What went wrong? The downfall of political parties

Nody

Ok let’s start with clearing out something, I’m a pro small government, low tax, pro gay/abortion etc. In many ways I’d be classified as a libertarian. From a political perspective I can only talk mid 80s forward but to me it appears that the overall quality of discussion and politics have gone much more short sighted and flavor of the day. Now I want to be clear I’m not talking about USA, Ireland etc. but across the board. We’re talking about the Extreme Right Wing Danish party going into government, support in Norway doing the same, Sweden’s version getting a significant share of votes, German voters doing the same, Iceland getting the Pirate Party as the largest party to the Tea Party in the USA. There are similar swings in the left side as well In Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Sweden etc. so this is not about right or left swinging but that the one question style parties (or one primary question perhaps should be better stated).

I remember when parties would take about their vision and plan looking 20, 30 or 50 years ahead how they wanted things to develop and they saw the society. Actually tying back policies today to the vision of the future and you could tell the difference between the left and right leaning parties which has all become very vague and generic. Making investments in the 60s, 70s, 80s to lay the foundation for society in programs that would build out road networks, housing etc. for the next decades have today turned into press conferences to announce that we’re building 2km of road and 3 new houses in the next three years.

Now all parties have always pandered to their electorate and it comes with the job but the lines have blurred quite a bit. Then again if we look at someone like Mr Clinton who was the most centrist president in decades the republicans hate him and in general the things getting blown up today would been a non-issue previously. For example, look at this wiki summary of scandals in Ireland and tell me the things listed in 2000s are at the same level as phone tapping journalists?

What it all comes down as people have come more generic it also appears there has become an even bigger frenzy about “scandals” to differentiate yourselves from the other parties of same policy. That also gives up the ground to the left/right for the extreme parties who can promise everything knowing they will never be held accountable to deliver it. As everyone are chasing the latest headline the vision to look beyond the next week let alone election cycle appears to have gone completely missing.

Voters on the other hand are keen to complain and are lead around by the nose of various popular interest in newspapers, tv shows etc. but when it comes down to voting they are all happily shortsighted as well punishing politicians who did not magically deliver what the extreme wings promised somehow (see for example Greece, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Ireland, Sweden etc. again) compared to the usually 2+ elections in government had previously (Italy being an obvious exception).

At first I was thinking maybe it’s the lack of a proper “enemy” but Russia has done enough rumbling and invasions that that can’t be it. Then I thought maybe it’s the lack of a good war but Iraq, Afghanistan, French interventions in Africa etc. were all clear “wins” in that bad guys died quickly to national music playing in the background.

Which leads to 11th September 2001 and WTC attack. I still remember where I was when it was announced on the BBC and I recall the reaction on American message boards (Nuke the whole ****ing middle east) and the follow up legislation all in the claim to make people safe (which has cost more than Obama care ever will). But we’re 15 years on, the leader behind it is dead so are people really still that scared and scarred that they would let that fear control them? And if not why has the politicians not stepped up to point out the flaws and what could be done instead? I mean 15 years on people are stopped for having a shirt with a Transformer with a gun on their t-shirt in Heathrow or for speaking Arabic (5th world largest language) on a plane. We have 14-year-old child being arrested and handcuffed in school for bringing in a homemade clock to show his teacher yet the whole Catholic pedophile scandal still has not been properly rolled up or sorted out which does way more damage to our society and children (and I’m quite sure similar things were/are going on in public schools etc. as well).

I mean seriously 9/11 cost the life of around 2.000 people in USA compared to 30.800 deaths in traffic (many of which the dead had zero chance to avoid due to being driven into exactly like the people in the WTC could not escape and WTC had been bombed previously so known risk building per say). Is society still traumatized by it all or is there something else holding back the quality of politicians? Because today’s politicians across the board, USA, Ireland, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Spain etc. are all very bland, boring, incompetent and lacks any vision beyond “holding on to my seat on a stormy sea” mentality.

Look at the political leaders of yesteryear, look at their speeches and visions they present and compare it to today’s top leaders and tell me that it’s all rose tinted glasses. Where are our Mitterand, Kohl etc. today in our current politicians? Does anyone believe any current political leader has the strength to remain in power through multiple governments and deliver on and to a vision of a future state beyond the next election?

alastair

Mitterrand was notorious for turning on a tuppence if his policies weren't washing with the voters. I'd say there's an element of rose tinted glasses at play there.

Certainly political leaders are less articulate then they once were, as is the case with public speakers in general - with a few obvious exceptions. The electorate has also become increasingly ADD, so that's going to filter through to political representatives. And on top of everything else, the leverage and power that governments can exert in society has been diluted by other commercial forces, so big vision candidates/parties have fewer opportunities to apply their vision than was once the case.

Consider;

We are abundantly aware of the dangers of obesity. We are aware that it is almost totally preventable (there are some edge cases).

We know it is bad. We know how to prevent it.

But we are getting more obese.

Politics and long-term visions mirror this problem.

AnGaelach

Nody wrote: »

Is society still traumatized by it all or is there something else holding back the quality of politicians? Because today’s politicians across the board, USA, Ireland, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Spain etc. are all very bland, boring, incompetent and lacks any vision beyond “holding on to my seat on a stormy sea” mentality.

The fringe parties have always rose when scandals broke - offering alternatives that eventually drag the centrists out onto those wings to regain lost seats and changing things. The only reason we pay attention now, is because we're the ones voting. I assure you, when we changed our citizenship legislation back in the noughties because of that hullabaloo about anchor babies here, there was the same thinking that we're somehow just hanging on.

People will always swing either side when something goes up that they see as threatening, people in the centre worry about it, but once the pandemonium subsides, everyone forgets about it until the next thing comes up to get up in arms about.

For now, the rise of fringe parties in Europe can be attributed to the economic fallout in 2008, mass-immigration (especially from the Middle East), and dissatisfaction with globalism. The centrist parties have not begun to move to the fringes to regain votes yet so we'll continue to see people turning towards parties like AfD and FN. Those parties will either lose support as the pandemonium subsides and the centre shifts, or they'll get their way.

GJG

Latest Here's How podcast has an exclusive interview with newly-elected Icelandic Pirate MP Smári McCarthy:

Here's How – Here’s How 51 – Smári McCarthy of the Icelandic Pirate Party

recedite

Nody wrote: »

Iraq, Afghanistan, French interventions in Africa etc. were all clear “wins” in that bad guys died quickly to national music playing in the background.

I wouldn't say any of them were "clear wins" and the killing still goes on. Those countries should have been left alone.

Nody wrote: »

Because today’s politicians across the board, USA, Ireland, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Spain etc. are all very bland, boring, incompetent and lacks any vision beyond “holding on to my seat on a stormy sea” mentality...
Look at the political leaders of yesteryear, look at their speeches and visions they present and compare it to today’s top leaders and tell me that it’s all rose tinted glasses. Where are our Mitterand, Kohl etc.

Kohl wanted to send all the Turkish "guest workers" back to Turkey before they became permanently established in Germany. If he was around today, he'd probably be in AfD and you'd be calling him a Short Sighted Extreme Right Wing politician.

I agree that the majority of politicians are shallow and short sighted though. Their main objective seems to be virtue signalling, and when elected, nothing beyond the 5 year span of a govt. is even considered.
But people get the politicians they deserve. You're saying you want ultra-liberal politicians, but then you complain when you get them.

1st dalkey dalkey

"The centrist parties have not begun to move to the fringes to regain votes yet so we'll continue to see people turning towards parties like AfD and FN. Those parties will either lose support as the pandemonium subsides and the centre shifts, or they'll get their way."

I would agree that in the past this is what happened. But Brexit and Trump are something different altogether. Neither of the political establishments in the US or the UK wanted to go quite as far as they have been brought. They lost control of the swing.

The Cons in the UK are completely lost at the moment, haven't a clue where they are going.

The Reps in the US are beholden to a man they were denouncing just a week ago.

I think the only thing the voters of the US and the UK have in common is a distrust of the establishment. The closed political/business circle which has been the winner when most others have lost out. They don't sincerely support either Brexit or Trump, except in so far as they provide an opportunity to kick the establishment.

That feeling is widespread throughout the EU also and we may see it enunciated in Italy next month and France next year. If Le Pen wins in France, what then for the EU and the Euro?

vetinari

Voters are getting more stupid?
In the US, the Republican party has ran billionaires in TWO successive elections and been able to claim they're for the working class.
It boggles the mind. If you can portray a billionaire as a working class hero, any serious discussion about policies is unneeded.

The Specialist

Politics is not paying attention to the burning concerns of the people responsible for voting. It forces an ideology that creating melting pots of cultures is "beneficial", even when there is a poison being stirred in to it blindly.

I'm not surprised people are saying a figurative "**** you" to the tried and tested because it has completely lost touch with who it represents and what they want, not what it deems to be the forced norm.

newacc2015

I believe the downfall of parties is that people are expressing their individuality in a way never seen before. Look at all the brands and companies affected by the fact people are individuals and no longer sheep. The age of mass marketing is dead and if you still are mass marketing ie assuming everyone is the same, you will fail

Look at parties in Ireland. Gradually people are losing the herd mentality and not longer voting for who their parents voted for. I know so many middle aged people who voted FF or FG as 'my parents voted for them'. But younger generations are voting based on policies and what best suits them. People are not afraid to say they are voting for AAA-PBP and other nut job parties, when 10 years ago voting for the Green would have raised eyebrows. I dont like AAA-PBP or most of those **** show parties, but they represent change. It might not be good change or even rational change, but its change. Look at in France, where people are voting for Le Pen as they want change. They are sick of the half assed immigration policies and the failed economy.

This generation will be the first generation since WW2 where their standard of living will probably be lower than their parents. People will look for change and when you look at FF rising in popularity in Ireland after destroying our economy. I admire people who are looking for change, whether I think voting for AAA-PBP or any of them is good change is irrelevant. Finally people in the US, France, UK, Ireland etc are telling the political system give us change or we will vote others in

FortySeven

Simply way too much pandering to special interest groups whilst ignoring the electoral mass that was building a head of steam within a bubble of isolation that nobody noticed.

Coming to a theater near anyone soon. (And far beyond time)

oscarBravo

newacc2015 wrote: »

I admire people who are looking for change, whether I think voting for AAA-PBP or any of them is good change is irrelevant. Finally people in the US, France, UK, Ireland etc are telling the political system give us change or we will vote others in

OK, let's play that one out. You're the leader of FF and/or FG; it has been brought to your attention that the people want change.

What do you do? What specific change do you implement?

Some of the people who are demanding change are right-wing nationalists who vehemently object to the idea that anyone with the poor taste to be born outside the country deserves to be treated like a human being; some of them are socialists who think that the answer to all our problems is massive tax hikes; some of them are Ayn Rand fetishists who believe that if the government disappeared in the morning, we'd all suddenly have dramatically better lives.

How do you appeal to that electorate? It's all very well to say that the electorate wants change: what change does it want, exactly?

FortySeven wrote: »

Simply way too much pandering to special interest groups whilst ignoring the electoral mass that was building a head of steam within a bubble of isolation that nobody noticed.

Again, a lovely simple explanation to a complex problem.

Government: stop pandering to special interest groups. Ignore all lobbying from unions, businesses, farmers, students, civil servants, the unemployed, charities, the self-employed, professionals, carers, the elderly. Focus instead on...

...whom?

NIMAN

What happens when people vote for change, like they did in Ireland when increased numbers voted for the Independents, SF, AAA, PBP etc, and then a lot of these people say they don't want any power?

People then become disillusioned with those parties for not having the balls to actually take their place in government and try to change things for the better.

alastair

NIMAN wrote: »

What happens when people vote for change, like they did in Ireland when increased numbers voted for the Independents, SF, AAA, PBP etc, and then a lot of these people say they don't want any power?

People then become disillusioned with those parties for not having the balls to actually take their place in government and try to change things for the better.

Independents and SF are quite happy to go into government. If voters want potential coalition partners, they'll vote for them. No great quandary.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Independents and SF are quite happy to go into government. If voters want potential coalition partners, they'll vote for them. No great quandary.

Really?

SF explicitly ruled out going into Government as a junior partner in a coalition before all the seats had even been given out.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Really?

SF explicitly ruled out going into Government as a junior partner in a coalition before all the seats had even been given out.

Ruling out a junior position in a coalition isn't a policy of non-governance. SF are striving to govern, they're simply waiting until they have sufficient leverage to do so. In that regard they're different to the revolutionary-orientated candidates who don't propose governing at all. Now, you might make the case that SF will have to wait a while before they get into senior coalition partner territory, but that's a different story to a refusal to govern.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Ruling out a junior position in a coalition isn't a policy of non-governance. SF are striving to govern, they're simply waiting until they have sufficient leverage to do so. In that regard they're different to the revolutionary-orientated candidates who don't propose governing at all. Now, you might make the case that SF will have to wait a while before they get into senior coalition partner territory, but that's a different story to a refusal to govern.

Never said it was.

However, you would be quite wrong to suggest that

alastair wrote: »

Independents and SF are quite happy to go into government. If voters want potential coalition partners, they'll vote for them. No great quandary.

without quite a large asterisk after it.

The dichotomy that you have now presented is that the opposite of "happy to govern" is "refusal to govern". That's not quite true is it though? Is 'refuse' the opposite of 'happy'?

SF are happy to Govern under very specific terms, specific and also quite unlikely terms.

PBP-AAA have a similar 'policy' too. It goes a bit further though, once they reach critical mass and majority, they will go communist. They are "happy to govern" under that set of circumstances.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Never said it was.

However, you would be quite wrong to suggest that

without quite a large asterisk after it.

The dichotomy that you have now presented is that the opposite of "happy to govern" is "refusal to govern". That's not quite true is it though? Is 'refuse' the opposite of 'happy'?

SF are happy to Govern under very specific terms, specific and also quite unlikely terms.

PBP-AAA have a similar 'policy' too. It goes a bit further though, once they reach critical mass and majority, they will go communist. They are "happy to govern" under that set of circumstances.

SF aren't refusing to govern, nor are they unhappy about the prospect of governing - they're clearly very keen to do so. In fact, they're already governing in NI. PBP-AAA are revolutionary movements, who seek to replace the instruments of governance with a completely different system, which doesn't really put them in the same policy territory at all.

I'm no fan of SF, but they're patently driven by the prospect of exercising power through government. That they have a particular strategy regarding how much leverage they're prepared to lose in coalition is a different argument.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, let's play that one out. You're the leader of FF and/or FG; it has been brought to your attention that the people want change.

What do you do? What specific change do you implement?
Some of the people who are demanding change are right-wing nationalists...

Its simple enough, David Cameron found his party was in that exact situation coming up to a general election.
First, identify which of the rival parties has a chance of stealing your voters. In this case it was UKIP, not the left leaning parties.

Specific change; offer a referendum on Brexit if the UKIP supporters vote Conservative. Tell them if they vote UKIP, labour will get in and they will lose their chance for a Brexit vote.
Result; Tories win the election.

Now hold the referendum.
There are 2 Possible Results;
(a) Leave wins. UKIP loses its raison d'etre and Conservatives gets to keep the borrowed voters.
(b) Stay wins. UKIP's agenda is rejected and Conservatives get to keep the borrowed voters.
Either way, the Conservative party consumes UKIP and shifts a little bit to the right.

That's how democracy works.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Its simple enough, David Cameron found his party was in that exact situation coming up to a general election.
First, identify which of the rival parties has a chance of stealing your voters. In this case it was UKIP, not the left leaning parties.

Specific change; offer a referendum on Brexit if the UKIP supporters vote Conservative. Tell them if they vote UKIP, labour will get in and they will lose their chance for a Brexit vote.
Result; Tories win the election.

Now hold the referendum.
There are 2 Possible Results;
(a) Leave wins. UKIP loses its raison d'etre and Conservatives gets to keep the borrowed voters.
(b) Stay wins. UKIP's agenda is rejected and Conservatives get to keep the borrowed voters.
Either way, the Conservative party consumes UKIP and shifts a little bit to the right.

That's how democracy works.

That example of democracy "working" has left 48% of the British population feeling betrayed and abandoned. The standard response tends to be "you're a minority; suck it."

It does illustrate my point nicely, though: presumably a significant portion of Remain voters were in the cadre of people wanting change. They've gotten change, and it has made them less happy. So the nice simplistic solution "works", if you happen to be one of the people for whom the change went your way.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

The standard response tends to be "you're a minority; suck it."

Well, that's also "democracy".

There's a difference between a democracy and republic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiKAs8Po24I