Rorschach
Sonny Walters
They'll pay for it too.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Whilst I hold her Blueness and what she did for this country in high regard, I'm a long way from a Thatcherite.
At the risk of over-simplifying things, I plough a very lonely furrow on the political compass. Economically I'm fairly right wing, but my belief that government should keep its grubby mitts off applies to people's lives and choices as much as it does the economy.
I think you're confusing opinion polls with actual elections.
It would take a very stupid wage earner (or, as previously mentioned, underachiever) to vote for Corbyn.
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
Social liberalism is pretty standard in modern Thatcherites. It's nearly thirty years since you threw the old trout under a bus, after all. I can't believe you're as lonely as you think, any more than I can really be the last surviving Blairite.
Reputable pollster with a survey of 50,000 people should be fairly accurate. The Tories are the party of the old and that's why they run on fear. They have nothing else.
I'd like to think so - it would mean there's a decent chance of the Conservative party doing something to appeal to those voters.
Currently I don't see it though.
Those same reputable pollsters always, always underestimate the conservative vote and put too much stock in the (eventually non-existant) young vote.
What on earth are you blathering on about?
1. They all under-estimated Labour at the last election.
2. This isn't an opinion poll. It's a survey of how people voted, it's not asking their opinion on how they might vote in the future. A survey of 50,000 people.
StephenH
David Ginola
That suffers from the same issues as opinion polls. Kids don't want to admit they probably won't/didn't vote and plenty of people don't want to admit voting Conservative.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
It was more of a rhetorical flourish, rather than a statement of fact. The thread, not the issue. Really, it has degenerated into pretty much entrenched positioning re Brexit on here. I support Corbyn, but not in an unqualified sense.
Last edited:
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
There are only those of the left and those of the right. Centrists are just Tories pretending not to be. Macron says hello!
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Yep. I'd be ashamed to admit it too.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Thinking about it, Five Start in Italy, and Macron in France, are along those lines. But maybe they also lack true policy innovation. All well and good saying you're different, but if you deliver the same old, people will see through you.
While Corbyn has some more radical ideas, they are not really fresh at all. All seemingly based on old ideas. They say fashion comes around, but what people want is an overheaul of the stale in government. And there is a need for it. I could smash together a more exciting manifesto
Last edited:
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
Thinking about it, Five Start in Italy, and Macron in France, are along those lines. But maybe they also lack true policy innovation. All well and good saying you're different, but if you deliver the same old, people will see through you.
While Corbyn has some more radical ideas, they are not really fresh at all. All seemingly based on old ideas. They say fashion comes around, but what people want, is an overheaul of the stale in government. And there is a need for it. I could smash together a more exciting manifesto
People always want "an overhaul of the stale". That's precisely why they are not to be trusted. I'm a centrist because I prefer sound, managerialist public administration to populist misrule. The "same old" may evolve slowly, but at its heart is utilitarianism and fairness. Those are what should be at the heart of government.
Empathy with the mob and with its whims, a preference for the "fresh" and the "exciting" - these are fine when it comes to crafting political messages, but as actual recipes for government and for policy-making they are sheer fudging poison.
The 1997-2010 administration was radically centrist. It did things which were surprising - like Bank of England independence. It made subtle changes like the minimum wage and tax credits that made a huge difference to fairness. It focused on improving public services in myriad ways, and especially through early interventions - in health, in education and in public safety. But it did that all within the existing fiscal envelope, at least in the first term, and without picking any major fights with business or with unions. It didn't really do anything "exciting".
Last edited:
It depends on the political issue imo. I think to MLK and civil rights, where he was adamant that his people should reject the incrementalism offered at the time and he was right.
I feel the same about Obama. The people really did want hope and change and he gave them Romney-care after beating Romney. You get Obama promising hope and change as a political message and delivering "moderate republican policies" (his words) and then end up with Trump. If Obama was more the radical that he sold himself to be, America would be a much better place for it and the orange clown would not have won the presidency.
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
America is a strange place, and agreed - the civil rights issue was different. As was slavery.
I don't blame Obama for Trump, though. The US constitution gives small red states and Republican gerrymanderers too much power, and on this occasion the fragile Republic coalition fudged up and allowed its more rancid elements to offer up an orange clown. That's not obviously Obama's fault, any more than the 2008 crash was.
I agree with that but Obama played his part imo. Too many Americans (in districts that had previously voted for Obama twice) took a punt on the gameshow host or stayed at home because Obama let them down and they rejected "more of the same" from Clinton. Personally I think that was the wrong decision, but I understand the frustrations that led to it. It was a factor in ending up with Trump, there were others as you point out.
On a similar theme, I feel there's a danger with Macron in France. He ran as someone who was going to be different (whatever that means) and now sits on a 23% approval rating with rioting in the streets. Beware the far-right at their next election promising "real change" because a coalition of disillusioned voters and people willing to take a gamble (poorer people) might get them elected.