|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 5, 2017 16:07:04 GMT
The Tory-Unionist National Guardians.
(social conservative, monarchist, High Anglican, Euro-sceptic, militarist, austerity, Countryside Alliance, agrarian, protectionist, anti-globalist, non-Green, xenophobic, empire loving, White party)
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Aug 5, 2017 16:09:16 GMT
That would still require a compromise to join any party because people hold different views on different issues. I for example would probably fit into your left liberal green fusion (already obviously an interesting mix especially as you envisage the celtic nats in there) but on some issues I'd more comfortable with a pragmatic social democratic party (basically the ideological divide the Lib Dems currently try to straddle). And of course you are going to finish up with a coalition government across a range of these parties. Of course in our present party system we have coalition governments where the coalitions are informal and hidden inside the formal party structure both big parties only exist because they are coalitions. Are you hoping that members will identify which party our present parliamentarians would finish up in? That could be fun....
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Aug 5, 2017 16:12:37 GMT
The Tory-Unionist National Guardians. (social conservative, monarchist, High Anglican, Euro-sceptic, militarist, austerity, Countryside Alliance, agrarian, protectionist, anti-globalist, non-Green, xenophobic, empire loving, White party) Can't think of a politician who could lead such a party, can you? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 5, 2017 16:18:19 GMT
That would still require a compromise to join any party because people hold different views on different issues. I for example would probably fit into your left liberal green fusion (already obviously an interesting mix especially as you envisage the celtic nats in there) but on some issues I'd more comfortable with a pragmatic social democratic party (basically the ideological divide the Lib Dems currently try to straddle). And of course you are going to finish up with a coalition government across a range of these parties. Of course in our present party system we have coalition governments where the coalitions are informal and hidden inside the formal party structure both big parties only exist because they are coalitions. Are you hoping that members will identify which party our present parliamentarians would finish up in? That could be fun.... And therein lies the core weakness to the thread, in that factionalism and silliness is infinite. Schism will continue until each is a party of one person. Thus I prefer just two big baggy broad-church parties and FPTP for everything. |
|
|
|
Post by freefair on Aug 5, 2017 16:22:33 GMT
You can suggest your own suitable alternative constellation of parties...
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 6, 2017 0:18:06 GMT
Ordinary Normal Decent Sensible People's Party (70%)
Bumpkins' Reactionary Party (15%)
Hysterical Moaning Remoaniac Lefty Party (15%)
|
|
markf
Non-Aligned
a victim of IDS
Posts: 318 
|
Post by markf on Aug 6, 2017 13:22:26 GMT
The Tory-Unionist National Guardians. (social conservative, monarchist, High Anglican, Euro-sceptic, militarist, austerity, Countryside Alliance, agrarian, protectionist, anti-globalist, non-Green, xenophobic, empire loving, White party) Can't think of a politician who could lead such a party, can you? Its the present Tory party led by Theresa May |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Aug 6, 2017 13:46:35 GMT
Can't think of a politician who could lead such a party, can you? Its the present Tory party led by Theresa May who? |
|
markf
Non-Aligned
a victim of IDS
Posts: 318
|
Post by markf on Aug 6, 2017 17:19:20 GMT
lol
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Aug 9, 2017 15:48:24 GMT
if they were to split into the lowest viable number of multiple parties to represent the full spectrum of opinion in the electorate, then we'd have approximately 32,204,141 parties (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the people who always let somebody else do the thinking for them are the ones who don't turn out in General Elections).  |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,029
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Aug 9, 2017 16:36:36 GMT
The experience of Israel and the Netherlands both strongly suggest that this is not what the utter fragmentation of a party system leads to.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,029
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Aug 9, 2017 16:37:27 GMT
The Tory-Unionist National Guardians. (social conservative, monarchist, High Anglican, Euro-sceptic, militarist, austerity, Countryside Alliance, agrarian, protectionist, anti-globalist, non-Green, xenophobic, empire loving, White party) Four candidates, four lost deposits, majority of funds spent on pink gin. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 9, 2017 17:08:17 GMT
The Tory-Unionist National Guardians. (social conservative, monarchist, High Anglican, Euro-sceptic, militarist, austerity, Countryside Alliance, agrarian, protectionist, anti-globalist, non-Green, xenophobic, empire loving, White party) Four candidates, four lost deposits, majority of funds spent on pink gin. One has to worry about the making of those pink gins! It is imperative that we use burnt sticks with 'bitter in' and not those poxy little bottles of essence. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Aug 9, 2017 17:10:32 GMT
Four candidates, four lost deposits, majority of funds spent on pink gin. One has to worry about the making of those pink gins! It is imperative that we use burnt sticks with 'bitter in' and not those poxy little bottles of essence. Oh dear, another party has just split...  |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Aug 9, 2017 20:35:53 GMT
The Tory-Unionist National Guardians. (social conservative, monarchist, High Anglican, Euro-sceptic, militarist, austerity, Countryside Alliance, agrarian, protectionist, anti-globalist, non-Green, xenophobic, empire loving, White party) Four candidates, four lost deposits, majority of funds spent on pink gin. There are worse things to spend your funds on really. I might join if I'm allowed to drink my gin straight or stick to scotch or brandy. Wouldn't agree with half the policies but a party dedicated to drinking the funds must necessarily be a broad church, you can't have everything. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 11, 2017 12:59:03 GMT
One has to worry about the making of those pink gins! It is imperative that we use burnt sticks with 'bitter in' and not those poxy little bottles of essence. Oh dear, another party has just split... But! It is over a matter of fundamental importance. |
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,261
|
Post by polupolu on Aug 11, 2017 16:04:07 GMT
And therein lies the core weakness to the thread, in that factionalism and silliness is infinite. Schism will continue until each is a party of one person. Thus I prefer just two big baggy broad-church parties and FPTP for everything. FPTP certainly has tended to result in two baggy broad-church parties - although recent Canadian politics is interesting in this regard. Conversely Malta is historically the most extreme two party system that I am aware of, and it doesn't use FPTP (but it is rather a special case). Whether you think baggy two parties are the best arrangement for governing a country is a matter of taste I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Aug 11, 2017 19:19:24 GMT
And therein lies the core weakness to the thread, in that factionalism and silliness is infinite. Schism will continue until each is a party of one person. Thus I prefer just two big baggy broad-church parties and FPTP for everything. FPTP certainly has tended to result in two baggy broad-church parties - although recent Canadian politics is interesting in this regard. Conversely Malta is historically the most extreme two party system that I am aware of, and it doesn't use FPTP (but it is rather a special case). Whether you think baggy two parties are the best arrangement for governing a country is a matter of taste I suppose. How is Malta's two party system more extreme than the American one? |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Aug 13, 2017 14:27:42 GMT
If we had a political party for every member of the electorate, reflecting their views perfectly, Just Looking would still demand RON and say that the party matching his views perfectly wasn't enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Aug 13, 2017 14:36:21 GMT
if they were to split into the lowest viable number of multiple parties to represent the full spectrum of opinion in the electorate, then we'd have approximately 32,204,141 parties (assuming, for the sake of argument, that the people who always let somebody else do the thinking for them are the ones who don't turn out in General Elections). But that doesn't allow for people who will change their mind all the time and will need at least several different parties to represent each change of mood |
|
