|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 8, 2019 13:48:41 GMT
I'm not sure if this has been picked up anywhere else, but I note that Iain Lindley, original founder of this forum and until recently a Salford Tory Councillor, has left the Conservatives and is describing himself as 'politically homeless' on Twitter. Seems to have been that he was backing Hunt but then got upset over the fox-hunting issue. He was always very much on the left of the party and not really a Conservative - there seemed to be a whole bunch of these types in the Manchester area who posted here and on the previous site. Not that he is remotely as personally obnoxious as someone like Anna Soubrey, but the Conservative party is really going to be better off without these types
|
|
|
Post by polaris on Jul 8, 2019 14:51:04 GMT
I'm not sure if this has been picked up anywhere else, but I note that Iain Lindley, original founder of this forum and until recently a Salford Tory Councillor, has left the Conservatives and is describing himself as 'politically homeless' on Twitter. Eventually all these 'politically homeless' centrists are going to have to decide whether they wish to join the LibDems or not, given the failure of ChUK to make any progress. I suspect that a lot will simply walk away from politics and find something else to occupy their time.
Which is a shame - look at America, which is further down the track of upost-truth politics than we are - and you will see the legislative benches filling up with blowhards and hucksters. Toxic political cultures put good people off getting involved in politics.
|
|
|
Post by polaris on Jul 8, 2019 14:51:52 GMT
I'm not sure if this has been picked up anywhere else, but I note that Iain Lindley, original founder of this forum and until recently a Salford Tory Councillor, has left the Conservatives and is describing himself as 'politically homeless' on Twitter. Seems to have been that he was backing Hunt but then got upset over the fox-hunting issue. He was always very much on the left of the party and not really a Conservative - there seemed to be a whole bunch of these types in the Manchester area who posted here and on the previous site. Not that he is remotely as personally obnoxious as someone like Anna Soubrey, but the Conservative party is really going to be better off without these types People like you and Merseymike really are like mirror images of each other....
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 8, 2019 14:59:33 GMT
Seems to have been that he was backing Hunt but then got upset over the fox-hunting issue. He was always very much on the left of the party and not really a Conservative - there seemed to be a whole bunch of these types in the Manchester area who posted here and on the previous site. Not that he is remotely as personally obnoxious as someone like Anna Soubrey, but the Conservative party is really going to be better off without these types People like you and Merseymike really are like mirror images of each other.... Since when have I disagreed? We have entirely different politics, but both think that we need more than just two large, value-free blocs of centrists to vote for, dominated by people who prefer a cosy consensus and have very little to divide them. There should be a place for a centre party, but also for straightforward Socialist and Conservative options too - and other parties reflecting the diversity of political beliefs
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 8, 2019 15:00:46 GMT
The problem is, in the long term, if all the sensible middle ground people decide that party politics isn't good for them, then we're left with extremists. No middle ground, no consensus, no debate, no discussion. That's not healthy. That's not democratic. But isn't that why party politics should include centre parties? It does rather appear that centrists have a reluctance to go it alone
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 8, 2019 15:13:27 GMT
The problem is, in the long term, if all the sensible middle ground people decide that party politics isn't good for them, then we're left with extremists. No middle ground, no consensus, no debate, no discussion. That's not healthy. That's not democratic. Is that how you see yourself? 'sensible, middle ground' ? I've got news for you if it is..
|
|
|
Post by polaris on Jul 8, 2019 15:25:09 GMT
The problem is, in the long term, if all the sensible middle ground people decide that party politics isn't good for them, then we're left with extremists. No middle ground, no consensus, no debate, no discussion. That's not healthy. That's not democratic. That's the key point. The two sides don't debate. They just shout abuse at each other, rally their own tribes, and periodically persecute any dissenters or independent thinkers in their own ranks. There's no attempt to win people over to your point of view, or to understand why other people may feel differently - Merseymike is a case in point, telling people that he doesn't want them to vote for his party! There's also a terrifying level of certainty in one's own rightness, with no capacity for self-awareness or self-criticism.
In the States, this has led to political gridlock, because of the checks-and-balances which the founders of the nation wrote into the Constitution.
But here, where we don't have a separation of powers or a written constitution, this style of politics could lead to something much darker and nastier - right-wing authoritarianism like Erdogan, or a corrupt Maduro-style regime on the left.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 8, 2019 15:27:50 GMT
The problem is, in the long term, if all the sensible middle ground people decide that party politics isn't good for them, then we're left with extremists. No middle ground, no consensus, no debate, no discussion. That's not healthy. That's not democratic. That's the key point. The two sides don't debate. They just shout abuse at each other, rally their own tribes, and periodically persecute any dissenters or independent thinkers in their own ranks. There's no attempt to win people over to your point of view, or to understand why other people may feel differently - Merseymike is a case in point, telling people that he doesn't want them to vote for his party! There's also a terrifying level of certainty in one's own rightness, with no capacity for self-awareness or self-criticism.
In the States, this has led to political gridlock, because of the checks-and-balances which the founders of the nation wrote into the Constitution.
But here, where we don't have a separation of powers or a written constitution, this style of politics could lead to something much darker and nastier - right-wing authoritarianism like Erdogan, or a corrupt Maduro-style regime on the left.
So, if centrism is so appealing, work within centrist parties to argue for your case. Do you really have to piggy-back on the parties of left and right, do you have so little intrinsic appeal ? Of course I won't bother to try and win you over to my point of view, because from your first day here you made it clear that you loathe anything to the left of ChUK, so what would be the point? For the same reason, it would be bizarre if you chose to vote for my party, su unless you change your politics, which I would have thought was unlikely, of course I don't want or expect you to vote for a left wing party
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 8, 2019 15:48:35 GMT
The problem is, in the long term, if all the sensible middle ground people decide that party politics isn't good for them, then we're left with extremists. No middle ground, no consensus, no debate, no discussion. That's not healthy. That's not democratic. That's the key point. The two sides don't debate. They just shout abuse at each other, rally their own tribes, and periodically persecute any dissenters or independent thinkers in their own ranks. There's no attempt to win people over to your point of view, or to understand why other people may feel differently - Merseymike is a case in point, telling people that he doesn't want them to vote for his party! There's also a terrifying level of certainty in one's own rightness, with no capacity for self-awareness or self-criticism.
In the States, this has led to political gridlock, because of the checks-and-balances which the founders of the nation wrote into the Constitution.
But here, where we don't have a separation of powers or a written constitution, this style of politics could lead to something much darker and nastier - right-wing authoritarianism like Erdogan, or a corrupt Maduro-style regime on the left.
It isn't "Centerism" as such but political moderation, both in terms of policy and - more importantly in my view - of political culture. I never thought I would see the Tory party adopt the political leninism to go alongside that of the left, but weirdly it has come to pass. It's not even about certainty.
I would also disagree with your last para. A written constitution is the last thing we need, given the opportunities it would give people to change it in all sorts of unfortunate ways. A big part of the US problem is the presidential system - no running opposition to the ruling government.
|
|
|
Post by polaris on Jul 8, 2019 15:54:06 GMT
That's the key point. The two sides don't debate. They just shout abuse at each other, rally their own tribes, and periodically persecute any dissenters or independent thinkers in their own ranks. There's no attempt to win people over to your point of view, or to understand why other people may feel differently - Merseymike is a case in point, telling people that he doesn't want them to vote for his party! There's also a terrifying level of certainty in one's own rightness, with no capacity for self-awareness or self-criticism.
In the States, this has led to political gridlock, because of the checks-and-balances which the founders of the nation wrote into the Constitution.
But here, where we don't have a separation of powers or a written constitution, this style of politics could lead to something much darker and nastier - right-wing authoritarianism like Erdogan, or a corrupt Maduro-style regime on the left.
So, if centrism is so appealing, work within centrist parties to argue for your case. Do you really have to piggy-back on the parties of left and right, do you have so little intrinsic appeal ? Of course I won't bother to try and win you over to my point of view, because from your first day here you made it clear that you loathe anything to the left of ChUK, so what would be the point? For the same reason, it would be bizarre if you chose to vote for my party, su unless you change your politics, which I would have thought was unlikely, of course I don't want or expect you to vote for a left wing party
Personally, I think there is a lot to be said for a two-party system where there are ideological and class differences between the parties, but also a degree of pragmatism and consensus on the rules of the game, like Britain in the 1950s and 1960s, although that may not be a realistic aspiration in this 'Age of Rage'.
I'm never sure what a 'centrist' is, other than a term of abuse bandied around by the hard left (and sometimes by the hard right). I don't see centrism as an ideology, but just a way of doing politics - that builds consensus and is focused on getting things done for other people, rather than proving one's own ideological purity. There ought to be room for people like that on both the left and the right, not just in the LibDems or Change UK.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 8, 2019 16:02:38 GMT
So, if centrism is so appealing, work within centrist parties to argue for your case. Do you really have to piggy-back on the parties of left and right, do you have so little intrinsic appeal ? Of course I won't bother to try and win you over to my point of view, because from your first day here you made it clear that you loathe anything to the left of ChUK, so what would be the point? For the same reason, it would be bizarre if you chose to vote for my party, su unless you change your politics, which I would have thought was unlikely, of course I don't want or expect you to vote for a left wing party
Personally, I think there is a lot to be said for a two-party system where there are ideological and class differences between the parties, but also a degree of pragmatism and consensus on the rules of the game, like Britain in the 1950s and 1960s, although that may not be a realistic aspiration in this 'Age of Rage'.
I'm never sure what a 'centrist' is, other than a term of abuse bandied around by the hard left (and sometimes by the hard right). I don't see centrism as an ideology, but just a way of doing politics - that builds consensus and is focused on getting things done for other people, rather than proving one's own ideological purity. There ought to be room for people like that on both the left and the right, not just in the LibDems or Change UK.
Trouble is, that ended up with two parties who often couldn't be told apart. And particularly in the post-Thatcher years, there was plenty on offer if you were essentially centre-right, but very little if you were on the left (other than on what might be called social/cultural issues) You have really given it away when you say that you don't see 'centrism' as an ideology. Thats actually a very neo-marxist way of looking at the world - seeing everything that isn't what you believe in as 'ideological', and portraying your views as 'common-sense' and above ideology. Simply not the case. Centrism and the very aim of seeking consensus is itself an ideology and says something about the way you view the world. You certainly have aims, but they are largely to 'keep things as they are' - and that in itself is an ideological statement. As I say, there is still room for that point of view, but you seem to regard it as some sort of affront that some of us find it unsatisfactory - and want our left or right wing parties to be more genuinely left or right wing, rather than constantly trimming to the centre and looking towards 'building consensus'. I don't think that in itself is a worthy aim. Consensus FOR what? Doing things the way they have always been done. Resisting radical change?
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 8, 2019 16:42:56 GMT
Have you entirely written off your former party?
There are plenty of options for people who aren't Tory or Labour.
|
|
|
Post by BossMan on Jul 8, 2019 17:09:57 GMT
I'm not sure if this has been picked up anywhere else, but I note that Iain Lindley, original founder of this forum and until recently a Salford Tory Councillor, has left the Conservatives and is describing himself as 'politically homeless' on Twitter. In that case I shall make my illustrious predecessor Non Aligned. I'm sure he'll let me know if he changes his mind. linders
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jul 8, 2019 18:24:29 GMT
It reflects the post-crash state of politics and the shrinking middle class. If and when one of our groups wins a decisive victory and effects radical change, a new consensus may be forged and politics could stabilise around that. We're often portrayed as the 'compromise' position because of Clegg's branding on the economy and the fact that we take issue more with social policy, but even if the state as a % of GDP might be somewhere between Labour's and the Conservatives' ideals, it would be structured quite differently according to the current manifesto. Do you want to rejoin the group, doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️?
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,723
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 8, 2019 18:49:07 GMT
What I mean is, if people retreat to the fringes (you're either Brexit or wrong, there's no nuance) then we all suffer. The US is a prime example. I haven't given up on the LibDems. They're the only sane voice on a lot of things at the moment, given both "main" parties seem so obsessed with shooting off to the extremes.
If the LibDems would moderate the current Brexit=RacistMoronXenophobes* a bit, you'd have something there.
*though there is more understanding of nuance the closer to the grass roots and the further away from the bright-eyed idealists you get.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 8, 2019 19:07:24 GMT
What I mean is, if people retreat to the fringes (you're either Brexit or wrong, there's no nuance) then we all suffer. The US is a prime example. I haven't given up on the LibDems. They're the only sane voice on a lot of things at the moment, given both "main" parties seem so obsessed with shooting off to the extremes. But surely on Brexit, the LibDems are on the extreme ? They want to deny the outcome of the referendum and remain no matter what Whereas I voted remain but somewhat reluctantly and if there was a second referendum am unsure how I would vote
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jul 8, 2019 19:13:59 GMT
What I mean is, if people retreat to the fringes (you're either Brexit or wrong, there's no nuance) then we all suffer. The US is a prime example. I haven't given up on the LibDems. They're the only sane voice on a lot of things at the moment, given both "main" parties seem so obsessed with shooting off to the extremes. But surely on Brexit, the LibDems are on the extreme ? They want to deny the outcome of the referendum and remain no matter what Whereas I voted remain but somewhat reluctantly and if there was a second referendum am unsure how I would vote No. They don't want to "deny the outcome of the referendum". They (at the moment at least) want the public to have the final say on any arrangement for leaving. There are some within the party who want to revoke Art.50 and remain without a further referendum. I strongly disagree with that view. If it was to become party policy I would find it very difficult to defend.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 8, 2019 19:16:54 GMT
But surely on Brexit, the LibDems are on the extreme ? They want to deny the outcome of the referendum and remain no matter what Whereas I voted remain but somewhat reluctantly and if there was a second referendum am unsure how I would vote No. They don't want to "deny the outcome of the referendum". They (at the moment at least) want the public to have the final say on any arrangement for leaving. There are some within the party who want to revoke Art.50 and remain without a further referendum. I strongly disagree with that view. If it was to become party policy I would find it very difficult to defend. Well, its the latter view which is being heard - 'vote for us to 'stop brexit', 'bollocks to Brexit' etc. Thats not about the public having a say - its 'vote for us and we will stop Brexit'
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,167
|
Post by Jack on Jul 8, 2019 19:23:32 GMT
But surely on Brexit, the LibDems are on the extreme ? They want to deny the outcome of the referendum and remain no matter what Whereas I voted remain but somewhat reluctantly and if there was a second referendum am unsure how I would vote No. They don't want to "deny the outcome of the referendum". They (at the moment at least) want the public to have the final say on any arrangement for leaving. There are some within the party who want to revoke Art.50 and remain without a further referendum. I strongly disagree with that view. If it was to become party policy I would find it very difficult to defend. www.libdems.org.uk/vote-pledge-eu" A vote for the Lib Dems is a vote to remain in Europe"
|
|
|
Post by Strontium Dog on Jul 8, 2019 19:53:47 GMT
Well, its the latter view which is being heard - 'vote for us to 'stop brexit', 'bollocks to Brexit' etc. Thats not about the public having a say - its 'vote for us and we will stop Brexit' It's surely both. Vote for us, and we will give you a confirmatory referendum, with which you can vote to stop Brexit. I'm sure you campaign on a platform of stopping the Tories, it doesn't mean you want to kick the government out without a democratic vote.
|
|