Qs & As
Is the You Choose Party registered with the Electoral Commission?
No. Being registered with the Electoral Commission brings with it administrative requirements in addition to those for running the party as it is. Once support for the party reaches a critical level and once the party can justify this additional administrative load, the party will apply to register with the electoral commission.
But how can the YCP call itself a party then?
The Electoral Commission, in its document entitled 'Introduction to registering a political party', states "Registration of a political party is not compulsory". However, the YCP recognises benefits of being registered, most notably the right to use its party name on ballot papers.
There are already numerous groups, movements, and societies that are pushing for the ability of the electorate to choose their government. Why doesn't the YCP disband and support one of those instead?
To achieve reform peacefully, legislation is needed. To achieve legislation peacefully, a majority of MPs is needed. To achieve a majority of MPs peacefully, there are two options: (a) replace undesirable MPs with desirable ones during an election and (b) convert incumbent MPs to one's cause, either directly by converting individual MPs, or indirectly by converting a leader, party etc. As far as the YCP is aware, no other group, movement, or society uses only option (a), and the YCP believes that doing so is the optimal strategy.
Frankly, it is the YCP's view that Conservative and Labour parties are delighted with the existence of all these organisations that use predominantly, if not exclusively, option (b): the organisations would be a convenient way to channel, control and monitor the pro-choice (for governance) resources. Furthermore, despite what the electorate or these groups might like to believe, by using solely option (b), control over reform will always lie with the incumbent government. (The same would apply to similar organisations for all other areas of reform e.g. climate change.)
Right, so the YCP wants to use the ballot box to achieve change. But there are already numerous political parties that stand for giving the British electorate the ability to choose their government. Why doesn't the YCP throw its support behind one of those parties instead?
It is true that many political parties stand for giving the UK electorate the ability to choose their government. But, clearly, such parties have not succeeded in implementing that policy. Why is this? Those parties are just too similar to the big two to overcome the high barrier to entry that first past the post inherently puts in place. This is not a statement on policies – many of these policies stand in great contrast to those of the big two – but instead a statement on strategy. To overcome this barrier to entry, a third party (literally) must stand itself apart, to play a different game so to speak, to have a USP etc. And the YCP has two USPs which it believes will be enough to overcome the barrier and break free of the stranglehold that the big two have over British politics and therefore the British people.
1. The YCP is a single-policy party. Electors who vote for the YCP know that their support will be focused on that one policy.
2. The YCP is a short-term party. Electors who vote for the YCP know that, if their support leads to YCP MPs, those MPs will either help implement the YCP's only policy, or vacate their seats. In the latter scenario, it would be highly likely that the House of Commons would choose to run a by-election for each vacated seat, to re-fill it.
3. The YCP will only implement its policy if it has a majority of votes. It would either seek this directly at the next general election, or following the general election by means of a referendum.
If there is increasing support for the YCP, would the YCP engage in negotiations with other political parties or the incumbent government?
No. The YCP's contract is with the UK electorate, no-one else. So, for example, if the incumbent government approached the YCP in the run-up to the next UK general election, and proposed to implement the YCP's policy should the YCP support its party, the YCP would not throw its support behind that party. The YCP will never gamble away the support that the British people have entrusted in it. Not with an incumbent government, not with another political party, not for funding, not for anything else. If the incumbent government wishes to implement the YCP's policy during this term of government, so that the next general election allows the UK electorate to choose its government, exactly as stated in the YCP's plan, and it is clear that such a course of action could no-longer be reversed, then clearly the YCP will have no need to stand at the next UK general election. Anything short of this and the YCP will be there for the electorate as an option on polling day (provided there is sufficient public support for it of course).
Does the YCP believe that the UK electorate want to be able to choose their government?
Yes. It is the YCP's belief that the British people don't like being dictated to, that they don't like being enslaved, and that they want to be free to choose their own futures, for themselves and for future generations. The British people are expected to abide by the laws, rules, and regulations as set by their government. The British people are also expected to fund their government. Naturally, it would follow that the British people would want to be able to choose what those laws, rules, and regulations are, and choose how their money is spent, and therefore to choose the institution that makes such decisions, namely their government. And it is the YCP's belief that the British people do, indeed, want to be able to choose their government.
Does being able to choose one's government lead to messy governments?
The big two parties, and the propaganda arm of the UK government that is the BBC, is keen to have you believe that the answer to this question is 'yes'. Sure, it would lead to there being more diversity in parliament and therefore government, and there being a truer reflection of the British people. But is this a bad thing? If so, is it also 'messy' for those diverse views to have been expressed at the ballot box in the first place?
Although this question relates to the YCP's only policy, the YCP does not take a view on it. The reason is this: the YCP stands for the implementation, not on the reasons behind it. The YCP welcomes support from all those who want to be able to choose their UK government, irrespective of their reasons.
Is the YCP an anti-establishment party?
The YCP does away with the tribal nature of politics, the bickering, the trolling, and the insults, all of which play right into the hands of the Conservative and Labour parties, who thrive on adversarial politics. The YCP does not see itself as "anti-" anything. It is pro-choice, in a sense of empowering the British people to choose how they are governed. It welcomes those from all walks of life, from all backgrounds, demographics, voting histories etc. Its motto is "Britons unite. Let's do this." and the YCP means it. It wants all Britons to unite around this cause.