Why not .......party instead? How inclined are you towards compromise?

I’d like to understand more about the appeal of Something New by asking you to explain what it is you dislike about other parties. So why have you not joined the Green Party? Or the Labour Party? Or Lib Dems etc? Do you demand or expect a party to match your beliefs on every single issue? Do you think that’s realistic if we want to scale the party into mass appeal? Or is it that you’re happy to give way on some things/a lot of things, but certain issues are a red-line for you on which you won’t budge?

I think it’s an important discussion not because I want to know that [policy matter] is a redline for you, but I suppose I want to understand our collective capacity to compromise and therefore grow into a mass movement, or whether we’re a collection of people with individual niche interests who can get along amongst a few dozen/hundred others, but will struggle to handle the sorts of decisions that may be necessary to grow larger.

Is the thing that brings us all here, the same thing that will stop us from growing any larger? Thoughts?

1 Like

Sorry I know I should wait for others before I throw in a response to my own question but I’d like to suggest that compromise is necessary for mass/broad appeal within a representative system of democracy: i.e. an MP represents 70,000 people and therefore has to appeal to as many voters as possible to get elected. If we had a system of direct democracy, wouldn’t that reduce the need for ‘broad’ ‘mass’ appeal? Is compromise inevitable for as long as we have a representative, rather than direct, democracy? Further thoughts?

Also this is a really useful question to know what brought people here - what hooked you in? That’s handy to know where our messaging is hitting home, and where it’s not. I look forward to answers :smiley:

I am in fact a member of the Green Party. I would prefer to be a Liberal Green / Green Liberal, but the pragmatic choice where I live was to join the Greens. I align well with the long-term vision of the Green Party, but their existing policy is a little separate from mine. This does not prevent me from working for them.

I think their brand (partly policy; partly membership; partly priorities) is unappealing, and this will prevent them from becoming a competitive political force.

Something New aligns much better with my politics, and has a strong, forward-thinking, untarnished brand. I think there is potential here, at least among highly educated communities. I am conscious that a party’s support base has huge impact on perception, so it’s crucial to pitch to - and attract - a good community in the early stages. Without the legacy of hippydom in the Green Party, they would have a lot more support, and a lot more of that support would participate.

Of course, if we’re purely talking policy, it’s the same sort of things. I just didn’t want to talk small.

Having re-read this, I just wanted to clarify. I think our policy position will appeal, but it is the seriousness of the brand that stopped me from dismissing it. As soon as our brand becomes less serious (see e.g. the Pirate Party) we are scuppered.

@wjfletcher91 you have just expressed exactly the reasons why I’m not involved in the Greens and Pirates. You’re in the right place :slight_smile:

I joined the Pirate Party, tried to join the Greens (they wouldn’t drop their stupid exclusivity clause), and promised to join a Labour led by Corbyn (but omg it’s daylight robbery!).

Principles are why I got involved in Something New. We have the absolute best foundation for the future of politics and democracy within our values. I have confidence that the principles of Something New will produce good government - something every other party has repeatedly failed to do.

1 Like