|
Post by SeanBroseley on Feb 21, 2019 14:53:43 GMT 1
All three Conservative Party defectors have been on the record as saying this or putting their names to campaign literature that says this. Ditto Chukka Umunna. Everyone has a right to change their minds. But changing your mind on a number of things or changing your mind on something a number of times doesn't breed confidence especially over a relatively short time span of a couple of years. But news is about coverage of rolling events rather than analysis and reflection, and so two years ago is a lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Feb 21, 2019 15:17:31 GMT 1
All three Conservative Party defectors have been on the record as saying this or putting their names to campaign literature that says this. Ditto Chukka Umunna. Everyone has a right to change their minds. But changing your mind on a number of things or changing your mind on something a number of times doesn't breed confidence especially over a relatively short time span of a couple of years. But news is about coverage of rolling events rather than analysis and reflection, and so two years ago is a lifetime. Fair comment but brexit isn't an issue that's stood still since 2017, never mind 2016, in fact our perceptions of it change almost daily. She's hardly the only person or politician to have changed their views of it. You're also highlighting a fundamental complaint that those of us with more sympathy to the Independent Group have, namely that the existing two party system forces candidates/MPs to outwardly "support" policies they don't really support. It's a chronic dishonesty at the heart of our system and one that the two main parties are desperate to maintain. How ironic that you should be liking Guido Fawkes, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Feb 21, 2019 15:43:03 GMT 1
Speaking of Brexit, this is a cracker...
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Feb 21, 2019 16:30:56 GMT 1
All three Conservative Party defectors have been on the record as saying this or putting their names to campaign literature that says this. Ditto Chukka Umunna. Everyone has a right to change their minds. But changing your mind on a number of things or changing your mind on something a number of times doesn't breed confidence especially over a relatively short time span of a couple of years. But news is about coverage of rolling events rather than analysis and reflection, and so two years ago is a lifetime. Fair comment but brexit isn't an issue that's stood still since 2017, never mind 2016, in fact our perceptions of it change almost daily. She's hardly the only person or politician to have changed their views of it. You're also highlighting a fundamental complaint that those of us with more sympathy to the Independent Group have, namely that the existing two party system forces candidates/MPs to outwardly "support" policies they don't really support. It's a chronic dishonesty at the heart of our system and one that the two main parties are desperate to maintain. How ironic that you should be liking Guido Fawkes, by the way. Well I don’t, for example, accept everything that George Galloway says. But nor do I reject everything that he says because he has said dangerous things about rape victims. I call it nuance. I’m also interested that people have more problems with the whipping system than foreign government intervention in our politics. 😉 If you vote against what your convictions tell you because of the whipping system it is for one reason and one reason only - your career. if Joan Ryan (correction: Angle Smith) against water industry nationalisation when she takes the water industry’s shilling, why is that? if she openly discusses receiving donations from a foreign government to an organisation affiliated to the Labour Party in a video - a video which she says doesn’t exist - what informs her views on the Middle East? If you have an Altrincham company asking for private and anonymous donations which has sitting members of Parliament, what is informing their views about anything?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Feb 21, 2019 16:44:58 GMT 1
Fair comment but brexit isn't an issue that's stood still since 2017, never mind 2016, in fact our perceptions of it change almost daily. She's hardly the only person or politician to have changed their views of it. You're also highlighting a fundamental complaint that those of us with more sympathy to the Independent Group have, namely that the existing two party system forces candidates/MPs to outwardly "support" policies they don't really support. It's a chronic dishonesty at the heart of our system and one that the two main parties are desperate to maintain. How ironic that you should be liking Guido Fawkes, by the way. I’m also interested that people have more problems with the whipping system than foreign government intervention in our politics. 😉 If you vote against what your convictions tell you because of the whipping system it is for one reason and one reason only - your career. Far from it. Foreign intervention, including governmental it seems, is one of the reasons why I'll never "respect the result" of the 2016 referendum. That and the shoddy lies and deceits that were perpetrated in the name of a so-called referendum campaign. On the second point, I don't think it's as simple as that. It might be in the interests of your career but perhaps it's also choosing the least worst option (because other options aren't available), it might be a misplaced notion of "party loyalty", it might be because a deal has been done to trade off this for something else etc. Politics lets you get the best deal you can for your principles and it's never going to be a forum for philosophical purity but a system with two dominant parties crushes the life out of principles and reduces everything to an us v them mentality. It's puerile and obsolete.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Feb 21, 2019 17:17:22 GMT 1
The leap from accepting foreign intervention exists to rejecting the 2016 referendum result is a big one. That is about the subverting of the message to the electorate and seeking to dicatate the parameters of the discussion - which people are doing all the time. That it had no influence is counter-intuitive. If it wasn’t working at all why would it be done? Like with commercials that do not impart merely factual information about a product.
It does however mean that 1) the police need to complete their investigation rather than sit on it. 2) Steps need to be taken to nullify the issues raised in the select committee report before a second referendum.
Second referendum is a misnomer as it would be a first referendum on whether the U.K. applies for EU membership.
Since the invocation of Article 50 I think things have remained remarkably unchanged. From that moment the default position has been to leave with no deal. Voting down May’s Deal has pushed up the probabilities but nothing more. Interestingly no one is talking about revocation of Article 50.
On the subject of two party politics there has been a long term trend of a reduction in the percentage of votes at general elections in favour of the main two parties. That was not the case in 2017, where judgement was delivered on the Liberal Democrats’ participation in the Coalition. So the wisdom of crowds was to move towards to two parties again.
Parties will always exist because in general elections people will wish to know what a party grouping with a reasonable chance of power intends to do. Rather than a form of PR I’d move towards the old Chartist idea of more frequent elections. This would reduce the stake in the result in each election, shorten the campaigns and reduce the mobilisation of money in each one.
It is always the behind the scenes money that concerns me. In a slow growth economy the accumulation of wealth through inheritance will be a more significant factor. And the accumulated wealth will seek political influence to protect itself. Quite crudely if the environment allows it.
edit: the importance of inherited wealth in a slow growth world looms large over the environmental constraint to growth leading to zero growth economy to avoid catastrophe- that implies huge societal change in a short period of time if that project is to be successful.
|
|
|
Post by Minormorris64 on Feb 21, 2019 17:23:38 GMT 1
There was only one person in the voting booth and a pencil in June 2016 to my knowledge didn't spot the Russian holding a gun to my head when I voted, some of this conspiracy rubbish is just that, rubbish. But of course because you vote a certain way you must be thick, racist, impressionable etc. etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Feb 21, 2019 17:33:43 GMT 1
There was only one person in the voting booth and a pencil in June 2016 to my knowledge didn't spot the Russian holding a gun to my head when I voted, some of this conspiracy rubbish is just that, rubbish. But of course because you vote a certain way you must be thick, racist, impressionable etc. etc. etc. There is a real viciousness towards people who voted for Leave. Exemplified more recently by the TV presenter Terry Christian. There again they are identifying people in the bottom 30% of the income distribution who are ignored because ignoring doesn’t matter to electoral success. Until 2016.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2019 17:52:30 GMT 1
Speaking of Brexit, this is a cracker... You’ve got too much time on your hands Stutty. Keep finding them , an absolute gem .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2019 19:07:18 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Feb 21, 2019 19:28:58 GMT 1
|
|