You fork the policy base, but keep the other site open
In practice, would that mean having two sets of manifestos?
I imagine anything we have in the SN manifesto we’d want to send back into the OP Manifesto.
I fail to see why you’d want this. The stated goal of the OP Manifesto is to be adopted by lots of parties, so conflict resolution there would be a pain, and Something New is a political party, the core idea of which is to build policy around its principles (because that’s what a party does, and for good reason), whereas Open Politics not a political party, and explicitly non partisan; thus, sending partisan policy over to an apparently non partisan project intended for use by multiple parties which has no stated values makes no sense whatsoever, and what you’re currently doing makes even less sense because they are currently synchronised, meaning people who don’t even know the stated values of the party are contributing a party document. I’m literally unable to explain the issue in a clearer fashion.
I can see two issues with that approach;
Different contributors will have different feedback, leading to an efficient yo-yo-ing of policies. For example, a policy is proposed and accepted for the SN manifesto. It’s proposed for the OP manifesto, and some feedback leads to changes. Those changes now need to be proposed for the SN manifesto which may also lead to feedback/changes. It’s more efficient to have everyone contribute to the same project instead of splitting effort.
Yeah the idea was splitting the projects so that it makes sense, rather than the system you have now, which makes absolutely no sense.
The two diverge. I think it’s actually pretty likely that having two will lead to them diverging. Contributors in that scenario are unlikely to want to make double the effort to maintain both, so they’ll focus on one. The manifesto, and party, are more likely to succeed together rather than apart.
My entire point is that a non partisan manifesto should be just that, and thus, these 2 projects diverging would be a good thing. Open Politics is non partisan and thus does not state, and shouldn’t have, any principles that it is based around other than open politics. Something New is a political party, and is thus obviously politically partisan, allowing its membership/voters/supporters to tailor policy to suit it’s membership/voters/supporters as per the party principles. By virtue of what they are these two don’t go together. So far it seems, if you’ll allow me to analogise, you’ve taken a cone, shoved it in a square hole, and pushed, so far everything is going fine, but it will eventually get stuck, and then the cone (in the analogy, this party) is screwed because you’ve shoved it in the square hole of sharing your manifesto with several other parties (not yet, but that’s the goal, hence why I said the cone would get stuck)
keep the project open without linking its success or limiting it by being used within Something New.
Could you expand on this? Do you think that the manifesto project is limited by association with Something New?
No, I don’t funnily enough, that was something you said that I was trying to comfort you on since my proposal wouldn’t limit it, and that was an issue you brought up (if you care to scroll up to your previous post you’ll see what I mean). If anything, I think Something New is limited by the merged manifesto, as I’ve previously explained the issues with the current setup.
Arguably, you also need to push policy
Could you elaborate on what you mean by “push policy” please? In my mind, the party is pushing policy created by the manifesto, while the manifesto project focuses on creating policy. You might call it a separation of powers
I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. If you care to contextualise that statement, it was in response to 3 sentences of yours in which you said that “We shouldn’t need to exist, but we have to in order to push forward the Open Politics Manifesto.”, which I disagreed with because I view the party as pushing both, since one is the method, and one is the result of the method, in practice the policy is more important since it gains votes and funding, but I digress.
This party shouldn’t exist just to be merged with others
It doesn’t at all - no-one is suggesting that. If we’re going to be successful we have to bring the other small progressive parties together.
Either you’re lying or you’re oblivious to the contradiction. Allow me to quote you: “That may well lead to mergers (my preference eventually)” which was the passage I was responding to and have objection to. Given my lengths to contextualise my responses I’m surprised you didn’t realise this.
Regardless, this party clearly isn’t progressive, I’d call it centre left. Also, and I don’t mean to add another word to the dead word pile, the word progressive throws up red flags for anyone who’s ever endured a video of “The Young Turks” youtube channel or heard of Gamergate even vaguely, so I wouldn’t use it around non-left-wing company since quite a lot of people view “progressive politics” as regressive. Not only that but it casts generalisations about the support base, and I for one, do not consider myself a progressive.
Given the intent of your original statement that I’d previously responded to, I’d like to point out that the UK Pirate Party don’t consider themselves progressive and afaik they never have, they’re centrist.
It’s also misleading to contributors to have your manifesto be shared outside of the party’s control without it being explicitly stated, or at least not obvious.
It could be clearer, but I don’t think it’s fair to say it’s misleading.
It’s misleading because 1) I felt misled when I found out 2) It took me 2 days to figure it out 3) It’s not explicit and 4) it’s not even obvious. I consider it perfectly appropriate to call it misleading, you can call it whatever you like.
Parties exist as the vessels of policy, as a means to express your political beliefs in the current system of governance
Existing parties in the current system. We are something new.
That means absolutely nothing. You either are a party or you aren’t. If you don’t let voters express their beliefs then you shouldn’t be putting up councillors and MPs for election and if you do then you’re a vessel for policy. If by some wizardy you’ve escaped this bounds, what exactly do you have to offer voters if not the policy they voted for?
If you want this party to be a pet project for a method then fine
I think that’s an unfair thing to say. This is no pet project. The effort we made in the last general election alone shows how serious we are, and I think it devalues the effort everyone put in to refer to it as a pet project.
It was a statement on how I feel and think and genuinely believe you are approaching the working of this party, as a newcomer mysef who’s been into politics for years, when I’m still trying to figure out your reasoning re: the manifesto set up (and by that I mean the 2 manifesto’s linking, not the open policy editing, I have no objection to open policy editing). It’s a fundamental misinterpretation of my point and I refuse to respond to it as if that’s what I actually meant.