That is no answer at all and like your previous post..complete waffle
I'm reluctant to go into any depth on it, but I'll start you off with some basics to help you grasp the bigger picture.
In the first case try to understand that the body politik of this country are representatives and defenders of the establishment. Get away from this idea that they're our, representatives. The one thing they most certainly don't represent (they aren't remotely close to it as a body) is the people of the UK.
The next thing to realise is that their primary role is to conserve and protect the structures of state, and the status of the nation, and thus allow the multi-faceted establishment to function. Their role is not to rip things up in the pursuit of narrow partisan interests. Doing so causes disruption, instability, and nervousness. It's why Cameron was so anxious to hold the union together (amongst other reasons) even though it was in his narrow political interests to tow Scotland into the Atlantic and fit limpet mines right round its coastline
The next jump to make is to appreciate the narrowness of the managed political spectrum in this country. This is a fantastic confidence trick and critical to the success and stability of this whole illusion. People are encouraged to think in terms of left and right, indeed Clive, you're one of the very worst exponents I've seen. So from this massive dialetical polemic comes choice and real debate then? It allows you to thrash out the major philosophical challenges to mankind and resolve to defend the leftist or rightist position then? Well no it doesn't actually. The band in which the UK corridor is framed and supported by all the instruments of state is incredibly narrow, the differences between them when you place it in the wider global spectrum is negligible. It's how we end up with party leaders with the same backgrounds that they have, cabinet members with similar backgrounds, and political programmes which are in effect closer to management strategies than anything else. It doesn't matter that much who wins you see so long as nothing changes, but you have to change on the margins in order to keep things as they are
Ah but you point to Labour having influences from the dreaded Trade Union movement. In truth the trades unions are essentially conservative facing organisations, that's what they were founded on increasingly as craftsmens guilds that required a card to work. A vast majority of disputes are essentially protectionist in their nature and not the sorts of popular myth concerning socialist revolution. That reminds me actually, Rosa Luxemburg famously described the trade unions as "supporting the worker, like a rope does a hanged man". The trade unions are also part the deal once they'd fought their way into the corridors of the establishment. So it's the people who frame things through tribal politics who are invaribaly being duped into going along with this and in doing so lend credence to the whole sham.
This is how it works.
We need to maintain the illusion of choice to promote the concept that we're a functioning democracy and with it embed the ideas that elevate us to a higher level than other inferior parts of the world. In the most extreme examples of course, we can be persuaded that this government and society in which we very often have next to no influence over its functioning as individuals, is something we'll go out and fight and die for in order to defend someone elses wealth and privilege.
So we need to sustain the notion of choice, and that means real choice, that is evidencible. Putting a cross in a box ain't enough in the long term. We need to see different political parties (a sham concept in themselves) taking it in turns. This is critical, as this equals 'popular' choice and fluid change.
If you allow an elected dictatorship to form, then you'll strike at the heart of the whole thing that underpins us. That's what will come into focus
Basically the country needs Conservative governemnts to return confidence to the markets and manage the economy by introducing all the brutal short cuts that they do in the pursuit of suppressing Labour. However, the country also needs Labour governments to invest in the capital infrastructure and social programmes that would otherwise prevent society working and ultimately lead to the other side failing to work when their turn comes around again (the ying and the yang). The philosophical establishment warrior understands this, and they take it in their stride because both parties are capitalist and not significantly departed from each other to cause massive ruptures. If the conservatives are left in power for too long the country falls apart. We need Labour to rebuild it. If Labour's left in power for to long we go bust, we need the conservatives to make the nasty decisions with money
Now one of the people who failed to understand this relationship was of course Thatcher. She was sectairian to the point where she thought her job was to destroy the Labour opposition and try to keep it out of government. She didn't realise she was supposed to let it back in now and then to rebuild the infrastructure so that the next generation of the capitalist classes could come along again and pillage it after it hand been replenished. In trying to destory old Labour she became the single biggest architect of 'new labour', a creation of course that would prove to be a much more formidable opponent, and one that vanquished her own party to a 13 years in opposition, and reversed the usual ratio of 2 to 1 that had been observed until then. Scotland also became collateral damage in this process. The rot set in under Thatcher and was confirmed under Major. The corresponding lurch to the right by labour exacerbated the situation further as it allowed the ultimately more dangerous SNP to take the abandoned territory
This wasn't part of the grand design of schemes
The prestige of the UK and its international standing is damaged as it starts to fragment. This is most certainly not encouraged by the establishment
So if we replace the parilamentary process of managed see saw we currently have, with one of elected dictatorship, and if Scotland has shown the regions a blue print of how to get out and reject this structure, what do you suppose the medium term prospect will be?
The tit bit they'll have to throw down is much wider regional devolution or risk wholesale disengagement and with it an erosion of legitimacy. Clearly the political classes couldn't take that, and ultimately the establishment won't either. At this jucture society starts to break down as the notion of choice is punctured and no longer offering hope or belief
History is full of examples of where small popular ideas that captured the zeitgeist turned out to have far reaching consequences. The simpler they appear, very often the more damaging they end up being
Having said that, there is also democratic deficit under this structure too that will need to be addressed. The short term solution is as you describe, but the longer term ramifications of this will be Wales and the northern England entering a period of widespread rebellion or disengagement.
