Just to reiterate, there is no difference whatsoever between the three major parties.
Tend to agree. Well, it's the same difference as between Coke, Pepsi and Virgin Cola; each party is now not more than a 'brand' all seeking to occupy the same political ground but all seeking minor USPs to build brand loyalty. From memberships of millions of voters in the 1950s, the three parties between them now have fewer than 450,000 members - less than 1% of the UK electorate of 45m. They've ceased to be membership organisations and become elite metropolitan clubs. This is now accepted across the political spectrum; Vernan Bogdanor and Simon Jenkins writing in the Guardian and Peter Oborne writing in the Telegraph all say the same. And it's not because the British don't join organisations any more - the National Trust has 3.7m members, and even the Womens' Institute has more members than the Conservative party.
Peter Oborne has described a 'political class' that have more in common with each other than with the electorate; they are loyal to party first, before country or constituency. Local candidates are parachuted in by central office - and these blow-ins have all the characteristics of apparatchiks
receiving patronage from the nomenklatura
in Soviet days. They are obedient only to their party.
More and more voters are refusing to play. 16m electors boycotted the last election. If 'None of the Above' was a choice on the ballot paper, it would receive the largest vote share in the country. The three parties are committed to a Central State with Whitehall pulling all the levers of power, allied to big business and the Federasts in Brussels. In the UK 95% of tax is collected centrally, and 100% of tax is determined centrally. Only Council Tax - 5% of all taxation - is collected locally at levels decided in Whitehall.
As Richard North has said, the reason we don't hang them all from the lamp posts is what exactly?