On 10 Mar 2017 at 1:55pm inthegutter wrote:
I consider myself a progressive but I find myself unwilling to support Labour (a combination of New Labour's mistakes and the current leadership), the Lib Dems (because of their adventure with the Conservatives), and the Greens (anti-science agenda).
Could there ever be a new party replacing Labour, LDs, and the Greens? One that, perhaps, consistently listened to evidence, and wasn't permanently embroiled in in-fighting?
On 10 Mar 2017 at 2:00pm Billy Biffter wrote:
I`m a UKIP member.We have a lot of fun.Bugger progressive politics.Stupidity and hatred are much more rewarding.
On 10 Mar 2017 at 2:40pm The Greek wrote:
Curious as to why you think the Greens are anti-science? I say the most sensible option is a "progressive alliance" to oust the Tories (the left vote is split), push through voting and parliamentary reform and then hold another election.
On 10 Mar 2017 at 2:40pm The Greek wrote:
Never forget that most people DON'T vote Tory.
On 10 Mar 2017 at 2:43pm old maggie wrote:
more childish political tosh on the forum
On 10 Mar 2017 at 2:55pm Brexitia wrote:
In my experience a progressive is a Hippy that has morphed into a neo liberal.
A good example of this is the dreadfull BBC political reporter Laura Kuhnssberg.
Whilst at uni she was an out and out hippy who covered her dorm walls with news paper cuttings of the peace camp at Greenham Common.
Since growing up she has taken to bathing, buying her clothes from M & S , gurning ( which is very off putting when you are trying to watch the news ) and talking dribble for the ultra hip progressive BBC.
Its enough tp drive you insane.
On 10 Mar 2017 at 3:08pm inthegutter wrote:
Their decades long attack on nuclear energy and tacit support for alternative medicine. I think the chance of a progressive alliance is vanishingly small at the moment, there is simply too much distrust between the parties. I'm fairly convinced what we need is new party, one that isn't tied to its history in the negative way that Labour, the Lib Dems, and the Greens are.
On 10 Mar 2017 at 3:13pm inthegutter wrote:
What's childish about suggesting a government that actually listens to experts and considers evidence? I'd think it's quite the opposite actually.
On 10 Mar 2017 at 3:32pm Pedro wrote:
"Anti-science" seems a bit of a broad statement. I guess the Green Party are not exactly pro-GM foods, but they aren't extreme or hostile towards it.
On 10 Mar 2017 at 3:36pm inthegutter wrote:
OK, I agree, "anti-science" is perhaps too extreme. Let's say they do not always their policy to be evidence based.
On 10 Mar 2017 at 3:44pm Pedro wrote:
@inthegutter - re alternative medicine, thats a fair enough point. What have they proposed that is particularly concerning though? This is genuine question, not a rhetorical one (i've never voted greens or followed them). "Conventional" medicine can be effective, but also if over-prescribed can be counter-productive and even lethal. Are the Green Party proposing adopting medical marijuana as treatment in addition to conventional medicine? Or we talking about chinese medicine, like acupuncture, or......tigers blood?!
On 10 Mar 2017 at 4:29pm inthegutter wrote:
Despite agreeing with many Corbyn's policies (though certainly not all, especially when it comes to foreign affairs) I don't believe he will win a general election. Stephen Hawking recently captured the concern: “His heart is in the right place and many of his policies are sound, but he has allowed himself to be portrayed as a leftwing extremist.”. Winning in FPTP requires a party to both claim the centre while not alienating the wing (the Lib Dems fail for the reason in that they have no traditional wing).
On 10 Mar 2017 at 5:15pm Pedro wrote:
@inthegutter - very true. Corbyns image is his problem, in this shallow superficial world driven by insane media influence. He is sadly unelectable for mostly all the wrong reasons.
On 10 Mar 2017 at 5:28pm Michael Foot wrote:
Mr Corbyn has as good a chance as I did.
On 10 Mar 2017 at 5:34pm Pedro wrote:
@ Mr Foot - probably. Although to be fair, Foot "only" lost about 50 seats and had 209 seats in parliament. If Theresa May called a general election right now, the current Corbyn led Labour Party could end up with a lot less than 200 seats.
On 10 Mar 2017 at 6:29pm The Greek wrote:
Have you not thought that he is "unelectable" because the media have thrown that word around since day 1? Corbyn and his brand of socialism represents a threat to big business like the media corps.
Whatever you think of Corbyn, this article in the Jacobin makes for an interesting read..
Check it out here »
On 10 Mar 2017 at 6:43pm Pedro wrote:
@ Greek - yea absolutely, the media have played an enormous role (along with rather unsupportive fellow PLP members) to discredit and ridicule Jeremy Corbyn. It is what it is though, and sadly it would be a rather tall order for Corbyn to shake off the damage done to his reputation and image.
Like I said before, we live in a shallow world. There are probably quite a few reasons why Justin Trudeau is considered a relatively successful liberal/progressive compared to our Jezza.
On 10 Mar 2017 at 7:09pm Did I miss anything? wrote:
What a lovely snooze I just had after reading this rubbish
On 10 Mar 2017 at 7:13pm inthegutter wrote:
If you're not interested don't read it, there is no need to be a petulant child.
On 10 Mar 2017 at 9:28pm Hello Dave wrote:
If you want to rant on about politics why not try digital spy forum or daily mail?
This is a local forum for local people. We'll have no trouble here.
On 10 Mar 2017 at 11:24pm Just you wait wrote:
Corbyn attended the funeral of IRA murderers. That one fact will exclude him from ever holding power. The press will see to that
On 11 Mar 2017 at 12:17am @billy bifter wrote:
Do you also read the dandy by any chance? if that's your idea of an aggressive name I would place a solid wager than your idea of a good fight won is getting first when they open a new till at Waitrose.
On 11 Mar 2017 at 5:28am inthegutter wrote:
On contrary I think Lewes, as a constituency where a progressive alliance would have won (just), is exactly the kind place to discuss this.
Again, no one is forcing you to read or comment.
On 11 Mar 2017 at 7:24am Reporter wrote:
Nice try to get new spin on Progressive Alliance! I attended a meeting last month. In short PA deal would give a clear run for Caroline Lucas (Green) and Labour for seats in Brighton and then Greens and Labour standing back to give Lib Dems a run for Lewes in. Parliamentary election which might come fairly soon. It looked like there would be an anti Tory consensus until venom and acrimony broke out by the end of the meeting and one speaker given a very rough ride which he failed to respond to. So if that is actually the view of party members then the Tory strategy of divide and rule is working well in Lewes.
On 11 Mar 2017 at 7:56am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I think a progressive alliance is a good idea, but I still don't trust the LDs after they propped up Cameron in 2010.
I can't see Labour going for it for the same reason.
On 11 Mar 2017 at 8:44am Clifford wrote:
You're right ACT, it's hard to see the Lib Dems as in any way 'progressive' after the five years 2010 to 2015. Opportunists who'll cling to any tail for a job is more like it.
On 11 Mar 2017 at 9:11am vic wrote:
This progressive alliance promotion is pernicious nonsense. The Greens have one MP, the Lib Dems are very much a party full of chancers and are very much a minority party. The Labour Party has nothing to gain from it. In Lewes I would be not be surprised if it is being selfishly promoted by one or two members of the Labour party who are hostile to their party leader and could well be driven by their own pragmatic ambition rather than genuine care for their electorate.
On 11 Mar 2017 at 9:41am Inthegutter wrote:
Despite being a member of the Labour Party I'd like all three parties swept away and replaced with new centre left party capable of appealing to a majority of the electorate. It's the only way to win in FPTP.
I don't personally ever imagine seeing a progressive alliance - too much bad history and competing aims.
Somehow you'd need to ensure the new party represents the views of 60% of the electorate and not just those of the wings.
On 11 Mar 2017 at 11:53am robp wrote:
It is still fashionable to condemn the LibDems for going into coalition, and to ignore the political logic that led to that decision. Labour has been assiduous in rewritng history and pretending to itself as well as everybody else that it wuld have been possible for a labour led coalition to succeed. It would not.
I think people also forget the amount of stuff the Tories are doing now which the Libdems prevented them from doing while in coalition. Cameron's little black book was quite full by the end of that Parliament, and as soon as they lost the emcumbrance of the LibDems, they set about crossing things off it as fast as they could, much to the dtriment of many in the UK.
In any case the LibDems are a different aprty now to the one that went into government. I cannot see circumstances in which LibDems would ally with Tories again. I think the "rough ride" referred to at the Progressive meeting was about Chris Bowers refusing to say point boank that he would never go into coalition with the Tories again. He actually made a fair point that it is not for politicians to second guess the voting public, if the public puts the parties in that position. What he also said was that if the parties al produced honest manifestos, it would be manifest, pardon the pun, that there would be no pratial likelihood of the Tories being able to agree to the LibDem agenda or vice versa.
I do not think we will see formal alliances, certainly not in this Parliament. All of the parties have too many tribal people in them at every level. But all the parties also have in them people who are more inclined to co-operate. I do think we will see informal and local alliances among people who get the logic of playing to their strengths and who want to see the Tories out.
On 11 Mar 2017 at 1:38pm The Greek wrote:
Don't be fooled by the Trudeau/Obama image of their "progressiveness" they are cut from the same cloth as all the rest.
However arguably better than what we have now.
Regarding the IRA I won't condone killing but I must say their cause seems just. The recent election in NI reflects that feeling...
On 11 Mar 2017 at 3:03pm Englishman wrote:
We have no need of an alliance of various left-wing parties, when we have a solid Conservative party that has served ordinary traditional working families for well over two hundred years. Unfortunately this does not seem to please most of the posters on this forum, who generally are of a left or radical persuasion.
There are not many Tories contributing to these discussions. But then it is in their nature to just quietly get on with life.
On 11 Mar 2017 at 3:03pm Inthegutter wrote:
I don't agree about the IRA's cause been just. Both they and the loyalist paramilitaries are murderers.
On 11 Mar 2017 at 3:41pm inthegutter wrote:
Probably no point having this argument but I disagree that the Conservatives have served "ordinary traditional working families". The Conservatives opposed the formation of the NHS, widening of the franchise, and opposed rights for women. While probably not falling under your banner of "ordinary traditional working families" the Conservatives also opposed individual liberty in the form of LGBT rights.
Perhaps worth noting that in the last 70 years the economy (and national debt) has grown equally under Labour and Conservative governments - the difference being that Labour generally tried to redistribute wealth and increase civil liberties where as the Conservatives opposed them.
On 11 Mar 2017 at 4:22pm Toff wrote:
Gosh how interesting.
On 11 Mar 2017 at 4:53pm Mark wrote:
While we're working on this revolution we do need to bear in mind that it need to be an alliance that would appeal to brainless K#obs like Englishman from just above. That could be problematic.
On 11 Mar 2017 at 5:01pm Richard 3rd wrote:
I Think you just lost the argument Mark, by resorting to personal attacks.
A lesson the left cannot learn is if you don't agree then resort to smear and make it personal.
On 11 Mar 2017 at 5:19pm Pedro wrote:
Since when did personal attacks and smearing become exclusive to "the left"? Seems almost a Trump thing to say. An alternative fact perhaps, void of reality.
On 11 Mar 2017 at 6:15pm Mark wrote:
But why should I bother marshalling facts, Richard 3rd? Someone who believes that the Tories have been supporting working people for 200 years is prima facie a Kn#b.
On 11 Mar 2017 at 7:21pm Lewes Voter 3 wrote:
Thank goodness the Left are finished. Whinging unprincipled traitors who'd give the British nation away at the first opportunity. Don't want anyone like that near my family THANK YOU.