I'm not suggesting anything takes its place. I'm suggesting a change in the electorates behaviour is the only thing that can improve the situation.
Nice idea, but I can already hear the excuses "We haven't had time to implement our policies" "We didn't have enough time to undo what the last gov did" etc. Now if a government had a decent spell in charge, let's just say 11 years for sake of argument, surely they would have had time to implement their policies and undo what the last gov had done, surely it would be a veritable utopia in the UK.....
Except they wouldn't say either of those two things, would they, 'cos there's been no credible opposition for that long, and there's no likelihood of there being any for the foreseeable future, unfortunately
Labour are on a hiding to nothing since the SNP took their votes in Scotland. But I hear murmurings traditional middle class Tories in the Shires and Home Counties are quite frankly embarrassed by Bonko's version of Conservatism and will not vote for him in any future elections he is in charge. As another poster said today fingers crossed he stays as Tory leader.
It’s just a shame that people persist in looking back instead of forward, it's futile, nothing can be done to change what's already happened but we all have a say (and a stake) in what happens in the future.
It's impossible to judge events properly without context. Politicians (and politically motivated people) only want you to have their version of it.
But when discussing something, people only have the past to draw on for examples. Negating someone's point because the example they have used is in the past makes no sense. As George Santayana said "to know your future, you must know your past"
I don't want to judge events, the only events that can be judged are those that have already happened. I want sufficient information in a comprehensive manifesto to be able to make an informed decision.
Cherry picking facts from history makes even less sense. People don't only have the past to inform their decisions in politics, they also have the future in the form of a manifesto.
While agreeing with every word, I have to tell you, from long experience that, in every way, you are kickiing against the pricks. I should also add tha,t even at my age I believe thatI am not too old to learn. And I believe that I can learn at least as much from thos who disagree with me than I can from those who have similar views.
Depends on the scenario, I'd have said. To use an example that has happened on this board on several occasions, when one person says "the Conservatives are useless because their leader is useless so that is why I always vote Labour" the response "yes, but look at Labour leaders x, y, and z, they were useless too" is perfectly valid. "Yes, but that was in the past" isn't a valid response to that response. I'm paraphrasing, before anyone starts.
Not sure whether I understand you, If you are saying that I should look at past events in order to help me make a decision then I entirely agree with you. If you are saying that I should cherry pick historical events in order to form a bias, then I disagree with you.
And do either major political party give you enough information to make a decision? If not, then don't you have to use their history to help you make a judgement?
I don't think I'm saying either of those things. I'm saying using an example or comparison from the past is perfectly valid if it illustrates the point that is being made. If anyone brings up, for example, Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn on here, the stock reply is "but that was in the past". But if either of those two are relevant to the point that's being made, then referring to them is perfectly acceptable.
I always read both the main parties manifestos when deciding which way to cast my vote, I am also aware of their stated principles. At my age I have lived through the good and bad periods of Conservative, Labour and Coalition Governments so I am well aware how bad they all appear.
Depends how far you go back. Do you mean like a party that years ago created the NHS, Old Age Pensions, unemployment benefit and sickness benefit or the one who put the poor in workhouses ?
oh the excuses will be rife but they already are in truth, even after years of some government they still blame the previous lot. if our current political parties gave 'value for money' i would have no problem with a longer minimum term in office, the problem is that not a single one since the 70's has actually done anything worthwhile, some might argue that the closing down of the manufacturing was a good call, not to those families and business' that were left with feck all and no time to prepare/recover...some might also argue leaving the EU was worth it, but then we look at the ridiculous way our lot went 'cap in hand' to the EU and made themselves and this country a laughing stock. all we have at the moment are two parties, one is 'in a job with excellent pay and numerous benefits' and the other is 'not in a job but extremely well paid with all the same benefits', why should they worry about getting anything right or pleasing the population? any time a new party shows up the media quickly round on them and dig up any dirt at all to discredit them (cant have anyone else sharing the wealth or finding out just how badly we have run the country, can we?) as they are all into a good thing together so why ruin it by allowing others in on the act?
So are Callaghan, Wilson or Thatcher relevant in today's politics? Because I despised Thatcherism should I never vote conservative again? Tony Blair or Jeremy Corbyn? I am not sure why you brought those two up but can assure you that I have never replied with "but that was in the past" when they are mentioned. I merely asked how far back in political history is it appropriate to go back, to suite an argument. People are entitled to their views, my view is that historical politics is irrelevant to how I cast my vote and the deciding factor for me is the current manifesto.
This isn't actually true. The concept of the NHS had been worked on by all parties. In 1941, under the war government major steps were taken towards it. The white paper that formed the basis of it was written by William Beveridge, a Liberal. Labour were just the party in power when the finishing touches were put to it and it came into being.
Basically we have a choice between one party that is financially supported by big business and another that is financially supported by the trade unions. I know who is in my corner. You could argue that they should be financially supported by the state itself, like in America. They basically have two parties that are almost exactly the same though, so "personality" comes into it. You then end up with the likes of Trump (saying that we got a poundshop Trump last time)
