You do yourself a disservice, sir.

What you class as "moderate" is basically the status quo.

Most people are unhappy with that because the current system does not work for them hence the rise of populism (which is just "what most people want" ).

The wealth gap gets ever wider at an ever increasing rate, the middle class is being destroyed along with small businesses, many people are sick/overweight through bad food and pharmaceuticals and/or unhappy because they have no sense of meaning or connection and live their life for the next purchase. All this is happening at the hands of governments, central banks, media and corporations (energy /food production/pharmaceutical/military industrial etc) and our choices not to participate is this system are being systematically removed by ever increasing draconian legislation enforced by surveillance and control.

The fact you simply can't see it is really your problem.

Edited by W12 (27 Jul 2022 5.31pm)

Along with many many changes to how society functions if I had the the fantasy option of deciding how party leadership selections worked I'd have a universal system independent of what mainstream party it was.

I would pretty much invert how the selection works. I would have the membership deciding the last two and the MPs selecting from them....as it is the elites essentially decide the limited choices.

I would also give the wider country a say.....On the day of the membership choice I'd allow an online vote, where the country's vote on the candidates had a....say 30 percent affect on the candidates.

Though the voting rules would obviously have to be water tight.

I think that would be far more democratic and balanced than present systems.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jul 2022 2.10pm)

Well I'm not exactly writing a white paper on it but it's my 'shooting the breeze' take on it.

MPs are certainly a tier of elites, not at the top but a sub tier form of elites. This idea that people get a choice of MP is nonsense. They get a choice of candidates pre-selected as acceptable by that party's system, which is no different to the Chinese system.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jul 2022 7.33pm)

Neither of us are writing a white paper. This needs some careful study and to then convince some Turkeys to vote for Christmas.

I realise that central offices try to parachute their preferred voting sheep into seats, but it is still the local parties that make the choice. My own MP, who is a Tory, is very local, has strong connections with the area, and works hard. She has helped me a lot, writing to Ministers on my behalf. I have a meeting with her in a few weeks time. This local connection I want to see as the normal. I want to see the Party an MP belongs to become less relevant than their character. David Penhaligon was the local MP for 12 years, local and hugely popular amongst voters of every party. He happened to be a Liberal and could easily have led them had he not died in a car accident.

We cannot avoid the party system completely, but I want to see Parliament asserting its authority when it chooses to do so, and not allowing itself to be whipped quite so readily by the party machines. I favour PR, with smaller parties gaining representation through a single transferrable vote. Doubtless coalitions would result, but these would have the benefit of stopping large variations in approach happening.

This is nonsense, which I suppose is only to be expected given its source.

Moderate politics has nothing to do with the status quo! You can see the need for change from a "moderate" perspective, at least as well as from any other, probably better. Seeing the need for tolerance, compromise and respect and to do things with careful thought, good management and trying to bring everyone along with persuasive argument doesn't mean no change. Or, indeed, for decisive and urgent change. Taking a consistent middle road, with no wild swings from left to right, consuming time and energy when making corrections by one side or the other, is much more efficient and ultimately delivers a better result. You can see the benefits all over Europe.

Populism is not just "what most people want". People want good government. They might think they want something else, but when you scratch below the surface, most people aren't stupid. They know 2 +2 = 4, and money doesn't grow on trees. Populism is pandering to instant gratification and the desire to win and hold onto office. It serves only the politicians who use it.

That the wealth gap is continuing to widen is undoubtably true, but not because of some conspiracy involving governments, business, the media, food suppliers, pharma and central bankers.

Having just returned from a week's holiday, my first abroad since Brexit, and visiting Spain, France and Italy during my trip, the contrast between the average citizen in those countries and ourselves is stark. They might be living with "ever increasing draconian legislation enforced by surveillance and control" but they look fitter, appear better educated, are more polite and respectful, have better behaved children, eat more sensibly and seem generally happier.

They are doing something right, which we aren't. You want to blame some illogical groups who are only trying to operate within the boundaries we set for them. I blame Brexit and the Eurosceptics among us.

The fact you simply can't see it is really your problem.