What does each political group want?

I know. It's depressing, isn't it?

Doodledog

Jaibee007

Tories are pro selfishness and have disdain for the weak
Labour are supposed to be on the side of the oppressed but only if they are men in reality
Lib dems just sit on the fence, but mostly seem only to support men
Greens are supposed to focus on the environment but actually only interested in men's rights
So basically politics is for men, by men and about men but the Tories let women at the table occasionally unlike all the others
There is no party committed to equality for women

Well, there's the Women's Equality Party, but even they are dodgy when it comes to selling out women in favour of trans rights?

I so wanted to join the Women's Equality Party until I read their statement.......... sellout is such a small word for their betrayal

Jaibee007

Tories are pro selfishness and have disdain for the weak
Labour are supposed to be on the side of the oppressed but only if they are men in reality
Lib dems just sit on the fence, but mostly seem only to support men
Greens are supposed to focus on the environment but actually only interested in men's rights
So basically politics is for men, by men and about men but the Tories let women at the table occasionally unlike all the others
There is no party committed to equality for women

Well, there's the Women's Equality Party, but even they are dodgy when it comes to selling out women in favour of trans rights?

Tories are pro selfishness and have disdain for the weak
Labour are supposed to be on the side of the oppressed but only if they are men in reality
Lib dems just sit on the fence, but mostly seem only to support men
Greens are supposed to focus on the environment but actually only interested in men's rights
So basically politics is for men, by men and about men but the Tories let women at the table occasionally unlike all the others
There is no party committed to equality for women

The thing is, we can't say what we think the parties think they stand for without betraying our own views on how realistic their aims are. Certainly not without a lot of effort at neutrality.

Galaxy, I don't mind what you post, but the OP was about what the Parties believe they stand for. I'm not sure we got any closer to that but it was an interesting journey.

And every persons post is their interpretation of what the political party stands for. Unless you want us to just post a link to their last manifesto which would be pointless.

True.

Oh, I don't know, Pippa,. I think LauraNorder expressed the Conservative belief in the Market pretty well. And, although possibly slightly jokingly, she expressed her view of the principles she believes drives the other political philosophies.

LauraNorder

Yes I know it’s ‘give a man a fish, and teach him to fish …
But made my point better with a cow

No, you didn't. You did what we have tried to avoid all through this thread, and simply showed your prejudices.

I gained no insight into what the parties offer from that post and everything about how you think.

I think, in the main, yes the right managers are in charge of the cows but it is incumbent upon the government to perhaps regulate in order to keep to maximum production and avoid corruption.
While production is high with this free enterprise system less will go without milk. Some may miss out and have to rely on milk banks.
Alternatively the state system gives milk to all but in insufficient quantities for the weak to survive or the the strong grow stronger in order to provide for the weak.

PS. I liked the analogy and chuckled when I got to the Greens.

But do you think the best managers are in charge of the cows? I'm afraid I'm not convinced.

Yes I know it’s ‘give a man a fish, and teach him to fish …
But made my point better with a cow

Give a man a glass of milk and he’ll drink for a day, give him a cow and he’ll drink for a year.
I think Conservatives would rather give out the cows, because they’d be too costly to look after by the state, there aren’t enough cows to go round so they’d give to those who would manage them best. The cows would then be stronger and produce milk for all. The downside is that some owners would become greedy and not share and others would deprive those they perceive unworthy of milk.
Labour would prefer to keep ownership of the cows and therefore spread the resources to care for them thinly. The cows would produce less milk but it would be shared equally.
Lib Dem’s would tax the cows so that no-one could afford to keep them, they’d share the taxes among the people so that the people could buy milk but where would they find the cows.
The greens would slaughter the cows because the methane they produce would damage the environment.

Btw I am a fully paid up member of the Tory Party but the quiz had my red dot one square to the left of centre and one square down from centre so libertarian. Who knew.

Buttonjugs

Dinahmo

Polarbear2 sadly it didn't resonate with enough people.

Yes, it did. The Labour vote increased massively in JC’s time. But Brexit got in the way, the Tories effectively sacrificed the country to hold on to power. So many people believed that their lives were being negatively impacted by free movement within the EU. I think The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist should be read in schools so that everyone understands it is those in power who cause the problems suffered by individuals and not their fellow human beings.

No, I'm afraid it didn't. If it had have done, Labour would have won. FWIW I thought the Labour manifesto was badly thought through and explained. Labour sat on the fence about Brexit and lost votes. My daughter is a staunch Labour supporter and was persuaded by Labour's "soft Brexit", but now sees it for a sham.

Labour has a real problem and I don't know what the answer for them is. The "broad church" approach has failed them.

PippaZ

*growstuff*, I am not going to pick "sides". I just wanted to stand back and try and learn.

Perhaps we have to accept that this simply cannot be done.

I'm not suggesting you pick sides. My posts have been my "thinking aloud" about your OP. I just don't think the answer is that simple and I've been pondering why.

Wow Buttonjugs it's a long time since I read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist! Yes it should and it could. But many argue that the curriculum has been designed not to make people think how to vote!

Dinahmo

Polarbear2 sadly it didn't resonate with enough people.

Yes, it did. The Labour vote increased massively in JC’s time. But Brexit got in the way, the Tories effectively sacrificed the country to hold on to power. So many people believed that their lives were being negatively impacted by free movement within the EU. I think The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist should be read in schools so that everyone understands it is those in power who cause the problems suffered by individuals and not their fellow human beings.

growstuff, I am not going to pick "sides". I just wanted to stand back and try and learn.

Perhaps we have to accept that this simply cannot be done.

PippaZ

Mmm. I did ask earlier if that's what we should be concentrating on greenlady102. More than anything I wanted to work out what the parties are offering, but "and how they propose to get it" may show the difference in them more clearly.

They are not inclined to commit but they obviously differ. It shouldn't be this difficult to decribe on what and how they differ to the "stranger in a strange land" without picking a side.

But it is difficult. Apart from "getting Brexit done", I can't remember that much about the Conservatives' manifesto. They've already shown themselves willing to break pledges (eg pension triple lock) anyway. Tuition fees broke the LibDems, so why don't people care about the Conservatives keeping promises?

I don't think the people in "red wall" Conservative seats are interpreting Conservative policies (if there are any) in the same way as voters in leafy shire constituencies.

growstuff Thu 02-Sep-21 10:59:53. I think that would be another thread. It's so big it deserves one of its own.

Mmm. I did ask earlier if that's what we should be concentrating on greenlady102. More than anything I wanted to work out what the parties are offering, but "and how they propose to get it" may show the difference in them more clearly.

They are not inclined to commit but they obviously differ. It shouldn't be this difficult to decribe on what and how they differ to the "stranger in a strange land" without picking a side.

I think though that you are conflating "what a political ideology wants" with "how they say they plan to get it"

Elvis58

They are all a waste of space and liars.
Not worth a comment!

So why comment?