Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Benefits of party politics at parish level...
Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 22 2011, 03:50 PM
On the allotment thread, party politics within town and p[arish councils was raised. It got me thinking, what benefit (if any) does party politics bring to the table at parish level?
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 22 2011, 04:18 PM
Everyone sings from the same hymn sheet.
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 22 2011, 07:08 PM
anyway, what is 'Dogma Attitude' & what is meant by 'No Vested Interests'?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 22 2011, 07:56 PM
In loose terms, with party politics one should be able to understand what a candidate stands for, and what their political philosophy is. Obviously, there is no absolutes and there is a certain amount of over-lap; especially these days.
A party can 'tame' a candidate, but whether that is a good idea all the time is another matter.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 22 2011, 08:55 PM
Party should give you an idea of whether the candidate is reactionary or radical, bourgeois or socialist, but it doesn't tell you if they're decent, devisive, or mad as a box of frogs. It also gives them something petty to squabble over.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 22 2011, 09:47 PM
Do you think Hungerford Town Council is better for being apolitical?
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 22 2011, 10:44 PM
It certainly makes the allotments expensive.
Posted by: blackdog Mar 22 2011, 11:13 PM
What benefits are there to party politics at district level?
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 22 2011, 11:16 PM
Party support for things like canvassing and other labour intensive chores.
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 22 2011, 11:16 PM
What benefits are there at national level?
Posted by: dannyboy Mar 22 2011, 11:17 PM
surely.....
Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 23 2011, 08:16 PM
Any level!!!!
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 23 2011, 08:21 PM
The ultimate conclusion if we keep going at this rate is what is the benefit of any western democracy.
Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 23 2011, 08:26 PM
I don't agree with that. Sadly, the evolution of party politics has been a corrupting process where 'the party' takes precedence. Membership of parties is so low they have virtually no mandate, IMHO.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 23 2011, 08:28 PM
You don't need as membership to support a party. Memberships are low because the parties are so closely aligned, and the majority of the country I suspect - despite what is reported - are content with their lot. Or at least are not too bothered who of the big three get in.
Maybe a little flippant, but this is what I mean by what is the point of a western democracy.
Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 23 2011, 09:50 PM
Maybe a little flippant, but this is what I mean by what is the point of a western democracy.
Membership of the parties has always been barely above minimal, statistically.
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 23 2011, 09:55 PM
And therefore irrelevant as a measure of a mandate (which was your original point)?
Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 23 2011, 09:58 PM
I think we agree....... Do we?
Should we? Could we?
memories.......
Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 23 2011, 10:08 PM
Should we? Could we?
memories.......
Dunno, what was the question?
Posted by: CharlieF Mar 31 2011, 12:19 PM
True. Have a look at Dave's Apolitical letter.
http://apoliticalparty.blogspot.com/2011/03/letter-to-editor-of-newbury-weekly-news.html
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)