Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Mrs May - whither (or wither) the Tory Party

The issue du jour is fairly binary, despite Labour's attempt to take the middle ground, of which there is none, just a very high fence on which they are sitting in a very exposed position. So, for the next GE, Left Right and Centre are unimportant when contrasted with In/Out.

I think you over estimate the importance of Brexit to millions of voters, who are unable to fathom its chicanery and politics.

Most are more interested in their day to day life and things such as The NHS, transport and law and order.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
It's an interesting contrast between what (I think) history shows, and what the "politically active" think. Historically, if you want to win a General Election, you need the votes in the middle as well as the votes of either left or right. Abandon the middle, and you lose power. Refuse to acknowledge the centre, or your mistakes, and repeat your losses.

Take a look at the similarities...

Mrs T picked up the centre ground vote in 1979, because Labour/Unions had screwed the economy.. Then, as time went on, the "right" of the Party stopped being grateful for being in government, and started to flex their muscle. The Conservative party went "right", started talking about "wets", and tried to push their pet projects through. The community charge being a shiny example of idealist stupidity over pragmatism; and in 1997, they lose power.

The "right" of the Party then refused to admit that they might have pulled things too far from the centre, and insisted that the reason they'd lost was that they hadn't been "right" enough. So they get their choice into power (Hague), and lose an election in 2001. Replace them with further-"right"-thinking person (Howard), and lose an election in 2005. Finally, they pick a centrist leader, make themselves electable, and regain power in 2010 and again in 2015.

Same for Labour.

Blair picked up the centre ground vote in 1997. Then, as time went on, the "left" of the Party stopped being grateful for being in government, and started to flex their muscle. The Labour party went "left", started talking about "Blairites", and tried to push their pet projects through. The PFI and ID card schemes being a shiny example of idealist stupidity over pragmatism; and in 2010, they lose power.

The "left" of the Party then refused to admit that they might have pulled things too far from the centre, and insisted that the reason they'd lost was that they hadn't been "left" enough. So they get their choice into power (Milliband), and lose an election in 2015. Replace them with further "left"-thinking person (Corbyn), and lose an election in 2017. Finally, they pick a centrist leader, make themselves electable, and regain power in 2021. Yeah, right.
What are we left with then because you have described two Parties that got into power basically by lying about their aims. How do we stop this?

Or are we doomed to be controlled by the centrist voter who flip flops from one snowflake "initiative" to the next?

Do we need to whittle away the parties entitled to stand so that we become, officially, a two party state?

Or what...?
 

Joe_Private

On ROPS
On ROPs
I think you over estimate the importance of Brexit to millions of voters, who are unable to fathom its chicanery and politics.

Most are more interested in their day to day life and things such as The NHS, transport and law and order.
I think all parties will say that the NHS, transport, law and order, and every other issue will be better able to be addressed by them just as soon as we leave/remain/negotiate-a-new-deal-that-is-acceptable-to-everyone-then-hold-a-referendum-in-which-we-campaign-against-the-deal-we-negotiated. The Tories will do this with the £350million per week we save, the Illib Undems will do this using the money we save by not leaving, and Labour will do this by printing more money which they will use to buy every business into public ownership.
 
I think you over estimate the importance of Brexit to millions of voters, who are unable to fathom its chicanery and politics.

Most are more interested in their day to day life and things such as The NHS, transport and law and order.
Not sure that is the case. I agree all those issues are becoming more and more important but Brexit is the big deal and the main issue on the block at the moment. Once it's resolved either way then the NHS, Education etc become the major issues.
Look at the party political conferences it's all about in or out and most can't even agree other than the Lib Dems.
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
What are we left with then because you have described two Parties that got into power basically by lying about their aims. How do we stop this?

Or are we doomed to be controlled by the centrist voter who flip flops from one snowflake "initiative" to the next?

Do we need to whittle away the parties entitled to stand so that we become, officially, a two party state?

Or what...?
My one party state, with me as benign dictator and selected arrserati as Ministers.

You know it makes sense.
 
Not sure that is the case. I agree all those issues are becoming more and more important but Brexit is the big deal and the main issue on the block at the moment. Once it's resolved either way then the NHS, Education etc become the major issues.
Look at the party political conferences it's all about in or out and most can't even agree other than the Lib Dems.

Party conferences are only interesting to those interested in politics and those taking part. People who contribute on here, obviously have an interest in politics.

Your average person is too busy with a busy life to take that much of an in depth interest.

My workplace, a police station, is virtually bereft of chat about politics in general and Brexit. Most people want it over and done in the most advantageous way for the country, not really knowing what that is, so that the important things can be addressed.
 
1.Or are we doomed to be controlled by the centrist voter who flip flops from one snowflake "initiative" to the next?

2.Do we need to whittle away the parties entitled to stand so that we become, officially, a two party state?
1. Haven't we already been there for years? Since the tories under Thatcher targeted the middle ground both major parties have been courting what's become the snowflake generation(s).

2. That's where we are now in effect, the larger of the minority parties will probably stay that way paving the way for the continuence of the two party state, unless of course Joe public gets pi55ed off and votes for anything other than a Red or Blue rosette in large numbers!
 
Party conferences are only interesting to those interested in politics and those taking part. People who contribute on here, obviously have an interest in politics.

Your average person is too busy with a busy life to take that much of an in depth interest.

My workplace, a police station, is virtually bereft of chat about politics in general and Brexit. Most people want it over and done in the most advantageous way for the country, not really knowing what that is, so that the important things can be addressed.
I agree, but it's the the bouncy bunnies at the Conferences and those that wear the rosettes that call the tune. Having been a rosette wearer and a politico I know how busy it all is, hence the reason I no longer do it. It added years to my life and those blasted letterboxes cut my tender hands to pieces. Tip if you do it - take a spatula!
 

Tool

LE
I think you over estimate the importance of Brexit to millions of voters, who are unable to fathom its chicanery and politics.

Most are more interested in their day to day life and things such as The NHS, transport and law and order.
...and I feel you misunderstand the importance of Brexit (in name, rather than function). If the demoratic right of the poeple is not met by Brexit, why bother about the NHS, transport etc? Why vote for a party that doesn't feel it needs to honour the largest issue of the day - what gurantee do we have that they will listen to us on "irrelevant" things like what the voters want to happen to the NHS?
 
What are we left with then because you have described two Parties that got into power basically by lying about their aims. How do we stop this?

I wouldn't go that far. I'd say that the Parties got into power by being realistic about what they could achieve and who they could persuade. They lose power when they abandon consensus-building.

Or are we doomed to be controlled by the centrist voter who flip flops from one snowflake "initiative" to the next?

There are people like JRM who have never wanted for anything (not really); and grew up believing that their wealth made them correct, and they were demonstrably correct because they were wealthy. QED, and screw the plebs. This isn't all Conservatives, but it's a fair number of their MPs.

There are people in the Trades Unions who watched the people around them get screwed over by "the system", intelligent people failed by underinvestment, and ********* promoted over good people because they'd gone to the right school, had the right accent, had the connections to get a leg up. This isn't all Labour, but it's a fair number of their MPs.

There are people who have enough empathy to understand that the people at the bottom of the heap, often get screwed over by entitled twats; and to understand that throwing money at them isn't the answer. Similarly, they understand reality and know that if you want success, you have to be willing to work for it - and shouldn't be punished for working hard. That's the bulk of the centre-voting population, I reckon.

The flips happen when the extreme side of a Party pushes things a bit too far, and another Party succeeds in suggesting to the centrists that "they" are tearing the arrse out of it, and that "we" would be more sensible.

Do we need to whittle away the parties entitled to stand so that we become, officially, a two party state?

Don't be silly, that way lies America. Look at the mess that they've made of it.

It's useful to have more than two credible parties, so that when Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition makes an utter arrse of things (as if...), someone else can try to hold the Government to account.

Only having two parties means that it's too easy for the weasels to capture the political system; soon, there's a cosy arrangement that suits those on the inside, things only get done by Buggin's turn, and changing things becomes impossible.

Take UKIP, for example - if they hadn't managed to get four million votes, there wouldn't have been a referendum. Take the Brexit Party - if they didn't exist, Boris or Theresa would already have pushed through the Chequers deal and declared success over BINO.
 
...and I feel you misunderstand the importance of Brexit (in name, rather than function). If the demoratic right of the poeple is not met by Brexit, why bother about the NHS, transport etc? Why vote for a party that doesn't feel it needs to honour the largest issue of the day - what gurantee do we have that they will listen to us on "irrelevant" things like what the voters want to happen to the NHS?
Yes there is that, Brexit is the big tester of democracy.
If having been given a binary decision on an in - out of the EU, by people who know best and who defined the rules of engagement we are denied it - then other issues go for a ball of chalk. The democratic framework is very fragile. The Lib Dems say FU on Brexit, now Labour say they are a remain party what hope is there.
It's not just political groups - Parties, but also a definition of the role and accountability of elected representatives. If voted in they are accountable to the Party whose whip they took, they can't then go rogue and piss off out of the reservation!
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I wouldn't go that far. I'd say that the Parties got into power by being realistic about what they could achieve and who they could persuade. They lose power when they abandon consensus-building.



There are people like JRM who have never wanted for anything (not really); and grew up believing that their wealth made them correct, and they were demonstrably correct because they were wealthy. QED, and screw the plebs. This isn't all Conservatives, but it's a fair number of their MPs.

There are people in the Trades Unions who watched the people around them get screwed over by "the system", intelligent people failed by underinvestment, and ********* promoted over good people because they'd gone to the right school, had the right accent, had the connections to get a leg up. This isn't all Labour, but it's a fair number of their MPs.

There are people who have enough empathy to understand that the people at the bottom of the heap, often get screwed over by entitled twats; and to understand that throwing money at them isn't the answer. Similarly, they understand reality and know that if you want success, you have to be willing to work for it - and shouldn't be punished for working hard. That's the bulk of the centre-voting population, I reckon.

The flips happen when the extreme side of a Party pushes things a bit too far, and another Party succeeds in suggesting to the centrists that "they" are tearing the arrse out of it, and that "we" would be more sensible.



Don't be silly, that way lies America. Look at the mess that they've made of it.

It's useful to have more than two credible parties, so that when Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition makes an utter arrse of things (as if...), someone else can try to hold the Government to account.

Only having two parties means that it's too easy for the weasels to capture the political system; soon, there's a cosy arrangement that suits those on the inside, things only get done by Buggin's turn, and changing things becomes impossible.

Take UKIP, for example - if they hadn't managed to get four million votes, there wouldn't have been a referendum. Take the Brexit Party - if they didn't exist, Boris or Theresa would already have pushed through the Chequers deal and declared success over BINO.
That is quite informative, thank you. I don't necessarily agree with your analysis of the class war at work. There are plenty of places where this does happen, and not just in this country. Do you think JRM does not work hard, at his job as an MP plus running his various businesses, or does hard work only count if you have been down t'pit!?

Just look at Labour's back benches and ask yourself how many are there due to merit or down to who they know in the organisation.

I am mildly surprised at the strength of your support for Labour - mildly as I am taking your previous posts into account which show your socialist leanings. Your choice though, to which you are well entitled.
 
That is quite informative, thank you. I don't necessarily agree with your analysis of the class war at work. There are plenty of places where this does happen, and not just in this country. Do you think JRM does not work hard, at his job as an MP plus running his various businesses, or does hard work only count if you have been down t'pit!?

A very good point, and I agree. My problem comes with the people who believe in their ownn legend... whether that be "I'm rich because I'm f***ing fantastic, me" or because "I'm a champion of the downtrodden workers, so of course I deserve a high-seven-figure salary" brigade. Scargill showing the worst excesses of that particular breed of weasel.

So, JRM works hard, makes millions from his hedge fund. But then, he started with a fair old whack, and he's taken full advantages of all sorts of tax loopholes. Is his success just down to his efforts, or also through luck and privilege? For instance, was his firm selling Sterling short while he was deciding to block the Withdrawal Agreement? Or perhaps Jeremy Hunt's "entrepreneurship" status is clouded by the fact that the contract he won to start up his business, was as a monopoly supplier to the British Council. At the time, Virginia Bottomley was Vice Chair. She's his cousin. Yup, all hard work, equally achievable by anyone (note for the irony-impaired: that's sarcasm).

I've got friends who earn a shedload more than me - I get to see how hard they work for it, and I have absolutely no doubt that my mate earned his Porsche; I don't grudge him it in the slightest, he's grown a business to the point where it employs a score of professionals. But he admits the help he's had along the way, he doesn't claim that it's all down to his awesomeness, and he doesn't claim that this makes him a fount of all knowledge.

I am mildly surprised at the strength of your support for Labour - mildly as I am taking your previous posts into account which show your socialist leanings. Your choice though, to which you are well entitled.

Support? For the concept, perhaps - but not for the Party. Right now, they appear to be writing another 1983-style electoral suicide note (with Corbyn and Momentum repeating the errors of Foot and Militant).

Just because I try to understand where people's motives come from, and occasionally make a clumsy effort to explain what I think they are, doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with them...

Firmly in the middle, me - more of a Social Democrat than a Socialist.
 
The issue du jour is fairly binary, despite Labour's attempt to take the middle ground, of which there is none, just a very high fence on which they are sitting in a very exposed position. So, for the next GE, Left Right and Centre are unimportant when contrasted with In/Out.
"Fairly binary" is as much use as it was before the referendum, binary answers to complex situations have a habit of creating chaos.
 
Do you think JRM does not work hard, at his job as an MP plus running his various businesses, or does hard work only count if you have been down t'pit!?
I couldn't possibly comment.

1569258218992.png
 
Having had access to privilege and money, I made use of them to get on.
I'd have been a fool not to, as would anyone else. if you get dealt a good hand, use it. Just remember to be generous to others.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
A very good point, and I agree. My problem comes with the people who believe in their ownn legend... whether that be "I'm rich because I'm f***ing fantastic, me" or because "I'm a champion of the downtrodden workers, so of course I deserve a high-seven-figure salary" brigade. Scargill showing the worst excesses of that particular breed of weasel.

So, JRM works hard, makes millions from his hedge fund. But then, he started with a fair old whack, and he's taken full advantages of all sorts of tax loopholes. Is his success just down to his efforts, or also through luck and privilege? For instance, was his firm selling Sterling short while he was deciding to block the Withdrawal Agreement? Or perhaps Jeremy Hunt's "entrepreneurship" status is clouded by the fact that the contract he won to start up his business, was as a monopoly supplier to the British Council. At the time, Virginia Bottomley was Vice Chair. She's his cousin. Yup, all hard work, equally achievable by anyone (note for the irony-impaired: that's sarcasm).

I've got friends who earn a shedload more than me - I get to see how hard they work for it, and I have absolutely no doubt that my mate earned his Porsche; I don't grudge him it in the slightest, he's grown a business to the point where it employs a score of professionals. But he admits the help he's had along the way, he doesn't claim that it's all down to his awesomeness, and he doesn't claim that this makes him a fount of all knowledge.



Support? For the concept, perhaps - but not for the Party. Right now, they appear to be writing another 1983-style electoral suicide note (with Corbyn and Momentum repeating the errors of Foot and Militant).

Just because I try to understand where people's motives come from, and occasionally make a clumsy effort to explain what I think they are, doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with them...

Firmly in the middle, me - more of a Social Democrat than a Socialist.
It's a pity that you feel you have to single out JRM as the example of the 'silver spoon' helping them on their way while ignoring the likes of Stephen Kinnock or the Uber working man, Hilary Benn!
 
Having had access to privilege and money, I made use of them to get on.
I'd have been a fool not to, as would anyone else. if you get dealt a good hand, use it. Just remember to be generous to others.
What's the old saying, Be generous to those you meet on your way up because you'll probably meet them again on your way down?
 
I think you over estimate the importance of Brexit to millions of voters, who are unable to fathom its chicanery and politics.

Most are more interested in their day to day life and things such as The NHS, transport and law and order.
You underestimate the importance of Brexit to millions of British voters and the wider audience.

It has galvanised interest in politics and stimulated political debate like nothing before. It is a very divisive issue - it has divided political parties and has divided opinions between friends, colleagues and families. Brexit has affected opinion around the world, not just in the UK or the EU.
 
I think you over estimate the importance of Brexit to millions of voters, who are unable to fathom its chicanery and politics.

Most are more interested in their day to day life and things such as The NHS, transport and law and order.

You're right and yet also wrong.

People do want to get on with life but they want the politicians to deliver on their promises too.
 

Latest Threads

Top