Politician with some principles?
- Thread starter Edward
- Start date
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Yeah, I was thinking of this exact episode just last night, but I couldn't think of the name of the daft bint who'd said it - I tried googling it but it seems to be a pretty common phrase.
It seems a pretty clear-cut case of trying to have cake and eat it: "I've got simply bags of principles, you know, but I'm too politically sophisticated to let that get in the way of voting for something I don't agree with", I mean WTF?
crackerjack
Well-known member
Did any MP say this? Polly Toynbee ran her hold-your-nose-and-vote-Labour campaign and the phrase originally comes from the French election when Chirac was in the run off agaiinst Le Pen. But I don't recall any politician publically admitting they voted for the Iraq war even though they were against it. Could be wrong of course...
jenks
thread death
Oops, sorry!
john eden
male pale and stale
Throughout the 90s the SWP encouraged people to vote Labour "without illusions".
I think unless you an absolute purist that electoral politics has to be about the real world and compromise so people will always have to do stuff which is at the fringes of the priniciples otherwise nothing would ever get done.
This does become a bit venal with the 42 days vote, though, with apparently all sorts of deals being done behind the scenes and one London MP saying in jest "if I'd wanted another two bridges built over the Thames I would have got them".
I think unless you an absolute purist that electoral politics has to be about the real world and compromise so people will always have to do stuff which is at the fringes of the priniciples otherwise nothing would ever get done.
This does become a bit venal with the 42 days vote, though, with apparently all sorts of deals being done behind the scenes and one London MP saying in jest "if I'd wanted another two bridges built over the Thames I would have got them".
crackerjack
Well-known member
didn't they come up with 'we support labour the way a rope supports a hanging man'? a very threadbare rope, one liable to flake off in all directions.
anymay, must dash
john eden
male pale and stale
Indeed. Plus I think all this behind the scenes "if you scratch our back we'll scratch yours" stuff is completely anti-democratic.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Yes of course. If it is indeed true (and I bet it is) that money was allocated to Northern Ireland because of the DUP supporting the vote then that's terrible. Not that I have a problem with NI you understand, it's just that it should happen because it's the right thing to do, not because it's the only way the government can win a vote. There are so many things wrong with this whole sordid little business.
john eden
male pale and stale
yeah it was off that bbc/HYS place.
Surprisingly most of them on there are up in arms about magna carta and human rights rather than applauding Brown for taking a tough line on swarthy extremists dedicated to destroying Our Great Culture and making us all eat yak.
i do believe he is genuinely passionate about civil liberties (although this sits a touch strangely). it makes sense if he wanted to draw attention to the issue, and try to stimulate some engagement with it, although one might question the wisdom of belief that this will lead to a shift in public opinion
but also i reckon he is definitely enraged by the lack of backbone being shown by Cameron, the subjection of 'his' party to the new-Labour makeover ("when i'm cremated my ashes will be Conservative"), and he suspects (imo rightly, as evidenced by the lack of noise being made about it, and the embarassment caused by his drawing attention to it) that in the face of the polls, Cameron would happily let this issue be pushed through under the Parliament Act without a fight, to avoid looking weak on terror and losing votes
this tension i think is the key to understanding the apparently bizarre decision - he doesn't want to be home secretary if he has to be Cameron's (and therefore the polls') bitch, as an individual he needed to build political capital (here as the 'moral voice' of the increasingly hollow Tories) to give him power within the party to step up and carry weight. it is a risky, but potentially very strong power move.
least he's saying the right things on this and making noise, and sticking a finger up to the Westminster logic, but imo he's still playing politics
but also i reckon he is definitely enraged by the lack of backbone being shown by Cameron, the subjection of 'his' party to the new-Labour makeover ("when i'm cremated my ashes will be Conservative"), and he suspects (imo rightly, as evidenced by the lack of noise being made about it, and the embarassment caused by his drawing attention to it) that in the face of the polls, Cameron would happily let this issue be pushed through under the Parliament Act without a fight, to avoid looking weak on terror and losing votes
this tension i think is the key to understanding the apparently bizarre decision - he doesn't want to be home secretary if he has to be Cameron's (and therefore the polls') bitch, as an individual he needed to build political capital (here as the 'moral voice' of the increasingly hollow Tories) to give him power within the party to step up and carry weight. it is a risky, but potentially very strong power move.
least he's saying the right things on this and making noise, and sticking a finger up to the Westminster logic, but imo he's still playing politics
crackerjack
Well-known member
Yesterday's papers were saying he took an offhand comment by Murdoch at a party to be a commitment of support. He then spunked his load by going on TV talking about 142 days, after which Murdoch and The Sun went into denial.