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.