|
U-Know! Forum » OMG!! |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
anthonyqkiernan 7087 posts |
Oct 13, 2003, 10:54
|
I thought the only thing in question was whether he'd get a fourth.
|
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Oct 13, 2003, 13:41
|
|
>I think he is right to say sack me or get behind >me It depends what you think the job of an elected representative is; someone you elect to represent your interests, or somebody you give carte blanche to do anything they like - even if you utterly despise it - and claim to be doing it in your name. In parties as in parliament, the supposed theory is that they are our *servants*, there to serve our wishes, needs and interests. If we forget this then we end up working hard to support people who are doing things we fundamentally oppose, and we end up morally bankrupt. as in; >blair is so in charge of his party in spite of the fact >that so many of them hate him Concentrations of power will alwys corrupt those who it vests the power in. The problem is not in who is the leader, but the fact of there being a leader at all. |
|
|
Toni Torino 2299 posts |
Oct 13, 2003, 13:46
|
These aren't conferences, anyway. Over the last few years, I've never seen even two people remotely conferring. It's just speech making.......there are no 'conferences'..........
|
|
|
duckbreath 254 posts |
Oct 13, 2003, 15:33
|
|
that's a bit naive the job of elected representative is to serve the interests of the electorate - which very often expresses itself in terms of 'get behind me or get out of the way' - especially in these circumstances it's quite strange what you're saying particularly at a time when the conservatives have held their first ever democratic consultation and election of their leader - he's not claiming carte blanche one bit - hes saying i've asked you - you've had the chance to have your views represented and a representative majority of you want me to lead and i can't do that with threats of plots and backbiting his job is to get the party elected and he has to get a compromise and a measure of party support to do it - i cant see what you're complaining about here - he's just asking for a bit of unity they're pissed off because they've gone through this democratic consultation process and they now have an arsehole with absolutely no idea how to present his views or inspire his party - they are nostalgic for a bit of authoritarianism i think you and grufty are changing the facts here a bit for your own ends and are you suggesting at the end that you think parties shouldn't have leaders |
|
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Oct 15, 2003, 18:53
|
|
>the job of elected representative is to serve the >interests of the electorate - which very often >expresses itself in terms of 'get behind me or get >out of the way' surely serving the interests of the electorate is exactly the opposite. Rather than 'get behind me or get out of the way', shouldn't it be more 'am I getting it right? If not kick me out'. >his job is to get the party elected again we have fundamentally different ideas about the purpose of elected representatives. I do realise that in practice it has become all about getting elected, and changing leaders, principles, ideas and policiies to fit whatever will achieve that. But surely that just proves how empty they all are; surely the idea should be that they say 'here's what we think; if you all like that, vote us in'. Instead they try to find out what is popular and say 'we beleive that, honest'. Parliamentary politics is the great Single Issue Politics, the single issue being te acquisition of power. >and are you suggesting at the end that you think >parties shouldn't have leaders No, I'm advocating the abolition of all power structures; leaders, parties, the lot. After the fall of the Berlin Wall so many people pointed to the 'failure of communism' because it had had 70 y4ears to prove itself and failed. Power politics has had far longer and failed far more convincingly. Yet still there are polticians saying 'this system would bring happiness to all if only they'd let us twaek it a little'. We all know they lie, yet still we pretend they might have a somwthing to offer and continue to abdicate our power and responsibility to them. The closer a person's proxinity to political power the greater their corruption. See how Jack Straw and David Blunkett suddenly went all Michael Howard when the became Home Secretary. See how Robin Cook found a conscience as he was moved out of Cabinet. We have to stop treating these things as one-offs, stop seeing them as aberrations of those individuals and start realising it is integral to the power structures that we put people in to. Yep, it's a lot to dismantle, but the rate of fossil fuel consumption and climate change are fast making the petty games of parliamentary politics utterly irrelevant. Incomprehensibly huge changes in the way humans organise themselves into methods that are far more localised are in fact our only hope of survival as a species. |
|
|
duckbreath 254 posts |
Oct 16, 2003, 10:49
|
|
once a leader has been elected he cannot consult his party on every single issue - they have to trust him or her and their judgments and it involves 'trust' and 'leadership' - you may not like it but thats the way the system works and those are the terms in which you have to criticise it i understand you think this will inevitably lead to corruption but quite often when there are good people in charge it leads to progress - the abolition of apartheid in South Afirca, the abolition of slave-ownership in the UK and the US, the civil rights legislation in the US were all initiated by brave politicians - 'leaders' showing courage against the tide of public opinion i want to know how if your plan to dismantle power structures, leaders and political parties includes any attempts to persuade the citizens of your plans worth beforehand or if you just want a 'revolution' and will then 'will' it over us all whether we objected or not - cause I don't ever want to live in your world and I'm pleased you're in such a minority if you think the 'failure' of modern western society compares with the 'failure' of the eastern block you should aquaint yourself with some of the people who lived there - you are lucky to live in a culture where pseudo political philosphers are free to present their views without being interrogated - you would have been first against the wall merrick there's no country in the world at any time in history who have made a better job or incorporating representative views, minority interests, compassion, social care, anti-corruption laws, a fair judiciary and social justice than the western countries - thats why its such a scandal when our leaders try to do anything not in the spirit of these virtues - cause we take them for granted and expect your 'down with us' sentiments aren't borne out of political philosophy, history or psychological sociology but a mixture of cynicism and 'revolutionary chic' |
|
|
anthonyqkiernan 7087 posts |
Oct 16, 2003, 11:24
|
|
Think I'm with Merrick, here. But not in any anarcho statue kickeing way. We (the electorate) vote in a representative. Effectively a delegate to parliament to act for the interests an opinions of the constituency. This does not happen. For example. My MP is a former head of the EIS (biggest teaching union in Scotland - for those firth of the parish). She has sat over the biggest programme of school closures ever in this area. She has vociferously defended these in the face of unpresidented protest in the area. Simply to be following the party line. This cannot be right. ps. Surely the abolition of slavery in the US was the last thing Lincoln wanted to do? It just happened to be politically expediant to do so to win the war (fresh cannon fodder). |
|
|
duckbreath 254 posts |
Oct 16, 2003, 11:48
|
|
it's up to the electorate to elect trustworthy people who won't tow the line - blame your fellow constituents for not seeing through her hollow character - my mp never follows his party's line and says everything he does is for his constituents an MP elected every 4 years can't consult the electorate on every issue - their job is to be elected to be 'trusted' by the people to represent the interests of the community as -they- interpret them - a leader has to sometimes do unpopular things based on their conscience as did Lincoln, DeKlerk & LBJ in the examples of when it works well That's a pretty revisionist take on the civil war - you can't bring yourself to admire a Republican eh? |
|
|
anthonyqkiernan 7087 posts |
Oct 16, 2003, 12:00
|
|
>>my mp never follows his party's line Then why be in a party? Nothing revisionist at all about the American Civil War. Any idea that it was "to free the slaves" is simply not true. It was merely a by-product. |
|
|
duckbreath 254 posts |
Oct 16, 2003, 12:13
|
|
lots of people have asked him that too anyway i thought you were saying MPs shouldn't follow their party's line? |
| Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
