I saw Rachel Reeves on Newsnight, thought she was no more boring than most other politicians. I did note a problem Labour have when she reemed off a number of policies, all of them were very core vote and none jumped out at me as being aimed at swing voters. I don't think things like reversing the "bedroom tax" and curtailing zero hour contracts will hurd a new breed of Labour voters to the ballot box.
Come on moderators. 5200 posts of solid spam from Plato. Hardly ever an original comment just pages of other people's articles or tweets. I find it makes the site pretty unreadable so more often than not I give it a miss. Can I suggest you canvas the site to find out whether other posters enjoy reading Plato's précis of other people's articles? If so That's fine.
UKIP's chances in Ribble Valley are pretty slim .I would expect Steve Rush to stand as an Independent in any by election and split their vote in 2 .
Obviously much would depend on whether he did stand, but either way I suspect there are enough punters who'd bet on UKIP out of wishful thinking to shift the odds.
May results for the 7 CC divisions making up the Parliamentary seat
Con 10,480 All 7 fought Lab 4,818 All 7 fought UKIP 1,945 3 fought LDem 1,713 5 fought Rush 1,016 1 fought Idle Toad 595 1 fought
Come on moderators. 5200 posts of solid spam from Plato. Hardly ever an original comment just pages of other people's articles or tweets. I find it makes the site pretty unreadable so more often than not I give it a miss. Can I suggest you canvas the site to find out whether other posters enjoy reading Plato's précis of other people's articles? If so That's fine.
I'd rather read Plato's articles from other people than the vitriol spouted by some on here.
@NickPalmer: You're right that some Tories do give the impression of sneering at people, a major fault in a political party. Labour do and have done the same. It's not a party political point; there just seems to be a view amongst the political class that voters are something to be endured and a bit of nuisance. Why on earth do they think that will make people vote for them?
I think part of it comes from viewing people as categories: immigrants / bankers / trade unionists / etc which makes it easier to hurl abuse and generalities. It's a trait to be deplored.
I don't altogether disagree, but I don't agree either. The political class does behave as you say - that's why people are inclined to believe "they're all the same".
However IMHO the different parties have different repulsive traits - weaknesses that spring from their world-views. Having grown up on the receiving end of Conservatives' typical obnoxiousness, in adulthood that presses buttons that go much deeper than the equivalent obnoxiousness displayed by other parties.
Thee's a lot of darkness in all of us, and we have to be particularly careful about that when we get together with like-minded people; especially so when the objective of our togetherness is to achieve power over others.
Runs a lot deeper than not being immigrant-friendly, Nick. I grew up on the wrong side of the track in overwhelmingly Tory territory. What you describe is how they feel about people in general. That's why the 'Plebs' business resonated so deeply - people believe it all too easily, even if that particular accusation was a falsehood.
The Conservative party has a mountain to climb where dealing with ordinary people is concerned.
That's quite some generalisations there. In the past the Tories have been very good indeed at reaching out to and speaking up for ordinary people - one of the reasons for their past electoral successes - though now much much less so. Interestingly, it was the patrician Tories (and a lot of patrician Labour people) who sneered at the Thatchers and Tebbits and Essex men and women so I think it is as much a class issue as a Tory issue. It's more prominent now because the Tories are led by old-style Tories who have forgotten this critical lesson from Tory history.
Labour are not much better in my opinion. They seem to have little interest in and a rather condescending attitude to people who are conservative in their general views (with a small "c"), not rich but wanting to make the best of themselves and their children. As someone who was a child of immigrants, growing up in a rented home and with a father who worked in the public sector, I never felt - and never got the sense from my parents that they felt - that Labour were on their side. Partly this was because of Labour's attitude to education - something both my parents valued greatly - and partly because the unions were much more active politically and really did seem then to run Labour.
Blair moved away from that but simply replaced it with brown-nosing the City and the very rich. Either way, both parties largely ignore those of us who are in the middle and just trying to get on with our lives, in the face of politicians' repeated attempts to make life as difficult as possible for us.
AnneJGP: "the different parties have different repulsive traits - weaknesses that spring from their world-views. "
Agree with this. I didn't like Thatcher but I sympathised with the condescension she faced from more traditional Tories and with the difficulty of making her way as a woman in a man's world, partly because when she was PM I was largely working in a male dominated legal world and encountered much of the same old-Tory like condescension and sneering. And I see that in Cameron and Osborne. I don't see it in Milliband. He has other faults but that is not one of them.
Labour's repulsive traits for me became worse when Blair became leader and since then. He removed Labour from its roots of wanting to improve the lives of the worse off, worshipped money without any scepticism and became more and more illiberal.
So really I have no real party which speaks for or to me and my vote is largely determined by who I'm voting against.
I just find it bizarre why people want to go into politics if they don't like people and aren't interested in them. No matter how dim or insane someone is there is always something interesting and worthwhile about them, if you're genuinely interested.
Cyclefree, you are bang on the money with this post.
"That's quite some generalisations there. In the past the Tories have been very good indeed at reaching out to and speaking up for ordinary people - one of the reasons for their past electoral successes - though now much much less so. Interestingly, it was the patrician Tories (and a lot of patrician Labour people) who sneered at the Thatchers and Tebbits and Essex men and women so I think it is as much a class issue as a Tory issue. It's more prominent now because the Tories are led by old-style Tories who have forgotten this critical lesson from Tory history.
Labour are not much better in my opinion. They seem to have little interest in and a rather condescending attitude to people who are conservative in their general views (with a small "c"), not rich but wanting to make the best of themselves and their children. As someone who was a child of immigrants, growing up in a rented home and with a father who worked in the public sector, I never felt - and never got the sense from my parents that they felt - that Labour were on their side. Partly this was because of Labour's attitude to education - something both my parents valued greatly - and partly because the unions were much more active politically and really did seem then to run Labour.
Blair moved away from that but simply replaced it with brown-nosing the City and the very rich. Either way, both parties largely ignore those of us who are in the middle and just trying to get on with our lives, in the face of politicians' repeated attempts to make life as difficult as possible for us."
Come on moderators. 5200 posts of solid spam from Plato. Hardly ever an original comment just pages of other people's articles or tweets. I find it makes the site pretty unreadable so more often than not I give it a miss. Can I suggest you canvas the site to find out whether other posters enjoy reading Plato's précis of other people's articles? If so That's fine.
I'd rather read Plato's articles from other people than the vitriol spouted by some on here.
I find them more readable than Tim's monotonous pushing of meme's. And that's something that definitely makes the site unreadable at times.
Hardly ever an original comment just pages of other people's articles or tweets.
One of the reason I visit PB is because of the useful collection of links to political stories/comments and anecdotes etc that Plato and others provide. Some are useful and interesting, others not.
I think it a brill ‘service’ as more papers go behind a paywall and I simply do not have much time to trawl on-line for things I would otherwise miss.
Most of us don't have unlimited time which is why links and a one line intro are helpful. Vast semi edited passages are not. They just clog up the site and by the time someone replies quoting the quoted article unreadable becomes give up.
@Roger, - a short epistle to acknowledge I’ve read your response. - BTW, there are other ways of clogging up the threads with nonsense day in day out, over 9,000+ in fact.
Comments
Con 10,480 All 7 fought
Lab 4,818 All 7 fought
UKIP 1,945 3 fought
LDem 1,713 5 fought
Rush 1,016 1 fought
Idle Toad 595 1 fought
However IMHO the different parties have different repulsive traits - weaknesses that spring from their world-views. Having grown up on the receiving end of Conservatives' typical obnoxiousness, in adulthood that presses buttons that go much deeper than the equivalent obnoxiousness displayed by other parties.
Thee's a lot of darkness in all of us, and we have to be particularly careful about that when we get together with like-minded people; especially so when the objective of our togetherness is to achieve power over others.
Agree with this. I didn't like Thatcher but I sympathised with the condescension she faced from more traditional Tories and with the difficulty of making her way as a woman in a man's world, partly because when she was PM I was largely working in a male dominated legal world and encountered much of the same old-Tory like condescension and sneering. And I see that in Cameron and Osborne. I don't see it in Milliband. He has other faults but that is not one of them.
Labour's repulsive traits for me became worse when Blair became leader and since then. He removed Labour from its roots of wanting to improve the lives of the worse off, worshipped money without any scepticism and became more and more illiberal.
So really I have no real party which speaks for or to me and my vote is largely determined by who I'm voting against.
I just find it bizarre why people want to go into politics if they don't like people and aren't interested in them. No matter how dim or insane someone is there is always something interesting and worthwhile about them, if you're genuinely interested.
"That's quite some generalisations there. In the past the Tories have been very good indeed at reaching out to and speaking up for ordinary people - one of the reasons for their past electoral successes - though now much much less so. Interestingly, it was the patrician Tories (and a lot of patrician Labour people) who sneered at the Thatchers and Tebbits and Essex men and women so I think it is as much a class issue as a Tory issue. It's more prominent now because the Tories are led by old-style Tories who have forgotten this critical lesson from Tory history.
Labour are not much better in my opinion. They seem to have little interest in and a rather condescending attitude to people who are conservative in their general views (with a small "c"), not rich but wanting to make the best of themselves and their children. As someone who was a child of immigrants, growing up in a rented home and with a father who worked in the public sector, I never felt - and never got the sense from my parents that they felt - that Labour were on their side. Partly this was because of Labour's attitude to education - something both my parents valued greatly - and partly because the unions were much more active politically and really did seem then to run Labour.
Blair moved away from that but simply replaced it with brown-nosing the City and the very rich. Either way, both parties largely ignore those of us who are in the middle and just trying to get on with our lives, in the face of politicians' repeated attempts to make life as difficult as possible for us."
I think it a brill ‘service’ as more papers go behind a paywall and I simply do not have much time to trawl on-line for things I would otherwise miss.
Most of us don't have unlimited time which is why links and a one line intro are helpful. Vast semi edited passages are not. They just clog up the site and by the time someone replies quoting the quoted article unreadable becomes give up.