A makes sense manifesto

[elmarko]

I always remember our old Mam when Tony Blair was coming in saying she was voting for Labour.

Us: Why? Do you even know any of their policies?
Her: No but I think he's lovely.

I know the feeling, heard that story many many times.

Makes you think twice about the concept of democracy.

It's so expensive to run. Just to put forward a national manifesto is £65k!

The worst part is, unless you are willing to whore yourself to either big business or unions the chances of getting any real funding are slim.

A true proportional representation system would make it significantly easier for smaller parties to build a power base, shame we stuck with FPTP - the one system which pretty much means we get a choice of either Labour or Conservatives for the foreseeable future.

That in itself is pretty damaging to politics in the UK.

 

[JBod]

I would back a party that:

• Ceases to put other parties down for the sole aim of make itself look better
• Proposes long-term changes with transparency to the public
• Completely overhauls our welfare system with harsh penalties for those abusing it and the right money going to the right places
• Provide benefits on a geographic location and case-by-case basis through localisation and means testing in line with local cost of living
• Ensure that businesses that are taking money out of our country return a fair portion of that
• Consolidate local government departments - a one-stop for all public service requirements
• Introduce variation in public sector pay meaning that pay not only reflects performance and output but also cost of living
• Lays out a proper approach to immigration, without hint of xenophobia but protecting the people we already have
• Tighten tax and benefit restrictions, close the loopholes that allow people to avoid what should be paid (not currently must be paid)
• Eradicate the divide between the 'classes'. The higher income sections of society believe they are handing those on welfare a life of riley, those on welfare believe that those in higher tax bands are rolling in it and can't even find enough things to splurge their money on.
• Provides clarity to the public when one of the own has been found to have been acting in a way that is not in the interest of the public.

I can't think why they aren't doing this already. Am I alone in thinking this? Is it just pie in the sky?

The only problem I can see is political parties not wanting to lose their current membership for changing their approach. Is that it?

Have I just lost the plot?

You going to need to explain that one a bit more for me. Other than actual members of the royal family or peerage we don't have classes in general society.

The old definitions barely apply, for example customer services/tech support roles that have zero need for qualifications or skills are behind a computer screen in an office.

 

[sigma]

It's so expensive to run. Just to put forward a national manifesto is £65k!

I guess we've highlighted the problem.

To get funding you need to please people and meet their needs.

It would be interesting to set up a website to attract people/funding though, the power of the Internet could really help here. How about trying to crowdsource knowledge to help push things along and check viability etc? Could probably save quite a bit of money on advice if you could find the right people.

Basing laws on research/studies rather than what politicians think is correct would be a huge step forward.

I would certainly vote for something like this - would be willing to help where possible too.

 

[Nitefly]

I would back a party that:

• Ceases to put other parties down for the sole aim of make itself look better
• Proposes long-term changes with transparency to the public
• Completely overhauls our welfare system with harsh penalties for those abusing it and the right money going to the right places
• Provide benefits on a geographic location and case-by-case basis through localisation and means testing in line with local cost of living
• Ensure that businesses that are taking money out of our country return a fair portion of that
• Consolidate local government departments - a one-stop for all public service requirements
• Introduce variation in public sector pay meaning that pay not only reflects performance and output but also cost of living
• Lays out a proper approach to immigration, without hint of xenophobia but protecting the people we already have
• Tighten tax and benefit restrictions, close the loopholes that allow people to avoid what should be paid (not currently must be paid)
• Eradicate the divide between the 'classes'. The higher income sections of society believe they are handing those on welfare a life of riley, those on welfare believe that those in higher tax bands are rolling in it and can't even find enough things to splurge their money on.
• Provides clarity to the public when one of the own has been found to have been acting in a way that is not in the interest of the public.

I can't think why they aren't doing this already. Am I alone in thinking this? Is it just pie in the sky?

The only problem I can see is political parties not wanting to lose their current membership for changing their approach. Is that it?

Have I just lost the plot?

Not meaning to be mean, but those are just very broad ideas. Having a technical, well worked out answer is another thing all together... and a lot harder to come up with

 

[sigma]

There must be a lot of frustrated people who want to help.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I can't think why they aren't doing this already. Am I alone in thinking this? Is it just pie in the sky?

Do you really want reasons why although superficially appealing the ideas are mostly non-starters? It's primarily due to entrenched interests, that individuals may be smart but groups are almost invariably not plus are easily swayed and the political system has grown up to be easier for it to be adversarial than collaborative.

I could probably break it down further but while I may like a number of the ideas I don't believe you could implement most or even many of them as they're very general - you could probably even point to a number of political parties who've stated similar ideas in the past but come unstuck on the technical implementation. Even in the areas where it would be possible for parties to agree in general about the thrust of the idea the forces that contribute to the current situation are difficult to tackle e.g. eradicating the divide between the classes - you're competing against a cultural and social identity as much as you are against anything else.

If that was the extent of my manifesto and I told you that I was a normal bloke with little knowledge of politics would that be a bad thing for you, or a good thing?

Would you vote for someone saying that?

You'd probably have to move down to London for a significant proportion of the time if you became an MP...

 

[smelly_legend]

Maybe voting in someone different to allow you to become a bigger part of the process could be your plan as well? It's like diving in to the deep end of a pool before learning how to swim.

 

[chriscubed]

It would be interesting to set up a website to attract people/funding though, the power of the Internet could really help here.

Kickstarter? Generate interest and cash at the same time. Unite the denizens of the internet to your cause and the masses will follow when it appears in the news.

I love the idea of a new "makes sense" party. I tend to think if it was possible, then someone would have done it already though.

 

[Gilly]

I wasn't seriously putting myself forward, merely seeing if people agreed with me.

I don't think I'm the right candidate but would support someone pushing what I'm talking about.

I disagree that they're mostly non-starters and even if anyone talking about them never got anywhere they might well affect the major political players and get them to shift slightly. That in itself would be an achievement.

 

[Gilly]

Kickstarter? Generate interest and cash at the same time. Unite the denizens of the internet to your cause and the masses will follow when it appears in the news.

Unfortunately the kickstart FAQ states no political parties or candidacies.

I love the idea of a new "makes sense" party. I tend to think if it was possible, then someone would have done it already though.

I had the same thought, but if everyone thinks that it won't ever be done!

 

[Kenai]

Great proposition.

However I think much of the problem with politics is that changes aren't made with long terms aims in mind. Why implement a policy that we will see the benefit of in 5, 10, 15 years time when we won't be in power?

Instead everything is done to reap short term gains so they can say look how great we are this went up or crime % is down etc

The really sad thing is I don't know what can be done about it

This happens for a reason though - the Con Dem coalition have had 2.5 years to effect their policies to try and sort the economy out and also reduce the horrendous levels of deficit we have in our budget. In reality, this is a problem that will require many years to properly effect and see the true benefits of but already half the country have got the hump and want to go back to a 'spend more money than we have' Labour government. Long term planning gets you nowhere, because the electorate are by and large incapable of thinking anything further down the line than their next payslip.

 

[Nitefly]

I disagree that they're mostly non-starters and even if anyone talking about them never got anywhere they might well affect the major political players and get them to shift slightly. That in itself would be an achievement.

I think the conservative party would claim to be doing everything you say.

 

[Gilly]

I think the conservative party would claim to be doing everything you say.

They constantly knock labour, they don't have transparency in their dealings or their workings. They don't appear to wish to improve the disillusionment regarding benefits and those claiming them, they don't do across the board means testing, they aren't selling the fact that they're being proactive to close the loopholes big businesses have told us exist for them to exploit and pay less or no tax... I'm struggling to see any they are doing.

If they are they're extraordinarily bad at selling that fact.

Are you cons?

 

[Nitefly]

They constantly knock labour, they don't have transparency in their dealings or their workings. They don't appear to wish to improve the disillusionment regarding benefits and those claiming them, they don't do across the board means testing, they aren't selling the fact that they're being proactive to close the loopholes big businesses have told us exist for them to exploit and pay less or no tax... I'm struggling to see any they are doing.

If they are they're extraordinarily bad at selling that fact.

Are you cons?

What I am is irrelevant, it's just that you disagree with what the conservatives will claim they are doing. The devil is in the detail, the nitty gritty.

 

[Gilly]

What I am is irrelevant, it's just that you disagree with what the conservatives will claim they are doing. The devil is in the detail, the nitty gritty.

If they are doing it they should be publicising it. I can't find any of what I've put down in their own party details!

 

[Nitefly]

If they are doing it they should be publicising it. I can't find any of what I've put down in their own party details!

I'm sure that if you google all of the buzz words you used along with 'conservative party', you will come up with something

 

[elmarko]

Are you cons?

Nightfly has a soul, so I don't think he is.



(I jest)

They constantly knock labour, they don't have transparency in their dealings or their workings. They don't appear to wish to improve the disillusionment regarding benefits and those claiming them, they don't do across the board means testing, they aren't selling the fact that they're being proactive to close the loopholes big businesses have told us exist for them to exploit and pay less or no tax... I'm struggling to see any they are doing.

If they are they're extraordinarily bad at selling that fact.

Are you cons?

Neither party really does that much, they just maintain the status quo.

My personal biggest gripe with Labor is how good the economy was before the global financial crisis and how little they did to address the poverty gap, how low the minimum wage was set, war in Iraq, increase in red-tape/pointless testing/government bloat & ignoring scientific advice or nations around us who are ahead of us in certain areas (rehabilitation in Norway for example).

The current government is riding off the back of the fact that they sold the public two key lies,

1. Our economic woes are solely Labour's fault (they like to ignore the global financial crisis)
2. It's welfare & provisions to the poor which are responsible for this.

It takes about 30 seconds to read the figures on historic government spending (as a percentage of GDP) to understand the reality of the situation, but sadly the public isn't that way inclined.

It's all fingers pointing & blame, no real suggestions from either party on how to resolve the problems once & for all.

Next election the Greens will (reluctantly) get my vote (not that it matters or my vote counts for jack ****, my area is about 90% Conservative)

 

[Gilly]

I'm sure that if you google all of the buzz words you used along with 'conservative party', you will come up with something

But not labour? Not lib dem?

BTW saying they're doing it is different to doing it (as I'm sure you're aware). What objectives and output have they actually attained?

 

[Nitefly]

But not labour? Not lib dem?

I think they all would claim to be able to achieve your objectives, they just have a different spin on the same goals.

You have said, for example:

Lays out a proper approach to immigration, without hint of xenophobia but protecting the people we already have.

You could shoehorn the BNP's policy into that... at a push

 

[meths]

I think the conservative party would claim to be doing everything you say.

I think they all would.