Clippings: The paradox of UBER losing its London license


The latest issue, this time business based, that has people split down the middle in the UK is UBER losing its license; after five years of operating in the UK capital, Mayor Sadiq Khan, Transport for London and countless black taxi drivers turned around and said that the corporation’s ability to operate would not be renewed. Khan said: “all companies in London must play by the rules and adhere to the high standards we expect – particularly when it comes to the safety of customers”. Since the decision, a petition also rose to repeal it, with many crying foul at the decision.

UBER has long been criticised for its intrusion into local taxi businesses among other things.  I have a relative who works for a local black taxi company in and around Chester; when I asked him about the decision he said: “It was always going to happen when the laws and rules are repeatedly ignored and the safety of the public was constantly being ignored great news for us black cab drivers hopefully now the rest of the country will follow suit”. He’s just one of thousands who believe chastising the corporation was the right move to take. The company is said to exploit its drivers; before April this year, employees were not given sick pay among other rights that other workers have had for years. On top of that, another controversy has arisen regarding UBER’s plan to introduce driverless cars, which would cost thousands of jobs regardless of the licence decision. Taking away their license does send a straightforward and blunt message that their conduct is unacceptable.

On the other hand, though, many believe that UBER offers a reasonable and affordable service that’s done entirely from an app; others have said that they feel much safer and more secure taking a service that gives full details of the driver. But by far the biggest complaint registered by the company is the loss of jobs that will come if UBER cannot operate in the capital. This year there was said to be 30,000 drivers in the city and with the non-renewal coming into effect, many employees and their families are anxious as to how they will pay the bills. There’s no doubt the cancellation of UBER’s license will have a knock-on effect on its employees but is a price worth paying to teach the corporation a lesson in lawful business etiquette? Do we stand up to big business at the expense of those working under them?

UBER Protest
UBER Protest in Portland, United States

Or could there be a happy medium between the two sides? A means to punish bad corporate behaviour without removing their operations completely? Perhaps a company fine would be more sufficient, a chance to improve their business ethics? Personally, I can’t speak for the service as a whole; I used it just once when I headed to New York and journeyed to Fairleigh Dickson University. It was helpful to have payment done by card rather than cash in hand, not to mention the driver calling me on arrival to save massive phone use charges abroad. It’s good to have an efficient service for customers, but at the same time relying too much on corporate companies gives them more influence to the point where they can control the market; this is where the rules and ethics fly out the window, infecting other aspects of the economy as a result, particularly public services. Whether UBER will succeed in repealing their licence remains unclear, but it’s drawn quite the vocal reaction from both sides of the debate.

(Images sourced from Google, labelled for reuse)


Boris Johnson and the £350 Million: Positions, pandering and relations between politicians and media

Boris Johnson Mayor
(Image sourced from Google: Labelled for reuse)

Boris Johnson; what a character… That’s probably the simplest way to describe the UK’s current Foreign Secretary. For many years he’s been in the spotlight, his time as the mayor of London being one example, though recently this has often been for the wrong reasons; last year he was one of the spearheads behind the leave campaign and while he wasn’t quite as vitriolic as Nigel Farage, Johnson still gained infamy for his use of a bright red bus with the slogan: “We send £350 Million a week to the EU; let’s spend that money instead on the NHS”. Of course, we know that this trick worked and Boris hoped this would propel him towards a leadership position, which instead went to Theresa May. Dishonesty and its openness have drastically increased in the UK since last year’s referendum; a willingness to twist facts and get the result you want, in turn gaining a higher ability to impose your personal interests on everyone else.

Vote Leave Bus
(Image credited to

Recently, to the dismay of many, the “£350 Million” claim emerged again. Johnson took on his duties, visiting Donald Trump in New York only to then shirk them by repeating a lie using a newspaper as a bulwark for his endless schemes to become the leader of the Conservatives. His face was plastered on the front page with the headline: “I’ll secure the £350 Million for the NHS” followed by a 4000-word article outlining his plan for Brexit and telling people to believe in Britain, another empty phrase to pander to the nationalists and the ignorant. If the lie managed to trick common Britons into voting for Brexit last year, why not do it again to make it look like he’s standing up for Britain as a country? The UK Statistics Authority expressed their disappointment at the repeated use of the figure and James O’Brien, a popular political commentator might have said it best: “As Foreign Secretary, Johnson’s latest lie is an abuse of one of the Great Offices of State. That would’ve been a very serious matter once”. Some have called for Johnson’s resignation or sacking; I can’t help but feel the same.

Boris Johnson Headlines

Johnson’s veering off to the side to write a self-promoting article speaks volumes of how the press plays a significant role in political procedure. The papers hold UK politicians to account but often they’re known to throw their support behind a specific party in the election; the Daily Telegraph in Boris Johnson’s case is no different. Media ownership by rich moguls is a big problem in the UK and this facilitates a medium where a pompous self-interest takes centre stage. Since Johnson repeated the false £350 million claim, the Telegraph has followed up with further articles showing fellow politician Michael Gove throwing his support into the mix; they spread the slogan without questioning it, common people read and move towards believing them; with such a massive disconnect with politics in the UK, this is how it usually goes. In return, many politicians find themselves working for newspapers, the most recent of which being George Osborne becoming the editor of the Evening Standard and Nick Clegg joining the i Paper as a columnist.

(Image credited to

Nowadays I find myself in a somewhat similar position; writing this blog and expressing my individual opinions with a journalism degree under my belt while pursuing a planned career in international affairs, particularly through the UK’s Civil Service. I’m of the opinion that you check your biases at the door when working for this sector; what would happen if I suddenly leaked some information to the press or wrote an article bigging myself up while working to undermine my superiors? I’d probably be sacked immediately, no questions asked. This comes back to my previous post on leadership where a lack of accountability has allowed the higher-ups to get away with breaking the rules set out by democratic institutions. In my opinion, the rules and ethical conduct of country branches should travel all the way to the top, ensuring accountability is maintained and that neglect of position and responsibility is cut down. As for Boris Johnson, he’s likely to keep his job, despite the frustration from commentators, with Theresa May apparently working to rein him in so as not to look to wobbly. Where he goes from here is anyone’s guess, but he’s sure to be discredited further if continues to spread falsehoods.

(Images used for the purposes of review and criticism under fair use)

Britain’s NHS: A devious plan for privatization

NHS Hand-in: Department of Health

Britain’s National Health Service; good healthcare for all. Proposed in 1948 by then health secretary Aneurin Bevan, it has been the envy of many nations, many of whom are forced to pay gargantuan fees just to ensure their own wellbeing. Ever since the Tories came to a majority in 2015, the problem of underfunding has intensified; as 2017 has kicked off, the full scale of the crisis has exploded onto the scene. Hospital beds are filled to burst, waiting times are higher than they have ever been and the Red Cross, a humanitarian organisation usually dedicated to lending assistance overseas has been drafted in to help. It’s the lowest point the service has faced in decades and is the result of deliberate mishandling for the purpose of eliminating free healthcare in the UK altogether.

Consequences of the government’s abuse have so far been disastrous; 66 out of 152 health trusts across the UK have declared major alerts, meaning that they are under extreme pressure and cannot deliver comprehensive emergency care. Operations on cancer and other serious illnesses are being cancelled due to overfilled schedules and some doctors are choosing to leave because of sheer pressure placed on them and their colleagues. According to a post by Evolve Politics, this kind of exploitation stretches all the way back to 1992 when the Conservatives dreamed up the idea of saddling public services with expensive leases from the private sector; they were then forced to pay back debt on ridiculous interest rates over thirty or even fifty years. Under the guise of friendly modernisation, private finance initiatives, which cost an estimated £3,700 every minute, have been slowly eroding the funds dedicated to the NHS and its ability to serve the public effectively. Sure, the hospital buildings we see may look modern and capable of handling modern medical needs, but they’ve been built on the promise that they will one day be sold off for private use, removed from the hands of NHS trusts across the country.


With a struggling public sector comes far greater pressures on the workers within it. Jeremy Hunt, having done an abysmal job as health secretary is set to earn millions through the sale of his private business, earning 722 times that of the ordinary NHS worker; he claims that only a small number of hospitals are having problems but there is countless evidence to counter that. Eyewitness accounts from hospitals have been grim to say the least, with patients being turned away and staff members feeling unsafe in their own jobs. It all comes down to the contract he forced on NHS staff last year, one which drastically demotivates current staff and any who wish to train and join. Drive out the junior doctors, make them less inclined to join the NHS and the service will grow understaffed; then the knock-on effect on hospitals means more waiting times and fewer GPs to see patients. The same also goes for the countless EU citizens who are delivering their time and skills to the country’s healthcare system. This causes a frustration among citizens who are then manipulated into believing that the system isn’t working, make them believe that and you have a set of people who become willing to trust in private care. The cost will be a hard pill to swallow, but if it’s better than the free version then people are more likely to pay up.

The connections to private healthcare are nothing new, third parties such as Benefit Fraud have uncovered seventy different connections between MPs and private health companies. The deal goes as follows; MPs work towards dismantling our NHS and the private health corporations deliver donations to the political parties to help them fuel their propaganda machine (and possibly pop a few pennies in individual MP’s pockets as well). Corporations bank on elections being won and the slow process of gutting public services continues unabated. With control of healthcare in their hands, they would be free to set prices on treatment, medication and even things as miniscule as plasters and personal items. The list includes the likes of David Cameron, Ian Duncan Smith, Liam Fox, David Davies, William Hague, Phillip Hammond, Amber Rudd, George Osborne and even Nick Clegg. It speaks volumes of a rotten greed at the heart of our political system.


Without a doubt, the NHS is suffering right now and instead of addressing the problem, our government is pointing fingers and denying any accountability, all the while working on their plan to deconstruct one of most comprehensive universal healthcare services in the world. “It isn’t us or underfunding” they cry: “It’s the foreigners, elderly and working class scroungers bleeding the NHS dry”. It’s horrendous how this deflection from the cuts destroying our healthcare system is working, it will have faced an insane £40 billion worth of cuts by 2020 and some NHS staff don’t believe the service will last the next winter. But amidst the crisis, there is a strong pushback going on; as Aneurin Bevan put it: “The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it”. Countless protestors and NHS employees are standing up to the government’s lies, particularly groups such as UniteTheUnion and KeepOurNHSPublic. Surprisingly even the Mirror newspaper is targeting May, Hunt and other abuses of the NHS; all being told, you simply cannot put a price on health and privatising the NHS can only lead to further exploitation by corporate power.


(Images sourced from Google: Labelled for reuse)

Clippings: Giving in, appeasement and the roles they play in the modern political game


As 2016 comes to a close, politics is looking to the future after a set of thunderous earthquakes; there’s one particular trend I’ve noticed. After a Supreme Court ruling, the triggering of the Brexit process was debated in Parliament. I had some hope that the Labour and Liberal Democrats would be able to halt its progress. Perhaps both parties could have pulled together and fight the Brexit con, letting the people know why their vote was the product of lies and manipulation. But it was not to be as parliament voted vastly in favour (461 for to 89 against) of making the Conservatives release a plan for Brexit and aiming to trigger article 50 for next year at the end of March. The controversial move is all but confirmed; quite disappointing but did they really have much of a choice? To go against a vote, even if it was a con would be a bad move from any party wanting to win the next election. Consider the tabloid media’s attack on the UK’s judicial judges after they stated that Brexit could not be triggered without a vote in parliament first (Which is a fundamental part of our democratic process). If Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron denied Brexit from going through, the media would tear into them relentlessly and they might as well kiss the 2020 election goodbye. It’s this kind of acceptance that compels parties to act for the bigger picture rather than making moves that could anger the populous. It is also indicative of just how much sway external forces and the media have over the UK. Conversely, the move is certainly holding the current government to account; if Theresa May and her cabinet fail to deliver a comprehensive Brexit plan before then, they will be held as incompetent by their rival parties, thus diminishing their own reputation.


It’s not just the UK who is tossing around ideas of appeasement; Germany’s next election is taking place between August and October 2017 and this has brought further measures which could be tied in with the events to come. Chancellor Angela Merkel has recently endorsed her party’s proposition for a partial burqa ban, stating that “the full facial veil is inappropriate and should be banned wherever it is legally possible”. When an election is bearing down on you, do you maintain your common policy or alter it somewhat to put more emphasis on integration while also making a light appeal to the far-right sects that have become more common in recent years? It’s easy to suggest that the need to stay in power and win elections is the principal goal of any political party, but this may well come at the cost of inclusiveness. The far right and populism is a side that can no longer be ignored in this regard and it’s possible that aspects of that political viewpoint may slowly become a larger consideration for the left to deal with in the future. We’ll have to watch 2017 carefully.

(Images used for the purposes of review under fair use. Tabloid headlines in public domain)

Hard Brexit: The UK’s farewell to acceptance and accountability

Hard Brexit is the latest big topic on the mind of UK parliament and to put it bluntly; things are not looking good. The crashing of the pound is just the first of many major downturns faced by the country. In a previous post I claimed that the will of the voters should be respected, but now I see the real impact of the shoddy vote coming to light. I ask you this: why should the people’s vote be respected when they were conned into going down that route? Since the newly reshuffled (and unelected) Tory government came to power, a series of hits have been railing against the UK’s reputation for diversity and inclusiveness, hinting at a more sinister plan, a downward spiral bound to create further division on the basis of gross nationalism while handing even more power to those at the top. Theresa May gave her first major speech at a Conservative party conference and it revealed some damning motives for an unelected government. The big slogan this time was “A country that works for everyone” but there is countless evidence to the contrary. I believe there’s a reason why UKIP isn’t getting nearly as much coverage as they used to; the Tories have practically become them in the aftermath of the Brexit con, recently personified by the Tory statement: “There is no more money for the NHS”.

Some of the more glaring choices made by the Brexit government include…

Grammar Schools across England shown in red
  1. A further set of grammar schools, along with a second attempt to get into them at age 14 or 15

In the United Kingdom, Grammar Schools are held as a higher level of secondary education; when schoolchildren across the country are close to leaving primary school, they take the 11+, an exam to test their learning abilities. To get into grammar school this exam must be passed. Some would argue that they give the UK’s pupils a chance to flex their academic ability on the right level, but Theresa May’s plan is flawed because it holds grammar schools up as the be-all-end-all of the UK education system. Speaking from experience, I can say that a school doesn’t necessarily have to be private, an academy or a grammar school to be the best. The secondary school I went to from 2006 to 2013 had none of those distinctions but because of the brilliant way it was managed and ran, it ranked at the top of the Buckinghamshire country many times. More grammar schools can only bring more division to children through their education, the notion that if you fail to reach grammar school both times then you’re simply written off. What will they do next? Make it a requirement for university?


  1. The UK’s military set to become exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights

What exactly does the European Convention on Human Rights do for us? How does it affect our military and its deployment overseas? For starters it prevents abuses of human rights and gives a right to liberty and security. The current government believes that lawyers in the European Union exploit the convention and use it to make unfair accusations but I have to disagree. Any kind of legislation that works to prevent wrong doing and uphold citizen rights including the prohibition of torture, slavery and hard labour needs to be placed across our military to ensure their own accountability. Now that they’re becoming exempt from it, will there be fewer obstacles in the way to commit atrocities wherever they are deployed? It would be even more worrying if this same trend eventually carried through to our own home affairs.


  1. The requirement of all schools to list the nationality and place of birth of all children who aren’t British

Towards the end of September, most if not all schools across the UK sent out a letter to parents by order of the Brexit government. On it the school asked for the nationality and birth place of foreign schoolchildren while also stating that if their child was British they did not have to fill it in. This is what the UK has come to; we’re going to be marking and monitoring schoolchildren who aren’t from this country. Why? Is this down to some unknown purpose that may or may not impact their prospects? Whatever the reason for it may be, it’s a disgusting decision that throws away the UK’s power to welcome and accept people regardless of their background. This leads into the fourth point which may well continue to impact children in adult life.

  1. The requirement of all major firms to list any workers and employees who are not British nationals

In a second horrible move to repulse and deter people from coming to the UK, firms will be required to list each and every worker who is not from this country. Again, it’s a shocking decision that would treat foreigners as second class citizens, making them feel unwelcome and therefore allowing anti-foreigner sentiment to fester even more than it already has. How will those who contribute their great skills and expertise to the UK feel when their names are being marked on a list? They’ll want to go elsewhere; it’s a horribly misguided attitude in every way that once again highlights that nasty nationalism that is sweeping through the nation. Luckily though, this decision was recently set back by protests and negative feedback from other nations.

In addition to these four strikes, there was also the incredibly frustrating news of fracking being pressed onto a Lancashire community by the Tories despite numerous community efforts to prevent it. It’s a characteristic of a government with a disregard for local democracy and it may be telling of the plans they have for the future.

The EU referendum itself quickly devolved into a debate on immigration crafted by conmen and the impacts of this are beginning to creep in; plans for Hard Brexit are representative of the right wing stance that has crept into modern politics. As I’ve gotten into my masters in international politics, there have been some incredibly deep discussions about various topics. A fellow student from Poland noted that in the West, free speech is offered, but only up to a point; the far right has been fairly suppressed over the years, mainly because people don’t want their controversial and sometimes racist viewpoints to be spread. But now with so much sentiment building against refugees and foreigners as a whole, the facets of right wing politics have burst explosively onto the scene and in turn, xenophobic tendencies have risen to wild levels of prominence. Would the better option have been to allow these viewpoints to come out and allow common people to reject them on their own? It’s a question that now hangs over the entire referendum and its aftermath for me.

I feel that the more subtle aspects of Theresa May’s motives tie in with keeping the Conservatives in power, a manipulation of the masses to ensure their continued seat in power. The new direction on immigration and the tracking of foreigners panders to the racists and xenophobes who voted leave and their vote is secured for the next election. It was also announced that foreign economists will no longer be able to give analysis or advice on the UK’s economic situation in the aftermath of Brexit. Why? Because they’re not British nationals; it’s a move to suppress and censor anyone who could discredit the government’s procedures and call them ineffective after leaving the European Union. The same also goes for Scotland who is now considering a second independence referendum, having been relegated to a side note in the Brexit discussions. Add to this the media spin from a majority of mainstream outlets stating that May has the UK’s best interests in mind (Especially with her recent private meeting with Rupert Murdoch) and you have a means to dupe the public into voting for the Tories again and again.

Ultimately it is Theresa May’s line: “If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere” that speaks volumes of what the UK’s political system has come to; a trinity of awful representatives that would seek to shift Britain away from the world stage and turn in on itself. In addition, the set of abysmal UK tabloids; most notably the Daily Mail and Express cosy up to the corruption like nothing else, saying that any who would criticise the Brexit con should shut up, literally. With the Hard Brexit plans bearing down on the UK, there is now little to stop the elite from imposing a full dominance over the country through division and because of this, I’m a little worried about the future. The only reprieves to the horrendous policies currently sweeping the nation is a set of strong protests from foreign workers and a successful challenge in parliament to the Hard Brexit terms, a call for more close scrutiny and public debate. In time this may somewhat diminish what the Tories are enforcing, but one thing remains clear to me; Brexit (At least from the offset) has brought far more regression than positive benefits to the UK.


  • Theresa May signals that the UK is heading for hard Brexit:
  • No extra money for NHS, Theresa May tells health chief:
  • Theresa May’s grammar schools plan slammed as ‘backward step’ by Sir Michael Wilshaw:
  • Human rights no more? UK to exempt troops from European Convention to stop ‘annoying’ claims:
  • Firms must list foreign workers:
  • Theresa May’s speech sparks Twitter backlash over ‘citizen of the world’ remark:
  • Daily Mail And Express Brexit Front Pages Call For ‘Unpatriotic’ Remainers To Be Quiet:
  • Britain’s youngest MP slams Theresa May over the rise of fascism, in her most searing attack yet:
  • Theresa May in ‘U-turn’ over pre-article 50 Brexit debate in parliament:

(Images sourced from Google: Labelled for reuse)

(School letter image sourced with the permission of Benefit Fraud via its Facebook page:

Stigmatization, under-representation and other problems in UK Politics

UK General Election Results 2015

It’s been over 100 days since the general election took place, 100 days since David Cameron and the Conservatives won their first majority in eighteen years and 100 days since the collapse of their biggest rivals Labour and the Liberal Democrats. UK politics is a complicated topic and given how plenty of talk is going around following the one hundred day mark, I thought I’d share my own thoughts on the current state of UK Politics and the aftermath of my very first vote in a general election.

Scrutinising positions of power and freedom of speech have always been incredibly important responsibilities of the media, as has the tradition of taking one side over another in politics, but this is a double edged sword; some articles bring problems with bias and could potentially add more fuel to the issue of stigmatisation. In the aftermath of the election we had a stereotype going around called the “Shy Tory”; voters who went for the Conservatives but then concealed who they voted for. Those who did reveal where they placed their vote often wished they hadn’t, because in extreme cases they are branded and shamed as “posh pricks” who don’t care about anyone but themselves, people who spit on the poor and take pride in staying high and dry while those beneath them suffer. The same applies to UKIP with an overly generalised stigma of “Oh you must be racist if you choose to vote UKIP, you hate migrants and anyone who isn’t British”. Voting in a general election always creates some sort of divide between individuals, but it feels as if more stigmatisation is being thrown around than ever before. If more outlets in media took a more impartial look at politics as a whole, then this issue could be lessened. One of the best examples I find for this is The Guardian and “100 Things the Tories did in their first 100 days”; this article takes a more balanced look, allowing the reader to form their own judgements.

The way an election is framed can have a strong impact on voting; one thing that I feel hasn’t been talked about so much is The Sun and their rather blatant headlines: “It’s a Tory!” and “Save our bacon”. They directed attention towards the Tories whilst simultaneously slamming their opponents in Labour. Think about it; The Sun is still (grudgingly) the most read newspaper in the UK and the more people it reaches, the more people the outlet can potentially influence into voting for a specific party. This also brings to mind “It’s the Sun wot won it!”, an interesting case of how the tabloid apparently played a pivotal role in the Conservative’s election results in 1992. Even some Conservative MPs admitted that The Sun did assist in their triumph back then. Could the same sort of thing have happened again in 2015? Of course there were many other media endorsements as with every general election, but it always felt like The Sun had the biggest influence of all and as some citizens become disillusioned with the voting process as a whole, more often than not they may choose to follow along with who their favourite paper says they should vote for.

The bottom line with UK politics and indeed any kind of government is that there is no party that can please everyone; there is no man or woman of the people, or a perfect party which will do everything right. Even Jeremy Corbyn who is currently in pole position to take over Labour leadership has his critics and those who don’t want him to lead.

To quote another WordPress blogger, Gary Walsh: “Yes I voted Conservative; no I don’t hate the poor”. I went for the Conservatives because I believed they would be the most decisive in getting the UK’s economy sorted out and by doing this, they would be able to focus their attention on other problems more quickly. Labour’s plan just didn’t do it for me; reducing the deficit gradually each year rather than pouring efforts into getting it fixed sooner? There have been many protests surrounding the Tories extensive plans for austerity and I can’t help but wonder if Labour would have shied away from doing the same thing, just staggered over a longer period of time. Not only that, but they would have had Scotland breathing down their neck, demanding a say in our parliament and perhaps delaying decisions even further. Is austerity a necessary evil in the drive to stop the bleeding in the economy? Is it better to have a large chunk of cuts as opposed to smaller ones over a number of years? I’m no economist or politician, but I stand by my reasons nonetheless for choosing Conservative, despite all the bad press they’re getting at the moment.

There’s a wide array of influences that define politics and as a student of journalism I was exposed to a large amount of these, particularly during my coverage of the elections in the West Dorset where I got to speak to some of the political candidates. That was where my opinions towards UKIP began to change when I spoke with David Glossop; a genuinely friendly and down-to-earth man who had his reasons for supporting UKIP rooted in protecting Dorset’s tourism. When I first heard that UKIP had only won a single seat, I thought to myself: “Good, let’s see Farage’s little crusade get taken down a notch”, but then after a talk with some work colleagues about the results of the election, I found myself taking on a different mind-set; that the party isn’t inherently racist as some people make them out to be, but instead home in on looking after the British public first and foremost. I can see why people would get behind that sort of policy, even if I don’t agree with it personally. Nowadays I believe that the main issue with UKIP lies with its leaders; the likes of Nigel Farage haven’t done a very good job at presenting the party to the overall masses. This creates a bad image for the party that ends up taking its toll on the MPs who do have genuine reasoning behind their chosen party.

I expected a disdainful individual from UKIP on the night of the election, but that instead came in the form of Conservative MP Oliver Letwin; winning in his constituency by a landslide, I managed to grab him after the election was over for a quick talk. Something just didn’t feel right when I spoke to him; the way he looked and spoke to me came off as rather arrogant, as if he knew that he was going to win from the offset and was feeling rather proud for doing so. I’ll never know if this was the case or if the man simply wasn’t too fond about talking to the press but it left a bad aftertaste in my mouth as a result.

Elected MPs at the 2015 Election

Finally we come to the under-representation, the flawed voting system that gives the biggest parties all the power and the smaller parties less so. I know a lot of fellow students who put their support towards the Green party in the elections this year; from the perspective of prospective local MPs, any seat won is something worth celebrating, but how much weight does this have on the overall government? Not that much. Case and point: UKIP obtained a 12.6% share of the votes and yet only managed to muster one seat in the House of Commons. The reason is that the polls for local elections don’t translate into overall parliament very well, and the “first past the post system” can only really apply to Labour and Conservative as both are the biggest parties in the UK. As a result the rest have little to no sway at all in the grand scheme, meaning that voting for parties like UKIP and Green didn’t really have much weight or purpose. What would be the point of voting for a party that would have barely any effect or say in Parliament at all? Does anyone see the one UKIP MP and the other from Green having much influence in their seat stacked against 330 Conservative and 232 Labour members? Yes they can take their constituents views into account, but chances are the dominant parties so far ahead of them in both seat count and votes will steamroll any suggestions they try to make.

Despite having cast my vote for the Tories and seeing them come to power, I do feel a strong sense of remorse for my country’s voting system and the way many votes feel wasted; since covering the elections, my opinions have grown and changed, perhaps more so than for any other topic I’ve looked at. So what do I think should be done about the voting process? First of all, FPTP should be thrown out in favour of a more balanced system that better incorporates the lesser parties into the process; CGP Grey has come up with some great ideas for this and you can see these from their channel on YouTube. Second, more effort should be made to educate people on politics, no matter how difficult it may be; with people being able to make more informed decisions about who they support, endorsements won’t hold as much weight as they used to and this will create a fairer background to voting. Ultimately, even though the general election has come and gone, it’s clear that there’s a lot to be done when it comes to fixing things in the UK’s political system.


“It’s a Tory!” Headline and Image sourced from The Sun:

“Save our bacon” Headline and Image sourced from The Sun:

CGP Grey on Mixed Member Proportion:

All images sourced from Google Images. Used under fair dealing for the purpose of criticism in UK law. Items are in the public domain and labelled for reuse.