Each political party has to choose whether to pitch its policies to a broad base, designed to appeal to the largest possible range of the whole electorate and gather a majority that way; Or whether to focus its appeal on a narrow demographic, building support within defined limits. The Labour, Conservative and LibDem parties take the former approach, which means they cannot get too radical without alienating a segment of their base. The Scottish, Welsh, and Irish parties, the Greens, and UKIP take the latter approach - they know they can never appeal to more than a limited proportion of the UK population, so they concentrate on their own target groups and ignore the rest. It is the only practical way to start building a small group of MPs.
Fair point. But shouldnt there always be an element of radicalism in your policies in order to reach those that UKIP etc are appealing to? It seems the number of these people are increasing and that the parties are missing a trick by ignoring them.
The USA has seen increasing polarisation in recent years, with a sharp divide opening between the two parties. The Republicans in particular have become more and more extreme and radically right-wing. Each party appeals to only half the electorate. But the Democrat half is growing while the Republican half is shrinking. If a party adopts policies which repel most of the electorate, ultimately they cannot win except in limited enclaves. There is a wing in the Conservative party which wants to go in the Republican direction, and another wing which wants to retain a broad appeal. I look forward with interest to seeing whether the Tory wings can somehow paper over the cracks and keep together, or whether there will be a major split.
You'd better tell the Tories. Its no good them condemning UKIP supporters for letting in Labour if they can't offer those voters a reason to vote Tory. Politics might be a game of narrow strategy for politicians but there are still some voters who like to believe in what they vote for even if they are derided and vilified for it. "Vote for us whether you like us or not or you'll get Labour" is about the most dejected and dismal rallying cry I've ever heard. A party that offer voters only a counsel of despair doesn't deserve support. If anyone is stuck in the past it is those politicians, right and left, who assume they own the voting rights of a particular demographic. They might have done once, but they don't any more.
Surely the traditional big two moaning that you vote UKIP and get Diamond Dave or Weird Ed is justification for PR being introduced ? Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour all seem pretty poor to me based on the 30 odd years I have been a voter so maybe the next General Election will be a good one to vote for an alternative be it UKIP, Green , SNP,Gorgeous George or a serious local independent if you have one. Blind faith to a political party is as absurd as blind faith in Tesco .Remember, every little helps !
If (say) you start off in life poor and later become rich, or you start off in robust health and later become dependent on the NHS, your perspectives might change, but only if you view politics as a matter of pursuing your own narrow self-interests. If you are committed to principles of a deeper kind, you might adhere to them for life. You might call that "blind faith" - or you might call it loyalty and consistency.
Its funny how its always the voter who abandons his principles, never politicians or parties who abandons the voters. So they set the agenda and we just have to keep up do we? A brave new world of reverse democracy.
The Party machines are too powerful; voters reclaiming power from the political parties was a central theme of The Plan authored by one Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan. The Plan: Twelve Months to Renew Britain eBook: Daniel Hannan, Douglas Carswell: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store Carswell has principles and he is a democrat. I would vote for him.
I meant blind faith of the " I loved Eric Clapton`s music in Cream so I will love his music in Blind Faith" type of thing. Not saying you wont but other musicians are also available and you never know , you might like them even more. My grandparents were staunchly Labour, I imagine they would have been horrified at the work of the last Labour government and would have wondered what had happened to the principles of the party they knew. That is not a pop at Labour in particular, I am a persistent floating voter and have voted for all of the major parties over the years. Oh, and I voted Lib Dem once but they are really just a marginal protest party aren't they ?
I don't understand the negative comments about this move. 1) it is designed I be £ neutral. Those at the top end will pay 12%. It may help to stop prices running away and the market overheating 2) if it works out not to be £ neutral they will tweak the tax rates. The UK gvt has adjusted stamp duty thresholds. It's nothing new 3) it gets rid of the stupid way the £250k threshold works. 4) the whole point of a parliament is to be able to do things differently. Sometimes I think that this is what people object to. Not what's done, Just that we "dare to be different" How long until rUK follows?
Lets hope not long 749er! Just after I've sold mine and have cash for a new one lol As I have said before (although may be lost occasionally in transaction ) I admire how the Scots are approaching a sense of collectiveness and fairness, in the main. A push for liberalism based on your contribution to society, not what you can get out of it. I fear this is the thin edge tho. Change this today, what tomorrow?
What I would object to is being taxed to own property which I had bought with taxed income; paying tax on the transaction; paying tax to live in it; paying tax on the income if I rent it out; paying tax if I sell it and tax on the interest if I add the profits to my savings and condemning the next generation to a tax bill if I bequeath it to my children. I would even be taxed if I chose to leave my own property unoccupied. I dare Parliament to be different. How about cutting the size, reach and cost of the state by half, abandoning the conceit that the purpose of private enterprise is to generate money for politicians to spend, accepting that money which remains in the possession of the person who earned it is not lost to the economy but is the economy, slashing taxes, leaving people alone and getting out of their way and obliging 50% of politicians, quangocrats, local government busybodies and associated hangers-on to get off our backs and go and earn their own living in the real world instead of bleeding their captive clientele white. That really would be radical and I for one wouldn't object at all.
