Cycling Related

The Independent Group has applied to become a registered political party - Change UK.

Why do I have a nagging feeling that Change UK might be more about actually keeping things the same?

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

Not sure about the name, though. When they inevitably merge with the rump of the lib dems, what's the new name going to be? Democratic Change Party is the best of the options, and it's not great.

It's a shit name, which one of them scrawled that on the flip chart?

I fear you maybe right. I’m hoping for a more consensual approach to politics. Less red neck, less testosterone and less ideology.

CUK. Sounds familiar?

How long before someone points out it's CHUKka's group?

I'm surprised by the choice of an ex Tory as leader.

Regulator wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Why do I have a nagging feeling that Change UK might be more about actually keeping things the same?

Because you don't accept that gradual, careful change is going to be more successful and long-lasting in the long run than failed attempts at revolutionary change? And that a precondition for successful change is to change the process of politics as well as its content?

Iris wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Because you don't accept that gradual, careful change is going to be more successful and long-lasting in the long run than failed attempts at revolutionary change? And that a precondition for successful change is to change the process of politics as well as its content?

These changes: what are they?

Iris wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Because you don't accept that gradual, careful change is going to be more successful and long-lasting in the long run than failed attempts at revolutionary change? And that a precondition for successful change is to change the process of politics as well as its content?

Revolutions have taken pretty successfully in other countries, but England tends to revert to mean after a few years.

I don't know enough Scottish or Welsh history to say either way about them.

Joan wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Revolutions have taken pretty successfully in other countries, but England tends to revert to mean after a few years.

Which is why England is still run by Whigs and Tories, the King still has absolute power, women and non-property-owning men have no vote, and the dominions still get told what to do by Westminster.

But Ireland (revolution 1919-21) is a haven of peace and quiet, there is absolutely no problem with the land border that was in dispute in the revolution, and they made their own way through the economic disruption of the 1980s and 1990s without the support of other countries.

And Spain (revolution 1936-39) spent the forties, fifties, sixties and seventies as a peaceful, democratic state in which everyone was free, and now all enmities are buried, there is absolutely no dispute around regions which want to secede and neighbouring statelets which don't want to be part of the country, and everyone is cheerful about the influx of immigrants from the far North and the South.

ransos wrote: ↑

5 years ago

These changes: what are they?

https://www.theindependent.group/statement

Pretty changey.

"To change our broken politics, we are clear that we want to develop a different approach. We recognise that every member of our group has the right to be heard and a duty to lead. We commit to support each other and treat each other with respect.

Sitting as The Independent Group of MPs we appeal to colleagues from all parties to consider the best interests of the country above short-term party-political considerations and choose to do likewise."

Which the established parties would do well to emulate.

Iris wrote: ↑

5 years ago

https://www.theindependent.group/statement

Pretty changey.

"To change our broken politics, we are clear that we want to develop a different approach. We recognise that every member of our group has the right to be heard and a duty to lead. We commit to support each other and treat each other with respect.

Sitting as The Independent Group of MPs we appeal to colleagues from all parties to consider the best interests of the country above short-term party-political considerations and choose to do likewise."

Which the established parties would do well to emulate.

You'd find similar sentiments expressed by the leaders of the other parties, so I'm at a loss as to why you give this any more credence.

ransos wrote: ↑

5 years ago

You'd find similar sentiments expressed by the leaders of the other parties, so I'm at a loss as to why you give this any more credence.

Who says I do?

And I'd gently observe that the leader of the Labour party has shown no sign whatsoever of recognising that he's part of the problem. Indeed, like the leader of the Tory party, he's shown every sign that he loves the current way of doing politics.

Iris wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Who says I do?

And I'd gently observe that the leader of the Labour party has shown no sign whatsoever of recognising that he's part of the problem. Indeed, like the leader of the Tory party, he's shown every sign that he loves the current way of doing politics.

If you don't give it any more credence, then we can dismiss it as worthless, given your oft-stated views of May and Corbyn.

My opinion is that the funny tingers are making the kind of corporate mission statement that is motherhood and apple pie, and rarely amounts to anything more than words on a page.

Iris wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Which is why England is still run by Whigs and Tories, the King still has absolute power, women and non-property-owning men have no vote, and the dominions still get told what to do by Westminster.

But Ireland (revolution 1919-21) is a haven of peace and quiet, there is absolutely no problem with the land border that was in dispute in the revolution, and they made their own way through the economic disruption of the 1980s and 1990s without the support of other countries.

And Spain (revolution 1936-39) spent the forties, fifties, sixties and seventies as a peaceful, democratic state in which everyone was free, and now all enmities are buried, there is absolutely no dispute around regions which want to secede and neighbouring statelets which don't want to be part of the country, and everyone is cheerful about the influx of immigrants from the far North and the South.

What part of me agreeing with you did you not understand?

(That's a rhetorical question. I will rephrase it tomorrow, when it isn't Friday night and I haven't been out to dinner with much wine. Please don't respond! I am just tagging this to let you know we are on the same side)