Originally posted by georgenorman
But surely you are on the right as you ridiculously call yourself a 'one nation Tory'.
_________________________________________

I do, which is why I was poking fun at the comment.

I am centre right, a believer in capitalism with a social conscience. As practised by one nation Tories.

I think it is almost impossible to create a successful new party.

Back in the eighties Labour were unelectable this lead to the SDP and then Lib Dems however as soon as a moderate left party started to make traction the Labour Party reacted.

Labour kicked out some of the more odious members rebranded itself as cuddly New Labour and the public accepted that bye bye SDP / Liberals as an election force.

The Tories did the same with UKIP once Nigel started to win votes they had to react the best way to do that is to adopt your competitors clothes.*

Now that Labour and the Tory part have seen off the threat from their rivals they just revert to their natural state and ignore the voters.

*Remoaners often complain that the Tories should never have allowed a referendum but they reacted exactly the same way as Labour did under john Smith and then Tony Blair. The difference being that Labour was in opposition when they made their changes.

So In summary anytime a new party appears whichever one it threatens just adopts its policies until the public lose interest. Both Tory and Labour adopted Green policies to some extent when they started to gain traction.

One thing for sure is that if a new party does emerge it wont be Gina Miller's

Edited by Badger11 (07 Feb 2022 8.11am)

How long does it take the Met Police to investigate a few parties? It's not as though they weren't on site when they all happened. Hand out a few fines and let's move on.

I've just now had a cursory look into this, so I may well be wrong but is that actually true? I can see here that an application was made [Link] , that BLM UK denied it was anything to do with them , are repeatedly on record has having no intention to create a party, and that the application was rejected as such, not approved.

If you're saying that the commission has rejected a group relating to 'black christians' and also white identity groups, could it not be said that they are against parties that explicitly exclude the wider electorate? To my mind a party should at least have the ability to appeal to voters beyond birth demographics. There are parties that are essentially pressure groups that can influence policy, like the greens or indeed as UKIP did, but at their core they don't prohibit or dissuade anyone from joining, nor should they. There is little stopping a party seeking to appeal more to certain ideas or demographics but they will tend to do so in a way that appreciates wider context and realities too. I voted for UKIP at one time. It could certainly be said they're much less likely to draw in minority voters. However it's a matter of degrees. If they'd bolted on what amounts to, 'we don't want their vote, we'd quite like to deport the wrong shade of Brits born here', then no I wouldn't have, and it's surely not that hard to see where the electoral commission are coming from on issues like this.

Edited by BlueJay (07 Feb 2022 1.59pm)

The previous group you were into specifically wanted non whites who were born here to leave the country. How is that a group with wide appeal (even amongst whites actually? Any pretense at a broad church is contrived by these groups to legitimise them. As for this black Christian group, well on the surface it could be benign, but I know little about its motivation. If they're genuinely only interested in black rights or black Christians and everyone else is either omitted or tagged on out of necessity then no I'm not interested in groups like this being able to become political parties. By virtue of what they represent they would be unable to govern or represent the people.

Edited by BlueJay (07 Feb 2022 9.22pm)