Off Topic Political Debate

I couldn't agree more - at the risk of perpetuating the "I am right and you are wrong" view, I would have thought many people would hold similar opinions even if they ultimately vote for one of the two main parties.

 

Read my post again, man. I deliberately used the term "stereotype". No where did I mention that I agreed with this description - in fact I don't. But you certainly try to live up to it on occasions.

 

I don't know anyone who possessed a reasonably amount of intelligence who could stereotype Conservatives as you have described. Are you mixing in the wrong circles?

 

Hmmmm, probably you don't.

 

Ditto

 

Agreed again... is it not possible to discuss and explore the big issues without limiting debate in this way...??

We have to find the best answers for ALL of us

 

I am not reading ignored content BTW but it does seem to be continuing in the same vein without my responses... mmmmm.....

 

I am not reading ignored content BTW .... when you do ignore you dont see the posts but judging from postings from others it does seem to be continuing in the same vein without my responses... mmmmm...


OOPS stereo!

 

I was not aware of Vic's stance before but from his last few posts I have a feeling my own position cannot be far from his. Extremes concern me. At the moment I think the Conservatives are right to try to rebuild the economy. Although Labour have the reputation to be more caring their inefficiencies and general financial incompetence for decades mean they actually harm those they want to help more than the perceived greed of the Conservatives. What a shame the Liberals have messed up so badly. At a time when Labour are trying to self destruct now ought to have been the time for them to take a competent position to produce a caring but reasonably efficient government.

 

The Liberals found to their cost that it is much easier being the party of the protest vote and opportunistically floating about.
They took a brave decision to help the Conservatives rescue the country during the last parliament but ended up as a drag on progress.

Apart from Danny Alexander most ministers were ineffective, especially Vince Cable as Secretary of State for Business who was well known for his anti business stance.

They actually positioned themselves politically to the left of The Labour Party at the last election as they desperately distanced themselves from the Tories, a policy that backfired enormously.

 

Probably agree with most of that. Corbyn too is finding life tougher when you are actually going to be held accountable for decisions - oh the joy of back seat driving

 

Oh yes.... we are all good at it ... and know best... or so we think.... the same with football managament!

 

My wife is brilliant with hindsight.

 

Do you mean that thinking back you think she is brilliant or that she uses hindsight well - sorry - in a flippant mood this morning - trying to avoid sanding down some doors and using a surform plane to ease another

 

Corbyn is finding life harder but he is also in a very difficult position in as much as he knows that there is a gulf in opinion between a lot of the parliamentary Labour Party on the one hand and the constituency party on the other - this is why he has told them to talk over the matter with their constituencies before coming to conclusions about possible bombing in Syria. MPs are elected to serve their constituencies but are also placed in that position by their constituency party - I do not consider it democratic for them to then vote against the wishes of that constituency when in office. Corbyn is above all a grassroots democrat who wants to shift power downwards - if this means replacing the entire parliamentary Labour Party then he should do just that, if it is the wish of the party as a whole. We need to remember - he has more popular support in the party than any other Labour leader has had including Blair, and that is his mandate.

 

The problem with this fanciful view is that the new party members are out of line with the majority of Labour voters and the parliamentary Labour Party. This will be proved by the rejection of traditional Labour voters in the upcoming by election. They will speak the only way they can by not voting or voting for UKIP. Apologists for Corbynites need to get their excuses ready.

 

There might be an argument that party members tend to be more extreme... and non-party members more moderate? Dont know about this though.... In which case many of the general public who tend to vote labour may be put off by the media portrayal of his policies etc etc....

 

This is not a fancifull view sp. Who has the sovereignty in a political party ? The 200 or so which form the elite or the 300,000 or so members ? Again I would ask the question of how you apparently 'know' what the traditional Labour voter wants - does he want a continuation of 'Blairism' or a mark 2 Toryism - no. The electorate needs alternatives, which can stimulate political debate and get more people interested in politics. Also, nothing is going to be proved in one direction or another by a by-election with the normal turnout of 30% or so.

 

Most political commentators would suggest a marked decline in support for the Labour Party in a traditionally safe seat would reflect on the popularity of the current leadership.

Every week people are surprised that Corbyn somehow manages to come up with another disaster. Next week there may be mass resignations from the shadow cabinet. I don't mind it is very entertaining but hardly useful to the country.

The sovereignty should reside with the members of the general public who vote Labour. As previous with the militant tendency group, the far left infiltrators will be kicked out so they can return the party to the Blairites.

 

So in your opinion do the 60% of the 300,000 - i.e. 180,000 members count for more than the nine and a half million who voted Labour? Labour MPs are elected to represent the whole of their constituency - which includes non Labour voters as well as the nine and a half million who voted Labour. The 200 MPs have a duty to the COuntry as well as to their party voters and party members. They need to sound out opinion in their constituencies as a whole on issues such as Syria bombing