• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

Status
Not open for further replies.

windingroad

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2022
Messages
234
This is another fault of the current voting system, it makes voters vote for what they least oppose, not what they most want, and ultimately politicians end up acting in the same way. We also saw this with Biden winning on being "not Trump", in 2019 the argument was more Corbyn lost than Johnson won, and more recently in France Macron won more off of opposing Le Pen than wanting him. If we want our politicians to state what they are and be better overall we have to have systems in place that make them, including a form of PR voting (personally I think any form of PR system used somewhere in the world right now is better than FPTP, although D'Hondt is my top preference).
I definitely agree with everything you've written. I have to say my experience in Scotland was a breath of fresh air in that sense, in that I felt much more able to express my views in the voting booth without feeling it was a wasted vote (particularly when it came to the regional list). Am I correct in thinking the Scottish Parliament uses a variant of D'Hondt?

(Having said all that, it should be noted that despite the proportionality of that system, Labour still align themselves as an anti-SNP party rather than a pro-[insert policy here] party.)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Shrop

On Moderation
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
649
The Conservatives had Major, not only did he appear to be a personality free zone, but he was around at peak Spitting Image, who amplified these defects. No programme will ever have the same impact again.
Spitting Image certainly had impact, but we're still very much in an age where the media has massive influence. MASSIVE. Politicians are incredibly scared of speaking out on issues where they fear the media might get upset, such as road transport and traffic. By way of a quick rant, road issues are in desperate need of major attention, but politicians know that a great many journalists are petrolheads, so they simply dare not tackle road travel properly. I mean, everyone on this forum knows that train drivers dare not exceed speed limits these days, yet road driving is so different. Drive on an uncongested motorway at 70mph and far more cars will overtake you than you will overtake. (That's if you're not lane-hogging ie causing obstruction, which a lot of people seem to regard as less of an offence than that of overtaking on the inside, as made necessary by that obstruction). Or drive through an uncongested town at the speed limit and you will guarantee to annoy drivers behind you who want to go faster. In other words, the MAJORITY of car drivers willingly break the law with almost complete impunity. Okay, I'm not perfect myself but why oh why can cars not be limited at production, to a maximum speed of 90mph, when that's ample for every safety and legal reason there is? And why can they not be fitted with devices which cut power when following too close to the vehicle in front, which is the cause of most of our 35 deaths every single week, plus many more life changing injuries? Why can drivers not have mandatory re-tests every ten years? The list goes on, and although some of these things have (minor) counter arguments, these things are barely even looked at, because of the fear of bad press. And yet when you think about it, other people's driving, and other people's parking are huge on the list of things that annoy people, often leading to very nasty disputes, road rage, frustrations, injuries and deaths. (Apologies for the rant, but I've worked in road travel for many years, in receipt of vast numbers of complaints and I could say a lot more about political disinterest!).

Talking of a personality free zone, I have nothing particular against Andy Murray, but here is another example of media power. I'd venture to suggest that he is perhaps the John Major of sport, yet he won BBC Sports PERSONALITY of the year THREE times. And perhaps someone could tell me what gives our tabloid newspapers who are often unspeakably biased, the right to give strongly worded political opinion, when our future King, whose mother has been having a weekly audience with the Prime Minister for the last 70 years (and thus arguably has a valid understanding of some issues), can be openly roasted by those same tabloids, simply for making an occasional comment IN PRIVATE?

So to conclude, yes, sadly it's all about what our media says. It is those senior political Party members who know how to best manipulate our reporters, who will hold the key to No.10 at the next General Election. And if charisma has to come with being hugely self-centred, disregard for the law etc, then perhaps we as voters ought to be thinking about whether we're right to value charisma above integrity.
 

windingroad

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2022
Messages
234
So to conclude, yes, sadly it's all about what our media says. It is those senior political Party members who know how to best manipulate our reporters, who will hold the key to No.10 at the next General Election.
I'd go a step further and say it's less about manipulation, and more about willing collaboration: there is a revolving door between certain parts of the media and Downing Street, and many political people are mates with columnists in particular. The idea that the media holds the government to account is true in some respects, it often only does so in ways that don't threaten its own interests.

Another unhappy truth is that journalists who are genuinely willing to challenge power (including the media itself) are unlikely to reach senior positions. The people who prioritise access (and as such have a vested interest in remaining somewhat friendly with the people they report on) are much more likely to see success, so proper oppositional journalism is quietly filtered out.

And if charisma has to come with being hugely self-centred, disregard for the law etc, then perhaps we as voters ought to be thinking about whether we're right to value charisma above integrity.
I'm inclined to say that it's a mistake to believe charisma is part and parcel with those qualities. It should be possible to be a skilled politician capable of connecting with people and also have a set of principles, and I'd argue it's essential Labour finds someone like that to have a chance of building a successful political movement that wins elections.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,950
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
This is another fault of the current voting system, it makes voters vote for what they least oppose, not what they most want, and ultimately politicians end up acting in the same way. We also saw this with Biden winning on being "not Trump", in 2019 the argument was more Corbyn lost than Johnson won, and more recently in France Macron won more off of opposing Le Pen than wanting him. If we want our politicians to state what they are and be better overall we have to have systems in place that make them, including a form of PR voting (personally I think any form of PR system used somewhere in the world right now is better than FPTP, although D'Hondt is my top preference).
The French electoral system is nothing to admire. In France, the neo-Communists and neo-Fascists have won 131 and 89 seats respectively out of 577 in yesterday's National Assembly election; 230 out of 577 is 40%. The result is reminiscent of elections in the early 1930s in the Weimar Republic. For example, in 1930, the Communists and Nazis won 77 and 107 seats respectively out of 577 in the Reichstag; 184 out of 577 is 32%.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,103
Yes, we suffer Daniel Kawcynski in Shropshire, its so annoying when the Tories put candidates into safe seats when they know little and care even less about their constituencies, just because part of the electorate really would vote for a pig so long as it wore blue rosette.
The enlightened people of Shropshire recognise that DK spends so much time with his Saudi and other involvements, that it's impossible for his focus to be truly in the constituency that blindly voted for him. And sadly, similar is true of many other Tory seats. Its for this reason that I keep suggesting that our voting system needs wholesale reform, although this suggestion doesn't seem to provoke much response...

Kawczynski of course is the man born in a current EU country who is a militant Brexiter. The man born overseas who is an enthusiastic enabler of policies which make it harder for immigrants to live in the UK. The man who tried to consort with the Polish government to stop the Brexit extension, risking destabilising the UK. How anyone can have any respect for him is anyone's guess. The latter act, in my view, should have been enough for him to take a forced trip to the Chiltern Hundreds.

Shrewsbury was in one election, I believe, almost a three-way tie between the three main parties. Perhaps either Labour or the Lib Dems standing down could, thus, remove him.
 
Last edited:

TheBigD

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2008
Messages
1,995
The French electoral system is nothing to admire. In France, the neo-Communists and neo-Fascists have won 131 and 89 seats respectively out of 577 in yesterday's National Assembly election; 230 out of 577 is 40%. The result is reminiscent of elections in the early 1930s in the Weimar Republic. For example, in 1930, the Communists and Nazis won 77 and 107 seats respectively out of 577 in the Reichstag; 184 out of 577 is 32%.
Over half* of eligible french voters failed to vote in the election. The majoity of voters rejected the politians from all sides. The lack of appeal to the majority of voters from all parties is stark.

* taken from an article on Unherd by John Lichfield.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,163
Location
SE London
Kawczynski of course is the man born in a current EU country who is a militant Brexiter.

So what? There might well be other objectionable things about his politics, but are you saying that being born in an EU country means you're not allowed to believe that the EU is on balance a bad thing? I'd have thought a person's beliefs ought to primarily be judged on their merits, not on where the person happened to be born.

The man born overseas who is an enthusiastic enabler of policies which make it harder for immigrants to live in the UK.

This is a mischaracterization. He's an enabler of politics that make it harder for *some* immigrants to live in the UK. As far as I'm aware, Brexit, for example, had no adverse effect of the ability of people from - say - China, Indonesia, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc. etc., to come to the UK. And besides, once again, so what? You seem to be implying that the fact that he is an immigrant means he shouldn't be allowed to have certain beliefs.
 
Last edited:

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,072
The French electoral system is nothing to admire. In France, the neo-Communists and neo-Fascists have won 131 and 89 seats respectively out of 577 in yesterday's National Assembly election; 230 out of 577 is 40%. The result is reminiscent of elections in the early 1930s in the Weimar Republic. For example, in 1930, the Communists and Nazis won 77 and 107 seats respectively out of 577 in the Reichstag; 184 out of 577 is 32%.
The French Assembly elections are first past the past, so absolutely nothing to admire. Labelling the entire left coalition neo-communist is faintly absurd though - Melenchon himself is a little to the left of my tastes but isn't anything you could reasonably describe as neo-communist, and other elements of the grouping are basically social democrats and greens.

This is about as reminiscent of the Weimar Republic as the Russian Army is of a modern well-equipped fighting force.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,520
Location
Kent
Spitting Image certainly had impact, but we're still very much in an age where the media has massive influence. MASSIVE. Politicians are incredibly scared of speaking out on issues where they fear the media might get upset,
I don't disagree with that. The difference is now that there is so much media.
Then - if Spitting Image said you were 'strong and unstable', you were strong and and unstable, if Spitting Image said you had 'verbal diarrhoea' then that is what you had, if Spitting Image said that you were 'grey and boring' then you were. The images stuck in the mind, because they were largely amusing, and were reinforced week after week. I don't think I can be the only one who remembers them even now.
Now - there is no dominant media voice. At least six tv or radio stations pushing out news and views round the clock, add the newspapers - and their websites, then the website only media, and podcasts. All desperate for your attention because the more viewers, listeners, readers, the more advertising revenue they can pick up (in most cases) or subscribers they can recruit. Take energy policy, it is quite likely that on a day when it was only a page 4 news item, you could find arguments for and against nuclear/ fracking/ solar/ wind/ tidal/ exploration off-shore/ whatever. The one thing that is likely is that what is being proposed is wrong because it goes too far or not far enough. Agreement would mean no debate, no minutes/ pages used up in the desperate attempt to keep the audience.

Little wonder we don't know what Starmer's plans are, there is no election due. There will be time enough to pull them apart in the run up to the election. If they were announced now, they would be pulled apart, deservedly or not, by 'experts' desperate for the publicity, and clueless callers on phone-ins, who would exaggerate and exaggerate just to ensure they get invited again.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,103
So what? There might well be other objectionable things about his politics, but are you saying that being born in an EU country means you're not allowed to believe that the EU is on balance a bad thing? I'd have thought a person's beliefs ought to primarily be judged on their merits, not on where the person happened to be born.


This is a mischaracterization. He's an enabler of politics that make it harder for *some* immigrants to live in the UK. As far as I'm aware, Brexit, for example, had no adverse effect of the ability of people from - say - China, Indonesia, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc. etc., to come to the UK. And besides, once again, so what? You seem to be implying that the fact that he is an immigrant means he shouldn't be allowed to have certain beliefs.

I would expect him to have more empathy for other immigrants, and not pursue policies that makes life difficult for them.

If I had emigrated to another country, I would scarcely be actively supporting policies of that country's Government which makes life difficult for other potential immigrants from the UK! I would consider that an incredibly selfish and "I'm all right Jack" attitude. Rather snobbish too: Kawczynski doubtless considers himself a cut above many other immigrants.

But for me, his consorting with the Polish government to attempt to prevent an extension to the March deadline for Brexit was the one act that was truly beyond the pale. He was quite happy to risk the destabilisation of his adopted homeland in order to pursue his strident political beliefs. As I implied, for that he should have been forced to resign as an MP.
 
Last edited:

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,072
Make of this what you will, but he appears on balance to be not the nicest guy: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11817/daniel_kawczynski/shrewsbury_and_atcham/votes
The idea that pre-2000 Polish immigrants are (or should be expected to be) pro Polish immigration is pretty optimistic. Poland spent 25 years in radical change between the time Kaczynski left and the date of EU accession. Since then they've spent the better part of another 20 in even more radical change. The people choosing to emigrate now are generally below 40, and often hold religious and cultural beliefs which are deeply shocking to their generally super-conservative forebears. To an extent I think that's natural for emigrants generally, but the sheer pace of change in Poland and other Eastern accession countries is perhaps unusually overwhelming.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,840
Location
Scotland
If I had emigrated to another country, I would scarcely be actively supporting policies of that country's Government which makes life difficult for other potential immigrants from the UK! I would consider that an incredibly selfish and "I'm all right Jack" attitude.
But then you wouldn't be a Tory!
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,072
But for me, his consorting with the Polish government to attempt to prevent an extension to the March deadline for Brexit was the one act that was truly beyond the pale. He was quite happy to risk the destabilisation of his adopted homeland in order to pursue his strident political beliefs. As I implied, for that he should have been forced to resign as an MP.
It was a pretty pathetic attempt, especially since IIRC he tried to do it in rather poor schoolboy Polish, and it was regarded as pretty absurd by the Polish Government. It would absolutely have been fair game for his opponents in the election. Treating it as treason though would be setting a very low bar for a pretty high crime - you'd end up with any MP who ever wrote to a foreign government being accused of treason.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,103
But then you wouldn't be a Tory!

True. Mind you Kawczynski makes many other Tories seem like militant socialists! ;)

It was a pretty pathetic attempt, especially since IIRC he tried to do it in rather poor schoolboy Polish, and it was regarded as pretty absurd by the Polish Government. It would absolutely have been fair game for his opponents in the election. Treating it as treason though would be setting a very low bar for a pretty high crime - you'd end up with any MP who ever wrote to a foreign government being accused of treason.

I didn't imply it was treason. I just implied that the No Deal outcome which could have arisen could have destabilised the UK, and thus it was a serious enough wrongdoing to warrant resignation.

I'm no fan of Neil Parish or Owen Paterson, but I would consider their wrongdoings as rather less serious than Kawczynski's.
 
Last edited:

Shrop

On Moderation
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
649
Shrewsbury was in one election, I believe, almost a three-way tie between the three main parties. Perhaps either Labour or the Lib Dems standing down could, thus, remove him.
Yes, Shrewsbury has been represented by all three Parties since 2000, and even though the LibDem seat was because Paul Marsden moved over from Labour whilst holding the seat, there is nevertheless a very significant LibDem vote in Shrewsbury. But it's a sorry reflection of the voting system where tactical voting is considered, because it's forced by the negativity that the present system generates. It's also tricky in a constituency where both LibDems and Labour feel that they have a very realistic chance of taking the seat, because neither is therefore keen to stand down, but under the present system I do understand the point. Fwiw, local people still find it hard to accept the need for their MP to claim £22,000 in taxpayer funded expenses, to have language lessons in his native and thus already fluently spoken language.

But once again, more reason for system reform in order to stimulate something more positive, because thriving on putting people down is such a damaging way to run the country. Prime Ministers Questions is the most appalling comedy show on TV, with the whole emphasis being on inflicting damage on to each other, rather than using their supposedly strong and clever minds to constructively find ways to run the country well. And ministers answering questions on TV is one of the most pointless uses of TV air time, because their answers rarely have anything to do with the questions. When the answer throughout Spring this year was almost invariably "Don't you know there's a war in Ukraine", why bother asking the question "Why did Boris have a party?", when the reporter might as well asked "What did you have for tea yesterday?", because the answer has the same complete irrelevance.

Altogether the shambles of Parliament and its inhabitants is setting a terrible example to our youngers, of how to run a country. And we complain about the way the Chinese Government operates - at least they can get railways built in a way that benefits their country, even if a lot of us neither understand nor approve of the way they do it!
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,163
Location
SE London
(Replying to a post in the LibDem thread which pertains more to the Tories)

To that mind, consider the 14 Characteristics of Fascism and how many are on display by the UK government and its supporters:

I was leaving it as an exercise for the reader, but:
  1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Brexit is largely driven by and used to stoke up nationalism. "Great Britain versus the Evil EU". The literal desire to wrap the flag around everything, return of Imperial measures
  2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: The government is threatening to leave the European Court of Human Rights because "Lefties and the ECHR" keep getting in the way of Government business like shipping refugees off to the other side of the world
  3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: Does the phrase "Enemies of the people" ring any bells?
  4. Supremacy of the Military
  5. Rampant Sexism: She just wears a short skirt to distract Boris...
  6. Controlled Mass Media
  7. Obsession with National Security: - the Snooper's Charter, Police and Crime Bill, some of the Covid measures
  8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
  9. Corporate Power is Protected: See Brexit
  10. Labour Power is Suppressed: Taken a look at the Trade Union Act? Or how about the recent proclamation by government that scab workers will be allowed during the upcoming strikes?
  11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
  12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
  13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Exactly how many billions were spent on a Track and Trace system that neither tracked nor traced, how much money was bunged to Tory donors for PPE that could never be used? Funny isn't it how almost every Conservative Party treasurer both made large donations, and was also made a Peer.
  14. Fraudulent Elections: As noted by @Busaholic above, trying to make it harder for people to vote rather than easier

Are these serious posts? You're basically defending a previous post by someone who claims to be a LibDem councillor that makes a very serious (and arguably, defamatory) allegation: That the Conservatives/the UK Government are akin to neo-Nazis. But the evidence you've provided seems spurious and does not remotely meet even the definition of fascism you've provided.

As a couple of examples: Let's take the link you supplied and use its descriptions of facism:

On Rampant Sexism, the definition of facism your link gave is: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

You're claiming that the UK Government (which by the way contains senior female ministers) meets this criteria because on one occasion it was claimed that the deputy leader of the opposition said something (which it turns she may well have actually said anyway). Seriously?

On Identification of Enemies, the definition of fascism your link gives is: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

You're claiming that the UK Government meets this criteria because on one occasion nearly 6 years ago, an independent newspaper (NOTE: Not even the Government. A newspaper that has no connection with the Tories, but which often happens to support them) used an atrocious and inflammatory headline (and yes, it was an atrocious headline). Seriously?

On Fraudulent Elections, the definition of facism used is: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

You're claiming that the UK Government meets this criteria because they are seeking to ensure that people have to provide photo-ID in order to vote? Seriously? I mean - I've stated several times that I disagree with the UK Government doing that, but surely you can disagree with a policy without using silly over-the-top hyperbole to describe it?

And so it goes on.

Let's be clear: The UK Tories are not a fascist or Nazi or neo-Nazi party. It is utterly ludicrous to try to make out that they are.
 

windingroad

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2022
Messages
234
The UK Tories are not a fascist or Nazi or neo-Nazi party. It is utterly ludicrous to try to make out that they are.
I'd tend to agree, but I think it's pretty undeniable that they are increasingly authoritarian in policy and practice. I would certainly say numbers 1, 2, 7, 11, 12 and 13 apply to them, and elements of 3, 6 and 10.

I don't think we have a fascist government, but I do think it's essential this authoritarian drift is strongly criticised. I don't know precisely where you sit politically, but if you're a small-state conservative I'd have thought you'd agree with this.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,103
Let's be clear: The UK Tories are not a fascist or Nazi or neo-Nazi party. It is utterly ludicrous to try to make out that they are.

I would not dispute that, but I would also dispute the claim, made by some, that they are still "centre right". On issues such as Brexit, immigration, the Policing Bill and the Elections Bill, I would argue that they are now a firmly right-wing party rather than centre-right. Centre-right to me suggests people like John Major, Michael Heseltine, Ken Clarke or (at a push) David Cameron.

However I think they can shift back, but do require a complete change of leadership to do so.
 

windingroad

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2022
Messages
234
I would not dispute that, but I would also dispute the claim, made by some, that they are still "centre right". On issues such as Brexit, immigration, the Policing Bill and the Elections Bill, I would argue that they are now a firmly right-wing party rather than centre-right. Centre-right to me suggests people like John Major, Michael Heseltine, Ken Clarke or (at a push) David Cameron.
I'd be more specific and say they've ended up in a situation where they're actually somewhat centre-left economically, but firmly on the right (with forays into the far-right) socially. Which is quite an incredible inversion when you compare to David Cameron's government.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,072
I'd be more specific and say they've ended up in a situation where they're actually somewhat centre-left economically, but firmly on the right (with forays into the far-right) socially. Which is quite an incredible inversion when you compare to David Cameron's government.
I don't think they're at all centre-left economically. They're chaotic and aribtrary, failing to hold to any principles or guide the economy in any meaningful way at all, and their pathetic uncontrolled waste on Covid was in nobody's best interests, so I can see why right wingers might not recognise them as economically-right wing. The principles they are failing to hold to are firmly right-wing however. People talk about the highest levels of public spending ever, but it's not actual public spending on quality services - that's at a really low level generally. Public spending is at record levels is because of interest payments on the last 2 years of waste, the massive numbers of additional civil servants required to manage Brexit and the increased bureaucracy of trade, and the cost of 12 years of hapless mismanagement and under-investment coming home to roost.
 

TheBigD

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2008
Messages
1,995
I would expect him to have more empathy for other immigrants, and not pursue policies that makes life difficult for them.
Why do you have such a one dimensional view that because he's an immigrant, he should support/empathise with other immigrants?

I really don't get this simplistic thinking that because someone is "x" they must believe or support "y".

People are individuals, and individuals have their own opinions. Agree or disagree with their aguements based on their merits, not because a person is "x".
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,520
Location
Kent
I don't think they're at all centre-left economically. They're chaotic and aribtrary, failing to hold to any principles or guide the economy in any meaningful way at all, and their pathetic uncontrolled waste on Covid was in nobody's best interests, so I can see why right wingers might not recognise them as economically-right wing. The principles they are failing to hold to are firmly right-wing however. People talk about the highest levels of public spending ever, but it's not actual public spending on quality services - that's at a really low level generally. Public spending is at record levels is because of interest payments on the last 2 years of waste, the massive numbers of additional civil servants required to manage Brexit and the increased bureaucracy of trade, and the cost of 12 years of hapless mismanagement and under-investment coming home to roost.
Isn't that because they are essentially rudderless, individual ministers seem to be able go off in whichever direction they feel (or none)? That certainly wasn't true of Thatcher, or Major; Cameron was guided by Osborne (and his desire to modernise the Conservative image); Heath knew which direction he wanted to go even though he didn't get far.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,103
Why do you have such a one dimensional view that because he's an immigrant, he should support other immigrants?

I really don't get this simplistic thinking that because someone is "x" they must believe or support "y".

People are individuals, and individuals have their own opinions. Agree or disagree with their aguements based on their merits, not because a person is "x".

I see it as a form of empathy. Someone who has benefited from emigration ought to, in my view, be supportive of others' rights to emigrate. The same would also apply in my view to such things as state benefits; someone who has been a recipient of state benefits to get them out of a tricky situation ought not to then take a strident anti-benefit line later in their life.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,840
Location
Scotland
I see it as a form of empathy. Someone who has benefited from emigration ought to, in my view, be supportive of others' rights to emigrate. The same would also apply in my view to such things as state benefits; someone who has been a recipient of state benefits to get them out of a tricky situation ought not to then take a strident anti-benefit line later in their life.
Even if not actively supportive, I would expect that they would be agnostic rather than actively hostile.
 

windingroad

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2022
Messages
234
I don't think they're at all centre-left economically. They're chaotic and aribtrary, failing to hold to any principles or guide the economy in any meaningful way at all, and their pathetic uncontrolled waste on Covid was in nobody's best interests, so I can see why right wingers might not recognise them as economically-right wing.
I'm not saying it arises from any genuine set of beliefs or principles, or that it's consistent, but they have superficially moved much further to the left in certain areas (ie. support during COVID-19, semi-renationalising the railways, various cost of living payments).

In terms of the latter, they outflanked Labour from the left by offering a more generous proposal, which Labour then criticised on the grounds it was too expensive. I'm not saying any of that is down to anything but political expediency, but that's certainly a diversion from the mean. For the record, I'm about as far from a right winger as you can get!

Isn't that because they are essentially rudderless, individual ministers seem to be able go off in whichever direction they feel (or none)? That certainly wasn't true of Thatcher, or Major; Cameron was guided by Osborne (and his desire to modernise the Conservative image); Heath knew which direction he wanted to go even though he didn't get far.
Yes, exactly this. There isn't really any particular ideological foundation beyond "we'll do what keeps us in power", so they borrow policies from across the political spectrum as required.
 

TheBigD

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2008
Messages
1,995
Yes, exactly this. There isn't really any particular ideological foundation beyond "we'll do what keeps us in power", so they borrow policies from across the political spectrum as required.
The Conservatives are one of the most successful/longest standing polical parties in the world, depending upon which source/definition, having started in 1834 or 1678. You don't get to that without being malleable and acquiring polices that will be popular and ensure your continued electoral success.

Being ideological pure may please the membership, but most of the electorate are more pragmatic.

And it's not just aconservative thing.
New Labour famously nicked Conservative's spending plans and follwed them for their first term (might be just first couple of years) as they knew that that would help them and be popular with the electorate.
The Consrvatives claim credit for raising the tax free allowance, even though that was a LibDem policy.

The primary purpose of a political party is to get in to power, and then retain power. Making sure you are popular and paying heed to the polls ensures that.

Corbyn's mob may pedal the line that they won the argument, but that doesn't win elections. Having policies that are electorally popular does, and the public, largely, aren't really that bothered by the minutiae of where they came from.

For the record, I'm not a fan of this government. Far too "big state" and not "personal responsibility" for my liking.
And most of it's ministers lack the testicular fortitude necessary to change things.
 
Last edited:

GS250

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
1,023
Yes, exactly this. There isn't really any particular ideological foundation beyond "we'll do what keeps us in power", so they borrow policies from across the political spectrum as required.

The political landscape could look completely different in five years time. I think whoever is in power now probably won't be after the next set of elections. This by default really considering the severe financial situation the World now find itself in.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,103
Even if not actively supportive, I would expect that they would be agnostic rather than actively hostile.

Yes, that's the thing. If Kawczynski had adopted the "sit on the fence / path of least resistance" stand of most Tory and Labour MPs in the 2017/8 period regarding immigration, I wouldn't be complaining about him.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,047
Location
Taunton or Kent
I'd tend to agree, but I think it's pretty undeniable that they are increasingly authoritarian in policy and practice. I would certainly say numbers 1, 2, 7, 11, 12 and 13 apply to them, and elements of 3, 6 and 10.

I don't think we have a fascist government, but I do think it's essential this authoritarian drift is strongly criticised. I don't know precisely where you sit politically, but if you're a small-state conservative I'd have thought you'd agree with this.
"The road to fascism is lined with people telling you to stop overreacting."

As you allude to I would say the Government are not the biggest threat regarding authoritarianism. The biggest threat is this mindset that somehow it can't happen here, which I think proves it absolutely can happen here. I don't want it to happen and don't believe we're there yet, but better we criticise signs of authoritarianism/fascism and it not happen than just sit by doing nothing and authoritarianism/fascism then happening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top