A Political Thread

[Peat]

I think it's a question of how people come across on television and that doesn't matter. How someone reacts behind closed doors to the stresses and leading those working for him is far more important than having a winning personality for the public.

You think there's no link between being able to make one's points in a cool and convincing way on television/radio/in print in a paper/in person to voters, and being able to do so to one's cabinet colleagues/foreign counterparts/heads of industry? That charm and the ability to negotiate have no use in the back doors running of government?

Also, do you think people only judge a man's personality on his speeches and not on his policy? That the British public only pays attention to debates and none to policies? Do you think a man's policies don't point at his personality?

Because I couldn't agree.

Miliband had five years to make a positive impression on the British people. He could do it through a number of mediums, he could it by speech making, he could it through personal meetings, he could do it through policies. He completely failed to do so as a leader. I think a lot of people think he's a fairly nice guy - just not a leader. Because he spent five years very visibly failing to lead.

I'm failing to express this well. It's why I'm waiting until I'm off work and not so tired to make the points I want to in the detail I want to with the clarity I want to.

But I think it's a mistake to say personality has nothing to do with being an effective leader, a huge mistake. I think it's a mistake to say how someone comes across on TV isn't a decent reflection on that sort of personality - and I think it's a mistake to say that people judge a politician's personality on how he comes across on TV.

Crucially though, I don't think the British public rejected Miliband on grounds of personality alone. They rejected him because he failed as a leader. Saying it's all down to personality, as in whether he could gracefully eat a bacon sandwich, undersells the public's intelligence and oversells his effectiveness.

 

[j'nuh]

It isn't really that personality/leadership does not matter to the job, beyond the PR/media responsibilities. It certainly does have an effect. It's more that when the Labour and Conservative policies are so ideologically different, personality politics of the leader is a somewhat superfluous characteristic. Personally, I would prefer an uninspiring Labour leader than any Conservative in power, just so Labour form government.

 

[Peat]

It isn't really that personality/leadership does not matter to the job, beyond the PR/media responsibilities. It certainly does have an effect. It's more that when the Labour and Conservative policies are so ideologically different, personality politics of the leader is a somewhat superfluous characteristic. Personally, I would prefer an uninspiring Labour leader than any Conservative in power, just so Labour form government.

And what about those voters who are prepared to vote either Labour or Conservative depending? Is the personality of the leader completely irrelevant to them? Or are these people an irrelevance?

Or Labour voters who might be considering Green, or Lib Dem, or Trade Unionists and Socialists, or the SNP? Is the personality superfluous to their decision?

 

[j'nuh]

And what about those voters who are prepared to vote either Labour or Conservative depending? Is the personality of the leader completely irrelevant to them? Or are these people an irrelevance?

Or Labour voters who might be considering Green, or Lib Dem, or Trade Unionists and Socialists, or the SNP? Is the personality superfluous to their decision?

I'm not disputing what is, I'm disputing what should be. To be honest, I mostly perceive personality politics to be a shortcut to forming beliefs. So much of our country is politically apathetic (see voter turnout, especially in European and local elections), I can't help but think a lot of people vote without the exposure/knowledge of party policy, and use personality as a substitute.

 

[McTallshort]

And what about those voters who are prepared to vote either Labour or Conservative depending? Is the personality of the leader completely irrelevant to them? Or are these people an irrelevance?

Or Labour voters who might be considering Green, or Lib Dem, or Trade Unionists and Socialists, or the SNP? Is the personality superfluous to their decision?

Most Labour voters are moving to UKIP and the personality of Farage and how he puts things across is a big part of that.

 

[McTallshort]

I'm not disputing what is, I'm disputing what should be. To be honest, I mostly perceive personality politics to be a shortcut to forming beliefs. So much of our country is politically apathetic (see voter turnout, especially in European and local elections), I can't help but think a lot of people vote without the exposure/knowledge of party policy, and use personality as a substitute.

I agree I vote without the exposure etc because politics is mostly quite boring and the people involved in it tend to be of the same background. So selling themselves to me the voter is very important and its always been that way. To become a ruler you have to have charisma or a big army.

 

[ncurd]

So what you're saying is you can't be arsed to make an informed decision and look at people's policies yet they have greater impact on the everyday life of you and you're family.

Congratulations you're everything wrong with the country.

 

[McTallshort]

So what you're saying is you can't be arsed to make an informed decision and look at people's policies yet they have greater impact on the everyday life of you and you're family.

Congratulations you're everything wrong with the country.

Your welcome! Although I do work pay taxes abide the laws bring my children up the right way but all that's meaningless because I don't read a party manifesto and that means I'm everything that's wrong with the country? Smug, self-righteous clown.

 

[ncurd]

Sorry (sincerely) you're right I should of said you're everything that's wrong with this country when it comes to elections.

 

[ncurd]

Okay before this decendes into silliness (well further).

Everyones favourite Scot Alex Salmond has called for another Scottish referendum. He called the last once in a lifetime and said the debate had been settled.

Of course this was when everyone was expecting a Lab/SNP coalition government.

Personally I think whilst he makes some fair points the Scots can't call the union into question every 5 minutes. Give it 10 years between referendums will create some stability.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33668002

 

[McTallshort]

Sorry (sincerely) you're right I should of said you're everything that's wrong with this country when it comes to elections.

Ah forget it. Just out of interest if the electorate did take a bigger interest in everything, which party/parties would benefit the most?

 

[ncurd]

Ah forget it. Just out of interest if the electorate did take a bigger interest in everything, which party/parties would benefit the most?

Who knows? What would happen if we didn't use tactical voting? (LibDems use to be regularly be told people would vote for them if there was a chance they'd win...not so true now but I suspect UKIP might be feeling that).

PR Is another thing that would dramatically change things for gIving us a goverment that reflect the views.

The real reality is voter apathy is so high nobody knows what would happen if 100% of people vote and vote along lines that matter to them most.

 

[Peat]

Given that, of the UKIP voters, only 7% voted Labour in 2010 (compared to 60% Tories and 15% Lib Dems), I think it's fair to say that this isn't true.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/03/05/analysis-ukip-voters/

I'm just going to address this one by itself as its been bugging me most.

First, being anti-immigrant =/= voting UKIP. It's just not an accurate measurement. Labour voters with anti-immigrant sentiment could also just stay with Labour, go to the Tories, or stay home. Or they might have left the Labour party for the Tories a while back and are now moving on to UKIP. It's so patently not an accurate measurement that I don't know why you brought it up.

Second, the Labour party themselves have acknowledged this was an issue and tried to address it in their policies. There was even a mug for crying out loud! This?

This was real! http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/labours-anti-immigrant-mug-worst-part-it-isnt-gaffe

Do you think they produced that because Ed Miliband thought that would be a great joke for honouring his dad, or do you think they produced it because a significant proportion of Labour's core supporters are anti-immigrant?

It wasn't just last minute panic either - http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ukip-anti-immigrant-vote-ed-miliband-election - that's 2014, that's Diane Abbot not liking Ed Miliband "getting down in the gutter with Ukip to tussle for anti-immigrant votes." I have slightly mangled that quote in the sake of readability but it does reflect the tone of the piece.

This issue has been reported on in the media from every angle, from every wing of the press. Labour's acknowledged it, the research companies have reported it. Just a random grab bag of links on the subject -

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/18/labour-party-voters-desertion-election - 'It was also seen as anti-business, in the pocket of the unions and not tough enough on immigration. “Immigration is the topic that, left to their own devices, the respondents would have talked about all night. Their central arguments, across all groups and repeated frequently, were along the lines that our country is full, our country is broke and public services are creaking and cannot stand extra strain.â€'

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/say-it-again-labour-should-beware-ukip and http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...labour-voters-drifting-ukip-or-not-voting-all - we clearly saw it being a problem in some core Labour seats up north.

And by core Labour seats, we mean those with large numbers of white working class - "It said that while Labour’s middle-class support held up, the party did badly amongst blue collar voters, many of whom went to the Tories or Ukip." - http://www.theguardian.com/politics...tion-what-it-needs-next-smith-institute-study

It's not even like this is new! 2010, you've got this: "The regrets and half-apologies for Labour’s mass immigration policy are starting. The Eds, Balls and Miliband, and Jon Cruddas have all accepted that too many people came in too quickly. Ed Miliband told Andrew Marr on Sunday that the costs and benefits of mass immigration were very unevenly distributed and too many of the costs fell on Labour’s core working class voters. Jon Cruddas described the policy as acting like an unforgiving incomes policy for those in the lower part of the income spectrum." - http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2010/05/18/labour-must-become-the-anti-immigration-party-david-goodhart/

"Rather, the party draws much of its support from working class voters (many of whom voted Labour in 2005 before defecting to the Tories in 2010) alienated by the collapse in living standards and the lack of good jobs." - http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/03/ukip-threat-labour-not-north

The Fabian Society said it was a problem - http://www.fabians.org.uk/revolt-on-the-left-labours-ukip-problem-and-how-it-can-be-overcome/

The Economist noticed the problem - http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/06/labours-electorate

From Frank Field, in the Indie - Mr Field added: “In my lifetime, we’ve moved from a Labour Party which was working class-dominated. Some trendy London middle class went along with it but [were] subjected, at least publicly, to the moral economy of the working class.

“We’ve moved to a stage where what was that minority is in a governing position, which imposes upon the working class its moral economy… there is a real crisis of representation.†- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-need-own-citizenship-ceremonies-8559004.html

And the Telegraph back in 2009 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...s-betrayed-tribe-the-white-working-class.html

And I will stop here as either you've got the message or you refuse to listen to it at any costs. There are Labour voters - or in some cases ex-Labour voters - for whom anti-immigrant messages are music to their ears. There are core supporters who are crying out for Labour to hear them on this issue.

That is not to say they are the majority or that there aren't Labour core supporters who wouldn't be appalled by this. But that's not the point really. The point is to suggest that Labour don't have issues with immigration, as you did, that pro-Immigrant is the way to Labour supporter's hearts, just is not backed up.

 

[Peat]

Sorry Peat going to have to disagree with you someone should stand for their political beliefs regardless of how inconvenient it is.

As a LiB Dem member not doing that has just wrecked the party in the general election. By entering a coalition with Tories many saw us as running away from our selves and duly punished for that no matter if a agree with the decision we took that's the reality of what happened.

So yes we have looked to the left (as many labour supporters are now) for a new leader as many of us feel that's how people see us politically even if were not as most see Liberalism as a politics of the left. And trying to win back those who supported us before.

TBH I was genuinely surprised by the election result but I think most people didn't predict the rise of the SNP and the divide and conquer mentality due it the Tories were able to muster. I honestly thought and still think we will end up more coalition goverments as I think through comprmise rather than one big party we end up with a goverment that rules for all rather than the few.


At the end of the day I feel labour is supposed to represent the common working person (for what they actually need not what they want) in Westminster just like the Lib-Dems are suppose to represent Liberalism. You need to hold on to your ideals and win out through reasoned arguement yeah it's easy to run after power and saying whatever is nessary but in the end that only gives the least worst option. I'd rather vote for a principaled man than a guy just trying to get votes say what you like about Corbyn but at least he belives.

I actually think what's just happened to the Lib Dems is a pretty good example of what's going on.

Because I think Nick Clegg did stand by his principles. I think his principles were to pursue a left-centrist liberal policy and do everything he could to make the country better and people's lives freer and fairer - and that meant seeking political victory and power, even if it involved a risk. I think that was true of many of his MPs.

And the issue was that it transpired that many potential Lib Dem voters did not share these principles. Which is fair enough, although I think it's a bit of a disgrace that people seek to say that having different principles meant that Clegg et al had no principles - which may not be what you're saying, but I've heard enough say it.

I look at Labour and people like Kendall and I think they've got principles as well and I don't think their principles run contrary to what the Labour party should be, although clearly a lot of Labour supporters may think so. I think Kendall wants to help nudge the country along to a fairer, more equal society, one in which the working classes and less fortunate are better off. She simply sees the path as being a bit different to Corbyn. And there's an issue, as more Labour MPs are like Kendall than Corbyn, and more Labour supporters seem to be like Corbyn than Kendall - at least, the new ones.

There is nothing unprincipled about seeking political power to do good. There is nothing unprincipled about being willing to obey the dictates of a democratic mandate. There is nothing unprincipled about preferring to compromise and come to an agreement all can agree with rather than saying "Lump it or leave it". And there is nothing unprincipled about believing that the politics of the centre are better for people than the politics of the left. At least, not intrinsically so - principles are individual after all.

There isn't even anything unprincipled about changing one's principles, depending. Many of us undergo big changes in our viewpoint as the world and our perceptions of it change.

There is also nothing unprincipled about saying "I have a number of principles and right now they are at odds so I'll follow one of them and compromise on the other".

Maybe that does lead to least worst rather than best, but it also leads to least worst rather than worst. That's the ugly truth of politics.

And when it comes down to it, I'd rather be with the person aiming for least worst rather than with the person going All or Nothing - because that's usually Nothing. And while that may be unpopular among political party supporters, it generally creates traction among voters, and I think supporters would be well advised to take that on board.

Which brings me to my final point - I don't know if activists and MPs were thinking and saying different things under Clegg, so I don't now if Lib Dem supporters were failing to predict what Lib Dem voters were thinking, but I think there's a lot of Labour supporters who want very different things to what significant numbers of Labour voters/potential voters want, but are failing to see that - or refusing to see that - and that rarely ends well. If they do see it, I hope they hold to principles of wanting to help the disadvantaged rather than principles of wanting to see the world occur in a certain way.

 

[YoungScud]

Okay before this decendes into silliness (well further).

Everyones favourite Scot Alex Salmond has called for another Scottish referendum. He called the last once in a lifetime and said the debate had been settled.

Of course this was when everyone was expecting a Lab/SNP coalition government.

Personally I think whilst he makes some fair points the Scots can't call the union into question every 5 minutes. Give it 10 years between referendums will create some stability.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33668002

That wasn't quite what he said, but leaving that aside, you kind of selectively picked on what he said after the referendum.

"He said these were a failure to deliver on the so-called "vow", the possible outcome of the EU referendum and "divergent views" over austerity cuts.

The SNP said the timing of any future referendum was "a matter for the people of Scotland".


These are the gamechanging issues. The Scottish electorate is both democratically and morally entitled to question whatever it wants. It's not up to you or anyone else to say otherwise. A referendum, the result of which which would have been altered by a 5% swing, was, like it or not, heavily influenced by promises which have been immediately reneged upon. The Scottish people would have to be crazy not to at least question the relationship with a partner who treats it with such contempt. It's as simple as this; I believe the rest of the UK labours under the misapprehension that the Scottish Parliament is some kind of semi-autonomous regional council. It is not. It is a Parliament, a Parliament which was never dissolved and has been resurrected, but with limitation placed on its powers. That situation can only ever be a stop-gap. If the SNP, or any other party, campaigns on a second referendum, even if that is conditional on material changes to the political situation, then that is what will happen, and Westminster has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to stop it. If that happens and the result is nagative again, it might be difficult for any future Scottish government to hold another referendum, but it's up to Scotland's people and no-one else.

 

[ncurd]

Just to say I agree with most of what you said, I've always been a fan of Clegg and he's not the power hungry idiot he's portrayed to be. Another man I think that is quite wrongly maligned in a similar manner is Tony Blair (yes the war in Iraq has many many issues but I believe he wanted to go there to improve the place not to wage war).

It's an interesting point you make though it does appear Labour members are moving away from their voters a bit like we did though.

It'll odd to see what happens though Corbyn seams to have a huge amount of support currently but I see the world with very leftist view filters (most of my friends on facebook are way more left-wing than myself) so what happens in the end I'm not sure. Corbyn has some policies that the general public desperately would like to see enacted (specifically in renationalisation of certain institutions, which I tend to agree with) so he may gain quite a bit of ground banging that drum.

 

[YoungScud]

I actually think what's just happened to the Lib Dems is a pretty good example of what's going on.

Because I think Nick Clegg did stand by his principles. I think his principles were to pursue a left-centrist liberal policy and do everything he could to make the country better and people's lives freer and fairer - and that meant seeking political victory and power, even if it involved a risk. I think that was true of many of his MPs.

Explain Danny Alexander then. A less principled LibDem it's hard to imagine, but Clegg seemed to favour him. Let's face it. They started by claiming, if you remember, that they wouldn't do a deal with the Tories, then when they deserted that position, at least you could rely on their absolute stance on tuition fees, right? Clegg wentt for the power, got nothing and now has nothing, having destroyed his party's power base. I have no sympathy.

 

[ncurd]

That wasn't quite what he said, but leaving that aside, you kind of selectively picked on what he said after the referendum.

"He said these were a failure to deliver on the so-called "vow", the possible outcome of the EU referendum and "divergent views" over austerity cuts.

The SNP said the timing of any future referendum was "a matter for the people of Scotland".


These are the gamechanging issues. The Scottish electorate is both democratically and morally entitled to question whatever it wants. It's not up to you or anyone else to say otherwise. A referendum, the result of which which would have been altered by a 5% swing, was, like it or not, heavily influenced by promises which have been immediately reneged upon. The Scottish people would have to be crazy not to at least question the relationship with a partner who treats it with such contempt. It's as simple as this; I believe the rest of the UK labours under the misapprehension that the Scottish Parliament is some kind of semi-autonomous regional council. It is not. It is a Parliament, a Parliament which was never dissolved and has been resurrected, but with limitation placed on its powers. That situation can only ever be a stop-gap. If the SNP, or any other party, campaigns on a second referendum, even if that is conditional on material changes to the political situation, then that is what will happen, and Westminster has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to stop it. If that happens and the result is nagative again, it might be difficult for any future Scottish government to hold another referendum, but it's up to Scotland's people and no-one else.

Sorry never bought the argument it's for the Scottish people only pulling out of United Kingdom has economic ramifications on the entire country as a whole and the idea Scotland can hold that up ransom every so often without any argument from the rest of the country is simply ludicrous. That said they have the right to self determination and are the only ones who can decide what happens when it comes to the vote.

The promises have not been renegged upon last I checked it was just taking more time to sort out than originally planned. Mainly because they are trying to sort out the west lothian question as well.

If you vote in a parliament you don't determine when it dissolves and now the UK parliament has very strict rules when that happens. You can't have a referendum on something just because the result didn't go your way otherwise what's to start the No campaign demanding another result if the next is won by the yes campaign by tiniest of margins say 0.1%. You would not like it then if they demanded a second crack of the whip?

- - - Updated - - -

Explain Danny Alexander then. A less principled LibDem it's hard to imagine, but Clegg seemed to favour him. Let's face it. They started by claiming, if you remember, that they wouldn't do a deal with the Tories, then when they deserted that position, at least you could rely on their absolute stance on tuition fees, right? Clegg wentt for the power, got nothing and now has nothing, having destroyed his party's power base. I have no sympathy.

Show me where they promised there would be no deal with Tories? It was never said.

The only hardened promised the Lib Dems went back on was tuition fee's they actually were able to act on almost 2/3 of their manifesto (although some thing didn't come into being as the Tories broke their promises on what they'd vote on). They gave up in the hope of massive electoral reform (which if you know the lib-dems is a far bigger policy of theirs) it was caculated mistake and one Clegg could never recover from but he didn't give up for power he simply did not have a choice if he wanted to get some of his policies enacted as the Tories wouldn't budge. It was a coalition of which the Lib-Dems were minor party they were never going to get all their key policies enacted.

 

[Peat]

Just to say I agree with most of what you said, I've always been a fan of Clegg and he's not the power hungry idiot he's portrayed to be. Another man I think that is quite wrongly maligned in a similar manner is Tony Blair (yes the war in Iraq has many many issues but I believe he wanted to go there to improve the place not to wage war).

It's an interesting point you make though it does appear Labour members are moving away from their voters a bit like we did though.

It'll odd to see what happens though Corbyn seams to have a huge amount of support currently but I see the world with very leftist view filters (most of my friends on facebook are way more left-wing than myself) so what happens in the end I'm not sure. Corbyn has some policies that the general public desperately would like to see enacted (specifically in renationalisation of certain institutions, which I tend to agree with) so he may gain quite a bit of ground banging that drum.

*nods* Very few politicians have really seized a moment and demographic like him recently; south of the border, it's him and Farage really. Boris comes a distant third. What all three have in common is people think they're completely and totally genuinely themselves. What Corbyn and Farage have that Boris doesn't is they're saying things that sizeable chunks of people have been saying to themselves for years and wondering when on earth a major politician was going to say it.

And the reason the major politicians didn't say them was that they were fairly sure the general populace didn't want to hear them. They were right with Farage. I suspect they're right with Corbyn too, barring a very seismic change.

Like you, I see a fair bit of Corbyn support on Facebook - not huge amounts, but he's basically a 100pc of the politics in my feed. But Facebook is a very bad filter through which to view the world. In fact, anything your friends say in public is a dodgy filter (not you specifically).

 

[YoungScud]

Sorry never bought the argument it's for the Scottish people only pulling out of United Kingdom has economic ramifications on the entire country as a whole and the idea Scotland can hold that up ransom every so often without any argument from the rest of the country is simply ludicrous. That said they have the right to self determination and are the only ones who can decide what happens when it comes to the vote.

The promises have not been renegged upon last I checked it was just taking more time to sort out than originally planned. Mainly because they are trying to sort out the west lothian question as well.

If you vote in a parliament you don't determine when it dissolves and now the UK parliament has very strict rules when that happens. You can't have a referendum on something just because the result didn't go your way otherwise what's to start the No campaign demanding another result if the next is won by the yes campaign by tiniest of margins say 0.1%. You would not like it then if they demanded a second crack of the whip?

I'm not talking about Westminster. The Scottish Parliament was never dissolved. It simply stood in recess. Your argument is self-defeating. Your acceptance of self-determination negates your claim that Scotland 'can't' hold the nation to ransom. We have no such intention. We simply want our right, enshrined in the UN Charter to decide for ourselves if and when we want to become an independent nation. However, it is perfectly acceptable in my view to follow the democratic process to wherever it leads us. If the Scottish people overwhelmingly elect a government committed to a referendum, I'd call that a mandate. Cameron seems to think he as one with around one third of the electorate voting for him, so I don't buy it.

As for the West Lothian question, it was never relevant. Tam Dalyell was a troublemaker, filled with hubris, who asked a question which hadn't arisen because there had never been a need. It took people's minds off Labour's appalling record in Scotland. If you recall, the SNP has always operated a self-enforced policy of abstaining on votes which do not affect Scotland. However, the Tories now want to create a situation whereby non-English MPs are essentially second-class MPs. They want to be the arbiters of what and what is not an English-only issue. Not happening.

"You would not like it then if they demanded a second crack of the whip?"

Don't presume to think for me. I am perfectly happy for No voters, even if defeated by a large majority, to demand another referendum. Of course, they'd have to follow the process of getting their supporters elected to a majority government, the process I described in my previous post, and which you seem happy to ignore.

- - - Updated - - -

Another man I think that is quite wrongly maligned in a similar manner is Tony Blair (yes the war in Iraq has many many issues but I believe he wanted to go there to improve the place not to wage war).

I was warming to you right up until that point. Blair wanted to improve the lot of those in Iraq? Really? Was this while he was busy justifying the police assassination of an innocent man? Or while he was feeding duff information to his master GW? Yellowcake Uranium mean anything to you, or maybe a dissertation way out of date fed to the gullible media as fact? Oh, you have to be kidding. The man was, sorry, is a megalomaniac. Just look at his treatment of Mo Mowlem.