WHO do the political parties represent

Quoting previous posts in this thread:

"message daphnedill Sat 13-Aug-16 20:03:11
@petra (on whatever thread it was)

I'm not the slightest bit confused. I'm like a cat with a catmint toy, toying with my victim, but I'll get bored. grin
Add comment | Report | Private message daphnedill Sat 13-Aug-16 19:59:58
It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you don't understand my point grin grin grin"

So nasty!

Yes. So leave her alone now! (Petra 's post)

We don't want 'dumbed down politics' but perhaps what we do need is honest politics, the facts presented in a concise way together with the financial implications of each aim.

I agree that not everyone has the time, the inclination or indeed the required education to trawl the internet seeking out relevant facts or to read the parties' manifestos before a GE, therefore rely on MSM or headline grabbing internet articles, with their obvious bias.

A precis of each parties' policies honestly presented in a bulleted format rather than rhetoric, sound-bites, personal attacks and a lot of hot air would be a good starting point.

As for PR, I think we could end with an uneasy coalition to the right of what we have at present. We had a form of PR with the EU elections and many UKIP MEPs were returned - look where that got us.

Before online newspapers, I sometimes purchased the Sun to get the low-down on a news story, quickly and in an easily accessible form. Found it excellent. (Shock-horror)

And WHY was that Petra?? (10.06)

DaphneBroon Not to be discussed on an open forum.

@ niggly,

I agree with you that most people don't understand the relevance of GDP, etc. Unfortunately, that means that politicians can use those very statistics to give an impression that the country is doing is doing well. For example, they constantly talk about bringing down the deficit, but ignore that the country's debt has gone through the roof. It's a bit like keeping your current account out of the red by borrowing more and more money.

That's why people would do themselves a favour by trying to find out some of the basics of macro-economics and there are some excellent videos on YouTube and the BBC does some straightforward explanations. People don't need to go into minute details to understand the principles.

Thatcher did a brilliant job of persuading people that a country's economy is like a household budget and that we shouldn't spend beyond our means. Unfortunately, economies don't work quite like that. A household can stop spending quite so much without damaging the local economy, but if everybody does the same, it won't be long before shopkeepers' incomes are affected. They are also consumers, so they will have to stop spending so much...and so it goes on. That's what is so wrong about austerity.

nigglienelly: "People want to be able to relate their own circumstances with what they are being told in language they can easily understand and feel enthusiastic, (or not) about. In other words politicians need to learn to inspire a crowd"

I don't really like invoking Godwin's Law, but Hitler was a master of relating to people's circumstances and prejudices, used easily understandable language and was amazingly inspirational. People need to be critical and look for facts.

That's the end of this thread then dd

We can see, all over the world, those who are power-hungry making use of the lack of knowledge of others, sadly.

This post asks "who do political parties represent?"

The Tory party represents the wealthy and always has. The new 25-year old Duke of Westminster, for instance, whose £9bn inheritance will not be subject to inheritance tax (unlike the estates of many ordinary householders) - www.thecanary.co/2016/08/12/single-aristocrat-avoided-more-entire-deficit/

Is this right? If you think not you can sign a petition and/or ask your MP why no government has tackled such gross inequality.

Yes, it represents the wealthy, but also many more. Otherwise, it would only have a few thousand voters. Is it something peculiarly British that we seem to accept deference to our uber-wealthy?

If the Tory party represents the wealthy, then that does not explain the overwhelming number of Labour politicians who are extremely wealthy indeed either before, during or since they were in power, the number who accept peerages, consort with wealthy friends etc, those like the present leader who comes from a wealthy family but whose parents were Labour activists but espoused conservative values eg grammar schools, etc.

If the Tory party represents the wealthy they would never be in power; in the main i think they represent the aspirational and those who believe that we need a sound economy to provide the services that the whole country needs.
Whether or not that is what they get is a moot point.

I think there was always a difference between Conservatism and Capitalism. It was during and after the Thatcher rule that one began to be interchangeable with the other imo varian

I don't have a problem with Labour politicians and supporters becoming wealthy, IF they earn and deserve their wealth (not sure they do, but that's another matter). I find it a bit strange that people think that Labour supporters aren't allowed to be aspirational.

The roots of capitalism go back much further than Thatcher. It was first defined and described in the mid nineteenth century (by Marx and others), but it was already in operation for centuries before then. It's about private ownership of the means of production and making a profit. Before the industrial revolution, many people were what we would now call self-employed and scraped together enough money for subsistence.

Conservatism was (and still is, to an extent) about conserving the 'status quo', because it benefited the rulers not to initiate change. In the nineteenth century, the Whigs (Liberals) opposed the Tories, but they were still capitalists, although they wanted the of capitalism to be allocated differently.

I agree daphne , for some strange reason labour politicians must not be wealthy . I liked Sir John Mortimers reply when called a champagne socialist - I like champagne , as a socialist I want it for all

(Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite.)
"Every nation gets the government it deserves"
Joseph Comte LeMaistre
This quote frequently misattributed to de Tocqueville and Abraham Lincoln among others, for me highlights our own responsibility to take some responsibility for who website for. Cross referencing with atticus's healthy living opinions (other thread) we can't just bumble along with our heads down and then moan when things go pearshaped. I won't pretend I necessarily follow the fine detail in a Budget speech, but it is possible to read the facts in a reputable newspaper the following day and learn how it affects the man in the street.
During the Referendum campaign a lot of tosh lies and misleading gobbledygook was spouted by both sides. If people took that at face value, they risked being misled, but when some of us praised a very clear and concise exposition on YouTube by a professor of International Law , we were pooh poohed by those who could "not be bothered to waste 20minutes" on hearing the facts.
I cannot think of many(any?) politicians I would trust unquestioningly with my money, my life, my family's future and we have had enough lessons from history (Germany in the 30's) and in other parts of the world today (the Trump campaign) to know that knowledge is power, and " dumbing down" is likely to lead to oversimplification, bias, or misrepresentation. It is too important for that.

Don't know where that "who website" came from, sorry! Maybe the penalties of posting in Waitrose cafe juggling a latte and a croissant.
Memo to self, "pay attention"!!

Add comment | Report | Private message obieone Sun 14-Aug-16 06:57:23
I have sent a report to gransnet. And about DaphneBroon too

Oh dear. Not a "favourable report "either I take it ?
I take it you mean you have reported a post. Can you tell me which one? Perhaps I didn't quite make myself clear.

GNHQ assure me that they have been in touch with you.

I leave it all with them.

Sun 14-Aug-16 13:40:47
Who was your post directed at Obieone?

I have been thinking a little more about your idea of dumbing down political information and it really is the saddest thing I have heard for some time. You appear to be saying you are happy to be ignorant in this area. At one time slaves were kept as ignorant as possible, then we didn't educated the servants or, indeed, the women. I really had thought we had got passed that particular view on the world. Which part of society would you apply this too? Obviously we do not all believe politicians are greater beings with whom the knowledge must reside, and some of us would like to be informed rather than ignorant in these area so what do you do with the upstarts who insist on knowing? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick entirely?

I must take a trip to Specsavers. I read GCHQ instead of GNHQ and wondered what DaphneBroom had done to merit a visit from the spooks!

Maybe obieone could explain exactly what she means by dumbed down politics to avoid misunderstanding.

GCHQ!!!!!!

PS. I have visions of us all wandering around like Lowry characters with the big, bad politicians pulling the strings and throwing a few crumbs from their tables. Maybe that wasn't what obie meant.

Have you taken a look outside your house recently, Daphne?

I asked that question too
how do you define dumbed down" then? Fewer long words? Simplified soundbites? Tabloid headlines?
(I would feel insulted if that was all anybody thought I was capable of understanding)

And got the answer
probably yes to all of the above. If it is dumbed down, many more people can understand, not just the more able