NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think of Michael Howard
Is he an improvement over Iain Duncan Smith?
Is he the best leader the tories can field?

I certainely think that Michael Howard is a huge improvement over IDS, but I would've liked to have seen a moe younger or more 'modern' Tory take the leadership, which is why I voted for Micahel portillo.

Michael Portillo is certainly a very talented politician (and very electable) but the revalations about his gay past alienate him from many conservatives, particularly older ones, who still very prejudiced against homosexuality - How can he unify the party? Besides if more details come out about that (and it has been hinted that there is more to this than he has been letting on) it would be very embarassing for him personally and the party.

Michael Portillo is certainly a very talented politician (and very electable) but the revalations about his gay past alienate him from many conservatives, particularly older ones, who still very prejudiced against homosexuality - How can he unify the party? Besides if more details come out about that (and it has been hinted that there is more to this than he has been letting on) it would be very embarassing for him personally and the party.

Well, it doesn't have to be specifically Michael Portillo, just someone like him.

I've always thought that Ann Widdecombe was uncharacteristically close with her "something of the night" statement...

I voted Kenneth Clarke, I think a political heavy weight was needed and Howard provides this but I think Clarke’s anti-war stance would have made an interesting counter point to Blair thus showing him to be the “bad guy” shifting the image of the party. I see the euro thing is an obvious a problem for him within the party, but I would be most likely to vote for Clarke. Howard still will be haunted by the “something of the night about him” comments (mainly due to the media but hay!).

I'm just amazed that one of the most reviled members of certainly the most loathed government in recent memory has now become leader. Just shows how reduced and irrelevant the Tories are these days, I suppose.

I voted Kenneth Clarke, I think a political heavy weight was needed and Howard provides this but I think Clarke’s anti-war stance would have made an interesting counter point to Blair thus showing him to be the “bad guy” shifting the image of the party. I see the euro thing is an obvious a problem for him within the party, but I would be most likely to vote for Clarke. Howard still will be haunted by the “something of the night about him” comments (mainly due to the media but hay!).

The thing about Clarke is that he's a decent chap and plays incredibly well to the public at large if not the right wing, europhobic core of the party. I'm a left winger but I would consider voting for a conservative party headed by Kenneth Clarke whereas I still remember what Howard and Portillo were like in government. Why is David Davis shadow home secretary too? The horrible man is trying to out - Nazi Blunkett and is making a pretty good go of it...

I'm just amazed that one of the most reviled members of certainly the most loathed government in recent memory has now become leader. Just shows how reduced and irrelevant the Tories are these days, I suppose.

To be honest, the average person on the street doesn't really care - infact they don't care about politics at all.

I agree with most of your points regarding Ken Clarke. He is certainly the man with whom the electorate in Britain most relate too. He is also a very cunning political operator and was my choice as leader until very recently.
Again can he unify the Tory party?
Also what about his pro europeanism? Would he defend our interests in europe of give away all of our sovereignty over an ideal/experiment?

What do you think the 'something of the night' comment pertains to?
A facet of his personality?
Something sexual that we all don't know about?

He's a vampire.

He's a vampire.

Apparently so....

Again can he unify the Tory party?
Also what about his pro europeanism? Would he defend our interests in europe of give away all of our sovereignty over and odeal/experiment?

It's a choice really. Tony Blair was a much more centerist candidate than the Labour party would have liked but they were sick enough of opposition that dogma didn't matter so much as getting elected and putting at least part of their agenda accross. The Conservative party may do well to take note...

I'm just amazed that one of the most reviled members of certainly the most loathed government in recent memory has now become leader. Just shows how reduced and irrelevant the Tories are these days, I suppose.

To be honest, the average person on the street doesn't really care - infact they don't care about politics at all.

That's what was so funny about the gushing reports in the Sun, Mail, Telegraph etc about how good his performance at his first PM questions was. It might give his MPs a little boost to see him hold his own against Blair but it's hardly going to attract any large swing of support to his party as no-one else could care less.

That's what was so funny about the gushing reports in the Sun, Mail, Telegraph etc about how good his performance at his first PM questions was. It might give his MPs a little boost to see him hold his own against Blair but it's hardly going to attract any large swing of support to his party as no-one else could care less.

And as it said in the broadsheets, if they continue to cuss each other about their past then people will just lose interest.

Are there any indications that Michael Howard is not taking a centerist (and indeed moderate) approach? For example since assuming leadership his language has become much more consensual. He has appointed a chap called Guy Black as Tory press officer - Guy Black is openly gay. There have been US style primary elections for tory parliamentary candidates - i.e. non party members can vote aswell in the selection process

Are there any indications that Michael Howard is not taking a centerist (and indeed moderate) approach? For example since assuming leadership his language has become much more consensual. He has appointed a chap called Guy Black as Tory press officer - Guy Black is openly gay. There have been US style primary elections tory parliamentary candidates - i.e. non party members vote aswell in the selection process

There have been no indications that he is following a different ideology to that that he persued in government. The appointment of David Davis to shadow home secretary is doing nothing to dispell this impression either. He may be in the center of the party but the party has moved right if anything since the last couple of election defeats...

Appointing a right winger as shadow home secretary is a strewd move (Blair did this with Straw) - The british electorate themselves are on average very hard line on issues of law and order

Appointing a right winger as shadow home secretary is a strewd move (Blair did this with Straw) - The british electorate themselves are on average very hard line on issues of law and order

Blair did the same with Straw, and this is important, from the liberal end. The conservatives appointing one of their most hard line MPs to the job has pushed them way out of the political center ground.

He's OK, I'd have much preferred Mr Hush Puppies though.

David Willets, Tim Yeo (when not siring love children) and Damien Green to name a few are tory moderates with prominant positions in the shadow cabinet. Torys are also tailoring there policies to appeal to a broader audience i.e. abolition of unversity tution fees.

Howard also wants to form 'council of elders' including Ken Clarke to decide overal policy aims and stategy.

Michael Portillo is certainly a very talented politician (and very electable) but the revalations about his gay past alienate him from many conservatives, particularly older ones, who still very prejudiced against homosexuality - How can he unify the party? Besides if more details come out about that (and it has been hinted that there is more to this than he has been letting on) it would be very embarassing for him personally and the party.

Portillo is retiring at the next election.

David Willets, Tim Yeo (when not siring love children) and Damien Green to name a few are tory moderates with prominant positions in the shadow cabinet. Torys are also tailoring there policies to appeal to a broader audience i.e. abolition of unversity tution fees.

Howard also wants to form 'council of elders' including Ken Clarke to decide overal policy aims and stategy.

Yeah, I'd heard that. I'm waiting to see what comes from this though. Tim Yeo was apparently pretty good on the whole foundation hospital thing yesterday. His love child is irrelevant.

Abolition of tuition fees was an IDS policy. Will that not come in for the same wholesale policy review that the rest of his ideas?

Michael Portillo is certainly a very talented politician (and very electable) but the revalations about his gay past alienate him from many conservatives, particularly older ones, who still very prejudiced against homosexuality - How can he unify the party? Besides if more details come out about that (and it has been hinted that there is more to this than he has been letting on) it would be very embarassing for him personally and the party.

Portillo is retiring at the next election.


That is a shame - He should have stayed on and joined the Howard shadow cabinet. No doubt we will see more of him on TV - He is always interesting

Howard is the logical choice for the Conservatives. With Labour gaining the middle ground and some of the right there was no where else for the Tories to go but further right.

I'd have liked to have seen Ken Clarke but Howard will do a good enough job of making the Conservatives unelectable.

'there is something of the night about him' Anne Widdecombe

David Willets, Tim Yeo (when not siring love children) and Damien Green to name a few are tory moderates with prominant positions in the shadow cabinet. Torys are also tailoring there policies to appeal to a broader audience i.e. abolition of unversity tution fees.

Howard also wants to form 'council of elders' including Ken Clarke to decide overal policy aims and stategy.

Yeah, I'd heard that. I'm waiting to see what comes from this though. Tim Yeo was apparently pretty good on the whole foundation hospital thing yesterday. His love child is irrelevant.

Abolition of tuition fees was an IDS policy. Will that not come in for the same wholesale policy review that the rest of his ideas?


It only correct that all of IDS's policies come under scrutiny - Personally I hope that this policy is kept as it is typically conservative - allowing those with the desire to improve to help themselves - They can fund this by proposing to cut benefits.

My argument that Howard is broadening the appeal of the tories and moving towards the centre still stands.

His love child is irrelevant.



You are quite right it is irrelevant - does'nt he have more than one love child though?

Personally I hope that this policy is kept as it is typically conservative...

Not in my experience. A typically conservative policy would be to stop funding the universities at all (possibly with an initial endowment) and to set the free to sink or swim with whatever they can charge those who attend. Comprehensive, well funded education, healthcare and social services have never been evident in the conservative agenda.

My argument that Howard is broadening the appeal of the tories and moving towards the centre still stands.

Argue it all you like but in the absense of any policy coming out of that review I can't say I believe you. Howard may be more left wing than IDS but he's still somewhat on the wacko fringe.

Vonners, you're old enough to remember Michael Howard in government aren't you? What do you think - Wacko or P.M. material?

David Willets, Tim Yeo (when not siring love children) and Damien Green to name a few are tory moderates with prominant positions in the shadow cabinet. Torys are also tailoring there policies to appeal to a broader audience i.e. abolition of unversity tution fees.

Howard also wants to form 'council of elders' including Ken Clarke to decide overal policy aims and stategy.

Yeah, I'd heard that. I'm waiting to see what comes from this though. Tim Yeo was apparently pretty good on the whole foundation hospital thing yesterday. His love child is irrelevant.

Abolition of tuition fees was an IDS policy. Will that not come in for the same wholesale policy review that the rest of his ideas?


It only correct that all of IDS's policies come under scrutiny - Personally I hope that this policy is kept as it is typically conservative - allowing those with the desire to improve to help themselves - They can fund this by proposing to cut benefits.

My argument that Howard is broadening the appeal of the tories and moving towards the centre still stands.

Howard taking the Tories to the centre??? Are you mad? The labour party are there in force as are the Lib Dems...

His love child is irrelevant.



You are quite right it is irrelevant - does'nt he have more than one love child though?

I only remember him resigning over one and that was quite a few years ago. I can't say that I have been researching his family situation that thoroughly! :lol:

Personally I hope that this policy is kept as it is typically conservative...

Not in my experience. A typically conservative policy would be to stop funding the universities at all (possibly with an initial endowment) and to set the free to sink or swim with whatever they can charge those who attend. Comprehensive, well funded education, healthcare and social services have never been evident in the conservative agenda.

My argument that Howard is broadening the appeal of the tories and moving towards the centre still stands.

Argue it all you like but in the absense of any policy coming out of that review I can't say I believe you. Howard may be more left wing than IDS but he's still somewhat on the wacko fringe.

Vonners, you're old enough to remember Michael Howard in government aren't you? What do you think - Wacko or P.M. material?

He's a nutter.

I do remember him in government when he was Home Secretary. He proposed legislation that was as draconian as anything dreamt up by Thatcher.

Prisons...in-mates to be shackeled to their beds if in hospital..that would be pregnant women....there was some other madness...oh yeah immigration...very anti...even though he himself is from an immigrant family.

He's a nutter.

I do remember him in government when he was Home Secretary. He proposed legislation that was as draconian as anything dreamt up by Thatcher.

Prisons...in-mates to be shackeled to their beds if in hospital..that would be pregnant women....there was some other madness...oh yeah immigration...very anti...even though he himself is from an immigrant family.

Not to mention the poll tax and the first U.K. legislation to criminalise a type of music...

I find it quite hard to think about a future Tory government, as it seems incredibly uphill for them to win again. People simply don't want to know anymore. If you look back a few elections, the Tories used to hold seats like Dewsbury in West Yorkshire!!!! which is ultra-deprived. The Everton area of Liverpool used to be a Tory seat. 1997 was the first time that they were unrepresented in Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, etc. - they have not always been seen as exclusively concerned with the rich [except in some mining areas] until relatively recently. How are they ever going to come back, I don't know!

The funny thing is that if you go around your average industrial Northern town and ask people "do you want tax cuts?", "do you want the death penalty and harsh punishment for crime?", "do you want to stop immigration?", the answers would be "yes", "yes" and "yes". It's not their ideology which is unpopular, it's just most people in this country are now prejudiced against them.

However, they say that it is governments that lose elections, rather than oppositions that win, so if Labour cocks up really bad on something then people will get prejudiced against them instead and vote Tory. Any strategy they come up with before Labour cocks up cannot have too big an effect.

The majority of the electorate are hardline on immigration/asylum and prefer policies to restrict it. The same is true regarding crime. Imposing tougher conditions on prisoners would be popular and not damaging.

There is no evidence to suggest Howard is too right wing for the British electorate. This was certainly the case with Duncan Smith.

He's a nutter.

I do remember him in government when he was Home Secretary. He proposed legislation that was as draconian as anything dreamt up by Thatcher.

Prisons...in-mates to be shackeled to their beds if in hospital..that would be pregnant women....there was some other madness...oh yeah immigration...very anti...even though he himself is from an immigrant family.

Not to mention the poll tax and the first U.K. legislation to criminalise a type of music...

Howard was not a minister when the Poll Tax was implemented....

The rave stuff...was that Howard? Not sure it was...

Howard is the logical choice for the Conservatives. With Labour gaining the middle ground and some of the right there was no where else for the Tories to go but further right.
I'd have liked to have seen Ken Clarke but Howard will do a good enough job of making the Conservatives unelectable.


I disagree slightly. The Tory party has already tired to move further to the right without much success with Hague and IDS. I believe they will try moving towards the center and challenging Blair on his own ground. Can the tories gain the respect of the electorate in this way (I think no)? IDS started this shift with the issue of tuition fees but with Howard as leader this attempt is less likely to succeed due to his history in government.

Personally I’m glad Howard is the new leader, he is a skilled politician who can hold the government to account on many issues but I agree thankfully has little chance of winning an election. I hope the Liberals gain the posistion of official opposition providing a center-left (liberal) center-right (Labor) choice just in case Blair really f**ks it up and make himself unelectable (ala War Bush etc)

The majority of the electorate are hardline on immigration/asylum and prefer policies to restrict it. The same is true regarding crime. Imposing tougher conditions on prisoners would be popular and not damaging.

There is no evidence to suggest Howard is too right wing for the British electorate. This was certainly the case with Duncan Smith.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Why

Howard is the logical choice for the Conservatives. With Labour gaining the middle ground and some of the right there was no where else for the Tories to go but further right.
I'd have liked to have seen Ken Clarke but Howard will do a good enough job of making the Conservatives unelectable.


I disagree slightly. The Tory party has already tired to move further to the right without much success with Hague and IDS. I believe they will try moving towards the center and challenging Blair on his own ground. Can the tories gain the respect of the electorate in this way (I think no)? IDS started this shift with the issue of tuition fees but with Howard as leader this attempt is less likely to succeed due to his history in government.

Personally I’m glad Howard is the new leader, he is a skilled politician who can hold the government to account on many issues but I agree thankfully has little chance of winning an election. I hope the Liberals gain the posistion of official opposition providing a center-left (liberal) center-right (Labor) choice just in case Blair really f**ks it up and make himself unelectable (ala War Bush etc)

No. Hague and Mr Thing can be considered Ghandi's compared to Howards political beliefs. The man makes Ghengis Khan look good in a swim suit.

The tories will find that they will get throughly trashed in the middle.

The bottom line is that the Tories finished themsleves when Hague became leader. Since then they have been weak in opposition and losing popularity.

We are seeing the death throws of the Tory Party.

The rave stuff...was that Howard? Not sure it was...

Yep, Michael Howard was the home secretary who pushed the cjb (1994) through and it was his staunch defence of the poll tax that won him Margaret Thatcher's patronage...

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Why

For a start you seem to think that Howard is not as rabid as IDS when its the reverse thats true...by a long shot.

We are seeing the death throws of the Tory Party.

I think that you stating a wish rather than expounding fact.
The Tory party is the most sucessful political party in British political history.

What do you think of Michael Howard
Is he an improvement over Iain Duncan Smith?
Is he the best leader the tories can field?

From my viewing of Prime Ministers Questions on CSPAN, I can conclude that Michael Howard is much more wittier and enertaining than IDS was. Therefore, my vote goes to him.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Why

For a start you seem to think that Howard is not as rabid as IDS when its the reverse thats true...by a long shot.


IDS is Norman Tebbits choosen sucessor in Chingford. The two men are very close. Tebbit was quoted as saying something like 'if you think I am right wing wait till you see this guy' - He was refering to IDS. Tebbit was instrumental in promoting IDS's bid to become leader of the Tory party at the expense of Michael Portillo by highlighting the latters ' decade of devience' - So you tell me that IDS is less right wing than Howard.

We are seeing the death throws of the Tory Party.

I think that you stating a wish rather than expounding fact.
The Tory party is the most sucessful political party in British political history.

Was

You are only as good as your last PM...and the last Tory PM was Major.,..how long ago?

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Why

For a start you seem to think that Howard is not as rabid as IDS when its the reverse thats true...by a long shot.


IDS is Norman Tebbits choosen sucessor in Chingford. The two men are very close. Tebbit was quoted as saying something like 'if you think I am right wing wait till you see this guy' - He was refering to IDS. Tebbit was instrumental in promoting IDS's bid to become leader of the Tory party at the expense of Michael Portillo by highlighting the latters ' decade of devience' - So you tell me that IDS is less right wing than Howard.

Yeah I remember that...and how right wing did he turn out to be? A wet blanket.

As for the politiking slurs...hey normal stuff...means nothing...its just verbaige to win an election.

Actions speak louder than words.

Yeah I remember that...and how right wing did he turn out to be? A wet blanket.

As for the politiking slurs...hey normal stuff...means nothing...its just verbaige to win an election.

Actions speak louder than words.

True the politiking slurs are par for the course in politics
The fact that IDS was 'wet banket' did not have anything to do with his political colour rather desparation, his inability to lead the party and inspire the electorate

Yeah I remember that...and how right wing did he turn out to be? A wet blanket.

As for the politiking slurs...hey normal stuff...means nothing...its just verbaige to win an election.

Actions speak louder than words.

True the politiking slurs are par for the course in politics
The fact that IDS was 'wet banket' did not have anything to do with his political colour rather desparation, his inability to lead the party and inspire the electorate

I meant that he did not seem to propose right wing ideas in his party...in that sense he was a wet blanket...

As a commie, I'm not exactly saddened by the demise, ok, ok, slightly decline of the Tory Party, but I have to say something which none of you has mentioned (well, I think, I may not have looked hard enough) the name Boris Johnson!

BORIS FOR TORY LEADER!!!!

As a commie, I'm not exactly saddened by the demise, ok, ok, slightly decline of the Tory Party, but I have to say something which none of you has mentioned (well, I think, I may not have looked hard enough) the name Boris Johnson!

BORIS FOR TORY LEADER!!!!

I don't want the tories completely destroyed! LOL

As a commie, I'm not exactly saddened by the demise, ok, ok, slightly decline of the Tory Party, but I have to say something which none of you has mentioned (well, I think, I may not have looked hard enough) the name Boris Johnson!

BORIS FOR TORY LEADER!!!!

Bah, he's no dummie, y'know? That whole 50's schoolboy thing is so gosh darn contrived. Now, Boris as a replacement for the queen.....

I meant that he did not seem to propose right wing ideas in his party...in that sense he was a wet blanket...

Fair point - IDS in his resignation speech mentioned that he would continue to 'fight for social justice' (a socialist term!!!) - He also mentioned during his pathetic bid to keep his leadership that he would lead the conservative party to victory in the next election. Nobody could do that. Blair is still a very popular PM. So it's hard to imagine what state of mind he was in when he thought up his policies. I 'm sure if they were all left wing ones though

He could have made political capital on the increase in illegal immigrants under labour - He did not
He could of capitalised on the increase in violant crime under labour - He did'nt

This indicates that he was just an idiot - It does not say he more left wing than Howard

Bah, he's no dummie, y'know? That whole 50's schoolboy thing is so gosh darn contrived. Now, Boris as a replacement for the queen.....

Exactly so. My former boss was at Eton with Boris and says that he's very clever and cunning in the extreme...

As a commie, I'm not exactly saddened by the demise, ok, ok, slightly decline of the Tory Party, but I have to say something which none of you has mentioned (well, I think, I may not have looked hard enough) the name Boris Johnson!

BORIS FOR TORY LEADER!!!!

Boris is da MAN!

Whats his full name, Boris Depheffle Johnson or something?

The rave stuff...was that Howard? Not sure it was...

Yep, Michael Howard was the home secretary who pushed the cjb (1994) through and it was his staunch defence of the poll tax that won him Margaret Thatcher's patronage...

But the history of that legislation goes back to the Public Order Act of 1986...which was instigated by Thatcher.

The poll tax suport...yes...even though he was not part of the team that drew up the legislation.

As a commie, I'm not exactly saddened by the demise, ok, ok, slightly decline of the Tory Party, but I have to say something which none of you has mentioned (well, I think, I may not have looked hard enough) the name Boris Johnson!

BORIS FOR TORY LEADER!!!!

I don't want the tories completely destroyed! LOL


He should definately be in the shadow cabinet

As a commie, I'm not exactly saddened by the demise, ok, ok, slightly decline of the Tory Party, but I have to say something which none of you has mentioned (well, I think, I may not have looked hard enough) the name Boris Johnson!

BORIS FOR TORY LEADER!!!!

I don't want the tories completely destroyed! LOL


He should definately be in the shadow cabinet

Who? Boris? LOL yeah

My god..he's a telegraph coloumnist....of course he should be in the shadow cabinet...

serious...

No. I think he does a better job snioping from the sidelines. I would like to see Tebbit in the Cabinet to give the tories some backbone to be an effective opposition...

The tories have allowed Blair to effectively make the Opposition ineffective.

Tebbit has had his day really. He is too right wing for the electorate and for younger conservatives.

Tebbit has had his day really. He is too right wing for the electorate and for younger conservatives.

yeah I know...

But the real issue is that our democracy is damaged by having a weak Opposition.

The rave stuff...was that Howard? Not sure it was...

Yep, Michael Howard was the home secretary who pushed the cjb (1994) through and it was his staunch defence of the poll tax that won him Margaret Thatcher's patronage...

But the history of that legislation goes back to the Public Order Act of 1986...which was instigated by Thatcher.

The poll tax suport...yes...even though he was not part of the team that drew up the legislation.

Fair enough. I'm rather surprised that they haven't been playing that Paxman interview repeatedly since he was elected

"JP:Did you threaten to overrule him?
MH: I was not entitled to instruct Derek Lewis and I did not instruct him. And the truth is...
JP: Did you threaten to overrule him?
MH: I did not overrule Derek Lewis.
JP: Did you threaten to overrule him?...."

14 times in all I think he asked him :lol:

The rave stuff...was that Howard? Not sure it was...

Yep, Michael Howard was the home secretary who pushed the cjb (1994) through and it was his staunch defence of the poll tax that won him Margaret Thatcher's patronage...

But the history of that legislation goes back to the Public Order Act of 1986...which was instigated by Thatcher.

The poll tax suport...yes...even though he was not part of the team that drew up the legislation.

Fair enough. I'm rather surprised that they haven't been playing that Paxman interview repeatedly since he was elected

"JP:Did you threaten to overrule him?
MH: I was not entitled to instruct Derek Lewis and I did not instruct him. And the truth is...
JP: Did you threaten to overrule him?
MH: I did not overrule Derek Lewis.
JP: Did you threaten to overrule him?...."

14 times in all I think he asked him :lol:

Yep and never got a straight answer....

I trust Howard as much as I do Blair.

None of those old fogies with their heads shoved firmly up their butts.
Vote for Boris Johnson to be Tory leader and PM!!

Ken Clarke is by far the most talented politician the Tories have at the moment, and as leader he would undoubtedly appeal to the electorate enough to have given them a reasonable chance at the next election.

Ken Clarke is by far the most talented politician the Tories have at the moment, and as leader he would undoubtedly appeal to the electorate enough to have given them a reasonable chance at the next election.

They're not interested in that, though. Somebody earlier on mentioned that the Tories are the most successful political party ever. They were, until they discovered ideology under Thatcher and that's what's crippling them now. They're nothing like the old 'One-Nation' party which could make policies that actually attracted huge swathes of the electorate. Labour has completely out-flanked and usurped that aspect of the Tories, and in the process dumped most of its old ideology which crippled it in the early '80's.

Until the Tories cast off their obsession with Europe and tax-cutting, and cease to be associated with the Little Englander mentality of most of their elderly supporters, they won't be returned as a government and can barely function as an opposition. Howard certainly isn't the man to do that. He may prevent the destruction of the party which seemed likely to happen under Duncan Smith, but I doubt he'll be able to lead them forward in any meaningful way. Too many people still associate the Tories with the sheer, unremitting nastiness they displayed throughout most of the nineties and Howard is a very potent reminder of that.

Ken Clarke is by far the most talented politician the Tories have at the moment, and as leader he would undoubtedly appeal to the electorate enough to have given them a reasonable chance at the next election.

They're not interested in that, though. Somebody earlier on mentioned that the Tories are the most successful political party ever. They were, until they discovered ideology under Thatcher and that's what's crippling them now. They're nothing like the old 'One-Nation' party which could make policies that actually attracted huge swathes of the electorate. Labour has completely out-flanked and usurped that aspect of the Tories, and in the process dumped most of its old ideology which crippled it in the early '80's.

Until the Tories cast off their obsession with Europe and tax-cutting, and cease to be associated with the Little Englander mentality of most of their elderly supporters, they won't be returned as a government and can barely function as an opposition. Howard certainly isn't the man to do that. He may prevent the destruction of the party which seemed likely to happen under Duncan Smith, but I doubt he'll be able to lead them forward in any meaningful way. Too many people still associate the Tories with the sheer, unremitting nastiness they displayed throughout most of the nineties and Howard is a very potent reminder of that.

I agree with you that the trastition of the One Nation ideaology to Thatcherism was damaging. Although the times back then did require that there was a more radical politics needed. Thatcherism was the only thing available.

Imagine if Thatcher had quit politics all those years ago before she ran for Finchley.

Imagine if Thatcher had quit politics all those years ago before she ran for Finchley.

Don't tease :D .

I agree with you that the trastition of the One Nation ideaology to Thatcherism was damaging. Although the times back then did require that there was a more radical politics needed. Thatcherism was the only thing available.

I'm not sure it was to be honest. She won fairly narrowly considering the damage caused by the disastrous Winter of Discontent. If Callaghan had gone to the country earlier, he might have squeaked a majority or at least a hung parliament. There was nothing essentially 'wrong' with the UK at the time and more moderate reforming policies would have worked just as well, without the horrendous social problems she caused and which we're still paying the price for.

Margeret Thatcher came about as a reaction to the corporatist system of politics that came about in the 1960's/70's that cause Britains economy to collapse and force us to borrow money from the IMF.

The state was swollen, spawling and inefficient. The country had these laughable state sponsored industries and the country did not attract any inward investment or foster any new business internally.

Margeret Thatcher and the conserbvative party changed all of that and the political climate became pro-business, moved to the right and reduced wasteful state funded activities. The UK has prospered ever since - Britain did not sink to the depths of the 1970's even during the world recession of the lates 1980'/early 1990's.

Margeret Thatcher came about as a reaction to the corporatist system of politics that came about in the 1960's/70's that cause Britains economy to collapse and force us to borrow money from the IMF.

The state was swollen, spawling and inefficient. The country had these laughable state sponsored industries and the country did not attract any inward investment or foster any new business internally.

Margeret Thatcher and the conserbvative party changed all of that and the political climate became pro-business, moved to the right and reduced wasteful state funded activities. The UK has prospered ever since - Britain did not sink to the depths of the 1970's even during the world recession of the lates 1980'/early 1990's.

Er, hardly. Considering we squandered something like £100 billion worth of North Sea oil and privatisation receipts to pay for the utter folly of Thatcher's policies, I'd hardly say her reforms were a raging success. What exactly did we get out of it?

As for internal investment, we basically pissed away our nationalised industries on the cheap to the extent that most of them are now owned by foreign companies paying wages far below what the workers used to get. Great for French and American shareholders. Bit crap for the poor buggers forced out of their jobs or forced to work for a pittance.

Ken Clarke is by far the most talented politician the Tories have at the moment, and as leader he would undoubtedly appeal to the electorate enough to have given them a reasonable chance at the next election.

I don't think anyone doubts the ability of Ken Clarke. I confess to being deeply frustrated when Iain Duncan Smith was elected leader instead of him. He built the favourable economic conditions that the Labour Party have capitalised on. I have already questioned his ability to unify the party.
But what about his anti-war stance? Is that in in Britains Natural interest to be anti-bush or anti-war?

I don't think so...

A question for the 2 people who voted for Iain Duncan Smith (or indeed any other IDS supporters). Why? He was/is/always will be useless.

Margeret Thatcher came about as a reaction to the corporatist system of politics that came about in the 1960's/70's that cause Britains economy to collapse and force us to borrow money from the IMF.

The state was swollen, spawling and inefficient. The country had these laughable state sponsored industries and the country did not attract any inward investment or foster any new business internally.

Margeret Thatcher and the conserbvative party changed all of that and the political climate became pro-business, moved to the right and reduced wasteful state funded activities. The UK has prospered ever since - Britain did not sink to the depths of the 1970's even during the world recession of the lates 1980'/early 1990's.

I agree with your discription completely.

However all that Thatcherism did was change us to a serive based nation rather than an industrial one.

Look at the amount of personal debt that we all carry. That is the 'reason' for our 'prosperity'.

Er, hardly. Considering we squandered something like £100 billion worth of North Sea oil and privatisation receipts to pay for the utter folly of Thatcher's policies, I'd hardly say her reforms were a raging success. What exactly did we get out of it?

As for internal investment, we basically pissed away our nationalised industries on the cheap to the extent that most of them are now owned by foreign companies paying wages far below what the workers used to get. Great for French and American shareholders. Bit crap for the poor buggers forced out of their jobs or forced to work for a pittance.

Try investment in Britain from foreign countries. The creation of industries that are sustainable under market conditions - Real prosperity and growth. More people going to unversities. Lower levels of unemployment than Europe. Enterprise culture that allowed new industries to grow and thrive (IT and Financial Services for example). Removal of the nanny state to make people more self-reliant. People were encouraged to invest and by their own homes. Freedom

Er, hardly. Considering we squandered something like £100 billion worth of North Sea oil and privatisation receipts to pay for the utter folly of Thatcher's policies, I'd hardly say her reforms were a raging success. What exactly did we get out of it?

As for internal investment, we basically pissed away our nationalised industries on the cheap to the extent that most of them are now owned by foreign companies paying wages far below what the workers used to get. Great for French and American shareholders. Bit crap for the poor buggers forced out of their jobs or forced to work for a pittance.

Try investment in Britain from foreign countries. The creation of industries that are sustainable under market conditions - Real prosperity and growth. More people going to unversities. Lower levels of unemployment than Europe. Enterprise culture that allowed new industries to grow and thrive (IT and Financial Services for example). Removal of the nanny state to make people more self-reliant. People were encouraged to invest and by their own homes. Freedom

However all that Thatcherism did was change us to a serive based nation rather than an industrial one.

Look at the amount of personal debt that we all carry. That is the 'reason' for our 'prosperity'.


Are these necessarily bad things?
If levels of personal debt are managable. Then the effects on the economy of are beneficial. It's only when people over borrow (what people are in danger of doing now) when trouble starts.

Don't you think it's sensible to focus your industry away from manufacturing when you can never have the cheapest labour or materials? Much of the manufacturing we had was state sponsored any way and not subject to normal market conditions.

Er, hardly. Considering we squandered something like £100 billion worth of North Sea oil and privatisation receipts to pay for the utter folly of Thatcher's policies, I'd hardly say her reforms were a raging success. What exactly did we get out of it?

As for internal investment, we basically pissed away our nationalised industries on the cheap to the extent that most of them are now owned by foreign companies paying wages far below what the workers used to get. Great for French and American shareholders. Bit crap for the poor buggers forced out of their jobs or forced to work for a pittance.

Try investment in Britain from foreign countries. The creation of industries that are sustainable under market conditions - Real prosperity and growth. More people going to unversities. Lower levels of unemployment than Europe. Enterprise culture that allowed new industries to grow and thrive (IT and Financial Services for example). Removal of the nanny state to make people more self-reliant. People were encouraged to invest and by their own homes. Freedom

Investment in the UK is pants. The same as it is on the mainland. Alot of obstacles that are easily over come elsewhere.

Industries - we have no industries...no coal, steel, automotive, shipbuilding, fishing.

We are a service industry. Oh the IT jobs? I work in IT as a manager and I can catagorically tell you that the situation of IT professionals in this country is dire. The same goes for the financial sector.

Universities - ok.. I am old skool on this. The are too many people going to Uni that ought not to be there. It was an error to get rid of Polytechnics...and apprenticeships.

I agree that the nanny state is not a good thing but it seems to me that we no longer have jobs for life, savings have gone to pot and the pensions are valueless (ok not valueless but near as dammit).

However all that Thatcherism did was change us to a serive based nation rather than an industrial one.

Look at the amount of personal debt that we all carry. That is the 'reason' for our 'prosperity'.


Are these necessarily bad things?
If levels of personal debt are managable. Then the effects on the economy of are beneficial. It's only when people over borrow (what people are in danger of doing now) when trouble starts.

Don't you think it's sensible to focus your industry away from manufacturing when you can never have the cheapest labour or materials? Much of the manufacturing we had was state sponsored any way and not subject to normal market conditions.

People have. Given a large rise by the BoE in interest rates would send an large amount of people to the wall this avenue of economic influence is closed.

No its not sensible because these are strategic industries that are the lifeblood of any country.

Investment in the UK is pants. The same as it is on the mainland. Alot of obstacles that are easily over come elsewhere.

Industries - we have no industries...no coal, steel, automotive, shipbuilding, fishing.

We are a service industry. Oh the IT jobs? I work in IT as a manager and I can catagorically tell you that the situation of IT professionals in this country is dire. The same goes for the financial sector.

Universities - ok.. I am old skool on this. The are too many people going to Uni that ought not to be there. It was an error to get rid of Polytechnics...and apprenticeships.

I agree that the nanny state is not a good thing but it seems to me that we no longer have jobs for life, savings have gone to pot and the pensions are valueless (ok not valueless but near as dammit).


If investment in this country is so bad then why is our economy better then than the rest of europe ?

Why is a service economy better than a manufacturing one? If there is no demand for coal, fishing etc ? why should they exist if they can't sustain themselves? Again why compete directly with countries who will always have cheaper materials and labour than we will? Why are manufacturing industries the lifeblood of a country?

I understand your point regarding IT and Fincial Services. I was made redundant from an IT department in an Investment Bank in February. I found a better paid job outside of the city whilst still on gardening leave. Both the City and IT are in a slowdown. Things are picking up - They won't be the same because it's cheaper now produce software in India or the far east. But industries rise and fall and new ones emerge in their place. It's the way the market works.

Why do we need jobs for life? I agree that we need a good labour market with plenty of jobs. But I and others (perhaps you as you are an IT pro) have increased rewards and responsibility as a result of moving about and not accepting what if often bullshit from employers to make you content for what you have been given. People who move around jobs learn more too.

Getting rid of polys and making unversities has made it possible for people from poorer/working class backgrounds to better themselves.

Regarding pensions. Granted these have lowered in value. But having a private one will give better value than a state one. Beside people will learn to detect a recession and move there money into a safer area. Equities will pick up again. Also why should a pension be the only way in which people provide for their old age??

Investment in the UK is pants. The same as it is on the mainland. Alot of obstacles that are easily over come elsewhere.

Industries - we have no industries...no coal, steel, automotive, shipbuilding, fishing.

We are a service industry. Oh the IT jobs? I work in IT as a manager and I can catagorically tell you that the situation of IT professionals in this country is dire. The same goes for the financial sector.

Universities - ok.. I am old skool on this. The are too many people going to Uni that ought not to be there. It was an error to get rid of Polytechnics...and apprenticeships.

I agree that the nanny state is not a good thing but it seems to me that we no longer have jobs for life, savings have gone to pot and the pensions are valueless (ok not valueless but near as dammit).


If investment in this country is so bad then why is our economy better then than the rest of europe ?

Why is a service economy better than a manufacturing one? If there is no demand for coal, fishing etc ? why should they exist if they can't sustain themselves? Again why compete directly with countries who will always have cheaper materials and labour than we will? Why are manufacturing industries the lifeblood of a country?

I understand your point regarding IT and Fincial Services. I was made redundant from an IT department in an Investment Bank in February. I found a better paid job outside of the city whilst still on gardening leave. Both the City and IT are in a slowdown. Things are picking up - They won't be the same because it's cheaper now produce software in India or the far east. But industries rise and fall and new ones emerge in their place. It's the way the market works.

Why do we need jobs for life? I agree that we need a good labour market with plenty of jobs. But I and others (perhaps you as you are an IT pro) have increased rewards and responsibility as a result of moving about and not accepting what if often bullshit from employers to make you content for what you have been given. People who move around jobs learn more too.

Getting rid of polys and making unversities has made it possible for people from poorer/working class backgrounds to better themselves.

Regarding pensions. Granted these have lowered in value. But having a private one will give better value than a state one. Beside people will learn to detect a recession and move there money into a safer area. Equities will pick up again. Also why should a pension be the only way in which people provide for their old age??

I really do beleive that we are burying our heads in the sand with regard to debt. Our economy is riding on a huge wave of debt. Thats why it is doing well. Of course once people stop servicing their debts then the proverbials hit the fan.

Strategic resources are a burden on Government. Thats the way it is...hence you have countries protecting these industries. I am not saying that I agree...I am saying that is the way it is. You do not squander these resources. It ranges from national prestige to self protection.

IT is screwed. We will ever see the levels that we did in the 90's. The dot con bubble screwed us...and 9/11 was not a help either.

Job for life....I perfer jobs for life...but then there are those who want to spend their lives in the places they were born and work locally.

In regards to the modern Universities...all I see is devalued degrees...whats the point of offering the chance to get a degree to everyone...is my point of view elitist? yes.

Pensions...SERPS is shyte. With the removal of the fianl pension salary people are facing paying a substantial amount of money towards their work pension.

Nice to see that Howord is attracting more money into the conservative party and that the Tories are up in the opinion polls

What do you think the 'something of the night' comment pertains to?
A facet of his personality?
Something sexual that we all don't know about?
Widdecombe is anti-semitic and decided to use a vague comment like "something of the night" rather than a specific allegation of wrongdoing against Howard?Does it matter?Widdecombes a hasbeen and (perhaps im alone in thinking this) a bigot of the first order.

Widdecombe is anti-semitic and decided to use a vague comment like "something of the night" rather than a specific allegation of wrongdoing against Howard?Does it matter?Widdecombes a hasbeen and (perhaps im alone in thinking this) a bigot of the first order.

Have you seen the man? He looks like a vampire! It was even more apparent then before the image consultants got hold of him.
This is what Anne Widdecombe and a large number of characaturists picked up on and had nothing to do with anti-semitism.

It is however, as you say, a vague comment and pointless given the large number of other more important things you could pick him up on.

I think he has been just the tonic for democracy in Britain.
At last we have an opposition to New Labour, which has been getting away with murder as a result of it's absense- Take devolution in scotland and wales but not in england - this allowed the despicable tution fees legislation to pass

We aughta lend you guys Pat Buchanan. He's an old-school, British-style Conservative, and probably looking for work, too. I mean, MSNBC is a living joke. He even wrote a book about what a cesspool the UK (and the US) is! Makes sense! 8)

Only Labour and Blair could have turned the uncoolest haven't-got-a-chance-in-hell-of-getting-into-power-again political parties into a potentially attractive option again. Michael Howard also seems pretty good to me, and anyone would be a welcome change to the Smiler and his destructive policies.

I'll still vote Lib Dem though.

Howard has shown himself to be immesurably better than Hague and IDS, but I would still rather have Ken Clarke leading the Conservatives, because he's pro-european.

I was a Clarke supporter before the Tories Elected Duncan Smith. I also rated Portillo above Howard - But as I said Howard has been a real revalation. Of course we know he is a good debater but I did not expect him to generate the publicity he seems to be getting, nor did I expect him to come as a credible PM material. It's like going to see a film that you think will be very bad and it turning out to be good.

Only Labour and Blair could have turned the uncoolest haven't-got-a-chance-in-hell-of-getting-into-power-again political parties into a potentially attractive option again. Michael Howard also seems pretty good to me, and anyone would be a welcome change to the Smiler and his destructive policies.

I'll still vote Lib Dem though.

Few points with regards to the lib dems:

1. How does Charles Kennedy (or indeed any other lib dem leader) form a set of policies that will appeal to both the labour party and tory party defectors in his ranks?

2. Lib dems will also suffer now the Tories are credible again they were only in the frame because IDS was screwing things up for the Tories

3. People often vote tactically for the lib dems (usaually to keep the tories out) not because they argee with then

Howard has shown himself to be immesurably better than Hague and IDS, but I would still rather have Ken Clarke leading the Conservatives, because he's pro-european.
I can understand a pro european like yourself saying that - however if a "pro-european" became leader of the conservative party then the tories//liberals//labour would all be led by pro-europeans thus effectively disenfranchising voters who are not pro-european.(at least where the issue of europe is concerned)
I dont think this would be a particularly healthy thing for what passes for democracy in this country.

We aughta lend you guys Pat Buchanan. He's an old-school, British-style Conservative, and probably looking for work, too. I mean, MSNBC is a living joke. He even wrote a book about what a cesspool the UK (and the US) is! Makes sense! 8)

Pat Buchanan is too religious for the UK. British Conservatives are in social terms very different animals to their US counterparts.

Looking forward to seeing Labour get punished in the European and local elections

We aughta lend you guys Pat Buchanan. He's an old-school, British-style Conservative, and probably looking for work, too. I mean, MSNBC is a living joke. He even wrote a book about what a cesspool the UK (and the US) is! Makes sense! 8)

He is NOT an old style British Conservative. They believce in tolerance, liberty and equality. He doesn't.

We are also quite adverse to gunfire during speeches. I once saw a Pat Buchannon speech with loads of cowboys firing guns into the air.

Not sure if NS readers appreciate what different animals the Conservative and the Repubilcan parties are..

Arriving late due to holiday but:

Howard has my vote. Portillo was too slimy, the sort of man who would drive a BMW! Clarke was a europhile and as such couldn't be trusted. The rest had no chance.

The problem with reflecting back on history is that the public have a short term memory and will more likely remember Tonys illegal invasion of Iraq, his murder of Kelly and subsequent whitewash by Hutton, his lies about WMDs, his parties penchant for bribes and corruption, the farce that is the Millenium Dome, his opportunist welcome back to Red Ken etc etc etc

:twisted:

Howard certainly has it right regarding the European constitution - a resounding no

I don't think anyone doubts the ability of Ken Clarke. I confess to being deeply frustrated when Iain Duncan Smith was elected leader instead of him. He built the favourable economic conditions that the Labour Party have capitalised on. I have already questioned his ability to unify the party.
But what about his anti-war stance? Is that in in Britains Natural interest to be anti-bush or anti-war?

I don't think so...

It is surely in Britain's natural interest to have a Prime Minister who represents the views of the British people, no? Or are we not grown-up enough? This is nanny-stateism at its worst, IMO: "well, you might all want X, but you're not going to have it or even be allowed to meaningfully vote for it, because that would just be silly. Why don't you run off and play with the nice Lottery?"

Not that this should be taken as support for Clarke, the pompous great child-killing cancer-merchant.

I agree that a weak, feckless and floundering Tory party is, although hugely funny, damaging to British democracy. Mind you, it's not like we have much of a democracy to begin with. Only two parties have any realistic chance of forming a government, and they only need to attract a selective geographic and demographic band of voters in order to achieve a "majority". Thatcher never got more than 40% of the votes in any of her sham victories. Blair's last "landslide" came courtesy of 24% of the electorate. That's not a landslide. That's not even a mandate.

As for the various arguments about how great Britain's economy is now, it all depends on how you measure it. GDP is one method, but frankly you'd be as well hanging seaweed out the window. Another equally valid method places Britain's last economic peak in 1976.

Widdecombe is anti-semitic and decided to use a vague comment like "something of the night" rather than a specific allegation of wrongdoing against Howard?Does it matter?Widdecombes a hasbeen and (perhaps im alone in thinking this) a bigot of the first order.

Have you seen the man? He looks like a vampire! It was even more apparent then before the image consultants got hold of him...
Aha! Now I know why The Economist always depict Mr Howard biting into some juicy bit of Tony Bliar's flesh :lol:

Well, I am not British, but I like Oliver Letwin -- an eccentric Brit for the new millenium. Add him to the poll, dangit!

I was limited on the number of options I could add to the poll

Is Micahel Howard jewish?

Yes

Presumably also the son of transylvanian immigrants.

Yes

Presumably also the son of transylvanian immigrants.

Lol! Man of the night thing, hey. :D

I was limited on the number of options I could add to the poll
How 'bout dropping the two lowest vote-getters? :twisted:

I still find it annoying that Portillo is ahead, he is going anyway.. :D

I still find it annoying that Portillo is ahead, he is going anyway.. :D

Why? He's the best one.

He is far too Liberal, and should not be in the Conservative Party. He just comes across as more of a Lib Dem to me. Anyway like I said he is leaving now so it is a moot point.

He is far too Liberal, and should not be in the Conservative Party. He just comes across as more of a Lib Dem to me. Anyway like I said he is leaving now so it is a moot point.

Which party do you generally support then?

Conservative. You?

Conservative. You?

None. No party represents my views.

I support the conservative party and so will support Michael Howard.

However, someone who would make a great leader of our party and later our nation, who you've missed off the list would be the ever popular Borris Johnson.

There's a Christian Democratic Party, I know as the person who is their mayoral candidate went on the TV show the church I go to has.

There's a Christian Democratic Party, I know as the person who is their mayoral candidate went on the TV show the church I go to has.

It's probably full of Protestants.....and I have some views that don't agree with them at all.

Maybe, they seem to stand for family values and such. Like the Conservatives used to.

Maybe, they seem to stand for family values and such. Like the Conservatives used to.

Would you say the CDP are right wing or left wing on economics? And where do they stand on immigration/nationalism etc.

I'm guessing right wing on economics, I'll have to try and find out.

Yes

Presumably also the son of transylvanian immigrants.

Lol! Man of the night thing, hey. :D

I thought that the 'something of the night' thing was a reference to some sort of deviant sexual practice. Perhaps I was reading too much into that. Seems that David Davies is the one with the mud attached - His last minute withdrawl from the leadership contest was suspicious....

I'm guessing right wing on economics, I'll have to try and find out.

Not good. I'm a socialist, virtually.

I'm guessing right wing on economics, I'll have to try and find out.

Not good. I'm a socialist, virtually.

*backs away from CE*

Was it Ann Widecombe who said he had something of the night about him?

*backs away from CE*

Lol. I'm not a true socialist. I call my form social capitalism. That is socialism based on capitalist principles. You get me?

*backs away from CE*

Lol. I'm not a true socialist. I call my form social capitalism. That is socialism based on capitalist principles. You get me?

*brain explodes*

You mean controlled capitalism?

*brain explodes*

You mean controlled capitalism?

Well, I would nationalise a lot of industries (but not everything) and run them on capitalist principles i.e: no subsidies!!! I would also raise tax for the rich and give more money to the poor.

No no, we must re-introduce capitalism to the extent it was in the victorian era.

No no, we must re-introduce capitalism to the extent it was in the victorian era.
Jesus Christ. Do you wanna make slaves of the working class?! :shock:

*brain explodes*

You mean controlled capitalism?

Well, I would nationalise a lot of industries (but not everything) and run them on capitalist principles i.e: no subsidies!!! I would also raise tax for the rich and give more money to the poor.

*shudders*

I would prefere most things to be privatised, except the obvious things like the army, police etc. I do think schools should be availiable for all, and I believe in a lot less control over business.

No no, we must re-introduce capitalism to the extent it was in the victorian era.
Jesus Christ. Do you wanna make slaves of the working class?! :shock:

The lives of the few are insignificant compared to the greatness of the nation. In the victorian era, Britain was great. If we were to introduce such principles we could once again become the centre of world production.

The lives of the few are insignificant compared to the greatness of the nation. In the victorian era, Britain was great. If we were to introduce such principles we could once again become the centre of world production.

Bloody nationalism/patriotism. The worst evil in the world. It's pride but on a larger scale.

*spits on this idea*

The lives of the few are insignificant compared to the greatness of the nation. In the victorian era, Britain was great. If we were to introduce such principles we could once again become the centre of world production.

Bloody nationalism/patriotism. The worst evil in the world. It's pride but on a larger scale.

*spits on this idea*

Are you English?

The lives of the few are insignificant compared to the greatness of the nation. In the victorian era, Britain was great. If we were to introduce such principles we could once again become the centre of world production.

Bloody nationalism/patriotism. The worst evil in the world. It's pride but on a larger scale.

*spits on this idea*

*Cleans up spit*

I see nothing wrong with patriotism, however not so far that you end up with Nazism. Liking your country is fine as long as it doesn't take priority.

Are you English?

I am, though I like to announce the fact that I am a quarter Italian. I live in London.

The lives of the few are insignificant compared to the greatness of the nation. In the victorian era, Britain was great. If we were to introduce such principles we could once again become the centre of world production.

Bloody nationalism/patriotism. The worst evil in the world. It's pride but on a larger scale.

*spits on this idea*

Are you English?

Yes he is, as am I.

Are you English?

I am, though I like to announce the fact that I am a quarter Italian. I live in London.

Then by right you should feel the same way I do about our great nation.

Then by right you should feel the same way I do about our great nation.

No I bloody shouldn't and no I bloody don't. England is just a piece of land to me. Nothing great about it at all and the same can be said for all countries.

Are you English?

I am, though I like to announce the fact that I am a quarter Italian. I live in London.

Then by right you should feel the same way I do about our great nation.

Hmm, not necessarily.

Then by right you should feel the same way I do about our great nation.

No I bloody shouldn't and no I bloody don't. England is just a piece of land to me. Nothing great about it at all and the same can be said for all countries.

England is more than a piece of land, It is a home and the greatest nation in history, however we have fallen on hard times, those who believe in Britain must unite to revive our great empire.

England is more than a piece of land, It is a home and the greatest nation in history, however we have fallen on hard times, those who believe in Britain must unite to revive our great empire.

:lol:
Count me out!

England is more than a piece of land, It is a home and the greatest nation in history, however we have fallen on hard times, those who believe in Britain must unite to revive our great empire.

Oh good Lord, save us all! Are you Protestant?

Then by right you should feel the same way I do about our great nation.

No I bloody shouldn't and no I bloody don't. England is just a piece of land to me. Nothing great about it at all and the same can be said for all countries.

I find it quite awful when you can call the land of the free, a land of democracy and prosperity just a piece of land. People died to protect the freedom of this 'piece of land'.

England is more than a piece of land, It is a home and the greatest nation in history, however we have fallen on hard times, those who believe in Britain must unite to revive our great empire.

Oh good Lord, save us all! Are you Protestant?

No I'm church of England.

I find it quite awful when you can call the land of the free, a land of democracy and prosperity just a piece of land. People died to protect the freedom of this 'piece of land'.

Only because they believed in some jumped idea called nationalism. I am grateful that they sacrificed themselves for us but not for the protection of a nation, rather for the people.

It's the people who matter not a 'nation'.

I find it quite awful when you can call the land of the free, a land of democracy and prosperity just a piece of land. People died to protect the freedom of this 'piece of land'.

Only because they believed in some jumped idea called nationalism. I am grateful that they sacrificed themselves for us but not for the protection of a nation, rather for the people.

It's the people who matter not a 'nation'.

No, the nation is the important entity. Those who died, died with honour fighting for our empire. Your brothers have died to save this land.

No I'm church of England.

Protestant then. You don't swear allegiance to the Pope which means your Protestant. :roll:

No, the nation is the important entity. Those who died, died with honour fighting for our empire. Your brothers have died to save this land.

And they died fighting my other brothers (the Italians). :roll:

No I'm church of England.

Protestant then. You don't swear allegiance to the Pope which means your Protestant. :roll:

No, the nation is the important entity. Those who died, died with honour fighting for our empire. Your brothers have died to save this land.

And they died fighting my other brothers (the Italians). :roll:

I am definatly not protestant, my local church is so near to catholic you wouldn't notice the difference. I swear allegiance only to this great nation.

I am definatly not protestant, my local church is so near to catholic you wouldn't notice the difference. I swear allegiance only to this great nation.

It may be near to Catholicism but that doesn't mean it is.

Do you believe in Transubstantiation, the Pope is infallible, do you have confession, the divinty of the Virgin Mary etc.

Interesting how Christianity has just turned into a fragmented mess.

If there was no country there would be no democracy.

I am definatly not protestant, my local church is so near to catholic you wouldn't notice the difference. I swear allegiance only to this great nation.

It may be near to Catholicism but that doesn't mean it is.

Do you believe in Transubstantiation, the Pope is infallible, do you have confession, the divinty of the Virgin Mary etc.

No, No, no and yes. But the church building is very close to catholic and the service is very catholic as well.

Interesting how Christianity has just turned into a fragmented mess.

Well, that's what you get for corruption.

If there was no country there would be no democracy.

What about things such as local councils. London, for example. Democracy doesn't need a nation to work, it can work on smaller levels (much better in fact).

Interesting how Christianity has just turned into a fragmented mess.

Well, that's what you get for corruption.

If there was no country there would be no democracy.

What about things such as local councils. London, for example. Democracy doesn't need a nation to work, it can work on smaller levels (much better in fact).

The nation must be held together, it must unite to fight its enemies.

But that is still a collective, whether a country or a county, it is somewhere where people will feel an allegiance.

The nation must be held together, it must unite to fight its enemies.

No. The people must unite, not the nation. If the people do want to unite then their is no such thing as a nation. The people are what matter, the nation is just a fragile idea that breaks very easily.

The nation must be held together, it must unite to fight its enemies.

No. The people must unite, not the nation. If the people do want to unite then their is no such thing as a nation. The people are what matter, the nation is just a fragile idea that breaks very easily.

No, The needs of the nation must rise above the needs of the individual. We must unite as a nation to fight the enemies which threaten our fine land.

But that is still a collective, whether a country or a county, it is somewhere where people will feel an allegiance.

But, if a couple of people decide not to have democracy then that can happen too.

What I am getting at is that it is foolish to believe in a nation and take pride in it, even to die for it.

Now, I would have fought in WW2, for the PEOPLE of the UK because I would be doing my utmost to stop Hitler, but I wouldn't have fought in WW1.

But that is still a collective, whether a country or a county, it is somewhere where people will feel an allegiance.

But, if a couple of people decide not to have democracy then that can happen too.

What I am getting at is that it is foolish to believe in a nation and take pride in it, even to die for it.

Now, I would have fought in WW2, for the PEOPLE of the UK because I would be doing my utmost to stop Hitler, but I wouldn't have fought in WW1.

I would gladdly have fought in the first world war, I regret not being able to.

No, The needs of the nation must rise above the needs of the individual. We must unite as a nation to fight the enemies which threaten our fine land.

If you don't look after the people the nation can't survive. The nation depends on the state and welfare of the people. You must look after the people, if only for the sake of the nation.

But that is still a collective, whether a country or a county, it is somewhere where people will feel an allegiance.

But, if a couple of people decide not to have democracy then that can happen too.

What I am getting at is that it is foolish to believe in a nation and take pride in it, even to die for it.

Now, I would have fought in WW2, for the PEOPLE of the UK because I would be doing my utmost to stop Hitler, but I wouldn't have fought in WW1.

Instead you would have let Germany and Austria-Hungary get the run of the place?

Point: Wow we are so off topic. :shock:

Instead you would have let Germany and Austria-Hungary get the run of the place?

I see you're point. I was using them two as an example. WW1 was about national pride etc. WW2 was about defeating an evil dictator.

No, The needs of the nation must rise above the needs of the individual. We must unite as a nation to fight the enemies which threaten our fine land.

If you don't look after the people the nation can't survive. The nation depends on the state and welfare of the people. You must look after the people, if only for the sake of the nation.

The wefare of the state is the welfare of the people. And so must always come first.

The wefare of the state is the welfare of the people. And so must always come first.

What, are you saying that you need to look after the people? That post slightly confused me. :?

The wefare of the state is the welfare of the people. And so must always come first.

What, are you saying that you need to look after the people? That post slightly confused me. :?

No sorry, the welfare of the state is more important that the welfare of the people. As the health and well being of the people is drawn from that of the nation.

No sorry, the welfare of the state is more important that the welfare of the people. As the health and well being of the people is drawn from that of the nation.

Again wrong. It's up to each individual person as to whether they help their neighbour. Nothing to to do with the nation at all, and everything to do with the people.

Can we stick to matter concering the conservative party please...?

Pretty Pretty please with sugar on it...

Well in an effort to bring this back on Topic

I think that Ken Clarke should have been made Tory Leader, but as he noted. His Pro-Europe stance makes this unlikely. Also he does not look charismatic enough for the age age of media politics.

Portillo is an oppotunist, you always goes for the popular policies. Simply, I just don't trust him.

I reckon that Howard is the best thing to happen to recent British politics. In that he really is doing his best to create some strong opposition to Blair.

But this is coming from someone who would never vote Tory though (and the way things are going, I might decide to do the same to Labour). Unless they seriously change their policies on many things. Which will never happen. I doubt that they will risk losing many voters just so that they will appeal to a Mancunian ;)

I also think that the Conservative Party must do a lot to attract younger voters from all over the country into the party. Currently the majority of party members are over 65 and live in the south-east. Not a demographic that allows you to stay in touch with the country.

They have to find a way to lay the issue of Europe to rest. I think that many people in Britain although very cynical about Europe won't vote for a party that closes our options altogether by taking us out of it. The emphasis should be placed on trying to reform Europe by sorting out the things that are wrong with it and limiting the scope of what powers Europe should exert over individual members.

duplicate

duplicate

duplicate

duplicate

Sterling peformance at the local elections

Not really. A main opposition party should be doing better at this stage if they are serious about winning the general election.

They won't win but they should gain alot more support in the next general election - Blair is looking very shakey