THE TWO MAIN PARTIES IN THIS COUNTRY DON’T REFLECT THE DIVISIONS IN THIS COUNTRY ANY MORE, THEY REFLECT ANCIENT, DEAD DIVISIONS AND THE REAL ONES BETWEEN SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES AND SOCIAL LIBERALS PARTICULARLY, AND BETWEEN THOSE WHO WISH THIS TO BE AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY AND THOSE WHO PREFER IT TO BE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION, WERE MUCH BETTER REFLECTED IN THE REFERENDUM
THE GHOSTS OF TWO NEW PARTIES EMERGED… IF ONLY WE COULD GET RID OF THE OLD, DEAD, CORPSE PARTIES, WE MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE SOME REAL POLITICS IN THIS COUNTRY INSTEAD OF DREADFUL BLAIRITE CONSENSUS THAT WE HAVE SUFFERED FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS… THE BINARY PART IS THIS, THE LABOUR PARTY DOESN’T LOVE THE POOR, AND THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY DOESN’T LOVE THE COUNTRY… IT WAS RICHARD NEVILL WHO SAID IN THE 60’S, THERE IS AN INCH OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES, AND ITS IN THAT INCH WE ALL LIVE.
AN ADVERSARIAL PARLIAMENT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR FREEDOM, THE PROBLEM IS OUR CURRENT PARLIAMENT IS ANYTHING BUT ADVERSARIAL, ITS ALL BLAIRITE’S FROM NORTH TO SOUTH, FROM EAST TO WEST
The democratic mandates for Trump and Brexit demonstrated discontent for the continuity of socio-cultural standards. They were perceived to be acts of provocation and defiance by an electorate using a genuine and legitimate emotive foundation as a catalyst for positive change. Fundamentally however they flashed at signs of a new political divide, for which only realignment can serve as an effective solution.
Sectarian splits were reflected across both parties proportion of ’remain’ and ‘leave’ voters, and across both sets of MP’s, in the UK. The electorate was not only divided during the referendum, but was hung drawn and quartered. This demonstrates the inadequacy of the traditional divide, because of its inability to come to natural consensus over such a big issue.
We are leaving the labour party, not only because of what its become, but because like so many others, we feel that our values no longer find expression in today’s broken politics… we don’t think every problem in the world is created by the West in fact we are proud of our values home and abroad
Gavin Sheker, Labour defector
The left, in its new incarnation, is increasingly synonymous with being globalist and the right with the protection of the national interest. The Realignment we have seen from MPs over the last couple of days are manifestations of these new divisions.
There are many perceived problems with the British Parliamentary System, but most people agree with Winston Churchill’s sentiment that “it is the worst system of governance except from all the others.”
Democratic systems such as those in both the UK and America have created what has been termed a ‘two-party dictatorship’. This system has a propensity to move both parties to the centre, and cease being adversarial therefore abstaining its obligation to the public.
This is reflected in MPs such as Anna Soubury and Chuka Umunna supposedly ideological rivals, having far more in common with one another then the poles of their own party, and them aligning.
In practice, this leads to debate arguing whether economic policy should adopt a tax rate of 40% or 42%.
All referendum offer a contradiction through their offer of dual authority to parliament and the people directly. The whole point about representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy is that we choose people to represent us so we are not involved directly.
However given prior to the referendum, (which delivered the biggest democratic British mandate ever, for Brexit) both major parties endorsed remain, in hindsight at odds with the British public. A referendum was necessary to achieve the people’s will. Our model of representative democracy was not actually representing us.
Because of the inability to deliver satisfactory compromise over Brexit, as ultimate sovereign and head of Parliament, and given the nature of this crack down the centre of British politics, the Queen (the only person capable and justified too) should have possibly invoked temporary special measures to either resolve a solution, on a cross-party basis. Or split the two parties into ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ making four parties, and hold a general election in order to avoid the Constitutional dilemma we are now stuck in. This would be a political intervention but not an ideological one.
For a democracy to work healthily it is necessary that political representatives stand for policy over party. If the parties policy changes from when they joined, and another party offers a closer match to them, it is their duty, not to think emotionally about the sentiment or history of colours but to serve the public.
Realignment is a move away from the rigid structure of tribal party politics to one that offers more choice to the electorate. Because the tory MPs leaving will enable the conservatives to move right, as eurosceptics gain more authority over the party. Similarly, Labour will move left as the right of the party are no longer resisting, and there is a more formidable central block that won’t be so easily neglected as a wasted vote.
This will have implications on parliamentary arithmetic making both parties weaker however, and it could fundamentally damage them both, perhaps making way for younger and hungrier new parties on the right and left, as we have seen happen across Europe. The traditional blocks and their sister parties don’t own voters, and face increased opposition in a free market of ideas with this realignment to the centre.
The common characteristic of populism is primarily focused on the merits of migration. The walls that represent it have become metaphorically as important as physically they were historically. They demonstrate the pathology of the new left so clearly as an anti-national movement. Trump exploits this rhetoric very effectively, making a narrative around the new divide, away from the traditional Democrat and Republican bases and towards divisions between national & global interests that the wall so effectively illustrates.
Anna Soubury and Sarah Wollaston should never have identified with the party because they are globalists who wanted to progress past national sovereignty and hand autonomy to unelected foreign bureaucrats, and don’t want to conserve national sovereignty. They are fundamentally ignorant about racial disparity, thinking its moral, and therefore won’t even consider conserving the ethnic demographics because they don’t see them as having any influence on conserving prosperity. They are therefore incapable of conserving anything.
Once the left and right was about economics, now it’s about globalisation and nationalism. Its most apparent division is racial and to do with the merits of immigration and prioritising the nation-state. The neo-left are Multiculturalist, the centre are civic nationalist and the right are ethnic nationalists. I suspect that the realignment beginning today has its underlaying roots in the emerging divisions of tomorrow.