Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
funny how my points went unresponded to....
Clare Short resigns Labour and goes Independent
- Thread starter tim
- Start date
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Your points weren't personally offensive!Red Jezza said:funny how my points went unresponded to....
Your point about turnout and percentage vote is well made. We still won, though. You might no longer think that's important - your choice and you've said why.
Your point about Labour not having been in power in Liverpool City Council because the Lib Dems have twice as many seats is also well made. I was right though.
You probably agree with me about Clare Short. Who couldn't love her?
You've made your other points before and I respect you for them. I can't be as complementary about Cde. Corbyn, though. He's the epitome of what lots of people up here think of as 80's London Labour.
See - you're too damn reasonable to reply to quickly!
TeeJay said:
.r.u.i.n.e.d has a valid point.
"Unelectable" is another case of politicians inventing a word which does not mean what it means. Double speak, if you like.
Alternatively, any party which gained less than 50% of the votes should be considered unelectable, in which case there are no electable parties in the UK right now.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
all of this is fair enough - IF, and only if, it is now accepted that it is impossible to be a socialist, honest AND a member of the party - which is ultimately why I quit. you can however be an SDP-sort-of-social-democrat, somewhere in between (f'rinstance) david owen and Callaghan.Fullyplumped said:
if that's what those left in want, OK. The argument has been made that there's no way you'll get a majority for Labour any other way, and that may well be the truth.
but to me it's a pretty dismal, depressing place to end up in, and it is why - after a lifetime arguing passionately both for people to exercise the right to vote, and to use it to vote Labour - I will not be voting at the next GE.
I simply can't see the point.
Not really. The dictionary sayssomething like: "Being such that election, as to high office, is difficult or impossible: example: The candidate's private life rendered him unelectable."TAE said:
link: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unelectable
It isn't an "invented" word, any more than any other word. What exactly do you think it 'really' means?
To 'elect' is to 'put into a position of power'. Individual party members are elected to seats (often without 50% of the votes cast) and a party is 'elected' when it gains a majority of these seats. In the current system they don't need 50% of the votes to achieve this majority, so what you say isn't correct, even if you believe it should be (ie you believe in some kind of PR system).TAE said:
Of course everyone has their own opinion about what exactly makes a party "difficult or impossible to elect to high office" and who qualifies for this judgement, but the word itself is valid and not merely a bogus invention - it is a valid descriptive word and it does actually apply to some people and to some parties, even if we can all dispute the details.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Red Jezza said:
I grant you in 1983 the national Labour vote declined dramatically by several millions - whereas in Liverpool it only declined by 2,242. But thanks to the lower turnout the proportion of the vote increased by just over 0.5%. I don't think this is the same as Nigel Irritable's claim that
However the main reason for the difference between 1979 and 1983 was the attrocious Labour result in Liverpool Edge Hill in 1979, where Labour threw away a safe Labour seat to the Liberals in the by-election - with a 'left wing' candidate too (Wareing). Had they held that seat in 1979, the decline in the Labour vote across Liverpool would have been much more dramatic in 1983. My recollection is that Militant were a major force in the Edge Hill seat part of which went into Fields Broad Green seat. In the aftermath of the 1979 general election, Militant member Terry Harrison managed to lose the Liverpool european parliamentary seat to the Tories (!!). So 1979 really was the nadir of Labour voting in Liverpool. It was after that point that Militant became a more significant force in the city (though they were influential in 1979 as Harrison's selection showed).
Significant boundary changes mean you can't compare 1979 and 1983 at a constituency level as the number of seats went from 8 to 6 - as I said earlier my recollection is that Militant had four candidates selected for the 8 seats (3 sitting MPs had joined the SDP), but in the revised contests for the new 6 seats withdrew all bar Terry Fields, to avoid controversy, and to concentrate their resources. The other four successful Labour candidates - Loyden, Wareing, Heffer and Parry - were all on the left to varying degrees (though Militant ally Parry was attrocious), but definitely not Militant.
.r.u.i.n.e.d
New Member
Exactly.
Maybe the point of the word is really to create the illusion that voters are predetermined to vote in a particular way, as if they're not free individuals making choices, but caught up in an unstoppable dynamic that overrides their will. It's actually very denigrating to the voter to imply that they're incapable of thinking differently from how they're expected to. But, looking at the history, maybe the denigration of the voters ' mental freedom has some justice.
Maybe the point of the word is really to create the illusion that voters are predetermined to vote in a particular way, as if they're not free individuals making choices, but caught up in an unstoppable dynamic that overrides their will. It's actually very denigrating to the voter to imply that they're incapable of thinking differently from how they're expected to. But, looking at the history, maybe the denigration of the voters ' mental freedom has some justice.
Fine - I don't disagree: any phrase can be abused, for example North Korea likes to style itself as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. That doesn't mean the word has been 'invented' by politicians nor that "No political party is "unelectable.", unless it doesn't have any candidates standing for seats."TAE said:
It is always a matter of opinion whether a party is 'unelectable' and opponents will often say this about other parties for their own benefit, as part of their campaigning. Sometimes its true and sometimes its not.
Rubbish..r.u.i.n.e.d said:
Saying that a party or candidite is 'unelectable' is simply a judgement-call about them, just the same as saying someone is 'stupid' or 'ugly'...
...there isn't any objective measurement of 'stupid' or 'ugly' and it is a subjective opinion, although you could point to various features or actions which illustrate what you are talking about.
I the case of 'unelectable' you might point, for example, to someone adopting policies or ideologies that are extremely out of step with the voters, saying really stupid things or who had personal qualities which made it very unlikely that they would get any support.
I don't know what parallel universe you are living in ruined, but this is a common phrase used by lots of people and with a fairly clear meaning. You don't seem to be able to understand this meaning, making up all sorts of nonsense about how thw word doesn't have one or it is impossible.
A far more coherent position is to say that you dislike it when opponents label a party as 'unelectable'. Unfortunately this is all part of the political 'slagging off opponents' process that goes on (in a free country) whether we like it or not.
.r.u.i.n.e.d
New Member
TeeJay said:
That's roughly what I'm saying. In fact, you're right to say that when a group is described as unelectable, it is nothing more than a judgment-call, and a subjective one at that; but, the point you seem to be missing, is that the word used to make that point really means - that they cannot be elected- and by using that word to make a subjective judgment about the likeliness of a particular electoral outcome, the writers smuggle in a load of concealed assumptions, and an illusion of objectivity. You yourself have flatly denied the literal meaning of "unelectable" and instead focused on what you take to be its meaning, - and in so doing, you demonstrate how easy it is to pull the wool over peoples' eyes by this kind of subtle deception.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
I had some time for her when she was doing her 'anti-porn/page 3' campaigning. Didn't really agree with her on the specifics, but she was willing to take on the scorn of the tabloids, picking up an issue in which she had no real back-up from the traditional labour movement. That was genuinely brave and not the kind of behaviour you would expect from a politician.Fullyplumped said:
Having said that she has been spectacularly inept, tactically, over the last 3 years. Resigning on an issue of principle - anti-Iraq War - but doing it so late, was a spectacular own goal. Mind, even worse was Gordon Brown if, as reported, he did oppose the war as an issue of principle, but wanted to keep his job. That, is truly beneath contempt.
4thwrite said:
That has only been 'reported' by Brown's political enemies, which doesn't make me prepared to believe it.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Exactly. I am reminded that there is a depressing tendency among lefties to look for flaws and faults and even minute areas of disagreement and use these as the basis of vicious streams of personal abuse. This is extremely unattractive to everyone else outside the sectarian left and is one of the major reasons why so few get involved and why so many get out of the scene very quickly.4thwrite said:
The way that Clare Short has been described is a very good example of this. Why can't people recognise and admiire that which is admirable?
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
Fullyplumped said:
er... because she quite blatantly sold out her principles for her own self advancement, thereby making it considerably easier for Blair to got to war.
Its hardly nit-picking. Rather that act of mendacity vastly overshadows various supposedly 'principled' stands shes made in the past.
Although I appreciate that the concept of selling out your principles being a bad thing might be difficult to grasp for nu-labour hacks.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
I'm not saying it's nitpicking. I'm saying it's ugly and depressing and it makes the extreme left look like a bunch of poisonous vicious hacks and bores. Most of you seem to hate each other as well as those with whom you disagree on more that 5% of issues! Can nobody bear to say anything friendly?Kaka Tim said:
Nae offence, like!
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Well only being disgusted - yes!Kaka Tim said:
Has anyone mentioned this yet:
http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_hea...objectid=17972885&siteid=93463-name_page.html
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
Fullyplumped said:
Whats to admire?
I suppose - from a nu-labour pov - sacrificing deeply held beliefs for political expidiency and/or personal gain is an admirable trait - but not for me or the majority of the human race.
There are many criticisms that you could make about Robin Cook, but his resignation and the way he carried it out were admirable - making his prior hypocricies and backslinding less of an issue. If anything it highlighted the scandal how talented people with principles and ideals have to renege on them if they want to exercise any power in our political system.
Short was not slimy enough to follow in the footsteps of carreer machine polticos like Jack Straw, but too greedy for personal status and too in love with her own ego to make a principled stand. And, seeing as her acitons could argualby have stopped Blair plunging the UK into a disastrous war, her moral weakness, egoism and lack of genunie integrity are a tragedy for all of us.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
TeeJay said:
If you believe this, then you really are a few sandwiches short of a picnic. The People is about as believable as the NOTW or any of the other Sunday red tops.
TeeJay said:
I like it.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
TeeJay said:
No, you presented the story as fact and nowhere in your post did you indicate that it was "a bit of fun". Short and Galloway are poles apart ideologically speaking,
Similar threads
- Poll
