Britain decides (sort of)

Why indeed.

The UK, it's safe to say, is going through a bit of a rough patch at the moment. As happened to most of the western world after the banking collapse of 2008, recession quickly followed, and the people that paid for the collapse were not the bankers that caused it but the people that were forced to bail them out; the general public.

The people that have suffered most on this sinking ship have of course been those at the bottom (or in steerage if you like). Inequality has continued to grow to the point where the richest 20% of the population are more than 7 times richer than the poorest 20%. The austerity measures and cuts made by the current coalition government have actively encouraged the widening of this gap. The fact is that the rich have done pretty well out of this recession, while the poor have suffered more than most. Despite suffering through nearly 3 years of austerity measures and deep cuts, which the IMF and leading economists have warned against, we are not seeing any light at the end of the tunnel. Indeed it appears that we're being led back into recession for a 3rd time in 5 years.

Suffice to say, the coalition government is not very popular with a lot of people right now. The Lib Dems are unpopular for selling out and betraying those who voted for them in 2010, as well as propping up a Tory party which is almost as unpopular simply for doing what a Tory government does (It seems after 13 years of Labour people had forgotten).

"Face of evil!"

So people are unhappy with the government, but that's okay, we live in a democracy, right? If you don't like the policies being implemented by the current government, all you need to do is wait until the next election (still amazingly over 2 years away) and vote them out. The latest polls, as I write this, show Labour with a sizeable 10 point lead over the Tories while the Lib Dems are a fraction away from falling behind UKIP into 4th place.

The problem with our democracy is that the UK public have a very limited view of what options they have. Ultimately we're in a situation where if you don't want the Tories, you have to have Labour, and vice-versa. The problem with that is that these days there's less difference than ever between the 2 parties. The idea of Labour being on the left is about 20 years out of date. By the late 90s, Labour economic policy was more to the right than the pre-Thatcher Tories and under Blair they were consistently edging closer to the opposition.

The top 5 most voted for parties at the last general election are all considered to be on the right of the political spectrum, with only the Lib Dems having any real distance between themselves and the other 4 parties by being more socially liberal than the others (a more detailed explanation of the political compass can be found here at www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010). My point is that we as a country have voluntarily narrowed our options when it comes to electing our government. Labour had become an unelectable mess by 2010 and as a result they lost 91 seats while the conservatives gained 97 seats; almost a direct swap. People didn't want Labour, so they voted Tory.

The MP laser with its 2 settings

It seems that most people treat our democracy as a 2 party system, simply voting against the major party they don't want rather than voting for who they do want. This continues to happen as people believe voting for the party who most represent their views, if it isn't one of the established big 2, is a wasted vote and therefore it becomes 1 vote less against the major party that they least like.

Others are creatures of habit: "I've always voted for [insert Labour/Cons/Lib Dems here]." So what? Political parties are constantly shifting position and a vote for Labour, for instance, in 2015 is voting for something very different than voting for Labour in 1997 or even 2010. It's lazy and narrow minded to make one decision on who you think is the best party for you and sticking with it regardless of what they become. It's people like that who aren't given any consideration by politicians. Why should they care about you? Why should they try and do a good job for you? Why should they even bother to make an effort to get your vote? You've already made your decision a few elections back and your vote is already in the bag. The people who make their decision based on the election they are actually voting in are the kingmakers. Wouldn't it be great if that were all of us?

The country is in desperate need of change and some new ideas to break us out of this stale cycle of Labour and the Tories. We've come to a depressing point where the Tory/Lib Dem coalition is sucking the life out of the country, with both parties heading for losses come 2015, which will only benefit Labour. The idea that the Labour party are the saviours in all of this is a ridiculous notion. While you can't lay the blame for the economic crash squarely at their doorstep (unless you're a Tory politician), Labour had 13 years to make the changes they are calling for now and let's not forget that Labour presided over the biggest income inequality gap in modern times.

Labour still don't look like a viable and competent alternative that will make much of a difference at all. The reason being that Labour aren't different enough from the Tories these days to be able to strongly oppose Tory policy and provide a credible alternative.

The "wide range" on offer

The similarity in our major parties is by no means a problem unique to the UK. It amazes me how vehemently the US parties and their voters oppose each other, because once you take the ignorance and intolerance out of the Republicans, they're not that far removed from the Democrats. Australia's main parties, while certainly further apart than those of the UK or the US, still don't really represent massively different idiologies. New Zealand's National and Labour parties are further apart still, with the Greens as the 3rd party offering a wider spectrum (although they are still very firmly in 3rd place).

Not until we get to Canada though do we see real variety between the major parties, with the New Democratic Party (NDP) offering a definitive option on the left to go with the right of centre Liberals and the right wing Conserservatives. Also in Canada there has been real movement among the voters. The NDP, which was traditionally the 4th party in Canada, had a massive surge in popularity at the last election, to comfortably become the 2nd biggest party and the official opposition.

But the country I'm most envious of is France. The French at election time have 5 parties in contention, spread right across the political spectrum. At the 2012 French Presidential Election, in the first round of voting, 9% voted for Mouvement Démocrate (centrist), 11% for Front de Gauche (Left), 18% for Front National (Far Right), 27% for Sarkozy's UMP (Centre-Right) and 29% for eventual winner François Hollande's Parti Socialiste (Centre-Left).
In contrast, in the UK, our top 5 were Conservatives (Right) Labour (Centre-Right) Liberal Democrats (Centre-Right) UKIP (Right) and BNP (Authoritarian Centre-Right which, no word of a lie, occupies the same part of the political compass as Hitler did!). I refuse to believe that the UK voting population is 93% of right wing ideology. Instead I think that what were previously the centrist parties and those of the Left have shifted to the Right, and because of the lack of a viable alternative (due to the voting system and people’s aforementioned attitudes towards it), they have shifted with them. The UK does have parties situated all across the political spectrum, but as long as people view most of them as a wasted vote we're stuck in this endless cycle of Tory and Labour.

People celebrating an election result (I know!)

What the UK needs is a reform to the voting system, but obviously Labour and the Tories don't want that as it means you might vote for who you want to vote for and they'll lose out. The only major party calling for voting reform at the last election was the Lib Dems, who once they were in power with the Tories were easily silenced with a referendum, not for Proportional Representation (which the Lib Dems had wanted), but on a system (The Alternative Vote) that no one wanted and so was easily voted against and forgotten. Predictable enough as it is not in the interests of the Tories or Labour to allow you to have that much of a say in who governs you. They will defend the first past the post system with all their might, as losing it would mean the end of their domination of UK politics.

That leaves the only option for real change with you, the voter, and the hope that more people in this country will no longer be satisfied with just voting for the lesser of two evils and actually vote for policies, vote for themselves and vote for real change.

Lies! Lies!

One thing that has always annoyed me about politics is how in the run up to an election, politicians will say they're going to do something, then when they get into power  they do the exact opposite of what they said they were going to do.
People have come to expect this from their governments and accept as inevitable that the party they may have voted for, based on the policies outlined in the weeks and months prior to the election, are going to renege on some of them or simply not be able to fulfill others as they had planned.
Although it's not ideally what you as a voter would want to happen and while it may be frustrating or disappointing that a policy you agreed with hasn't been implemented, politics is doubtlessly a complex beast and as a result it is certainly conceivable that unforeseen circumstances can get in the way of following through on things  so accepting this is understandable.

However, this misses the point of my original grievance which was not about politicians not doing what they said they would do but rather them going out and doing the exact opposite instead. This I feel is totally unacceptable and any cases of it happening should surely result in the election being rendered invalid as the people that voted for that policy have got the exact opposite of what they voted for and may very well have not voted for that party had it not been for being misled in this way.

In the run up to the 2010 UK general election, David Cameron and the Conservative party said they would be the "Greenest government ever" before getting into power, after which they abolished schemes for producing green energy and for making homes more energy efficient. They stated that they would not interfere with the NHS. Yet almost immediately after the election they pushed ahead with the NHS reforms bill, ignoring all professional  advice along the way with an astonishing level of arrogance and determination even by cliché Tory standards.
Saying you'll do something to get people to vote for you and then doing the opposite of that after you've got their vote is fraudulent misrepresentation and basically cheating to win an election (albeit in a more subtle way than Putin managed).

Some like to advertise their lies

So really it seems pointless for us to listen to what the politicians say they would do if you vote for them, because not only is there a high probabilty that they won't do the majority of those things but it's also likely that they'll do the exact opposite of some of them too.
Again people are generally accepting of this too, it's the general consensus that politicians lie and there's little else you can base your vote on beyond what they say they will do. So it seems this is the best we can hope for; this is what we're stuck with and there's nothing more that could be done.
Except of course I have a solution. I propose we use lie detectors on our politicians when they are telling us what they would do for us if we vote for them. I'm not talking about having them sitting in a chair under interrogation with beeps and buzzers going off after every statement. After hooking up the politician in question (as standard) the lie detector would simply work silently in the background and we could analyse the results afterwards.

A disenfranchised spray can writes...

So what's the problem with lie detectors? Why aren't they more commonly used? They're so often used in TV shows to catch criminals but so neglected in the real world of justice.
The reason for this is that their results are not accepted as evidence in UK courts, or US courts for that matter, where lie detectors are still commonly used in police investigations to at least home in on a suspect if he fails the test.
However, an analysis of seven field studies involving specific incidents, in a 2003 report from the National Academy of Sciences, showed lie detectors to have a median accuracy of 89 percent.
89 percent accuracy is not to be sniffed at and while I'd certainly advocate further development and much higher accuracy before such tests can be submitted as evidence in criminal cases, I think the current level of accuracy is fit for the purpose of helping us judge whether a politician is lying to us or not.

For anyone who watched the live televised debates in the run up to the 2010 UK election, you may remember, in the analysis that followed each debate, a thing they called "the worm". The worm was a wiggly line moving across the screen that was controlled by the studio audience. Whenever the audience liked what they heard from one of the party leaders, they pressed a button which made the worm go up, and whenever they didn't like what they heard, another button would make the worm go down. Now, of course, saying something like "I want to put more money back in the pockets of hard working people" would make the worm go up, but what if the audience also had access to a live lie detector test that was hooked up to the candidates? Then if "I want to put more money back in the pockets of hardworking people" was presented to you alongside the fact there is a 9 in 10 chance that the statement is untrue, you're less likely to like what you've just heard.

"Dislike"

Now people  (and especially the politicians themselves I'd imagine)  may argue the point that 89% accuracy is still not enough to be using them in this way, but I'm not asking for them to be presented as fact, I'm not asking to submit the findings as evidence as it were, let's just have them presented alongside what the politicians are saying (alongside the 89% accuracy clause) to help us make up our own mind as to whether they are telling us the truth and thus helping us make a more informed decision about who we vote for.

Of course the biggest problem with this is the politicians themselves; they would never agree to it. But why not? When Lance Armstrong refused to contest doping charges last week, his guilt was therefore assumed and he was stripped of his Tour de France titles. Perhaps any politician refusing the lie detector should be treated in the same way. That'd weed out the liars and probably also create a mass of vacancies at Westminster.