Information for British constituents with an interest in establishing participatory democracy and freedom from corrupt representation, factional impositions and unjust settlements
    Home page     Decisions     Ethics      Inconsistencies      Propositions      Assemblies     Funding     Controls    Climate change     Related       Library      Resources    Forum

Introduction to contributions to this forum


How to contribute

We welcome written contributions to this website which will be posted on the forum section. All content posted will have undergone oversight to prevent the common issues arising for forums including off-topic contributions, spam and even abusive content. However we will not censor or edit contributions as long as they are constructive, on-topic and do not exceed 250-300 words. Contributions can be sent in by email to:  forum@politicswithoutparties.org.uk

We will not post email addresses of those contributing. If contributors do not want their names appearing they can request this. Contributors wishing to post articles can do so by sending them to the "Resources" unit at: resources@politicwithoutparties.org.uk    where they will be reviewed and posted in the Resources section. Resources cover politics without parties themes covering: General advantages and disadvantages of politics without parties; Establishing policy proposals and propositions and organizing public choice; Specific proposals on macroeconomic policies in favour of the wellbeing of the majority; Funding the democratic process. These contributions should not exceed 1,000 words although exceptions can be made for outstanding articles.

12/10/2021: Getting back to this subject is well overdue. There are many useful references on this topic on the web - for and against. A resources section on this site would be useful to place links. Here are some old and new:

POLITICAL PARTIES AND DEMOCRACY, Annual Review of Political Science

BBC: Can we have democracy without political parties?
12/10/2021: Thank you for this suggestion - we have now installed this. Any contributions to this section gratefully received. PWP
12/10/2021: The book: The Briton's Quest for Freedom, does not seem to be available. Amazon report that it is out of print. Can you please provide a link to where this might be obtained? Second hand copies?
12/10/2021: The publishers, Hambrook Publishing Company say the second edition is in preparation. Publication is scheduled for end of year. We will make sure to provide links to online CC or PayPal sales points when we receive them. PWP
12/10/2021: Although I am an economist I had not realized the degree to which the Conservatives and Labour have colluded on delivering monetarism and financialization. That the Labour party canceled Keynesianism is extraordinary. Thanks to your home page content this has been revealed for all to see.
Bernard S., London.
12/10/2021: This fact is known but it has not been given enough coverage. It only shows that the two main parties are not alternatives and they are both "not good" with the economy. PWP
12/10/2021: We are a local group who recently organized a News Club. Having shared our thoughts after reading through your pages, we think the lack of PWP is the cause of many common problems. It seems to be the missing link, the common thread explaining everything from the lack of investment in the NHS, failure to develop and mental health and care services and the disastrous Covid saga. We would like to ask if you will have a blog to record analyses of current events to illustrate how they would be handled under PWP? We think this would really help communicate and disseminate your important message in an effective fashion.
Paul P., Jane S., Angus McD., Hampshire.
13/10/2021: Thank you. A really great idea. We would have to find someone to do the monitoring and editing. We will see if we can do this; it might take a week or so to respond to this interesting post. PWP
12/10/2021: Congratulations on this effort. The UK, in the past, was a major initiator of important constitutional propositions for the better; this initiative seems to be part of that tradition.
Ruth Z., Virginia, USA.
13/10/2021: Thank you. Good to see the message has gone out beyond our shores! PWP
13/10/2021: I am encouraged that this site is not a rant or out to deplatform those who are guilty of the same. This subject is so important that it requires serious and dedicated treatment for the sake of a positive and sustainable future of this country.
Jessica N., London.
13/10/2021: Thank you. Yes this is our objective. PWP
13/10/2021: In order for this scheme to work there needs to be some sort of framework within which professionals can make contributions to the development of proposals for solutions to issues that will be decided on by essentially lay people. Not against the concept, but how is it proposed that this would work without something like political parties? Not that I think political parties are particularly good at this in any case.
David W., Edinburgh.
13/10/2021: There needs to be a structured set of procedures based on a well thought out mutually agreed due diligence procedure by all involved. The procedures already exist in various professions and the challenge is to create a framework within which mixed-ability and differing-experience groups can interface constructively with experienced professionals on a transparent and constructive basis. Operational schemes do exist. Many are not complicated at all. Our challenge is to translate these into terms that can explain how these work in the context of this site. This is a fundamentally important topic to help build effective communication, understanding, credibility, confidence and ownership into the system. This will appear as a series of propositions of linked contributions to the Decisions, Propositions and Assemblies sections. PWP
14/10/2021: Would it be possible to invert the order of this forum contribution sequence to have the latest ones at the top to avoid having to jump to the botttom?
Isaac G., Haifa.
13/10/2021: Will send this to web manager. PWP
14/10/2021: First of all, congratulations on this site. In the resources section you highlight the book 'Politcs without parties' by Professor Van Beck Hall. I am acquaintd with this book and its content and am of the opinion that it is not particularly relevant to this current topic, in spite of its title. It is a detailed historic account of the localized interests of people in a bygone age. Today the extent of general level of awareness and the World Wide Web makes manipulative factions more visible.
Ronald G., Washington DC.
14/10/2021: We are working on the content quality; initial submissions were a bit rocky but we are working on improving the relevance and quality. Thank you for your valued comment which has been passed onto our resources team. PWP
15/10/2021: Greetings. An interesting subject that seems to be very relevant to our current predicament. However, would it be possible to group links into the countries they relate to? I am interested in the UK but find that many of you links refer to the USA.
Eric T., London.
15/10/2021: Thank you for this advice. We will be reformatting the resources section this weekend and this particular issue will be resolved. Also several document titles and very similar so we will provide addtional info to help readers identify these more precisely. PWP
17/10/2021: Very timely site. What is the reason for separating decisions from propositions and assemblies where decisions are made. Is this sequence correct?
Gabor. V., Budapest.
17/10/2021: Thank you for this question. These sections are still in preparation. However, in summary decision analysis applies to proposition identification, design and the selection of what is referred to as the best feasible solution (BFS). Decisions, at all stages, involve an irrevocable allocation of resources to a course of action, so the application of decision analysis to each stage of this process is important.
The inconsistencies section is there to alert readers to typical spoiler tactics that are used to disoriente decision analysis procedures so that, as constituents, they will be in a better position to detect and attack faulty reasoning and false arguments. PWP
19/10/2021: I have noticed that the content on the web pages is being extended and changed; is this normal practice?
Clare H., London
20/10/2021: Thanks for this observation. This is true. It is because we are receiving inputs which by-pass this forum as comments and ideas to improve the content as well as suggested additions. We take these into account and update and extend content. We have noticed a slow but steady change in the utility of the content for the better. PWP
02/11/2021: I attended a briefing from the tiny PWP contingent on COP26, listing hazards and risk analysis where hazards are the factors likely to impose damage and risks are the measure of likely damage. In the list of hazards human population numbers and growth and applied technologies came high up on the list as causes for climate change and reasons for inaction over the last 50 years is put down to compromised political parties.
The other factor is how political parties and their governments do not want to include the massive greenhouse gas emissions linked to military equipment exports and global warfare.
Marion S., Glasgow
03/11/2021: Thanks, yes, we have decided to create a climate change section because for the next few years the role of "political parties" will be under the microscope. Political parties are too compromised to financial services, hydrocarbon corps and carbon trade intermediaries to be able to do much. As a result, the need for politics without parties is going to take hold. PWP
03/11/2021: Today, in the shadow of COP-26, the UK government voted not to suspend the politician Owen Paterson who had faced a 30-day suspension from the House of Commons because the Standards Committee had found him to be in an “egregious” breach of lobbying rules. He was found to have breached paid advocacy rules, two years after it had been revealed how he had helped lobby for two firms he was paid to advise. The government applied a 3 line whip. The government will set up another Standards Committee to review the "process". This illustrates: 1. The compromise of party politicians continues as a result of their promoting the interests of benefactors in exchange for cash, and 2. This is a good illustration of a government, with an overall majority, thumbing its nose at the UK constituency which expects some basic levels of integrity.
Nigel N., Stella K., Paul M., John G., Westminster.
03/11/2021: Yes this is pretty disgraceful although not surprising under this government. There were some rebels on the Conservative side but this three line whip caused most MPs to expose their hapless situation responding unethically for fear of their prospects irrespective of the lack of integrity reflected in their vote. This unethical behaviour only broadcasts to the nation their complete lack of principles or independence made possible by the political party system. However, the required principles already exist under the Nolan Principles (Introduced in 1995 by the UK government, Committee on Standards in Public Life, these important values are enshrined in codes of conduct across the public sector). Suspension of politicians is not enough, party politicians who indulge in such corruption should be sacked. This does not bode well for actions on climate change where the lobbies are in over-drive. PWP
05/11/2021: COP26 is turning out to be a "Show time" and repeat of previous COPs. Headline leadership declarations to be followed up by a stack of "corrections" and U-turns and then a weak technical evidence-based summary of how stated objectives will be achieved. Greta Thunberg has irritated many leaders with her "Bla, bla,bla" intervention but, at this early stage in the proceedings, she seems to be right.
Ernst Von T., New York.
05/11/2021: Yes, we are coming to the same conclusion. We have received a lot of interesting material on these issues; see our developing section under "Climate change". We will be adding more material in due course to this section. PWP
05/11/2021: One of your resource links points to an article in CybaCity.com entitled, "Carbon credits are an indiulgence that greenwash ecosystem destruction" which is very interesting. However CybaCity.com has many short pertinent leaders on this topic on their home page (below their well-known section concerning Julian Assange). There is also a Gel cartoon image of Greta Thunberg's bla, bla, bla.
William K., New York.
05/11/2021: Thank you; yes these are very much to the point. The url for CybaCity.com is here. PWP
05/11/2021: Today in 1605 a bunch of dicontents filled the basement of the English parliament with barrels of gunpowder intent on blowing up the government. This act was foiled and a certain Guy Fawkes was caught in the act of lighting the touch paper. Of course I don't advocate this as a method of transitioning to politics without parties but it would seem that even before parties existed there was a considerable amount of discontent.
Richard Q., London.
05/11/2021: Yes today this is "commemorated" with fireworks and burning an effigy of Guy Falkes on a bonfire. Clearly we advocate any future transitions should be by peaceful means. PWP
05/11/2021: One of the issues raised by low income countries is the lack of transparency associated with carbon trading. This has been identified as part of the solution by Mark Carney who has stated that the carbon price is too low. The main problem is that this system is a bit of a mirage. A post in this formum refers to the post on CybaCity.com with the heading, 'Carbon credits are an indulgence that greenwash ecosystem destruction' - I recommend this to all. It is notable that in the independent media, such as CybaCity.com, there is a better coverage of the lower income country political and practical concerns. The transparency of carbon trading is a significant concern.
Bernard S., Salisbury.
06/11/2021: Thank you - the direct link to that article is here. We are picking up on this in material received which provides more detail and this will be posted in due course. PWP
07/11/2021: Why does the climate section go into more technical issues when the issue here is the ineffectiveness of political parties?
Mary T., William G., Edinburgh.
07/11/2021: The reason for these pieces is that they will be linked across to "Propositions" and "Assemblies" sections as examples of how constituent assemblies or juries can go about applying decision analysis to technical issues to come up with valid and independent solutions. This looks at the interface communications between specialists such as domain systems engineers and members of the public. In this context, systems engineers are not computer programmers by technologists who design practical solutions to any problem across the spectrum of discipines and sectors from agriculture through to high technology and communications.

One of the main challenges to such groups is specifying what information is needed to come up with useful options from which to select the best solution. We have very experienced individuals from these disciplines contributing to this work and we feel it is important to set out procedures to enable confidence building through proof of concept exercises so that people can begin to apply these techniques with confidence. Anyone with experience in these fields is very welcome to contribute as well as criticise in a constructive manner. PWP

PS: There will be a group meeting on Wed 10/10 to review content progress and balance. Part of this discussions will include where to place cross links so as to make the relationships between sections more evident and easier to follow. PWP

It is time for a politics without parties!!