Oh well. The way I see it, they voted because of the religious right. "God's nation", "destroy the evil commies that threaten our democracy". All that bullshit that people gave in to. I might be wrong, but if someone can prove I am, go ahead.
Zebedee talked about the elected parties mandate, as I understood his post. I wonder why Gordon Brown wanted to highlight "his" vision today? Obviously the leader of a party reflects that party. At the same time the leader is the driving force behind the vision of that party and shapes it to their own personal vision by picking the cabinet and shaping policy. The whip system tends to ensure that party loyalties are followed. The local representatives do not want the whip removed. England is such a kinky nation. The longer a party is in the more it is able to complete it's long term objectives. When Thatcher became out of touch, her party discarded her.
Last edited by Milk Snatcher on Oct 8th, 2007 at 07:50 PM
It doesn't matter if he was talking about their mandate or not, he was talking about removing the right of a party to be in power for more than one or two terms, which is a ludicrous point to raise when we don't vote parties into power, only local politicans who are then free to form associations- that parties come to power as a result of that is not a direct result of the poll. Moan about whips all you like, it changes nothing. I'm not talking of theory, merely the sheer and unquestionable practicality of the matter. It's not like barring a President from a third term, not at all.
The entire thrust of his point is, basically, irrelevant. You cannot stop people voting for local representatives, and the majority of the party mechanic isn't even voted for. So that pretty much ends the matter.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
I didn't read it like that. I read it as, "it's wise for the people to avoid allowing politicians to complete longterm objectives". Almost the ultimate expression of conservatism. Actually Parties are voted into power through local representatives. Opinion polls influence when a party will go to election. Ergo Gordon Brown has decided not to. This is because he is unsure that he will gain sufficient local representatives to form the type of Government he wishes, which is able to implement his vision of "socialism" (small almost invisible s).
I see nothing strange in Zebedees statement. He merely feels letting any politicians complete long term goals usually results in less Freedom for the individual. The Thatcher and Blair years would incdicate this might well be true.
Last edited by Milk Snatcher on Oct 8th, 2007 at 08:24 PM
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
There are advantages with the Republicans' views as well as there are disadvantages with the Democrats' views.
You paint a picture that is far too one sided. Democrats/Liberal do not have a stronghold of good ideas, really, to many the current Republicans are just worse due to some of the arguments you brought up.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 8th, 2007 07:43 PM
