Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 13:14:42 GMT
Im borderline between the establishment and a misguided bigot! Clever poll! Both of us bang to rights! I think the bigot is harsh  |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 4, 2017 13:19:35 GMT
Clever poll! Both of us bang to rights! I think the bigot is harsh Harsh? Yes! But wear it with pride. Think of the nature of those conferring it. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Feb 4, 2017 13:23:55 GMT
You say it like it's a bad thing.  Collectivist! Only on Tuesdays and every other Friday. |
|
|
|
Post by Antiochian on Feb 4, 2017 13:56:09 GMT
Well I for one welcome the addition of more esoteric user groups, makes the colour scheme of the members list that little bit more interesting in my view. Do Liberals get a better shade of yellow than LibDems? |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Feb 4, 2017 14:02:04 GMT
Well I for one welcome the addition of more esoteric user groups, makes the colour scheme of the members list that little bit more interesting in my view. Do Liberals get a better shade of yellow than LibDems? Judge for yourself. Here's an example of a Liberal member's username: name2remember |
|
|
|
Post by froome on Feb 4, 2017 14:21:01 GMT
I thought Tory was a derogatory term that all Conservatives objected to. Is it now a half-way house for those moving from UKIP to Conservative? |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Feb 4, 2017 14:31:21 GMT
No, Tory is a perfectly acceptable term for a lot of Conservative supporters.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 4, 2017 15:22:53 GMT
I thought Tory was a derogatory term that all Conservatives objected to. Is it now a half-way house for those moving from UKIP to Conservative? Certainly not. We are the oldest part and precursor to the modern Conservative Party. For some time the battle of ideas and policy was between Tory and Whig. With the rise of Radicals and Liberals, most Tories and a substantial part of the Whigs morphed into the Conservatives. Then we had bolstering from Unionists and Protestants on a completely non-policy basis for protection. Then the follow on from periods of coalition added National to us as well. So we had Conservative Unionist, National Liberal, Liberal Unionist and Liberal-Conservative in the mix. Since the Wilson-Heath years all of that has tended to unscramble but the ethos lives on in the broad church which on this Forum embraces a range from Joe to me, which is quite a stretch. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 5, 2017 0:42:06 GMT
You can tell the Conservative Party isn't a broad church any more when statements like that last sentence can be made unironically.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 5, 2017 1:39:37 GMT
You can tell the Conservative Party isn't a broad church any more when statements like that last sentence can be made unironically. I must try harder. I thought the irony was succulent and tasty. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 5, 2017 12:45:50 GMT
Broader in terms of voters. In terms of the range of activist opinions, it's considerably narrower. It ranges from Thatcherites to metropolitan Thatcherites. The gulf of opinion between David Boothroyd and Merseymike is considerably broader than between any two Conservatives on this forum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 14:20:04 GMT
Well I for one welcome the addition of more esoteric user groups, makes the colour scheme of the members list that little bit more interesting in my view. Do Liberals get a better shade of yellow than LibDems? No, we get a light blue |
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Feb 5, 2017 15:56:47 GMT
Broader in terms of voters. In terms of the range of activist opinions, it's considerably narrower. It ranges from Thatcherites to metropolitan Thatcherites. The gulf of opinion between David Boothroyd and Merseymike is considerably broader than between any two Conservatives on this forum. And therein lies one of Labour's basic problems. Both parties are, and have to be, a broad church both in voters and in activists. But in the Labour Party, they perceive that breadth to be far greater and more problematic than do the Conservatives within their party. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2017 20:04:54 GMT
Broader in terms of voters. In terms of the range of activist opinions, it's considerably narrower. It ranges from Thatcherites to metropolitan Thatcherites. The gulf of opinion between David Boothroyd and Merseymike is considerably broader than between any two Conservatives on this forum. Carlton is more of a Powellite than a Thatcherite. What the governator would call an economic girly man. Our views on social issues are diametrically opposed. We (and the tory party more widely) are just not at each others throats so much. You thinking we are all the same is a bit like my gran thinking all Chinese people look the same. Its easier to notice differences when you are inside the tent. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Feb 6, 2017 8:03:55 GMT
Broader in terms of voters. In terms of the range of activist opinions, it's considerably narrower. It ranges from Thatcherites to metropolitan Thatcherites. The gulf of opinion between David Boothroyd and Merseymike is considerably broader than between any two Conservatives on this forum. Rubbish. They're both on the left whereas you can be an economic meddler and still be in the Conservative Party. There is a vast internal gulf in the Conservatives, but as Joe says above its easier to see the differences when you're in the tent. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Feb 6, 2017 8:21:55 GMT
Broader in terms of voters. In terms of the range of activist opinions, it's considerably narrower. It ranges from Thatcherites to metropolitan Thatcherites. The gulf of opinion between David Boothroyd and Merseymike is considerably broader than between any two Conservatives on this forum. Rubbish. They're both on the left whereas you can be an economic meddler and still be in the Conservative Party. There is a vast internal gulf in the Conservatives, but as Joe says above its easier to see the differences when you're in the tent. I think that's right. But of course the things that concern (and divide) activists are often invisible to ordinary voters, who tend to react to vague feelings about they think (frequently incorrectly) that the party represents. Thus the ubiquitous spinning, and complaints of media bias, directed to manipulating those vague feelings.
Many of the frequent defections of councillors reported here result from the fact that someone finds themself in the wrong party when they actually start to make real decisions, and find that they disagree with their "colleagues".
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 6, 2017 14:50:17 GMT
Broader in terms of voters. In terms of the range of activist opinions, it's considerably narrower. It ranges from Thatcherites to metropolitan Thatcherites. The gulf of opinion between David Boothroyd and Merseymike is considerably broader than between any two Conservatives on this forum. Rubbish. They're both on the left whereas you can be an economic meddler and still be in the Conservative Party. There is a vast internal gulf in the Conservatives, but as Joe says above its easier to see the differences when you're in the tent. Also I think the Conservatives are more united with regard to the place of markets. I appreciate that there are differences with regard to the role of government but you are all essentially pro-capitalist. Labour also tend to disagree on defence and foreign policy a lot more. Is that reasonable? |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Feb 6, 2017 15:35:50 GMT
Rubbish. They're both on the left whereas you can be an economic meddler and still be in the Conservative Party. There is a vast internal gulf in the Conservatives, but as Joe says above its easier to see the differences when you're in the tent. Also I think the Conservatives are more united with regard to the place of markets. I appreciate that there are differences with regard to the role of government but you are all essentially pro-capitalist. Labour also tend to disagree on defence and foreign policy a lot more. Is that reasonable? Yes, we are all pro-gravity. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Feb 6, 2017 15:53:29 GMT
Rubbish. They're both on the left whereas you can be an economic meddler and still be in the Conservative Party. There is a vast internal gulf in the Conservatives, but as Joe says above its easier to see the differences when you're in the tent. Also I think the Conservatives are more united with regard to the place of markets. I appreciate that there are differences with regard to the role of government but you are all essentially pro-capitalist. Labour also tend to disagree on defence and foreign policy a lot more. Is that reasonable? I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 6, 2017 15:57:15 GMT
Also I think the Conservatives are more united with regard to the place of markets. I appreciate that there are differences with regard to the role of government but you are all essentially pro-capitalist. Labour also tend to disagree on defence and foreign policy a lot more. Is that reasonable? Yes, we are all pro-gravity. Well Arthur, none of us are gravity deniers at present. There are implications within relativity that make it look at least different. Pro-gravity is another matter except for wishing to keep ones footing on the surface. |
|
