[halad]

Looking at politics in the UK on both sides of the political spectrum it is very clear that the public education system here is completely failing.

In the general population there appears to be very little critical thinking, ability to regulate emotions, cost benefit analysis, consideration of opportunity cost, probabilistic thinking, nor even a rudimentary understanding of the scientific method, political and legal system.

[nvarsj]

You just recited the unwashed masses dogma. I don't really agree with you at all. The vast majority of british people I've interacted with, even the "uneducated", all have reasonable, well thought out opinions even if they don't always agree with my own. I think it's much better than you seem to suggest.

The real issue is with the politicians, and the fact we don't have proportional representation. There is a significant percentage of the population with no real representation. I do not relate with either Tories or Labor and I don't think either has my best interests at heart.

[cabalamat]

> I do not relate with either Tories or Labor

Nor do most voters. They have to keep FPTP because they know that otherwise, most people won't vote for them; the last 4 times the UK had nationwide elections held under a more proportional system, most voters voted for parties other than labour of the Conservatives.

> I don't think either has my best interests at heart.

Most people agree with you!

[kmlx]

1. we already had a vote on proportional representation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternat...

2. everyone thinks proportional representation is excellent. the reason is usually a misunderstanding of the voting process. in reality it has drawbacks, same as first past the post. before the UK referendum a study was commissioned exploring the various types of voting. the conclusion was that all these systems have flaws and all these systems are similar. but the clarity and the definitive mandate a party gets from FPTP will make sure alternative voting will not be adopted anytime soon.

[jiajweiorjawejr]

I don't buy the "FPTP gives strong government" argument. Even if we accept that FPTP gives the government "clarity and a definitive mandate" (a very dubious claim given the chaos of the last few years), what's so great about strong government? The whole point of democracy is to prevent the government from getting too strong; if we really wanted strong government we'd abolish parliament and go back to letting the monarch decide everything.

Many, many European countries have proportional systems in which it's very rare for one party to get a clear majority and governments are almost always coalitions. Would Norway, Sweden or the Netherlands really be better off under a system like FPTP that effectively disenfranchises a large majority of the electorate?

[cabalamat]

> we already had a vote on proportional representation

No, because AV is not a proportional system

> in reality it has drawbacks

There are lots of proportional systems, so it does not make senser to say "it has drawbacks".

> all these systems are similar

That's not true either.

[zimablue]

No we didn’t, that system wasn’t proportional representation by any definition, please do not make posts that are not true, other readers might be misled.

[halad]

Agree with you that society as a whole would make better decisions with PR. And at least policy would be more representative and lead to less resentment. The 2019 GE would have resulted in Tory minority, avoiding socialism and putting a dampener on a Hard Brexit.

My description of the unwashed masses applies to plenty of highly educated people too.

To the list, I would also add that people don’t seem to look at root causes of problems. This can be seen very clearly in the dysfunctional housing market. High rents are the fault of greedy landlords. As if landlords can just choose the price irrespective of the market! And a common objection to building more housing is that it wouldn’t be affordable. Using that logic, there would have been no point in planting potatoes during the Irish potato famine because they would be too expensive.

[Angostura]

Speaking as someone with two children in secondary education at a "bog standard comprehensive" in East London, I think you are entirely incorrect.

I am very pleased with the level of critical thinking and lively argument we get over the dining room table about the issues of the day. My youngest daughter hs just started GCSE history and sociology and I am being constantly schooled on the ills of society.

[pjc50]

Reminder that the lag on education affecting society is huge. People aged 65 received their education from 1960 onwards! There are still people alive and voting from before the 1944 education act! (although not many)

I would more blame the newspapers and other media for poor understanding of issues, which is mostly deliberate on the part of the Murdoch press.

[cyberdrunk]

It really depends on what you compare with. Before the spread of public education, people were commonly believing in magic, witches and, based on that, could be sold on all sorts of non-sequiturs. Now, they're more or less aware of the scientific process, understand most basic concepts of natural sciences, know a bit of history, can write semi-coherently, have a bit more rigour in forming arguments etc. Of course, they aren't all Oxford-educated intellectuals but, to elevate a big fraction of population to that level, I'm guessing we would need a ton of 1-on-1 tutorships, which would be extremely costly.