cb25
Posts: 3,520
Likes: 2,665
|
Post by cb25 on Feb 21, 2019 9:58:02 GMT
Assuming they form a political party, rather than simply a Brexit protest group, do people think an IG party is likely to succeed?
Leaving aside Brexit where I can see they might have common ground, there's still a need for an agreed manifesto (even UKIP had a fairly full manifesto). I'm doubtful that ex-Labour MPs and ex-Tory MPs will have common grounds on the NHS and the role of private firms, tax rates for higher incomes, welfare spending for those on middle/higher incomes, etc.
Thoughts?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,661
Likes: 2,984
|
Post by IFISAcava on Feb 21, 2019 10:10:09 GMT
Assuming they form a political party, rather than simply a Brexit protest group, do people think an IG party is likely to succeed?
Leaving aside Brexit where I can see they might have common ground, there's still a need for an agreed manifesto (even UKIP had a fairly full manifesto). I'm doubtful that ex-Labour MPs and ex-Tory MPs will have common grounds on the NHS and the role of private firms, tax rates for higher incomes, welfare spending for those on middle/higher incomes, etc.
Thoughts?
I think there will be much more common ground that you might think. The real problem is the electoral system, which unashamedly maintains the duopoly that is serving us so poorly at the moment and where the vested interests have no incentive to change it. You need to get 25% plus of the vote, ideally 30%, and it needs to be concentrated in winnable seats, to have any chance of a breakthrough in a reasonable time frame (1-2 elections). Strategic electoral alliances might help, but hard to see at he moment how that might work (obviously wouldn't be with Tories or Labour, but might be LDs/Greens stepping down in current IG held seats for a free run in their winnable seats, as a minimum).
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Feb 21, 2019 10:21:26 GMT
They fail to see the irony in campaigning for a "peoples vote" to reverse the Brexit result, even though they all stood on manifestos that explicitly stated that they would respect that result, so now having lied to their own electorate & wanting the opposite of what they promised when they were elected they refuse to have a peoples vote on their own legitimacy in the form of a by election. Angela Smith claims the majority of her constituents want a peoples vote - that is a blatant lie, 68% voted leave & that sentiment has only hardened since. Unfortunately the only other thing they have in common is their own self importance & a complete disregard for democracy or the will of the people.
Basically a bunch of lying, hypocritical, over promising & under delivering MP's more concerned about their own interests than the public, so whether they form a party or not the sooner they are ejected from public representation the better.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,163
Likes: 5,977
|
Post by registerme on Feb 21, 2019 10:49:30 GMT
Chukka is my local MP. He had something like a 25k majority at the last election, in a constituency where 75% voted remain. I didn't feel that I could vote for him with Corbyn and McDonnell at the helm of the Labour party but my previous "hold my nose Tory votes made not a jot of difference because of his majority. Ironically, now that he's left Labour, I am far more inclined to vote for him.
I suspect each of the members of TIG will have circumstances specific to them and their constituencies. What I don't think is in doubt is that both Labour and the Tories are incoherent at the moment. Whether this will prove enough to make TIG a viable political proposition over the long term remains to be seen.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,520
Likes: 2,665
|
Post by cb25 on Feb 21, 2019 10:59:21 GMT
I suspect each of the members of TIG will have circumstances specific to them and their constituencies. Doesn't that make it hard to come up with party policies?
Agree with "What I don't think is in doubt is that both Labour and the Tories are incoherent at the moment. "
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,163
Likes: 5,977
|
Post by registerme on Feb 21, 2019 11:02:05 GMT
Doesn't that make it hard to come up with party policies? Absolutely. At the moment I have no idea where they are going with it . That having been said until Brexit gets shaken out one way or the other I'd prefer all members of every stripe of both the Commons and the Lords working on figuring out where we go and how we get there.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,661
Likes: 2,984
|
Post by IFISAcava on Feb 21, 2019 11:23:48 GMT
They fail to see the irony in campaigning for a "peoples vote" to reverse the Brexit result, even though they all stood on manifestos that explicitly stated that they would respect that result, so now having lied to their own electorate & wanting the opposite of what they promised when they were elected they refuse to have a peoples vote on their own legitimacy in the form of a by election. Angela Smith claims the majority of her constituents want a peoples vote - that is a blatant lie, 68% voted leave & that sentiment has only hardened since. Unfortunately the only other thing they have in common is their own self importance & a complete disregard for democracy or the will of the people.
Basically a bunch of lying, hypocritical, over promising & under delivering MP's more concerned about their own interests than the public, so whether they form a party or not the sooner they are ejected from public representation the better. Hold on, I keep getting told that a vote now would result in an even stronger Leave vote - which may well be correct - so campaigning for another referendum is not the same as reversing the referendum. You can respect the result - the last two and a half years has been virtually nothing else but respecting the result - and then present the agreed form of exit we now have for a ratification vote, with the details now filled in, eyes open, informed consent. To deny people that is to play fast and loose with "the will of the people". As a doctor, if I asked someone 2.5 years ago about the need to do something about their condition, which they agreed to, and interpreted that to mean I could do whatever I thought was best for it forever thereafter, without spelling out in detail the likely side effects, complications and benefits of the particular procedure I proposed, I'd be in big trouble.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,163
Likes: 5,977
|
Post by registerme on Feb 21, 2019 11:51:54 GMT
As a doctor, if I asked someone 2.5 years ago about the need to do something about their condition, which they agreed to, and interpreted that to mean I could do whatever I thought was best for it forever thereafter, without spelling out in detail the likely side effects, complications and benefits of the particular procedure I proposed, I'd be in big trouble. Said in jest, I'm not sure that Churchill would agree with you .
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Feb 21, 2019 12:03:39 GMT
They fail to see the irony in campaigning for a "peoples vote" to reverse the Brexit result, even though they all stood on manifestos that explicitly stated that they would respect that result, so now having lied to their own electorate & wanting the opposite of what they promised when they were elected they refuse to have a peoples vote on their own legitimacy in the form of a by election. Angela Smith claims the majority of her constituents want a peoples vote - that is a blatant lie, 68% voted leave & that sentiment has only hardened since. Unfortunately the only other thing they have in common is their own self importance & a complete disregard for democracy or the will of the people.
Basically a bunch of lying, hypocritical, over promising & under delivering MP's more concerned about their own interests than the public, so whether they form a party or not the sooner they are ejected from public representation the better. Hold on, I keep getting told that a vote now would result in an even stronger Leave vote - which may well be correct - so campaigning for another referendum is not the same as reversing the referendum. You can respect the result - the last two and a half years has been virtually nothing else but respecting the result - and then present the agreed form of exit we now have for a ratification vote, with the details now filled in, eyes open, informed consent. To deny people that is to play fast and loose with "the will of the people". As a doctor, if I asked someone 2.5 years ago about the need to do something about their condition, which they agreed to, and interpreted that to mean I could do whatever I thought was best for it forever thereafter, without spelling out in detail the likely side effects, complications and benefits of the particular procedure I proposed, I'd be in big trouble. Respecting the referendum involves leaving the EU, democracy dictates that, no one voted for an Irish backstop, transition period or customs union. The EU, British civil service, majority of MP's, most London based media & big business (who benefit from unlimited cheap labour & regulatory barriers to entry) all want to remain which is why the whole process has been cynically dragged out for so long.
I have no problem with anyone wanting to remain or lobbying to achieve that, either through a peoples vote or any other mechanism but ONLY AFTER THE FIRST REFERENDUM HAS BEEN ENFORCED i.e. we have genuinely left. We could have left after a few months on WTO terms & then negotiated a future relationship from a position of strength, had the political will existed but it didn't/doesn't & this endless delay is simply designed to force legitimate arguments like the one you are making - that the passage of time & change in circumstances means another vote (designed to reverse the result) is the only legitimate way forward - Sorry remain lost, just get over it. If we fail to leave in a timely manner, on or around 29th March 2019, then I genuinely fear for the repercussions because when you tell a majority of the country that their voice/vote is no longer valid you are asking for serious trouble.
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Feb 21, 2019 12:05:08 GMT
Answer is no, given that all political parties follow the same central agendas. When will the people stop listening to and even believing the constant lies spun by politicians?
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,520
Likes: 2,665
|
Post by cb25 on Feb 21, 2019 12:08:22 GMT
Answer is no, given that all political parties follow the same central agendas. When will the people stop listening to and even believing the constant lies spun by politicians? Do you have a specific solution to that?
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Feb 21, 2019 12:13:02 GMT
Pull the covers over your head?
I don't think the course this world is taking can be changed, because ultimately its called 'civilization'.
|
|
|
Post by princekie on Mar 3, 2019 2:23:17 GMT
I think the answer to this one is NO, due to the whole set up of the electoral system in this country, the people who "pull the strings" of those parties (and finance them) and the actual nature in which this "party" was formed in the first place. Still I've been wrong before...
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,550
Likes: 4,168
|
Post by agent69 on Mar 3, 2019 13:34:55 GMT
When the gang of four split from Labour in the early 80's they had far higher profiles, but still achieved very little. The current mob appear to be sailing under a flag of convienence, and it won't be long before they put their sizeable egos ahead of any policy decisions.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,661
Likes: 2,984
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 3, 2019 14:43:35 GMT
When the gang of four split from Labour in the early 80's they had far higher profiles, but still achieved very little. The current mob appear to be sailing under a flag of convienence, and it won't be long before they put their sizeable egos ahead of any policy decisions. Arguably the Gang of Four achieved dragging Labour back into the mainstream centre-left, and then winning three full term governments for the first time in their history. And also arguably, the TIGs have already achieved forcing Labour finally to support a referendum on TM's deal, although this hasn't yet played out.
|
|