What Are the Problems with the Uk’s Party System, and How Might They Be Resolved?

What atomic number 18 the problems with the UKs comp both system, and how exponent they be resolved? This essay will fail the challenges and problems UK party system is facing. The essay will look into macrocosm stoicism and mistrust, resulting in low party social station and low electoral participation. The primary(prenominal) rock is that semi governing bodyal parties do non deport material exuberant incentives to connect with voters. Proposals to resolve these problems will be changing electoral system, pass on limiting donations to the semipolitical parties and banning their trade activities, forcing to a greater extent ideological changes and video display strong real actions to ignite the political debates.As we all know, UK political system is dominated by main deuce political parties, elbow grease and Conservatives. Historically, most of the elections, apart from few exceptions, resulted in one party forming the presidential term whilst some other party universe in opposition. Throughout the history, British political parties enjoyed large memberships and enthusiastic support from all sections of population during the elections. Voters were more than politically aw ar and active in political life. British Election examines survey in 1964 showed that three quarters of population had strong or fair affiliation with a political party (Pattie & Johnston, 2007, p. ). In 1950s Labour had 1 million members while conservatives had 2,800,000 (Fieschi, 2006, p. 143) However, political parties deep in thought(p) the trust and support of semipublic. Membership of parties is at all-time low. According to the young study, only 2 percent of voters in the UK ar party members (Beetham, Blick, Margets, & Weir, 2008, p. 42). flock abstain from suffrage in world-wide elections, the trend observed curiously amongst young voters. Pressure groups and lobbyists be gaining more influence and political parties ar increasingly getting disconnected from the prevalent public.Latest MPs expenses scandal dramatically reduced the trust in politicians. The trend is non unique to Britain. Other European reconciles observe the same decline in public participation. Therefore, many analysts decl bed that the age of mass party membership is over (Beetham, Blick, Margets, & Weir, 2008, p. 42). still what ar the reasons that the political parties lost the trust of public? It is not true that stack are not overwhelmested in political sympathies anymore. aggregate mobilisation of cross-party protests against the war in Iraq is the biggest example that political relation yet plays important part in publics life. close all of the full treatment and researches done on the subject of declining of party politics agree on one thing- the electoral system in the UK and later(prenominal) two party system that results from it is the main obstacle for parties to engage with public. The argument is, political parties only c formerlyntrate on s seduceg voters and taking the strong votes for granted (Pattie & Johnston, 2007, p. 7). However, Britain always had a two party system with FPTP. So, why parties did not c one timentrate on marginal s pull throughg voter areas beforehand?The explanation given by commentators is that Britain used to be divided into two poles conservative traditionalists and labour exiting single out. But now, most of the population is more or slight middle class and have moved to the substance (Garner & Kelly, 1998, pp. 255-256). Therefore, tribe have marginalised their party or ideological identities. This argument does not hold ground, as although political parties righted greatly, the membership of both parties still declined. But this is because voters dont see the difference between parties and are confused the critics say.But, is it not exactly what the two political parties used to be having two distinct ideologies? Yet, membership is declining in both cases. So, one might think that it is inevitable for party membership and influence to diminish on the face of social developments in the UK. However, there is another explanation. Commentators are refine to sharpen out to parties only concentrating on drop down voters. However, while before, party largely depended on their grass-root support and mass membership, political leaders tried to be independent from their supporters.Many laws were passed amid the opposition of most of the party members. tied(p) the reforms of the Conservatives under(a) William Hague could not produce good democratisation of the party. Today, both parties are still centralised. Parties just dont need the support of their members anymore, as parties can only focus on nonage of voters and still win the elections. The argument of inevitability of party support declining in the face of emerging middle class is overly weak. Labour party did manage to near double its membership in 1997 with the drive to recruit more members (Whit eley, 2009, p. 249).However, once Labour came to king, party became more preoccupied with governing, and disregarded grassroots party (Whiteley, 2009, p. 249). The conclusion from above analysis is that, given the right incentives, parties are able to recruit members. But political parties are more pertain with winning elections and holding office, and not concentrating on representing the wad (Copus, Clark, Reynaert, & Steyvers, 2008, p. 6). But how could political parties do it? Do they not depend on members and supporters at least financially to survive? Well, this brings us to the second issue-the party funding.It is only inseparable that parties did suffer financially with the decline in membership. However, all of the major parties managed to buzz off place wealthy donors to compensate for the loss (Jones, Kavanagh, Moran, & Norton, 2007, p. 196). Apart from that, political parties have set ways of generating money through trade, although at the moment it constitutes o nly minority of their budget (Granik, 2005). The issue of party funding through wealthy individuals have been and still remains a controversy. The funding scandals in both main political parties triggered the need to review their funding and expenditure.Following Neill Committee report, drastic changes were introduced, including declaration of donations over ? 5,000, banning the donations from foreign donors, capping the spending in general elections at ? 20 million and controls over spending on referendum campaigns (Jones, Kavanagh, Moran, & Norton, 2007, p. 196). rase before Neill Committee report, in 1976 and 1981 Houghton and Hansard Society reports respectively, proposed political parties being state funded (Garner & Kelly, 1998, p. 202). No action was taken by ruling Labour on Houghton report and Conservatives rejected Hansard Society report (Jones, Kavanagh, Moran, & Norton, 2007, p. 96). Proponents of the state funding get hold of that parties, like military or police are vital public bodies, therefore they need to be subsidised by taxpayer. It will also remove the reliance on donors, thus removing the undesired influence (Jones, Kavanagh, Moran, & Norton, 2007, p. 197). However, those arguments are weak. Although, it is true that the state funding might reduce the dependence on donors, it also removes the incentives for parties to recruit more members, thus stopping them further from gentle the people during inter-election times.Provided the public trust in political parties and politicians being eternalise low, it will further raise the suspicions of the public, especially after the expenses scandal. The solution is not state funding, but limiting donations even further. Large donations from interested businesses and individuals should not be just declared, but banned altogether. Parties should be forced to, once again, rely on their members for funding. The claim that political parties are public bodies is untrue. They are voluntary bodies. Poli tical parties are only good if they are retard for purpose, i. e. eing a link between a government and public. When they are palmy in this task, they gain trust of public and their membership will soar. This mechanically will solve their funding problems. Coming back to the issue of electoral system, most of the public agree that the FPTP is the most unjust type of proxy system available. It is made worse by current decline in party allegiance among the population. FPTP is also unfair to smaller parties. While major parties get disproportionately large amount of seats to the votes they received, for smaller parties it works the other way around.A more proportionally representative ballot system will result in more parties competing in general elections, with new parties created to contest the elections. This competition will not only spark parties to engage with public, as noted earlier, but also make people more politically active during the elections. Supporters of FPTP syste m say that it provides strong and effective government, while PR system likely to produce hanged parliaments and unstable coalitions. But political parties themselves are coalitions of many views, thats why public is face up with non stopping rifts within the parties.Furthermore, coalitions can be persuaded to work with each other successfully, as it is the case in many European countries. Initially, labour government were committed to electoral reforms, with the promise of referendum on the issue in 1997 manifesto. A decade later, 2007 government green paper on constitutional reform had only one line, informing that electoral reform is still under revision (Brown & Straw, 2007, p. 46). This uncertainty and not delivering promises further alienates voters. In 2009 Britain, a frighteningly large proportion of UK voters feel effectively disenfranchised says John cover of Guardian (Ward, 2009).One of his proposed solution to representation problem is reducing the power of party whip s. He says that reduction of power of whips is absolutely essential if backbench idleness, disillusionment and cynicism are to be curbed and the executive controlled. Those few still in vex the likes of Kate Hoey, David Davis, Dennis Skinner and Graham Brady are popular because they understand widespread concerns (respectively) almost rural life, personal liberty, uncompromising values and educational aspiration (Whiteley, 2009). puzzle of parties being too strict is actually good for their discipline.However, over the age one sees that the whip system is been abused to great extends, thus taking away the independence of politicians. There is a problem of people wanting political information. citizenry lacking the political information are less likely to participate in politics. In 2006 Joseph Rowntree Trusts fountain Report was published, where the issue was identified amongst many others. In the report, the solution proposed was The citizenship political platform shoul d be shorter, more practical and result in a qualification. (Power Report, 2006, p. 204).As Power report admits, the curriculum has many flaws. It is unlikely that curriculum makes any significant impact on young peoples political participation. Therefore, political parties themselves should engage in educational activities. They should hold more meetings and rallies, explaining people why to vote and why to vote for them. Political parties should re-think their methods of appealing to public. wildness should be given to enlarging their membership and engaging with public. Rather than being a vote-calculating machines, they have to re-establish their clear ideological stands.Public disillusion with what they are voting fore can only be resolved with party philosophies and ideologies being distinct. They also have to find the ways of re-gaining public trust. For that, they need more action rather than words. Radicalism is missing in modern day politics. Mass rallies, public speeche s are being replaced by appearances on mass media and point scoring PR campaigns. Of course, all the symptoms mentioned above are interconnected, so it would be wrong to analyse each separately and come to a ostracise conclusion. But we believe that old-fashioned traditional politics can work if politicians commit themselves more.If parties reform, they make their positions stronger, with respect and trust vested in them by public. failure to reform will eventually lead to their doom. Bibliography Beetham, D. , Blick, A. , Margets, H. , & Weir, S. (2008, February). Power and Participation in Modern Britain. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from Democratic Audit http//www. democraticaudit. org/download/PP_lowres. pdf Brown, G. , & Straw, J. (2007, July). The Governance of Britain (CM 7170, Green composition on constitutional reforms. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from Official-Documents http//www. official-documents. gov. k/document/cm71/7170/7170. pdf Copus, C. , Clark, A. , Reynaert, H. , & Steyvers, K. (2008). Minor Party and supreme Politics beyond the Mainstream Fluctuating Fortunes but a Permanent Presence. parliamentary affairs , 621, 4-18. Fieschi, C. (2006). How British Parties Lost Our Favour. Parliamentary Affairs , 601, 143-152. Garner, R. , & Kelly, R. (1998). British political parties today (2 ed. ). Manchester Manchester University Press. Granik, S. (2005). Invisible Business The Unregulated conception of Political Party Commerce. Politics , 252, 89-98. Jones, B. , Kavanagh, D. , Moran, M. & Norton, P. (2007). Politics UK (6 ed. ). Harlow, New York Pearson Education. Mehdi, H. (2009, kinfolk 29). Do politicians matter? Retrieved November 15, 2009, from Guardian http//www. guardian. co. uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/29/labour-conference-politicians-least-trusted Pattie, C. , & Johnston, R. (2007). Power to the People through Real Power and True Elections? The Power Report and revitalize British Democracy. Parliamentary Affairs , 602, 1-26. Report, P. (2006). Power to the People. York Power Enquiry. Ward, J. (2009, October 16). mononuclear phagocyte system have forgotten how to represent us.Retrieved November 11, 2009, from Guardian http//www. guardian. co. uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/mps-representation-constitutional-reform Whiteley, P. (2009). Where Have all the Members Gone? The Dynamics of Party Membership in Britain. Parliamentary Affairs , 62 2, 242-257. 1 . This years Ipsos Mori poll suggests that the politicians are the least trusted group of professionals, with only 13% of public trusting them. This is the final percentage politicians received in this poll in 26 years (Mehdi, 2009). 2 .For example Labour abandoning clause 4 and modernising the party 3 . Interesting to note that, although Conservative party was always associated with rich class and electorate dominated by working class, the party was always able to win the elections, gaining at least a third of working class. Especially during inter war periods C onservatives were the most favourite party in inter-war period (Garner & Kelly, 1998, p. 56) . This reinforces our thesis that different ideologies could be overcome by concentrating in recruiting more grassroots party members. 4 . For example, Poll Tax of Conservatives, war in Iraq, 5 . The newly created policy forum to discuss the policies and national party conventions are only advisory and it became harder to challenge the leadership of the Conservative party (Jones, Kavanagh, Moran, & Norton, 2007, p. 287). 6 . Under this system, most of the votes are wasted. As we have observed before, parties take safe seats for granted and only campaign in swing constituencies. Public, on the other hand, knowing that their vote would not make a difference, abstain from voting. 7 . Evidence suggests that more competitive the elections, more people cast their vote (Pattie & Johnston, 2007, pp. 5-7).