+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Of course, none of those things could ever happen under our current system, could they? I give you the DUP and Mrs May.
And the old, tired trope of 'the largest vote in UK history supported leaving' is a re-writing of history isn't it because it was a small margin of so-called victory? The abdication of any form of responsibility and lack of representation of 48% of that vote is one of the most undemocratic acts of a British government. Governments are supposed to represent everyone - even the people that didn't vote for them or their policies. If they don't, they are not fit for purpose.
apropos of your opening line I will assume you're referring to the Estates General and which side you sat on, however party politics predates that, certainly in the UK, by many years. Walpole was a Whig who opposed Tory policies in the first part of the 18th century. However I agree to a certain extent that something is either true or false, but when you're talking politics you are also talking economics, and as a pseudo science, there are many schools of thought, all of which have merit.
re: your second para, I disagree.
re: your third para, I agree.
Your final point is also agreed, but until we remove partisan party politics and engage in consensus politics via PR where all voices are heard, it will not happen. the main parties have too much to lose, though given Labour are sliding backwards, they may agree to PR as it may be the only way to keep the Tories out of power.
No. it is lazy journalism. Cameron is not in government and has little or no influence, no matter what you may think. Hold this government to account by all means (and they certainly need to be held to account), but writing an article about one of the worst PMs we've had who has next to no influence at all serves no purpose whatsoever.
As for your comment about Cameron being dodgy, you'll have to excuse me but I've re-read what I wrote and I really cannot see where I overlooked this particular snippet? you seem to be attributing a position to me that only exists inside your head. My point, which was quite succinct, is that former PMs all look to milk that office for what its worth. Cameron is no different.
I'm not against former Prime Minister's making money after they leave office. Cameron resigned when he was 50. What is he supposed to do with the rest of his life? Cameron might have chosen the wrong company to get into bed with but at that time I don't think anyone was suggesting that Greensill would go bust. What I don't get is that Starmer and Co spent the recent election banging on about the wallpaper in Number 10 at a time when there were massive issues to address such as the future of the NHS, the aftermath of the pandemic and the economic recovery. Labour went into the recent elections with no policy that stuck and the electorate in England agreed although the usual happened in Wales where virtually anyone wearing a red rosette can get elected. To this day I can't say what Labour stands for under Starmer.
I genuinely appreciate your response and time and as usual in life, us humans have more in common with each other than we do differences. (of course this theory is severely challenged during the course of any football match...oh..yes..and any interaction with referees).
Oh, BTW, yes, the 1789 ref. was re. the Estates General.
I don’t think the issue is Cameron earning something for himself after being PM, but he had what seemed to be an immediate line through to Cabinet members denied to almost everyone else.
I think one of their beloved focus groups might have picked up on “Tory sleaze” for Labour. I thought it was a valid issue to raise (although the focus on wallpaper became counter productive it seemed to me), but I agree that there needed to be more than the one string to Labour’s bow when it came to Hartlepool. I’ve some sympathy with Starmer because it’s been awkward for him to be too critical of theGovernment over the past year, but that also means that there was an opportunity for more attention to be paid to what Labour had to offer, but, instead, there was just more infighting and picking an arch Remainer to be their candidate at Hartlepool of all places qualifies as a schoolboy error.
I agree sleaze was a valid issue to raise but the entire campaign seemed to be based on that and nothing else. I agree also Labour selected the wrong candidate for Hartlepool given his fervent remain stance. Everything seemed to be focussed on sleaze and the wallpaper in particular which the public found to be largely irrelevant given the many other things going on. I think we agree.
However, I'm still struggling to understand the policies Labour was putting forward at the Hartlepool election. Can anyone tell me?
In the last couple of elections Labour have had a multitude of popular, well thought out policies - while all the Conservatives have offered is Brexit, Boris waving his hands around and ruffling up his hair, and not being Jeremy Corbyn.
The last election in particular was so light on policy it was ridiculous
The public have voted in droves for the latter.
I'm really disappointed in Starmer resurrecting the spectre of Peter Mandelson as an adviser. He's like some Scooby Doo villain who just keeps coming back from the dead. Having him anywhere near will just be toxic for Starmer.
Starmer's making a lot of schoolboy errors of late including his handling of Angela Rayner. I'm less sympathetic and feel he should have been ruthless with the present government over the past year because of the pandemic and deaths-toll. It didn't stop Andy Burnham calling them out.
I've also just realised that I'm referencing both of them without their titles. Lord Mandelson advising Sir Keir Starmer in charge of the Labour Party - seems uncannily like the end of Animal Farm to me.
We had a referendum on PR. A simple yes or no vote and the public voted against it. That's fair enough isn't it?
Or are the people who voted against it too stupid, like a lot on here say people who vote what they consider to be "the wrong way" are?
The Liberals were promised a referendum in the coalition government in return for supporting a bill. The got their referendum lost it, then threw their toys out of the pram and reneged on their promise. Is that the kind of people you would want supporting a party you voted for in a PR Government?
Nail on the head and this is why when anybody asks 'are you calling the British public stupid?', I say 'yes'.
I don't care who they vote for but the majority view not long ago was that labour have too many policies, now the majority view is labour don't have enough policies.
Similar to the 'theres no point voting, the parties are to similar' then almost immediately 'the parties are too extreme left/right and we need more centre ground politics' in the 2010s.
Almost nobody has a good reason to vote the way they do and I blame the dumbos that used to say 'pick an issue and vote on it', it's far too complex to do that. If I said I was buying a car, nobody would say just pick one single attribute and buy based on that.
the joy of government is that the public are stupid , Adolf Hitler
And in many cases the dirty stinking fascist was right
My mother has carers in to help her
They are paid less than 10 quid an hour . Some are very good . A fair few are totally brainless . They can mess about on their mobile phones and watch reality TV and go down the gym .
But when we talked about the recent election most of them said they didn't bother voting and one three days after the election said who won ?
These people could be directly helped , or not helped as may be the case , by whoever is in charge
When everyone was doing this clap for carers thing last year some of em were saying nobody cares about us , one said to me drakeford takes too much tax from us , I am not going to bother voting , I told her it was the government in Westminster who is responsible for taxation , the Welsh government has awarded you a grant but its going to be taxed by the government in Westminster so if anything you want to be protesting about them and use your vote to say so ?
She said oh I just can't be bothered anyway
Now I know why sometimes tigers kill their young
the referendum was not for PR but for the alternative system, which no-one really knew how it worked therefore it did not pass. If the Tories approved the PR vote, the public would have voted for it overwhelmingly. But both Labour and the Tories would lose their chance of absolute power if that happened, as neither party polls anywhere near 50%.
it is this kind of arrogance that will mean Labour will remain in the shadows. Just because a few polls about the policies say the public may think they are a good idea, does not mean that the public will vote for the party looking to implement them. Of course, only those on the left can critically analyse all parties manifestos, whereas those who are in the centre or the right are bereft of intelligence and capability.
Consider Germany in 1933, only one party has a manifesto that promises jobs, investment in motorways, lower taxation, support for business, a better welfare state for all citizens... who are you voting for, given the policies are so popular and much needed after the great depression?
Corbyn and his team were seen to be left rather than centre left, and such is the UK, a left wing party never really does well in a general election.
The real lackwits are those who think the UK are stupid enough to fall for a marxist promising sensible policies.
If that is the case how did this trend kick in well before Boris and Brexit or Corbyn and now the two later ones have gone and Sir keir is at the helm Labour and they didn't return in hundreds of other council seats , that is so rare with a sitting government .
In Eleven general elections 3 wins ( Blair , Blair , Blair ) without the Boris ,Brexit or Corbyn effect .
I think its much deeper that what folk think , the way out in my humble view is the for the Lib's, Greens and Labour to swallow their pride and past and become one party, perhaps called a Social /Green/ Democratic Alliance Party , that might rock the Tories and win the centre ground and power
Hartelepool since 97
1997 > 26k Huge Peter Mandelson Labour win ,only 3 parties standing then Tories with 18k in second place
2004 > 12.7k Labour win
2005 > 18.2k Labour win ( Tories in 3rd place with 4k )
2010 > 16.2k Labour win ( Tories into 2nd with 10.7k)
2015 > 15.1k Labour win ( Tories back to 3rd place with 8.2k , Brexit Party 2nd with 11k )
2017 > 21.8k Labour win ( Tories back into 2nd with 14.3k)
2019 > 15.4k Labour win ( Tories 2nd with 11.8k )
2021 > 15.2k Tory Win ( Labour 2nd with 8.5k )
Starmer needs to wise up.
Saw an interview with Tory boy Archer on TV and he had a point with finding it unbelievable that 2 able politicians like Hilary Benn and Yvette Cooper are confined to the back benches.
We have a useless( maybe the most usless PM and front bench in history) and a pathetically weak opposition.
such arrogance
could it be that previously there were too many policies and now there are too few?
the UK will always be won in the centre ground. The Tories know this, and Labour under Blair knew this. Sadly, most on the left aren't aware of this, or if they are, they prefer behaving like Citizen Smith than running the risk of getting into power.
I'd buy a car based on the sound it made. it its a noisy V10 or V12 then I'm buying it.
Why are ,people dumbos , thick , gullible, stupid, kents, dull , sheep for having a different view or apply a democratic choice, its quite disparaging ?
it can be a general characteristic of those on the left that they believe someone who votes differently from them is either stupid or selfish. Those on the left tend to be less tolerant of those who hold differing political opinions.
the electorate should be free to make up their own minds about what is important to them and how they wish to vote. It is a fundamental principle of a functioning democracy that we have alternative viewpoints. Democracy is something many left wingers are against, as evidenced by certain posters comments in this thread