registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,184
Likes: 5,991
|
Post by registerme on Mar 3, 2019 15:43:19 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. There's an interesting article related to this here - www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/03/labour-balance-of-terror-has-shifted-now-corbynites-have-cause-to-be-fearful .
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,521
Likes: 2,665
|
Post by cb25 on Mar 3, 2019 16:32:13 GMT
Couple of things that may influence whether more Labour MPs leave the party
I suspect a number of Corbynistas would welcome Blairites leaving the Labour party, making the rump 'purer' (i.e. hard-left).
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Mar 3, 2019 17:01:12 GMT
The problem in the United Kingdom is the electoral system and the pernicious effect it has had on the composition of the House of Commons. In normal times, i.e. non-crisis, non-Brexit times, we don't really notice how mediocre the people in elected positions are, but now it stares up in the face. Time servers who have worked themselves into safe seats.
The Independent Group stands little or no chance of remaking politics in these circumstances. Listening to MPs asked whether they would join, you hear them say "I have always suppored the Red Team", "I grew up supporting the Blue Team", because they are intellectually second-rate time servers who know they were only elected because of the party they represent and would noit stand a chance without that rosette.
No independent minded person can get elected in Britain. Who was the last independent elected? Robert Taylor in Wyre Forest in 2001 over a specific NHS related matter. And that's it since the war. Nobody of any intellectual quality bothers to stand because they are priced out by whatever dimwit the Reds or Blues put up and they have too much integrity to involve themselves in the petty kow-towing involved in rising up the ladder inside the two ruling parties.
The electoral system has made both the politicians and the public act like football fans. They chose their teams back in the past when they were playing well, and stick by them doggedly, even proudly even though they have been performing sh*ttily for years. This is a logical outcome. Other electoral systems allow the best candidate a chance of winning, but not in Britain. .
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,458
Likes: 1,167
|
Post by travolta on Mar 3, 2019 17:44:36 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 . To bypass the US Prohibition Laws of the time . Nother example of nodding and winking. I'd go for Pitt the Younger and medicinal port. I expect TM is teetot due to diabetes
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,458
Likes: 1,167
|
Post by travolta on Mar 3, 2019 17:47:04 GMT
In answer to your proposition : Not this blend of Petulants.
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,458
Likes: 1,167
|
Post by travolta on Mar 3, 2019 18:03:39 GMT
The problem in the United Kingdom is the electoral system and the pernicious effect it has had on the composition of the House of Commons. In normal times, i.e. non-crisis, non-Brexit times, we don't really notice how mediocre the people in elected positions are, but now it stares up in the face. Time servers who have worked themselves into safe seats. The Independent Group stands little or no chance of remaking politics in these circumstances. Listening to MPs asked whether they would join, you hear them say "I have always suppored the Red Team", "I grew up supporting the Blue Team", because they are intellectually second-rate time servers who know they were only elected because of the party they represent and would noit stand a chance without that rosette. No independent minded person can get elected in Britain. Who was the last independent elected? Robert Taylor in Wyre Forest in 2001 over a specific NHS related matter. And that's it since the war. Nobody of any intellectual quality bothers to stand because they are priced out by whatever dimwit the Reds or Blues put up and they have too much integrity to involve themselves in the petty kow-towing involved in rising up the ladder inside the two ruling parties. The electoral system has made both the politicians and the public act like football fans. They chose their teams back in the past when they were playing well, and stick by them doggedly, even proudly even though they have been performing sh*ttily for years. This is a logical outcome. Other electoral systems allow the best candidate a chance of winning, but not in Britain. . Martin Bell : Tatton , replaced Neil Hamilton. Yes I agree , mediocre. Benevolent dictatorship please, preferably my Dad.
|
|
|
Post by df on Mar 3, 2019 18:32:22 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. Interestingly, one of runaways is my local MP too. My constituency is Labour stronghold. My single vote wouldn't matter, Labour always wins no matter what. I've never voted Labour before, but last GE I did, not for this particular politician, but to support Corbyn. Now if he plans to put himself forward for next GE as independent or part of other group/party I'm definitely not voting for him because I hardly share his political views. I don't know if there is any future for Independent Group, but I like the idea of more parties. Both Labour and Tories are "broad churches", too much incoherence within each. I would prefer if we had more parties with clear agenda and political stance instead of two majors that can't agree within themselves on what side of political spectrum they are. That could force coalitions to be more equal than Tory-LibDem or recent Tory-DUP agreement. Some years ago I thought that many Conservative and Labour politicians could be more at home with LibDems...
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Mar 4, 2019 9:51:01 GMT
Well put, df, a pile of sand could have won in my old constituency as long as it wore a blue rosette. Meanwhile you talk about not voting for your Independent Group MP because you don't agree with their views. This is how it should be in every constituency for all candidates, but my mum and my brother would vote for the Labour candidate regardless of whether they had put their brand on a Trotsky or a Himmler. As you propose, in a system that allows a small party or independent an even playingfield, more capable candidates will present themselves, and voters would over time learn to make more consideration of what each individual candidate actually believes.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,521
Likes: 2,665
|
Post by cb25 on Mar 4, 2019 10:00:06 GMT
As you propose, in a system that allows a small party or independent an even playingfield, more capable candidates will present themselves, and voters would over time learn to make more consideration of what each individual candidate actually believes. The problem with individuals/small parties is that they have no chance of implementing their ideas , they almost certainly have to compromise to form a consensus view with others. I have no problem with them compromising, but it means their manifesto would mean very little as it wouldn't be implemented as stated. All they could give would be broad statements, bit like TIG at the moment "we're liberal and photogenic (some of them), so pls vote for us"
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Mar 4, 2019 11:23:56 GMT
Fair comment, cb25. But in this winner takes all system, how many people actually read the manifestos of each main party and understand what they propose on each issue? And if they did, how many would agree with all that each of either of those parties are proposing? I would guess that the answers here are practically nobody and none. Better to see smaller parties split down these issues and allow voters to select the party that accords with the issues most important to them, and these winning parties then form a government based on their consensus. The idea that each minor party must have a fully worked out manifesto covering every issue, whereas (for sake of argument) an animal rights party might not take a view on defense issues, comes from the mindset created in voters by the one party winner-takes-all system that we have.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 4, 2019 12:34:36 GMT
As you propose, in a system that allows a small party or independent an even playingfield, more capable candidates will present themselves, and voters would over time learn to make more consideration of what each individual candidate actually believes. The problem with individuals/small parties is that they have no chance of implementing their ideas , they almost certainly have to compromise to form a consensus view with others. I have no problem with them compromising, but it means their manifesto would mean very little as it wouldn't be implemented as stated. All they could give would be broad statements, bit like TIG at the moment "we're liberal and photogenic (some of them), so pls vote for us"
Add in "able to use common sense" and you've pretty much got me! Nothing coming out of the two main parties is remotely worthy of the proud history of Parliamentary democracy in the UK. They only maintain their vote share because of a completely outdated electoral system that encourages a tribal loyalism closer to supporting a football team (or belonging to a religious group for the more extremist) than choosing a competent government.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,521
Likes: 2,665
|
Post by cb25 on Mar 4, 2019 12:42:56 GMT
The problem with individuals/small parties is that they have no chance of implementing their ideas , they almost certainly have to compromise to form a consensus view with others. I have no problem with them compromising, but it means their manifesto would mean very little as it wouldn't be implemented as stated. All they could give would be broad statements, bit like TIG at the moment "we're liberal and photogenic (some of them), so pls vote for us"
Add in " able to use common sense" and you've pretty much got me! How does that translate into policies on the NHS, tax rates etc.?
I'm not sure there's such a thing as commonly agreed (no pun intended) "common sense", e.g. one person's "common sense says you should pay £20 each time you visit your GP" is an outrageous idea to others.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 4, 2019 13:12:36 GMT
Add in " able to use common sense" and you've pretty much got me! How does that translate into policies on the NHS, tax rates etc.?
I'm not sure there's such a thing as commonly agreed (no pun intended) "common sense", e.g. one person's "common sense says you should pay £20 each time you visit your GP" is an outrageous idea to others.
I think a radical upheaval of the NHS ethos away from free at the point of care probably doesn't count as common sense, and neither does either punitive taxation rates or punitive austerity. It would be up to a "non common sense" party to make those suggestions and if they were elected on them then fair enough. As it happens, we have two non common sense parties who have represented those two poles on taxation. So I think there is a common sense, incremental change middle ground, with a liberal ethos - think Trudeau in Canada for example, who also adds the photogenic part - and a gap in the UK for this at the moment.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,587
Likes: 4,182
|
Post by agent69 on Mar 4, 2019 13:24:23 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, I think that is probably a fair comment, although the departure of the 4 did little for their career prospects, except possibly David Owen (who received much publicity via spitting image for his domineering relationship with David Steel when they formed the Lib Dems).
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,521
Likes: 2,665
|
Post by cb25 on Mar 4, 2019 13:53:04 GMT
How does that translate into policies on the NHS, tax rates etc.?
I'm not sure there's such a thing as commonly agreed (no pun intended) "common sense", e.g. one person's "common sense says you should pay £20 each time you visit your GP" is an outrageous idea to others.
I think a radical upheaval of the NHS ethos away from free at the point of charge probably doesn't count as common sense, and neither does either punitive taxation rates or punitive austerity. It would be up to a "non common sense" party to make those suggestions and if they were elected on them then fair enough. As it happens, we have two non common sense parties who have represented those two poles on taxation. So I think there is a common sense, incremental change middle ground, with a liberal ethos - think Trudeau in Canada for example, who also adds the photogenic part - and a gap in the UK for this at the moment.
"Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has refused to stand down over claims he interfered to help a construction firm that allegedly bribed Muanmar Gadaffi's regime to avoid a corruption trial.
The political scandal gripping Mr Trudeau's Liberal Party began when his former justice minister claimed on Wednesday that she had been pressured to drop the prosecution of SNC-Lavin, a construction firm in the prime minister's home province."
---
"A former Canadian justice minister says she faced attempts at interference and "veiled threats" from top government officials seeking a legal favour for a firm facing a corruption trial.
Jody Wilson-Raybould said she was pressed repeatedly to "find a solution" for engineering giant SNC-Lavalin.
PM Justin Trudeau said he disagreed with the minister's testimony and he and his staff acted appropriately."
|
|