Stevie Gibson is a red
- Thread starter Ingleby_Flash
- Start date
It makes more sense when you are rich. When you have a lot of money, power and influence then you can directly benefit in a big way from the things that local politicians/councils etc have control over. It doesn't have to be an entire ideology, it might just be one specific thing that benefits him. He can use his influence to get other people to vote for something that benefits him more.
This isn't just about Gibson but all wealthy people with money for donations or influence on a group of people.
Hap
Well-known member
I don’t think it’s that simple.
These ideologies are polar opposite.
To exaggerate, it would be like oscillating between communism and fascism.
Do these people have no idea what the fundamentals are behind the politics?
When you are rich it doesn't matter if the NHS is crap or the schools are crap etc because you and your kids will never use them. The fundamentals aren't of interest if the only thing you are seeking is improvement of your own circumstances.
You might recognise that you live in a labour area and the best way to get ahead is through politics and the best chance of winning is with Labour. You might use that power and influence you have to get on boards and be able to do things that benefit you and your business. You might recognise that another candidate has access to funding and access to more power through their connections and switch side to back them and then when that well starts to run dry you move on to the next person.
Rich people are living in a different world to the rest of us.
Hap
Well-known member
That’s not wealth. That is not knowing who you are and having no ethics or values whatsoever.
I know a lot of wealthy people. I may not agree with their principles on occasion but they all have some, at least.
People would vote for a mannequin in the local election if they wore the same red or blue tie as who represents them in the general elections.
Gibson could be backing the person and not the party.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
TBH it sounds like Gibson has legitimately just fallen out with Houchen and he’s someone who will happily vote for either party.
I think most people would vote for more than one party, though they might not include both Labour or Tories in that.
100%. There are good and/or principled people at all levels of wealth. I didn't mean to tar them all with the same brush, although it does come across like that. The ones that would flip flop between opposite parties aren't those people though. A lot of wealthy people are wealthy because they are ruthless and single-minded so it's not a surprise to see that sort of behaviour from them.
Broadly speaking, I support the Labour Party "no matter what" because it was formed to try and achieve social justice and because I trust that my 3-400,000 fellow members (or comrades in old English) believe in this aim also - and therefore will try and stay true to it. I trust a Government formed on those principles will act in ways that ultimately benefit 'me, my family, my community, my region and my country'. Is that ok by you?
Last edited:
Hap
Well-known member
I have voted Green Labour and Lib Dem, on policy decisions and leadership.
I could never vote BNP, Conservative, UKiP ( or whatever that is now) or even for a communist party. It doesn’t matter what policy they may be offering, that would benefit me specifically, at the time.
There are core values that underpin these parties, and define what type of society we exist in. You cannot flip flop between them, without being ignorant or a sociopath at best.
Bit strong but there you go.
I could never vote BNP, Conservative, UKiP ( or whatever that is now) or even for a communist party. It doesn’t matter what policy they may be offering, that would benefit me specifically, at the time.
There are core values that underpin these parties, and define what type of society we exist in. You cannot flip flop between them, without being ignorant or a sociopath at best.
Bit strong but there you go.
I don't vote at all so my opinion is potentially void, but...
If you had two options, Labour or Conservative ... Labour came out publicly and said "we will do nothing for Middlesbrough", and Conservative had a constructive plan you agreed with...
... You'd still vote Labour due to the core values of their nationwide counterparts?
johnsmithsno2
Well-known member
Or if you thought the candidate of the party you usually support was hopelessly out of their depth and would be unable to perform a key local government role effectively?
Hap
Well-known member
I don’t blindly vote for the same party out of entrenched conviction. I did already say that.
There are fundamental principles at the core of the Conservative Party, that would never could or would change. These could never sit alongside my personal values.
It would be quite a day in politics if there was no capable option, other than voting for a Conservative candidate.
If the only capable candidate, and the only party willing to help Middlesbrough, represented the BNP, would you vote for them?
There are fundamental principles at the core of the Conservative Party, that would never could or would change. These could never sit alongside my personal values.
It would be quite a day in politics if there was no capable option, other than voting for a Conservative candidate.
If the only capable candidate, and the only party willing to help Middlesbrough, represented the BNP, would you vote for them?
Hap
Well-known member
They can shift, and do adjust, tactically. But strategically they remain the same.
The posturing is to influence the man in the street, not those at their core.
Hap
Well-known member
Yes, within principles.
Like I said, I’m definitely never ever going to vote for the BNP, or even the Conservative Party, because of fundamental beliefs.
This is the point a few posters are trying to make - You say you're not voting for a party out of entrenched conviction, but there are only two candidates and you'll never vote for one of them...
So no matter who that other person is, they get your vote.
BNP is an extreme example... But if I voted (I don't), I would happily flip flop between Labour and Conservative depending on which candidate I felt would HELP MIDDLESBROUGH (or the Tees Valley).
My decision to help the local area would not be affected by my overall political allegiance.
Hap
Well-known member
It’s an extreme example to highlight the point.
In my own opinion, which is the only one that matters when casting my personal vote, the principles at the heart of Conservatism are unacceptable to my personal values.
You’re allowed to have your own values and even an opinion on my values. No problem.
I just find it very hard to understand how it’s possible to move directly between two parties with such polarized core values. Almost as though whatever these parties exist for, and who they ultimately help, or discriminate against, has no relevance.
It smacks of short termism and sound bites.