OT - Local elections

[jackal2]

Don't you think that a majority of people are sick of the extreme left / right and want to re-establsih the centre ground in politics?

No. That's the media narrative, and some people even get brainwashed into repeating it, but their day-to-day actions and conversations (in the pub or wherever) tell a different story, as do election turnouts.

People are in fact much more engaged with politics when they have a choice between strong opposing parties with clear water between them, led by conviction politicians who seek power because they want to achieve something with it, rather than career politicians who seek power as an end in itself, willing to flip flop from one stance to another to satisfy short-term public whims, please the media establishment and survive until next week.

Talking of which, it is large parts of the media who have sought to re-define any reasonably strong Right or Left view as "extreme", when it is nothing of the sort. The media, and the Civil Service, favour a political environment which never strays far from the centre. This situation (which pretty much existed between 1997 and 2015) allows them to dictate the way the country is run themselves, with elections occasionally thrown in to create the impression of public consent, yet in reality the public have no great choice.

For obvious reasons, this establishment hate "interventionists" (to quote a line from Sir Humphrey Appleby!) who attract substantial amounts of public support and have ambitions of changing the status quo and "running the country themselves" if they get elected.

My politics are Conservative, but that's irrelevant to this point. I'm arguing in favour of proper political parties who give people something genuine to agree or disagree with. Something to campaign for, or against. Give me the passion of a Thatcher or a Corbyn over the cynical, soulless salesmanship of a Blair or a Cameron any day of the week.

[tarquinbeech]

I knew the Conservatives must have done okay when BBC Radio said the results were "mixed". That's about as far as they'll ever go in terms of a positive headline for a right of centre party!

Exactly the same with the Guardian, "mixed results" ie Labour went nowhere

[Old_pie]

I knew the Conservatives must have done okay when BBC Radio said the results were "mixed". That's about as far as they'll ever go in terms of a positive headline for a right of centre party!

I didn't sleep well that night, got up for a cup of tea around 4am and switched telly on. The sense of disappointment from the BBC team that the Tories were not being thrashed was palpable.

Mid-term council elections that didn't go strongly against the ruling party - I know which of the two leaders will be happier.

The main issue is which of the two will shoot themselves in the foot the least. Or will neither be there for the next GE?

[BigFatPie]

No. That's the media narrative, and some people even get brainwashed into repeating it, but their day-to-day actions and conversations (in the pub or wherever) tell a different story, as do election turnouts.

People are in fact much more engaged with politics when they have a choice between strong opposing parties with clear water between them, led by conviction politicians who seek power because they want to achieve something with it, rather than career politicians who seek power as an end in itself, willing to flip flop from one stance to another to satisfy short-term public whims, please the media establishment and survive until next week.

Talking of which, it is large parts of the media who have sought to re-define any reasonably strong Right or Left view as "extreme", when it is nothing of the sort. The media, and the Civil Service, favour a political environment which never strays far from the centre. This situation (which pretty much existed between 1997 and 2015) allows them to dictate the way the country is run themselves, with elections occasionally thrown in to create the impression of public consent, yet in reality the public have no great choice.

For obvious reasons, this establishment hate "interventionists" (to quote a line from Sir Humphrey Appleby!) who attract substantial amounts of public support and have ambitions of changing the status quo and "running the country themselves" if they get elected.

My politics are Conservative, but that's irrelevant to this point. I'm arguing in favour of proper political parties who give people something genuine to agree or disagree with. Something to campaign for, or against. Give me the passion of a Thatcher or a Corbyn over the cynical, soulless salesmanship of a Blair or a Cameron any day of the week.

As usual, all very well argued. But pretty much none of it backed up by facts.

[JoePass]

As usual, all very well argued. But pretty much none of it backed up by facts.

He better get on the phone to Diane Abbott then

[navypie]

BigFatPie
Hall Of Fame

Join Date
Jan 2007
Posts
3,450

Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds
How can you decide what you actually want to achieve, when you are unsure how much the enemy will concede?
You should go in with no deal on the table and show them you are strong. All this yellow/hollow backed obstructions from snowflakes, gives the EU encouragement and weakens your hand.
You have obviously never played poker and we shouldn't give them an Inch. We owe them nothing.
To compromise/give away more is what they want/need.
1. need our cash
2. want free movement
3. want control over your trade
4. want control over your laws

Give in on those and they know, the EU will start to break up. There is a lot of unhappy bunnies in Europe, be it over money or immigration.
They know their very existence is on the table.
Tell them once only, either deal sensibly, or **** off.
It’s like the last 2 years never happened. Are you on drugs?

Once again I find myself agreeing with you fat boy. Tricky must be on drugs. Let's hope he doesn't cross the river high as a kite this afternoon and try something stupid , like setting a fire for instance.

[Pieeyedandlegless]

UKIP = Norwegian Blue

[Elite_Pie]

Exactly the same with the Guardian, "mixed results" ie Labour went nowhere

Not quite. Labour gained 77 seats, the Tories lost 33 seats. Those gains and losses were modest rather than spectacular, but they were still gains and losses. The LibDems could be seeing a few signs of a reawakening, and the Greens are now the fourth party.

[Airborn Pie]

Not quite. Labour gained 77 seats, the Tories lost 33 seats. Those gains and losses were modest rather than spectacular, but they were still gains and losses. The LibDems could be seeing a few signs of a reawakening, and the Greens are now the fourth party.

Based mainly on a protest vote at having all those trees chopped down in Sheffield

[Elite_Pie]

Based mainly on a protest vote at having all those trees chopped down in Sheffield

Based mainly on UKIP making themselves as popular and relevant as the Monster Raving Loony Party.