The long, drawn-out saga which eventually provided a successor to Boris Johnson proved one thing; electoral reform is long overdue. How can it be right that a party, elected with the manifesto of one leader, can be taken in a new direction on the whims of another?
On taking the Treasury job, Liz Truss tweeted: "I aim to be to the disruptor-in-chief", saying she wanted to cut red tape. As prime minister, the newly avowed believer in a small state has nevertheless promised a huge dose of socialist measures to tackle the cost-of-living squeeze within a week of taking office.
The death of Elizabeth II may have diverted the media’s attention somewhat, but the cost of living is still the main topic of conversation for those who can still afford to go to the pub. But as she is inheriting a grim outlook, with a party deeply divided by this contest, disruption is the last thing she’ll want – or those 140,000 Conservative members will be asked, once again, to choose a leader for the other 67 million or so of us.
Contrast the UK political arena with that of Sweden, where eight major political parties contest elections in earnest, openly forming coalition governments according to election results. A greater number of opinions surely gives a far truer representation of the electorate’s views.
A first-past-the-post system provides for a two-party political system. The argument is that it provides for stronger government is a weak one, as the only people who are stronger are the political class and the Whitehall blob.
MPs are told to vote according to party lines, under fear of deselection. Those on a ministerial salary follow the PM’s lines, under fear of dismissal. The net result is that representative democracy in the UK is dead. Self-interest so often trumps any sense of moral duty.
This party renews its call for electoral reform. If a government cannot be formed that truly represents the electorate, then questions need to be asked whether it has the validity to exist.
Martin Day – Party Secretary