It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK parties- Time for a new one?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I have been thinking about the next general election and contemplating who i'll vote for, but to be honest I can honestly say that not one of the main parties appeals to me in the slightest.

Being 22, this is the first election I will have the opportunity to vote in as I was travelling when the last one took place. I really don't just want to throw my vote away but there isn't a party who I can look at and agree with. I would love for another party to come into existence but I imagine it would be very difficult to set a party up, e.g. financial costs, creating a manifesto, canvassing etc.

anyways I was just wondering if others had thought about how to create a new party or knew of any that have recently started up.




posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I think you need to look at the voting system. Our system really only allows for two main parties in Westminster Elections, and generally in one given council, though three way ties exist both in seats and councils. Under this system, you really ought to pick one of the main two/three parties, because setting up a new political party would be nigh on impossible with the disaster of the greens in 1989 where they polled 15% through the country but failed to pick up one Euro seat.
I think if you want a new party, then you want a PR style system first and you should concentrate on that first.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Well Kilroy-Silk set up Veritas didnt he, had all the press coverage in the world and got no where (true it wasnt favourable press coverage).

UKIP is a good example of a relatively successful new party (in the european elections at least), however its main stated aim strikes a very strong cord with the majority of people in the UK, so in reality it should get far more of the vote in the EU elections than it actually does. Plus the guy who set it up had vast amounts of money to burn, as do generally its active support.

At the end of the day over half of any political parties support is tribal, which means that people always have and always will vote for that party, which is partly why new parties always do so abysmally.

Im interested, what policies would you want from this new party and why couldnt any pre-existing party do the job already (assuming they could realisticly adopt said policies)?


[edit on 21-9-2008 by Man_Versus_AntiMan]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Interesting that you should mention UKIP as i've been reading alot about them recently and i like a lot of what they stand for. I also noticed that as they become more popular,the more the disinformation grows about how theyre linked to the BNP. is this a tactic used by the major politial groups to stop up and coming parties from getting positive press and winning votes or is there actually any substance to what they say?

In regards to what you asked about the policies i would adopt, I pretty much agree with UKIP after reading theirs. I'd add a few bits and pieces but i like their main ideas. i feel labour and the conservatives have become pretty much the same party who just argue about trivial things to make it look like they actually dont have the same opinions.

on a side note i just watched question time and instantly remembered why i wouldnt vote for either of them...... so smug and self serving!!!



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
The two main parties are constantly fighting for the floating voters in the centre (about 10-20% of those who still vote at all), which is why you cant hold a rizla between them nowadays.

imo these floating voters make their decision based on media perception.
Bad media coverage scares the vote away, which makes bad polls, which creates more bad coverage, which scares more of the vote off, a positive feedback loop, just what happened to Major and now to Brown.

To try and avoid this, mainstream parties want to play safe and make policy that will be reported favourably by the BBC, Murdoch, the Daily Mail and other opinion makers.

This isolates the grassroots of both parties which increases the support of those at the fringes such as UKIP and Respect. So yeah, both the main parties will paint those sapping their core support as extremists, this may be largely untrue but because of the political demographic they are trying to attract is easy enough to be accepted as reasonable assumption.

And yeah, Question time pisses me off too.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Man_Versus_AntiMan
The two main parties are constantly fighting for the floating voters in the centre (about 10-20% of those who still vote at all), which is why you cant hold a rizla between them nowadays.

imo these floating voters make their decision based on media perception.
Bad media coverage scares the vote away, which makes bad polls, which creates more bad coverage, which scares more of the vote off, a positive feedback loop, just what happened to Major and now to Brown.

To try and avoid this, mainstream parties want to play safe and make policy that will be reported favourably by the BBC, Murdoch, the Daily Mail and other opinion makers.

This isolates the grassroots of both parties which increases the support of those at the fringes such as UKIP and Respect. So yeah, both the main parties will paint those sapping their core support as extremists, this may be largely untrue but because of the political demographic they are trying to attract is easy enough to be accepted as reasonable assumption.

And yeah, Question time pisses me off too.


I agree with this completely.

As the two main parties fight to dominate a safe centre, the only way a different party can offer a genuine alternative (for better or worse) is to offer something either left or right of this centre. The public have got that used to similar 'centre ground' policies that anything else just appears more radical than it ought to, which further marginalises anyone offering anything 'different'.

Also, perception of 'left' and 'right' is completely addled given that what is sold as a left wing soft-socialist government has seen to more privatisation and more generally right wing policies than previous conservative governments. New Labour have latched onto the likes of PFI like there's no tomorrow, and economically there might be not be a tomorrow!

The bulk of politics in this country needs rebuilding from the ground upwards starting with the representation problems. The real problem is that its not in the two main parties interests to do this; the less the people of Britain have a real say, the better it is for them.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Well,speaking for myself I'm joining the Labour Party and helping them next year.I was on the phone with my MP Bob Ainsworth a few weeks ago and he said no one knows when the next gen elec is going to be.Things are'nt perfect with Labour at the moment but to have the Tories elected would be unthinkable.What does an old Eteonian know about what it's like to be an ordinary ,working person?I like your question op and I've thought about it myself but now is not the time really.I think it would lead to further chaos (if that's possible)



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by candyfloss
What does an old Eteonian know about what it's like to be an ordinary ,working person?I like your question op and I've thought about it myself but now is not the time really.I think it would lead to further chaos (if that's possible)


Do you mean as opposed to Tony Blair who went to Fettes College before going to Oxford and then became a barrister? Who then married fellow barrister and eventual Queen's Counsel Cherie Blair? Who went on to have 4 kids, 3 of which went to London Oratory School?

That Tony 'ordinary working person' Blair?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:16 AM
link   
So then what sense does it make to have Tory ministers who've been brought up by nannies and shoved off to prep school at the nearest oppertunity make policy for a single mum in a council flat on benefits?If I remember rightly one famous Tory repetoire of the past was demonising single mums as the root of all society's ill's(that was when they were'nt busy creating ones of they're own with their secretaries etc)Blair and Booth might have had privelged backgrounds but the Labour Party is packed to roof with ordinary working class people incuding members of the cabinet.This was in the Observer today and makes interesting reading;




www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by candyfloss
So then what sense does it make to have Tory ministers who've been brought up by nannies and shoved off to prep school at the nearest oppertunity make policy for a single mum in a council flat on benefits?


Do you think you could ellaborate more on why you dont think some of the best educated people in the country should be allowed in government?


Originally posted by candyfloss
If I remember rightly one famous Tory repetoire of the past was demonising single mums as the root of all society's ill's(that was when they were'nt busy creating ones of they're own with their secretaries etc)


It wasnt really that long ago that single mums were put in institutions by both parties. And i think we can all name a couple of labour ministers whove been caught with their trousers down, visiting certain heaths etc


Originally posted by candyfloss
This was in the Observer today and makes interesting reading;

www.guardian.co.uk...


I think most of societies problems today have their roots in the 60s tbh, the result of labour social engineering projects, and no doubt we shall be feeling the effects of these few years in following generations aswell.

I dont want to be a tory fanboi, because really im not. But the tories are easily percieved as 'not caring' about society because its conservative tradition not to meddle with it. Change from the bottom up, not top down. I happen to prefer that idea.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by Man_Versus_AntiMan]

[edit on 28-9-2008 by Man_Versus_AntiMan]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by candyfloss
So then what sense does it make to have Tory ministers who've been brought up by nannies and shoved off to prep school at the nearest oppertunity make policy for a single mum in a council flat on benefits?If I remember rightly one famous Tory repetoire of the past was demonising single mums as the root of all society's ill's(that was when they were'nt busy creating ones of they're own with their secretaries etc)Blair and Booth might have had privelged backgrounds but the Labour Party is packed to roof with ordinary working class people incuding members of the cabinet.This was in the Observer today and makes interesting reading;
www.guardian.co.uk...


The point I'm making is that the idea that the Conservatives are the party of privilege and New Labour are the part of the common working man is a flawed myth. I'm certainly not saying anything in favour of the Tories, just pointing out that generally, politicians across both main parties are removed from the rest of us.

I find it a bit rich that you talk of hypocrisy amongst the Conservatives - and for the record, I have as much beef with the Tories as I do with New Labour; I'm certainly no Tory - when New Labour are equally riddled with it. To use a topical example, how about Ruth Kelly member of Opus Dei as well as being Minister for Women and Equality? I'm not sure how that's compatible given the limited role of women in Opus Dei and Catholicism in general. How about the view of gays from the Catholic church, never mind something as hard-line as the Opus Dei? Where's the equality there?

How about the same Ruth Kelly as Secretary of State for Education and Skills who takes her child out of regular school due to having special needs and puts him in a private prep school? Despite Oftsed giving fantastic reports to the school that Kelly didn't think was good enough for her child (but good enough for other people's kids, obviously) as well as there being SIX special needs schools in her area that she obviously didn't have a problem with given that her own department hadn't closed them down.

That's just one person that's held senior posts in New Labour. How about the general theme of New Labour being for the working man and not big business? That's been shown to be a farce from the start. Are you aware of New Labour's track record with Private Finance Initiatives? It's back door privatisation and cronyism on a scale as bad the Conservatives have ever did.

Here's a link that makes for interesting reading

Here's another.

Again, I'm not trying to say Labour are worse than the Tories, just highlight that they're all as bad as each other. Whilst there might be a couple of good eggs in both New Labour and Conservative baskets, generally? Rotten to the end.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Bring back the monster raving loony party.

It's our only hope.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I dislike the frame of mind that says 'if the party i support doesnt get in, it will be a total disaster', round here you hear the exact same thing about Labour. But of course its just disinformation, its never as bad as it seems, mainly of course because both parties want the safe centre.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
Bring back the monster raving loony party.

It's our only hope.




I knew it was only a matter of time-congrats Mr Lizard and here's to passports for pets



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Yes, I would say you probably do!

Here in Australia's Senate there's 1 independent, 1 from the Family First Party and 5 Greens that the balance of power teeters on:

www.abc.net.au...

The current situation, is if anything, extremely entertaining. This is the Family First guy:



It's just simply too boring with two parties. Things now get properly nutted out in the Senate, unlike under the Howard government where it was basically a rubber stamp.

Now it's definitely more even, and the Labor government, even though they've come to power, has to listen to what everyone has to say.

Any democracy where a bloke dresses in a bottle suite is a democracy I want to be a part of



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 04:00 AM
link   
There is alot to reply to here and I don't want to be a thread hijacker.No I have no objections to well educated people being in government.What i would like to see is everybody being well educated.The class system is very much alive and well in the UK today and it is BS.Holding back the best and brightest due to accidents of birth is ludicrous.Of there is corruption in politics -that's politics.Sometimes people have to do things that are politically expedient which is the awful truth.
Concerning the single parent issue.This was around the time when the Tories were promoting Victorian values(Ha!-A child brothel on every corner then?)
I remind you of the Miners Strike in the Eighties-which was a vicous and pre-planned attack on the working class via the Unions-you may have a short memory,the people in these areas don't.
The working classes paid the price for the economic success that was and now we have an under class of people who are disconnected from society ,not interested in education ,employment or laws-result -higher rates of violence and crime.Living in these places is like living in Beirut.If you knew how some people had to live in thi s country you would be shocked.You might think that the Tories are for rich maxim and Labour for the poor is a myth but the bottom line is the Tories don't believe in redistribution of wealth,will always be in bed with establishment and basically need to get a life and learn what it's like to be working class ,that would be a start!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join