The present parties already push this idea of successful individuals (professionals) being the requirement for ruling. To be honest I want to see more people in parliament who have faced redundancy, had periods living on the dole and prioritised family and life balance over dedication to the rat race.

The criteria for electability is still to be decided, MSP!

I agree though, there’s more than career success and education to be taken into consideration. As Lifer says, knowledge would be hugely important – but wider experience, including joblessness and family priorities could also be presented so we have well-rounded candidates.

The parliament by experts

That’s a nice term! I might nick it when I write my polical philosophy opus!

The other element in the No Parties Party concept is fully accountable local representatives. An interactive platform updates constituency members about the issues that are coming up at national level. Feedback is taken and the local representative uses this feedback to dictate their parliamentary position.

We need some negatives to really get the ball rolling – problems please!

@ wrecker

As you conveniently omitted to quote; I agreed with your correction regarding the tories

so I did not quote it but I corrected it …well done good point 🙄

Some of us form our own opinions based on facts and experience.

I think everyone claims to that but nice implication- you are just so neutral Thanks 🙄
Did you mean you accept it is an imperialistic act of expansion supported by the Ulster plantation and us partitioning the country after all of ireland vote – well these are the facts 😉
What you have a different view – is it like a Unionist one or a right wing one ? No idea why you think you are neutral or the only one with facts to support their view?

You can regard me as right/left/whatever, I really couldn’t care less.

the replies and digs would seem to suggest you do care

To do so would just be plainly incorrect, but crack on if it makes you feel less of an extremist.

How on earth can you think you are neutral ? it is as daft as me thinking it
as for extremist please can you do this without insults all i have said is that you are not neutral – this is not an insult or a dig simply an observation – I am not neutral either.

I would be surprised if you replied without an insult

You are really in no position to make a statement like that. It’s certainly not me who needs the shovel
I know it is self awareness you need – look no matter how many digs you make each post all i am saying is that you are not neutral and neither am I
Perhaps you should get all outraged/insulty again to show how neutral and unbothered you are?

zippykona – Member
What country can we aspire to be more like?

POSTED 47 MINUTES AGO #

I think that’s an interesting question. But needs looking at realistically. .
IMO we could probably learn most from Japan or South Korea.
Especially about having nutters north of the border 😉

^^^that’s starting to look a lot like handbags above. Don’t spoil the thread please.

Can’t we take the best bits of countries and mash them together?

Eg the German model of management/union relations.

I like klumpy’s idea of a “follow the evidence party”. I suspect that a lot of that actually does go on behind the scenes. It just gets lost in all that stupid shouty stuff they need to do to get elected in the first place.

Worth comparing the German model with the Japanese, a nuanced hybrid version would be a good start.

How on earth can you think you are neutral ? it is as daft as me thinking it

That’s the whole point. It’s not. You can repeat it all you like, you are far more politically biased than I. That’s not my opinion, you just are.
As for NI, it has nothing whatsoever to do with left/right. Neither is the Falklands. My hatred of the IRA (which I do not hide, and I do have my reasons and accept that they have theirs) is not entirely in line with what I think is the best for the future of NI (I’m not anti united ireland).

as for extremist please can you do this without insults all i have said is that you are not neutral – this is not an insult or a dig simply an observation – I am not neutral either.

I have no problem with my self awareness. I know what I am (better than you do) If I was a tory, I’d admit it. I’m not. I’m very anti privitisation for a start which alone would preclude me from their ranks. I could be a swing voter, but I don’t like any option.
I don’t put extremist as an insult either, I believe (in a non-emotional sense) that you have pretty extreme political views. Some of which I’d agree with (moderately), some of which I don’t (moderately). So there 😛

That’s quite enough of that. This is a very interesting thread, with some really good ideas.

Firstly: left wing politics has a problem globally – the most extreme version of it – Communism – collapsed because it failed to provide the people with a standard of living they were happy with… Even in China, they’re embracing capitalism whilst claiming to be a Communist state.

I think all you have demonstrated there is that yes you can have capitalism, and yes you can have a one party state at the same time. I’m sure the greedy capitalists in our fair and decent democracies didn’t worry about that at the time when it came to “capitalising” on cheap labour.

Secondly: in the UK, most people alive today have seen only one outcome of a Labour government – the country being left in dire straits. This has happened once in the late 70s and again now.

Denial, the new British disease. Blaming the labour government for a global financial crisis. A crisis with it’s roots in the 80’s with the mass financial de-regulation.

I’ve constantly seen people who are a little to the right in nature trying to distance themselves from a labour party re-moulded in Thatcherite politics and carrying her policies to their natural conclusion: Failure.

So it’s very hard for left wingers to persuade a voter that their lives will be better with them in power.

New Labour and left wing…does not compute.

Given the above two things I would if in power:

Stop dealing with a “one party state” with a poor human rights record,
Insulate as much as possible the UK from further financial shocks that the financial institutions will cause.

And they will cause economic trouble for us, again and again. The true enemy within these days. Perhaps one day we might learn that having them around is not such a good idea after all.

Re economic problems; it’s the oxymoron of ‘sustainable growth’ that I love.

Would like to see more debate on whether growth is ever indefinitely sustainable (which it quite clearly isn’t – debate over) rather than the best method to acheive it.

It’s the system that’s flawed, rather like Douglas Adams described in ‘So long, and Thanks for All the Fish’:

“I come in peace,” it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, “take me to your Lizard.”

Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the nonstop frenetic news reports on television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.

“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see…”

“You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?”

“No,” said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, “nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”

“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”

“I did,” said ford. “It is.”

“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”

“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”

“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”

“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”

“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”

“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?”

“What?”

“I said,” said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, “have you got any gin?”

“I’ll look. Tell me about the lizards.”

Ford shrugged again.

“Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them,” he said. “They’re completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone’s got to say it.”

Ban by law the ability of the central organising party ( left or right) to impose candidates on local organising committees ( of which ever party) so the the locals get to chose their own candidates. Then at the very least you’d have a locally based candidate.

I attended a debate where a party whip said this would make his party “unmanageable”…..

Imagine….MPs who owe no allegiance to a central office….

Do we want this party to go down the Swiss (or Austrian maybe?) way of having a referendum on any big decisions? Nuclear, immigration, benefits etc?

Online voting every week on one big topic!

I think an explicit non parliamentary opposition would be able to gain widespread support to demand things from the jokers in westminster– not shackled by their outdated machine– using internet for organising etc, the politics must be overt , to discourage sectarianism– a big problem with the old left– esp communist party / tankies– i never vote FOR anything only Against something else at the moment !

Ban by law the ability of the central organising party ( left or right) to impose candidates on local organising committees ( of which ever party) so the the locals get to chose their own candidates. Then at the very least you’d have a locally based candidate.

I’d go further, mandatory to be local to your constituency.

Love the live locally idea, our local MP would have a real squeaky bum moment if that happened!

Always wanted to make architects and housing scheme designers/developers haev to live in their creations for 5 years after they were completed, just to see what it was really like. (Park Hill Flats in Sheffield during the 80s was a big influence on this idea)

Do we want this party to go down the Swiss (or Austrian maybe?) way of having a referendum on any big decisions? Nuclear, immigration, benefits etc?

Online voting every week on one big topic!

That’s a tricky one. But really why not? Instead of politicians saying ‘the people are telling me…’ when you know they’ve never spoken to any one outside of Westminster, unless it’s their chauffeur, the new generation of politicians would know what their constituents really thought. Then, the results of the online feedback would filter into the parliament of experts and intelligent, UK-ready decisions would be made.

Now that’s accountability.

Technology is there to gather feedback and display/present in an easily usable format, it’s used at the large congresses at which we work.

Each “representative” could see what their constituency was favouring, that could be made public so we could all see how the nation and regions were voting – quite exciting. Government for the people, by the people.

Not read the whole thread but I did read camo16’s post and largely agree with it. It has a lot of similarities with various flavours of anarchism (whisper it!) which on paper look very attractive. Of course in practice it’s much more difficult to implement, not least because at some point it’ll probably be screwed by the authoritarian types on both sides just like happened in Catalonia in the Spanish Civil war.

Not read the whole thread but I did read camo16’s post and largely agree with it. It has a lot of similarities with various flavours of anarchism (whisper it!) which on paper look very attractive.

An anarchist, eh? Nice one. I’ll take that…

Of course in practice it’s much more difficult to implement, not least because at some point it’ll probably be screwed by the authoritarian types on both sides

But THERE ARE NO SIDES! That’s the beauty of the concept. 8)

Blair makes a good point when he says the left is in danger of going back to the party of protest. We want politicians with policies, new ideas and a vision for the future. Not the same old left right rhetoric.

Blair makes a good point when he says the left is in danger of going back to the party of protest.

Ah yes the ‘can’t beat ’em join ’em’ philosophy. Apart from it being morally bankrupt and cowardly beyond all measure, it’s ultimately self-defeating. It’s sadly ironic that when all and sundry are praising Thatcher for being ‘courageous’ for sticking to her principles, not a single leading Labour politician has dared stick their head above the parapet. Especially when the argument should be relatively simple to win.

brooess – Member

Secondly: in the UK, most people alive today have seen only one outcome of a Labour government

The strikethrough game is cheesy I know, but, this is basically true- UK governments get replaced when things are ****. Cameron will leave the country in a mess, Brown left the country in a mess, Major left the country in a mess… ’twas ever thus and is no commentary on any one party.

Blair makes a good point when he says the left is in danger of going back to the party of protest. We want politicians with policies, new ideas and a vision for the future. Not the same old left right rhetoric.

And yet Tony Blair was always extremely light on policy whilst very big on completely meaningless rhetoric.

I never knew what Tony Blair stood for politically and I don’t suppose he did either, or that he even cared. Politics was merely a vehicle for personal self-fulfillment.

i would be grateful for an aceptance of post code lotteries and a move away from over centralised government to true regional power.

But it would have to change radically, i don’t want to see a westminster gravy train become a local government gravy train.

The other huge problem, too many people in this country vote for what is of direct benefit to them and not to the bigger picture.

No one wants a power station in their area, but we need power so?
No one wants new housing in their area, but we need new houses?
etc, etc.