Alternatives to Party Politics?

[Tangled Metal]

Is there a viable alternative to party politics?

First duty of an MP is to his country, then his constituency and finally party. A Burkean view also espoused by Churchill. But all I see is party, party, party! Is it time to find another way? Is there another way?

Every idea I can think of always comes back to the habit of humans to want up group together.

Let me explain my thinking with this post. I was listening to an MP being interviewed on the radio. It was clearly done live with others present because there was a very loud and deliberate false laugh at one point. That point was when to answer the given question the MP would have needed to leave the obvious, party soundbite script. He didn't because all good MPs need to handle such things without going off script or they get nowhere in their party.

I didn't laugh because I know from watching question time MPs are just party mouthpieces without political views they're free to express. There's no political discussion by MPs on shows like question time because no politician is free to debate based on their own beliefs or convictions. I grew up listening to Benn and Heseltine on QT not toeing the party line but debating a point solely on logic and evidence. They did the party line bit at times but not 100% of it. More likely to get their real views. Or so it seemed.

So is there another way? Purely theoretical because no party will let their era end without a fight.

[Tangled Metal]

PS no party is free of this effect. You get the same ridiculous evasion of questions and output of party line from all parties.

[Carlton green]

I doubt that there is much alternative to party politics but I do wish that there was more government by consensus rather than narrow party policies or edicts. The way forward is the ditching of the first past the post way of electing MPs and the introduction of some form of proportional representation. We also need to dilute the whipping system in Parliament, make that place less confrontational and make MP’s work together for the common good.

It’s depressing but I can’t see things changing from the current mess. The two party winner takes all situation just suits those involved too well and hang what’s best for the electorate - electorate, an inconvenient group of people who are viewed as simple folk who just need to be guided into putting an X in the correct place on a ballot paper.

[Mick F]

Heated discussion about all this down the pub yesterday afternoon.
Finally, we had a consensus.

Shoot the lot of them.

[Psamathe]

I wonder if minority governments and coalitions might help improve things. At the moment our politicians seem pretty incapable of consensus or coalition. The one we had (the Conservative & Lib Dems) ended up directly or indirectly damaging the Lib Dems so they are unlikely to go there again and they are probably the only party who would swing the balance and be able to form a coalition. We saw how the Conservative/DUP alliance went (cost us taxpayers loads of money in bribes and DUP walked-out when the Conservatives stopped doing their bidding).

If hung Parliaments continue I wonder if our politicians will have to learn to do "consensus" - though it might take a change of leadership in both Conservative and Labour.

I can't see Party Politics ending in fact. I suspect it might get stronger given the campaigning spend which must be driving many independents out in many constituencies (they just don't attract the £££ needed for PR, social media campaigns, etc.). Maybe changes to social media advertising would help but Zucchini does not seem to want to give up the $$$$$.

So maybe my hope is that hung parliaments force in politicians who can cope with consensus.

Ian

[reohn2]

Heated discussion about all this down the pub yesterday afternoon.
Finally, we had a consensus.

Shoot the lot of them.

What do you do then?

[Tangled Metal]

SNP labour coalition is a remote possibility perhaps with the lone green mp and PC. That would add up to more than LD I reckon.

Perhaps whipping in is the problem along with plain old political ambition rather than party system. I just wish for more independent thought. Politicians willing to say what they think and vote accordingly even if against party line. More independent MPs.

Perhaps fixed party funding for getting their message out. Even paid out out state coffers along the lines of x amount per candidate fielded with y amount for general HQ costs. Downsize parties too. I don't like the idea of parties having money for large scale political databases, social media advertising budgets and the like. Big budget politics needs to end imho.

[Tangled Metal]

There's some interesting data about social media spending by parties out there. LD spend a lot less than Tories and labour but they're heavily targeting 18 to 44 age ranges. Over these age ranges their social media advertising spends are greater than the big two parties.

Labour recently uploaded a large chunk of its political database to Facebook to allow for better targeting of its message. I did hear in 2017 they were better at getting the social media message out than Tories which obviously favoured the younger target audience. It's possibly one of the reasons they came so close to the Tories considering how far behind they were at one point.

Whatever happens in the future I would simply want honesty to occasionally peep out from the mass of lies. Imagine Tory mp simply owning a mistake by their party. "Yes we did edit the kier Starmer interview in a deliberately misleading way, sorry! " . Or "yes it was a mistake to remove you're suspension of my political ally after his antisemitic remark!". "Yes it is deeply worrying that many female MPs are leaving the party and Westminster because of antisemitism and harassment. "

You get my point, not going to happen.

Personally recalling your MP should become very much easier. Indeed in every election we should have a "none of the above" option on the ballot paper. If that gets the most votes then there's a second ballot within completely new candidate list.

[horizon]

You can get rid of parties by having a one party state, like China, But in a democracy, you'll get parties. Nation states are complicated things but generally have multiple interests (workers, property owners etc) that generally coallesce around a small number of parties in order to form effective alliances and achieve what they want.

But in the modern Western state, at the heart of these alliances lies the tension between a party representing the interests of capital and a party representing the interests of labour. Attached around them are all the other interest groups representing other classes and groups in society, often shifting in their support.

But parties do have to form a coherent body with a common policy in order to govern. Hence the party line - without that you would have governmental chaos. That makes them quite boring as they are constantly having to cover up splits and differences, but it is still necessary. I don't find parties too bad: indeed they are far better than "independent" candidates whose policies are a complete mystery.

[Tangled Metal]

Perhaps it's not the party system but the control within the parties. The whipping in.

The idea of our democratic system is representational politics. Within that there's considered a hierarchy of priority to interests. Namely country, constituency then party. It's become party only at times. That's the part of the party system that needs resetting. A change to the whipping in. More emphasis on constituency representation. More independence for party MPs and more scope for independents too. Get politics back to more local representation. Less parachuting in of candidates. Perhaps even local candidates only.

Whatever it is there's too much about the party's and the leadership's interests overriding everything else.

[Mick F]

Heated discussion about all this down the pub yesterday afternoon.
Finally, we had a consensus.

Shoot the lot of them.

What do you do then?

Elect some more, and if they don't do what they were individually elected for, shoot them too.

[reohn2]

Heated discussion about all this down the pub yesterday afternoon.
Finally, we had a consensus.

Shoot the lot of them.

What do you do then?

Elect some more, and if they don't do what they were individually elected for, shoot them too.

Who's gonna do the shootin'?

[landsurfer]

Ask for volunteers ... get their names and addresses ... arrange to meet them to issue the weapons and ammunition ........... Then arrest them !!!!!!
PsycoBunnies !!!!

[horizon]

The idea of our democratic system is representational politics. Within that there's considered a hierarchy of priority to interests. Namely country, constituency then party. It's become party only at times.

Ooo, no. It's class first, then party, then country, then constituency. The party is just a tool of class - that is its purpose. And there's nothing wrong with that - it's a good way to manage what is a basic conflict at the heart of the nation.

[Carlton green]

What do you do then?

Elect some more, and if they don't do what they were individually elected for, shoot them too.

Who's gonna do the shootin'?

Given the appalling way that they behave in the ‘Chamber’ all you need to do is arm them as they walk in. Personally I’m pretty disgusted with how they behave and am thoroughly fed up with the tribal mentality.