Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 08:40 am
@Lash,
Don't believe everything you read on Breitbart.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 09:20 am
@Olivier5,
Since this thread is about progressives and since the situation in the UK was already mentioned, an opinion from the Guardian:
Will the new Tory intake help to build a more progressive party? Don’t count on it
Quote:
Thu 19 Dec 2019 14.31 GMT
Tim Bale

Many MPs who have taken over in former Labour strongholds are young, female or gay. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re moderate

Each general election brings with it a bunch of new MPs itching to make their mark – especially if, as in 2019, it results in a big turnover of seats. And this one has given us a new intake of 140, nearly 100 of whom are taking their places on the Conservative benches, a third of them from the so-called “red wall” seats gained from Labour on 12 December.

Encouragingly, a fair few of these new Tory MPs, such as 24-year-old Sara Britcliffe, who represents Hyndburn in Lancashire, are young and female (eight of the new Conservative intake are under 30). And a number of them are from the LGBT community – including Carshalton’s Elliot Colburn, pictured in the papers kissing his boyfriend after the results were declared. Many are also, like North Norfolk’s Duncan Baker, hyper-local to their constituency – which is what voters always tell researchers is actually most important to them. The Tories bet, correctly, on that improving their chances, particularly in the north.

More depressingly perhaps, at least for those who worry about the rise of the so-called “political class”, is the fact that the new intake includes a number of former special advisers – nine (by my reckoning) on the Tory side, although only one elected (probably tellingly) in a northern seat. Recent history suggests they will be fast-tracked, leaving fellow newbies, including those with local government experience, behind in their wake.

But even those MPs will find that the odds are stacked against anybody from the new intake achieving political celebrity status any time soon. There’s only so much room, after all, on the frontbenches – or in the high-profile select committees and television shows that present the ambitious newbie with an alternative route to stardom.

Standing out from the crowd, however, isn’t the only way that incoming MPs can have an influence. True, being touted early on as the cream of the crop by talent-spotting lobby journalists is no doubt a terrific boost to one’s ego, as well as to one’s chances of advancement. But the crop itself can sometimes stand out, too: while some parliamentary intakes over the years have been written off as unremarkable, others are hailed as vintage. And the law of averages probably means that the more newbies are borne in on the incoming tide, the more likely it is that a particular intake will be seen as something special.

The huge swing to Labour in 1945, for instance, brought into the Commons many of the “new men” (and back then, they were mostly men) such as Denis Healey and Harold Wilson. Their combination of relative youth, Oxbridge education and wartime service set them up nicely to become major figures in British politics for over a quarter of a century.

The same could also be said for their Tory counterparts such as Enoch Powell, and the equally important (if nowadays less well-remembered) Reggie Maudling and Iain Macleod. All of them entered the Commons in 1950 – partly as a result of their efforts, as “backroom boys” (and, again, they were all boys), to rebrand the Conservative party.

Fast forwarding a little, 1997 was also an important year – mainly because the new intake saw a doubling of the numbers of female MPs in the Commons. This was due mostly to Labour’s efforts to boost their participation, and the number of women elected to its benches increased from 37 to 101, earning them the sexist soubriquet “Blair’s Babes”.

But the significance – especially the eventual significance – of an intake doesn’t necessarily depend on a big win. Timing matters, too. Labour’s disastrous performance last week is already being compared to 1983. But that year’s Labour intake featured both Gordon Brown and Tony Blair (as well as including Jeremy Corbyn and Michael Howard, who went on to lead their respective parties to dreadful defeats). Lacking much competition, they rose quickly and to great effect.

Likewise, both George Osborne and David Cameron were part of the new intake in 2001 – a very bad year, electorally speaking, for the Tories. (Mind you, so was “failing” Chris Grayling.)

How, then, will this intake be remembered? Ultimately, the key question is what impact it will have on the party’s future direction. Many observers seem to be making two assumptions on this score. The first is that Conservative newbies will be so grateful to the prime minister for bringing them in on his coattails that they will give him an easy ride. The second is that they will be so concerned about hanging on to their marginal seats that they will ensure he cleaves to the end-of-austerity centre ground and avoids the kind of no-deal Brexit that would presumably hit their constituents hard.

Both assumptions could well prove mistaken. For one thing, MPs have grown more and more rebellious over the years: why should this intake be any different? For another, getting yourself selected as a candidate by a Tory membership which, broadly speaking, wants to keep the state out of the economy, immigrants out of the country, and the UK out of the clutches of the EU, means you probably think pretty much the same way, too.

Mild one-nationers, then? Don’t bet on it.

• Tim Bale is professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London and deputy director of UK in a Changing Europe
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 09:20 am
@Brand X,
Looks like Warren’s getting all the rank and file folks, and Biden’s getting all the endorsements from former cabinet-level Obama officials.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 12:06 pm
@Olivier5,
What’s Breitbart?
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 12:53 pm
We expect Obama to get behind Warren.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 02:32 pm
@snood,
Quote:
Looks like Warren’s getting all the rank and file folks, and Biden’s getting all the endorsements from former cabinet-level Obama officials.

Warren cannot beat Trump, and Biden will have full blown dementia very soon.
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 02:47 pm
@coldjoint,
Quote:
...and Biden will have full blown dementia very soon.

Trump's not far behind.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 03:03 pm
Turning backflips and doing the watusi, waiting for the debate.

I’m starting to get genuinely pissed at everybody in the race except Bernie.

I hope they don’t make me come back there.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 03:15 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:
Up until the Mueller report, and maybe even for awhile thereafter, she referred to all reports about and investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election as "the Russia hoax".

Just like Trump.

Just like Oralloy and coldjoint.

Let's see a cite of me using those words.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 03:16 pm
@Brand X,
Brand X wrote:
Flint Michigan doesn't have clean water,

They don't? Why not? I'd have thought that things would be better for them now that Mr. Obama is no longer mismanaging the EPA.


Brand X wrote:
Two trillion wasted on Afghanistan war of lies.

No lies. We were attacked. We are defending ourselves.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 03:30 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
Trump's not far behind.

Really? He has outsmarted the MSM, the Democrats, and corrupted intelligence and law enforcement agencies for three years. Got to be in not right now or anytime soon phase of the disease.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 03:53 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
I'd have thought things would be better for them now that Mr.Obama is no longer mismanaging the EPA.


Under some presidencies, things might well have continued along the road to improvement. Unfortunately for the residents of Flint (and the rest of the world), the situation could only descend into a horrible abyss under the poor choices made by Trump.

As of September there were 85 rollbacks under Trump.

https://nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html


Trump and his cronies care not about planet Earth 🌎 or the future. To them, if a person has enough greed inspired wealth; well then, they're as giddy as can be. Just make sure the planet remains somewhat habitable until at least their death and maybe that of their children (depending on the level of fealty their offspring have towards them). Generations beyond that, matter not to rhem. Heck, there was (and still is) a poster on this site, who when I questioned them about concern for anyone beyond their children, said it didn't matter to them. ( I asked after they had issued a statement that their only concern was for the future of their children).
BillW
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 04:00 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
...and Biden will have full blown dementia very soon.

Trump's not far behind.

tRump is already there! I can't imagine what can be worse for our country than a clinically diagnosed maniac with clinically diagnosed manifest grandiosity and disregard for facts along with narcissistic personality disorder who is spiraling down the ladder of dementia disorder. Some of the characteristics of dementia is:
Your loved one may:

Be unable to remember names, thoughts or memories
Use the wrong words or invent words
Mispronounce or repeat words
Have difficulty organizing thoughts
May be easily distracted
Use more nonverbal gesture
Lose ability to reason and understand
Use language that is more direct or accusatory
May become withdrawn and speak very little

All of the above symptoms are not required as indicative of the problem, however, all have been apparent and have shown to become more sever over time. I truly feel sorry for him as I feel sorry for my asshole. Both hurt like hell!
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 04:04 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
What's Breitbart?


An absurdly far-right website and um, 'news' network. It was started by the late Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012). Trump pal Steve Bannon is associated with them.


(I truly hope you already knew this and were merely looking to up your post count. If you hadn't heard of Breitbart before, then you're knowledge of politics is far lower than I'd previously believed.)
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2019 04:33 pm
@Sturgis,
I said it because several members are constantly accusing me of watching FOX and reading Breitbart, neither of which I do.
revelette3
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2019 08:10 am
@Lash,
You can take a girl out of the country and into the city life, but the girl is still going to retain her country girl upbringing for the most part even if she fully enjoys and loves her new city life.

Just saying.
revelette3
 
  3  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2019 08:19 am
I fell asleep before the debate and just now awoke a little while ago. So, missed the debate. The following is a winners and losers piece. For those who might have watched it, do you agree?

Winners and losers from the December Democratic debate
revelette3
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2019 08:59 am
Different take on the winner and losers from NYT (the first was WP)

Winners and Losers of
the Democratic Debate
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2019 08:59 am
I sensed that most all the candidates think that Pete is a fraud, and he got drilled by Warren and Klobuchar. Yang was brilliant as usual, tying in his policies with well researched data.

Bernie was great, I bet his favorabilty rises after last night.

Biden wasn't as stammering as usual so he did as well as he can do.

Klobuchar had a break-out night, it helped that with fewer on the stage everyone got to speak more.

Warren was her usual, she wanted to bury Pete but Amy did it for her.

Steyer did okay but no real big moments for him.

Frankly, I didn't miss any of the other candidates not being up there except for Tulsi.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2019 09:04 am
@revelette3,
Didn't watch (haven't watched any, in fact). There are various weightings and opinions as in the piece you link. I usually don't attend to such post-debate pieces either as I don't see a whole lot of value in what is often quite subjective perceptions. Up the road, I'll likely attend more closely to debates mainly because I think the charisma factor is increasingly important. Of course, that will be greatly subjective as well but has to be considered.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/18/2025 at 04:50:59