NationStates Jolt Archive

Ken Clarke- (aka big beast) jazz loving tabaco merchant, More pro- Europe then the rest.

[OUT]

Dr. Liam Fox- (aka Foxy) Ex-Doctor and Party chairman. Generally considered most right-wing of canididates. Euro-sceptic and strong views on Foreign Policy.

[OUT]

The MPs have voted off these two candidates leaving two going head to head for a ballot of Party membership

David Davis- (aka bruiser) Ex-SAS (apparantly) and shadow home secretary. Gave speech at party conference to limited applause. Once considered front runner now trailing in opinion polls.

David Cameron- (aka David) youngest of candidates. Gave highly sucessful speech but only has limited commons experience. Many hope he will kick start the party but some fear his old Etonian mannerisms will alienate voters.

From the start...well, since the four candidates were officially announced...I wanted Cameron or Fox to win. Clarke is too old, the Conservatives wouldn't stand a chance of being elected if he were leader. Davis is a twat. He wants to bring back the death penalty. This is a man who wants to be the leader of one of the two biggest political parties in the UK, and he may one day be leader of this country. Do you want a man who wants to bring back the death penalty as leader of the UK?
Liam Fox never seemed likely to win it; I wouldn't have minded him winning since I saw him on Morgan & Platell (Saturdays, channel 4, about 6pm) a few weeks ago.
Cameron actually seems like a good leader - he'll be the best Conservative party leader since Thatcher - and might even be able to win the next election, though that's unlikely, as it'll (almost certainly) be against Gordon Brown. I just hope he doesn't quit after losing to Brown. If the Conservatives want to win an election, they need long-term stability, and the only way they can get that is by stopping changing leaders every 5 minutes.
I vote Lib Dem by the way, though I may be persuaded to vote Labour next time, if Brown is leader.

I'd like it to be Cameron. I think a young, charismatic leader could be good for the Tories, though in my ideal world I'd bring Maggie or William Hague back. However, the electorate at large would be unlikely to be accept those, I think, (and of course Maggie can't really come back now anyway!) so my support for David Cameron is more of a pragmatic thing. I think he's a great orator, however, so let's hope his policies are decent; he hasn't really given clear comments on what they are to date.

I think David Davis, although from a background that some of the electorate can relate to, is ultimately uninspirational and, frankly, dull. I have a lot of respect for the man in some ways, but think that he would end up as a Duncan Smith-esque figure, which cannot be good for the party. Even if they are to remain in opposition indefinitely, a strong opposition - led by a strong, charismatic individual - is what makes a parliamentary democracy work, and for me, Cameron is the most likely of the two to fulfill that role.

I definitely agree with I V Stalin that whoever wins needs to stay as leader whether the Tories win the next election or not. This whole charade of quitting just because they haven't won is increasing instability in the Party as a whole, and presents an image of procrastination and indecision to the public.

Whoever's the least likely to win a general election, I'd imagine. That's how they seem to have picked their last two leaders, after all.

bump

Are people on this forum really so uninterested in British politics?

bump

Are people on this forum really so uninterested in British politics?
Cameron will win, from what I've read, Davis is a lousy speaker and is dropping lower and lower in the polls. He went from first to third between the votes. Cameron reminds me of a British John Edwards simply because of his limited experience and wide popularity.

Of course this is coming from a Yank, so correct me if I'm wrong.

I vote Tony Blair...

Satire at it's most cutting ;)

Actually I'd vote Maggie, kill off the damn party once and for all.

Cameron will win, from what I've read, Davis is a lousy speaker and is dropping lower and lower in the polls. He went from first to third between the votes. Cameron reminds me of a British John Edwards simply because of his limited experience and wide popularity.

Of course this is coming from a Yank, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Davis is indeed a lousy speaker, although he also suffers from being compared directly to Cameron, whose oratory skills could be compared favourably with Hitler's.
Davis went from first to second (if he'd been 3rd he'd have been knocked out). He dropped 5 votes (62 to 57). Cameron gained almost all of Clarke's support from the first round - he went from 56 to 90.
I'm hoping there aren't too many hardline traditionalists in the Conservative membership, so that Cameron wins the party vote easily.

John Edwards?

i wanted fox to win, nice and right, but now i'm supporting davis, because camerons just too left-wing for me. but i did vote maggie in the poll, of course in RL that isn't there, so Davis to win :)

Davis is indeed a lousy speaker, although he also suffers from being compared directly to Cameron, whose oratory skills could be compared favourably with Hitler's.
Davis went from first to second (if he'd been 3rd he'd have been knocked out). He dropped 5 votes (62 to 57). Cameron gained almost all of Clarke's support from the first round - he went from 56 to 90.
I'm hoping there aren't too many hardline traditionalists in the Conservative membership, so that Cameron wins the party vote easily.

John Edwards?
I thought that Fox was ahead of Davis, I should keep up with these things.

John Edwards is a former US senator. He only served one term before he decided to run for president. He was relatively young and inexperiences, but popular none the less.

I thought that Fox was ahead of Davis, I should keep up with these things.

John Edwards is a former US senator. He only served one term before he decided to run for president. He was relatively young and inexperiences, but popular none the less.

and he was a democrat, and he stood for vice-president not president, kerry stood for president. did i mention he lost :D

I thought that Fox was ahead of Davis, I should keep up with these things.

John Edwards is a former US senator. He only served one term before he decided to run for president. He was relatively young and inexperiences, but popular none the less.
I guess the comparison is accurate then - Cameron has only been an MP since 2001, and it only took him 3 years from then to make it into the shadow cabinet. I hope he does win, it's what the Conservatives need.
In my view, the British public are moving away from the right because they've seen what's happened in America in the last 5 years, and they don't want it happening here. Davis (and Fox) wouldn't have enough popular support to win an election. Cameron is far enough left - almost on a par with Blair - to get that support.

I guess the comparison is accurate then - Cameron has only been an MP since 2001, and it only took him 3 years from then to make it into the shadow cabinet. I hope he does win, it's what the Conservatives need.
In my view, the British public are moving away from the right because they've seen what's happened in America in the last 5 years, and they don't want it happening here. Davis (and Fox) wouldn't have enough popular support to win an election. Cameron is far enough left - almost on a par with Blair - to get that support.
From what I've read, the Tories have the reputation of being tough. It needs a new image that be offered to the public. Cameron is that image. He's a good speaker and that only helps the party.

I personally support Davis on the issues(Wow, Blu-Tac, we finally agree on something), but Cameron could provide that new image and a strong voice to covey it.

The Conservatives are voting for someone to take on Brown, now what if Labour elects someone other then Brown, that would definitly wrong foot the Tory Party, although there is no-one else in the Labour Party to lead it after Tony Blair.

Of course whoever leads the Tories, they are unlikely to win the next election, unless there is a major disaster for the Labour Party

The Conservatives are voting for someone to take on Brown, now what if Labour elects someone other then Brown, that would definitly wrong foot the Tory Party, although there is no-one else in the Labour Party to lead it after Tony Blair.

Of course whoever leads the Tories, they are unlikely to win the next election, unless there is a major disaster for the Labour Party

why does everyone like labour, can't see the thrill in high taxes and lies myself

I am a socialist, so I always been a Labour supporter myself.

But the Tories did a lot of damage to the UK the 18 years they were in power, plus the Conservatives are totally usless and are stuck in the past, which no-one wants to go back to, Cameron might change the party and bring the party far enough into the 21st Century from they to get them electible

Labour isn't socialist...

In any case, I don't care who wins. Hopefully Davis, as there's a remote chance that Cameron could prove popular.

Then again, Cameron is a heroin addict... could be interesting. :p

Well we could argue over Labour and Socialism until we are blue in the face, but that is for another time :)


Anyway, I think that is is unfair how the media is hounding Cameron over his past and if he did drugs or not, as long as he doesn't do them now, what does it matter? I am no fan of Cameron or his politics, but it is not right to dig up something which he may or may not have done in his youth, and we all make mistakes in your youths, it is part of growing up.

The most interesting thing will be if Cameron's relitive inexperience in Front Bench speaking will be his weakness... If he will be another William Hauge.

I agree, Red Wales. This is about politics, not personal life.

I agree, Red Wales. This is about politics, not personal life.
You should tell the British media that - they've been going on about whether or not Cameron has ever used illegal drugs. Who cares? Just because he may have smoked cannabis at university, does that make him less able to run the country?

You should tell the British media that - they've been going on about whether or not Cameron has ever used illegal drugs. Who cares? Just because he may have smoked cannabis at university, does that make him less able to run the country?
It would be an issue if he still had an addiction and it affected his performance, but that is not the case. It's just grabbing for excuses to defame someone.

Its also did he do "hard" drugs, not just cannabis.

However, it is a non-issue and something in the past that has no effect or bearing on the Tory leadership contest, it is just the media stirring up a story as an excuse to hound someone.

Its tough cos... well, I want them to lose. So to that end, I'd like someone more of the rightwing nutjob type leading. On the other hand, if they DID win, that'd be absolutely devastating.

I am a socialist, so I always been a Labour supporter myself.

But the Tories did a lot of damage to the UK the 18 years they were in power, plus the Conservatives are totally usless and are stuck in the past, which no-one wants to go back to, Cameron might change the party and bring the party far enough into the 21st Century from they to get them electible

I'm a Labour supporter too and a staunch social-democrat. I personally wouldn't label the Labour Party socialist, in fact in many ways they're more conservative than the Tories.

To be honest, no matter who wins, Davis or Cameron, they are still fighting the last election. David Davis is a good politician and would appeal to middle-england, yet his lack of charisma and frightening social views mean that he'd be ripped to shreds in a general election campaign (even against Gordon Brown, a man who truly radiates charisma n'est pas? :rolleyes: ).

David Cameron is certainly more photogenic, yet to be honest I've no idea what he stands for, other than new ideas and "keeping it real", as he so eloquently stated on the radio this week. What are his new ideas? Which wing of the party does he identify with? Did he take heroin/cocaine/other?

To put it simply, his charisma will work against him. If Brown or one of the other Labour heavies gets into a battle with him, he'll flop and look indecisive. Everyone likes him true, yet after Hague (laughs hysterically), IDS (I'M A QUIET MAN AND DON'T UNDERESTIMATE ME), Howard (shudders violently), who wouldn't like him?

The Tories are, at the moment, dying on their feet. It they can't, three elections since 1997, go beyond the 200 seat barrier, then they are, by any standards, in trouble. I personally think they might disappear, which in a way would be great and yet at the same time rather cripple the democratic process.

In conclusion: There is only one leader who can lead the Conservatives to victory. Yes! You know of whom I speak: Boris Johnson.

All hail Boris! :) :p

Labour use to be and still is a Democratic Socialist party (and I should ahve ssaid I am a Democratic Socialist) the Labour government of 1945-51 was very democratic socialist, and the Labour Party has democratic socialist, like Tony Benn for example. But like I said that is a seperate debate I be happy to have, although Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are the same thing virtually just different names and slight differences.

I would consider myself Left Wing New Labour or Small "n" new Labour

But I agree with the rest of what you said Compadria, quiet funny too ;)

Labour use to be and still is a Democratic Socialist party (and I should ahve ssaid I am a Democratic Socialist) the Labour government of 1945-51 was very democratic socialist, and the Labour Party has democratic socialist, like Tony Benn for example. But like I said that is a seperate debate I be happy to have, although Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are the same thing virtually just different names and slight differences.

I would consider myself Left Wing New Labour or Small "n" new Labour

But I agree with the rest of what you said Compadria, quiet funny too ;)

Labour use to be and still is a Democratic Socialist party (and I should ahve ssaid I am a Democratic Socialist) the Labour government of 1945-51 was very democratic socialist, and the Labour Party has democratic socialist, like Tony Benn for example. But like I said that is a seperate debate I be happy to have, although Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are the same thing virtually just different names and slight differences.

I would consider myself Left Wing New Labour or Small "n" new Labour

But I agree with the rest of what you said Compadria, quiet funny too ;)

True, the Labour government was certainly Democratic-Socialist during the post-war period. I would like to add Wilson and Callaghan to this list too. They both could fit into this description I reckon.

Although I am not British (or conservative), I was hoping that Ken Clark would get it. That old war horse would have been a moderate pragmatic influence upon British politics.

Thatcher! Thatcher! Thatcher! :D

As an American, I have no say but I will shout out my opinion!

bump

Are people on this forum really so uninterested in British politics?

Apparently, American politics are more popular here

why does everyone like labour, can't see the thrill in high taxes and lies myself

Yep. They are almost as bad as the Liberal Party of Canada is when it comes to that. :D

You should tell the British media that - they've been going on about whether or not Cameron has ever used illegal drugs. Who cares? Just because he may have smoked cannabis at university, does that make him less able to run the country?

Sounds like what the Dems tried to do with President Bush. It didn't work in this country however.

Sounds like what the Dems tried to do with President Bush. It didn't work in this country however.

Not to mention Mrs. Bush, who, if I remember correctly, crashed her car on the 6th of November, 1963, driving through a stop sign (on a clear night) and killing her ex-boyfriend.

Ah well, good to know it wasn't just Georgie-boy who was reponsible for all the screw-ups.

P.S. I'm guessing the first part of your reply (assuming you do so) is going to involve the words 'Ted Kennedy' and 'Chappaquiduck'.

David Cameron to win hopefully he should make Sir Peter Tapsell Shadow Chancellor just to make Gordon Brown squirm when he ask him a question

Not to mention Mrs. Bush, who, if I remember correctly, crashed her car on the 6th of November, 1963, driving through a stop sign (on a clear night) and killing her ex-boyfriend.

Ah well, good to know it wasn't just Georgie-boy who was reponsible for all the screw-ups.

P.S. I'm guessing the first part of your reply (assuming you do so) is going to involve the words 'Ted Kennedy' and 'Chappaquiduck'.

I don't care what politicians did before they got elected to office. I don't look at a candidate's personal life. I concentrate on the record during their time in office.

Of course, the same for me. I was just thought it was unfair that the past foibles of Mr. Bush were used as the most common comparison to those of Mr. Cameron.

Of course, the same for me. I was just thought it was unfair that the past foibles of Mr. Bush were used as the most common comparison to those of Mr. Cameron.

It was the first thing that came to mind.

To those who think Cameron is inexperienced, that's rather unfair. Yes, he has only been an MP since the 2001 election, but that was the first time he stood for election.
Here's his entire political experience:
1988-92 - Conservative Research Department, Head of the Political Section (at age 22)
1992-93 - Special Advisor to the Chancellor of the Exchequer
1993-94 - Special Advisor to the Home Secretary
(1994-2001, director of corporate affairs, Carlton Communications Plc)
2001-present - MP for Witney.

Since being elected MP, he has been Shadow Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, front bench spokesman on Local Government Finance, Head of Policy Co-ordination, and Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills.
If that's not enough, he's also served on the Modernisation Committee looking at operation and reform of the House of Commons. He is a Vice-Chairman of both the All-Party Committee on Drugs and the All-Party Media Committee. He was elected to the Executive of the British American Parliamentary Group and also the Council of the Royal Institute for International Affairs.

I'd say that's a considerable amount of experience.

I definitely agree with I V Stalin
^
I still prefer Davis.

Hague should've stood, just because Boris Johnson has a t-shirt saying "It's Time For Hague."

I would like David Davis as the new leader of the Tories, that way we have a Labour government for a 4th term :D

I V Stalin, Cameron has inexperience of speaking from the front benches, it would be a considerable risk, if he proves to be unable to cope with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

It be interesting to see what the Labour Party will do if Cameron becomes the next leader of the Tories, will Gordon Brown be elected as the new leader of the Labour Party or will the Party elected someone younger then Brown?

Also, no-one knows Cameron's policies too well, he might end up being too right wing for the nation, just like the other Tory leaders since 1997.
The Tories need to remember that Britain is a nation that votes for the Centre, only in very rear occasions have they gone for the Left (1945 after World War 2) or for the Right (1979 after the winter of discontent.)

I would like David Davis as the new leader of the Tories, that way we have a Labour government for a 4th term That's why I voted for him.

I would like David Davis as the new leader of the Tories, that way we have a Labour government for a 4th term :D

I V Stalin, Cameron has inexperience of speaking from the front benches, it would be a considerable risk, if he proves to be unable to cope with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

It be interesting to see what the Labour Party will do if Cameron becomes the next leader of the Tories, will Gordon Brown be elected as the new leader of the Labour Party or will the Party elected someone younger then Brown?

Also, no-one knows Cameron's policies too well, he might end up being too right wing for the nation, just like the other Tory leaders since 1997.
The Tories need to remember that Britain is a nation that votes for the Centre, only in very rear occasions have they gone for the Left (1945 after World War 2) or for the Right (1979 after the winter of discontent.)

So he's a little inexperienced in front bench speaking. He has proved, at the Conservative Party conference, that he is a perfectly good public speaker, and I am sure he is able to transfer that skill to the front bench. If he does not get elected leader of the Conservatives now, it is only a matter of time (after the next GE, when David Davis will resign after losing) before he will be.
Labour won this year's GE because people dislike the Tories. With Cameron as leader, there will be a much greater battle between the two parties, and that's what's needed in British politics. Labour are extraordinarily complacent right now - they just won an election when more than half the country disagreed with their leader's decision to go to war, and almost half the country don't trust him. That can't go on if we want our country to continually improve.
I'm not saying I necessarily want the Conservatives in power - I'll decide who to vote for at the next GE when the time comes - I'm saying that we need two parties who could conceivably win an election, and with Davis leading the Conservatives, that won't happen.

I agree with everything you say I V Stalin, I was just pointing out some people's arguements against Cameron.

The Labour Party needs a strong oppisition, as does the nation, otherwise the nation will suffer, aswell as the Labour government and the Tory Party.

The Tory Party have been flatlining since 1997 and they haven't yet addressed the true problem why, maybe Cameron will be there Kinnock or maybe even Tony Blair.

But yea, a strong oppisition is needed, otherwise everyone will suffer,

(By now, on Particracy I would end up being flamed by the members on there :o )

Bring back Thatcher. Bring Back Thatcher! Bring Back Thatcher!

Boris Johnson is best! But seing as he wasnt an option, I go for Hague

"Bring back Thatcher"

Yes, that would result in a Landslide victory for Labour and the Liberal Democrats as the offical oppisition! :D

Boris Johnson is best! But seing as he wasnt an option, I go for Hague

I'm with you actually. Johnson would be utterly hilarious,and frankly not all that bad a leader, Had Hague possessed a stronger and more unified party, however, he would have beaten Blair comprehensively, the time simply wasn't right.

I would like to see Boris Johnson front the connys, It would be a laugh at least.

"Bring back Thatcher"

Yes, that would result in a Landslide victory for Labour and the Liberal Democrats as the offical oppisition! :DI'm not so sure about that. Aside from on this forum, I've only ever met one person that didn't have time for Maggie Thatcher (and before someone says it, the majority of these people are politically aware and not just big fat rich bums who "benefited" from her rule). Clearly that's highly anecdotal evidence, but with such a For:Against ratio, I think it's valid too.

I'm not a huge Tory fan, really - I actually dislike all of the three main parties (though especially Labour) - but I think that a strong opposition is what representative democracies need. Therefore, I feel that those that are saying the Conservatives should have some shithead as leader so as Labour can do what they like again need to consider things a bit more. The Lib Dems will not be a viable opposition party for a while yet - I am fairly sure it will happen, and indeed that they'll ultimately take governmental power - but statistical trends show that support for them is growing at a gradual, rather than hugely quick, rate, so it won't be at the next election unless something exceptional happens.

Therefore, whether you love or loathe the Tories, you should hope for a good leader for them - this is more likely to unite and strengthen the Party, which in turn is more likely to present a decent challenge to Brown / Blair and cronies, which ensures that they cannot use their (admittedly somewhat diminished) majority to do as they please. This idea is what makes parliamentary democracies work.

I'm not a huge Tory fan, really - I actually dislike all of the three main parties (though especially Labour).
So who do you vote for then (assuming you're eligible to vote)?

Therefore, whether you love or loathe the Tories, you should hope for a good leader for them - this is more likely to unite and strengthen the Party, which in turn is more likely to present a decent challenge to Brown / Blair and cronies, which ensures that they cannot use their (admittedly somewhat diminished) majority to do as they please. This idea is what makes parliamentary democracies work.
indeed, but in terms of a more long-term view, i'd rather see the tories get yet another crap leader, go further down the drain, maybe even split up, and, eventually, become so pathetic that the lib dems take over as official opposition.

having a left opposition to a (supposedly) left labour govt is far preferable to the tories being anywhere near government imho


to paraphrase: i'll put up with tony's cronies etc if it means the tories get forgotten and die

So who do you vote for then (assuming you're eligible to vote)?I'm in Northern Ireland, so none of the main parties. The Conservatives do run here, but even if I were their biggest fan ever, it would be really daft to vote for them because they have no hope in hell of winning a Westminster seat here for the foreseeable future. I tend to vote for Alliance, incidentally - I don't agree with all of the views, but at least they're not based on the usual cretinous factions that the rest of the Northern Ireland parties are divided by.

indeed, but in terms of a more long-term view, i'd rather see the tories get yet another crap leader, go further down the drain, maybe even split up, and, eventually, become so pathetic that the lib dems take over as official opposition.

having a left opposition to a (supposedly) left labour govt is far preferable to the tories being anywhere near government imho

to paraphrase: i'll put up with tony's cronies etc if it means the tories get forgotten and dieFair enough, but I think that whether the Tories are stong or not, the Lib Dems will take over as opposition - maybe even government - in the not-too-distant future. As I said above, I don't think that this will be statistically likely for a few elections yet, but it would certainly take a few elections yet for the Tories to completely and utterly fall apart. I mean, they gained ground at the last election despite the fact they were very publicly divided (OK, so this was probably largely to stick two fingers up to Tony, but they still made gains nonetheless). At any rate, I think the Lib Dems have impressed the electorate enough by themselves to ensure that they eventually take over as the second largest party, without having to worry too much about the state of the Conservatives.

Ken Clarke was the only one who had a chance at the next election. As it stands, either Davis will win and the Conservative Party is in serious danger of sinking beneath the waves once and for all, or Cameron will win, might take Number 10 but in any case will act the same as Blair anyway and nothing will change. This cannabis thing was god-sent for him, because it drew attention from his complete lack of policies.

I can never see why anyone votes Lib Dem, having just completed my first half-term at AS Economics I can see holes in their polices. They just seem to take Tory seats by not being Tory it makes me MAD!

Sorry just take a mo to calm down.... the problem with this lack of policies is that due to this "lets all pull together and at least win somthing" means that unlike Blair's election in 1994 all of the candiates stand for pretty much the same thing, the usual Tory stuff, the only difference is Europe and even then its very marginal (rember Regan's 11th commandment).

I can never see why anyone votes Lib Dem, having just completed my first half-term at AS Economics I can see holes in their polices. They just seem to take Tory seats by not being Tory it makes me MAD!

Sorry just take a mo to calm down.... the problem with this lack of policies is that due to this "lets all pull together and at least win somthing" means that unlike Blair's election in 1994 all of the candiates stand for pretty much the same thing, the usual Tory stuff, the only difference is Europe and even then its very marginal (rember Regan's 11th commandment).

Well, I voted Lib Dem last time in a vain attempt to stop Labour winning the seat (Leicester South)...

Well, I voted Lib Dem last time in a vain attempt to stop Labour winning the seat (Leicester South)...

well you should be ashamed of yourself.....

I think that David Cameron might be a good choice simply because he never has been in government. If you watch PMs question time its seems to be Micheal Howard insulting Tony Blair followed by Tony Blair insulting Micheal Howard's career. With David Cameron I suppose he could insult his lack of experience but then thats not much of a retort, unless TB replied
"well I was ruining the NHS while you were still smoking Hash in a student bedsit"

I think that David Cameron might be a good choice simply because he never has been in government. If you watch PMs question time its seems to be Micheal Howard insulting Tony Blair followed by Tony Blair insulting Micheal Howard's career. With David Cameron I suppose he could insult his lack of experience but then thats not much of a retort, unless TB replied
"well I was ruining the NHS while you were still smoking Hash in a student bedsit"
Imagine if Blair insulted Cameron's lack of experience, only for Cameron to come back with "Maybe you're right. Look at the last time the country elected a leader who lacked experience, in 1997, and the mess that guy's made of the country."

lol...

I'm not so sure about that. Aside from on this forum, I've only ever met one person that didn't have time for Maggie Thatcher


Obviously you havent been to Wales or many inner city areas......

Obviously you havent been to Wales or many inner city areas......

She was the best leader since Churchill, in all respects. Blair is a bloody moron, he is the least principled, most obseiquisient leader we have ever endured.

Obviously you havent been to Wales or many inner city areas......

Nah dude, wales has always been poor and sucky. It was like that before thatcher too.

She was the best leader since Churchill, in all respects. Blair is a bloody moron, he is the least principled, most obseiquisient leader we have ever endured.

Churchill was a shit leader. He's only popular because he was prime minister during the war, otherwise he'd have being unremarkable - it was the British troops that won the war, and I think it's shocking that people praise Churchill for all their work. Atlee for teh win.

As for Thatcher - well, Aristotle said you can only truely measure the virtue of a person by their offspring. Going by the scum which crawled from her loins, she isn't particularly virtuous. Oh, and the three million unemployed thing.

Churchill was a shit leader. He's only popular because he was prime minister during the war, otherwise he'd have being unremarkable - it was the British troops that won the war, and I think it's shocking that people praise Churchill for all their work. Atlee for teh win.

Welfare state and NHS, why thankyou, we are truly in your debt.:rolleyes:

Churchill exemplified Britain, he is the war personified, and despite knowing little of his policies, he is a great leader.

Under Thatcher, prosperity and nationalism returned. She alone quashed the unions, and we are accordingly endebted to her

Churchill was a shit leader. He's only popular because he was prime minister during the war, otherwise he'd have being unremarkable - it was the British troops that won the war, and I think it's shocking that people praise Churchill for all their work. Atlee for teh win.

As for Thatcher - well, Aristotle said you can only truely measure the virtue of a person by their offspring. Going by the scum which crawled from her loins, she isn't particularly virtuous. Oh, and the three million unemployed thing.

Haha, you are funny. I would have thought that directed engagements alone would have made atlee one of the all time worst prime ministers. It's not everyday that a leader almost caused a violent revolution.

The failing to achieve almost every goal he set for himself was also impressive.

Welfare state and NHS, why thankyou, we are truly in your debt.:rolleyes:

Churchill exemplified Britain, he is the war personified, and despite knowing little of his policies, he is a great leader.

Yes, exactly - the welfare state which allows all people a chance at life. If it were not for the NHS, I wouldn't be in university now - my dad has polysistic kidneys, meaning he had to get a transplant along with anti-rejection drugs for the rest of his life, not to mention dialysis and a long time in hospital before the transplant. If there were no NHS, my family would be bankrupt by now, and if there were weak trade unions, my dad would probably have lost his job because of the time he spent ill.

But, I suppose you are right - only the rich deserve to live if they get ill, and only those with rich parents should be able to succeed in life. After all, which is worse? The absence of the over rated meritocracy and a few hundred thousand so called "people" dying of starvation or from easily preventable diseases and a sharp rise in crime as those desperate turn to the only means they have of surviving, or the hard working buisnessman getting £500,000 a year instead of the £1 million he desperately needs to provide for his family? Surely only a raving lunatic commie would say the former.

Yes, exactly - the welfare state which allows all people a chance at life. If it were not for the NHS, I wouldn't be in university now - my dad has polysistic kidneys, meaning he had to get a transplant along with anti-rejection drugs for the rest of his life, not to mention dialysis and a long time in hospital before the transplant. If there were no NHS, my family would be bankrupt by now, and if there were weak trade unions, my dad would probably have lost his job because of the time he spent ill.

But, I suppose you are right - only the rich deserve to live if they get ill, and only those with rich parents should be able to succeed in life. After all, which is worse? The absence of the over rated meritocracy and a few hundred thousand so called "people" dying of starvation or from easily preventable diseases and a sharp rise in crime as those desperate turn to crime, or the hard working buisnessman getting £500,000 a year instead of the £1 million he desperately needs to provide for his family? Surely only a raving lunatic commie would say the former.

What's wrong with health insurance? And to be frank, the welfare system is a joke, it is roundly exploited and abused. Those who can work should, those who are incapacitated, in a temporary of permanent context, shouldbe supported. The concept is simple. Why should a hard working fellow pay 40% of his wages to provide benefits for thsoe who remain at home whilst capable of working?

What's wrong with health insurance? And to be frank, the welfare system is a joke, it is roundly exploited and abused. Those who can work should, those who are incapacitated, in a temporary of permanent context, shouldbe supported. The concept is simple. Why should a hard working fellow pay 40% of his wages to provide benefits for thsoe who remain at home whilst capable of working?

From what I am told, health insurance doesn't nearly cover everything, and what about the children of unemployed parents?

As for this mythical "All people on the dole are scum who can work", it's a load of shit. The vast majority of people on benefits are either on it because they are incapatated, or are looking for a job. Of course there are people who abuse it, but that doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater, just try to increase measures to reduce abuse. After all, if you are on the dole long enough and don't work but could they will stop benefits.

A *lot* more public money is stolen through tax fraud than benefit cheaters. But, of course, that doesn't matter does it?

I think the NHS is a good thing but benefits do keep people out of work. (why accept wages less then benefits and why sell goods cheaper when everybody at least earns benefits (how do you think people live on $2 a day)). But i think its important to provide some kind of safty net. Although the NHS was a good idea there is no reason that there is no alternatives that provide. health care free at the point of delivery then the current oversized bureauocracy

[apologuise for bad typing in my last post]

Churchill did not give the big show case policies as Atlee. But he did play an important part in the war, he rallied the Americans to our call (although it did take pearl harbour to finally convince them). He was a fabulous orator and statesman, that typfied a nation. He may not have had any major policies but he certainly made a difference in the dark years of 1940-1942.

Besides if he was so bad why was he relected and Atlee kicked out?

They should just vote for me. I'm not a Conservative or anything...far from it...but that would probably be a good thing.

oooooo contraversial.......

Some people are showing their ignorance... or their prejudice...
The NHS would still have been created if Churchill had beaten Attlee in '45, because this was included in his manifesto too and in fact the plans that Attlee used for it had actually been drafted by an 'all-party' committee on Churchill's orders...

As far as Cameron goes, the problem isn't so much that he might have taken drugs in the past - which could be forgiven, if he publicly renounced & denounced them now - as that he's been so very evasive (one might almost say Blairishly so...) about the matter...

Obviously you havent been to Wales or many inner city areas......I concede that I have not been to Wales, but have spent many a long year in inner city Belfast (not to mention having been to many other inner cities across the UK). I come from a vaguely Irish Nationalist background, and if anything that would make myself and those I know even more anti-Thatcher than many others in NI or UK, but as I said, that's really not the case.

As for this mythical "All people on the dole are scum who can work", it's a load of shit. The vast majority of people on benefits are either on it because they are incapatated, or are looking for a job. Of course there are people who abuse it, but that doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater, just try to increase measures to reduce abuse. After all, if you are on the dole long enough and don't work but could they will stop benefits.They are supposed to, yes, but I've known a number of people who've been on the dole for years. One of the aforesaid was finally forced to get a job recently, the others have not been. The bloke that did has a real brain, no disabilities or incapacities whatsoever, and yet was allowed to sit on his arse for eight years after leaving university, while plenty of other people take whatever job they can to pay their bills. In relation to other benefits, my cousin has been on incapacity benefit for about 10 years, yet she is fit and healthy. She claimed it initially as she had severe depression, but (luckily) she is free of that now, yet every year without question her incapacity benefit is renewed. Again, the cases of which I speak only offer anecdotal evidence, but I feel it is relevant nonetheless.

Let me stress that I have no problem with the welfare state per se; the genuinely needy should receive benefits. But I think it's fundamentally wrong that those people who make an effort to make something of their lives lose lots of their salaries (and, the way things are going, ultimately their pensions too) for people such as those detailed above. It's fine to pay taxes for public services and to provide for those that really cannot provide for themselves, but the problem is that that's not how things really are at present. Of course not all people on the dole are lazy bastards, but judging by current advertising campaigns against it, it is clearly thought that the problem is fairly widespread.

I concede your point, however, that white collar crime probably takes more public money than benefit fraud. This is a problem that must be tackled; the IRS have had some successful prosecutions, but the problem of course is finding out in the first place that a crime has taken place. Tax and insurance fraud tend to be highly complex crimes, but this is not an excuse for ignoring their existence, and whoever is in government - be they far-left, far-right or anywhere in between - ought to make an effort to tackle them. I think the reason the problem has not been tackled successfully to date is not because of a government's particular political ideology, but simply because of the difficulty in investigating and prosecuting those responsible. In short, without a huge number of experts in the field, I don't think Charles Kennedy / Tony etc would necessarily do a better job of it than Maggie (or anyone else from the right of the political spectrum) would have.

As far as Cameron goes, the problem isn't so much that he might have taken drugs in the past - which could be forgiven, if he publicly renounced & denounced them now - as that he's been so very evasive (one might almost say Blairishly so...) about the matter...
Why is that a problem? He's perfectly within his rights not to answer questions about his private life.
And if he has taken drugs in the past, why do we have to forgive him? And why could we only forgive him if he "publicly renounced and denounced them"? That makes no sense whatsoever. If he has taken drugs, fine. If he hasn't, equally fine. It won't make any difference to his ability to lead the Conservative Party.

Unless he has acid flash backs during trade negiations with the EU. Although who'd notice?

Somebody who's broken the law, and doesn't repent the fact, shouldn't be making laws that other people are expected to follow.

Somebody who's broken the law, and doesn't repent the fact, shouldn't be making laws that other people are expected to follow.

Therefore, all legislation ought to be compiled and penned by puritanical ministers with no experiance of the machinations of the world?

Personally, I fail to see why the issue surrounding Drugs is pertinent in the slighest, all people make mistakes, and if Cameron has taken drugs, it merely makes him human, and acordingly a better politician.

To a Scottish Socialist like me most of these options have their advantages and disadvantages. If the leader will be David Davis or could have been Liam Fox or William Hague then the Conservatives would continue to be seen as an extreme right-wing party out of touch with modern society and they would be unlikely to ever win back power. This decline would be far more drastic if Thatcher was to be brought back, especially in Scotland where she is absolutely despised and as a result of her legacy the Conservatives here are still stuck on around 15% of the vote. If however a more moderate person like David Cameron, Ken Clarke or Michael Portillo had/will become leader then the Conservatives would have a real chance in the next General Election, especially if they could appear left of Labour, and I believe this could actually be a positive thing as it might help bring about a leftward shift within the Labour Party after the departure of Tony Blair.

If however a more moderate person like David Cameron, Ken Clarke or Michael Portillo had/will become leader then the Conservatives would have a real chance in the next General Election, especially if they could appear left of Labour, and I believe this could actually be a positive thing as it might help bring about a leftward shift within the Labour Party after the departure of Tony Blair.
I don't think the Conservatives have a chance at the next election, whoever they elect as their leader, unless Blair or his successor as Labour leader seriously screws something up.
At the next election, assuming things are roughly as they are now, Blair would scrape (and I mean scrape, I think it would be just a couple of seats from being a hung Parliament) a victory. However, it seems that Gordon Brown will be the leader of the Labour party by the time of the next election. IMO, the people of Britain will see his record as Chancellor (which isn't as fantastic as he tries to make out. Yes, it's the longest unbroken period of growth ever, but he uses slightly dodgy methods to measure this growth. The WB and IMF always predict lower growth rates, more in keeping with the rest of the world's growth rate, and using standard methods, are generally accurate - forecasting 1-1.5%, rather than 2-3% as Brown does) and vote for him as PM. Labour's majority will increase because of this. Hopefully the Conservatives will have realised that this is going to happen, and keep Cameron as their leader for the following election, which he will probably have a decent chance of winning.

I don't think the Conservatives have a chance at the next election, whoever they elect as their leader, unless Blair or his successor as Labour leader seriously screws something up.
At the next election, assuming things are roughly as they are now, Blair would scrape (and I mean scrape, I think it would be just a couple of seats from being a hung Parliament) a victory. However, it seems that Gordon Brown will be the leader of the Labour party by the time of the next election. IMO, the people of Britain will see his record as Chancellor (which isn't as fantastic as he tries to make out. Yes, it's the longest unbroken period of growth ever, but he uses slightly dodgy methods to measure this growth. The WB and IMF always predict lower growth rates, more in keeping with the rest of the world's growth rate, and using standard methods, are generally accurate - forecasting 1-1.5%, rather than 2-3% as Brown does) and vote for him as PM. Labour's majority will increase because of this. Hopefully the Conservatives will have realised that this is going to happen, and keep Cameron as their leader for the following election, which he will probably have a decent chance of winning.
You may be right but in a recent Guardian poll 48% of people said they would prefer David Cameron as next PM while only 33% said Gordon Brown so I would say if he can keep up his relatively positive image then he does stand a fair chance. There is an interesting article in The Guardian today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1601198,00.html)
by the leader of the left-wing Compass group, Neal Lawson, suggesting that Labour if heading for defeat unless Blair leaves soon and gives Brown the chance to develop a new progressive agenda which will distinguish himself from the present tired out policies of Blair's New Labour.

You may be right but in a recent Guardian poll 48% of people said they would prefer David Cameron as next PM while only 33% said Gordon Brown so I would say if he can keep up his relatively positive image then he does stand a fair chance. There is an interesting article in The Guardian today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1601198,00.html)
by the leader of the left-wing Compass group, Neal Lawson, suggesting that Labour if heading for defeat unless Blair leaves soon and gives Brown the chance to develop a new progressive agenda which will distinguish himself from the present tired out policies of Blair's New Labour.
That article does make sense.
I'd not seen that poll, but I only buy the Guardian occasionally. Makes sense I guess. I'd be more inclined to vote for Brown, because he has consistently proven himself to be left-wing - not just left of Blair, but actually left-wing. I had wondered if it would be possible for the Conservatives to be more left-wing than Labour at the next election, yet still be right-wing. Brown will hopefully see (if he becomes Labour leader) that he needs to take Labour to the left if he wants to beat Cameron.
Sadly, the Lib Dems will lose a lot of ground at the next election if Cameron becomes leader, because of the (hopeful) shift in politics by then as a result of that. As the article said, they outflanked Labour on the left, but they won't be able to do that next time if Labour have moved back towards their more traditional ground, and there'll be no room on the right that they might have occupied in recent years, because the Conservatives will have taken that.
Meanwhile it's no longer embarrassing to be a Tory. It could even become fashionable.
:D That's great.

I don't think the Conservatives have a chance at the next election, whoever they elect as their leader, unless Blair or his successor as Labour leader seriously screws something up.
At the next election, assuming things are roughly as they are now, Blair would scrape (and I mean scrape, I think it would be just a couple of seats from being a hung Parliament) a victory. However, it seems that Gordon Brown will be the leader of the Labour party by the time of the next election. IMO, the people of Britain will see his record as Chancellor (which isn't as fantastic as he tries to make out. Yes, it's the longest unbroken period of growth ever, but he uses slightly dodgy methods to measure this growth. The WB and IMF always predict lower growth rates, more in keeping with the rest of the world's growth rate, and using standard methods, are generally accurate - forecasting 1-1.5%, rather than 2-3% as Brown does) and vote for him as PM. Labour's majority will increase because of this. Hopefully the Conservatives will have realised that this is going to happen, and keep Cameron as their leader for the following election, which he will probably have a decent chance of winning.

Sifting through the new labour bilge, one point. You arew are we are upon the verge of a recession, one that will supercede that of 1995. "No more boom and bust" indeed:rolleyes: I assure you, much to pleasure, Cameron will lead the Conservatives to office in 2009, my only chagrin being it was not Liam Fox or Hague that did so.

doesnt matter they wont be in any place to be any form of opposition in the coming years

I voted other. I dont want anyone to win. I want them to all die. Then the same thing to happen to labour's head honchos, and then the lib dems, then the bnp, greens, UKIP, veritas, RESPECT and monster raving loonies (proto-fascist organisation if you ask me)

I think once the conservative shift away their image problem, the whole Thatcher's spawn will eat your jobs for fun, type thing. I think most people agree with conservative policy and I think the fact that both the lib dems and new labour ape them shows that fact. I think cameron needs to win this contest, he may not be as good as Davis but he appears a breath of fresh air. If cameron takes the lead and takes some well known Tories into the cabinet, Portillo, Hague, Fox then they genuinly might have a chance. People are beginning to get sick of Labour so as long as the Tories discredit the Lib Dems and mock Brown soon rather then later then you never know. A day is a long time in politics so is years.

I vote Tony Blair...

Satire at it's most cutting ;)

Actually I'd vote Maggie, kill off the damn party once and for all.

there is a necessity for a competent opposition in British politics.

there is a necessity for a competent opposition in British politics.


thats why we need to remove the conservatives as the opposition, put in liberals as opposition

thats why we need to remove the conservatives as the opposition, put in liberals as opposition
Pity the UK has no significant liberal (or Liberal) parties then. The Lib Dems aren't (L)liberal, except possibly to an American, they're still right-wing, almost as much as Labour are.

thats why we need to remove the conservatives as the opposition, put in liberals as opposition

Quite, vote, citizens of Britain, for the left, or further left! inspired post:rolleyes:

Quite, vote, citizens of Britain, for the left, or further left! inspired post:rolleyes:


lesser of two evils and whatnot

the scottish parliaments makeup is closer to what it should be

lesser of two evils and whatnot

the scottish parliaments makeup is closer to what it should be

No, the labour party are much of a metronome in British politics. Traditionally, the Tory and liberal parties occupied the right and left, and legislation was accordingly of a central nature. New Labour is an oppurtunistic entity that reside nominally a little left of the centre, but meely discerns public mood and acts accordingly. Were British politics to revert to the pre-Labour, two party sustem, it would be infinately better, and all parties would not be compelled to grvitate towars the amiguous politics of the centre.

No, the labour party are much of a metronome in British politics. Traditionally, the Tory and liberal parties occupied the right and left, and legislation was accordingly of a central nature. New Labour is an oppurtunistic entity that reside nominally a little left of the centre, but meely discerns public mood and acts accordingly. Were British politics to revert to the pre-Labour, two party sustem, it would be infinately better, and all parties would not be compelled to grvitate towars the amiguous politics of the centre.


thats british politics, traditionaly in scottish politics the conservatives have been a minority party and continue to be so

No, the labour party are much of a metronome in British politics. Traditionally, the Tory and liberal parties occupied the right and left, and legislation was accordingly of a central nature. New Labour is an oppurtunistic entity that reside nominally a little left of the centre, but meely discerns public mood and acts accordingly. Were British politics to revert to the pre-Labour, two party sustem, it would be infinately better, and all parties would not be compelled to grvitate towars the amiguous politics of the centre.
The two parties always aim for the centre anyway, because that's where most of the votes are. Who wins depends on how rich the different parts of the British public feel they are.

thats british politics, traditionaly in scottish politics the conservatives have been a minority party and continue to be so

Is there are comparitive right wing party in Scotland, or have the left packed the inenr cities with constituencies like it is done in England?

thats british politics, traditionaly in scottish politics the conservatives have been a minority party and continue to be so

yes its lovely to be a socialist when your not paying for it...

yes its lovely to be a socialist when your not paying for it...

oohhh, nice:p

The two parties always aim for the centre anyway, because that's where most of the votes are. Who wins depends on how rich the different parts of the British public feel they are.

Thatcher bloody didn't

Thatcher bloody didn't
She didn't have to. There was no serious challenge from any other party, so she could do whatever the bloody hell she wanted without worrying about losing an election.
That's exactly the reason Britain needs a strong opposition.

She didn't have to. There was no serious challenge from any other party, so she could do whatever the bloody hell she wanted without worrying about losing an election.
That's exactly the reason Britain needs a strong opposition.

Thats a good point actually. Still, a Tory government would do Britain the world of good at present, and I am still uopset a vote of no confidence in Blair was not called after Iraq:(

She didn't have to. There was no serious challenge from any other party, so she could do whatever the bloody hell she wanted without worrying about losing an election.
That's exactly the reason Britain needs a strong opposition.

Although the Tories are still tarred by her memory. You ungrateful people...

people...

I should really stop putting those annoying little dots at the end of my posts.

Although the Tories are still tarred by her memory. You ungrateful people...
Well, I'm sorry, it's just I generally don't like people who want to get rid of the entire working class...




EDIT: Hmmm...those dots get everywhere...

Well, I'm sorry, it's just I generally don't like people who want to get rid of the entire working class...

Whyever not, what good do they serve, except voting the odd left wing party into office, and thats hardly beneficient?

Well economically Thatcher radically modernised the economy rather then stringing it along pointlessly like they did in France and Germany. Rheinish Capitalism is dying and France and Germany have the bruises to show for it. This is no longer the 1950s, in a global economy Marx is dead and so I fear is Keynes, you just can't control your economy because in a very real sense it doesn't belong to you.

Whyever not, what good do they serve, except voting the odd left wing party into office, and thats hardly beneficient?
You mean apart from producing 99.99% of manufactured goods for this country? Erm...nothing. Oh wait, no - they keep pubs and cigarette manufacturers in business.

You mean apart from producing 99.99% of manufactured goods for this country? Erm...nothing. Oh wait, no - they keep pubs and cigarette manufacturers in business.

WE can outource and make more profit, and frankly, the pubs stay in business anyway, and a few less cheap and crappy ciggarette makers would be appreciated.

Moreover, we could demolish their homes, and replant trees and woods once more.

Is there are comparitive right wing party in Scotland, or have the left packed the inenr cities with constituencies like it is done in England?


there is a conservative party in scotland but since the emergance of parties other than liberals and conservative, conservatives have been the minority

yes its lovely to be a socialist when your not paying for it...


scotland being lead by centrist parties not socialist, the socialist are also a minority

there is a conservative party in scotland but since the emergance of parties other than liberals and conservative, conservatives have been the minority

But why though, they make a damn sight more coherent sense than the Labour party, and, shock horror, they have a tradition of being the greatest leaders the UK has elected. Disreali, Wellington, Churchill and Thatcher. All Tory.

But why though, they make a damn sight more coherent sense than the Labour party, and, shock horror, they have a tradition of being the greatest leaders the UK has elected. Disreali, Wellington, Churchill and Thatcher. All Tory.


Churchhill was a whore, spent his life switching from liberal to conservative

scottish people just dont go in for conservatism, serves the english middle classes too much.

the largest party in scotland is the S.N.P but labour have a coaltion with the lib dems so thats why their in power at Holyrood

Churchhill was a whore, spent his life switching from liberal to conservative

scottish people just dont go in for conservatism, serves the english middle classes too much.

the largest party in scotland is the S.N.P but labour have a coaltion with the lib dems so thats why their in power at Holyrood

But he was Tory at heart, and if Labour need a coalition to govern scotland, they are welcome to it, it does not serve the ends of the middle classes, who are evdiently not afforded the right to a politcal voice in Britain, unlike those of ethic or impoverished provenance.

But he was Tory at heart, and if Labour need a coalition to govern scotland, they are welcome to it, it does not serve the ends of the middle classes, who are evdiently not afforded the right to a politcal voice in Britain, unlike those of ethic or impoverished provenance.

i dont know about britain but in scotland the S.N.P have the majority of middle class votes, with lib dems picking up most of the rest middle class votes

enough with this petty nationalism, what about the leadership!

enough with this petty nationalism, what about the leadership!


weve already said doesnt matter come next election lib dems will be the opposition party

bring back thatcher and finish the party off once and for all

weve already said doesnt matter come next election lib dems will be the opposition party

bring back thatcher and finish the party off once and for all

I do not know wheter or not they inform the Scotch fellows to the north of the following, but the Tory party are more liekly to gain office than retract into the role of a third party. If the Tory party travels into the centre, it will gain office with ease, since in either Cameron or Davis people observe politicians with integrity, whilst Gordon Brown is a decidedly socialist, and has the charisma of a wet dish cloth. Dehny, retain your socialism, it is neither welcome nor necessary in England, and frankly, it disgusts me.

I do not know wheter or not they inform the Scotch fellows to the north of the following, but the Tory party are more liekly to gain office than retract into the role of a third party. If the Tory party travels into the centre, it will gain office with ease, since in either Cameron or Davis people observe politicians with integrity, whilst Gordon Brown is a decidedly socialist, and has the charisma of a wet dish cloth. Dehny, retain your socialism, it is neither welcome nor necessary in England, and frankly, it disgusts me.

i am not a socialist, just because i am not a blood sucking fascist conservative doesnt make me a commie ;)
i am a centrist nationalist

i am not a socialist, just because i am not a blood sucking fascist conservative doesnt make me a commie ;)
i am a centrist nationalist

I am not fascist, I am far-right conservative.

Similarly, all those who harbour political inclinations further right than the centre are not necessarily fascist, we are merely true Britsih citizens.

I'll think you'll find fascism and conservatism are completly seperate in every concieveable way,

Planned economies
Low levels of personal liberty
The individuel is subordinate to society

But don't worry its a mistake most communists make..(joking!)

I am not fascist, I am far-right conservative.

Similarly, all those who harbour political inclinations further right than the centre are not necessarily fascist, we are merely true Britsih citizens.

imperialistic, right wing , upper class , stuck up

these are the connotations of the Tories, alienating themselves further from the young who are tradtionally likely to vote something other than Conservatism

doesnt matter within next 12-20 years Scotland will be Independent, and Westminster can go jump

imperialistic, right wing , upper class , stuck up

these are the connotations of the Tories, alienating themselves further from the young who are tradtionally likely to vote something other than Conservatism

doesnt matter within next 12-20 years Scotland will be Independent, and Westminster can go jump

I'm not going tovote labour or lib dem, and I'm 16. I am imperialistic, it would solve Africa's problems immensely, and as for upper class, no, middle class.

Personally, you're welcome to your independance. Try being blatently socialist when you have to fund it yourself.

I'm not going tovote labour or lib dem, and I'm 16. I am imperialistic, it would solve Africa's problems immensely, and as for upper class, no, middle class.

Personally, you're welcome to your independance. Try being blatently socialist when you have to fund it yourself.

try living without the £8 billion or so youve gained over the last 5 years from our oil and gas. and then having to buy it up front ;)


ok the £8 billion is not quite accurate this figure is the amount of scottish natural resources profit which was not spent in scotland

the figure of north sea resources profit spent in scotland since 1970 since Tories said as we're one country it belongs to all of us ::::: £0

try living without the £8 billion or so youve gained over the last 5 years from our oil and gas. and then having to buy it up front ;)


ok the £8 billion is not quite accurate this figure is the amount of scottish natural resources profit which was not spent in scotland

the figure of north sea resources profit spent in scotland since 1970 since Tories said as we're one country it belongs to all of us ::::: £0

We will merely invade an oil rich Arabian nation to drill it, oh, wait, we're doing that anyway:p

It is interesting that we are reliant upon "Scottish" oil, however, were we to privatise the NHS ( we ought to), reduce, or abolish benefits for all those capable of working, and privatise education, we could endure such an outlay.

I am not fascist, I am far-right conservative.

Similarly, all those who harbour political inclinations further right than the centre are not necessarily fascist, we are merely true Britsih citizens.

Personally I think being a "true British citizen" (or a decent citizen of any country) would include supporting equal opportunties for all Britains citizens, a welfare system to keep all citizen's standard of living at a decent level, high levels of education and healthcare for all citizens and generally a stucture of society which is there to benefit everyone and not just the already wealthy. Perhaps that's just me.

Personally I think being a "true British citizen" (or a decent citizen of any country) would include supporting equal opportunties for all Britains citizens, a welfare system to keep all citizen's standard of living at a decent level, high levels of education and healthcare for all citizens and generally a stucture of society which is there to benefit everyone and not just the already wealthy. Perhaps that's just me.

If privatisation was enacte with due care, precision and foresight, it would be to the benefit of the nation. Health insurance would be infinately better than the NHS, and a private health service would be more efficient. Moreover, the welfar system is a joke, I know the notion is archaic, however f one is capable of working to provide the means to survive, one should.

Whyever not, what good do they serve, except voting the odd left wing party into office, and thats hardly beneficient?

Well, for a start, they work hard for a living as opposed to being handed everything on a platter by their rich daddies. My grandfather was a marine in the second world war and worked as a postman in the morning and then a foundry worker during the day - did a lot more good for this country than some fat burke sitting on their arse for a few hours each day as an owner of a factory their father bought them whilst moaning about their workers wanting a fair wage.

Oh, and i'm socialist and think the SNP is just as bad as the BNP - both petty nationalist parties. All the SNP seem to do is go on about how much they hate the English and cite the very few examples when Scotland actually managed to beat England at anything, forgetting the thousands of examples of England beating Scotland and that Scotland would be a nothing country if it hadn't being for the union.

Although, frankly, I hope Scotland does become independent. If they want to be a bunch of racist, bitter individuals then good for them - Scotland would suffer massively economically if it broke from Britain, and England, Wales and Northen Ireland would prosper, not having to support the burden of Scotland anymore.

If privatisation was enacte with due care, precision and foresight, it would be to the benefit of the nation. Health insurance would be infinately better than the NHS, and a private health service would be more efficient. Moreover, the welfar system is a joke, I know the notion is archaic, however f one is capable of working to provide the means to survive, one should.

Question - do you oppose state education? After all, it allows those filthy commoners a chance to succeed in life, and robs money from the poor opressed rich. It's almost as despicable as children of unemployed parents being entitled to free medical treatment, or workers being allowed rights, is it not?

Question - do you oppose state education? After all, it allows those filthy commoners a chance to succeed in life, and robs money from the poor opressed rich. It's almost as despicable as children of unemployed parents being entitled to free medical treatment, or workers being allowed rights, is it not?

I recieve state education, admittedly grammar school education, but state nonetheless. To be honest, can you truly say that the middle and upper classes are not oppressed under Labour, their taxes rise, yet the public services they utilise are increasingly deficient, whilst the lower orders pay less tax, and recieve more benefits, more aid, and are allowed to be socially degenerate at their leisure.

If privatisation was enacte with due care, precision and foresight, it would be to the benefit of the nation. Health insurance would be infinately better than the NHS, and a private health service would be more efficient. Moreover, the welfar system is a joke, I know the notion is archaic, however f one is capable of working to provide the means to survive, one should.

Oh and it works so well in the US with the huge amounts of people without healthcare who can't afford any treatment. If they're about to die they'll get treatment but are then left in debt. Providing everyone with healthcare is far better for society and means people are able to work harder and support the economy, can further themselves and society as a whole.

The structure of society is the main reason people are poor and therefore society has the responsibilty of supporting the people it has put in that situation.

If simply working hard meant that you earned enough to live on then fine. Except the way things work, working a full day on minimum wage isn't enough to support yourself, any children you have, provide good housing, education, healthcare, food etc for your family.

Without benefits, my family would still be in the situation of living paycheck to paycheck in a one-bedroomed flat. But my dad was able to go back to university, get a degree, start earning more money and now is able to support the family as well as contributing back to society through tax. Welfare doesn't have to create lazy, state-dependant people. It can be used to support people while they gain what they need to support themselves.

In fact, the richest people are the ones who sit in an office doing nothing all that hard, making decisions free from any moral obligations, exploiting people, not doing anything to help society as whole and making ridiculous amounts of money by making the poor even poorer.

I recieve state education, admittedly grammar school education, but state nonetheless. To be honest, can you truly say that the middle and upper classes are not oppressed under Labour, their taxes rise, yet the public services they utilise are increasingly deficient, whilst the lower orders pay less tax, and recieve more benefits, more aid, and are allowed to be socially degenerate at their leisure.

Awww, the poor wittle buisness man who sits in an office for up to 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, only getting paid a measly £100,000 a year, whilst those disgusting "lower orders" doing only 40 hours a week boring, repetitive/physically demanding work and get paid a whopping £10,000! Oh the injustice!

If society was truely meritocratic and pay was based on how hard the work was (which requires socialist policies, strangely enough) then you could argue that it is. However, not only is it patently obvious that the rich don't always work harder than the poor, but those who are born rich have a *much* better chance than those born poor. How do you think you would have coped if your parents could only afford a crappy house in the inner city, and you were sent to an inner city school? Or do you presume that the reason there isn't total social mobility is because the poor are genetically inferiour?

I recieve state education, admittedly grammar school education, but state nonetheless. To be honest, can you truly say that the middle and upper classes are not oppressed under Labour, their taxes rise, yet the public services they utilise are increasingly deficient, whilst the lower orders pay less tax, and recieve more benefits, more aid, and are allowed to be socially degenerate at their leisure.

Yep, so oppressed. I know I feel oppressed, not being able to have that fifth bedroom, not being able to have that double garage instead of a single one, not being able to go out for a meal every fortnight instead of each month, not being able to buy that nice jumper which I need so badly in my warm and heated house, not being able to buy third computer for my younger brother.

The middle and upper class don't need that extra money. They are living perfectly comfortably. They can afford to pay taxes to give everyone a decent standard of living and still have money for luxuries.

The only problem with taxes is that the money is going to people who don't need it rather than the working class.

Oh and it works so well in the US with the huge amounts of people without healthcare who can't afford any treatment. If they're about to die they'll get treatment but are then left in debt. Providing everyone with healthcare is far better for society and means people are able to work harder and support the economy, can further themselves and society as a whole.

The structure of society is the main reason people are poor and therefore society has the responsibilty of supporting the people it has put in that situation.

If simply working hard meant that you earned enough to live on then fine. Except the way things work, working a full day on minimum wage isn't enough to support yourself, any children you have, provide good housing, education, healthcare, food etc for your family.

Without benefits, my family would still be in the situation of living paycheck to paycheck in a one-bedroomed flat. But my dad was able to go back to university, get a degree, start earning more money and now is able to support the family as well as contributing back to society through tax. Welfare doesn't have to create lazy, state-dependant people. It can be used to support people while they gain what they need to support themselves.

In fact, the richest people are the ones who sit in an office doing nothing all that hard, making decisions free from any moral obligations, exploiting people, not doing anything to help society as whole and making ridiculous amounts of money by making the poor even poorer.

I didn't propose dispensing with the welfare system, merely ensuring that those who can work, do so. The rich are deplored for not working, yet the poor, capable but lazy, are not.

Personally, with the NHS, all those over 60 would be afforded free healthcare,as would under 16's, however, the tax reductions such welfare detractions would faciliate would negate the majority of the imposition of health insurance.

Finally, having worked at the minimum wage in the summer, it is a pittance, and should be raised to at least £5.00 per hour, however, the rich have a right to earn as well.

I didn't propose dispensing with the welfare system, merely ensuring that those who can work, do so.
Where exactly are these people who can work but don't?

Personally, with the NHS, all those over 60 would be afforded free healthcare,as would under 16's, however, the tax reductions such welfare detractions would faciliate would negate the majority of the imposition of health insurance.
Why don't the people in between deserve healthcare? It makes more sense that those who are working during the day will need healthcare, those contributing to society should get something back, those who can be given preventative medicine to cut costs later on in life should be and those who are supporting themselves (rather than parents or adult sons/daughters) may need the extra support.

Finally, having worked at the minimum wage in the summer, it is a pittance, and should be raised to at least £5.00 per hour, however, the rich have a right to earn as well.
Where exactly is that right being taken away from them? I think the fact they are rich shows they're not having any trouble in the finanical area.

weve already said doesnt matter come next election lib dems will be the opposition party

bring back thatcher and finish the party off once and for all

The Lib Dems are a joke, to anyone in the U.S that hasn't heard the breaking story, about 2/3 of the party funding they received last year (2.4 million) was supplied by an American fugitive wanted for fraud. They were naive enough to take the money, no questions asked, and rest assured they will do everything in their power to keep it.

The Libs are going nowhere, they failed to make an impact in this years election in spite of the Iraq war, steepling council taxes and a Conservative party that were almost in disarray, if they couldn't do it then they never will. When Blair leaves, the labour party will slide back to the left, gather back all the disillusioned voters that defected and cast the Lib Dems back into the obscurity that they are damned to.

As for the leadership, it has to be David Davis. This Cameronian bandwagon has come out of nowhere and everyone seems to be desperate to jump on it without really knowing where it's going. He talks constantly about reform without specifying the nature of the reform and fails to talk in terms of concrete policies. People liken him to the next Tony Blair yet ignore the fact that Blair had been an MP for 13 years before he became PM and had experience in a number of cabinet positions. Cameron by comparison has been an MP for just four and has thus far done very little of note. I think that Blair would crucify him at the despatch box.

The Tory party have demonstrated a tendency to repeatedly elect candidates they know remarkably little about to the leadership in the vague hope that they will come good. They picked Major when they should have picked Heseltine, then Hague, then IDS (Howard was the one exception) and the result has been electoral catastrophe. It now seems likely that they will do so again.

Everyone talks about David Davis being a poor speaker, that's utter nonsense and is almost exclusively based on his speech at the party conference (which was very poor in fairness). He's a good communicator and a powerful speaker almost all of the time. He also seems to have grasped the fact that the Tories aren't going to get themselves elected by emulating New Labour, they have to remember what they, as a party, are supposed to stand for and stop trying to convince voters that they'd be New Labour - except better.

Finally, I'd like to say that policy wise - I think Davis is pretty much spot on.

Where exactly are these people who can work but don't?


Why don't the people in between deserve healthcare? It makes more sense that those who are working during the day will need healthcare, those contributing to society should get something back, those who can be given preventative medicine to cut costs later on in life should be and those who are supporting themselves (rather than parents or adult sons/daughters) may need the extra support.


Where exactly is that right being taken away from them? I think the fact they are rich shows they're not having any trouble in the finanical area.

Try council estates. Single mothers have children to recieve more benfits.

As for private helathcare, it is evident we are unlikely to agree, and since you seem a nice enough bloke, I'm not going to press the issue.

Incidentally, you do know 40% of all earnings over £42000 are removed as tax? The figure ought to be a flat rate of 15-20%, it would be infinately fairer.

I didn't propose dispensing with the welfare system, merely ensuring that those who can work, do so. The rich are deplored for not working, yet the poor, capable but lazy, are not.


No one says those on welfare who are capable of working and whom jobs are available for (There often aren't, rember) are blameless - of course there are the leeches who abuse the system. I just happen to think people are making a lot of fuss over very little - only a slim minority of people on welfare want to be there. People should be more appalled at tax fraud - which costs the UK FAR more in money than benefit fraud.

The difference between those who are lazy who are poor and those who are lazy who are rich is that the latter get to live in luxury and in a far better position than those who do work hard, while those who are lazy and poor aren't exactly having a great time financially. Dunno about you, but I think it's worse when a lazy human being is better off than everyone else than when a lazy human being is worse off than everyone else.

No one says those on welfare who are capable of working and whom jobs are available for (There often aren't, rember) are blameless - of course there are the leeches who abuse the system. I just happen to think people are making a lot of fuss over very little - only a slim minority of people on welfare want to be there. People should be more appalled at tax fraud - which costs the UK FAR more in money than benefit fraud.

The difference between those who are lazy who are poor and those who are lazy who are rich is that the latter get to live in luxury and in a far better position than those who do work hard, while those who are lazy and poor aren't exactly having a great time financially. Dunno about you, but I think it's worse when a lazy human being is better off than everyone else than when a lazy human being is worse off than everyone else.

Why? Tax fraud and evasion is a time honoured upper class tradition:p

Benefit fraud, however, is deporable, since it is an abuse of the benevolence of others.Yet again, I an only asset that life is unfair, you cannot influence this, deal with it.

Try council estates. Single mothers have children to recieve more benfits.
Yep. I sure know I'd have children so I can get one of those rundown council-flats in a rough area with no jobs and some ridiculously small amount of money each week to supposedly help pay for the cost of a child. I'd love to work two jobs a day for hardly any money to try and support my family while wishing I could spend more time with my child.

Seriously. That's such overblown bullshit from the media I find it hard to comprehend why people hold any truth to anything they hear from people whose main aim is to shock, sell and get more money. (Just another example of those wonderous rich people who really deserve the money they get considering what they give back to society)

I really highly doubt that an at all significant amount of woman get pregnant just so that they can get benefits. It's hardly some luxury life. If anyone is crazy enough to do that, they really do need help.

As for private helathcare, it is evident we are unlikely to agree, and since you seem a nice enough bloke, I'm not going to press the issue.

For one thing, I'm not a bloke :p and the unlikelihood of agreeing has never stopped me debate before!

Incidentally, you do know 40% of all earnings over £42000 are removed as tax? The figure ought to be a flat rate of 15-20%, it would be infinately fairer.
I do indeed. Yep; making the poor poorer and the rich richer sounds fair to me. We all know who's struggling the most finanically and who really needs the extra money from a tax cut.

Yet again, I an only asset that life is unfair, you cannot influence this, deal with it.

Course you can. Look at Sweden - they've got incredibly good social mobility levels - if you are born poor there then you have almost the same chance of succeeding as if you are born rich. All as a result of socialist policies.

Yep. I sure know I'd have children so I can get one of those rundown council-flats in a rough area with no jobs and some ridiculously small amount of money each week to supposedly help pay for the cost of a child. I'd love to work two jobs a day for hardly any money to try and support my family while wishing I could spend more time with my child.

Seriously. That's such overblown bullshit from the media I find it hard to comprehend why people hold any truth to anything they hear from people whose main aim is to shock, sell and get more money. (Just another example of those wonderous rich people who really deserve the money they get considering what they give back to society)

I really highly doubt that an at all significant amount of woman get pregnant just so that they can get benefits. It's hardly some luxury life. If anyone is crazy enough to do that, they really do need help.



For one thing, I'm not a bloke :p and the unlikelihood of agreeing has never stopped me debate before!


I do indeed. Yep; making the poor poorer and the rich richer sounds fair to me. We all know who's struggling the most finanically and who really needs the extra money from a tax cut.

Sorry about the gender mistake, I've started on the chardonnay:p

The analogy pertaining to single mothers was a little satirical in truth, however it is irrefutable that the abuse of benefits you so deny is prevalent in sectors of society, and for those who do little to better themselves, it is deplorable.

David Davis, returning to context, proposes an average tax cut of £1280 per annum, and his policies are distinctly tenable and feasible, whilst making a a damn sight more sense than the unabated war against the uppe classes enacted by Gordon Brown.

Yet again, I an only asset that life is unfair, you cannot influence this, deal with it.
You can influence it though. Providing everyone with the basics (housing, education, food, healthcare etc) makes things fairer.

You seem to say that capitalism is fairer so we should have that system yet also say that it isn't fair and we should accept it. Either we should work towards a fairer system or we "accept" an "unfair" system in which case why can't I have my welfare state?

Course you can. Look at Sweden - they've got incredibly good social mobility levels - if you are born poor there then you have almost the same chance of succeeding as if you are born rich. All as a result of socialist policies.

Well hooray for socialism, destroy a millenia of Britannia for unrequitted socialism, and reduce and raise all to thelevel of the mediocre.

You can influence it though. Providing everyone with the basics (housing, education, food, healthcare etc) makes things fairer.

You seem to say that capitalism is fairer so we should have that system yet also say that it isn't fair and we should accept it. Either we should work towards a fairer system or we "accept" an "unfair" system in which case why can't I have my welfare state?

Because capitalism is fair, whereas life is inherently unfair.

The welfare state is entirely unnecessary, it would not exist were it not for a flagrent liberal disregard for the house of lords in 1908-11, and to all intents and purposes, it is not welcomed by most of the middle and upper classes.

Because capitalism is fair, whereas life is inherently unfair.

The welfare state is entirely unnecessary, it would not exist were it not for a flagrent liberal disregard for the house of lords in 1908-11, and to all intents and purposes, it is not welcomed by most of the middle and upper classes.

why shouldnt the liberals have disregarded a non-democratic body

why shouldnt the liberals have disregarded a non-democratic body

Because it is, ostensibly, democratic, it is a constituent of British democracy, and should be entirely heriditery, and yet it is disregarded by the left whenever it propsoes to exert its influence and oppose a bill.

i've just got back from china, where there is no welfare state & there are polio victims with twisted legs begging on the streets unable to walk.

If you think it's fair that they are living with no dignity in complete poverty at the bottom of society just because they are too ill to work...then yes, there should be no welfare state.

Or if you have a heart, you'll understand it's there for a reason.

Because it is, ostensibly, democratic, it is a constituent of British democracy, and should be entirely heriditery, and yet it is disregarded by the left whenever it propsoes to exert its influence and oppose a bill.


it is disregarded bt anyone who serves the idea of democracy, whether its the fake british democracy or not

i've just got back from china, where there is no welfare state & there are polio victims with twisted legs begging on the streets unable to walk.

If you think it's fair that they are living with no dignity in complete poverty at the bottom of society just because they are too ill to work...then yes, there should be no welfare state.

Or if you have a heart, you'll understand it's there for a reason.

My word, I implore you to read my posts, I truly do. I would not utterly dispence with either the welfare state or the NHS, merely for those whose actions do not belie their capacity. The rich are lambasted for not working, and yet the poor who elect to remain at home in place of working are inferred to be a result of society.

it is disregarded bt anyone who serves the idea of democracy, whether its the fake british democracy or not

It is as democratic as the commons, since the upper classes are deemed unfit for politics in the labour world, and yet are entitled to a political voice.

It is as democratic as the commons, since the upper classes are deemed unfit for politics in the labour world, and yet are entitled to a political voice.


strange ive never encountered a election to the House of Lords, care to explain how this is in anyway democratic

strange ive never encountered a election to the House of Lords, care to explain how this is in anyway democratic

It is comprised of individuals deemed responsible enough to conduct affairs of the realm. No democracy is entirely democratic, since Athenian democracy simply is untenable, and the Lords is merely a means to ensure the correct administration of the realm.

Well hooray for socialism, destroy a millenia of Britannia for unrequitted socialism, and reduce and raise all to thelevel of the mediocre.

What the hell do you mean "Destroy a millenia of Britannia"? Do you think if Britain suddenly became socialist then Britain would no longer be Britain? What about Britain makes it supposedly inherantly right wing?

Oh, and Sweden doesn't seem to be full of "mediocre" people really - the Swedish i've talked to a really nice, happy and friendly people (Apart from Fass, but he doesn't count ;)) with a quality of life superiour to more capitalist countries.

What the hell do you mean "Destroy a millenia of Britannia"? Do you think if Britain suddenly became socialist then Britain would no longer be Britain? What about Britain makes it supposedly inherantly right wing?

Oh, and Sweden doesn't seem to be full of "mediocre" people really - the Swedish i've talked to a really nice, happy and friendly people. Apart from Fass, but he doesn't count ;)

Not the same. It is odd how equal oppurtunities is a facade for a war on the pure, middle and upper classes, and positive discrimination. We do, you may realise, have an adorable landed aristocracy, why dispense with it for the mediocrity offered by socialism.

It is comprised of individuals deemed responsible enough to conduct affairs of the realm. No democracy is entirely democratic, since Athenian democracy simply is untenable, and the Lords is merely a means to ensure the correct administration of the realm.


but it is no democratic anyway you look at it, its not even a indirect democratic method, it is merely a right wing conservative/fascist idea . in no measure of democracy should a unelected body have a say in the democratic process

Not the same. It is odd how equal oppurtunities is a facade for a war on the pure, middle and upper classes, and positive discrimination. We do, you may realise, have an adorable landed aristocracy, why dispense with it for the mediocrity offered by socialism.

So let me get this straight - you admire the aristocracy, a class of people who do no work whatsoever, have servants to keep their mansions and live in luxury whilst looking down on anyone who works, whilst accusing those on welfare of being lazy?

You call the middle and upper classes pure? You are suggesting that the working class are "impure"? Wow, don't you just wish you lived in Victorian times?

Equal opportunities means people EARN their place in society - it is not given to them. Do you believe people who are born rich should remain rich no matter how dumb, inbred and lazy they are? Why? Because it is a natural hierachy laid down by God?

Still haven't explained to me why socialism = mediocrity.

weve already said doesnt matter come next election lib dems will be the opposition party

bring back thatcher and finish the party off once and for all

HAHA! This is rich. I doubt that the Lib Dems will be the opposition party.

If Thatcher comes back, it'll bring a boost to the Conservative Party and it could turn the Labour Party into the opposition party :D

HAHA! This is rich. I doubt that the Lib Dems will be the opposition party.

If Thatcher comes back, it'll bring a boost to the Conservative Party and it could turn the Labour Party into the opposition party :D


doubtful

So let me get this straight - you admire the aristocracy, a class of people who do no work whatsoever, have servants to keep their mansions and live in luxury whilst looking down on anyone who works, whilst accusing those on welfare of being lazy?

You call the middle and upper classes pure? You are suggesting that the working class are "impure"? Wow, don't you just wish you lived in Victorian times?

Equal opportunities means people EARN their place in society - it is not given to them. Do you believe people who are born rich should remain rich no matter how dumb, inbred and lazy they are? Why? Because it is a natural hierachy laid down by God?

Still haven't explained to me why socialism = mediocrity.

Firstly, I admire the aristocracy, I will confess, and would dearly love to revert Britain to its state in 1850 or 1900, it was a considerably better society than today's in several aspects.

Socialism encourages mediocrity since it affords people the right to exist without working, and to work only to their limits, not to attempt to better themselves, whilst the notion of all earning their place in society is a fallacy, it is untenable, and personally, I see no reason why the rich should not remain rich, they are born to it.

doubtful

Why?

She is, you may be surprised to be informed, popular amongst a considerable proportion of the populace, and would accrue the support of the nationalists amongst the working class.

Why?

She is, you may be surprised to be informed, popular amongst a considerable proportion of the populace, and would accrue the support of the nationalists amongst the working class.

I love it when a plan comes together :D

Firstly, I admire the aristocracy, I will confess, and would dearly love to revert Britain to its state in 1850 or 1900, it was a considerably better society than today's in several aspects.

Socialism encourages mediocrity since it affords people the right to exist without working, and to work only to their limits, not to attempt to better themselves, whilst the notion of all earning their place in society is a fallacy, it is untenable, and personally, I see no reason why the rich should not remain rich, they are born to it.

You are still massively contradicting yourself - the aristocracy live without working but that is fine? As for looking back on the victorian age as a golden age - I wonder if you would be so keen to live in that period if you were poor and had to work 12 hours a day, living in a back to back house and probably die before you were 40.

From what I can tell you just generally hate poor people and love the rich, somehow think that the social order is natural and that rich people are too good to work, but poor people have a duty to do so.

Seriously, are you just joking around now? You obviously aren't stupid, even though you try to sound more intelligent than you are by constantly employing big words. I really can't comprehend anyone with more than a pinch of intellect seriously suggesting in this day and age that inherited position should count for more than merit.

Why?

She is, you may be surprised to be informed, popular amongst a considerable proportion of the populace, and would accrue the support of the nationalists amongst the working class.


the nationalists in britain are either, cymru, S.N.P or the separists in N.I none support conservatism, the S.N.P sure as hell wouldnt considering all the work Thatcher put into hiding documents that rpove Scotland could have become one of the strongest economies in Europe had it been independant in 1970's and 1980's

wait sorry forgot the Fascits B.N.P, but hell theyre only one step away form conservatives what does it matter right?

I think Portillo would have been best followed by Mrs. Thatcher or out of the four we were given Fox

[QUOTE=Socialism encourages mediocrity since it affords people the right to exist without working, and to work only to their limits, not to attempt to better themselves, whilst the notion of all earning their place in society is a fallacy, it is untenable, and personally, I see no reason why the rich should not remain rich, they are born to it.[/QUOTE]

I genuinly think this should be written down for future use in Quotes books or for future reference when arguing with neo-communists.:)

I genuinly think this should be written down for future use in Quotes books or for future reference when arguing with neo-communists.:)

Wow. I never knew some people would genuinely stand up and say they are actively against social mobility in this day and age.

Scotland could have become one of the strongest economies in Europe had it been independant in 1970's and 1980's

I think we both no thats not true. If you mean that Thatcher hadn't denationalised everything (Britain would be in the sorry position France and Germany are entering into now), the reforms she brought in where fair even if fair does not equal equality. If your talking about north sea oil then to be honest it should have been left to the free market and it was. During the 70s and 80s England went through a bad patch and scotland maybe suffered but thats part of being a single country, you support each other. At the moment, tax wise scotalnd takes more then it gives, but I don't mind because I know that Britain is a stronger country then England, and certainly scotland, ever could be. In my opinion Scottish nationalism is based on Scottish patriotism with arguments loosly strung together for an anti-scottish compiracy. It is dangerous because it will make are country more fragmented and is based on very little. So why do you insist on turn a thread on Tory leadership into somthing different?

Anybody else

I'm not a tory (thank god) but WIlliam Hague was the only tory ever to be electable. The others either have too much of a thatcherite era history (which we don't want, whatever Thatcherites say) ot just too oily.

Hauge seems like a decent chap and the rest simply aren't in his league.

I'm not a tory (thank god) but WIlliam Hague was the only tory ever to be electable. The others either have too much of a thatcherite era history (which we don't want, whatever Thatcherites say) ot just too oily.

Hauge seems like a decent chap and the rest simply aren't in his league.

Why don't you want the era of Thatcher again? She did alot to help the people of Great Britain.

sure she was unpopular but she did things that needed to be done and she deserves respect for doing what most politician wouldn't have had the guts to do.

Why don't you want the era of Thatcher again? She did alot to help the people of Great Britain.

Yeah. I'm sure those 3 million unemployed loved their time on the dole. Oh well - I suppose it must be their fault they were unemployed for being too lazy to get a job, right?

Look at Germans who haven't reformed, 5 million unemployment. I know Germany is a bigger country but still look at frnace with unemployment also high. Now Britain has reformed we have some of the lowest unemployment in Europe.

Look at Germans who haven't reformed, 5 million unemployment. I know Germany is a bigger country but still look at frnace with unemployment also high. Now Britain has reformed we have some of the lowest unemployment in Europe.

And you automatically assume that is solely because of Thatcher? Maybe it has something to do with that filthy socialist Gordon Brown and his prudent management of the economy?

filthy socialist Gordon Brown and his prudent management of the economy?

Gordon Brown is just another spend, spend Labour chancellor. He has inherited a good economy from the conservatives that was in growth ( apart from the whole ERM thing...) he hasn ot managed to ruin it but he not that good a chancellor. Britains Economy is slowing down (cause of oil prices and the Eurozone) and he's borrowed so much from the IMF (money "invested" in bureaucrats) that he will have to hike prices. Soon Britain will be in techical ressession and it Golden Gordon's spending. Any fool could see the price of oil was going to rise.

Yeah. I'm sure those 3 million unemployed loved their time on the dole. Oh well - I suppose it must be their fault they were unemployed for being too lazy to get a job, right?

Are you truly that blinded by your adherence to the left that you fail to percieve that the unemployed in Thatcher's tenure were inevitable, she merely possessed the will to oppose the unions and ensure the future of British industry in some form.

Maybe it has something to do with that filthy socialist Gordon Brown and his prudent management of the economy?

No more boom and bust indeed.... shock horror, the econcomy is reducing in its health, a recession is albeit inexorable, yet the lower classes still blindly cling to labour...

I'm sure some of you know, but for those who don't: Question Time, today, BBC1, 10.35pm - live debate between David Cameron and David Davis. Not sure if it'll be on in Scotland.

A *lot* more public money is stolen through tax fraud than benefit cheaters. But, of course, that doesn't matter does it?


When Mrs Thatcher slashed the tax rate in 1980, tax receipts increased hugely!

Flat tax rate (or at least aboloishing all loopholes) would prevent tax fraud, and would lead to an increase in tax receipts. But of course Labour would never allow this to happen as they couldn't pander to all their cronies.