Ideologically Coherent Parties

[johnloony]

Oct 18, 2017 0:29:47 GMT Foggy said:

Oct 18, 2017 0:21:12 GMT johnloony said:

I once read a spoof article about a fictional mid-European country in which there was a permanent coalition between the two main parties, the Christian Opportunists and the Social Opportunists (the main function of government was to thrive on EU subsidies). 

Austria isn't fictional. 

Liechtenstein had a coalition between the two main parties continuously from 1938 to 1997. Other parties never had more than 2 seats (out of 15 or 25) in the parliament during that time.

[neilm]

Oct 18, 2017 0:21:12 GMT johnloony said:

I once read a spoof article about a fictional mid-European country in which there was a permanent coalition between the two main parties, the Christian Opportunists and the Social Opportunists (the main function of government was to thrive on EU subsidies). In a different version, there could be a country where a vague generic word could be used for all the parties, but with different endings. For example, the People's Party, the People's Rally, the People's Front, the People's Movement, the People's Union etc.

Splitters!

[freefair]

To pivot around on the point, I wonder what a British equivalent of Fianna Fail, a centrist populist party with an even class & geographic profile, would look like? What would it's policies be and who could lead it.
I think it would be similar to the Traditional Labour Right on Foreign and Social Policy, and currently or recently have had a New Labour/One Nation Tory liberal-centrist attitude to the economy (balancing Public Spending Rises and Tax cuts) and spoiling public finances. David Cameron would definitely NOT be a part of them as he is very Fine Gael and in favour of balanced budgets.

[hedgehog]

Aug 5, 2017 15:03:45 GMT freefair said:

Obviously in the real world we face a situation where all of the main UK parties are very divided in policy terms. If they were to reorganise into the lowest viable number of multiple parties to represent the vast majority of opinion in the electorate, which would probably require proportional representation at all levels of government, and  federalism to make Celtic nationalists join the mainstream. 
My question to the forum is, what do you imagine the parties would be like, who would be in them, what would they be named, etc..
In my opinion, we would gain a political system very similar to germany
- a left wing populist socialist party
- a left liberal & moderate green fusion party (where most celtic nationalists would go)
- a pragmatic social democratic party
- a moderate conservative party
- a centre-right neoliberal/libertarian party
- a right wing socially conservative nationalist party
Not to say that these parties wouldn't have their own factions or agree on everything, but it would be far more clear what each one would stand for. Also, the coalition options would be greater than with heterogeneous parties, for example a Grand Social Democrat-One Nation Tory coalition or a Blue Green pact.

I could see your left liberal moderate green party working, if the more economically right wing Lib Dems and more ideologically socialist Greens spun off, there are lots of areas where there is strong agreement.

The one party grouping that I would like to add though is what would probably be termed Ecofascist - Ruralist, back to the land, culturally moderatly social conservative, localist, anti big business, (distributism or similar) small government, big society, deep ecology rather than social ecology, spiritual pagan christian identity

The problem such a party would face is that of historical association and that some of the current ground is still occupied by the nasty elements of politics.

[The Bishop]

I also doubt that such a party would win that much support, its still a rather niche position in society as a whole.

[freefair]

I have though for some names for the Parties outlined in my first post- the Socialists, Green Radicals, Labour Democrats, Popular Liberals, Conservatives, National Liberals, & United Patriots
As I say, I'm not saying these parties would be homogeneous- I can imagine the NatLibs being very divided over the form of Leaving the EU they'd prefer- but that they'd simply not have the stunning difference of opinion on most topics that one gets in the current alignment of parties.
I don't doubt that the Green Reactionaries would find a niche in the United Patriots, but they don't have the support to form their own party...

[hedgehog]

Dec 17, 2017 11:07:41 GMT The Bishop said:

I also doubt that such a party would win that much support, its still a rather niche position in society as a whole.

Im not sure how niche,
1) the name is a definate issue,
2) prior to the early 1970's creation of the modern Green party, the roots of the environmental movement soil association, CPRE etc had been with people who identified with British far right groups in the 30's, they were not necessarily rascist, but ruralist, idealists.
3) the Green party is establishing itself in British political life, and will florish post Corbyn, but it has positioned itself on one end of the spectrum, very much big government, humanist, liberal, shallow ecology. There are many environmentalists who feel they cannot identify with the party.
4) there is no party out there that can claim to represent rural Britain, the Conservatives gets the rural vote, however their priority is the City and big business, the Lib Dems and Greens progressive stance makes its difficult for many people to support.
5) the Conservative party, is no longer considered socially conservative, there is little difference between the main parties in this respect now.
6) all of the parties play on being secular modernist parties.
7) they are all globalist,
8) even the Green party is finding it hard to talk about zero growth, population control is definatly not flavour of the month either.
9) despite Michael Gove's conversion on the road to Damascus, people who distrust both socialism and capitalism and believe in a future for their childrens children have no natural home.

A well packaged party targeted at deep Green, rural idealism, focusing on small business and big society with freedom from big government, I think could compete well for the rural vote, ideally in alliance with the Green party, well one can dream.

[hedgehog]

Dec 17, 2017 12:05:43 GMT freefair said:

I have though for some names for the Parties outlined in my first post- the Socialists, the ProGreenSsives, the Labour Democrats, the Conservatives, the Liberals, & the United Patriots

Of course, in my scenario I envisage hard-line socialist/pacifist greens joining the Socialists (albeit in uncomfortable alliance with some Arthur Scargill "re-open the mines" types) & Orange book LDs joining the Liberals (of course in a still discomforting alliance with libertarian eurosceptics). As I say, I'm not saying these parties would be homogeneous- but that they'd simply not have the stunning difference of opinion on most topics that one gets in the current alignment of parties.
I don't doubt that the Green Reactionaries would find a niche in the United Patriots, but they don't have the support to form their own party...

I don't see my 'Green Reactionaries', having the slightest point of connection with the BNP rascist boneheads or UKIP climate deniers and free traders.

Patriots, maybe in the sense of the romantic poets, but identifying possibly more with County rather than Country, we need to regain the slogan 'blood and soil' from the fascists, it symbolises cultural identity and sense of belonging with the landscape, as we are all born of the earth and will return there.

Waving the flag, not sure if thats necessary outside of the proms, but always nice to see bunting and a Maypole.

[beastofbedfordshire]

The inconclusive results of the recent german elections show why this concept of multiple parties is flawed. Even in our hung parliament, we have far more certainty in our government.

[finsobruce]

Dec 17, 2017 13:30:28 GMT beastofbedfordshire said:

The inconclusive results of the recent german elections show why this concept of multiple parties is flawed. Even in our hung parliament, we have far more certainty in our government.

while I know what you mean, certainty - like consistency - is not necessarily a good thing.

[freefair]

I suppose some of your hedgehog Greens would be happy in the One Nation left wing of the freefair Conservatives, they'd certainly be the choice for most rural areas, farmers & Agricultural businesses. They'd be a bit to internationalist & corporatist for you, probably, being pro EU & pro NATO, & wouldn't necessarily venerate the countryside above the urban, but would try to strike a fair balance. They'd be mildly socially conservative & environmentally conscious.  Admittedly the Conservative right would be much more Neoconservative anyhow.

As to the German scenario, I'd point out that whatever the outcome of talks, the government will be firmly anchored in the centre ground, & in my scenario, I think that political stability would increase as the Labour Democrats & Conservatives would together probably always win at least 55% of the seats in Parliament, meaning that any government would have to include one or the other & not be likely to fly off the handle towards radical change, as they could always threaten to GroKo if, say, the Socialists as a junior partner became too demanding (unlike in Germany I would actually not say that the Socialists or Patriots would need to be quarantined entirely from power)

[carlton43]

A party with elements set out by hedgehog above might work across a broad band of other political views? Some of the commonalities might be

a) Suspicion of London and things Metropolitan
b) A rural, countryside, agrarian stance.
c) A Small is Beautiful stance.
d) Anti-Globalization stance.
e) A strong patriotic unionist stance.
f) A monarchist stance.
g) An at least moderate tinge of social conservatism.
h) A tinge of isolationism.
i) A firm rigid immigration policy.
j) A sound money, low inflation, moderate interest policy.
k) A simpler and lower level of taxation.
l) A different set of objectives for Defence Policy.
m) As much calculated protectionism as we can manage.
n) A Britain First policy on everything.
o) An embargo on foreign control/ownership of our infrastructure and utilities and banks.
p) A strong policy of aiding small business and small everything with less tax/red tape.
q) Better cheaper public transport.
r) Better cheaper public housing (NOT FOR SALE).
s) As many hoops and hurdles for imports as we can get away with.
t) Much higher taxes for big business.
u) Even higher taxes for multi-nationals.

[freefair]

Sounds like a freefair Socialist-United Patriots coalition with outside ProGreenssive support! A real "small is beautiful" government.

[hedgehog]

Dec 17, 2017 13:43:25 GMT freefair said:

I suppose some of your hedgehog Greens would be happy in the One Nation left wing of the freefair Conservatives, they'd certainly be the choice for most rural areas, farmers & Agricultural businesses. They'd be a bit to internationalist & corporatist for you, probably, being pro EU & pro NATO, & wouldn't necessarily venerate the countryside above the urban, but would try to strike a fair balance. They'd be mildly socially conservative & environmentally conscious.  Admittedly the Conservative right would be much more Neoconservative anyhow.

As to the German scenario, I'd point out that whatever the outcome of talks, the government will be firmly anchored in the centre ground, & in my scenario, I think that political stability would increase as the Labour Democrats & Conservatives would together probably always win at least 55% of the seats in Parliament, meaning that any government would have to include one or the other & not be likely to fly off the handle towards radical change, as they could always threaten to GroKo if, say, the Socialists as a junior partner became too demanding (unlike in Germany I would actually not say that the Socialists or Patriots would need to be quarantined entirely from power)

Agribusiness, the word would stick in their throats, like pollution from cars on a busy London road, Smallholders, permaculturists, agroforestry, mixed farming and artisans, poets and romantics, thoroughly organic lot really.

The EU, I don't think there are ideological reasons really to be in or out, however insulating the agricultural market from cheap overseas commodities would free farmers from 'having' to use chemicals to compete.

What percentage of landowners would prefer not to use chemicals, if they wern't forced to by market pressures, what percentage would prefer to be greated by a dawn chorus, that they hadn't heard since their grandparents time.

Are all Conservative rural voters 'rich tory bastards', who couldn't give a dam about the planet, no I don't think they are, they have experienced the collapse of nature in the countryside, they typically want to be self sufficient and not be ordered around by the government, politically why do they vote tory, well many reasons, but probably more of a mistrust of Labour than selfishness.

As for NATO, a party not strong on defence will certainly suffer at the polls, the Conservative record as well as their record on policing is nothing to be proud of, strong defence outside of NATO, practical, not jingoistic but focusing on threats, both defence wise and for climate and natural disasters, strong and resolute.

[freefair]

Main topics of division within in these parties
Socialists- Defence & Foreign Policy
Green Radicals- Free Trade
Labour Democrats- Immigration & Multiculturalism
Popular Liberals- Equality vs Liberty
Conservatives- Economic Liberalisation
National Liberals- European Integration
United Patriots- Welfare State

[hedgehog]

Dec 17, 2017 14:06:20 GMT carlton43 said:

A party with elements set out by hedgehog above might work across a broad band of other political views? Some of the commonalities might be

a) Suspicion of London and things Metropolitan
b) A rural, countryside, agrarian stance.
c) A Small is Beautiful stance.
d) Anti-Globalization stance.
e) A strong patriotic unionist stance.
f) A monarchist stance.
g) An at least moderate tinge of social conservatism.
h) A tinge of isolationism.
i) A firm rigid immigration policy.
j) A sound money, low inflation, moderate interest policy.
k) A simpler and lower level of taxation.
l) A different set of objectives for Defence Policy.
m) As much calculated protectionism as we can manage.
n) A Britain First policy on everything.
o) An embargo on foreign control/ownership of our infrastructure and utilities and banks.
p) A strong policy of aiding small business and small everything with less tax/red tape.
q) Better cheaper public transport.
r) Better cheaper public housing (NOT FOR SALE).
s) As many hoops and hurdles for imports as we can get away with.
t) Much higher taxes for big business.
u) Even higher taxes for multi-nationals.

a, b, c, d, yes
e, f, pragmatically, if its gets votes
g, h, yes
i, this is not a Tory party, with immigration, the aim would be not to increase population, but there should be no barrier to migration for nations who are at an equivalent economics level and there must be a fair policy for refugees.
j, k economically small government, aim for a balanced budget, but defeating poverty must be a priority, money can't be saved on equalities budget however.
l, m, n, o, p, q yes
r Social housing yes, but many people want to own their own home, my ideas for a local land trust detailed in another thread should help, enabling people to buy at a decent price without the ability to sell for a huge profit
s, t, u yes


i, j, k, this is not a new Tory party,

[Strontium Dog]

Dec 17, 2017 13:30:28 GMT beastofbedfordshire said:

The inconclusive results of the recent german elections show why this concept of multiple parties is flawed. Even in our hung parliament, we have far more certainty in our government.

Yes, Germany was so much better off when it just had one single permitted party, don't you think.

[beastofbedfordshire]

Dec 17, 2017 15:37:12 GMT Strontium Dog said:

Dec 17, 2017 13:30:28 GMT beastofbedfordshire said:

The inconclusive results of the recent german elections show why this concept of multiple parties is flawed. Even in our hung parliament, we have far more certainty in our government.

Yes, Germany was so much better off when it just had one single permitted party, don't you think.

There is a balance to be struck. It's just that our system is closer to it than germany's.

[Deleted]

Dec 17, 2017 14:48:53 GMT freefair said:

ProGreenSsives- Nicola Sturgeon vs Vince Cable

Why do you imagine that the SNP would belong in this outfit? Their raison d'être is an independent Scotland...

[Sibboleth]

Dec 17, 2017 13:30:28 GMT beastofbedfordshire said:

The inconclusive results of the recent german elections show why this concept of multiple parties is flawed. Even in our hung parliament, we have far more certainty in our government.

Have you been watching the news? The DUP forced May into a humiliating public climbdown because they threatened to pull the plug on her government. The DUP is a small party based in the most distant and normally irrelevant part of the country with a bizarre ideology quite alien from what is normal elsewhere. British people right now do not get to be smug about supposed 'instability' in other countries.