Westminster is broken. Debate is reduced to tribalism, with MPs forced to toe the party line rather than vote on the merits of individual policies.
Sadly, this is nothing new. The opposition no longer seeks to contribute to governance but attack the government for the sake of it. Meanwhile, MPs in government must defend every policy, even when they know it’s flawed.
This is not how an effective democracy should function. You’d think having one of the oldest parliaments in the world would mean we know better.
Instead, our system prioritises meaningless factionalism over pragmatism, where even the most reasonable policies are dismissed purely based on who proposed them. Then come the whips, who strong-arm MPs into toeing the party line regardless of their constituents’ interests. This, my democracy-loving friends, is what your votes amount to.
A prime example was the House of Lords Reform Bill (2012). All major parties backed Lords’ reform in their 2010 manifestos. Yet, when the government proposed it, Labour blocked the debate timetable, stalling the vote with procedural caveats. They sank a policy they supported just to weaken the Tory-Lib Dem coalition.
Then there was the 2022 fracking vote. Labour proposed a ban. While the Tory leadership supported fracking, many of their own MPs and constituents opposed it. Yet all were subjected to a three-line whip, forcing them to vote against it. Not on merit, but because it was a Labour motion. The vote descended into chaos, with reports of MPs coerced and even physically pressured into the ‘correct’ voting lobby. This wasn’t about policy. It was about party discipline at all costs.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Denmark has a better system. One that rewards pragmatism over party loyalty.
Say what you want about Denmark’s policies, but the Danes understand what makes policymaking click. Unlike Westminster, their system encourages cross-party collaboration on an issue-by-issue basis. Here, Communists align with the Conservatives on family policy but oppose them on taxation, and Greenlandic Independence parties work with Liberals on environmental policy, but not sovereignty. Here, parties act on their constituents’ concerns, not just their party’s agenda. Here, policies are debated on merit, not loyalty – resulting in stable, considered governance.
Don’t just take my word for it. Denmark consistently ranks ahead of the UK in global governance and stability. The World Bank’s Political Stability Index gives Denmark a score of 0.85, far ahead of the UK’s 0.51. The Cato Institute and Freedom House have never ranked Denmark outside the top 10 for political and economic freedom, while the UK always hovers 20th place.
Denmark’s stability is reflected in its economy too. With a AAA credit rating and a consistently stable outlook from Fitch Ratings, policy consistency keeps Denmark running smoothly. The UK, despite branding itself as a global trade and innovation hub, struggles to hold even AA status. Given the past decade of economic mismanagement, Fitch sees no reason for optimism. And neither do I.
We might rank fairly highly on the global stage, but we could be higher. Westminster’s bloated, tribalistic processes hold us back, preventing the UK from truly joining our Western European neighbours at the top.
So, what are we doing wrong?
Saying that the government should argue on issues, not party lines seems obvious, but our current climate promotes and rewards factionalism. Frankly, sensationalism sells. There is little political capital in agreeing with your opponents, when it should be central to liberal democracy.
Above all, Parliament must break the rigid culture of party loyalty and weaken the grip of the whip system. We must reduce the stigma around cross-party cooperation, ensuring MPs can work together without fear of being branded disloyal, while maintaining a functioning Parliament.
In Denmark, opposition parties can shape government policy without being seen as propping up their rivals. This is mainly due to their use of proportional representation, but we don’t have to overhaul our voting system to emulate this. We just need to adapt the Danish bottom line: negotiation is a necessity, not a weakness.
The UK, by contrast, treats cooperation as electoral self-sabotage or political ploy. If we promote Danish-style public-facing “policy agreements,” parties can back key national issues like housing or infrastructure without committing to coalition deals. The result? Healthier debate, better governance.
Ultimately, this boils down to an attitude problem. Winning does not mean obliterating the opposition or scoring cheap shots. It means delivering results.
After all, it’s not radical to expect politicians to do their jobs properly
