Navigating the Future

The Future’s So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades. It’s a 1986 song title but a wonderful catchphrase. Am I going to be optimistic enough to use it on Monday 22nd July? Well, why not? Suddenly, the world looks different.

A dull and sullen presidential race in the US has flipped overnight. We’ve shed the heavy load of incompetence of the last UK government. And even France avoided a catastrophe, in the political sense. Maybe times are getting better. It’s been hard to believe the world of the 21st Century was one that was going to get better and better. With the climate crisis, pandemic, wars and narcissistic political mad people around we can be forgiven for thinking that all is not well.

As a sideline, watching the video of Timbuk 3[1] doing the song and it’s a great reminder of the leaps technology has made in four decades. Cool computer graphics of the 1980s now look ghastly. Lumpy and blocky primary colours bouncing around a cathode ray tube. A 5-year-old with cardboard cutouts could have matched the graphics.

Now, maybe some of the right-wing outliers of the political landscape will turn out to be one-hit wonders. Manufactured to rail with grievances and offering no workable solutions. Dug into a depressing victim culture. If there are cycles in politics, wouldn’t it be fantastic if we were starting an upswing in optimism. Sadly, so far the public attitudes of the first part of the 21st Century have been a chorus of gloom and doom.

The pop song is not simple one. I read it that there’s a healthy degree of irony in its words. A love of nuclear science at a time when the cold war was still raging around us may have been poking fun at optimism as much as optimism itself. Anyway, thank you P. Macdonald, wherever you are.

Square eyes looking through square glasses is an image, perhaps a warning, that one day we’d all be glued to handheld portable rectangular screens that would come to dominate our lives. Now, that prediction would have required a lot of imagination in 1986.

The future is bright. I’ll go with the contention that progressively we are turning a corner. Ok, fine it’s a more dangerous world than it ever has been but, in the spirt of the song, don’t let that get you down. We have it within our capacity to navigate through the dangers that are out there.

It would be dumbest to go with the notion that every problem has a simple fix. That at the wave of a hand wars would end. That they wouldn’t have even started if some demigod was in power. There are no modern day emperors with magical powers and a mountain of cost free answers.

A liberal future is one where positive change is possible, but we are not blind to the difficulties of making it happen. The future is bright, or it can be.

[1] https://youtu.be/nsRKleS-Ihk?list=RDEM3bP5Qf7ThmHO83SwcyDhbw

The River’s Arms

It’s now called the River’s Arms Close. A scattering of relatively new houses. That’s all that remains of a rough working public house that I knew well in my youth. Not indoors. In the bars. I never visited more than the paved courtyard outside the pub. Afterall, I am talking about me at the age of 12 or 13ish. Until now, looking it up, I’d remembered the pub as being called The Railway.

This pub was just across the road from the entrance to what was then Sturminster Newton cattle market[1]. A huge agricultural market. It was on Station Road. Even then, the railway station and its steam trains had long gone. They must have gone in 1965/66. Then a political axe fell on rural railway lines. On a Monday, the town was a busy place. That was market day.

Scruffiness was a badge of honour. Galvanised steel sheeted buildings and tatty block-built sheds were the order of the day. The feast for the eye was not the buildings, more the people. The noise was overwhelming. Smells were on the rich side too.

This comes to mind because I moved a large and heavy plastic planter containing a healthy blackcurrant bush. Green leaves and wood. My crop of blackcurrants had been eaten by birds earlier in the year. This week’s plan was to find a suitable spot in the garden to transplant the bush ready for next year.

Here’s the connection. It’s to do with fruits. Local produce. In the 1960s, to earn money of our own, my brothers and I would go blackberry picking. There were times when Somerset hedgerows were teaming with mases of blackberries. They still are in a lot of places. We’d fill to the brim used plastic containers. Recycling ice-cream containers. Trying not to squish the delicate fruit.

On market day the courtyard outside the pub would become an auction ground. People would bring local produce and miscellaneous junk in the hope of getting a fair price. Everything would be spread out over the floor outside. Fruit, veg, eggs and strange ironwork and old tools. Around lunchtime a sale would take place. Informal and unpredictable. A huddle of farmers, townsfolk and on watchers. Nevertheless, all the small items were carefully booked in and booked out. For our containers of blackberries, or later in the year field mushrooms, we’d get just less than a pound, if we were lucky. That was in “new money.”

It’s July, so we are not into that season yet. It’s creeping up on us. Fruit trees are starting to look as if they are going to produce a good crop. Blackberries are slowly forming. A time of fruitfulness is coming. That season of harvest is just over the horizon.

Exposure to markets, and their volatility, is as much a life lesson as the benefits of organic produce. In that small Dorset country town, the ebb and flow of market day were as integral to life as the water that flowed in the river. Today, much of that rhythm is history. A new rhythm is running. We go from coffee shop to posh bakery to the purveyors of expensive imports.

Our dependency on national supermarkets and large-scale logistics is mainstream. The heavy lorries that carry food are not full of local produce going to a local market. They come from remote fulfilment centres on main trunk roads. They dwarf the road traffic of the past.

It’s silly to think that we can step back. Times were rougher and cruder but there’s merit in giving thought to the better bits. Today, there’s little incentive for a boy with a recycled container full of fresh blackberries.

[1] https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/local-news/sturminster-newtons-bell-toll-today-148980

New Day

The UK’s recent elections saw a surge in candidates and new political forces, challenging voters to make informed choices.

We had a surfeit of manifestos that said, this is what we will do if you give us power. Today, we have a stronger commitment, in the form of a speech, saying this is what we will do now you have you given us power. You can’t say you haven’t been warned. Or more positively, at least someone is focusing on the issues that are of concern rather than the nonsense of the preceding administration.

Democracy is about choosing. For the next 5-years a choice has been made. OK, that’s assuming there’s no calamities that bring the new Labour Government to its knees.

At this moment, please give a thought to those who made that national democratic choice possible. I know, I was one of them. 4,515 candidates[1] stood for election to the UK’s Parliament in July 2024. In 2019, there were 3,327 candidates who stood in the General Election. So, this year the crop of candidates was much bigger and thus choice wider. No constituency in the UK had fewer than five candidates standing.

This crop of candidates is to fill 650 seats in the House of Commons (HoCs)[2]. That’s using the word “seat” to mean Parliamentary constituency. Which there are not on the green benches. The HoC chamber cannot accommodate all the Members of Parliament (MPs) that are elected. It’s rather a strange situation in modern times.

More candidates and more volatility. A lot of the strong political ties that people have exhibited in former generations have been broken. In future the UK’s electorate must put more effort into deciding who to vote for on polling day. We see a move in political forces that is new.

I salute you. All 3,865 candidates who have plenty of time to reflect on their experience. Yes, there were a small cohort of eccentrics, but they didn’t get the news coverage that they once did. The Official Monster Raving Loony Party raised twenty-two candidates.

Local identity did play a part. There was a Yorkshire Party, Lincolnshire Independents Lincolnshire First candidate, Portsmouth Independent Party South Devon Alliance, and a sprinkling of similar others.

Since 1985. the deposit in elections to the HoCs has been £500. This is only refunded if the election candidate gets more than 5% of the votes cast. I don’t yet know how many of the 3,865 candidates lost their deposits.

The loss of a deposit by a candidate maybe regarded as an embarrassment. I don’t think it is at all. It takes a certain kind of resolve to put yourself up in front of the electorate. Regardless of the outcome that commitment ought to be applauded. It’s certain; not free of costs in respect of the individual candidate. I’d defend having a deposit as one means of preventing abuse of the electoral system. That said, it should never be higher than it is now and maybe the threshold ought to be halved to 2.5%.

[1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/who-stood-in-the-2024-general-election/

[2] https://members.parliament.uk/parties/commons

Speaking

Politics without passion is like a food without taste. The ancient Greeks sensed this a long time ago. Aristotle and his followers had a way of describing how a speaker should win over an audience. Let’s face it that’s one big part of a politicians aims.

It’s no good at all standing there and saying: we’ve got some fantastic politics, and our values are your values. If no one is listening, you can be the best thing since sliced bread and nothing much happens. I’ve seen a lot of good people who shout in the dark.

The capability to persuade an audience by whatever legal means puts politician A above politician B. It’s not just innate ability although, for those who have it, that is a great asset.

So, here’s the educational bit. It’s certainly something I keep in mind however bad at it I may be. To appeal to an audience, and thus persuade, three different spots need to be hit: logos, ethos, and pathos[1].

As a professional engineer, I know the first one of these categories well. It’s good solid sound logic. It’s the use of reason to construct an agreement. It’s the favourite of technocrats. It’s the 2 and 2 equals 4. Because of the power of logic, it tends to be elevated to the number one tool in the speaker’s toolbox. PowerPoint slide after PowerPoint slide.

The problem is that this approach doesn’t work when the audience is a general one. Brexit is a perfect example. So many of the arguments against Brexit were framed in terms of economic costs and benefits. Logical, rational, sensible and supported by evidence. As it turned out addressing the head and not the heart was not sufficient.

Next on the list of three, Ethos is all about credibility. It comes from the simple question; why should I listen to this person? Is the speaker truthful? It even comes down to simple appearance – do the look the part? Like it or not, I’m not going to be inclined to listen to a politician on a podium sporting a Micky Mouse tee-shirt, wearing clown shoes and mumbling bad poetry. There’s a normal expectation that a credible individual will be polished and professional.

And so, to the last on the list. Pathos is multifaceted. I may talk of music or poetry. Those who can speak with language that evokes strong feelings. Being able to shift the emotions of an audience by evoking beliefs and values can be extremely powerful.

This one is dangerous too. It can tap into prejudices and stir-up destructive as well as constructive passions. If we have a lesson from this electoral cycle, it’s that the overuse of emotional rhetoric in a civilised society needs to be restrained. It’s for each speaker to carefully consider how the message they are sending will be received.

Politics without empathy and passion is dull and unworkable. But exciting public passion beyond a certain point has a cost. The cry for social justice or the anger at a perceived stupidity must be recognised. Overplaying emotion for political gain. Demonising an opponent with vivid words of hate. This is path to destruction. A path to be avoided. A time to stop. 

[1] https://www.lsu.edu/hss/english/files/university_writing_files/item35402.pdf

Solar farms

New Government signs off solar farms. Not everyone happy.

It would be good if we could all agree that the UK needs to recognise the importance of locally produced food and drink. There’re large environmental gains to be made by reducing the distance between production and consumption. Thousands of heavy trucks thunder up and down the inadequate road infrastructure in the UK. Colossal amounts of food waste get thrown away from supermarkets. Questionable preservatives enable supply chains to grow longer and longer. There’s are bad trends.

On a related subject, I do have a problem with proposals for large solar arrays that will take out productive farmland. However, that is by no means an objection to large solar arrays, or onshore wind farms for that matter.

It’s not as if we have always been so precious about what we do with our glorious countryside. One observation I’d make is that there has been a huge increase in the urbanisation of the countryside in my lifetime. Areas that were either wild or exclusively used for agriculture are now pony paddocks, car parks, golf courses, housing estates, out-of-town shopping warehouse, fulfillment centres[1], and bypasses. In 50-years, there’s little that remains untouched.

I’d sing “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot” if I could. We really do need to think carefully about what we industrialise and what we preserve and protect.

For me large solar arrays are in the same category as acres of poly tunnels. Both serve a fundamental purpose, and both are structure that can be relatively easily removed. Keeping the lights on and eating fresh food are both part of society’s basic needs.

So, I’m not going to raise an eyebrow at new Minister Ed Miliband approving 3 large solar arrays[2]:No shock but no blank cheque either. No jumping on a political bandwagon to condemn the immediate decision.  

It’s likely the decision was sitting on the former Conservative Minister’s desk. Is this a case of difficult decisions deliberately delayed because of an election? We may never know. It would be a bit disingenuous for such politicians to complain now. Wouldn’t it?

Let’s get it right. Failure to decarbonise our national energy system is a contribution to global warming we can’t afford to make. Long-term that global warming will impact food production.

In years to come it will be interesting to see what research flags up with respect to solar farms and biodiversity in an area. There’s some chance that the results will not be entirely negative. There’s all that sheltered and undisturbed soil under the array structures. A habitat for wildlife.

Choosing between what might seem as the lesser of two evils is often the situation a politician finds themselves in. Afterall, that’s the role they must play in a democracy. The outcome may not be popular in the short-term, but a balance must be struck.

Maybe we should reverse some of the urbanisation of the countryside. Return some little used roads to nature. Demolish unused industrial units. Put back the hedges that have been lost. Rewild one or two golf courses. It’s something to consider when building new infrastructure.

[1] Fulfillment centres enables outsourcing, warehousing and shipping. This is for online businesses to have the physical space to store stuff.  

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng6036vgqo

Rethinking the House of Lords: Toward a Balanced and Democratic Approach

Good to hear that there’s a prospect of House of Lords reform in next week’s Kings speech. Change is on the agenda.

It’s astonishing that “hereditary” is a valid qualification for the job as a legislator. I’ve nothing against the individuals involved. Especially those who try to do the best they can. Put all that to one side, there’s a huge gulf between what’s normal in normal life and what’s normal in the Place of Westminster. It’s time to consider merit as more important than who your parents were.

The removal of hereditary peers should be just a first step. One of the most egregious unfairnesses is that way the HoL gets topped-up with political cronies a regular basis. We’ve institutionalised political tribalism in the second chamber. Ennobling people for dubious reasons has become a habit of Prime Ministers. Making contributions to political Party funds should not be a ticket to the HoLs.

There’s the religious element too. Whereas there’s a lot to be said for a level or moral guidance to be given to Peers there’s little justification for them to have votes in the HoL. I’m not denying the important part region plays in many people’s lives. What I am saying is that the laws that affect every citizen shouldn’t be shaped by a small cohort of clerics. Two countries have religious clerics in places of legislative power, and they are UK and Iran. That doesn’t sit well with me, and no doubt most people.

One change maybe controversial given that it smacks of discrimination and that is the setting of an age threshold. If Peers are given a compulsory retirement at the age of 80, it may meet an objective of getting the overall number of Peers down. What disconcerting is the implication that beyond the age of 80 a Peer’s potential contribution is less valuable.

I don’t agree that the compulsory retirement age for the HoL should be set at the state pension age. For some people age does mark a dimming of their intellect but for others they can be as sharp as a pin. The only easy option is a fixed threshold, but it should be a temporary measure.

Ideally, the size of the HoL should be fixed. Ideally, the size of both chambers should be similar. Not just because that number line-up but because the political weight should be set closer to a balance. I do assume in this formula that every Peer is a working Peer.

It’s been pointed out that in its current state the HoL makes it the second largest political chamber in the world. It’s reached ridiculous proportions for a country of our size.

Modest changes can only be a start. There’s the real need for permanent restructuring. Parliament’s second chamber must be replaced with a democratic upper house. One model would be an elected upper house with two members elected per UK region based on current/proposed metro mayoral regions or former regions used for electing MEPs.

Even the chamber’s name must go. It’s not good that we have legislators lording over us. Those sitting on the red benches are not superior beings. They are privileged. One would hope for them to be humble given that great privilege. Afterall they should be there to serve us. To serve the country.

Uneasy

Commentating is a big industry. Every moment of every day something floats to the top of the News. To make sense of it, or to make no sense at all, talking heads sit on comfy sofas and talk. We soak it up from traditional media but increasingly from social media.

I’ve often wondered how much influence is exerted by those who commentate. They often set the context within which events are interpreted. They often act like a pack, magnifying what’s first said. They are at their best when they make something complex and messy reasonably understandable.

Could it be that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle applies[1]? It’s impossible to measure anything without affecting it. Transformed those words that might read: It’s impossible to comment on anything without affecting it. I guess that depends on the nature of the commentary. Here, I’m hardly likely to affect anything at all but you never know.

What this all about? Well, last night I was sitting on my comfy sofa watching the BBC’s Newsnight. As it happens, the leader of the free world was being televised making a gaff that led to a sharp intake of breath. It’s human error. Nobody is gaff free. What was shocking is the choreography of the moment.

Standing next to the President of the US was Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, whose name is not all that easy to pronounce, who everyone had just committed to supporting. It makes me cringe to repeat what happened[2]. I won’t.

The commentators went into overdrive. That’s to be expected. Within minutes the follow-on illustrated the avalanche of social media piggy backing that’s on-going about Joe Biden. Let’s duck the subject of age. Regardless of that factor, errors that reverberate around the media echo chamber generate a political toxicity that sicks. It’s not fair. It’s just reality.

Age may bring wisdom, or I hope it does. What’s different now from the era during which Joe Biden accumulated his experience is the relentlessness, speed and volume of communications. Not only that but messages are distorted and twisted with great ease.

To thrive in top roles, new generation skills are essential. Being savvy to the nature of social media isn’t optional. When serious events are magnified by massive proportions and presented to a global audience there’s nowhere to hide.

With perception being pivotal in politics this is an uneasy new world we are entering. I wouldn’t be foolish enough to predict what might happen next. I’m reminded of that advice offered to tourist seeking directions ‘‘Well, if I were trying to get there, I wouldn’t start from here.’’

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-scientific-pr/

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl75kdm420o

Just Culture

My thought is that we’ve forgotten the discussion of more than a decade ago. There was a time when the thoughtful reflections on responsibility and accountability were much discussed.

Without focusing on specific examples, there are plenty to choose from, there’s the propensity of our institutions and politicians to reach for “blame” as a first response. When situations go bad the instinctive inclination to hunt out someone to blame. This is an all too prevalent habit.

Naturally, in cases, there’s the strong need to identify who is accountable for bad decisions. Society does not like it when the powerful protect, cocoon themselves and grab for immunity. Certainly, some people and organisations are genuinely blameworthy. However, if we scrutinise and point the finger of blame, it doesn’t help if that finger is pointed at a person’s honest errors. There isn’t a human on this planet who hasn’t made an error.

The finger of blame is easily pointed. Judgment so often falls after an event. The time when more is known, and hindsight comes into play. This tips the balance. It’s so much easier to say: why on Earth did you do that? I would never have done that.

For people to come forward and be fairly heard in an open and fair inquiry or investigation they need to have the confidence that they are not stepping into a public blame-fest. Without trust between those on all sides of it’s less likely that the truth will come out.

“Just Culture” is a concept written into aviation legislation and followed by others. The overriding aim is to learn from mistakes. It’s the surest way of not repeating the same mistakes time and time again. It’s beneficial to have that long-term learning objective. Why suffer the pain of a bad event when the means to avoid it are known and understood?

Now, I’m going back 20-years. I remember being part of an international working group[1] called GAIN. The group compiled guidance about organisational culture. At the time, the group was considering the subject in the context of the air traffic profession. Guidance like the one referenced, emphasise that a Just Culture is not simply a no-blame culture. It’s not, and never has been a way of circumventing accountability.

Determining culpability can be complex. There’s often a test to consider the wilfulness of the participants in a bad event. In other words, did they carelessly, intentionally, maliciously or negligently make decisions that resulted in the bad event? In these cases, the “they” could be an individual or an organisation.

Gross negligence, wilful abuses and destructive acts should be addressed by the enforcement of laws. If we say the criminalisation of honest people involved in bad events has a negative impact. That is not to negate the need for enforcement. Regulators in all sorts of walks of life have a duty to apply enforcement where and when it’s appropriate. Maybe we ought to have applied that to the UK water industry.

My plea here is to first consider the nature of the events in question. Was there an element of genuine honest human error? Is the right balance being struck between the need to learn and the need to ensure accountability?

NOTE: Just Culture is defined in EU law as “A culture in which operational staff or others are not held accountable for actions, acts, omissions or decisions commensurate with their experience and training, but gross negligence, intentional violations and destructive actions are not tolerated” EC 376/2014 Art. 2 Para. 12.

[1] A Roadmap to a Just Culture https://flightsafety.org/files/just_culture.pdf

No Sprint

The last couple of days have seen a new UK Parliament take shape. Beaming smiles from an intake of rearing to go new Members of Parliament (MPs). There’s lashings of energy and enthusiasm. Every problem is to be looked at afresh. No problem is too big to tackle, even if some problems may take while to cure. Horizons stretch ahead full of oceans of possibilities.

Back in May 1993, I was a freshly elected young County Councillor. It was such a magic moment. One evening, at County Hall for the first time sitting in a room with 29 colleagues. For the first time the Council being No Overall Control (NOC). One room full of a mix of battle-hardened pros and fresh faces. A manifesto in hand and magic in the air.

Today, there are 72 Liberal Democrat MPs. Yes, 72 MPs. I can imagine, without looking at the press pictures what that may feel like. A wonderful feeling of hope, ambition and warmth. A little trepidation. Thoughts like: what will be my role in this epic journey? Those with small electoral majorities might be focused not only on their role in the team but how they will secure more than one term of office.

Politics is a precarious way of life. Any electoral success is certainly never to be taken for granted. This UK General Election has shown that in spades. Volatility amongst the voting population is probably higher than it has ever been. That impulsiveness sits in the background of the overall wish to throw out the mediocre incumbents.

At least for the honeymoon period, often characterised as the first 100 days, the new government and new effective opposition will be given a period of grace. It’s a time when everyone wishes the nation to succeed and prosper in the direction that is set.

A modern UK Prime Minister has a great deal of power in the first period of their office. On this occasion, those that lost, Conservatives will be struggling to rebuild their shattered party. Whether they bury Thatcherism or reincarnate it, they will be in turmoil for a considerable while. They may even strike up an extreme ideology and march off into the political wilderness.

Liberalism is in rude health. The 72 Liberal Democrat MPs will surely work with conviction and proudly hold their principles aloft.

It’s not the first time that I’ve referenced the Stoics. I am reminded that despite the joys of the moment and the races that have been won, the battle of ideas never stops or starts. There are peaks and troughs of optimism and pessimism. There are opportunities taken and lost. There are times of progressive advance and there’s inevitable push backs. He’s no longer with us, in fact if he was still around, he’d be nearly 100 years old. Labour MP Tony Benn was wrong on Europe but often wise about the UK Parliament. I agree with his view of Parliament in this respect, however flawed it may be: “Through talk, we tamed kings, restrained tyrants, averted revolution.” Long may that continue. There’s no finality in politics; there is always another step to take.

His maxim for MPs to operate on two levels makes a lot of sense. One is to be an agent of practical action and the other is to operate in the realm of ideas. Not so easy to do. Nevertheless, democracy is healthier if both delivery and values are never strangers.

Rapid

Such a rapid change. In days we go from one governmental regium to another. The government of the UK has changed. It’s now dramatically different from what it was only a couple of days ago. It’s not overstating the case to say dramatic. On a relatively modest percentage of the overall national vote the Labour Party has been handed all the leavers of power.

The UK’s main electoral system is not proportional. It tends to exaggerate and distort performance. Lifting those who do well in the national vote numbers but suppressing those who are supported by smaller overall percentages. Interestingly, the Liberal Democrats, who have always been in favour of a proportional representation electoral system, have an approximate match between the number of seats won and the number of votes cast across the country.

Sticking with the positives, this rapid change does mean policy resets are possible. One significant example is the immediate scrapping of the policy mess that the previous government had got itself into over immigration.

Accepting a fresh start has a upside. However, the difficulty that can present itself is the challenge to continuity. Lots of new faces with new responsibilities. Lots of people learning the ropes. One answer to that challenge is to say that the civil service provides a seamless continuity. The mandarins in Whitehall guide the ship of State through the transition. Not only that but many of the people coming into power have been preparing for this opportunity for a long time.

The difficulty is that the mismatch between the national percentages of the General Election vote and the number of Westminster seats held is there for all to see. It’s a stark indicator of the reality of people’s wishes verses the outcome of a process.

I was a counting agent standing in a sports hall until the early morning totting-up an estimate of the vote for a political party. Pen in hand watching officers carefully unfold paper ballots. In a world of smart phones and tablets there’s something very retro about looking at piles of black and white paper for hours.

One aspect of First Past The Post (FPTP) is the theoretical simplicity of the counting process. Naturally, it’s far from simple. One cross, in one box is well within the capability of every kind of voter. However, it’s crude in terms of what it says about the voter’s views. It forces everyone to make stark choices. There’s no accommodation of preference. Say, you are a person who’s essentially conservative or socialist but can’t stand that Party in its current form, you are forced to leap to vote, if you vote at all, for a political candidate that may not be your natural choice.

So, society ought to ask itself, do we value the result of the electoral process most? Or do we value the expression of the individual preference the most? There’s an inevitability to the answer to that question, if the horizon set is a long one. Where so much of what we now do is addressed by algorithms designed to distil our individual preferences how can we stick with a paper based last century electoral system that ignores preference?

Change will come one day. The difficulty is that if the UK’s FPTP electoral system offers no incentive to the winning Party to change it, so we will be bound to stick with it. Well, at least for the next few years.