O/T:- Banks

[jackal2]

And as a result of all this, we end up not with a Conservative government, but with a Conservative government drawn from a sub-section of their party, with all or most of the pro-Europeans, the One Nations, the sensible, reasonable Tories purged or driven out. It's the Tory equivalent of a Corbyn-only version of Labour.

I get your point that we don't want the Conservative and Labour parties to be full of head-banging extremists, but we should be equally wary of those that say the Conservative and Labour parties should be "broad churches". These weasel words sounds fluffy and nice on face value, but behind them is the desire by dark underlying self-serving forces to water down the values of both parties to such an extent that they're offering the public very little choice or difference between one and the other.

Little or no real choice for the public is exactly what the real power brokers behind our political facade are seeking to achieve, and you could argue that's exactly what we face at the moment with a "choice" between Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer. Both are far more concerned with the pursuit of power and personal status than driving a political ideology or achieving any real change.

It seems strange to even need to say this, but the Conservative Party should be assertively Conservative and the Labour Party should be proudly Socialist. That's what they're supposed to be. That's what their leaders are supposed to be. It gives people a choice, and likewise if the public genuinely want a 'centre' option (or indeed any other variation) then that's where other parties and leaders should make their pitch.

Time for a Labour government. I'd agree about not getting your hopes up... plans are uninspiring at the moment, but Labour tend to be ultra-cautious about what they promise because the vast majority of the media are against them, and that's only got worse over recent years. They're hoping to do as little as possible and say as little as possible, but I hope what we'll see is a more ambitious and radical Labour party in government. That's what I really regret about New Labour... having done a lot of brilliant stuff (Sure Start, Northern Ireland, regional devolution, minimum wage and so on) very quietly, they didn't kick on and become more radical... having established their competence, going to the electorate and saying "we've shown we can be trusted, trust us to do more."

I can't see any scenario in which I would actively want a Labour government, but politics is cyclical and if the opinion polls are to be believed, we're reaching that stage in the political cycle when a Labour government looks increasingly likely.

If that's the case, then ironically, the 'no real choice' situation I've just bitterly criticised could actually work for those like me of a Conservative persuasion. Like Tony Blair before him, Sir Keir Starmer appears to be far more motivated by the pursuit of power than any desire to advance a Socialist ideology, and the more I listen to policy announcements from Starmer and the likes of Wes Streeting, the more I'm left wondering what exactly I'm supposed to vehemently disagree with. Don't get me wrong, I don't trust Starmer as far as I can throw him, I think he's a vacuous shill of a politician, but if I've got to swallow a Labour government for a while, then from a purely selfish viewpoint I can probably tolerate the version he's offering, even though I'd never vote for it. In effect, it's 'New Labour' version two.

Tony Blair famously said "we were elected as New Labour and we will govern as New Labour", and it's fair to say he did. He stayed pretty true to the Conservative economic policies he inherited, and ended up being the best mate of George Bush Jr! Gordon Brown when he took over arguably tried to move the Labour government gradually more to the Left, but I don't think it's any coincidence that this was exactly when the underlying power brokers started to unleash the 'hounds of hell' treatment on him, effectively manufacturing the Labour government's downfall.

The point is, whether they're coming ideologically from the Left or the Right, or are simply a bit maverick and unpredictable (e.g. Boris), woe betide anyone who threatens to offer the public a genuine choice or something different outside of the narrow tram lines we're supposed to follow.

[Magpies1959]

Fantastic post jackal, very true and scary, how anyone with more extreme/maverick, political ideals from either wing, soon seems to be hounded out.
EP, I was not offended by you all but calling me a Gammon, but was offended, that you thought I might be offended by you all but calling me a Gammon

[Elite_Pie]

EP, I was not offended by you all but calling me a Gammon, but was offended, that you thought I might be offended by you all but calling me a Gammon

That certainly clears things up!

Back on topic, Gordon was pretty good.

[i961pie]

You’re missing the point what anyone classes as a bigot is different in every case, I’m sure there’s people ion here who see you BFP Andy as lefties Marxists, Commies etc is that true? and by the same token when someone in the slightest puts a different opinion to you, BFP, etc they suddenly become accused of Tory’s with right wing views and are scum of the earth, all I’m saying is that people just need to be a bit more accepting that’s all and not go off at the deep end.

Couldn’t agree more.

[Jampie]

Don't get sucked in by the trans hate you see around in the press. They're no threat to anyone - just want to be left alone basically.

It's really weird to me that people seem to find their existence threatening. I'm friends with a couple of them and honestly my bits haven't fallen off

Where is the fear coming from?

[Newish Pie]

I get your point that we don't want the Conservative and Labour parties to be full of head-banging extremists, but we should be equally wary of those that say the Conservative and Labour parties should be "broad churches". These weasel words sounds fluffy and nice on face value, but behind them is the desire by dark underlying self-serving forces to water down the values of both parties to such an extent that they're offering the public very little choice or difference between one and the other.

Little or no real choice for the public is exactly what the real power brokers behind our political facade are seeking to achieve, and you could argue that's exactly what we face at the moment with a "choice" between Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer. Both are far more concerned with the pursuit of power and personal status than driving a political ideology or achieving any real change.

It seems strange to even need to say this, but the Conservative Party should be assertively Conservative and the Labour Party should be proudly Socialist. That's what they're supposed to be. That's what their leaders are supposed to be. It gives people a choice, and likewise if the public genuinely want a 'centre' option (or indeed any other variation) then that's where other parties and leaders should make their pitch.



I can't see any scenario in which I would actively want a Labour government, but politics is cyclical and if the opinion polls are to be believed, we're reaching that stage in the political cycle when a Labour government looks increasingly likely.

If that's the case, then ironically, the 'no real choice' situation I've just bitterly criticised could actually work for those like me of a Conservative persuasion. Like Tony Blair before him, Sir Keir Starmer appears to be far more motivated by the pursuit of power than any desire to advance a Socialist ideology, and the more I listen to policy announcements from Starmer and the likes of Wes Streeting, the more I'm left wondering what exactly I'm supposed to vehemently disagree with. Don't get me wrong, I don't trust Starmer as far as I can throw him, I think he's a vacuous shill of a politician, but if I've got to swallow a Labour government for a while, then from a purely selfish viewpoint I can probably tolerate the version he's offering, even though I'd never vote for it. In effect, it's 'New Labour' version two.

Tony Blair famously said "we were elected as New Labour and we will govern as New Labour", and it's fair to say he did. He stayed pretty true to the Conservative economic policies he inherited, and ended up being the best mate of George Bush Jr! Gordon Brown when he took over arguably tried to move the Labour government gradually more to the Left, but I don't think it's any coincidence that this was exactly when the underlying power brokers started to unleash the 'hounds of hell' treatment on him, effectively manufacturing the Labour government's downfall.

The point is, whether they're coming ideologically from the Left or the Right, or are simply a bit maverick and unpredictable (e.g. Boris), woe betide anyone who threatens to offer the public a genuine choice or something different outside of the narrow tram lines we're supposed to follow.

Thanks Jackal, that's an interesting and thoughtful post. I agree with some of what you say, but not all of it, and I've got a few thoughts to add. I miss the days when a greater percentage of Tory voters were reasonable, even though we might disagree on some things.

I kind of agree about voters being denied choice if Labour aren't Socialist and the Tories aren't "assertively Conservative". I'd argue that the so-called "Conservative" Party haven't been Conservative for ages... there's nothing conservative about Brexit, about ripping up decades-old trade and political arrangements, risking the peace in NI, lying to the Queen and so on. On the other hand, I think that a lot of voters are pretty centrist these days.

What's needed to address the issue you identify is a change to the voting system. First Past the Post (FPTP) delivers election results to the two biggest parties (but especially the Tories) and also to the SNP that are way out of proportion to their actual share of the vote. It punishes smaller parties, especially those whose support is spread evenly rather than concentrated in certain areas. So the Lib Dems, the Greens, and UKIP lose out and don't get the representation they deserve. I think UKIP are a bunch of headbangers and fruitcakes, but I don't deny for the moment that the electoral system has cheated them of representation. It's mad that they've only ever had one MP (through defection) and the Greens have only ever had one seet. Again, don't care what you think of them, if you care about democracy they deserve more.

In fact, talking about media bias earlier... I'll tell you who's on the receiving end of media bias. The Lib Dems. They're the punchline of every joke, in spite of getting a respectable share of the votes in most elections, and they don't get their share of media attention for their policy announcements. I tend to think that they're just Yellow Tories and I'm not a fan of some of their dubious campaigning strategies, but they've been really badly treated for decades.

The electoral system means that neither Labour nor the Conservatives could be split, because their vote would be split and they'd get hammered. Whatever you think about 'Change UK', to me that was a perfectly valid new centrist party that was neither Corbynite nor Tory headbanger... but the electoral system means they never got a chance.

If we had electoral reform and some sort of proportional representation, in terms of parties with seats, I reckon we end up with something like.

Hard Left Eat the Rich and Nationalise Everything (and Putin's not so bad really) Party
Democratic Socialists (the Left and perhaps the Centre of Labour)
The Whole Planet is on Fire and Can Someone Please Do Something Party
New Labour 2.0 and Centrist Dad Party
Liberal Democrats, Change UK, Cheese and Sensible Jumpers Party
Reasonable One Nation Conservatives with a Conscience Party
Hard Right Eat the Poor and Tear Down the State and Cut Taxes for the Super Rich Party
We're Not Racists Actually and Stop Calling is G*mm*ns Party
We are actual Racists (and H*tler was misunderstood) Party

Possibly that's too many centre parties, I don't know. Names for parody value, obviously. With some form of proportional representation, we can all vote for the party we want, not to keep out the party we don't. It would probably lead to near permanent coalition government, but that's better than one party absolute majority rule.


On the other point about anyone veering too far from the centre getting monstered... I agree that that's what happened to Corbyn. Someone I wasn't a fan of, more on the grounds of basic managerial and political competence than ideology.

But it's not what's happened to the right wing of the Tory party, and associated Tufton Street Dodgy Funding Think Tank Crankery. They've been platformed and indulged and cosseted and cheerleaded (if that's a word) with minimal criticism or challenge. Johnson, by rights, should have been sunk about a billion scandals ago. The Jennifer Acuri scandal would have done for any other politician, if any other politician could have got anywhere near that stage with such a record of serial lies.

Johnson has no-one to blame but himself for his downfall. Entirely self-inflicted to the extent that even his own side could no longer stomach defending the indefensible. And yet... sections of the media still cheerlead away.

I think anyone who thinks that the political right has been hard done by needs to explain why Farage was on TV constantly, when the Greens were denied similar treatment. Even before Brexit and before a referendum was a remote possibility.

It also needs to explain how Liz Truss got anywhere near being PM. A hardline wannabe Thatcherite trying to inflict a programme of massive tax cuts for the rich and massive austerity for everyone else... a programme for which no-one but some members of the Conservative Party voted for. Someone completely unsuitable in terms of temperament, intellect, vision, basic grasp of economics and reality. Someone who tried to blame her downfall on... the famously woke and left wing international bond markets....

But they not only didn't stop it, they enabled it.

[jackal2]

Thanks Jackal, that's an interesting and thoughtful post. I agree with some of what you say, but not all of it, and I've got a few thoughts to add. I miss the days when a greater percentage of Tory voters were reasonable, even though we might disagree on some things.

I kind of agree about voters being denied choice if Labour aren't Socialist and the Tories aren't "assertively Conservative". I'd argue that the so-called "Conservative" Party haven't been Conservative for ages... there's nothing conservative about Brexit, about ripping up decades-old trade and political arrangements, risking the peace in NI, lying to the Queen and so on. On the other hand, I think that a lot of voters are pretty centrist these days.

Thanks Newish Pie, likewise I agree with you on some points and not on others, but you make your arguments most eloquently and constructively.

Speaking as someone in his 50s who's voted Conservative at every election (except one) since I was 18, I think I can make
reasonable claim to being conservative, but I did vote for Brexit and I don't regret it. In fact, I think it was a rare but magnificent democratic moment when the public refused to do what they were told by the vested interests and power brokers, despite being subjected to a quite outrageous level of pressure to vote Remain, including a one-sided Government leaflet funded by the public purse!

Unsurprisingly, the dark forces who were shocked to their foundations by the Brexit vote were never going to accept the outcome and they still exercise a frightening amount of power which they're now using to push the message that Brexit has failed, to indeed try to make it fail, and ultimately seek to reverse the public's decision. Hopefully they'll overplay their hand in much the same way as they did during the campaign itself, making their self-serving agenda so obvious that even the less politically astute members of the public will still see through it.

What's needed to address the issue you identify is a change to the voting system. First Past the Post (FPTP) delivers election results to the two biggest parties (but especially the Tories) and also to the SNP that are way out of proportion to their actual share of the vote. It punishes smaller parties, especially those whose support is spread evenly rather than concentrated in certain areas. So the Lib Dems, the Greens, and UKIP lose out and don't get the representation they deserve. I think UKIP are a bunch of headbangers and fruitcakes, but I don't deny for the moment that the electoral system has cheated them of representation. It's mad that they've only ever had one MP (through defection) and the Greens have only ever had one seet. Again, don't care what you think of them, if you care about democracy they deserve more.

In fact, talking about media bias earlier... I'll tell you who's on the receiving end of media bias. The Lib Dems. They're the punchline of every joke, in spite of getting a respectable share of the votes in most elections, and they don't get their share of media attention for their policy announcements. I tend to think that they're just Yellow Tories and I'm not a fan of some of their dubious campaigning strategies, but they've been really badly treated for decades.

The electoral system means that neither Labour nor the Conservatives could be split, because their vote would be split and they'd get hammered. Whatever you think about 'Change UK', to me that was a perfectly valid new centrist party that was neither Corbynite nor Tory headbanger... but the electoral system means they never got a chance.

If we had electoral reform and some sort of proportional representation, in terms of parties with seats, I reckon we end up with something like.

Hard Left Eat the Rich and Nationalise Everything (and Putin's not so bad really) Party
Democratic Socialists (the Left and perhaps the Centre of Labour)
The Whole Planet is on Fire and Can Someone Please Do Something Party
New Labour 2.0 and Centrist Dad Party
Liberal Democrats, Change UK, Cheese and Sensible Jumpers Party
Reasonable One Nation Conservatives with a Conscience Party
Hard Right Eat the Poor and Tear Down the State and Cut Taxes for the Super Rich Party
We're Not Racists Actually and Stop Calling is G*mm*ns Party
We are actual Racists (and H*tler was misunderstood) Party

Possibly that's too many centre parties, I don't know. Names for parody value, obviously. With some form of proportional representation, we can all vote for the party we want, not to keep out the party we don't. It would probably lead to near permanent coalition government, but that's better than one party absolute majority rule.

I'm genuinely 50/50 on changing the voting system. I see some merit in the 'strong governance' argument often advanced by defenders of FPTP, especially when you see the chaos that sometimes ensues in countries with more proportional systems, but I also agree with you that democracy isn't served when smaller parties command a significant vote share and yet receive little or no representation in Parliament. I might support some form of PR in the future if only to create the conditions where we could get party names like the ones you've created!

Of course, the public were asked their opinion via the electoral system referendum a decade ago and voted to keep FPTP, but the level of undue Government/major party influence in limiting the options and steering the public towards the FPTP outcome was frankly not all that far different from the kind of coercive campaign we witnessed for 'Remain' in the Brexit referendum. In fact let's be honest, David Cameron's decision to "allow" the public a say on Brexit - how decent of him - owed much to the confidence he gained from the electoral system referendum. He thought he would be able to "control" the outcome in favour of 'Remain' in the same way he did for FPTP... but he was wrong!

On the other point about anyone veering too far from the centre getting monstered... I agree that that's what happened to Corbyn. Someone I wasn't a fan of, more on the grounds of basic managerial and political competence than ideology.

(Unsurprisingly) I disagreed strongly with Jeremy Corbyn's policies which I believe would have been disastrous for the country. However, I immensely respected the integrity and dignity with which he articulated his beliefs, and his bravery in seeking to offer the public genuine change. In return, he was subjected to the most - as you say - 'monstrous' treatment, including multiple personal attacks and a persistent all-round character assassination by large swathes of the media. I found it hugely distasteful and completely unwarranted in what's supposed to be a democracy, and I've got no doubt whatsoever it was once again driven by those dark power brokers who saw a very real threat in someone offering the public such a radical alternative choice.

But it's not what's happened to the right wing of the Tory party, and associated Tufton Street Dodgy Funding Think Tank Crankery. They've been platformed and indulged and cosseted and cheerleaded (if that's a word) with minimal criticism or challenge. Johnson, by rights, should have been sunk about a billion scandals ago. The Jennifer Acuri scandal would have done for any other politician, if any other politician could have got anywhere near that stage with such a record of serial lies.

Johnson has no-one to blame but himself for his downfall. Entirely self-inflicted to the extent that even his own side could no longer stomach defending the indefensible. And yet... sections of the media still cheerlead away.

I think anyone who thinks that the political right has been hard done by needs to explain why Farage was on TV constantly, when the Greens were denied similar treatment. Even before Brexit and before a referendum was a remote possibility.

It also needs to explain how Liz Truss got anywhere near being PM. A hardline wannabe Thatcherite trying to inflict a programme of massive tax cuts for the rich and massive austerity for everyone else... a programme for which no-one but some members of the Conservative Party voted for. Someone completely unsuitable in terms of temperament, intellect, vision, basic grasp of economics and reality. Someone who tried to blame her downfall on... the famously woke and left wing international bond markets....

But they not only didn't stop it, they enabled it.

I agree that Boris Johnson and Liz Truss like Corbyn had competence issues and contributed to their own downfall, but having acknowledged the way Corbyn was targeted for his assertively Socialist agenda, it would be myopic not to see that several figures on the assertively Right-wing (not hard Right) of British politics have also been subject to what I call the 'hounds of hell' treatment for offering the public an option too far off the centre line.

One poster on here once described me as a libertarian conservative and I wouldn't necessarily disagree - economically conservative and socially liberal I would say - but as one of the 'Thatcher's children' generation I think it's sad to see how politicians taking a strong position anywhere beyond the centre of the political spectrum are vilified these days, and how by extension, we seem to see an ever growing number of vacuous career politicians who are quite happy to play "within the lines" as long as they're making money and feeding their egos.

Tony Benn is quoted as saying 'The people who have sacrificed their view in order to get to the top have very often left no footprint in the sands of time'. He was probably right, and they won't have made much positive difference to many people's lives either.

[Elite_Pie]

Speaking as someone in his 50s who's voted Conservative at every election (except one) since I was 18, I think I can make reasonable claim to being conservative, but I did vote for Brexit and I don't regret it. In fact, I think it was a rare but magnificent democratic moment when the public refused to do what they were told by the vested interests and power brokers, despite being subjected to a quite outrageous level of pressure to vote Remain, including a one-sided Government leaflet funded by the public purse!

So the alternative to opting for "a quite outrageous level of pressure to vote Remain, including a one-sided Government leaflet funded by the public purse" was to vote for a pack of outrageous lies by vote Leave. Not alleged lies, but proven lies with the benefit of hindsight.

So tell us how this "rare but magnificent democratic moment when the public refused to do what they were told by the vested interests and power brokers" has been magnificent? Also tell us how many promises have been realised and how many were lies?

What exactly are the benefits of Brexit?

[cher1]

Don't get sucked in by the trans hate you see around in the press. They're no threat to anyone - just want to be left alone basically.

It's really weird to me that people seem to find their existence threatening. I'm friends with a couple of them and honestly my bits haven't fallen off

Where is the fear coming from?

Some males are a threat to females. It's not trans hate. It's females wanting to maintain our safety, comfort and dignity. Oh and our own sports. Can I ask why you think single s*x spaces exist and are enshrined in law?

[keldsyke]

Some males are a threat to females. It's not trans hate. It's females wanting to maintain our safety, comfort and dignity. Oh and our own sports. Can I ask why you think single s*x spaces exist and are enshrined in law?

Just for balance, domestic abuse occurs in the opposite direction too, although not on a greater scale, but it exists.