IanW - Member
How authoritarian would you like your lefties to be, genuine question?
3
Prostest votes/spoiled papers don't mean jack. I think dwindling voter numbers speak louder.
That's a fair point, spoiled votes mean that people still believe in the system, if not the parties.
If no one votes, well ultimately that would mean that people believe the entire system is broken. Ie the form of democracy and the parties.
2 very distinct things. I very much believe the latter.
Are you seriously saying that Nu Labour were of the left?
Are you seriously saying they were on the right?
They were centre ground politicians, the tories are centre ground politicians - neither are radically right or left, and have not been at any time in the past fifty years, its all manoeuvring round the base of the post war consensus, even Thatcherism never really looked at any time like getting rid of the welfare state, NHS or taxpayer run schooling, its always been a fairly minor rebalancing of emphasis but essentially the same central tenet.
The biggest weakness of the left has been constant and repeated cries of 'wolf' and telling us that the sky is falling, when in reality its not - from the time of my childhood I was told that we were all headed for nuclear destruction because of the warmongering of the right, well, guess what, it never happened - its pretty much carried on the same way with everything ever since.
seosamh77 - Member
2 very distinct things. I very much believe the latter.
Said it a bit more eloquently than me though!
Bloomin' People's Front of Judea...
If no one votes, we'll ultimately that would mean that people believe the entire system is broken. Ie the form of democracy and the parties.
Trouble is, we'll never get to the position where no one votes...
[img] 
[/img]
Question is, how low does it have to go - and how small must the membership of political parties be - before it's generally accepted that we need a new plan?
rattrap - Member"Are you seriously saying that Nu Labour were of the left?"
Are you seriously saying they were on the right?
I didn't even hint that I thought they were. Which I don't/didn't.
There is a fix for these problems...
CaptainFlashheart - Member
Bloomin' People's Front of Judea...
Splitters!
Which for me is the real reason we have no mainstream Left. So much energy spent on pedantic infighting and fear of losing what little support base a paticular faction has that there is no concerted effort like there is on the 'right' over benefits/islamification*/immigration. They can't see the wood for the trees.
*supposed.
IanW - Member
There is a fix for these problems...After seeing that, 14.3.
even Thatcherism never really looked at any time like getting rid of the welfare state, NHS or taxpayer run schooling, its always been a fairly minor rebalancing of emphasis but essentially the same central tenet.
Doesn't mean they weren't considering it!
my comparatively short time alive has shown me that nothing ever lasts forever.the 79 tories and 97 nu-lab both appeared to have killed off the opposition forever. they didn't even though the gap between the two shrunk to a negligible margin.
eventually the neo-liberal consensus will lose its power and i remain hopeful that a left wing government will take its place.
i don't think that its as far fetched as it seems. many people are already leaning to the left but don't actually know it - many many people support re-nationalisation of the utilities, most people are anti foreign wars, most people support the nhs, most people will be against benefit cuts once the tories target pensions (only a matter of time)lots of people are against a federal europe.
i think its highly possible.
@camo16 - discussed similar in the office on a regular basis. I still like the idea.
I have voted at every election since I turned 18, always thought that as a floating voter I made a difference. Has my vote made any difference in reality, yes in the last one and most certainly not the difference I had expected or wanted. Yep I too trusted Nick!!
The greatest example of the total impotence of the labour party is seeing that spineless non-entity Ed Milliband praising Thatcher as he's too shit scared of the right wing press to even suggest that not everybody thought she was great. And with that, they finally gave up officially on even any pretense to represent the working class of this country
Politics in this country is dead in any meaningful sense
@camo16 - discussed similar in the office on a regular basis. I still like the idea.
Awesome. Good to know there are others who see beyond political parties. 😉
Properly thought out, I'm sure an inclusive, embracing system could be thought out and finally we could begin as a society to follow common goals, rather than blindly pursue partisan conflict - which, when you think about it, only ever benefits a minority.
i don't think that its as far fetched as it seems. many people are already leaning to the left but don't actually know it - many many people support re-nationalisation of the utilities, most people are anti foreign wars, most people support the nhs, most people will be against benefit cuts once the tories target pensions (only a matter of time)lots of people are against a federal europe.
If you could get a party off the ground with most of that that manifesto I'd think it'd get a fair few votes.
Have to disagree with the Tories targetting pensions - Mr Brown got there first a couple of years ago and did a pretty good hatchet job on them himself.
Problem is most people just vote for a party, not it's policies. Certainly up here in the North - generations of Labour voters told to vote Lab by their fathers. And judging by the ones I've met handling elections, a fair few don't share the Labour (well, what STW see as left wing) mentalities, some would shame the BNP in their views.
much less by the looks of it. Although personally I'd think that you'd need to start to question the system when less that half the eligible voters are voting, but i suspect in reality it'd probably need to go down to 20/25%.Question is, how low does it have to go - and how small must the membership of political parties be - before it's generally accepted that we need a new plan?
I was thinking of an upper house that's elected by department/expertise. So there'd be a certain number of seats per department and you'd vote for indviduals by department rather than for party representatives by voting districts.
But at the moment that is a tiny peice of the putrid pie.
Local elections, Police Commissioners etc. have shockingly low turnouts. Hardly a eye is raised at the figures. The powers that be will never say "Hey, lets sort this out", it needs to come from somewhere further down the foodchain.
I would love to see a "none of the above" option on ballot papers. And it would be required if voting became mandatory I'd say.
Voted in the last election and put the X on the Conservative Box still ended up with a leftie ****** as an MP though.
The choices at the time?
Lib Dem - great ideas that were thought up under the assumption of never having to carry them out
Labour - GB and his band of idiots running up debts with no actual plan to cut them down
Wacko Nut Job/Single Issue parties - 1 policy to grab headlines and no idea about the rest (see lib dem - who needs proper policies we wont win)
The alternatives?
Increasingly centralist parties
7 part coalitions falling apart all over the place
Far Left? Tax everyone and raise the minimum wage so 50% of the population needs a pay rise? Inflationtastic. Spend money but fail to collect it?
In general the state grows with the left and shrinks with the right, somewhere in the middle there is a sweet spot.
Looking back the way the Uk was going things needed to change,
house prices are unaffordable for the young - governments can't tolerate a drop as this would impact key voters
Public sector spending was out of control and had no hope of being brought under control - mass cuts may not be the answer but something needed done
Energy was approaching crisis point
It was always said whoever won the election would become unelectable for 10 years because of what was needed (remember how labour still fail to propose a solution but just oppose anything) CMD may pull something off, looking back PM's have been more unpopular (maggie) and got re-elected due to the fact people acknowledge that some things need done.
@ Lifer, surely that's possible for both houses?
A Government made up entirely of knowledgeable and independent professionals with the proper expertise for their sector would, arguably, be better suited to the job?
Rather than, say, having a Chancellor with a latin or history degree...
Plus, I like the idea of individual accountability on a department by department basis.
I was thinking of an upper house that's elected by department/expertise. So there'd be a certain number of seats per department and you'd vote for indviduals by department rather than for party representatives by voting districts.
Sadly, it'd still boil down to voting for the 'Labour fella' in the Transport department. The Police elections were 'meant' to be party neutral but fell into the political parties pretty quickly and probably reflected the incumbent MPs on that area fairly closely I think.
Sadly, it'd still boil down to voting for the 'Labour fella' in the Transport department.
Maybe so - initially at least.
But as a Government of independents took shape, it'd be natural surely for those elected to be those most suited to the job. And, even if the Labour guy did get in, at least he'd have to campaign on the basis of his personal knowledge/expertise, rather than under the umbrella of his former party.
Over time, competence would overcome historic left/right affiliation.
My pipe dream ^^^^
I also like the idea of an unelected upper house as it provides some checks and balance to the vote grabbing short termism that people tend to whinge so much about. A bunch of people that can look at things on merit. At least if it is all elected then it should be staggered (ie 1/4 at once) for 10 year terms.
Tricky one. Some of the best changes I've seen at work have been when people have come in with no experience of the company and said "why are you doing it like this?", which is normally replied to with "because we've done this for the last x years (and I don't want to change because I'm comfortable doing it this way)". Sometimes you need a shake up
camo16 - Member
@ Lifer, surely that's possible for both houses?A Government made up entirely of knowledgeable and independent professionals with the proper expertise for their sector would, arguably, be better suited to the job?
I think you need a government of some sort to propose policy/law etc as otherwise how would budgets etc be set? The details and scrutiny of these policies would then be examined/altered/passed back by the knowledgeable and independents mentioned above.
Hold on fellas, you do realise we're having a sensible reasoned argument here with no name calling? 😯
I vote we get this thread closed down immediately...
I think you need a government of some sort to propose policy/law etc as otherwise how would budgets etc be set?
Yeah, in my vision, the knowledgeable independents form the Government. In that way, there's still an executive, but without the partisan party make-up. Policy is still made - made by people who are directly elected to their respective Cabinet roles. Budgetary compromise is made by neutrals with no left/right agenda - the danger being that each independent would fight for their own corner - with disputes potentially being handed over to an upper house - and, realistically, a direcly elected Prime Minister.
Whether or not this could work without the systematic policy enforcement that a Party provides is open to question.
I have a dream!
EDIT: apologies if my contributions have taken this thread OT. 😳
I do like that but I think that self-interest would mean that's impossible. Recognising/combatting self-interest in the design of a new system is imperative!
In the lower house there could be seperate votes for the chancellor, the knowinds would then have to set policy based on the budgets their department is given?
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.
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.
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. So it's very hard for left wingers to persuade a voter that their lives will be better with them in power.
So the local and global direction of politics is rightwards... due to absence of anyone who's left wing actually having any power or likely to persuade voters to vote for them.
Other countries (in Europe particularly) seem to manage well enough on coalitions. My view is this is likely to be the outcome in the next UK election too. In some ways this is what the people want - less swinging from one ideology to another every new Parliament, which will hopefully lead to more pragmatic governance. Personally I've never liked relying on idealists for the important stuff...
I think we need the parties to catch up with this idea... but I suspect they may take their time...
The parliament by experts would need a revitalised and efficient Civil Service to enact all of the decisions and keep things running. May need a bit of a purge and some new rules if it is to work.
MSP - Member
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.
I don't think 'success' would need to be a requirement for candidacy, again that's a major problem that party politics solves quite well (but doesn't provide the best candidates). Just knowledge.
I'm not interested in wingedness, it's another word for dogmatic.
A X wing govt who had good evidence that a policy normally considered Y wing could do a lot of good would find it hard to implement, because it's not of the correct wing.
Same with greens, they absolutely must follow green dogma regardless of all else.
We need a follow the evidence party, but as it would want to legalise drugs, build nuclear power stations, be completely uninterested in immigration, and have a fiscal policy of "we'll let ya know when we've seen the books, and then a mix of right and left", it would be unelectable.
(EDIT: I didn't RATS, but a scan suggests that's kinda what the thread is mostly about! 🙂 )
As an aside, I want a new strict code of conduct for the house of commons, if they were required to act like adults they might start thinking like adults, plus they'd (accidentally, at first) listen to each other and realise that things are more nuanced than their party fed dogma.
rogerthecat - Member
The parliament by experts would need a revitalised and efficient Civil Service to enact all of the decisions and keep things running. May need a bit of a purge and some new rules if it is to work.
Please don't use 'purge' in a thread about the left!
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?
the replies and digs would seem to suggest you do care
You can regard me as right/left/whatever, I really couldn't care less.
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 insultYou 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.
