• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Laika vs. Eddi: Would Britain be better off under a One-Party system?

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
After our previous debate on Religion and Socialism, Eddi and I have agreed to have another go. The topic for debate is "Britain would be better off under an exclusive one-party system than it is with many parties".

I shall be arguing for the position, whilst Eddi will be arguing against. Naturally this doesn't line up perfectly with my own views, but I'm willing to take on the intellectual challenge. So here it goes.

Edit: This Thread is in One-on-One debates so please don't reply under you are Laika or Eddi

***
British politics has been dominated by a two-party system for several centuries, with conflicts between the Whigs and the Tories, then the Liberals and the Tories, and finally between Labour and the Tories. Power has changed hands in Westminster depending on the balance on power in the House of Commons, switching between Labour and the Conservatives since the National Government under Winston Churchill during world war two.

Typically, we believe that having multiple parties competing for power increases accountability, reduces corruption and prevents the abuse of power. Competition in the political arena is necessary for a healthy democracy.

When we think of One-Party states, we tend to imagine dictatorships like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, where the ruling party is the only legal party. Such an arrangement would mark a dramatic break from Britain's constitutional traditions by one-party having sole legal right and power to govern, excluding all opposition parties and suppressing dissent. More than likely this entails restricting the right of people to oppose the government through speech, press and assembly and other rights.

This view of one-party states is something of a caricature that greatly simplifies how one party might exercise the status as the only legal party of government. Many of the examples of one-party "dictatorships" we think of today, actually have multiple parties. The People's Republic of China has nine legal parties, but only the Communist Party of China can legally hold power making it a one-party state. North Korea also has multiple parties, with four political parties and the Korean Workers' Party being the sole party legally allowed in government. In eastern European countries during the Communist era, this practice was described as a "popular front", with the Communist Parties acting as the vanguard parties with the sole legal right to hold power, with other parties existing in a lesser role.

In some countries, we have a softer version called a "dominant party system", where one party commands an overall majority of support of the public and remains in office for consecutive terms. This doesn't always entail the loss of democratic freedoms as in one-party states and their remains scope for a legal opposition.

Britain would be better under a one-party state because that one party would represent the nation and the people. The division in to two-parties, Labour and Conservative, reflects divisions within the ruling class on the extent of government control of the economy, with Labour arguing for more on the left and the Conservatives arguing for less on the right.

This is not representative of the country as a whole, where many people are swing voters between the Conservatives and Labour. General Elections come down to the decision of swing voters, with most of the electorate being ignored as a handful of voters and constituencies are prioritised at the expense of level of debate in the country as a whole. The two parties have to divide the country and polarise the people against themselves with wedge issues to try to win swing voters, whilst taking their core supporters largely for granted.

The breakdown of the two-party system partly contributed to Brexit as Tory voters objected to the loss of sovereignty to Brussels and the European Union, whilst Labour voters were disgruntled with immigration. Until the 2016 UK Referendumn these issues were simply sidelined and it was only the rise of UKIP that brought it to national attention. UKIP came third in the 2015 General election with 3.8 million votes (12.6% of the votes cast), receiving a single seat in parliament (or 0.2% of the seats). This could easily have happened under a dominant party system where an opposition party could have challenged a single national party and forced them to address this.

The two-party system is divisive and has become largely necessary, with elections serving as propaganda exercises that rarely discuss actual policy, but instead focus on rhetoric, talking points and differences in personality between party leaders. The two-party system has become a way to ignore the electorate, negating virtually all of it's supposed benefits. The electoral process is a superficial media circus devoid of substance and often facts. Agreeing on a shared reality, on evidence and on facts gets in the way of dividing people, so the two-party system has instead produced counter-factual narratives that lead to dysfunctional policy and decision making based on the ability to make partisan nonsense popular. In this partisan environment, the two-party system cannot hold the government accountable for any level of corruption, criminality or abuse of power.

Put another way, the functioning of British democracy has become incompatible with the two-party system. We need a real democracy, where we vote for a government based on it's results and policies are based on facts not partisan pantomime.

It would be much better if we dispensed with the illusion of a two-party system and instead had a one-party state where we had a national party representing all the people and not just needlessly antagonising one another in the careerist pursuit of power, perks and high office. We don't need Labour or the Conservatives because they are both awful in government or in opposition. They both fail to serve the people and to represent the nation. We need a new kind of politics and a "party of a new type" that genuinely represents the country where the people can rally around the government and put this era of partisanship behind us.

Your turn @Eddi . :D
 
Last edited:

Eddi

Agnostic
Premium Member
@Laika

You have given me much to take in but the hour is late and I must be up early in the morning

I shall look forward to reading and then replying to your opening post tomorrow!
 

Eddi

Agnostic
Premium Member
@Laika here is my reply:

I see that you are saying that the current system can be classed as a two-party system

With HM's Government facing an official adversary, HM's Loyal Opposition

I believe this situation is ideal and therefore better than a one-party system

The division in to two-parties, Labour and Conservative, reflects divisions within the ruling class on the extent of government control of the economy, with Labour arguing for more on the left and the Conservatives arguing for less on the right.
Yes, this is true - and altogether a good thing!

The purpose of The System is to serve the interests of the ruling class, and within the ruling class there is no concrete consensus as to what best serves that interest - hence the issue is decided by an electorate who has been indoctrinated to think in terms of what's best for the ruling class. This is like rolling a dice, or flipping a coin. Whichever faction wins gets to decide on policy, in a way that does not threaten or undermine The System. Or disrupt the puppet show. But at the end of the day, party politics is just an enormous drama which serves to blinker the electorate. The majority of the people only see the drama and the puppets - they do not see the puppet-master, or see what's going on back state

This is not ideal but I believe it is better than the alternative which you posit

Britain would be better under a one-party state because that one party would represent the nation and the people.
I disagree

I think it would only represent a clique - those who toe the line and climb the slippery pole into senior positions in The Party

And in such a system, the ruling clique would always get its way, and the drama of democracy would only occur within The Party - basically, only members of The Party would have a say in politics

With two parties there is an electorate, who has a choice - non-politicians have a function in a way that they can't in a one-party system

I imagine that things would be like in 1984 By George Orwell

"The Inner Party" = the ruling elites
"The Outer-Party" = those who are involved in the workings of the party (and therefore the state)
"The Proles" = those who do not take part in the workings of the party

Having two parties stops this from happening as the whole thing is by definition not monolithic - and The Proles also have a say. Which I think is a good thing, even if they are indoctrinated by the dominant class ideology

This is not representative of the country as a whole, where many people are swing voters between the Conservatives and Labour. General Elections come down to the decision of swing voters, with most of the electorate being ignored as a handful of voters and constituencies are prioritised at the expense of level of debate in the country as a whole.
Which is another way of saying that the majority of the electorate are centrists

I think that centrism best serves the interests of the ruling class

So it is therefore good that elections are decided by sensible moderates

The two parties have to divide the country and polarise the people against themselves with wedge issues to try to win swing voters, whilst taking their core supporters largely for granted.
Again, I believe this is good for The System

And also, it is possible for a ruling party in a one-party system to divide the people for their own ends - look at Stalin's persecution of the Kulaks

A monolithic political scene does not lead to unity, it leads to divisions! - I believe that a two-party system is more inclusive

And look at the Nazis, how they polarised Germany between "them" and "us"

I think a two party system serves national unity as it gives those who are not members of any party a say in who makes up the government

Basically, it is good because there are inter-party elections decided by the public, not inner-party elections decided by the membership of The Party

with elections serving as propaganda exercises that rarely discuss actual policy,
But which discuss actual policy much more than it is discussed in a one-party system!

In this partisan environment, the two-party system cannot hold the government accountable for any level of corruption, criminality or abuse of power.
I believe it does those things better than in a one-party system

The two-party system has become a way to ignore the electorate, negating virtually all of it's supposed benefits.
But in the alternative there is no "electorate", in any meaningful sense of the term

In order to take part in politics in a one-party-system one would have to become a politician. And I for one believe that politicians should be put into power by non-politicians! - I believe that having an electorate is how this is best done, and that in a one-party system there would be no electorate even if there is elections! - non-party members would not have the status of "citizen", they would be "subjects"

They both fail to serve the people and to represent the nation. We need a new kind of politics and a "party of a new type" that genuinely represents the country where the people can rally around the government and put this era of partisanship behind us.
I for one believe that partisanship is good, and best serves the common interest and also the interests of the ruling class - two things that a system must do if we are to say it works

Yes, I believe that a system should serve the ruling class above all other classes! - But I believe that the ruling class should be The Workers! ;)
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Which is another way of saying that the majority of the electorate are centrists. I think that centrism best serves the interests of the ruling class. So it is therefore good that elections are decided by sensible moderates.

Those who make centrism a virtue leave the initiative to extremists who redefine the political consensus of the country and will drag the "centrists" along with them. In both Britain and America, what constitutes the "centre-ground" has been moving further and further to the right over the past century. America had the New Deal and Britain had the 1945 Labour government, both of which lurched politics to the left as the government took greater control over the economy.

But in practice, "moving to the centre-ground" has only applied to left-wing parties in recent decades. Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders are both "unelectable" with large media campaigns against their "unrealistic" policies, whereas Donald Trump and Boris Johnson get elected and enact policies that are destabilising to the country (e.g. Brexit). But in the latter case, as these policies benifit the wealthy minority, the media does not criticise them or hold them accountable at all. The Conservatives are now more right-wing than Thatcher and the Republicans are more right-wing than Reagan.

Moving to the centre is not necessarily the will of the electorate. It can be a stage managed form of appeasement and capitulation before a ruling class to sell out the people, reduce their standard of living, undermine their democratic rights and to wage foreign wars. And the media manufacture a consensus to get the people to comply so that the abuse of power, corruption, criminality and lying that serves the interests of the ruling class is justified or triviaised and excused.

But in the alternative there is no "electorate", in any meaningful sense of the term. In order to take part in politics in a one-party-system one would have to become a politician. And I for one believe that politicians should be put into power by non-politicians! - I believe that having an electorate is how this is best done, and that in a one-party system there would be no electorate even if there is elections! - non-party members would not have the status of "citizen", they would be "subjects".

There is nothing wrong with people become politicians. In fact we should demand and expect more of the people than being passive observers of the political process and voting every five years or so. People should be able to go in to politics, taking roles in the administration of public affairs for themselves rather than have a professional class of politicians do it on their behalf.

In a democracy we should expect people to be directly involved in self-government. We should welcome people from more ordinary and working class backgrounds in to our political institutions. Many sections of society are under-represented in Parliament, notably women, young people and ethnic minorities.

The Chinese Communist Party has a membership of over 95 million people. In a country of 1.4 billion people, that means 6-7% of the country are involved in the ruling party. The Conservatives have 200,000 members and Labour have 430,000. Together that makes 630,000 people out of a population of 67 million, or less than 1% (0.94%).

If having a one-party state makes the people more involved in government and creates more opportunities for people to participate, surely that means it is more democratic and representative of the people?

And also, it is possible for a ruling party in a one-party system to divide the people for their own ends - look at Stalin's persecution of the Kulaks. A monolithic political scene does not lead to unity, it leads to divisions! - I believe that a two-party system is more inclusive. And look at the Nazis, how they polarised Germany between "them" and "us".

The two-party system in Britain has presided over slavery and the slave trade, the Irish potato famine (which may be a genocide), as well a range of colonial wars. So a two-party system can manage it's own share of atrocity and polarising people in to "us" and "them" quite well I'm afraid. :D

I think a two party system serves national unity as it gives those who are not members of any party a say in who makes up the government. Basically, it is good because there are inter-party elections decided by the public, not inner-party elections decided by the membership of The Party.

I can't really dispute this one as, being fair, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union became the "paramount leader", often without holding an official title. e.g. historians generally treat Stalin as ruling the USSR from about 1929 to his death in 1953, but he was only "Premier of the Soviet Union" from 1941-1953. (The position was held by Molotov and Rykov before then).

But equally, the choice of leader within a political party is generally made by it's members. Britain is kind of fortunate that we don't have the protracted year long "primary" campaigns in America (even if it is arguably more democratic on the surface) but party members still elect the party leader, who has a powerful influence on the policy and direction one of the two major party's might take.

So even in a two-party system there is a mixture of inter-party and inner-party democracy at work in determining the nature of the party's leadership and platform. In the case of Jeremy Corbyn, you could say that he was more popular within the Labour party than in the country as a whole [But I'm self-sabotaging my argument against centrism by doing so, so feel free to debate that point if you wish. :D ]

I think I've said enough to keep the debate interesting @Eddi ! I'll let you take your turn now. :)
 

Eddi

Agnostic
Premium Member
@Laika - I have opened up some possible dissuasions in this post!

Those who make centrism a virtue leave the initiative to extremists who redefine the political consensus of the country and will drag the "centrists" along with them. In both Britain and America, what constitutes the "centre-ground" has been moving further and further to the right over the past century. America had the New Deal and Britain had the 1945 Labour government, both of which lurched politics to the left as the government took greater control over the economy.

But in practice, "moving to the centre-ground" has only applied to left-wing parties in recent decades. Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders are both "unelectable" with large media campaigns against their "unrealistic" policies, whereas Donald Trump and Boris Johnson get elected and enact policies that are destabilising to the country (e.g. Brexit). But in the latter case, as these policies benifit the wealthy minority, the media does not criticise them or hold them accountable at all. The Conservatives are now more right-wing than Thatcher and the Republicans are more right-wing than Reagan.

Moving to the centre is not necessarily the will of the electorate. It can be a stage managed form of appeasement and capitulation before a ruling class to sell out the people, reduce their standard of living, undermine their democratic rights and to wage foreign wars. And the media manufacture a consensus to get the people to comply so that the abuse of power, corruption, criminality and lying that serves the interests of the ruling class is justified or triviaised and excused.
Yes, you are right

However, I think it is possible to conceive of an objective centre ground, rather than a relative centre ground

And that if we do that we will see that no "centrist" has ever set up a Gulag or Death Camp

So I would say that there is something virtuous of being a true centrist

But then perhaps I'm conflating left/right with authoritarian/libertarian

Either way, as a leftist I'd rather elections be decided by the centrists than by the right

And I am ideologically committed to the idea of "free and fair" elections!

I believe in Proportional Representation too! - the way I see it the more parties the better!

There is nothing wrong with people become politicians. In fact we should demand and expect more of the people than being passive observers of the political process and voting every five years or so. People should be able to go in to politics, taking roles in the administration of public affairs for themselves rather than have a professional class of politicians do it on their behalf.
Would you advocate a form of direct democracy?

I think if we had that then there would be no need for any parties

I think it could be easily achieved with today's information technology

Although perhaps there should be a check/balance against the popular will? - for instance experts, or people who take a more long-term view?

Personally, I am very much against the idea as it woulds be unstable and prone to crisis

And could lead to tyrants and demogogues

Perhaps only certain people would be allowed to get involved? And that to do this they'd need to sign up to something that's somewhat akin to a party? - like, a means to becoming a certified politician? Who are all members of some organisation? - this would be better than demagogues and the usual in-it-for-themeslves politicians we have under our current system

The two-party system in Britain has presided over slavery and the slave trade, the Irish potato famine (which may be a genocide), as well a range of colonial wars. So a two-party system can manage it's own share of atrocity and polarising people in to "us" and "them" quite well I'm afraid. :D
That doesn't cancel out all the evil single-party states did :p

But even if some systems can produce evil, so what? - I say such abuses are the responsibility of individuals in control of those specific systems, rather than to do with what party system is in place

I believe that abuses carried out by states should be attributed to individuals rather than to the system in which they exist

Therefore I propose that for the rest of this discussion we commit to not alluding to historical tyrannies associated with each system! - do you agree?

I want to amend something I said before: I don't think the two-party system is ideal, I believe that a multi-party system is ideal!

I am however open to being wrong on this issue, please feel free to try and win me over :D

Why would things be better for ordinary people with a single-party system more so than in a multi-party system? Because I think that at the end of the day the welfare of the population is the key issue and that a vital part of one's wellbeing is the extent to which you have a say regarding things that concern you

And I see a multi-party system as a better way of doing this than a single-party system
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Would you advocate a form of direct democracy?

I favour greater democracy with more popular involvement in the government. (So I'd get rid of the Monarchy and the House of Lords in the UK given the option).

I want to amend something I said before: I don't think the two-party system is ideal, I believe that a multi-party system is ideal!

I support multi-party systems too. More competition to ensure accountability and a greater choice of ideological opinions.

Shall we call this debate a draw as neither of us really agree with the position we're defending? :D
 

Eddi

Agnostic
Premium Member
Shall we call this debate a draw as neither of us really agree with the position we're defending? :D
LOL, yes!

Somehow it ended in both parties coming agreement that had nothing to do with the original question!

How do you think it would be possible to make our current two-party system a multi-party system? - aside from having proportional representation? - because it seems to me as though it will never change

Indeed I think we could well be drifting into a dominant-party system, with the tories forever in government, which will happen to England if Scotland and Wales break away

Scottish and Welsh independence would give England an eternal winter of Tory rule :(

There must be a solution to this!
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
How do you think it would be possible to make our current two-party system a multi-party system? - aside from having proportional representation? - because it seems to me as though it will never change.

Indeed I think we could well be drifting into a dominant-party system, with the tories forever in government, which will happen to England if Scotland and Wales break away

Scottish and Welsh independence would give England an eternal winter of Tory rule :(

There must be a solution to this!

I really hope so as I don't have an obvious solutions to this one. There would have to be a major change in the Labour party for it to become electable if it was only down to England. They will probably find a way, I'm just not sure I'd like it that much as it would probably become more right-wing. :D
 

Eddi

Agnostic
Premium Member
I really hope so as I don't have an obvious solutions to this one. There would have to be a major change in the Labour party for it to become electable if it was only down to England. They will probably find a way, I'm just not sure I'd like it that much as it would probably become more right-wing. :D
Perhaps devolution to England's regions would encourage more parties, as I imagine devolved assemblies would be elected by PR, allowing minor parties to have a role in policy? And that they would be more significant as sufficient powers would have been devolved?

I think that's another way out!
 
Top