"A fight between several parties of the British people: Nothing of the kind! A fight between two or three big money combines, that and nothing else. Without the weight of money behind the party machines, in an electoral battle today determined purely by principle and by the number of active workers...British Union could fight and beat today the old parties over the whole electoral field. But you know and I know, the battle is nothing of the kind. The battle is between big money combines who spend a thousand pounds or more on every constituency they fight. Or when they speak democracy, they don't mean government by the people...they mean financial democracy, in which money counts and nothing but money."
Was he right /his/, are/were countries like the United Kingdom and the USA nothing more than financial democracies, where money is the main factor in any election victory, and third parties are unable to establish themselves?
He was right to a large degree. But the key to democracy is getting people to believe your bullshit. If you have a wet cloth of a leader like Ed Milliband, you're not going to get far no matter how much money you pump into schools to get them to enforce diversity and equality.
It's not the only factor, but it's equally powerful as good policies and leadership, and can make up for it in many cases, it's why the leaders of governing and opposition parties in the UK buddy up to Rupert Murdoch and his media empire, while in the USA candidates try to get in the good books of a major news broadcaster those with money are the greatest allies in politics if you don't have it yourself
third parties are unable to establish themselves in the UK due to the electoral system. we need reform like a bear needs a forest to shit in
but despite the electoral system third parties have come through in the past e.g. Lib Dems
The reason there never will be electoral reform is part of the problem, neither of the big two parties will ever support an alternative voting system because the current first past the post system benefits them so much, and they've generally just accepted that government goes in cycles between the two, neither party has gained over 50% of the popular vote since 1931, and nearly all the governments since have been majorities thanks to first past the post, so they've got no reason to change it.
>Was he right /his/, are/were countries like the United Kingdom and the USA nothing more than financial democracies, where money is the main factor in any election victory, and third parties are unable to establish themselves?
>Was he right /his/?
>Was Oswald Mosley right?
>why even live?
>money is the main factor in any election victory
Look at Jeb Bush. Look at him and laugh