Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jasper

New Centrist Party In The Offing ?

Recommended Posts

Some decent points on this by Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/07/opportunity-knocks-for-new-party-will-anybody-dare-open-door

The opportunity exists for a new party, but it would be a massive gamble. What is so far lacking is a critical mass of MPs prepared to take the large risks involved in making it happen. It is said, and it is true, that recent events have pushed many Labour MPs to breaking point, but that does not mean they are quite ready to break with their party. One thing that stops them is a deep attachment to Labour as an idea and a tribe, along with a continuing reluctance among many to accept that their party has been lost to Corbynism for the foreseeable future. One of this view likes to say to distraught colleagues: “It will pass.” Another thing holding them back is Brexit. I have heard a significant number of Labour MPs say the time is not yet ripe for a new party because they have a duty to “hold it together” until the critical parliamentary votes on Brexit have played out.

The moment of truth will come when we are closer to the EU departure date. It will be then that we will find out whether the many conversations about a new party amount to anything more than idle chatter.

It will be then that we will discover whether wistful talk turns into the bold action that would be required to make it happen. History scoffs at the idea. Precedent suggests that a new party will fail. Then again, the past few years have repeatedly shown us, from the rise of Jeremy Corbyn to Brexit, that precedent has become a lousy predictor.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, John Drake said:

Some decent points on this by Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/07/opportunity-knocks-for-new-party-will-anybody-dare-open-door

The opportunity exists for a new party, but it would be a massive gamble. What is so far lacking is a critical mass of MPs prepared to take the large risks involved in making it happen. It is said, and it is true, that recent events have pushed many Labour MPs to breaking point, but that does not mean they are quite ready to break with their party. One thing that stops them is a deep attachment to Labour as an idea and a tribe, along with a continuing reluctance among many to accept that their party has been lost to Corbynism for the foreseeable future. One of this view likes to say to distraught colleagues: “It will pass.” Another thing holding them back is Brexit. I have heard a significant number of Labour MPs say the time is not yet ripe for a new party because they have a duty to “hold it together” until the critical parliamentary votes on Brexit have played out.

The moment of truth will come when we are closer to the EU departure date. It will be then that we will find out whether the many conversations about a new party amount to anything more than idle chatter.

It will be then that we will discover whether wistful talk turns into the bold action that would be required to make it happen. History scoffs at the idea. Precedent suggests that a new party will fail. Then again, the past few years have repeatedly shown us, from the rise of Jeremy Corbyn to Brexit, that precedent has become a lousy predictor.

He's been reading this forum and plagiarising :P

  • Haha 1

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I see people in the established parties, particularly Labour, railing against the apparently outrageous notion that there may be other strands of political opinion not catered for by them or the Tories, the more I think 'bring it on!'

The Corbynite left have spent so much time telling people who disagree with them to leave Labour, they shouldn't be moaning if people start taking their advice.

The FPTP system is a barrier to a new party winning seats, but as UKIP have demonstrated, achieving your aims doesn't always require the winning of seats in Parliament. Starting to siphon off votes from the 'big two' can soon have them dancing to your tune.

  • Like 6

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Drake said:

The more I see people in the established parties, particularly Labour, railing against the apparently outrageous notion that there may be other strands of political opinion not catered for by them or the Tories, the more I think 'bring it on!'

The Corbynite left have spent so much time telling people who disagree with them to leave Labour, they shouldn't be moaning if people start taking their advice.

The FPTP system is a barrier to a new party winning seats, but as UKIP have demonstrated, achieving your aims doesn't always require the winning of seats in Parliament. Starting to siphon off votes from the 'big two' can soon have them dancing to your tune.

The amount of spite and vile coming from Labour is reason enough not to want them in government, in the current form 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

an easy way to get power would be to call yourselves "the childrens birthday party" everyone loves them, or "the bargain party" everyone loves a bargain.


the grass may be greener on the other side of the fence but the crows are just as black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, graveyard johnny said:

an easy way to get power would be to call yourselves "the childrens birthday party" everyone loves them, or "the bargain party" everyone loves a bargain.

I wouldn't mind a 'Think for yourself' party' instead of the 'Hive Mind' ones we have now.

  • Like 1

The%20Warriors%2060.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vambo said:

I wouldn't mind a 'Think for yourself' party' instead of the 'Hive Mind' ones we have now.

I wouldn't mind a "none of the above" voting option just so people can openly express how much they dislike the options they have!

  • Like 1

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ckn said:

I wouldn't mind a "none of the above" voting option just so people can openly express how much they dislike the options they have!

I say this as someone who would happily see that option combined with compulsory voting.

What do you do if None of the Above 'wins'?


Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I say this as someone who would happily see that option combined with compulsory voting.

What do you do if None of the Above 'wins'?

Void the election and reset it for six weeks' time, all existing candidates disqualified from a re-vote unless they have over 10% (15%? 20%?) of the vote, new candidates encouraged to come forward.  Might encourage them to actually campaign properly on local issues so they can represent their constituency properly.


"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ckn said:

Void the election and reset it for six weeks' time, all existing candidates disqualified from a re-vote unless they have over 10% (15%? 20%?) of the vote, new candidates encouraged to come forward.  Might encourage them to actually campaign properly on local issues so they can represent their constituency properly.

Existing candidates or the parties themselves?

Also, and I am just playing here, you are aware of how much 'fun' this would cause given how tight some of our coalition calculations have been recently ...


Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ckn said:

Void the election and reset it for six weeks' time, all existing candidates disqualified from a re-vote unless they have over 10% (15%? 20%?) of the vote, new candidates encouraged to come forward.  Might encourage them to actually campaign properly on local issues so they can represent their constituency properly.

Trouble being that if my experiece within the Lib-Dems is common to all parties there is a dearth of candidates, the ones that stand are usually the only ones available, dropping them and looking for new would in many cases either leave you without a candidate or with a second or third best choice.  I would only allow a "none of the above" option if anyone that made that selection was willing to step up as a candidate, otherwise it's whiny posturing  of the worst sort.

Edited by Shadow
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gingerjon said:

Existing candidates or the parties themselves?

Also, and I am just playing here, you are aware of how much 'fun' this would cause given how tight some of our coalition calculations have been recently ...

Candidates, I'd even be tempted to think about excluding all candidates in that scenario rather than those getting above a threshold.  There's almost no way to get shot of an existing MP in a safe seat.

Our local Conservative Party got rid of Tim Yeo because he really was taking the proverbial by rarely coming here and thinking that he was untouchable with a huge majority.  Deselected and a member of the local party faithful put in his place.  As much as he huffed and puffed, there was nothing he could do about it.  That's one out of 650-odd constituencies and very unlikely to be repeated, especially in tight seats where voter loyalty may be all that's keeping an MP in seat.


"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2018 at 2:46 PM, Farmduck said:

having a racist party run for elections actually shows how little value those views hold.

Ours do very well in England with sound bites, promises and posters of migrants that mislead.

 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I say this as someone who would happily see that option combined with compulsory voting.

What do you do if None of the Above 'wins'?

You pick the candidate with the highest number of votes. The "none of the above" vote gets published, but can never win. Just as we do with spoiled ballot papers today.

The problem with compulsory voting is that the electoral roll isn't currently fit for that. My son is on the roll in two places - legally he can only vote in one place at a general election, but if he doesn't vote in the other, they don't have a way to match up with the fact that he voted somewhere else.

A friend is standing for the Greens in a nearby village (not the one where she lives, which already has a candidate.) She had to get 10 people from that village to sign the nomination. The council offices are 25 miles away. She turned up at the office with 10 signatures only to be told that one of them had already nominated someone else and she needed to find another signature. She went back to the village and got another signature,  went back to the council office, to be told that this person wasn't on the electoral roll. So she had to make the round trip again to call on a random party member that she'd never met and get her to sign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Trouble being that if my experiece within the Lib-Dems is common to all parties there is a dearth of candidates, the ones that stand are usually the only ones available, dropping them and looking for new would in many cases either leave you without a candidate or with a second or third best choice.  I would only allow a "none of the above" option if anyone that made that selection was willing to step up as a candidate, otherwise it's whiny posturing  of the worst sort.

At the 2015 election, we got nothing from the Tories, nothing from Labour, a cut/paste job of a national flyer from the Lib Dems. 

The Labour candidate came second but she stopped campaigning four weeks before the election, she closed her election blog account and the website "news" feed only held a RSS feed from the national site.  The Tory candidate knew he didn't need to waste precious funds by campaigning, he'd won as soon as his name went on the paper.  The Lib Dem candidate was a school leaver because no-one else wanted the thumping and the normal main candidate had resigned his Lib Dem membership in disgust at Clegg, the poor girl did try but was woefully under-supported by the local and national parties.  The Kippers sent a flyer about how disgraceful the world was and how only the mighty Kippers could fix it.

If that didn't deserve a "none of the above" then what would?

At the 2017 election, there was only minimal planning because it was so unexpected so the giddy heights of the 2015 campaign were just a wishful dream.  We actually got a Tory flyer though, a postal one from central HQ rather than a hand-delivered one.

If we had a quality threshold of, say 10%, then that would have disqualified all bar the Tories, Labour and Kippers.  It'd certainly have made an interesting re-run as it'd force the parties to actually campaign.


"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ckn said:

At the 2015 election, we got nothing from the Tories, nothing from Labour, a cut/paste job of a national flyer from the Lib Dems. 

The Labour candidate came second but she stopped campaigning four weeks before the election, she closed her election blog account and the website "news" feed only held a RSS feed from the national site.  The Tory candidate knew he didn't need to waste precious funds by campaigning, he'd won as soon as his name went on the paper.  The Lib Dem candidate was a school leaver because no-one else wanted the thumping and the normal main candidate had resigned his Lib Dem membership in disgust at Clegg, the poor girl did try but was woefully under-supported by the local and national parties.  The Kippers sent a flyer about how disgraceful the world was and how only the mighty Kippers could fix it.

If that didn't deserve a "none of the above" then what would?

At the 2017 election, there was only minimal planning because it was so unexpected so the giddy heights of the 2015 campaign were just a wishful dream.  We actually got a Tory flyer though, a postal one from central HQ rather than a hand-delivered one.

If we had a quality threshold of, say 10%, then that would have disqualified all bar the Tories, Labour and Kippers.  It'd certainly have made an interesting re-run as it'd force the parties to actually campaign.

How would a “none of the above” response actually deliver a better candidate or result?

Your local parties don’t have an endless stream of potential candidates that are better than the one they put up, what you get is usually the best they have, often it’s all they have. There will be a limited number of approved parliamentary candidates available and you only have to look at the standard of some of the surprise victories where some distinctly dodgy characters have ended up as MPs to see the level of the bar you’d then be coming below with second or third choice selections. Alternatively you’d get party faithful that had lost their seat elsewhere being pushed out to second round votes so the very wasters you want to see evicted from Westminster would actually get another bite at the cherry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shadow said:

How would a “none of the above” response actually deliver a better candidate or result?

Your local parties don’t have an endless stream of potential candidates that are better than the one they put up, what you get is usually the best they have, often it’s all they have. There will be a limited number of approved parliamentary candidates available and you only have to look at the standard of some of the surprise victories where some distinctly dodgy characters have ended up as MPs to see the level of the bar you’d then be coming below with second or third choice selections. Alternatively you’d get party faithful that had lost their seat elsewhere being pushed out to second round votes so the very wasters you want to see evicted from Westminster would actually get another bite at the cherry.

Almost in the way a single transferable vote might.  If the candidates above the threshold got to roll-over then you'd probably end up with a straight battle between them.

Realistically though, you'd have to have a 30%+ "none of the above" to trigger this very hypothetical situation we're discussing, you've more chance of Nigel Farage getting elected in central Glasgow.


"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive the intrusion.

Instead of none of the above, consider a "write in" where you insert the name of someone you would vote for. Excluding the daft answers of course, you get an indication of not just  who you dont want, but who you do, e5c, outside of the MPPs.  This sytem operated in the local elections when we lived in France. Might have changed of course.


Four legs good - two legs bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnM said:

Instead of none of the above, consider a "write in" where you insert the name of someone you would vote for.

Really common in the US, of course, FD & Nixon being among those who won primaries that way. Nevada operates the "None of the above" system too - in the way that I suggested above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shadow said:

Trouble being that if my experiece within the Lib-Dems is common to all parties there is a dearth of candidates, the ones that stand are usually the only ones available, dropping them and looking for new would in many cases either leave you without a candidate or with a second or third best choice.  I would only allow a "none of the above" option if anyone that made that selection was willing to step up as a candidate, otherwise it's whiny posturing  of the worst sort.

This is absolutely true of my experience in the Labour Party too, certainly at local level, it is a myth to believe there is a long queue of people lining up to be selected as candidates to represent you on your local council.

There aren't.

The ones you get are the ones who are willing to put themselves through it. At least give them credit for making the effort, and appreciate that running a campaign is really hard work, done by volunteers.

In the last selection meeting I took part in before packing it all in, we invited 8 people from the list of available candidates across the whole district (from a limited pool of about 70 names to cover 30 wards), and ended up with a shortlist of 1, so our 'choice' was either them, or no one, and that was in a very winnable ward with a decent Labour majority.

No one from the ward itself had put their name forward to stand.

All that said, I would allow a 'none of the above' selection on the ballot paper (I'd rather people were motivated to get off their bums and use their vote somehow), but still allow the actual candidate with the most votes to take the seat.

However, until we get a proportional voting system (which neither of the two 'big' parties will offer you, for obvious if undemocratic reasons) I think interest and participation in local politics will continue to wither. And the more things wither at this level, the worse the choice will get higher up the food chain at parliamentary level too.

  • Like 3

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could a new centrist party plug the gap in British politics? - Peter Kellner
Don’t assume it’s impossible. The forces that worked against new parties in the past could be overcome

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/09/new-centrist-party-british-politics


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we have come to hate everything about politics we'll try something new so we can learn to hate it too!

It'll be old wine, in old bottles with a nice new label!

Vin de Macron?


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

If you stand in the middle of the road you get knocked down. Some politicians should try it some time.

That's why they like to appear and present themselves as moderate even when they're not which is as funny as it is deceiving and deceptive.

Even the presentation of centrist politics as the reasonable and sensible approach in the face of extremism is an agenda ridden piece of nonsense which suits some.

 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...