Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris
Exactly my point. The Labour party leadership has become more moderate and this has attracted more support from ordinary voters, but the party activists are still resolutely left-wing. Quote from Claytonender to Cyfr earlier in this thread, "You say that the Labour Party is no longer left wing - are you in touch with main body of party members?" I also go into Labour Clubs (cheap beer, chav-free zone etc!) and Claytonender is right on the money in this.
In my view, the Tories are now a mirror image of the Labour party in this way, but apparently not according to Cyfr.
|
I agree. The labour party's leader is further right than his party and the Conservative party leader is more moderate. But who is it that rules the country in essence? I think Blair proved quite aptly in his recent reforms on Education that he doesn't need the support of his own party to pass right-wing bills and that he can depend on the opposition party to fulfil his requests. Therefore, in effect, it doesn't matter what political persuassion the main body of party members hold, if their leader is right, then right wing policies will be passed, with or without their support. Surely it would be better to have a leader who shares the same views as his party. Then, when I go to vote for a party, I can be sure that both the party members and the party leader are willing to carry out the views that I stand for and voted in favour of. When voting for labour, I get the same right-wing policies as I would under any other right wing govt.
But of course David Cameron isn't left wing! He's "conservative to the core". But then again, his party have illustrated that they want change simply by voting for him. They had the option of a stuck in his ways Tory or the more revolutionary figure of David Cameron. They voted for change. Yes David Cameron will implement core Tory ideas, ideas that I must say I don't like; Privatisation, poor Union backing, reducing support for those who need it. He hasn't even promised to reduce taxes, a statement which worries me seriously. It's like "I'd like to adopt certain features of conservativism... but screw the fiscal parts, our nation's in too big of a mess for that now".
I still haven't decided upon my political persuassion as of yet and it's not until recently that I started to take an interest in these things. So yes, I may be wrong, but it'd make for a more interesting argument if you could back up your statements instead of dismissing mine as puerile.
P.S. Sorry for not paying enough attention to the debate and misquoting you. Kinda ruined my entire first post. Ah well... I stand by what I said about patronisation being a weak form of debating style.