Merged Now What?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lothian said:
What are those values and do they take priority over leading the party to Election glory?
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the first part of your question for now, I'll answer the second part: yes - most definitely.

There seems to be a fundamental divide amongst posters here, and I guess the rest of the general population.

Some people, like me, believe that political parties should spell out their beliefs and values and then if people don't want to vote for them that's fine - those people should vote for the party whose values most closely represent their own.

Then there are others who believe that being in power is the important thing, and you should be prepared to modify or jettison your beliefs and values if necessary (or lie about them) in order to chase votes.

The politicians most suited to the second group are those who strive for power regardless - you might call them pragmatic but I would call them unprincipled.

I think prevalence of the second group of politicians has lead to several things - all bad:

  • We don't seem to get politicians of real substance any more. I think the smartest people now choose to enter some other profession as they don't wish to join some club of non-entities.
  • The public trust in politicians is very low.
  • Lots of people, especially youngsters, aren't interested in politics and don't even bother to vote.
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
What are those values and do they take priority over leading the party to Election glory?
Click to expand...

Well I'm not a Labour Party member so I can't speak with authority on what the values are but yes they definitely for me should take precedence over getting elected.

For me the idea of a party is to agree on some principles and then try to win the argument that those principles are correct. Not to try to find out which principles will get you elected and then to champion them.

Now I think it's perfectly OK for other people to think those principles are stupid. In fact that's kind of the point. I would argue that trying to appeal to everyone is at least partly what has got Labour into their current state.
 
ceptimus said:
Leaving aside the first part of your question for now, I'll answer the second part: yes - most definitely.

There seems to be a fundamental divide amongst posters here, and I guess the rest of the general population.

Some people, like me, believe that political parties should spell out their beliefs and values and then if people don't want to vote for them that's fine - those people should vote for the party whose values most closely represent their own.
Then there are others who believe that being in power is the important thing, and you should be prepared to modify or jettison your beliefs and values if necessary (or lie about them) in order to chase votes.

The politicians most suited to the second group are those who strive for power regardless - you might call them pragmatic but I would call them unprincipled.

I think prevalence of the second group of politicians has lead to several things - all bad:

  • We don't seem to get politicians of real substance any more. I think the smartest people now choose to enter some other profession as they don't wish to join some club of non-entities.
  • The public trust in politicians is very low.
  • Lots of people, especially youngsters, aren't interested in politics and don't even bother to vote.
Click to expand...
I agree fully with the highlighted part I don't like the way parties use opinion polls and focus groups to decide policy. However I think there needs to be some realism.

The BNP are the example of a party that spells out its beliefs and values. Doing that will not get you support if the values and beliefs are such that the public will not support them. I think there is a need to move to the left possibly to where Jeremy Corbyn is, however the public are not currently ready for that message. They need softening up first.
 
Lothian said:
I agree fully with the highlighted part I don't like the way parties use opinion polls and focus groups to decide policy. However I think there needs to be some realism.

The BNP are the example of a party that spells out its beliefs and values. Doing that will not get you support if the values and beliefs are such that the public will not support them. I think there is a need to move to the left possibly to where Jeremy Corbyn is, however the public are not currently ready for that message. They need softening up first.
Click to expand...

UKIP are a party that spells out their beliefs. Got nobody to vote for them and just got exactly what they wanted anyway. So it can work both ways.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
And if we ever get a PR system that might matter. ;)
Click to expand...

And because we don't have a PR system then a large party's responsibility has to be to represent a broad church.

A splintered left cannot become a government under FPTP.
Ever.

If Labour is going to trot off to the left then something else will have to come in to fill the centre left gap. And that is not going to happen over night. And in those years the right will have a free hand.

See the 80s.
 
Tolls said:
Except his agenda is long dead horses he insists on whipping.
Trident?
Click to expand...
Well scrapping Son of Trident would save UK£30-40 billion in capital costs, UK£2.5 billion annually in running costs and UK£15 billion in disposal costs.
That's a lot of UK£350 million weeks...
 
Tolls said:
.......If Labour is going to trot off to the left then something else will have to come in to fill the centre left gap.........
Click to expand...

The Conservatives.

Theresa May's headline policies could have been written by a Lib Dem or even a centrist Labour politician. Far from rushing to the right, the Conservatives continue to move leftwards, occupying the ground left behind by Labour. Labour either have to fight for this ground, or they have to accept a long time out of power. Their choice.
 
Lothian said:
....snip... I think there is a need to move to the left possibly to where Jeremy Corbyn is, however the public are not currently ready for that message. They need softening up first.
Click to expand...

Not singling you out but it's the highlighted refrain that many people on the Forum and elsewhere keep repeating but where is the evidence to support that claim?

Yes it is something that is being endlessly repeated, and I suspect by now people will accept it as a fact but really there has been no evidence to support it. The only actual evidence I've seen does not support the claim: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=298321 and then there is the success of the SNP who are (in terms of the positions the Labour party has fought the last two general elections on) a left wing party given the current "centre" of UK politics.

Obviously there is no simple or single answer to such questions as "Why didn't/did you vote for party X" but the evidence we do have seems to show moving to the left alone is not an automatic election disaster and indeed could pick up additional voters.
 
Lothian said:
Ukip got 12.7% of the national vote so you have messed up somewhere.
Click to expand...
I have no idea whether the numbers are right, but it's perfectly plausible as written. UKIP probably didn't do so much trade in the areas where the SNP stood, which is what was stated.
 
Rat said:
I have no idea whether the numbers are right, but it's perfectly plausible as written. UKIP probably didn't do so much trade in the areas where the SNP stood, which is what was stated.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, I read

In the areas where the SNP stood it got 49.97% of the vote while UKIP GOT 1.62%.

as saying

In the areas where the SNP stood it got 49.97% of the vote while in the areas where UKIP stood it got 1.62%

Should there not be a semi-colon or summat after 'stood' for your interpretation?
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
Perhaps, I read

In the areas where the SNP stood it got 49.97% of the vote while UKIP GOT 1.62%.

as saying

In the areas where the SNP stood it got 49.97% of the vote while in the areas where UKIP stood it got 1.62%

Should there not be a semi-colon or summat after 'stood' for your interpretation?
Click to expand...
Possibly, if it is causing misinterpretation, but I think I read it as intended.
 
If UKIP had only selected certain constituencies to stand in, they could have claimed a greater proportion of the votes in the seats where they stood.

But in terms of the total votes cast across the whole kingdom, UKIP beat the SNP hands down.

Maybe next time, the SNP should stand for seats at Westminster in every constituency that has a seat at Westminster. I suspect they may do rather well in a few seats in the north of England. Depending on the state of the Labour party, they might do well everywhere and lead the opposition. If the Tories make a real mess of things too, the SNP might even form the next government! :)
 
Last edited:
ceptimus said:
... There seems to be a fundamental divide amongst posters here, and I guess the rest of the general population.

Some people, like me, believe that political parties should spell out their beliefs and values and then if people don't want to vote for them that's fine - those people should vote for the party whose values most closely represent their own.

Then there are others who believe that being in power is the important thing, and you should be prepared to modify or jettison your beliefs and values if necessary (or lie about them) in order to chase votes.
Click to expand...

I agree with both option simultaneously, except the stricken parts. Ideally, what a party or candidate will stand for is a set of working principles, yet ready to question the best way to see them through, and even if they still apply under drastically new or fundamentally changed perspectives owing to new information.

Ideally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom