Something I've been thinking should happen, for quite a while now. Considering how Labour are no longer that, and have comprehensively sold out their 'socialist' principles and betrayed their traditional support for their slice of the pie, surely it's time we had a new left-wing party, a viable alternative to the ineffectual wishy washy liberal fence-sitters and a genuine opposition to the right? It's truly sad that UK politics has been dragged so far over to the right, but truth be told, the only thing that will rescue this nation once the tories have sold everything they can, will be a period of proper Socialism. Like the kind which saw the foundation of the NHS, the nationalisation of industry to benefit all not just the few, and the notions of equal educational opportunity regardless of wealth. Etc.
I was recently at a screening of [url= http://www.thespiritof45.com/ ]'The Spirit of 45' by Ken Loach[/url], at which Ken did a live Q+A session, and he amongst others called for a new leftist party to emerge from the rotting carcass that was once the Labour party.
Thing is; who will lead/represent such a party? Personally, I'd like to see those who have actual experience in certain fields of work running things; teachers running Education, Doctors and nurses running Healthcare, etc.
And how far off are we from such a thing happening? The demise of Labour has meant there have been rumblings along this line for some time now, and certainly there are those who would benefit from leaving Labour to the Blairites and joining other real lefties. But will we see a left-wing UKIP type shambles, or could Socialists, Greens and other leftist independents realistically form a viable Left within the not too distant future?
I believe it's customary around these parts to offer hot beverages and sweet snacks. The kettle is on. Enjoy. And please keep it civil and respectful.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Labour_Party_(UK) ]What the Solcialist Labour Party[/url]
The party is led by former trade union leader Arthur Scargill, who helped establish it in 1996 as a breakaway from the Labour Party, following the changes to the Labour Party's Clause IV. The name 'Socialist Labour Party' symbolises the fact that the Labour Party moved away from any commitment to progressive Socialism when it removed Clause IV from its constitution. Clause IV of the Socialist Labour Party constitution is therefore a fundamental element of the Party's identity.?
Here's the problem..
.. NO ONE WILL VOTE FOR IT
How about a party that doesn't have Left or Right ideals. Perhaps something based around humans not destroying the environment they are part of by raping said environment for resources?
A crazy thought. A party that isn't about being union or capitalist. If only the Green Party could actually do something!
Yawn !
If only the Green Party could actually do something!
Did you see what happened tot he Lib Dems with a sniff of power?
What TT said.
No.
And please keep it civil and respectful.
Do you live in a greenhouse...
Very tricky thing to negotiate. Private business is now so massive and global that they would make it very difficult for the country to move to the left I reckon.
People say 'oh don't worry we'll find another industry instead of finance' but I'd rather they not gamble with my livelihood... any more than they already do.
The Green Party don't support nuclear, suggesting that they don't have a very good grasp of their ideals or much ability to crunch numbers, both things that concern me.
Not that the present or past governments have shown any particular talent in sticking to ideals or number crunching...
a proper left wing opposition!
dont be such a fool, go back and watch x-factor/ football/ skynews/ read the daily fail, guffaw at clarcksons latest semi racist gag, buy 10 lottery tickets, blame immigrants,remortgage your house, get the new iphone, buy a 29er
and vote tory/nulab/limpdem
Tony Blair has a lot to answer for.
He hollowed out the labour party from the inside. He abolished any idea of democratic accountability within the party, and promoted a generation of career politicians, who would deliver exactly what was requested of them by the inner cabal at the top.
They were foisted upon safe labour seats regardless of the wishes of the local constituancy. Thus they were there to serve the central London-obsessed, Islington dwelling party, with not the slightest interest in the people who actually voted for them. Thus we have a complete and total detachment from their (post) industrial heartlands. In return life-long labour voters have abandoned them in disgust at how completely unrepresentative they now are.
I think the state of the labour party can be gauged by the last leadership election. Anyone with any real values or beliefs was immediately dismissed in favour of two Blairite Islington Liberals. The opinions of say, the northern constituancies, were completely ignored. The whole thing was an internal stitch up with the Unions, who with a few noticeable exceptions are also happily lining their own London-based pockets, with total disregard for their members
The labour party is now just the Bullingdon Club for people who couldn't afford Eton. We need an alternative. And fast!!!!
Tony Blair has a lot to answer for.
The question is, would the electorate have voted for Old Labour?
[i]The rotting carcass that was once the Labour party[/i] is likely to win, or at least be a close second, in the next general election.
Then, after a term or two, the conservatives will win again.
Where is the demand for this new party that will break the cartel?
nail, head.dont be such a fool, go back and watch x-factor/ football/ skynews/ read the daily fail, guffaw at clarcksons latest semi racist gag, buy 10 lottery tickets, blame immigrants,remortgage your house, get the new iphone, buy a 29er
and vote tory/nulab/limpdem
How about a party that doesn't have Left or Right ideals. Perhaps something based around humans not destroying the environment they are part of by raping said environment for resources?A crazy thought. A party that isn't about being union or capitalist. If only the Green Party could actually do something!
This. 🙁
You need a party called CORRECT The [b]C[/b]oalition [b]O[/b]f [b]R[/b]adical [b]R[/b]ealistic [b]E[/b]ffective & [b]C[/b]lear [b]T[/b]hinkers
Drop the tribal prattle and go for the best of the best solutions to all things, including what overall direction to take. This is the opportunity missed by the Lib-Dims. I had great hopes after the expesnes debacle and last election. Clegg fluffed it.
I was at the Spirit of 45 Q&A also. For those that weren't, the direction being taken by the three panelists seemed to be the [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/how-the-peoples-assembly-can-challenge-our-suffocating-political-consensus--and-why-its-vital-that-we-do-8547507.html ]People's Assembly[/url].
Where is the demand for this new party that will break the cartel?
It will come when this:
go back and watch x-factor/ football/ skynews/ read the daily fail, guffaw at clarcksons latest semi racist gag, buy 10 lottery tickets, blame immigrants,remortgage your house, get the new iphone, buy a 29er and vote tory/nulab/limpdem
finally stops working.
why would some more mp's be better than the current ones? another political party is not the answer. what we should be doing is trying to decentralize government, taking some power back from people in london who obv don't have a clue about the real world. i'm thinking of localism, totally local, transition towns, even neighborhood watch and parish council. all these organisations do great things
Why does the OP think something more Left is needed? What if the current system was broken and we shouldn't be focused on Left or Right and that is all a distraction from the real stuff we should be collectively be thinking about?
Like a more just society that makes better use of the resources it requires, so we don't keep messing up the mess we inherited? So our kids don't ask us why we didn't make an effort when we had something left that wasn't messed up by us as a species?
Very tricky thing to negotiate. Private business is now so massive and global that they would make it very difficult for the country to move to the left I reckon.
This. We don't live in democracy, we may have notions of left and right, but we all live in capitalism. The wealthy control the media, finance the political parties and kept us all sweet with materialism.
What's quite funny is that after the virtual collapse of capitalism in the last decade, We are getting it in the neck for others mistakes, and still we want capitalism pre-2007.
It's an addiction that's costing us the earth.
why would some more mp's be better than the current ones? another political party is not the answer. what we should be doing is trying to decentralize government, taking some power back from people in london who obv don't have a clue about the real world. i'm thinking of localism, totally local, transition towns, even neighborhood watch and parish council. all these organisations do great things
Look at the Localism Act introduced by the present government, it transfers powers to local councils etc.
weve already got a socialist economy really
well the debt is socialised but the profit is privatised - see banking crisis
Here's the problem.... NO ONE WILL VOTE FOR IT
Recent victories by the Greens, Respect and the rise of UKIP show that whilst voting for anyone other than the big 3 is uncommon, it can and does happen. People are dissatisfied; give them a viable alternative and they will certainly consider it. UKIP votoers got off their narrow-minded bigoted arses to vote, so why can't those who Labour have abandoned, and no longer see any point in voting (as there is not alternative to right-wing politics)?
How about a party that doesn't have Left or Right ideals. Perhaps something based around humans not destroying the environment they are part of by raping said environment for resources?
This was mentioned; however, the Greens will have to expand their agenda somewhat, and shift from being a party of protest into something with actual potential.
And right-wing politics/ideology doesn't seem to be offering the majority of people a very bright future at the moment, so perhaps those Leftist ideals are of actual value.
Where is the demand for this new party that will break the cartel?
Amongst the millions disillusioned by UK politics, amongst the millions affected by Tory cuts, and betrayed by Labour. So, in effect, millions of traditional Labour voters. Who have nothing but Abbot, Milliband and Balls to vote for.
Dont be such a fool, go back and watch x-factor/ football/ skynews/ read the daily fail, guffaw at clarcksons latest semi racist gag, buy 10 lottery tickets, blame immigrants,remortgage your house, get the new iphone, buy a 29er
and vote tory/nulab/limpdem
And so, Murdoch and his cronies win. 😥
spchantler - Memberwhy would some more mp's be better than the current ones? another political party is not the answer. what we should be doing is trying to decentralize government, taking some power back from people in london who obv don't have a clue about the real world. i'm thinking of localism, totally local, transition towns, even neighborhood watch and parish council. all these organisations do great things
Nail on head there. Both Nu Labour and Daves Tories are obsessed with centralising power in the hands of a small elite. Genuine cabinet style government has been dead for years. Ministers are now just PR spokesmen. Regional representation from anywhere outside the M25 is now non-existent in any party
Hats off to Dave though. He's centralised yet more control while banging on about 'localism' which has essentially, as Eric Pickles worded it "devolved the axe". They've made (particularly labour controlled) councils responsible for making enormous and unpalettable cuts, while they raise a glass to their own cleverness, and hunker down in Westminster behind big departments of state that have born little or no cuts at all. London gravy train still well and truly intact, while the regions rot
Utterly depressing 😥
Why does the OP think something more Left is needed?
Because the right-wing 'solution' isn't working. And because the UK enjoyed it's best period, economically and socially, following the imposition of Leftist ideology. That, and the fact that I'm a 'Lefty' and traditional Labour voter who believes in Socialism offering far better solutions than what the right has traditionally offered.
I was at the Spirit of 45 Q&A also. For those that weren't, the direction being taken by the three panelists seemed to be the People's Assembly.
Good, wasn't it? 🙂
Not a place I'd have wanted to be if I was a Thatcherite though...
We don't live in democracy
Not sure what your definition of democracy is, but we do live in one really.
Because the right-wing 'solution' isn't working. And because the UK enjoyed it's best period, economically and socially, following the imposition of Leftist ideology. That, and the fact that I'm a 'Lefty' and traditional Labour voter who believes in Socialism offering far better solutions than what the right has traditionally offered.
May I address that as a biased position to have come from....
What would such a party stand for? Pay so high that nothing was competitive? pensions so generous we can all retire at 45? Free everything to anyone?
well the debt is socialised but the profit is privatised - see banking crisis
Don't you get the point yet? its a merry go round!
the government, and their predecessors, of both parties, fir the last five decades, have been more than happy to let the bankers take a profit, as its a chicken feed pay off to keep them buying sovereign debt.
if the bankers stopped buying sovereign debt, we as a nation would have to live within our means, and we'd be royally ****ed! 50p in every pound spent is government spending.
the UK enjoyed it's best period, economically and socially, following the imposition of Leftist ideology.
Hmm if we're honest with ourselves, we enjoyed our best period economically and socially by forcing people in Brown countries that we kept repressed through force to buy things off us, whilst taking their natural resources off them and forcing them to work in virtual penury to provide us with a lifestyle.
and really localism is the answer?
If people are prepared to engage in it which I guess is more likely if they think they can make things happen - but it will be a slow process.
Meh, neo-liberalism has won, nowt we can do about it now except go and live in a cave.
Look at the Localism Act introduced by the present government, it transfers [s]powers[/s] blame for government cuts to local councils etc.
FTFY
[quote=thx1138 ]
Recent victories by the Greens, Respect and the rise of UKIP show that whilst voting for anyone other than the big 3 is uncommon, it can and does happen. People are dissatisfied; give them a viable alternative and they will certainly consider it. UKIP votoers got off their narrow-minded bigoted arses to vote, so why can't those who Labour have abandoned, and no longer see any point in voting (as there is not alternative to right-wing politics)?
Because the population is fed a constant stream of aspirational crap by the media. The fancy cookery programmes, the various "buy a house and make a fortune" shows, the national lottery, the concentration on footballers and their wives. It's all designed to make folk consume more and for that they need more money. Right-wing parties prey on this greed in order to get into power and even those who might [i]collectively[/i] be better off with an alternative are blinded by the chance for personal wealth.
There's a chance - albeit a small one - that things [i]could[/i] be a bit different if less power was concentrated in London. That might give you in inkling as to why some folk in Scotland want to try an alternative. Will it work? Who knows - but it's worth trying.
i was thinking more on the lines of transition towns etc, god knows local councils are as corrupt as anything, from planning backhanders to the road sweepers putting in full days and then going to sleep. its about an attitude change from everyone, maybe this is the start of something...(scurries off to workshop to make his old frames into pitchforks)and really localism is the answer?
i was thinking more on the lines of transition towns etc, god knows local councils are as corrupt as anything, from planning backhanders to the road sweepers putting in full days and then going to sleep. its about an attitude change from everyone, maybe this is the start of something...(scurries off to workshop to make his old frames into pitchforks)
Then vote for someone else, they are plenty of elected independents, it much less of a mountain to climb than becoming an MP.
I'm going to start a new political party.
We can all play games like blind mans bluff or twister and there'll be free ballons and jelly & icecream for all, it'll be called the Birthday Party.
Not sure what your definition of democracy is, but we do live in one really.
We don't, we live in a nation with a constitutional monarchy. 'Democracy' is merely a myth. Abolishing the monarchy (and it's associated undemocratic institutions such as the House of Lords etc) would be a good start though.
May I address that as a biased position to have come from....
Of course. I'd rather be open about my political leanings than be a [s]Lib Dem[/s] fence sitter. 😉
That, and the fact that I'm a 'Lefty' and traditional Labour voter who believes in Socialism offering far better solutions than what the right has traditionally offered.
I think you are limiting the solution to your own preconceptions and the label you have given yourself. Why not start with a blank piece of paper and come up with what is important? I think Left and Right are as bad as each other and the third way that does not put us as a species at the top (but as part of something we should be more responsible for) is needed.
Apologies for bringing Jonathan Porritt into this, but his quote back in 1984 when comparing capitalism and communism has a certain clarity to it:
Both are dedicated to industrial growth, to the expansion of the means of production, to a materialist ethic as the best means of meeting people's needs, and to unimpeded technological development. Both rely on increasing centralization and large-scale bureaucratic control and co-ordination. From a viewpoint of narrow scientific rationalism, both insist that the planet is there to be conquered, that big is self-evidently beautiful, and that what cannot be measured is of no importance. (Porritt, 1984)
Abolishing the monarchy (and it's associated undemocratic institutions such as the House of Lords etc) would be a good start though.
You'll recall that we've tried that before - it didn't work, so we asked to have a monarch back again as a check and balance against the power of elected government.
Tell me, if you're so keen on democracy, would you be happy to have a truly democratic society? lets take a couple of exmaples, would you be happy for a referendum on the following subjects:
i) EU membership
ii) The death penalty
iii) immigration
iv) Foreign Aid
Or are you happy to tolerate democracy only as long as those democratic decisions fit with your own belief system?
Not sure what your definition of democracy is, but we do live in one really.
My definition is we vote once every five years or so. And that's it.
The political parties are financed and influenced by "interested parties", you have to get the media on your side, of course without stepping on the toes of those who run them and their "interests", the main parties are increasingly only choosing particular candidates who wont rock the boat and from particular backgrounds.
A classic example is what this current Government is doing. Things it's doing that weren't in it's manifesto, so how could you vote for it?
We don't, we live in a nation with a constitutional monarchy.
...who don't actually run anything.
We vote for the people who do though - that's democracy. They may not run it in our best interests, but that's our fault. What with this being a democracy and all.
A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional republic, such as France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, or the United States, or a constitutional monarchy, such as Japan, Spain, or the United Kingdom. It may have a presidential system (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, the United States), a semi-presidential system (France and Taiwan), or a parliamentary system (Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Poland, the United Kingdom).
from the Wiki.
The political parties are financed and influenced by "interested parties"
Yep. And why are the parties in power? Cos we voted for them. If we weren't so stupid, we would be able to create an alternative.
We don't live in democracy
Whilst I don't think our system is perfect, I think that's a matter of perspective & relativity. Spend some time in China, North Korea, Cuba, Russia, Myanmar and try living your life as you do in the UK, pretty much going where you want, when you want and saying pretty much what you want...
after the virtual collapse of capitalism in the last decade
I'm not sure the Chinese, much of Africa, India, ex-Eastern bloc would agree with you that capitalism has collapsed. How many pure Communist countries exist in the world, how powerful are they and what standard of living to their citizens enjoy?
To the OP, if i were a socialist I'd be pretty upset that there was no-one left for me to vote for. But at the same time I think the country has gradually moved rightwards post-war so a proper Socialist party in the UK would be highly unlikely to ever get into power, in which case, what purpose would it serve to the electorate as a whole?
the party leader would have to wear a silly wig and clown makeup of course.
Tell me, if you're so keen on democracy, would you be happy to have a truly democratic society? lets take a couple of exmaples, would you be happy for a referendum on the following subjects:i) EU membership
ii) The death penalty
iii) immigration
iv) Foreign AidOr are you happy to tolerate democracy only as long as those democratic decisions fit with your own belief system?
As soon as we have made sure we have an honest and balanced national press then yeah, let the referendums go ahead.
As soon as we have made sure we have an honest and balanced national press then yeah, let the referendums go ahead.
And who would monitor and balance this new honest and balanced national press?
What we need is a state run press who'd make sure that it was handled evenly and fairly and without bias from rich individuals/companies.
Well we do have the BBC...
I think i need to down tools and have a good read through this but while I'm here...did I hear right? The most Thunderbird-puppet-like man in politics of recent years has gone to work for International Rescue?!
i'm not so sure that mr average is particularly informed about the above, and not really able to make a decision, i know naff all about eu membership for example) EU membership
ii) The death penalty
iii) immigration
iv) Foreign Aid
What we need is a state run press who'd make sure that it was handled evenly and fairly and without bias from rich individuals/companies.
😆 😉
Yep. And why are the parties in power? Cos we voted for them. If we weren't so stupid, we would be able to create an alternative.
Well at least we can agree on something.
i'm not so sure that mr average is particularly informed about the above, and not really able to make a decision
Thankfully Mr A Verage is only 1 man, the rest are either above or below him
we'd have to have soft drinks coloured red in carboard cups and crisps as well, but not smokey bacon, yuuuuckkk.
anyone see newsnight the other night
quite a rational debate about immigration then along came farage quoting some platerers hed allegedly been chatting to in the pub just b4 he was obviously lying through his manky teeth but he sees to be the 'voice of the nation' when it comes to immigration
Nigel Farage is now effectively writing the main parties policy on immigration for them.
And why? Because betwen the main parties, they've distilled and gerrymandered the political system to the point where the outcome of any general election is decided in a few key constituencies. The rest don't matter, so neither do the opinions of their inhabitants
But those key swing-vote constituencies are exactly where UKIP are now making a nuisance of themselves. Hence the panic in Westminster, and the quick re-writing of policy by all of them to pander to the UKIP inclined
How about a party that doesn't have Left or Right ideals. Perhaps something based around humans not destroying the environment they are part of by raping said environment for resources?A crazy thought. A party that isn't about being union or capitalist. If only the Green Party could actually do something!
If you start one, you'll get my vote. All this conforming left and right (you must be one or the other) is limiting our choice. Some of us want neither.
he sees to be the 'voice of the nation' when it comes to immigration
I fear he's onto something. Which is scary.
An interesting article in the Economist this week came to the conclusion that the US recovery is lagging simply because there are fewer people of working age in the country, which is simply a matter of demography - lots of old people, retired and not enough young people, working and generating economic output.
Europe also has an aging population.
So unfortunately if we want growth, we will have to import the labour to deliver the economic growth.
I think the electorate need to have this spelled out to them in cold terms rather than the emotional rhetoric you get from UKIP, Tories and the right-wing press, before we knacker the country's future...
Thus they were there to serve the central London-obsessed, Islington dwelling party
This is a lot of cack: it was ZaNuLieBore (thought I'd make you feel at home with the official Daily Mail spelling) that introduced devolution fr Scotland, the Welsh National Assembly, revived the peace process and Stormont, washed is hands of London affairs allowing a disgraced Old Labour hack to become the second most important man in UK politics, introduced directly-elected mayors and proposed English assemblies that were so de-Londonised that no-one wanted it. Oh, and occupied Kosovo, and intervened in Sierra Leone, and invaded Iraq, and invaded Afghanistan.
But yeah, they were just OBSESSED by Central London, right?
Tell me, if you're so keen on democracy, would you be happy to have a truly democratic society? lets take a couple of exmaples, would you be happy for a referendum on the following subjects:i) EU membership
ii) The death penalty
iii) immigration
iv) Foreign AidOr are you happy to tolerate democracy only as long as those democratic decisions fit with your own belief system?
Up until the last election we routinely have had a referendum on these issues, its called a general election and thus far it has maintained the status quo as you know it. I have to say our system isn't working well with an unelected government and that is a cause for considerable concern to me and I suspect many others.
Up until the last election we routinely have had a referendum on these issues, its called a general election and thus far it has maintained the status quo as you know it.
Really, can you tell me which significant political party in the past forty years has stood on an election commitment regards the reintroduction of the death penalty, departure from the EU, or cessation of foreign aid?
I thought we wanted democracy?
why cant we have democracy on these issues as well as the issues that suit the political elite?
Why does it have to be a [i]significant[/i] political party? Surely if enough people cared sufficiently about those issues then a party advocating them would get elected?
You're quite free to set up such a party and see how many people vote for you.
I'm a bit more suprised at the fact that we have an unelected government in the UK. I swear that I remember an election back in 2010 that resulted in the government that we currently have.
Oh get real konabunny
Devolution is a sham. Its meaningless tokanism, the same as the Tory's much trumpeted 'localism'. Utter bullshit!!!!
They never gave any real power to anybody other than limited ones to the Scottish parliament. Only after they thought they'd safely stitched up their very clever electoral system so that it could never deliver a working majority to anyone except labour. Oops! That went well then?
The rest of the regional assemblies are talking shops stuffed with Nu Labours favourtes: reams and reams of pointless overpaid quangos, consultants and committees going round in endless circles to achieve nothing. Just the gravy train of another level of pointless bureaucracy to spaff taxpayers money on. Same as directly elected mayors. Yeah... note the electoral enthusiasm. Would you like a North West regional assembley? No! **** off!! Placate us with another expensive, pointless, powerless talking shop? I think most of us saw through that one
And exactly WTF does invading Iraq and Afahnistan prove they're not London centric? Other than the fact that they were more prepared to listen to people in Washington, than Manchester 🙄
[quote=rattrap ]Up until the last election we routinely have had a referendum on these issues, its called a general election and thus far it has maintained the status quo as you know it.
Really, can you tell me which significant political party in the past forty years has stood on an election commitment regards the reintroduction of the death penalty, departure from the EU, or cessation of foreign aid?
I thought we wanted democracy?
why cant we have democracy on these issues as well as the issues that suit the political elite?
Stand for election yourself. If folk care enough about those policies they'll vote for you. If you're successful, other folk will stand on the same ticket and they'll also get elected. Pretty soon, there will be enough of you to form a government.
Or not.
I thought the SWP was the true socialist party or do you want to create something slightly to the right of them but definitley more to the left than current New labour?
I thought the SWP was the true socialist party or do you want to create something slightly to the right of them but definitley more to the left than current New labour?
People's Front of Judea? SPLITTERS!
Stand for election yourself. If folk care enough about those policies they'll vote for you.
Isn't that what UKIP did - but we're constantly hearing from the lefties that they are unfairly targeting swing voters with emotional arguments
I thought you wanted democracy, not more of the same?
Isn't that what UKIP did - but we're constantly hearing from the lefties that they are unfairly targeting swing voters with emotional arguments
Are we? Troll troll troll - new username but the same old nonsense eh?
All we need to bring our political parties into line is to make it illegal (with substantial criminal penalties) to accept political donations from anyone but a registered voter in the relevant electorate. That way they'll have to actually talk to the electorate.
At the moment we have the best government that the big corporates can buy.
And to fix the Labour party - no representatives who haven't had a proper job in the real world.
People's Front of Judea? SPLITTERS!
The problem with The Life of Brian is it reminds us this kind of chat has been going on for ever... and the best way to deal with it is to just laugh at the powermongers and get on with living life as well as you can...
Not sure what your definition of democracy is, but we do live in one really.
Guided democracy, also called managed democracy, is a term for a democratic government with increased autocracy. Governments are legitimated by elections that are free and fair but emptied of substantive meaning in their ability to change the State's policies, motives, and goals.
In other words, the government has learned to control elections so that the people can exercise all their rights without truly changing public policy. While they follow basic democratic principles, there can be major deviations towards authoritarianism. Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the State's continuous use of propaganda techniques.
I would also like to see new political parties but would prefer the debate to focus on the other axis in Scotroutes 4-quadrant diagram ie from authoritarian towards more libertarianism.
To some extent, it is a truism that societies get the politicians they deserve. We do not have a (modern) history of political extremism in this country (which some claim is the benefit of a monarchy) but even so, there has been an concentration of political thinking in the centre (I would not agree that this is RW) and this has alienated those at the RELATIVELY more extreme ends of the political spectrum. One of the reasons for that IMO is that the populations who sit at these extreme are in the minority - so in this case, it will be interesting to see if there is sufficient support. Personally, I doubt it.
But as I said at the start, rather than a shift R=>L, I would prefer to see a shift from less government and certainly less authoritarian government in favour of more libertarianism. Perhaps a shift towards the centre of the axis in the quadrant box. Too much meddling, too much bureaucracy, too little accountability, too little responsibility and freedom lie at the heart of the many of our problems. The subjecation of the populations of S Europe to the political elites of Europe's core, is the most extreme example of this.
FWIW, Ken Loach would need better spokesman. He was awful on QT recently. Both he and Heseltine appeared like relics of a distant political age.
Couldn't give a stuff about wingedness - or even democracy for its own sake. Just critical thinking, and evidence following.
For example. We currently still have prohibition of (some, arbitrarily chosen) drugs, we can barely mange to build a nuclear power station, and we sold all our carrier capable aircraft for spares right before buying two aircraft carriers.
Also, watch a debate in the commons, then in the lords. Then tell yourself the democratically elected house gives us anything of worth.
Not sure what wingedness any of that makes me, but yearning for wingedness of any stripe seems daft.
rattrap - MemberUp until the last election we routinely have had a referendum on these issues, its called a general election and thus far it has maintained the status quo as you know it.
Really, can you tell me which significant political party in the past forty years has stood on an election commitment regards the reintroduction of the death penalty, departure from the EU, or cessation of foreign aid?
I thought we wanted democracy?
why cant we have democracy on these issues as well as the issues that suit the political elite?
Clearly there are one of two possibilities here;-
A) You've not understood the basic tenents of Democracy (if you're not sure what that means google majority)
B) You are a Troll, and I claim my rights under Troglodytae Prima Nocte...tonight you're mine sucker
No, Bandit, you're mistaking the parliamentary representative democracy that we have in the UK as the only form of democracy, there have been a great many differing form of democracy throughout time, all of which have had differing yet equally valid ways of deciding 'what the majority want' on particular subjects.
Why on earth shouldn't the people have a referendum on issues that affect us all - the death penalty being a fantastic example of where the political settlement does not and has not reflected the majority public view for decades.
The fact that you're unable to expand your thinking beyond the current format of government shows that you're one of those who on reflection probably would benefit society by having your democratic mandate limited to putting a cross in a box once every five years.
My best idea is still to ensure that people actually know who they're voting for by removing the names of the political parties from all ballot papers and at least 500m of the polling station. If you have to be memorable to your local voters then perhaps you won't turn out to be such a douche.
Also MP's should be limited to two terms to ensure decent turnover.
In fact I'd go so far to say it'd be better to select parliament the same way we select jurors.
I think left and aren't really relevant ideologies to try and apply to a lot of the issues today and branding yourself a tory or a socialist has about as much relevance and meaning as which leg of your trousers you put on first. MP's should be there to use their conscience to put forward what they feel is in the best interests of their constituents, not to follow the sponsored/sanctioned party lineI think Left and Right are as bad as each other
oliverd1981 - Member
MP's should be there to use their conscience to put forward what they feel is in the best interests of their constituents, not to follow the sponsored/sanctioned party line
Careful, not adhering to strict political parameters and party lines is strictly frowned upon on STW. How very dare you?!? The "outing-gang" will be on to you shortly.
More than a new political party, we need a new economic model that addresses how to overcome excessive levels of debt across most sectors of the economy. None of the current models are working and are unlikely to do so in the near future - tight fiscal policy/loose monetary policy (Europe) or tight monetary policy/loose fiscal policy (until recently Japan). The political elite are stuck with one framework to understand and tackle our problems but it isn't working - and no thats not just capitalism, that's merely a sloppy headline.
more libertarianism
I'll happily (hello Stoner! 8) ) take my cue from Thoreau when it comes to the evils of Big Government, but - IME - self-styled libertarians rarely have concrete solutions to real-world problems. And the more evangelical of 'em are simply barking. What they [i]do[/i] offer, however, is plenty of vague platitudes, and they tend to occupy political territory inwhich both anarchists and monied elites can feel comfortable - while the rest of us have to make do. So, no thanks.
Careful, not adhering to strict political parameters and party lines is strictly frowned upon on STW. How very dare you?!? The "outing-gang" will be on to you shortly.
That's a very inaccurate and one might even say disingenuous way of describing the stick you got.
MP's should be there to use their conscience to put forward what they feel is in the best interests of their constituents, not to follow the sponsored/sanctioned party line
I totally agree - the party system with an official line enforced by whips is fundamentally undemocratic IMO.
Why on earth shouldn't the people have a referendum on issues that affect us all - the death penalty being a fantastic example of where the political settlement does not and has not reflected the majority public view for decades.
As already explained, if a political party thought they could get enough support by advocating such a policy, they would - or you can start your own - that's democracy. But apparently that's not good enough for you. And what people say in opinion polls is often not reflected in actual votes BTW.
We do not have a (modern) history of political extremism in this country (which some claim is the benefit of a monarchy)
Nah it is asymptom of it tbh we are conservative [ small c true meaning ] here and dont have much history of either right or left wing extremis - i think we dont like change much
One of the reasons for that IMO is that the populations who sit at these extreme are in the minority - so in this case, it will be interesting to see if there is sufficient support. Personally, I doubt it.
you would need to eb a pretty deluded right or left winger to thinkl your brand of politics will ever be electable - I realise that the majority do not share my views for example
I would prefer to see a shift from less government and certainly less authoritarian government in favour of more libertarianism. Perhaps a shift towards the centre of the axis in the quadrant box. Too much meddling, too much bureaucracy, too little accountability, too little responsibility and freedom lie at the heart of the many of our problems.
Interestingly I see that as right wing as it beefitss those of means - where you see an authoritarian state i see it as providing the helping hand the less middle class actually need. Choice and empowerment are buzz words but if you try working with the needy they are meaningless[ re reading that and not sure if that reads like a dig but it is not a dig at you so sorry if it reads as such ] I deliver a service that is all about that and it just does not meet some peoples needs as they need to actually be shown. Sadly , for some , it would be like empowering a child over bed times or how much xbopx to play. It wont end well- see what happens giving the "needy" their Housing Benefit rather than their landlords
Libertarianism has its place as govt should not limit your choices it should however enable them and that means help IME
branding yourself a tory or a socialist has about as much relevance and meaning as which leg of your trousers you put on first
you really think that simply by knowing this it tells you nothing in political terms 😯 You may dislike labels, the party system but knowing this gives a pretty good insight into what someone stands for.
The political elite are stuck with one framework to understand and tackle our problems but it isn't working
Your right they all think and act the same though we get a slightly different flavour with little real alternatives - certainly economically there is little difference beyond the rhetoric.
and no thats not just capitalism, that's merely a sloppy headline.
Obviously I disagree but if you want to have it you need to take boom and bust and save for the busts as they are as inevitabe as the booms. It is not designed to be steady or zero growth so you inevitably get this - if its not inevitable then so far we ack the means of controlling it and obviosuly i think it is impossible to control greed when you base a system on it ...folk will always want more and not think it coudl ever end so that when it hits the fan they are too over stretched.