Blairites staging a coup...

[Sandydragon]

The Guardian is getting worse and worse, it's incredible. They have an article on how remain failed, which could be interesting. But it only ever refers to Corbyn as a left wing extremist. Which is just wrong.

By the standards of most Brits he is a lefty loon, and for me at least I'd hoped we'd reached a point wherein Corbyn and those of a similar ilk would be confined to the SWP leaving Labour to go forwards as a Social Democratic party. Sadly instead the inmates have taken over the asylum and we're going to have to waste a lot of time going at least until the next general election it seems until there's a chance for some order to return. And I don't just blame Corbyn for this, but also those in the middle ground and to the right of the Labour party who are allowing us to continue without a credible opposition to the government.

In what way is he a lunatic?

Most of what he's actually said makes sense, and he is the leader of the UK's only mainstream socialist party...

What do you define as Social Democrat?

Oh, and mods: why is language like this allowed against the left, and not against the right?

On second thoughts, don't bother. You're both rather right wing...

Has a specific poster been abused? Loony lefties, right wing nutters, both descriptions are commonly used on here.

[Sandydragon]

They just realize that to get those beliefs they need to compromise in other areas.

A failure to acknowledge you'll not get all you want and refusing to accept compromise seems the order of the day now for Labour, they even attacked their own Mayor of London for sharing a platform with the PM during remain, and that wasn't a nobody (well it was) but John McDonnell who led the attack on Khan. Corbyn of course refused to share a platform with the PM, and indeed with former Labour PMs lest his purity be tainted

The extremes are filled with people who are too dogmatic to accept even a minor deviation from their beliefs. Sadly for them, the world is filled with compromise so they tend to get a bit stuck when they get into any kind of position of authority.

One of the obvious criticisms of the remain campaign was that it was obviously split on party lines. Whilst there were 2 leave campaigns, at least the official leave campaign had representatives from the major parties and looked more united. In some of the debates, the remain spokes persons spent more time bashing the Conservatives than promoting the EU. If Labour and the remain Conservatives had properly coordinated with then perhaps their message may have got more traction.

[jared_7]

The Guardian is getting worse and worse, it's incredible. They have an article on how remain failed, which could be interesting. But it only ever refers to Corbyn as a left wing extremist. Which is just wrong.

By the standards of most Brits he is a lefty loon, and for me at least I'd hoped we'd reached a point wherein Corbyn and those of a similar ilk would be confined to the SWP leaving Labour to go forwards as a Social Democratic party. Sadly instead the inmates have taken over the asylum and we're going to have to waste a lot of time going at least until the next general election it seems until there's a chance for some order to return. And I don't just blame Corbyn for this, but also those in the middle ground and to the right of the Labour party who are allowing us to continue without a credible opposition to the government.

In what way is he a lunatic?

Most of what he's actually said makes sense, and he is the leader of the UK's only mainstream socialist party...

What do you define as Social Democrat?

Oh, and mods: why is language like this allowed against the left, and not against the right?

On second thoughts, don't bother. You're both rather right wing...

He wants his left wing parties to be fiscally and economically identical to the right wing parties, just more progressive on social issues. He ignores the fact this is pretty much what we've had for the last 30-40 years, where many people feel (and statistics can back up) that during this time their position in society is worse off. The middle and lower classes have been pinched, while those at the very top have seen their wealth grow exponentially.

He wants society to work for the top 10% and anyone challenging that position is, apparently, a "left wing loony".

"It is what it is, chaps; accept your lot and don't you dare complain".

[Digby]

The Guardian is getting worse and worse, it's incredible. They have an article on how remain failed, which could be interesting. But it only ever refers to Corbyn as a left wing extremist. Which is just wrong.

By the standards of most Brits he is a lefty loon, and for me at least I'd hoped we'd reached a point wherein Corbyn and those of a similar ilk would be confined to the SWP leaving Labour to go forwards as a Social Democratic party. Sadly instead the inmates have taken over the asylum and we're going to have to waste a lot of time going at least until the next general election it seems until there's a chance for some order to return. And I don't just blame Corbyn for this, but also those in the middle ground and to the right of the Labour party who are allowing us to continue without a credible opposition to the government.

In what way is he a lunatic?

Most of what he's actually said makes sense, and he is the leader of the UK's only mainstream socialist party...

What do you define as Social Democrat?

Oh, and mods: why is language like this allowed against the left, and not against the right?

On second thoughts, don't bother. You're both rather right wing...

Presents no electable platform, sits way to the left of Ed Milliband who was firmly rejected by the voters, consorts with some extremely distasteful sorts, struggles to speak without putting his foot in his mouth, alludes towards bringing politeness into politics but is frankly snide and disrespectful and perhaps even believes his cause worthier, policies such as printing money to invest in capital infrastructure or build the trident subs to protect jobs but arm them with toblerones, ignore mass resignations of his parliamentary part, appoint loons other than himself to senior shadow cabinet positions....

Social democracy I'd hold to be a blend of free market and socialist values with no one flavour.

And if you want to talk language used then perhaps labeling sum as the 'loony left' is insulting, but the language coming the other way labels myself and I'm supposing SandyDragon as elitist scum, repellant and inane. Thus even if my commentary is offensive I'd contend it's far less so, not that I'd actually thought on the comments coming my way until you complained that language is allowed.

[jared_7]

Miliband failed because he couldn't eat a bacon sandwich properly. His policies weren't rejected, he was just a bumbling geek that people couldn't see as a leader. The same could perhaps be said for Corbyn, he is obviously struggling to look like a true leader.

If you want to dismiss these people's ability to lead then thats fine, but dismissing what is quite simply a rejigging of society into one that is fair and equitable for all, rather than one that has been proven to favour only the very top as "extremism" is ridiculous. The electorate has not rejected this, in fact the movement for this reorganisation seems to be gathering steam.

[Sandydragon]

Id argue with the premise that the poorer in western societies aren't better off as a result of policies enacted over the past decades. Undoubtedly they are much better off financially and in quality of life than previously. The advancements have been brought about via the private sector, not so much government,although undoubtedly some legislation has assisted.

What many if the far left seem to want is a return to 1953 where unions were king and the UK boasted jobs for life in heavy industry and manufacturing. There is also too much focus on the gap between the richest and poorest rather than the overall improvement in everyones situation.

The biggest bar to advancement in this country is education. Social mobility was higher when grammar schools allowed poorer children to get ahead. It was the left which championed their abolition. the dog whistle politics of the left (and right) at the moment seem to offer solutions for the problems that do exist, but in effect will only turn back the clock on progress for everyone.

Id much rather that we stopped bashing the rich, who contribute the lions share of the taxes the Treasury uses to fund services and benefits to everyone else, and concentrate on how best to make Britain more of a meritocracy, i.e. make social advancement easier.

[Digby]

He wants his left wing parties to be fiscally and economically identical to the right wing parties, just more progressive on social issues. He ignores the fact this is pretty much what we've had for the last 30-40 years, where many people feel (and statistics can back up) that during this time their position in society is worse off. The middle and lower classes have been pinched, while those at the very top have seen their wealth grow exponentially.

He wants society to work for the top 10% and anyone challenging that position is, apparently, a "left wing loony".

"It is what it is, chaps; accept your lot and don't you dare complain".

It's not a bad representation, not one I'd ascribe myself but not bad. I don't think the fiscal policies should be identical, though I also don't want to see the main options being either the SWP or from those to the right of the Conservatives. The last 30-40 years represents one of the biggest periods of economic growth, for all of society, whilst avoiding major wars, and with significant scientific development, I'm more than happy to have more of the same so sign me up please. I'm not sure there's much in the way of statistical evidence to compare how people feel now Vs three-four decades back, though interestingly economics is now moving strongly towards capturing (or trying to capture) some measurement of happiness in individuals across society and for society as a whole.

I absolutely don't want the economy to work (just) for the elite, frankly I'd share a concern about the divergence in the rate of wealth acquisition in the top echelons Vs the rest of society with a great many others (though hardly all), and I'm certainly in the camp that says taxes are the price we pay for civilisation.

Yes I believe after Brown lost the election that David Milliband told the party some things they needed to hear whilst his brother pandered to the unions, and the on becoming the leader as known as Red Ed then Ed didn't even have the courage of his own convictions and spent a few years convincing far too few he wasn't in hock to the unions. And yes I think Ed too lefty to stand as chance in a general election, and he was, even Vs an austerity Tory government, and yes to react to that by going still further left leaves me cross with a party that's failing the country, so even though I've never voted for them I expect better.

[Sandydragon]

Miliband failed because he couldn't eat a bacon sandwich properly. His policies weren't rejected, he was just a bumbling geek that people couldn't see as a leader. The same could perhaps be said for Corbyn, he is obviously struggling to look like a true leader.

If you want to dismiss these people's ability to lead then thats fine, but dismissing what is quite simply a rejigging of society into one that is fair and equitable for all, rather than one that has been proven to favour only the very top as "extremism" is ridiculous. The electorate has not rejected this, in fact the movement for this reorganisation seems to be gathering steam.

Kinnock failed because he fell over on the beach. Hague failed because he was bald.

Regardless of hidden ability, modern politics demands leaders who look and sound like leaders. Harsh, but there is little getting around that.

[Digby]

Miliband failed because he couldn't eat a bacon sandwich properly. His policies weren't rejected, he was just a bumbling geek that people couldn't see as a leader. The same could perhaps be said for Corbyn, he is obviously struggling to look like a true leader.

If you want to dismiss these people's ability to lead then thats fine, but dismissing what is quite simply a rejigging of society into one that is fair and equitable for all, rather than one that has been proven to favour only the very top as "extremism" is ridiculous. The electorate has not rejected this, in fact the movement for this reorganisation seems to be gathering steam.

Kinnock failed because he fell over on the beach. Hague failed because he was bald.

Regardless of hidden ability, modern politics demands leaders who look and sound like leaders. Harsh, but there is little getting around that.

I think Kinnock failed partly as there was too much expectation of them winning, but also because of a more than idiotic policy to sell off social hosing stock with all kinds of negative long term impacts to society (as well as some positives). Still at least you wont find the current government engaged in selling off still more social housing without sufficient understanding of what they're doing (though I'd grant those on the right might know and simply don't care)

Actually as an aside the right to buy initiative has now resulted in the sale of UK social housing giving rise to by far the biggest fraud going in the country, employment benefits fraud doesn't even hold a damp twig to the right to buy fiasco let alone a candle, and yet it's those on benefits (typically being those worse off anyway) getting vastly more spent on tracking down their misdemeanors - go figure

[Stom]

By the standards of most Brits he is a lefty loon, and for me at least I'd hoped we'd reached a point wherein Corbyn and those of a similar ilk would be confined to the SWP leaving Labour to go forwards as a Social Democratic party. Sadly instead the inmates have taken over the asylum and we're going to have to waste a lot of time going at least until the next general election it seems until there's a chance for some order to return. And I don't just blame Corbyn for this, but also those in the middle ground and to the right of the Labour party who are allowing us to continue without a credible opposition to the government.

In what way is he a lunatic?

Most of what he's actually said makes sense, and he is the leader of the UK's only mainstream socialist party...

What do you define as Social Democrat?

Oh, and mods: why is language like this allowed against the left, and not against the right?

On second thoughts, don't bother. You're both rather right wing...

Presents no electable platform, sits way to the left of Ed Milliband who was firmly rejected by the voters, consorts with some extremely distasteful sorts, struggles to speak without putting his foot in his mouth, alludes towards bringing politeness into politics but is frankly snide and disrespectful and perhaps even believes his cause worthier, policies such as printing money to invest in capital infrastructure or build the trident subs to protect jobs but arm them with toblerones, ignore mass resignations of his parliamentary part, appoint loons other than himself to senior shadow cabinet positions....

Social democracy I'd hold to be a blend of free market and socialist values with no one flavour.

And if you want to talk language used then perhaps labeling sum as the 'loony left' is insulting, but the language coming the other way labels myself and I'm supposing SandyDragon as elitist scum, repellant and inane. Thus even if my commentary is offensive I'd contend it's far less so, not that I'd actually thought on the comments coming my way until you complained that language is allowed.

a) You seem to be conflating political views with marketing. Just because they failed at the latter doesn't mean the former doesn't have resonance, as it does.

b) How would you align free market capitalism with socialism?

c) Well, there is somewhat a lack of discourse in here now...

[Donny osmond]

In what way is he a lunatic?

Most of what he's actually said makes sense, and he is the leader of the UK's only mainstream socialist party...

What do you define as Social Democrat?

Oh, and mods: why is language like this allowed against the left, and not against the right?

On second thoughts, don't bother. You're both rather right wing...

Presents no electable platform, sits way to the left of Ed Milliband who was firmly rejected by the voters, consorts with some extremely distasteful sorts, struggles to speak without putting his foot in his mouth, alludes towards bringing politeness into politics but is frankly snide and disrespectful and perhaps even believes his cause worthier, policies such as printing money to invest in capital infrastructure or build the trident subs to protect jobs but arm them with toblerones, ignore mass resignations of his parliamentary part, appoint loons other than himself to senior shadow cabinet positions....

Social democracy I'd hold to be a blend of free market and socialist values with no one flavour.

And if you want to talk language used then perhaps labeling sum as the 'loony left' is insulting, but the language coming the other way labels myself and I'm supposing SandyDragon as elitist scum, repellant and inane. Thus even if my commentary is offensive I'd contend it's far less so, not that I'd actually thought on the comments coming my way until you complained that language is allowed.

a) You seem to be conflating political views with marketing. Just because they failed at the latter doesn't mean the former doesn't have resonance, as it does.

b) How would you align free market capitalism with socialism?

c) Well, there is somewhat a lack of discourse in here now...

I'd say there's a pretty discourse developing on this thread. You might not agree with some of it, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

[Sandydragon]

Presents no electable platform, sits way to the left of Ed Milliband who was firmly rejected by the voters, consorts with some extremely distasteful sorts, struggles to speak without putting his foot in his mouth, alludes towards bringing politeness into politics but is frankly snide and disrespectful and perhaps even believes his cause worthier, policies such as printing money to invest in capital infrastructure or build the trident subs to protect jobs but arm them with toblerones, ignore mass resignations of his parliamentary part, appoint loons other than himself to senior shadow cabinet positions....

Social democracy I'd hold to be a blend of free market and socialist values with no one flavour.

And if you want to talk language used then perhaps labeling sum as the 'loony left' is insulting, but the language coming the other way labels myself and I'm supposing SandyDragon as elitist scum, repellant and inane. Thus even if my commentary is offensive I'd contend it's far less so, not that I'd actually thought on the comments coming my way until you complained that language is allowed.

a) You seem to be conflating political views with marketing. Just because they failed at the latter doesn't mean the former doesn't have resonance, as it does.

b) How would you align free market capitalism with socialism?

c) Well, there is somewhat a lack of discourse in here now...

I'd say there's a pretty discourse developing on this thread. You might not agree with some of it, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Exactly. Unless you want everyone saying the same stuff, you need to treat other posters with some respect. Repeated abuse makes people less likely to engage.

Note, this has nothing to do with opinion, just the way in which it is articulated.

[Donny osmond]

By way of adding to the discourse, it was mentioned on radio 4 this morning that there is talk of launching a centre left business friendly party, which would split the traditional labour party. Think its a good idea myself, in terms of seeing what left wing voters really want, socialist ideology versus a more socially aware pragmatic party. However it might end up playing into conservative hands, assuming they don't rip themselves apart in the meantime.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

[Stom]

By way of adding to the discourse, it was mentioned on radio 4 this morning that there is talk of launching a centre left business friendly party, which would split the traditional labour party. Think its a good idea myself, in terms of seeing what left wing voters really want, socialist ideology versus a more socially aware pragmatic party. However it might end up playing into conservative hands, assuming they don't rip themselves apart in the meantime.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

So long as it includes all the Blairites currently trying to oust Corbyn, leaving the true socialists with a PLP that represents their views...

On the discourse, it's really hard to argue any points when you're confronted with a wall of dogma and no way through it. Therefore a political board dies a death.

It's much like politics, anyway: Westminster is so detached from the populace that it continues to make huge mistakes. Like the ref. I mean, it was blatantly obvious the remain campaign was failing to target anyone's fears, but they are still adamant they got it right...

Throw in the fact that even the Guardian is being run by a right winger and you get to see the problem. There is just no mainstream media representation of the views that real people have. And considering those likely to get their news from multiple sources are also those least likely to vote, you have a problem of representation.

I just fail to see how anyone who hasn't been brainwashed can look at the economic system of the past 20 years and say yes, that has been a success, let's keep at it. That economic system flat out destroys any possibility of social policy, thanks to dogma that just isn't true.

I also would like to comment on the "compromise" point. Those on the left of the spectrum are always asked to water down their views and move right. But those on the right always fail to acknowledge that they need to water down their views, and that does not mean gay marriage. Gay marriage is not a right or left PoV, it's a liberal PoV. And as we've seen with the LibDems, Liberal can mean right wing, too.

If the right leaning posters want to have some compromise, they need to give up some of that economic dogma.

[Digby]

If the right leaning posters want to have some compromise, they need to give up some of that economic dogma.

I'd prefer to see people govern with a mandate the voters actually give and not just on a FPP we can do what went want basis, though I can't see the centre right thinking they need to compromise much when they're electable and the opposition isn't, indeed they're free to move still further right as things stand.

[Digby]

By way of adding to the discourse, it was mentioned on radio 4 this morning that there is talk of launching a centre left business friendly party, which would split the traditional labour party. Think its a good idea myself, in terms of seeing what left wing voters really want, socialist ideology versus a more socially aware pragmatic party. However it might end up playing into conservative hands, assuming they don't rip themselves apart in the meantime.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure they need launch a new party with the Lib Dems already having infrastructure and similar views to those on the right of the Labour party, but maybe it could work. I still think the Conservatives should split too, but perhaps if we're out of Europe and there aren't any serious moves to get us back in they'll hold with what they've got for now.

[Donny osmond]

So long as it includes all the Blairites currently trying to oust Corbyn, leaving the true socialists with a PLP that represents their views...

On the discourse, it's really hard to argue any points when you're confronted with a wall of dogma and no way through it. Therefore a political board dies a death.

That's a 2 way street tho. Witness what happens to anyone on here who doesn't sign up to the "neo-liberal bad neo-cons bad you're all brain washed uber right wing muppets" stuff that gets served up. A political board dies a death when pejorative judgements are made about people who don't hold to the same ideology as a poster or group of posters. That goes for judgements made about right Wong posters just as much as judgements made about left wing posters.

It's much like politics, anyway: Westminster is so detached from the populace that it continues to make huge mistakes. Like the ref. I mean, it was blatantly obvious the remain campaign was failing to target anyone's fears, but they are still adamant they got it right...

Throw in the fact that even the Guardian is being run by a right winger and you get to see the problem. There is just no mainstream media representation of the views that real people have. And considering those likely to get their news from multiple sources are also those least likely to vote, you have a problem of representation.

I just fail to see how anyone who hasn't been brainwashed can look at the economic system of the past 20 years and say yes, that has been a success, let's keep at it. That economic system flat out destroys any possibility of social policy, thanks to dogma that just isn't true.

I also would like to comment on the "compromise" point. Those on the left of the spectrum are always asked to water down their views and move right. But those on the right always fail to acknowledge that they need to water down their views, and that does not mean gay marriage. Gay marriage is not a right or left PoV, it's a liberal PoV. And as we've seen with the LibDems, Liberal can mean right wing, too.

If the right leaning posters want to have some compromise, they need to give up some of that economic dogma.

And there's your problem. You're continually refusing to accept that views other than hours may have any validity. Anyone who views that last 20 years differently to you has been, in your words, "brainwashed". THAT'S what kills political discourse.

Sandy was referring to the upward spiral in global living standards over that last number of decades, the collapse in numbers of people living in absolute poverty. These things are measurable and observable. Dismiss the ideology if you want, but if you want to dismiss the statistics you need a better case than just " you're brainwashed".

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

[Donny osmond]

By way of adding to the discourse, it was mentioned on radio 4 this morning that there is talk of launching a centre left business friendly party, which would split the traditional labour party. Think its a good idea myself, in terms of seeing what left wing voters really want, socialist ideology versus a more socially aware pragmatic party. However it might end up playing into conservative hands, assuming they don't rip themselves apart in the meantime.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure they need launch a new party with the Lib Dems already having infrastructure and similar views to those on the right of the Labour party, but maybe it could work. I still think the Conservatives should split too, but perhaps if we're out of Europe and there aren't any serious moves to get us back in they'll hold with what they've got for now.

I quite like the LDs but they need rebranding, for now its too toxic following their 5 heady years of power.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

[Zhivago]

Id argue with the premise that the poorer in western societies aren't better off as a result of policies enacted over the past decades. Undoubtedly they are much better off financially and in quality of life than previously. The advancements have been brought about via the private sector, not so much government,although undoubtedly some legislation has assisted.

What many if thefar left seem to want is a return to 1953 where unions were king and the UK boasted jobs for life in heavy industry and manufacturing. There is also too much focus on the gap between the richest and poorest rather than the overall improvement in everyones situation.

The biggest bar to advancement in this country is education. Social mobility was higher when grammar schools allowed poorer children to get ahead. It was the left which championed their abolition. the dog whistle politics of the left (and right) at the moment seem to offer solutions for the problems that do exist, but in effect will only turn back the clock on progress for everyone.

Id much rather that we stopped bashing the rich, who contribute the lions share of the taxes the Treasury uses to fund services and benefits to everyone else, and concentrate on how best to make Britain more of a meritocracy, i.e. make social advancement easier.

If you think Corbyn is far left, that just shows how right wing you are. He's not calling for any real revolution, just reform.

[Digby]

By way of adding to the discourse, it was mentioned on radio 4 this morning that there is talk of launching a centre left business friendly party, which would split the traditional labour party. Think its a good idea myself, in terms of seeing what left wing voters really want, socialist ideology versus a more socially aware pragmatic party. However it might end up playing into conservative hands, assuming they don't rip themselves apart in the meantime.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure they need launch a new party with the Lib Dems already having infrastructure and similar views to those on the right of the Labour party, but maybe it could work. I still think the Conservatives should split too, but perhaps if we're out of Europe and there aren't any serious moves to get us back in they'll hold with what they've got for now.

I quite like the LDs but they need rebranding, for now its too toxic following their 5 heady years of power.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

I never quite got the LDs being toxic, or at least it seems very odd to me. The move on tuition fees was a big mistake having benefited so much from it in the election, and there we see the party leadership trying to hive off a policy they never wanted foisted on them in the first place by the party, but really in the grand scheme it's a minor thing and what was really expected of the minority government party? On balance I thought both the Conservatives and he Lib Dems handled the situation about as well as could be expected given the mess left on our doorsteps by the banks - and it was we the electorate who voted in a fashion to create such a coalition. I do think it'd be fair to note until they were in power the Lib Dems were free to campaign at a more local level with a message that seemed to vary more than a little from the actual manifesto, and once they were accountable it was harder to campaign as 3 or 4 different parties with different messages in different parts of the country, that they couldn't play such games in the last election is on them for their past behaviour

I'm not sure the LDs are going anywhere for a while, and certainly not with a leader who's akin to a hermit. Oddly I may yet vote for them if they do go with a strongly pro European campaign, but I don't tend to notice 10 millions votes responding to my direction. Still if one voted for them in 2010 it was a very similar party in 2015, and yet many did feel betrayed, which as per the start of this post I find odd given it couldn't have gone vastly differently

[Sandydragon]

By way of adding to the discourse, it was mentioned on radio 4 this morning that there is talk of launching a centre left business friendly party, which would split the traditional labour party. Think its a good idea myself, in terms of seeing what left wing voters really want, socialist ideology versus a more socially aware pragmatic party. However it might end up playing into conservative hands, assuming they don't rip themselves apart in the meantime.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

I heard that as well, seems like a great idea to me.

[Sandydragon]

By way of adding to the discourse, it was mentioned on radio 4 this morning that there is talk of launching a centre left business friendly party, which would split the traditional labour party. Think its a good idea myself, in terms of seeing what left wing voters really want, socialist ideology versus a more socially aware pragmatic party. However it might end up playing into conservative hands, assuming they don't rip themselves apart in the meantime.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure they need launch a new party with the Lib Dems already having infrastructure and similar views to those on the right of the Labour party, but maybe it could work. I still think the Conservatives should split too, but perhaps if we're out of Europe and there aren't any serious moves to get us back in they'll hold with what they've got for now.

I quite like the LDs but they need rebranding, for now its too toxic following their 5 heady years of power.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

The LDs were the ultimate protest group. They could literally promise anything in the expectation of getting nowhere near any real power at a national level. When they got there, and had to compromise (that word again) it all went a bit wrong.

I don't think they did so badly in power. But the expectations placed on them caused a massive loss of confidence when not realized.

[Stom]

So long as it includes all the Blairites currently trying to oust Corbyn, leaving the true socialists with a PLP that represents their views...

On the discourse, it's really hard to argue any points when you're confronted with a wall of dogma and no way through it. Therefore a political board dies a death.

That's a 2 way street tho. Witness what happens to anyone on here who doesn't sign up to the "neo-liberal bad neo-cons bad you're all brain washed uber right wing muppets" stuff that gets served up. A political board dies a death when pejorative judgements are made about people who don't hold to the same ideology as a poster or group of posters. That goes for judgements made about right Wong posters just as much as judgements made about left wing posters.

It's much like politics, anyway: Westminster is so detached from the populace that it continues to make huge mistakes. Like the ref. I mean, it was blatantly obvious the remain campaign was failing to target anyone's fears, but they are still adamant they got it right...

Throw in the fact that even the Guardian is being run by a right winger and you get to see the problem. There is just no mainstream media representation of the views that real people have. And considering those likely to get their news from multiple sources are also those least likely to vote, you have a problem of representation.

I just fail to see how anyone who hasn't been brainwashed can look at the economic system of the past 20 years and say yes, that has been a success, let's keep at it. That economic system flat out destroys any possibility of social policy, thanks to dogma that just isn't true.

I also would like to comment on the "compromise" point. Those on the left of the spectrum are always asked to water down their views and move right. But those on the right always fail to acknowledge that they need to water down their views, and that does not mean gay marriage. Gay marriage is not a right or left PoV, it's a liberal PoV. And as we've seen with the LibDems, Liberal can mean right wing, too.

If the right leaning posters want to have some compromise, they need to give up some of that economic dogma.

And there's your problem. You're continually refusing to accept that views other than hours may have any validity. Anyone who views that last 20 years differently to you has been, in your words, "brainwashed". THAT'S what kills political discourse.

Sandy was referring to the upward spiral in global living standards over that last number of decades, the collapse in numbers of people living in absolute poverty. These things are measurable and observable. Dismiss the ideology if you want, but if you want to dismiss the statistics you need a better case than just " you're brainwashed".

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

It's not my views I want anyone to recognise. It's reality. I don't care if you agree with my views, unless I'm trying to get elected which isn't going to happen...

The problem is one of brainwashing, though. You read certain media, hear certain media, watch certain media. All that media spouts the same information. All that information goes against the truth. However much you want to dress it up, recent economic policy has been completely arse about face. No matter whether you're right wing or left wing, if you're not already well off, economic policy will hurt you.

[Donny osmond]

I'm not sure they need launch a new party with the Lib Dems already having infrastructure and similar views to those on the right of the Labour party, but maybe it could work. I still think the Conservatives should split too, but perhaps if we're out of Europe and there aren't any serious moves to get us back in they'll hold with what they've got for now.

I quite like the LDs but they need rebranding, for now its too toxic following their 5 heady years of power.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

I never quite got the LDs being toxic, or at least it seems very odd to me. The move on tuition fees was a big mistake having benefited so much from it in the election, and there we see the party leadership trying to hive off a policy they never wanted foisted on them in the first place by the party, but really in the grand scheme it's a minor thing and what was really expected of the minority government party? On balance I thought both the Conservatives and he Lib Dems handled the situation about as well as could be expected given the mess left on our doorsteps by the banks - and it was we the electorate who voted in a fashion to create such a coalition. I do think it'd be fair to note until they were in power the Lib Dems were free to campaign at a more local level with a message that seemed to vary more than a little from the actual manifesto, and once they were accountable it was harder to campaign as 3 or 4 different parties with different messages in different parts of the country, that they couldn't play such games in the last election is on them for their past behaviour

I'm not sure the LDs are going anywhere for a while, and certainly not with a leader who's akin to a hermit. Oddly I may yet vote for them if they do go with a strongly pro European campaign, but I don't tend to notice 10 millions votes responding to my direction. Still if one voted for them in 2010 it was a very similar party in 2015, and yet many did feel betrayed, which as per the start of this post I find odd given it couldn't have gone vastly differently

Its been alluded to several times in this thread - the difference between how good or bad a policy is and how the public perceive that policy is what makes the difference between good and bad politicians. The LDs were seen, rightly or wrongly, as being bad at politics regardless of what one thought of the uni fees policy. Once they got that tag, in today's soundbite world it was never going to shift.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

[Sandydragon]

By way of adding to the discourse, it was mentioned on radio 4 this morning that there is talk of launching a centre left business friendly party, which would split the traditional labour party. Think its a good idea myself, in terms of seeing what left wing voters really want, socialist ideology versus a more socially aware pragmatic party. However it might end up playing into conservative hands, assuming they don't rip themselves apart in the meantime.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

So long as it includes all the Blairites currently trying to oust Corbyn, leaving the true socialists with a PLP that represents their views...

On the discourse, it's really hard to argue any points when you're confronted with a wall of dogma and no way through it. Therefore a political board dies a death.

It's much like politics, anyway: Westminster is so detached from the populace that it continues to make huge mistakes. Like the ref. I mean, it was blatantly obvious the remain campaign was failing to target anyone's fears, but they are still adamant they got it right...

Throw in the fact that even the Guardian is being run by a right winger and you get to see the problem. There is just no mainstream media representation of the views that real people have. And considering those likely to get their news from multiple sources are also those least likely to vote, you have a problem of representation.

I just fail to see how anyone who hasn't been brainwashed can look at the economic system of the past 20 years and say yes, that has been a success, let's keep at it. That economic system flat out destroys any possibility of social policy, thanks to dogma that just isn't true.

I also would like to comment on the "compromise" point. Those on the left of the spectrum are always asked to water down their views and move right. But those on the right always fail to acknowledge that they need to water down their views, and that does not mean gay marriage. Gay marriage is not a right or left PoV, it's a liberal PoV. And as we've seen with the LibDems, Liberal can mean right wing, too.

If the right leaning posters want to have some compromise, they need to give up some of that economic dogma.

No one is asking you to water down your views. Just to treat other posters with a degree of respect. If one poster treats others with contempt, this place descends into a pointless mess of abuse and people steer clear.

Its not the views that are the problem, its the manner in other posters are treated. I can repeat this all day long if necessary.