Safe Speed Forums

Tired of being pushed around by MINORITY interest groups like BRAKE, Transport 2000 and the TRL? Do you think the Scamera partnerships are out of touch with the views of the normal man in the street.

www.yourparty.org was set up by a group of us who are tired of the government ignoring the wishes of the people. It's a new political party that, among other things, wants keen motorists to make themselves heard. I firmly believe you are the MAJORITY and should fight for your rights on important issues and make your votes count. We're not just another discussion forum. YourParty will be electing MP's who will vote according to the wishes of the majority and shape government policy in a truly democratic way.

Want to get rid of speed cameras? Your choice!
No more speed humps? Your choice!
Tired of bus lanes? Your choice!
Like to see more money spent on roads? Your choice!
Think traffic Wardens and Clampers are corrupt? Your Choice!


If you like the idea of a party that shapes its transport policies in line with the majority view and acts in the interests of the motorist instead of the alarmist anti-car campaigners then GET INVOLVED now before the MINORITY try to influence the debate.

Go to www.yourparty.org and roll back years of 'strategic transport planning' You pay exhorbitant car taxes - why should you be ignored any longer?

_________________
The amount of intelligence on the web is a constant. Unfortunately the population keeps increasing

I have also replied to this on the "Speed, Safety, Driving and The Law" forum. Grow up or go away.

My post is relevant to Safespeed and Campaigning. I know Paul well enough by now to know that this is the kind of positive discussion that he'd like to see on these forums.

I'm trying to do something about the status quo here. If your response is to vent spleen and tell us all to "grow up and go away" then I wonder what you are doing on the campaigning section of the site in the first place and what gives you the right to determine who is and is not welcome?

.......anyway

Road safety matters to me. I've seen enough people die on the roads to care that a: many are dying unecessarily b: Your average man in the street could frame a far more effective and balanced road safety policy than the assorted camera partnerships and lobbies are capable of.


Sounds like you're happy leaving this in the capable hands of "professional politicians."

_________________
The amount of intelligence on the web is a constant. Unfortunately the population keeps increasing

Well, this really won't do!

Like it or not, the "professional politicians" are the people who are prepared to put their heads on the block, to think about the issues, to ask people to vote for them on the basis of policies and programmes, and to take the knock-back when things go wrong. This applies from the humblest of parish councillors to the grandest cabinet minister.

If you seriously believe that all "professional politicians" are just in it for their own ends, then you've been reading far too many tabloid papers, my friend.

Likewise, if you are prepared to set up a "political party" with NO pre-stated philosophy, and expect tens of thousands to join just because you say "we'll do just what you want", you are extremely naive. This is precisely the scenario that racists and their ugly friends will try to exploit.

Politicians have a responsibility to listen to public opinion, sure, but there is a corresponding responsibility to lead it, and this is the responsibility that your new "party" seems to have no interest in.

For that reason, I think you are doomed to failure. Sorry, but that's just the way it will go.

I think all of us in the party are happy to take that chance. There are far more balanced sensible people in the this country than there are extremists. There isn't one example since 1945 of direct democracy giving rise to extreme governments.


We also have a responsibility to 'lead' and to help shape public opinion by providing access to the unbiased and accurate information so that people take informed decisions, rather than being told that the thinking has been done for them, behind closed doors by people who know better.

I'd counter that professional politicians often refuse to put their heads on the block, preferring to spin and dodge questions. It's frequently the case that when things go wrong the finger of blame gets pointed at a civil servant. As far as manifesto pledges and sticking to policy are concerned - we'll there are a littany of manifesto pledges which have been broken by all the major parties because they were afraid to stick to their guns despite proclaiming strong leadership and sound principles.

My view of the world is that there are good and bad politicians but they are ALL public servants. The public have a democratic right to hold those politicians accountable and to provide meaningful input in the policy debate. When an MP listens to the clear majority of his electorate and then ignores them you have to ask in exactly who's interests he's working. I don't vote for an MP because he knows better or because he has plenty of time on his hands - I do it because I think he will be a good representative of his constituents.

This issue of National Interest is a funny one isn't it. Correct me if I'm wrong- but shouldn't the nation decide what's in the national interest? When the PM tells us he's doing something in the 'national interest' that 80% of the country disagree with I find that condescending in the extreme.

The overwhelming current feeling among most constituents is that elements of road safety policy aren't working. As taxpayers and citizens we have a right to be involved. YourParty are offering the first ever mechanism to do that....

_________________
The amount of intelligence on the web is a constant. Unfortunately the population keeps increasing

Not in mainland UK, perhaps, but extreme parties seem to do well enough in N Ireland. And are their policies really in the interest of the people of N Ireland as a whole - or just of their particular faction? The public's perception of their own interest is clearly not always very sensible, is it.

Serbia has recently voted for a strongly nationalist government, the Netherlands and Austria have flirted with far-right parties, and may I remind you that in order to remain President of France, Chirac had to see off Le Pen, for god's sake. All rather close to home. Vigilance must remain everyone's watchword.

Now, back to road safety. I'm with Paul and the rest of you when it comes to current government policy. We do need to write to our councillors and MPs to point out the folly of "speed kills" and the enforement regime surrounding this. We need to look out for every proposed speed limit reduction and challenge each one forcefully. Such direct action is sensible and available. But people look to political parties for much more than single-issue campaigns - Dr Taylor's election on the hospital campaign platform in Wyre Forest attracted so much attention because of its rarity, and I suspect he won't be re-elected.

I've stated elsewhere that the Tory Party's apparent commitment to 80mph on motorways (and free left turn on red, IIRC) wouldn't decide my vote all by itself. Life, and therefore politics, is about so much more than that.

I apologise for suggesting you "grow up", but I really do think that you and your friends need to consider what a political party is there for. Originally, all MPs were elected (or returned unopposed from the rotten boroughs) without the backing of parties - these grew up within Parliament as like-minded MPs and peers banded together to act in concert. The Conservative party certainly owes its origins to this process, as did the old Liberal party. Only once these coalitions had solidified did associations form in the constituencies to promote the election of members who, if elected, would join with the Tory or Whig parties. The notion of parties forming outside parliament is a comparatively recent phenomenon, starting really with the Trade Unions forming the Labour Party. But note that all these parties began with groups of people who had a common standpoint, a "philosophy" if you like. What you seem to be promoting lacks this underpinning element, and that is why I think your enterprise is built on sand. You will find that you are saddled with conflicting commitments, with too many promises that you can't pay for, and eventually will dissolve in arguments and acrimony. It won't be a pretty sight.

sadly - none of the examples you cite are direct democracies


I'll get back to this later. In a meeting right now:-)

_________________
The amount of intelligence on the web is a constant. Unfortunately the population keeps increasing

I'm looking forward to seeing your definition of "direct democracy"!

Also I'm not convinced that we are a single issue party. We are allowing people a say in ALL areas of policy. Which means that in a few months we will be shaping policy on everything ranging from tuition fees to motorway tolls.

How does that make us a single issue party?

Our underpinning philosphy is that of our members. Doubtless that will change over time as public opinion changes. I see this as no bad thing. I'd consider myself to be essentially tory in my political views - but I think they are out of touch with public opinion and with the modern world on a number of issues. This means they are unable to connect with their members - and that bad for turnout, and democracy.

There's nothing wrong with making up policy as you go along. Just so long as you're prepared to admit that lousy decisions made in the past are no longer appropriate. One of the problems with traditional politics is that so many policy makers are afraid of admitting they got things wrong and too embarrased to put things right. In general the public are pretty good at deciding when they've had enough of a failing policy.

_________________
The amount of intelligence on the web is a constant. Unfortunately the population keeps increasing

Direct Democracy = the people having a say in all areas affecting their own lives.

That means everyone gets a vote on all areas of national and local interest.

Significantly - it also provides a framework for group of people to get together and suggest policy proposals, which will then go to a vote.

_________________
The amount of intelligence on the web is a constant. Unfortunately the population keeps increasing

I don't suppose you will be a single-issue party, but you've been selling yourselves here on the basis of your ability to be influenced by your members on road traffic policy - and, of course, you cannot guarantee that Transport 2000 will not join your party en bloc and land you with the most rabid anti-car policies imaginable.

"Our underpinning philosphy is that of our members" - trouble is, neither you nor we can know what that will be. Who are your founders, what's their background, this is the sort of thing that gives people a guide as to whether a party is likely to be for them or not. When Mosley founded his "New Party" people knew where that was likely to go (rightwards), same with the Gang of Four and the SDP (centre-left).

"Direct Democracy = the people having a say in all areas affecting their own lives." Lovely idea, but people tire of going to the polls every fortnight to have referenda on everything (The USA has the closest system to this, with individual officers being elected annually, with propositions on ballot papers for approval or rejection, and look at the low turnouts they have). This is why we have representative democracy instead, and we place our trust in the elected representatives to act in our interests. If they don't or we decide we don't like them any more, we vote them out and have somebody else. I can't see "Direct Democracy" ever getting going, though you're quite at liberty to disagree and put the proposition to the wider public. Representative democracy is obviously the worst possible system - except for all the others!

"There's nothing wrong with making up policy as you go along." Up to a point, Lord Copper! I'm afraid if a party submits itself for election with that selling point, it'll be laughed out of court.

"In general the public are pretty good at deciding when they've had enough of a failing policy". Yes, we have a change of government. And your point is?

Keep thinking on this, I'm intrigued by your desire to appeal to everyone all at once, and I warn you that it cannot work.

I think it's great to "think outside the box" like this, and this is a wonderfully fresh idea for those of us who are disillusioned with MPs that toe the party line at the expense of their voters.

But I think this new party is only of transient interest, and you don't need to read very far between the lines to see why. misternomer admits to being basically Tory, and I think that is the crucial thing here. This has emerged to fill a temporary gap in the market.

This is purely my opinion, but at the moment we seem to have a Government nobody wants, with a leader nobody trusts. England is basically a Conservative nation, yet we don't currently have a credible Conservative Party who will attract the electoral turnout necessary to defeat the Government. I think it was disillusionment rather than apathy that led to the unbelievably low turnout at the last general election, and the subsequent landslide Labour victory. In short, people didn't want to vote Labour but they couldn't bring themselves to vote for the opposition so they stayed at home and Labour returned to power by default.

This new initiative has perceptively noticed that one of the major public issues with Tony B Liar is his disregard for democratic opinion, and has carefully chosen that as a way of getting a foot in the door. But this is only transient, Blair's disregard for opinion is merely a consequence of his huge majority.

CJB is quite correct that the public at large don't want a referendum on every issue, they simply want a Conservative Party they can believe in and leave alone to get on with it. If and when that materialises then Labour will be defeated and "yourparty" will disappear like a genie.

But as I've said, this is just my opinion...

JT is quite right! There is a gap in the market in that none of the main parties seem to address the real issues facing this country! (NOT on about driving - either!)

The apathy is everywhere! There are no real political/current affairs shows (and what few there are are not broadcast at the peak and regular times we used to have) This is part caused by the general apathy, and the fact that the only politician with so-called "media charisma" (And BOY OH BOY has he worked on it - our TONE TONE TONE!)

Our Almighty Tone, blessed with his majority, has no regard for democracy, and actually appears to believe his own spin! He is more Tory Boy than Tony Boy, hijacks the Tory ideas, presents them as his own, and then blames the other lot when they go pear shaped!

This is also known as "professional politics" One of CONartists plays at being more "professional politican" than copper. They all ooze "political correctness" aka STASI style administration as well! (Called thought policing, control and Nanny State - all of which we associate with "New" Labour (except that it is really far right meeting far left at point where they become one! and same! ))

One of problems is the huge majority! Thatcher suffered from same kind of megolamanic disease when she had such a huge majority! (Yeah! I know! You will come back with "Just with huge majority?? Sure it was not all the time!!! )

The very fact that we consistently have such low turn outs is indicative or our inherent mistrust of these "Professional Politicos". and we have
as JT says - no palatable choice. I remember actually hearing in the Major V Kinnock election. "Major is no good -- but Kinnock in Number 10 He's no better!" and "Better the Devil you know..." (Possibly only reason why Major actually won that!) Think this is one of reasons why there was such a low turn out last time, coupled with the incredible landslide! Hague was leadeer too soon in real terms. He would maybe have been "just so" as Credible leader material about now! Will admit that the Moggie Cat family in general had hard time last election. In fact - some of the more wussy pussies in this bunch of "rebels" disappeared abroad "and "forgot" to post the vote"! Some of the gang even engaged in some "tactical voting" OOOOPPS! in attempt to get "lesser evil" as MP!

What we need is something to break the apathy. Good healthy debate on all issues which concern our daily lives on the telly and radio - at decent times of the day! Something which would hone the presentation skills of the main opposition parties. Something that would get the general public talking about politics again - and give these professional politicos something to really think about!

Course will not happen as our Tone probably has full control of the BBC now after the recent fiascos!

Interesting comment from a friend of mine: "I did their little quiz about "Who do you trust to make decisions about X? MPs or the public?" and I kept coming down on the side of the MPs, however much of a shower of idiots, hypocrites and careerists they may be. YP's clearly not for me: IMO indirect democracy's a very good thing -- the point of having full-time politicians is that they have time to scrutinise and to think about all the nuances of public policy that the average member of the general public simply doesn't have time to deal with in between living their lives. Sure, we could do a damn sight better job at picking the people we get to do our thinking for us, but the principle is sound".

I couldn't agree more. However, as Mad Mog identifies, apathy rules, so those who would represent us do not get close enough scrutiny, so we get the representatives we deserve (collectively, that is - from my point of view, I vote each and every time I'm given a chance to). "Your Party" won't solve that, I'm afraid.

Incidentally, JT, Britain may be a "conservative" nation, but it is not always a "Conservative" nation. The two have often not lined up - Mad Margaret was not really small-c conservative at all, given the fundamental changes she wrought to our political, social and economic lives. Tony B is far more conservative IMHO, but is a Labour PM.

Oh! That is what they call it - having time to scrutinise and analyse all the nuances of public policy.

I thought it was "having 40 winks in the House" whilst some ***** talks in their sleep

Yes - I do agree, CJB! We really do need to get the selection procedure tightened up. After all - we scrutinise all our applicants for jobs before we let 'em loose!

We need to get away from "Old Boys networks and who you know" as opposed to "what you know and can achieve!"

Sadly, this is part of the current disease of total apathy!

Put the name Jörg Haider into Google. Okay, it's the government of a state not an entire country, but a lot of people would still say it's an example of an extreme party getting power in a democracy.

Much as I despise politicians on both sides of the house I have to agree with CJB that a new party is likely to fail, especially one that appears to campaign on a narrow set of issues. You may feel that you cover a broad range of issues, but if you fail to convince voters you'll just lose a lot of deposits. One of the obstacles you face is that many people will vote along party lines regardless of the competence of their party's candidate or who will be PM as a result. Look at St Helens. The locals were furious that a recent ex-Tory was parachuted into their safe Labour seat without ever having been to St helens before, but he still won the seat at the election. I know some life long Labour members who will still vote for Blair next time, even though they consider him to be a Tory with a nice smile, if only because they're hoping for a 'real' Labour PM to replace him soon. I think you'd be far better off joining an existing party and making changes from inside the system.

mad moggie sais..
The apathy is everywhere!
unquote..

yep, so if we, the whole population are apathetic, then we get the politicians and the party we deserve.

the idea of another party is a waste of time and effort.


If u are enthusiastic, (0.000001 percent of the population ) join the party you think has the most chance of winning , and then try and change it from the inside.


ALMOST everything we need to influence local politics is available, much is on line, but how often do we go along to a council meeting ?? we dont.. We vote once every four years or so, and we abdicate our responsibility to those who are willing to give up their time to police the civil servants.. If we want to influence them we can go along and say something.. We dont go, we say nothing, we dont watch whats happening.. IMHO No need for new parties ..

rgds
bill

Now, this is how to start a new political party ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/26/newsid_2531000/2531151.stm

Yes, it really was 23 years ago!

From my deeply cynical uncle:
Politician (noun) pol-i-tish-un - an individual characterised by an inability to distinguish between doing something and achieving anything. Cf. minister.

Maybe I'll just vote independant next time.