> What is happening?? Where is reality?? Is no one responsible for anything any more??

As a Brit, I can only echo your frustration. With the upcoming election...we're still pretending it matters.

This is far from the only reason, but I think one reason is UK running a two-party system.

The proponents (sitting parties) call it first-past-the-post, to make it sound like a fair system.

But most people know that proportional voting systems are better.

With a two party system there will always be debate, but it won't be as real as it is with proportional voting. The parties run no real risk of not getting elected. It also drives the two parties to each side of the 'spectrum', which isn't very constructive.

Take a look at these lists[1][2], see any pattern in which countries are using which system?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#Li...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Lis...

In 2011 the UK had a referendum on whether to change from FPTP to The Alternative Vote[0].

The people voted No overwhelmingly (68% No, 32% Yes).

As with the Brexit referendum, those that lost complained afterward that the public was mislead, weren't given appropriate choices in the election etc.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot...

Yes, I know. But as with any referendum, how well had people actually understood the implications?

Interesting map, hadn't seen it before. The only ares where Yes won was Cambridge, Oxford and a few parts of central London/Glasgow/Edinburgh.

> As with the Brexit referendum, those that lost complained afterward that the public was mislead

And they weren't wrong. The problem unfortunately is that the public, as a whole, just doesn't care.

They'd rather a comfortable, self-affirming, lie than an uncomfortable, intellectually challenging, truth.

The fact of the matter is that both sides believed the other side was lying during the campaign (e.g. Osborne's punishment budget, Cameron saying he'd invoke article 50, and Project Fear in general).

Maybe, but the Leave campaign provably lied (and was exposed as such even during the campaign.

Result: no-one cared. It was never about truth, it was about emotion

I find this puzzling. There are many reasons why the leader of the opposition is unpopular, but there seems to be general consensus that he's terrible at PR, and relatively anti-authoritarian, pro housing etc., and certainly outside of the usual centrist/elite bubble of people who've run for PM in the last 20 years.

He's slightly left-of-centre politician that the the media has basically painted as the reincarnation of Trotsky, and of course with Britain lurching ever further to the hard right wing the people lap it up.

The only problem I can see with Corbyn is that he hasn't spoken up over things like the Investigatory Powers Act, Brexit and (bad) education reforms. I like his policies but I do not like his inaction over things important to me, so I cannot support him.

I'll never vote Tory though. Never in my life.

My feelings have been similar to yours, but I've ended up in the same place as Sam Kriss:

https://samkriss.com/2017/04/24/corbynism-or-barbarism-part-...

This a great blog post. He makes a lot of interesting points and he sounds like he is in a similar state of near-despair to myself.

That said if I was to vote Labour it means I have to vote for Angela Eagle as my local MP, who I absolutely cannot stand. She didn't just remain silent on the issues I mentioned, she actively supported them and represents the Blairite right-wing of Labour that disenfracnhised its traditional supporter base in the first place.

An interesting approach is to just make government decisions algorithmic. Have people do a questionnaire during elections, and then optimise policy to maximise benefit to everyone. Try and make the optimisation process as open and explicit as possible.

"Have people do a questionnaire during elections"

That's essentially what a ballot paper is, except the questionnaire is "Which political party have the Red-top or Black-top newspapers convinced you to vote for?" - and I think history demonstrates that a population cannot reliably vote for their own best-interests - so expecting them to produce reliable aggregate data through mass surveys - with which to make major decisions, is foolish.

I have long preferred this suggestion. I know it is a bit creepy, but ultimately given the parameters, there is one optimal result. You know things are frustrating when you prefer the machine to your representatives.

A Demand-Revealing Referendum does this, and has a theoretical basis to it, apparently making it impossible to game the system: http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbli...

But I don't know anything about economics, law, healthcare, biology, international relations, geopolitics, mathematics, history, agriculture, environmental protection, or much of anything for that matter so why should I decide?

This is what I often think. I like the idea of democracy, but in reality it just means people who don't know shit voting on things that are actually important. We don't just let anyone be a doctor, we make them do years of training first and get certified. In the same vein, maybe some people's votes should count more than others. Like if a bunch of economic experts say brexit is a bad idea, their votes have more sway...

George Osborne knew nothing about economics and yet found himself Chancellor.

Most of our politicians know precisely fuck all about the cabinet offices they inhabit.

I like when Gove, the guy who in 2015's Flagship Policy was to increase the "times table". After he was laughed out of office, he was moved into "Law and Justice". So now he is peddling similar completely irrelevant bullshit over on that side of the fence.

Meanwhile, Hunt, the culture secretary for the Olympics did such a great job that he is now the Health Secretary.

I would rather get a 1% tax increase, and pay for real people, a real NHS manager with 50 years, and pay him for his insight than pay these fucking plebs to poke around in their careers.

Do you have a belief that politicians somehow do know these things well enough to make decisions across this spectrum on your behalf?

In practice? No, of course not. Representational democracies are all flawed more or less depending on the country. I'm just not convinced direct democracy is the solution.

Take the TPP for example. Is it a good idea? Is it bad? I haven't read it, and even if I did, I probably wouldn't know either way. Even if I could vote on it directly, I'd have to trust someone to explain it to me. And how would I know which explanation to trust? It seems that we're back to square one.

A questionnaire would give policy makers an insight into how you would feel about particular policies. It could be used to test the detail of something like TPP. Give an indication of how you would feel if you had studied the specifics.

That is what the civil service is for. Politics is really about making value judgements. Issues cannot be easily isolated and divorced from all other considerations. An expert opinion is useful, but does not tell you how to strike a balance or what is a priority.

it's important to note, (western) government decisions already are algorithmic. We simply aren't privy to many of the steps involved, and our ability to influence outcomes is limited by the elitism of representative democracy and the stifling regressive nature of bureaucracy.

Edit: that isn't "regressive" as leftists confusingly redefine it, it's the dictionary definition. Might be important to note in a political comment.

You're exaggerating a bit. Take the Cameron statement for example. He got ripped apart for that by the public, media, and other politicians and then was forced into adopting a better attitude to refugees.

>No one reports on "huh fight on terrorism you say, can we shine some light on this claim? How useful has Twitter been to home security...". Why isn't that the story?

Because it's mainstream press. It engineers the very reaction and emotions you're experiencing now. It is designed to generate anger and outrage. Keep this in mind when you look at a piece of the media the next time. You cannot overlook it anymore. Omission of facts, outrageous titles, going on without getting to the point, it is all just psychological games.