|
|
Post by anthony on Mar 11, 2013 13:22:25 GMT
Red lines mate, you either for or against it. So what if the numbers are against you, have a backbone and stand up against it. It is not a coalition policy you have no reason at all to support it . Yeah, you're kind of missing the point. No matter my personal view on this issue, there's a reasonable argument to be made for not just pissing in the wind - I can respect that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2013 13:41:26 GMT
Then that means any of your core policies are up for debate and modification.
Surely as a party (members and leaders) you have a red line which can not be crossed. Would you think OK for ID card if you can make 'modifications'. I do understand what you mean that you can modify BUT at some stage you have to stand up and say NO.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Mar 11, 2013 14:22:49 GMT
I'm confused by these people resigning their membership. By the conference vote it has been shown that the Party does not back these proposals and it is the leadership who are ignoring the Party (and indeed the President and deputy leader are opposing them). Unlike other parties, what the Party decides isn't what the leadership wants. Yes but does a party conference resolution have any meaning outside the delegates at the party conference? Lib Dem leaders in the past have sometimes taken an approach that the party policy, in the sense of how the media and electorate understand that term, is just what the manifesto offers and the leadership put forward, and awkward conference resolutions are nothing to do with them. |
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Mar 11, 2013 15:13:15 GMT
Then that means any of your core policies are up for debate and modification. No, it means there's a difference between tactics and strategy. Surely as a party (members and leaders) you have a red line which can not be crossed. Would you think OK for ID card if you can make 'modifications'. I do understand what you mean that you can modify BUT at some stage you have to stand up and say NO. I've no idea what the final sentence above means, but I think it's perfectly rational for someone to decide that rather than do something entirely pointless (like vote against something you know will pass) they might play their hand the best they can, and make the best of a bad job. I'm not saying I agree with what they've done, just that I understand their motivation. I'll give you an extreme example Ian; imagine I'm a pacifist (I'm not, btw) and someone breaks into my house and tries to harm my wife. I could stand there in front of him and say, "it's fundamental to my being that violence is wrong. I am appalled by what you're doing, but I'm not going to stop you." What happens is my wife gets hurt. But it's okay because I've kept my 'red lines'. Or, I could do what most people would do, and attempt to stop what would otherwise happen. I might not succeed, I might get hurt myself and I'd have been forced to do something that I and many other pacifists feel is wrong. Now, of course the real world isn't so clear. One could raise the question as to whether there were things that Clegg and Co could do; or indeed whether they've got enough of a compromise out of it (I suspect the compromise is actually somewhere else, some other government decision). |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,017
Member is Online
|
Post by Khunanup on Mar 11, 2013 19:13:49 GMT
I'm confused by these people resigning their membership. By the conference vote it has been shown that the Party does not back these proposals and it is the leadership who are ignoring the Party (and indeed the President and deputy leader are opposing them). Unlike other parties, what the Party decides isn't what the leadership wants. Yes but does a party conference resolution have any meaning outside the delegates at the party conference? Lib Dem leaders in the past have sometimes taken an approach that the party policy, in the sense of how the media and electorate understand that term, is just what the manifesto offers and the leadership put forward, and awkward conference resolutions are nothing to do with them. Yes, it is binding policy for the whole party and members know and understand that. If a policy is voted down at conference it cannot go in the manifesto and is the starting point of any negotiation. The leadership cherry pick from what conference pass but can't put anything they like in the manifesto and until it's superceded, any conference resolution remains policy. I think if the leadership distances themselves for the policy it's a useful reminder for the media that the leadership is not the Party, unfortunately, they just don't get it as neither the Reds or Blues work this way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2013 21:13:07 GMT
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,034
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Mar 11, 2013 21:55:06 GMT
Politics is about power.
|
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Mar 11, 2013 23:40:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by paulypaul on Mar 12, 2013 0:54:47 GMT
What on earth is an Independent Green? What description will go on his nomination paper? |
|
|
|
Post by paulypaul on Mar 12, 2013 1:21:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 12, 2013 7:55:54 GMT
Yes but does a party conference resolution have any meaning outside the delegates at the party conference? Lib Dem leaders in the past have sometimes taken an approach that the party policy, in the sense of how the media and electorate understand that term, is just what the manifesto offers and the leadership put forward, and awkward conference resolutions are nothing to do with them. Yes, it is binding policy for the whole party and members know and understand that. If a policy is voted down at conference it cannot go in the manifesto and is the starting point of any negotiation. The leadership cherry pick from what conference pass but can't put anything they like in the manifesto and until it's superceded, any conference resolution remains policy. I think if the leadership distances themselves for the policy it's a useful reminder for the media that the leadership is not the Party, unfortunately, they just don't get it as neither the Reds or Blues work this way. The manifesto is irrelevant, because that would be your program as a majority government. That isn't going to happen, and the leadership can negotiate what they like in the coalition agreement, because the membership aren't likely to reject it. On this particular issue, the manifesto is even more irrelevant, because it will be voted on before 2015 and the leadership have made clear that they'll be ignoring the party. More broadly, I can state from experience that many people derive exactly no comfort from the ordinary membership agreeing with them when their fellow members remain happy to be led by a leadership which doesn't agree with them. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,946
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 12, 2013 10:39:29 GMT
What on earth is an Independent Green? What description will go on his nomination paper? I think this is what is popularly known as "having your cake and eating it"  Clarke has rarely come across as somebody with a low estimation of himself, tbh..... |
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Mar 12, 2013 12:16:45 GMT
What on earth is an Independent Green? What description will go on his nomination paper? Yes, I think he might have some problems with that. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Mar 12, 2013 13:22:29 GMT
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,946
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 12, 2013 13:32:16 GMT
A (former) Liberal Democrat??  |
|
|
|
Post by paulypaul on Mar 12, 2013 14:03:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by paulypaul on Mar 12, 2013 14:12:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by anthony on Mar 12, 2013 14:33:49 GMT
A (former) Liberal Democrat?? One of the Lib Dem-appointees on the Bill of Rights Commission. |
|
|
|
Post by slicesofjim on Mar 12, 2013 17:13:02 GMT
Keith Morrell and Don Thomas, previously Labour to Independent (Labour Councillors Against the Cuts Group) will stand as part of TUSC when up for re-election. www.tusc.org.uk/bulletin50.php |
|
|
|
Post by paulypaul on Mar 13, 2013 15:50:46 GMT
|
|
