister after a general election or a resignation, in a General Election.
The Queen has the power to prorogue (suspend) and to summon (call back) Parliament – prorogation typically happens at the end of a parliamentary session, and the summoning occurs shortly after when The Queen attends the State Opening of Parliament.
It is The Queen’s right and responsibility to grant assent to bills from Parliament, signing them into law.
The Queen is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and all members swear an oath of allegiance to The Queen when they join; they are Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.
I believe in an elected head of state.
There is no point in pledging loyalty to God or the Queen when elected by the people.
As long as being an MP means pledging loyalty to an unelected
head of state, the English parliamentary system will remain
Requiring politicians to pledge loyalty to the monarch confers greater power to a symbolic ritual than to the democratic right of MPs to act in the name of the electorate.
As long as parliamentary participation is contingent on pledging allegiance to an unelected royal, the English parliamentary system will remain staunchly undemocratic.
So let me ask this.
When verifying the credentials of the newly elected Members of the
European Parliament, MEPs take no oath when they are elected, but Judges and Commissioners do.
With the Brexit negotiations now extended into the European elections, it throws up potentially uncomfortable scenarios for the New English Commissioner taking the oath of allegiance to the Commission which would require him – like all Commissioners – “to neither seek or take” influence from governments, not hereditary monarchs.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
After seven or eight post on Nuclear Weapons its back to what’s wrong with Capitalism/ Democracy.
Those of you that have been reading my blog will have already seen that I have advocated that Greed is the root problem when it comes to both the above.
I have suggested that we need to come together through Social media to stop Sovereign Wealth Funds privatizing the resources that we all rely on. To stop Computer Algorithms from plundering the Foreign Exchange, Stock Exchange, not to mention E Bay Auctions.
I have also stated that this is impossible, but that it is not impossible to place a 0.05% WORLD AID COMMISSION TO CREATE A PERPETUAL SOURCE OF FUNDS TO REMOVE INEQUALITIES IN THE WORLD.
Unfortunately to date most of my readers are to busy living their lives to engage in developing such an idea other than pressing the like button.
Not to despair. Today, we are living in the age of globalization and technological revolution.
Both have delivered much benefit to society, but have reshaped the political economy of western industrialized countries in ways that challenge the middle class and those striving to get into it.
THE TROUBLE FOR CAPITALISM IS THAT IT HAS SOMEHOW OR OTHER STOPPED SERVE THE VAST MAJORITY OF SOCIETY AND IT IS THEREFORE TURNING – DEMOCRACY INTO WORTHLESS VOTES – that are now turning to Internet Petitions and reality TV.
This sea change has been facilitated by technology that has loosened the connections between top management and ordinary workers. Corporations have become less committed to their work forces and their communities.
Institutions on all levels are deeply mistrusted by the public. However, part of that mistrust has developed precisely because both government and business have failed to offer broadly shared prosperity. Today, the ability of free-market democracies to deliver widely shared increases in prosperity is in question as never before.
So how do we create a stronger, fairer, and more sustainable economic model in which the many and not just the few benefit from rising prosperity now and into the future?
This is not just a question for governments but for companies and citizens as well.
My first contention HAS NOT CHANGED it is impossible to remove Greed but where we see profit for profit sake we should cap it.
We all know what is wrong, but just in case you are a Politician: It is the GROWING GAP BETWEEN THE HAVE AND HAVE NOT’S ( NOT MONEY BUT INEQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY)
Confidence in government is at an all-time low, and consequently, the public resists intervention by a government it viewed as incapable of solving its problems. This forces families that could benefit from public support to face the challenges of the evolving economy on their own. It is a vicious cycle — and a cycle we can and must break by renewing confidence through a government that works effectively and efficiently for its citizens.
SO WHAT CAN BE DONE?
While some on the left seek to turn away from globalization and technology, that is not a realistic option. No country can prosper in isolation.
Those on the right who argue for a return to laissez-faire, trickle-down economics — cutting taxes at the top, stripping out regulation, and making deep cuts to public services — do not provide a viable alternative.
Developed countries cannot succeed through a race to the bottom in which companies simply compete on cost as workers see their job security erode and their living standards decline. When democratic governments and market systems cannot deliver prosperity to their citizens, the result is political alienation, a loss of social trust, and increasing conflict across the lines of race, class, and ethnicity.
HERE IS WHAT I SEE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
1) There are still too many people who are unemployed.
2) Minimum wages have lost their real value.
3) Workers must benefit from increased productivity rather than seeing returns accrue primarily to shareholders.
4) Remove barriers to women’s labor-force participation, such as inflexible work environments and high-cost child care.
5) Focusing on early childhood education, increasing the quality of our schools, eliminating financial barriers to higher education, and providing support for apprenticeship programs are all critical to driving higher skill levels across economies in both tradable and non-tradable sectors.
6) Cities and regions must be given the tools to make their own local decisions to help drive growth.
7) Increasing numbers of workers find themselves in contractual relationships that do not guarantee hours worked or provide benefits such as paid vacation, sick days, or pension benefits. No hours contracts are slavery.
8) Large corporate attention has shifted to financial engineering, particularly with the goal of minimizing tax payments. Restoring the integrity of corporate taxation will require more than a simple reversal of the policies of the past 30 years. It will require governments to develop a taxation system that can withstand the pressures of a globalized economy, promote long-term investment, and provide a stable, fair, and predictable policy framework for businesses.
9) Create Profit-sharing and share-ownership schemes provide a direct way to ensure that employees have an incentive to help their company to succeed.
10) Raising skills levels.
These challenges are formidable, but they must be met, and any politician worth his privileged position would do well to take note.
These are essential for democracy itself. Advocates and apologists for anti-democratic regimes argue that the democracies are no longer capable of managing their problems or creating a sense of social dynamism. For democracies to thrive, rising prosperity must be within reach of all citizens.
The profound technological changes that brought down the cost of many goods and services are also replacing traditional middle-income jobs. It is changing balance of economic power away from domestic workers and toward mobile, international corporations.
Internet and computer technology has made cross-border business organization less costly and more efficient, it has become easier for businesses to outsource or relocate all or part of their operations to countries where wages, labor, and environmental standards are low.
In addition to unskilled labor — which has, in some cases, been squeezed by globalization and off shoring –advances in robotics and artificial intelligence have put intermediate-skill jobs at risk in what economists call a hollowing out of the labor market.
This trend is set to continue with 3-D printers, Google’s driver less cars, and Amazon’s drones. This is creating an even greater premium on higher levels of skills and qualifications, making the returns from ideas, capital, and top-class qualifications greater and greater.
Employment is less likely to be stable or long term.
Powerful forces of globalization and technological change must be navigated or inequalities will continue to widen, and for many, precarious low-skill work will increasingly become the norm. The consequence is that growth will stall.
Finally, it is essential that markets work in the public interest and for the long term rather than focusing only on short-term. Infrastructure investments deteriorating facilities, unpredictable service disruptions, congestion, and higher costs to businessesj and households is the result.
In summary, declining growth, the effects of the financial crisis, and increasing inequality have combined to put substantial economic stress on middle-and low-income families across the developed world.
Poor policy choices have only made matters worse. Concerns about financial instability, immigration, and tax avoidance are not the causes of our problems they are fruits ripening on the tree.
To ensure that all of society’s citizens have a stake in prosperity, and therefore all of citizens have a stake in the future we need new social and political institutions to make 21st century capitalism work for the many and not the few.
( If you are English reading this blog feel free to forward this post to your candidate in the forthcoming General Election.)
2015 will see the creation of new political parties organised in radically different ways, – See more at: http://www.nesta.org.uk/news/2015-predictions/democracy-makes-itself-home-online#sthash.vxQJ1BiK.dpuf
Five Star in Italy prides itself on its internet-based decision making structure, as do the Pirate Parties in Iceland, Germany and Sweden. Democracy OS in Argentina has designed a sophisticated way for all its members to propose ideas and shape them online. – See more at: http://www.nesta.org.uk/news/2015-predictions/democracy-makes-itself-home-online#sthash.vxQJ1BiK.dpuf
Democracy could be reenergised. There are other possible futures, of course. A sullen anti-political mood could fuel populist demagogues. But there is at least a good chance that those with their eyes on the future rather than the past will have the edge. – See more at: http://www.nesta.org.uk/news/2015-predictions/democracy-makes-itself-home-online#sthash.vxQJ1BiK.dpuf
The global economy has fundamentally changed over the past 40 years.
As communism collapsed and countries gradually liberalized their economies, rapid reductions in poverty and increases in living standards have taken place in Asia and especially China, in South America, and in Eastern Europe, with growth increasingly taking off in Africa. Some of those countries that have produced economic growth have done so in a manner that has left most of their citizens no better off.
This is an economic problem that threatens to become a problem for the political systems of these nations — and for the idea of democracy itself.
Governments in developed countries must stay open to the world, seek new trade deals and regional partnerships, and continue their commitment to a dynamic market economy. While the economic mission of progressives is unchanging, the means of its achievement change from generation to generation as the economy evolves.
We need a smarter, and fairer society that returns to long-termism which will not only meet our fulfillment of environmental commitments, but will created a world worth living in.
Inclusive prosperity nurtures tolerance, harmony, social generosity, optimism, and international cooperation. Left to their own devices, unfettered markets and trickle-down economics will lead to increasing levels of inequality, stagnating wages, and a hollowing out of decent, middle-income jobs. This outcome is morally wrong, economically myopic, and at fundamental odds with a democracy in which everyone quite reason- ably asks for an equal chance to succeed.
understand and can respond to voters political systems restore their vitality and reclaim their ability to deliver on the promise of prosperity for all.