English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

One who is realistic and knows WHAT the people want. One who has come from "less well-off" backgrounds and understands what it is like in the 'real world'.

We need more public debates and votes on issues.

Who agrees?
What do we need to change?

2007-04-18 06:56:42 · 16 answers · asked by BrilliantPomegranate 4 in Politics & Government Politics

16 answers

I agree we need a new party with completely different ideas from the old party policies that did nothing for us. If such a party came into being, how long before greed would take over and we would be back in the same old situation once again.
Like you say there needs to be substantial debate on the subject. I really think that all the old political parties of the UK are sinking into decline, they have had there day and achieved nothing.

2007-04-18 23:04:10 · answer #1 · answered by cassidy 4 · 0 0

There are plenty of progressive political parties but the First-Past-The-Post system works against them. At the last election Labour received a parliamentary majority despited only achieving 35% of the popular vote. So in terms of what we need to change the first thing should be the electoral system - to proportional representation or a mixed system. You're absolutely right that the political class, for the most part, have had sheltered lives and can't appreciate the lifestyles of those less fortunate than they are. I don't know quite what can be done on this seen as the onus is on the parties to field more representative candidates. It would be hard to impose quotas without proportional representation. A third problem is public apathy - people just aren't as political as they used to be as this is reflected in the low turnouts in recent elections. A solution for this is difficult to find also as it requires cultural change. I suppose compulsory voting could be introduced, like in Australia, but I'm not sure I like this idea.

Sorry for the long answer but your question commands it!

2007-04-18 07:51:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Politics is all about power. How to get power and how to hold on to it. Everything else in politics is secondary and of little consequence, especially as we approach an important election, such as the May 3 locals here in UK [England] and I think for the Scottish Parliament at the same time.

Here in London we can only stare at our screens and wonder if we are as mad as the rest of the people of UK. Probably. We're not having elections here in London - think next year by which time everyone will have gone back to sleep.

Did you hear that the Conservatives approach Greg Dyke and asked him if he would like to stand as their Tory candidate against Red Ken Livingstone? Are they completely bonkers? What is the difference, if any, between Red Ken and Red Greg? Cannot think! Thankfully GD finally said no. Pity or what?

Sorry, back to your question. We need a new political party in the UK?

What we need in UK is joined up local and national government. What we need at local level is less big party and more independent men and women to represent us. It's just not going to happen since the majors now have a complete stranglehold on local politics.

The only possibility of a 'new party' if that's the right way of describing it, is if the Conservatives joined forces with the Lib/Dems to form the next Con/Lib-Dem UK.gov - not going to happen I guess.

I would just like to add a small story of a mythical Cornish village. Some years ago the local fisherman of our mythical Cornish village, Penhalligon, asked their rural council could they please have a ramp running down from the 50 foot cliff to the beach so as to make getting their small boats into the water a bit easier? No came the reply. A year later there was an election for the rural council. The locals voted for the "Fisher Folk Party of Kernow" and were elected with a 100% majority - no opposition. First item on the agenda, the new fishing boat ramp at Penhalligon - votes for 20 votes against nil - passed.

The Fisher Folk of Penhalligon got their boat ramp. At the next rural council election the Fisher Folk Party did not bother to stand. They were too busy using their new ramp and going fishing.

This is what can be done with local 'power'. People just need to understand that it's their council and not the exclusive property of the majors. Replace them whenever you feel like it.

2007-04-18 07:36:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

As a former local politician in Reading UK I feel that we should be able to have more independant Councillors and MP's however our present system whereby all main parties seem to sing off a similar song sheet is ingrained so deep that it would take a Civil War to change it. Some of the American electoral rules are great for giving people true democracy (BUT not always)

Regards

Frank

2007-04-18 07:12:33 · answer #4 · answered by Frank Heyes 2 · 1 0

A new political party is not what's needed, just a real leader for one of the existing parties. The Labour Party have an overweening egoist who wouldn't recognise straightforwardness if it kicked him; The Tory leader is not a heavyweight; The LibDems leader is too old and does not punch the weight he has. As for the minority parties, the less said the better.

2007-04-18 07:30:28 · answer #5 · answered by Duffer 6 · 1 0

Political extremists and cultists usually start, like your question, on the premise that you know what the people want and they really don't know. People elect who they want and extremists have a hard time gaining actual support and power so they fantasize that the problem could not be them, it must be that the people do not know what they really want and need. Just another totalitarian waiting for power! Debates? Plenty of debates now, plently of news coverage. You idea of debates would be political cult meetings and staged events that would somehow give your views more credence with the voters. You are what you hate...mate!

2007-04-18 07:08:48 · answer #6 · answered by Tom W 6 · 0 1

If the prime minister was from a "less well-off" background, who would look after all the rich people??? Besides, people from so-called "less well-off" backgrounds are statistically proven to be more likely to not vote, so even if a new party was formed, who would vote for them?

2007-04-18 07:04:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

It is bad for us to be ruled by people who are from less well off backgrounds.

We need people who know how to get up and make wealth and not to be of the type who waits around for someone else to provide it for them.

That is one of the reasons why socialists make such bad politicians. They can make a lucrative career for themselves out of politics and yet have a vested interest in keeping the rest of us poor because that is from where they draw their support.

2007-04-18 08:03:32 · answer #8 · answered by frank S 5 · 0 2

I think that the Labour Party is still the nearest thing for us who come from less well-off backgrounds. You can ask questions of your MP on line.

2007-04-18 07:26:26 · answer #9 · answered by Winnie 4 · 1 2

i agree someone who sides for everyone allrace ages ect this country is going into a pit and it cant get out all we need is a new party

2007-04-18 07:03:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers