A New Party in British Politics?

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

So we need a party that appeals to National unity, and recoup the disconnected working class and youth?

 

I've got it chaps.

 

The NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY

 

 

 

[The God Emperor]

QEP is one of the most sane economic policies in the last 50 years.

 

Amazes me that people would rather a private bank created money to pump it wherever they like (with interest) at our expense, added to that the fact they have the greatest incentive in the world to create TOO MUCH money, because the more they make the more profit they make.

Over the alternative, where government investment banks could create money at zero interest and destroy it as it's repaid (which stabilizes the money supply)

Or they could create it at low interest and invest the profits back into infrastructure.

 

This idea that it would be inflationary is ridiculous, between 1997-2007 private banks expanded the money supply by around £1trillion without any major jump in inflation, since then we have pumped about £400bn into stock markets post crash, spent about £100bn buying assets and had no issue.

QEP is very similiar to what China have been doing and it ended in a stock market crash earlier in the year. They used QE to build entire cities which now lay empty.

Don't get me wrong, the current system is awful and has caused a huge amount of problems and hardship for people, but QEP has exactley the same fatal flaw. You're giving out nothing to pay for something.

The banks aren't deliberately targetting bubble activities, wherever the cheap credit goes will become a bubble whether it's a banker of  government bureaucrat handing it out.

The cheap credit allows otherwise unviable enterprises to start up and begin consuming resources, resources that would have gone to productive enterprises if the cheap credit wasn't given out. Since the unviable enterprises aren't creating wealth with these resources they're effectively destroying wealth making the country poorer. While the bubble enterprises are around though it does look like there has been growth, but when the credit supply inevitiably contracts they go bust and we get a recession, which is basically just a correction.

This is the main issue with pumping out credit that isn't backed by savings, inflation is bad but it's effect is usually drawn out over a longer period unless you're really irresponsible like Robert Mugabe and Germany during the first world war. Government ivestment banks would cause exactley the same issues since you're still giving out nothing.

Interest rates aren't a bad thing, they're just a price really like any other. The problem is that intrest rates are not decided by the amount of savings banks have and the demand for loaned capital. If they were you'd get a 'natural' interest rate that wouldn't result in the unpleasantness above.

Apologies for the very long and very boring reply though!

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Well there is already a small party called the socialist Party... I can imagine an influx of members, inlcuding most corbynites and, maybe, Jeremy Corbyn himself which will delight most tories as i imagine it will split labour's vote considerably...

 

 

I can quite imagine a Tory government for quite a few more years yet unless 'the left' get their act together very quickly...

So, is the time not right, for the centre left of parties, to challenge the extreme right of the Tories, and the extreme left of Labour?

 

I don't say we should, but merely pose the question.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

So you disagree and think Corbyn is not a social democratic and is actually a marxist?

 

Can you tell me what policies are Marxist. 

 

I'd say only calling for a 50p top rate and 2% corporation tax rise is the opposite of Marxism. 

You only have to look at his cabinet to see he's a democrat. 

Half of them were Blairites and he allowed it until they decided to try and destroy their own party.

 

Look forward to you pointing out how what I said was wrong.

It takes more than a single thread to make a suit, sunshine. Corbyn is on the extreme left of the party, and has been destroying it from day one, and is doing a magnificent job of doing it. Those who have resigned must all be Marxists according to what you are saying, or rebellious "Blairites", plotting from within perhaps? 

 

Of course we all know that without nuclear weapons, and removing the bulk of our armed forces, will make our country safer!   Let's not forget that he will welcome unlimited numbers of immigrants, house them, strangle our NHS even more, have schools that are bursting with children, and shower shirkers with even more benefits. (not a reference to genuinely unemployed people)

 

I could go on, but let's face, he is not only a weak politician, but appears to be no politician whatsoever. 

[Cheese]

I would like to form my own far left nationalist party. How would I go about setting one up?

[Guest]

I would like to form my own far left nationalist party. How would I go about setting one up?

 

First change your name.

[cityfanlee23]

QEP is very similiar to what China have been doing and it ended in a stock market crash earlier in the year. They used QE to build entire cities which now lay empty.

Don't get me wrong, the current system is awful and has caused a huge amount of problems and hardship for people, but QEP has exactley the same fatal flaw. You're giving out nothing to pay for something.

The banks aren't deliberately targetting bubble activities, wherever the cheap credit goes will become a bubble whether it's a banker of  government bureaucrat handing it out.

The cheap credit allows otherwise unviable enterprises to start up and begin consuming resources, resources that would have gone to productive enterprises if the cheap credit wasn't given out. Since the unviable enterprises aren't creating wealth with these resources they're effectively destroying wealth making the country poorer. While the bubble enterprises are around though it does look like there has been growth, but when the credit supply inevitiably contracts they go bust and we get a recession, which is basically just a correction.

This is the main issue with pumping out credit that isn't backed by savings, inflation is bad but it's effect is usually drawn out over a longer period unless you're really irresponsible like Robert Mugabe and Germany during the first world war. Government ivestment banks would cause exactley the same issues since you're still giving out nothing.

Interest rates aren't a bad thing, they're just a price really like any other. The problem is that intrest rates are not decided by the amount of savings banks have and the demand for loaned capital. If they were you'd get a 'natural' interest rate that wouldn't result in the unpleasantness above.

Apologies for the very long and very boring reply though!

 

It's not boring for me, but the point I take from that although I do agree with the point, is that if government investment banks were to issue credit, they can target key areas which need investment. 

 

You go into a bank today and tell them you want to open a steel works, you'd be laughed out of the building. 

You tell them you want a mortgage they will get you a comfy chair and a coffee. 

 

Private banks control where the money goes, and if you give a bank a choice of where to put a loan, into a house they can recover if the mortgage defaults, or into an internet business with a few computers, they will always pick the safer option, the house. 

Which inevitably ends in bubbles.

 

QEP gives us an opportunity to invest into areas that need it, although I do agree we can't just build cities with it. 

[Cheese]

First change your name.

Are you suggesting 'Cheese' is a right wing name? Or are you referring to the fact that many left wing nationalists e.g Stalin changed their names?

[Rincewind]

People think Corbyn is far left because we have had so many years of Thatcherism and then Blair. Many on here were not even born when the normal Labour party was around. All I see Corbyn wanting is a fair society and stands up for the less well off and he is criticcised for doing it. People have been indoctrinated by the I'm all right Jack thought process. 

Some good posts from Sharpes Fox etc who have put across some good points far better than me so I will leave it to them.

[Alf Bentley]

3 major obstacles to the successful launch of a new party:

- Money

- Activitists on the ground

- Our electoral system

 

It costs a bomb to run an election campaign - even big, long-established parties like Labour and the Tories don't find it easy to get enough cash. Also, a presence on the ground in constituencies still matters. At the very least, voters expect to see leaflets (if not canvassers) so parties need people to deliver leaflets and/or knock doors and/or staff phone banks.

 

A new party able to hit the ground running might just about manage to address those 2 obstacles: e.g. if Labour and/or the Tories split, forming a new party fronted by recognisable politicians. But the SDP were in that position in 1983 and only won 6 seats, with 17 for their Liberal allies) despite the SDP/Liberal Alliance having prominent former cabinet ministers, a high & favourable media profile - and getting 25%+ of the vote.

 

As UKIP and the Greens discovered in 2015, under our election system you win hardly any seats unless you can win 30%+ of the vote in particular constituencies.....and 1 voter in 3 is a big, big ask for a new party.

 

In 2015, UKIP got 3.8m votes nationwide - and won 1 seat, and even that was partly because Carswell had been a popular, sitting Tory MP. Likewise, the Greens got 1.1m votes, but just the 1 seat for Caroline Lucas, also a sitting MP.

[TiffToff88]

The Judean Peoples Front?

[Kinowe Soorie]

I would like to form my own far left nationalist party. How would I go about setting one up?

Are you crackers?

[Guest]

Are you suggesting 'Cheese' is a right wing name? Or are you referring to the fact that many left wing nationalists e.g Stalin changed their names?

 

Yes.

[Guest]

3 major obstacles to the successful launch of a new party:

- Money

- Activitists on the ground

- Our electoral system

 

It costs a bomb to run an election campaign - even big, long-established parties like Labour and the Tories don't find it easy to get enough cash. Also, a presence on the ground in constituencies still matters. At the very least, voters expect to see leaflets (if not canvassers) so parties need people to deliver leaflets and/or knock doors and/or staff phone banks.

 

A new party able to hit the ground running might just about manage to address those 2 obstacles: e.g. if Labour and/or the Tories split, forming a new party fronted by recognisable politicians. But the SDP were in that position in 1983 and only won 6 seats, with 17 for their Liberal allies) despite the SDP/Liberal Alliance having prominent former cabinet ministers, a high & favourable media profile - and getting 25%+ of the vote.

 

As UKIP and the Greens discovered in 2015, under our election system you win hardly any seats unless you can win 30%+ of the vote in particular constituencies.....and 1 voter in 3 is a big, big ask for a new party.

 

In 2015, UKIP got 3.8m votes nationwide - and won 1 seat, and even that was partly because Carswell had been a popular, sitting Tory MP. Likewise, the Greens got 1.1m votes, but just the 1 seat for Caroline Lucas, also a sitting MP.

 

Activists on the ground are being replaced by keyboard activists. 

 

Social media will replace leaflets.

Are you crackers?

 

He's trying to butter you up.

[Alf Bentley]

Activists on the ground are being replaced by keyboard activists. 

 

Social media will replace leaflets.

 

 

That's probably an ongoing process, particularly among younger generations. But you still hear plenty of people (and not just old farts) grumble about not getting any leaflets or door knocking.

 

I reckon social media is still complementary to old-fashioned techniques, not an alternative - so far, anyway.

 

Mind you, if social media IS set to take over completely, it doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of improving turnout. At the 2015 election, 43% of those aged under 25 voted, compared to 78% of those aged 65+

[Thracian]

Whatever comes about we need to be lead by a party which honestly and openly justifies its claims of concern for the sick and needy, which demonstrates its commitment to governing with fairness for all and embraces the notion of an independent UK and all that could mean whether the EU concept fails in the way I think it will or not.

 

And I emphasise now, there's no way free movement can continue to be acceptable after the referendum.

 

There needs to be an initially reduced periodically flexible, numbers-and-points-based incomer system which revolves around need, security and people's suitability to integrating into our society with its basic belief in things like integrated education for all, a fully accessible health system for all, demonstrable equality for both men and women, plus human rights which uphold those (and any other complimentary principles) and don't adversely/unreasonably impact on the rights of others. 

 

All pretty straightforward really.

 

Get that right and many of the other problems are local and fairly easily fixed with the right attitudes to the above.

[Webbo]

The only way we'll get new parties is if we go down the PR route. Then both the tories and labour would split into 2 or more. Not that I'd want to go down that route, it'd still be the same people only in coalitions of 2 parties rather than 2 wings of the same party.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

People think Corbyn is far left because we have had so many years of Thatcherism and then Blair. Many on here were not even born when the normal Labour party was around. All I see Corbyn wanting is a fair society and stands up for the less well off and he is criticcised for doing it. People have been indoctrinated by the I'm all right Jack thought process. 

Some good posts from Sharpes Fox etc who have put across some good points far better than me so I will leave it to them.

Ken, I take it then that you enjoyed a party, which supported strikers without any thought as to whether they were right or wrong. People like Jack Dash, who wanted to bring our country to it's knees, with his Communist ideals..

[Christoph]

A new party only makes the Conservatives stronger in my eyes. 

[Beliall]

The Judean Peoples Front?

 

sorry, you can't be them, they're over there...

[The God Emperor]

It's not boring for me, but the point I take from that although I do agree with the point, is that if government investment banks were to issue credit, they can target key areas which need investment. 

 

You go into a bank today and tell them you want to open a steel works, you'd be laughed out of the building. 

You tell them you want a mortgage they will get you a comfy chair and a coffee. 

 

Private banks control where the money goes, and if you give a bank a choice of where to put a loan, into a house they can recover if the mortgage defaults, or into an internet business with a few computers, they will always pick the safer option, the house. 

Which inevitably ends in bubbles.

 

QEP gives us an opportunity to invest into areas that need it, although I do agree we can't just build cities with it. 

The problem is if QEP was to be used to revive our steel industry you'd just get a steel bubble, the same way a private bank loaning out cheap credit has created tech and housing bubbles.

There are numerous reasons as to why Britain's steel industry is in it's current state. If these barriers are not removed beforehand you're just diverting labour and resources to an unviable enterprise. In the short term it would look like the QE has crated a thriving steel industry but when the bubble bursts it will collapse again. These unviable steel works will also have been bidding up the prices of goods too which further diverts wealth from viable enterprises making the country poorer.

If however producing steel became a viable enterprise again then people wishing to produce would be able to find the funds for it either through banks, venture capital etc. Which would mean that the QE would not be required.

 

There's no easy, painless fix for the mess we're in. We can't inflate our way to success or cure the ills of society through credit expansion. We've been trying to do that for over a hundred years now.

[Rincewind]

Ken, I take it then that you enjoyed a party, which supported strikers without any thought as to whether they were right or wrong. People like Jack Dash, who wanted to bring our country to it's knees, with his Communist ideals..

When there was the miner's strike The Sun reported that there were more going back to work than there were working in the mines.

I support a part that does most of this.

 

 

A tory MP was praised for campaigning for remain. Corbyn got blamed. Do you not see a pattern.

[yorkie1999]

The yam yam party

 

[cityfanlee23]

The problem is if QEP was to be used to revive our steel industry you'd just get a steel bubble, the same way a private bank loaning out cheap credit has created tech and housing bubbles.

There are numerous reasons as to why Britain's steel industry is in it's current state. If these barriers are not removed beforehand you're just diverting labour and resources to an unviable enterprise. In the short term it would look like the QE has crated a thriving steel industry but when the bubble bursts it will collapse again. These unviable steel works will also have been bidding up the prices of goods too which further diverts wealth from viable enterprises making the country poorer.

If however producing steel became a viable enterprise again then people wishing to produce would be able to find the funds for it either through banks, venture capital etc. Which would mean that the QE would not be required.

 

There's no easy, painless fix for the mess we're in. We can't inflate our way to success or cure the ills of society through credit expansion. We've been trying to do that for over a hundred years now.

 

Oh I 100% agree, the investment cannot be just to prop up or create a new bubble, the investment would not be the only solution, Investment would have to be slow and the investment would have to be across the board. 

 

For example housing. 

If we can invest slowly and well managed into the real economy across the entire economy, the recovery would be much quicker than the usual fix of "Get banks lending fast"