To ask why political parties exist?

[MaidOfStars]

By this question, I mean: is there a fundamental flaw in the idea that we might be able to vote for the best local candidate, who hasn't signed up to one side or the other, who can represent their constituency in the House of Commons without having to vote in particular ways according to their "party line".

Why do we have Tories? Or Labour? Why do we need a party to hold a majority? What would happen if the House of Commons was filled with Independents?

Just musing. I bet this lasts about three posts before it's obvious why parties exist. I get that people with overlapping political POVs will form affiliations and so on. And I get that party politics is probably unstoppable in terms of the money invested in ensuring your party is the winner. Running on a slate has advantages for the weaker links to benefit from the reputation of the stronger members.

Oh, how would we have a PM?

A president instead?

Or no, couldn't the House of Independents vote for a PM from their population?

www.simplepolitics.co.uk/questions-and-answers/who-are-the-parties-and-what-do-they-stand-for

This explains it well.

Isn't it something to do with arcane expenses rules. Individual candidates can only spend a certain amount on their campaign but the party isn't constrained. That's certainly one way to perpetuate it.

It would be nigh on impossible to pass any laws whatsoever is one pretty good reason. How do you deal with nationwide issues when all anyone cares about is their own backyard. Who decides who's the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Sec, Foreign etc?

Everyone would naturally make alliances anyway - so it would end up with three or four strategic alliances aka political parties!

So essentially, it's an unavoidable, emergent feature of any committee?

It just struck me as a bit weird, fundamentally, that a disproportionate amount of power is given to the party that happens to have the most MPs. And then I got to thinking about why parties exist in the first place. I support PR though, so probably a bit anti-current UK political system.

It would be nigh on impossible to pass any laws whatsoever is one pretty good reason
But if it were a good law, it would get wide support, no?

I'd love to live in a world where we simply voted in the best person for each job, without need for all the posturing/false promises. Or even better - where we voted on policies rather than candidates. It's good to dream.

Where would Mumsnet be without having them? The AIBU board would be empty

We didn't always have political parties, but as Parliament became more powerful over time then like-minded MPs and Lords tended to form blocs that cooperated together and eventually those blocs evolved into formal party organisations. As parties became bigger and more powerful then they could effectively pour more resources into getting their candidates elected then any independent could.

Yay - 600 odd people with their own agenda... no way that could go wrong..

But if it were a good law, it would get wide support, no?

You would think wouldn't you? sadly I have seen enough of the circus that is politics to know that the obvious solution is very rarely the chosen one.

If everyone could agree on what was a good law then we wouldn't need Parliament.

There is no such thing as a good law that everyone would agree with though.

Most people are motivated by self interest so would only be happy with things that would benefit them personally