Subscribe Email Updates
Home  /  National News  /  A massive political miscalculation
payday loans


A massive political miscalculation

June 9th, 2017
A massive political miscalculation

Certain expectations are incumbent upon a political party, whether that party is one of the ensconced duopoly or whether it is a minor opposition party such as the Constitution Party. A political d’ rigueur exists, in other words.

Every representative political party, whether large or small or from whatever corner of the world, is a member of the community of nations, regardless of how one defines the political subsets, or whatever weight one may assign to each.

Socially conservative minor parties, like CP-Idaho, usually grant far less import to international political affairs than to their own state interests. Still, a global community comprised of a myriad of political parties exists, whether we choose to ignore that or not.

CP-Idaho’s prime mission is to facilitate an informed electorate in order to bring about a renaissance of self reliance and to replace a creeping centralization.

In that interest, CP-Idaho is bold enough to reiterate—we can learn from events that occur elsewhere in the international political community.  Here, we refer to yesterday’s snap election results in the United Kingdom. But first, allow us a digression by way of example of “creeping”.

In the 2014 Cincinnati National Committee, CP-Idaho and CP-Ohio rose in strident opposition to a scheme aimed at centralizing control over our respective state affiliates through the mechanism of a dubious proposal called the National Veteran’s Coalition (NVC).  Truth be told, the NVC was akin to a Trojan horse.

Had it been adopted, the NVC would have created an unaccountable national party commitariat, one which demanded a voting seat in each and every state affiliate’s central committee, but yet was itself outside each state affiliate’s control (meaning state election or appointment).  Indeed, as proposed, the NVC would have been outside the national committee’s general oversight as well.

We cannot help but note that all such top-down intrusions by the National Executive in the affairs of the separate state parties automatically defies the national bylaws.  And so do the recent efforts by the National Executive aimed at naming “one of their own” as an unaccountable (i.e. one not recognized, or elected or appointed by the state affiliate) State Contact for CP-Idaho on the national website.  Evidently, national seeks to redirect Idaho voters away from a legitimate and state reporting ballot qualified party toward their own non-reporting construction—an act in defiance not only of the national party’s bylaws but also Idaho Code.

The point is:  CP-Idaho certainly understands the implications of the U.K. vote yesterday. We too have endured similar overbearing and arrogant attempts to consolidate control under a rogue national executive.

In any case, two U.K. politicians —Nicola Sturgeon of Scotland and Theresa May of England—were both resoundingly admonished yesterday by their electorate for a similar offense, namely, an arrogance of power. Readers are encouraged to review the results via the BBC’s website.  Again, much can be learned.

In Scotland, not satisfied with the electorate’s earlier decision this year to remain part of the U.K., Ms. Sturgeon (governing under the Scottish National Party) called for a second referendum on the question of Scottish independence.  She lost.

Many within the SNP now acknowledge that Sturgeon’s hubris call for a second referendum was “a significant motivator” to the electorate.  BBC reported that Scottish opposition leader Ruth Davidson was less kind.  “Simply put, Scotland has had its fill.”

Davidson attributed Sturgeon’s party’s losses to paying “the price for what was a massive political miscalculation on Nicola Sturgeon’s part.”  According to Ms. Davidson, voters want their government to focus on “the challenges we face”—which she listed as education, health system funding, taxes and “the huge challenge of Brexit.”

Surgeon’s antagonist in what has been an internecine spat—Prime Minister Theresa May—also lost.  May called for a “snap election” (a frequent occurrence in the U.K. versus the U.S. practice of systematic elections)…to poke her opponent in the eye.

So certain was Prime Minister May that U.K. voters all agree with her handling of Brexit negotiations, she called for a “show me sum luv” ballot for her and her Tories. The opposite happened.

The U.K. government now teeters upon no confidence. It will be difficult for May to remain in power.  Indeed, calls for her to step down are already loud…they will only get louder as summer rolls along.

So, what can be learned from this that is applicable to the United States?

Firstly, an arrogance of power is seldom tolerated by voters in real republics (whether democratic or monarchial).  Secondly, voters condemn this same arrogance when it is garishly exhibited by “powers that be” in political parties—whether that be Ms. Sturgeon’s SNP or Ms. May’s Tories (or for that matter, the national Constitution Party).

Voters are looking for solutions—not arrogance, and definitely not political games.  They want results; they demand leadership and seek clear vision.  Otherwise, parties will doubtlessly end up with a “very short shelf life” as one British commentator said of Prime Minister May.

CP-Idaho submits that it would be wise to consider the implications of the U.K. ballot yesterday—assuming survival of the national Constitution Party is of any concern.

Point in case, we conclude with a chart clipped from the BBC.  Oddly enough, the biggest losers last night were U.K.’s third parties.  They were wiped out at the polls.  They apparently did not offer any legitimate alternative, and voters  roundly booted them from Parliament, to the point that some are now declaring an end of U.K. third parties altogether, and a return to a U.K. style of duopoly.

Arrogance and political games are indeed a “massive political miscalculation”.  Those engaged in them do so at grave risk.  The electorate has had its fill.

 

2017_England

One Response To This Post

  1. Floyd Whitley Says:

    Another thing may be learned from the U.K. election results. UKIP (United Kingdom Independent Party) is nearly identical in views with the Constitution Party; in fact, UKIP also formed at about the same time (1993), and it was the prime mover of Brexit to start with.

    Prior to the snap election this week, UKIP held one seat…and they lost that, apparently under circumstances mirroring those that now plague the national Constitution Party.

    The BBC reported that UKIP candidate Tim Matthews (Devon Central) formally defected to the Tories (who are equivalent to the U.S.’s Republican Party)–before the votes were even counted!

    Matthews stated that UKIP leaders had “opted for division rather than discussion.” He went on to say that UKIP began as “a libertarian party campaigning for Brexit”. But it has lost its way, and “has veered into extremism and racism”. Extremism is poisonous, even in the U.K. it seems.

    He further said in his disaffiliation letter that the UKIP leadership failed to listen to the membership (a criticism which is close to the marrow here in the national Constitution Party as well).

    Mathews added: “No wonder its members have drifted away.” No wonder.

Leave a Response