Is there anyway to change the system?

Natural agency involves unthinking processes whereas human agency refers to the capacity of an individual to act independently and make free choices. It is the ability of human beings to make choices and to impose those choices on the animate and inanimate world that sets them apart from both those worlds, they are however constrained by both and by societal structures, those factors (such as social class, religion, gender, ethnicity, customs, etc) which influence and limit the choices individuals can actually contemplate.

Those who benefit from the status quo are predisposed to persuade their peers that it is better to leave things as they are rather than risk the uncertainty of changes that discard settled and accepted procedures, inevitably the pursuit of principles whose adoption threaten the overthrow of established abuses or interfere with exclusive customs will suffer prejudice and opposition from the beneficiaries of those systems or custom abuses the purpose of which is to disproportionately favour privileged participants; it is a primitive human trait to seek privilege and defend it once acquired. The status quo is comfortable, the social pecking order well-established, the familiar gives a sense of security even to those whose material condition has changed little despite huge increases in total national wealth.

Those who populate the mass media support or criticise personalities from the political space who preside over a growing inequality in wealth between the makers and the takers but studiously avoid examination of the political, monetary and ownership systems within which they operate. Their sycophantic/forensic questioning of politicians is of little use to audiences who for the most part do not have knowledge of the corrupt and corrupting systems that politicians are embedded in; systems that we are all taught to accept from the moment we can read.

The election system is corrupt, it is certainly not designed to deliver democracy FPTP is an electoral mechanism designed to frustrate the delivery of democracy. Unless very unusual circumstances apply it delivers a party MP who has received the greatest minority of votes, it is not representative of the main political inclinations of a constituency. When the MP enters parliament he does so with one vote even though his support could be two or three times that of an opposition MP, the electors vote has no value.

The tax system is corruptly designed; the 99% pay the same amount of tax as the 1% and corporate community but the 99% receive and disburse £1.1 Trillion whilst the 1% and corporate community receive and disburse £247 Trillion. The 99% subsidise the 1% by about £400 billion p.a. by far the biggest welfare queens the country has ever seen!

0.6% of the population hold 70% of the land from the Queen freehold or leasehold. Freehold means that you can deal with the Queen's land without charge (in the C17th the duties incumbent on a freeholder were removed by statute so the freeholder had despotic title though the Queen still legally owned the land). Builders would either buy the freehold or enter into a lease agreement with the freeholder and then build houses on the plot, the builders who bought the freehold then had two choices either sell the house with freehold tenure or retain the freehold and sell it on a lease which entitled them to annual ground rent. In the C21st Corporate finance began to exploit this potential goldmine the major building concerns embarked on a cynical policy to ‘fleece’ their customers. They introduced ground rent escalation clauses into lease agreements which they expected their salespeople would con their customers into agreeing to. To obviate their customers directly connecting them with the payment of ground rent they set up obscure property investment companies in tax havens (Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Luxembourg, et al) which ostensibly held the freeholds as an investment, the profit going to the building concern, or having created a potential goldmine they opted to sell the freeholds on for cash to another property investment company. Only when the householder realised that their ground rent was to double every 10yrs did the penny drop that they had been scammed, their builders directing them to correspond with solicitors ‘who were only doing their job’ or investment companies they had never heard of. George Osbourne’s ‘Help to Buy’ scheme was in fact a ‘Help to Build’ gimmick designed to subsidise the construction industry not homeowners (25% of the properties sold under the scheme were leaseholds).

The banking system is so corrupt it accepts multi-million pound fines as the cost of doing business, what juries decide is corrupt practice is not accepted by judges so bankers are beyond the reach of the law in financial matters, too big to fail their CEO's too well connected to gaol.

Ah because nationalisation has worked so well in the past lol.

Interesting comment.

I think your comment about FPTP is a bit difficult to me. I see it like the constituency elects their MP, so the MP is responsible for their voters. If you use representative system, then the MPs are not directly responsible/accountable to their constituents.

FPTP puts into parliament a party mouthpiece who is invariably elected on a minority vote of the constituency electorate he is supposed to represent the constituency. The rest of the voting electorate get no representation of their views, they didn't vote for the 'winner'. Representative democracy is what we are supposed to have but cannot because FPTP eliminates any chance of the political inclinations of the constituency being represented so rendering those votes for a different candidate worthless (no wonder voter turnout is continuing to decline). If 2 or 3 members were elected they would be just as accountable to their constituents (more so since they would share an ideology) as the present FPTP MP.

I don't agree.

In a particular constituency, the elected official is the person with the highest number of votes. As a result, they have the mandate from their constituents.

Look at the election returns MP's are usually elected with 25-33% of the total voters. you do not address the question of representation for the people who don't vote for the successful candidate.

I stated that they have the mandate because they took the highest proportion of the vote for that particular constituency. To have proportional representation, you will have do it on a national level that is similar to the EU elections.

Let us have an example: Constituency A votes and selects Labour Party - 43%, Conservative - 31%, Liberal Dems - 19%, the rest taking the other votes.

The ideal scenario is that the Labour Party member becomes MP. Your argument will require the Labour, Conservative and maybe Lib Dem members to become MPs. It is ridiculous because you could have thousands of MPs fighting to push each other off their perch.

The other example is to have proportional representation at a national level. So with the same breakdown as above, you could have the Labour Party to have 280 MPs, Conservative to have 201 MPs, Lib Dems 123 MPs and the rest with 49 MPs.

Clearly, this shows no majority to form a Government and then you get to the issues of coalition and minority governments.

I stated that they have the mandate because they took the highest proportion of the vote for that particular constituency. To have proportional representation, you will have do it on a national level that is similar to the EU elections. - You misunderstand my proposal each constituency would return their quota of say 2 MPs in order of their electoral support and with the voting power their support demands. There would be no national vote to carve up the country between the parties. The proportionality of representation would be effected for the main political inclinations of the constituency (which given the present ratio of 70,000 electors per MP would have to be about 140,000) and the MP's would carry their supporters voting power into parliament thereby serving the purpose of representative democracy by allowing the majority sentiment to prevail and fulfilling the basic requirement of honest representation of the inclination of the majority of active electors, whoever they vote for.

System doesn't need changing, just tweaking.

One tweak; don't put parties on the ballot. Just list the candidate's name. Make voters have to know who they're voting for rather than blindly voting party.