[bestkeptsecret]

I'm working on the idea of a new political party which would offer a real alternative to what we have today.

The premise is that power should be as close to people as possible, giving people as much independence and self determination as possible, while taking advantage of our natural geography. Beyond this the party would not have any traditional left-right ideology to speak of, and would simply be about representing what the people want at every level of the chain.

Aim one would be to establish an English Assembly, and give that the sort of devolved powers that Scotland, Wales, and NI enjoy.

The UK government / Westminster would be tier 1 - It would be left with only a very small role looking after the following areas.

The UK constitution
Defence
Foreign Affairs

Initially, it would be likely that the following additional areas would be a matter for the UK government, however they would be open for debate and potentially could be completely devolved to national level with elements dropped further down the chain too.

Tax
Immigration and citizenship.


For National level (tier 2), the start point would be these sorts of things but these would again be open to full devolution to lower levels - in many cases parts of them are already.

Environment
Health
Housing
Justice
Economic development
Tourism
National transport and infrastructure
Culture and Sport
Education

To clarify Tier 2 would be split.

Scotland
England
Wales
Northern Ireland.

The next aim would be to sort out the mess that is regional and local government by creating a set of tiers that are consistent and make sense, so things could be devolved effectively.

The thought for the next step down (tier 3) would be regions, and what would sit here would depend on the case people can build that would mean things should be pulled away from national level but then why it shouldn't devolve down to county level. With regions, I am talking about the existing 9 regions of England.

South East
London
North West
East of England
West Midlands
South West
Yorkshire and the Humber
East Midlands
North East

We would most likely add to this, three Scottish regions, two Welsh regions, and perhaps there is a case for splitting Northern Ireland into two regions too.

Tier 4 would be county level.
Tier 5 would be village/ town / city level.
Tier 6 would be street / ward level


Nothing is set in stone aside from the principle that power should be as close to the people as possible, and people should have the highest level of self determination possible.


What I'm really looking for is anyone that has any thoughts on how to refine and develop the idea further. So any idea's?

[Crantag]

Until very recently, I didn't personally think of myself as a socialist. I find a lot good about socialism, but I do have just a few hang ups.

I'm thinking now that socialism is the one extant political-economic philosophy which does more than any other to check those socio-political-economic necessary boxes for a proper path forth.

The internet has revolutionized communication technology, to a point where capitalist bosses have become less necessary. There are impasses at every step along the way--the 'gig economy' for example has the potential to be either horrible or very beneficial (and everything in between; it is probably tending toward the former, except perhaps in highly-skill fields).

I think new parties are just fine. I personally have a tough time with party politics though. They seem to me inherently authoritarian. I would prefer an infrastructure to subvert parties, but there are also the realist considerations of working with the framework we have.

[bestkeptsecret]

Until very recently, I didn't personally think of myself as a socialist. I find a lot good about socialism, but I do have just a few hang ups.

I'm thinking now that socialism is the one extant political-economic philosophy which does more than any other to check those socio-political-economic necessary boxes for a proper path forth.

The internet has revolutionized communication technology, to a point where capitalist bosses have become less necessary. There are impasses at every step along the way--the 'gig economy' for example has the potential to be either horrible or very beneficial (and everything in between; it is probably tending toward the former, except perhaps in highly-skill fields).

I think new parties are just fine. I personally have a tough time with party politics though. They seem to me inherently authoritarian. I would prefer an infrastructure to subvert parties, but there are also the realist considerations of working with the framework we have.

In case you missed it......

What I'm really looking for is anyone that has any thoughts on how to refine and develop the idea further. So any idea's?

[B0ycey]

More local representation means more politicians and more corruption. I'm all for a new party in the UK but not more bureaucracy.

The UK isn't as bad as the US in terms of class divide. They also have the means to generate wealth. But they seem more focused on military spending and warfare (international affairs) than affairs at home. For every cruise missle fired is like a nurse's wages for a year. Talk about priority issues. If they can solve this problem, they can solve their budgetary issues too.

Also, what the UK need is a Macron. A true Centrist with a business background and socialist ideas. Someone who can answer straight forward questions. Instead we have weasels that would rather line their pockets with silver than listen to their constituents. This is a major issue. I listen to MPs on tele and I can't believe the amount of snooty boring bastards that we have. The section process for MPs for the major parties don't seem to look for normal candidates. They seem to look for snivelly backstabbing snakes who would sell their children to the slave trade if it meant the keys to number ten.

I suppose what I am saying is the parties and their values are not the problem, it's the people in them that are. A new party with the same type of people within it would result in the same problems we currently have. I am starting to look at Corbyn as a shot in the dark for the next general election. Not that I think he'd be good for the UK economy (which Brexit would have fucked up by then anyway), but because I think the UK needs to start again. It is quite adaptable for vital resources like food and water and perhaps the capitalist lifestyle of greed and consumption needs to end to bring back true values into our society again. We need to realise that we are no longer a superpower unless we are willing to remain part of the EU and we need to focus on internal affairs and class divided which were the result of Brexit in the first place. I think perhaps Corbyn might address these problems where May (despite her opening PM speech) seems to ignore.

[bestkeptsecret]

More local representation means more politicians and more corruption. I'm all for a new party in the UK but not more bureaucracy.

Does it have to mean that? Is there no way of mitigating that as part of bringing power closer to people?

[Decky]

Does it have to mean that? Is there no way of mitigating that as part of bringing power closer to people?

Regular Stalin style purges would keep politicians fearful enough to limit corruption to some extent.

[Truth To Power]

I'm thinking now that socialism is the one extant political-economic philosophy which does more than any other to check those socio-political-economic necessary boxes for a proper path forth.

Socialism is even worse than capitalism, as Venezuela is proving once again. Despite its socialist legacy, authoritarian excesses and corruption, China (emulating Hong Kong) has given the world notice that the proper path forward is private ownership of what is created by private producers (capital goods) and public ownership of what is created by government and the community (land value).

The internet has revolutionized communication technology, to a point where capitalist bosses have become less necessary. There are impasses at every step along the way--the 'gig economy' for example has the potential to be either horrible or very beneficial (and everything in between; it is probably tending toward the former, except perhaps in highly-skill fields).

Precarious and disadvantageous working arrangements can only be forced on workers because their rights to liberty have been forcibly stripped from them and made into the private property of the privileged, especially landowners. The only difference between landowning and slavery is that slavery removes people's rights to liberty one person at a time, landowning removes them one right at a time.

I think new parties are just fine. I personally have a tough time with party politics though. They seem to me inherently authoritarian. I would prefer an infrastructure to subvert parties, but there are also the realist considerations of working with the framework we have.

The framework is clearly a problem.

[bestkeptsecret]

The framework is clearly a problem.

So doesn't decentralising change the framework in a way that makes it much much harder for a couple of parties to 'corner the market'?

[Zagadka]

I made my own "party"... don't expect anyone to follow it, but it contains the set of policies I would promote under an umbrella term.

[bestkeptsecret]

I made my own "party"... don't expect anyone to follow it, but it contains the set of policies I would promote under an umbrella term.

Can you cry if you want to?

[Truth To Power]

Can you cry if you want to?

You're dating yourself. No one younger than a baby boomer would get that reference.

[Zagadka]

Sure we did. Millennials, maybe not.

[SueDeNîmes]

I'm working on the idea of a new political party which would offer a real alternative to what we have today.

(...)

What I'm really looking for is anyone that has any thoughts on how to refine and develop the idea further. So any idea's?

Would tiers below tier 1 have their own treasuries? Could they issue debt or otherwise expand money supply? If not, they might have rather limited policy options in "economic development, transport and infrastructure, health, education" etc. If so (assuming a single currency and central bank) it could get rather complicated and fractious.

[bestkeptsecret]

Would tiers below tier 1 have their own treasuries? Could they issue debt or otherwise expand money supply? If not, they might have rather limited policy options in "economic development, transport and infrastructure, health, education" etc. If so (assuming a single currency and central bank) it could get rather complicated and fractious.

Perhaps I should highlight the list I created for tier two is based on powers that are already devolved to either Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, and was perhaps too prescriptive as part of trying to explain the concept and overall ethos of devolving power as close to people as possible, and giving people as much self determination as possible

I think 'treasury' is perhaps a wide concept, but potentially yes, I could see a model where nations, regions or even councils could indeed borrow and create debt. Ultimately, banks expand the money supply day in day out according to a set of rules. There is no reason why devolved authorities couldn't do the same within an agreed framework. You could even have a system which would allow Currency to be created on a national, regional basis if that's what people of those nations, regions or counties decide they want. you could perhaps accommodate that by having a rule at constitutional level which makes Sterling legal tender throughout the UK, however beyond that if Scotland wanted their own 'local' currency, or even a county did, then potentially why not give people what they want if you could find a way to make it work?

[SueDeNîmes]

OK, then my "thoughts on how to refine and develop the idea further" would be to suggest somesuch "agreed framework", as I think the idea would largely hinge around it in practice.

[bestkeptsecret]

OK, then my "thoughts on how to refine and develop the idea further" would be to suggest somesuch "agreed framework", as I think the idea would largely hinge around it in practice.

Suggest away my friend, suggest away

[Truth To Power]

So doesn't decentralising change the framework in a way that makes it much much harder for a couple of parties to 'corner the market'?

I don't know about "much much," but it would seem likely to be harder.

[SueDeNîmes]

Suggest away my friend, suggest away

Sorry I thought you meant areas you might refine. IMHO the devolved regions would be too budget constrained or it would get too complicated and divisive. I have a hard time imagining a sweet spot