NationStates Jolt Archive

He seems a canny political operator ,Dave Cameron, first he splits the Labour Party by siding with Tony Blair in the house of commons and now appears to being trying some splitting tactics between the Lib Dems, at a time when Charles Kennedy faces problems of his own. Cameron's Liberal streak is beginning to show through. More concerned with Green Politics and Liberal economics then his predecessor Cameron is openly calling for lib dems to join his "New Compassionate Conservative Party" and to form a Liberal Conservative Britain. This kind of language is bound to appeal to Lib Dem Party members from the Liberal Party Tradition, which the Tories are increasingly beginning to look like. Its a sign in which direction Cameron is taking the conservatives.

NB. In British vocabulary "Liberal" has a different meaning. It has no Left-wing meaning really but refers freedom e.g Liberalising drinking laws or free trade economics. Conservative with a capital C refers to the Conservative party and with a little c refers to the ideology of conservatism in things like law and order or defence. The Seperation of Church and state is not an argument in Britain or in europe generally. So it is posibile to be conservative and Liberal in theory without any contradicition.

www.libdems4cameron.com

its true check out the website...

He seems a canny political operator ,Dave Cameron, first he splits the Labour Party by siding with Tony Blair in the house of commons and now appears to being trying some splitting tactics between the Lib Dems, at a time when Charles Kennedy faces problems of his own. Cameron's Liberal streak is beginning to show through. More concerned with Green Politics and Liberal economics then his predecessor Cameron is openly calling for lib dems to join his "New Compassionate Conservative Party" and to form a Liberal Conservative Britain. This kind of language is bound to appeal to Lib Dem Party members from the Liberal Party Tradition, which the Tories are increasingly beginning to look like. Its a sign in which direction Cameron is taking the conservatives.
But why would a person who's already in a party devoted to liberalism want to move to a party which has a mixture of liberalism and illiberalism, just because the present leader leans towards liberalism?

If David Cameron is truly a liberal, why doesn't he join the LibDems, instead of trying to move his party into a niche which is already occupied?

If David Cameron is truly a liberal, why doesn't he join the LibDems, instead of trying to move his party into a niche which is already occupied?
Because the chances of the LibDems getting into power are quite low.

If David Cameron is truly a liberal, why doesn't he join the LibDems, instead of trying to move his party into a niche which is already occupied?

Because the lib dems, to be fair, are incompetant and he may not agree with the left wing SDP influence 50% income tax etc.

Because the chances of the LibDems getting into power are quite low.

Looking at the three main parties right now I would be tempted to say that the chances of any of them getting into power (or holding onto it) at the next election are quite low. I see the next election as giving us a party in power who are only put there begrudgingly.

He seems a canny political operator ,Dave Cameron, first he splits the Labour Party by siding with Tony Blair in the house of commons and now appears to being trying some splitting tactics between the Lib Dems, at a time when Charles Kennedy faces problems of his own. Cameron's Liberal streak is beginning to show through. More concerned with Green Politics and Liberal economics then his predecessor Cameron is openly calling for lib dems to join his "New Compassionate Conservative Party" and to form a Liberal Conservative Britain. This kind of language is bound to appeal to Lib Dem Party members from the Liberal Party Tradition, which the Tories are increasingly beginning to look like. Its a sign in which direction Cameron is taking the conservatives.

NB. In British vocabulary "Liberal" has a different meaning. It has no Left-wing meaning really but refers freedom e.g Liberalising drinking laws or free trade economics. Conservative with a capital C refers to the Conservative party and with a little c refers to the ideology of conservatism in things like law and order or defence. The Seperation of Church and state is not an argument in Britain or in europe generally. So it is posibile to be conservative and Liberal in theory without any contradicition.


I can see a minor lib dem split - a few MPs _might_, concievably, cross to the tories if Kennedy divides his party and Cameron play his cards right. Whether or not they'd stay, or whether this would be a serious split or just a few malcontents, is another matter that you can't predict.

However, Lb demss... a party that is itself an umbrella organisation, only recently formed in its current role, losing its impetous at a time when their rivals the tories are gaining theirs and repositioning themselves in the centre... yes, you can see the potential for a split.

luckily the chances of cameron being prime minister are also quite low. they will diminish further when Bliar goes - soon hopefully. the only notable item in cameron's CV is his involvement in the 80s 'black wednesday' fiasco where the tories had different interest rates in the morning at lunchtime and in the afternoon and speculators trousered uncounted billions of UK tax payers hard-earned.

I believe Labour, including Gordon Brown supported the ERM beforehand.

luckily the chances of cameron being prime minister are also quite low. they will diminish further when Bliar goes - soon hopefully. the only notable item in cameron's CV is his involvement in the 80s 'black wednesday' fiasco where the tories had different interest rates in the morning at lunchtime and in the afternoon and speculators trousered uncounted billions of UK tax payers hard-earned.

I dunno... I'm no betting man, but Gordon Brown would inherit a party that had been in power for... what, more than 10 years? That's a lot of time to get stale and alienate the voters. By 2008, it'll have been nearly 30 years since there was a left wing govt. of any description - will the voters accept him - the history of British politics since the early 90s is a fight for the centre, not the extremes, and Cameron's better placed to win the centre than Brown.

I would think Brown could inherit the leadership, rather like John Major, and win an election shortly after in the honeymoon period - like Major! After that, though, all bets are off - up to 15 years in power...? I wouldn't bet on the conservatives and cameron not winning power from a tired, over-familiar Brownian labour party.

Elgesh']I
I would think Brown could inherit the leadership, rather like John Major, and win an election shortly after in the honeymoon period - like Major! After that, though, all bets are off - up to 15 years in power...? I wouldn't bet on the conservatives and cameron not winning power from a tired, over-familiar Brownian labour party.

I think the Blair-Thatcher, Brown-Major relation is a close parrelel ignoring that if Major had been as obvious a threat to Thatcher as Blair is to Brown then Major would have found himself quickly pushed out of government, or into the Lords or sent to Europe or otherwise neutered in some way.

I think your generally principle is right. A Brown as premier would send a note of optimism (for some, foolish, foolish people) that might get Labour re-elected but that would need to be shortly before an election to stop the Brown Government cocking up in some way or the public getting bored with them.

I think the Blair-Thatcher, Brown-Major relation is a close parrelel ignoring that if Major had been as obvious a threat to Thatcher as Blair is to Brown then Major would has found himself quickly pushed out of government, or into the Lords or sent to Europe or otherwise neutered in some way.

Probably fair for the point under discussion (not _all_ aspects are analogous, though, obvoiusly!).

No, I think Cameron could well do a Blair and topple a tired old govt. the public's bored with (if labour lets itself be portrayed that way... and infighting and the same old faces being let back into govt. after disgracing themselves doesn't help their cause one bit...:rolleyes: ), this coming election or (more likely) the one after.

Do you think if the "Liberal Party" faction joined with the conservatives that they couls beat Labour in the next election?

I think few LibDems believe him - I know I don't. Even if Cameron wanted to drag his party to the centre, I don't think he has much chance of success - he may claim the mandate of the membership, but that isn't going to stop the right of the party resisting change.

Do you think if the "Liberal Party" faction joined with the conservatives that they couls beat Labour in the next election?

I don't think they'll join. I think some MPs might, and it'll divide the LibDems enough for the tories to capitalise by weakening the Libdems at the party level, while making it look to voters as though its a Libdem problem, nothing to do with that nice Mr Cameron and his party... Simultaneously, seeing that some libdems go for cameron will attract undecided voters who worry about voting tory on principle.

I should add that as long as a good centrist party rules us, I'm not too bothered who gets in - avoid the extremes and we're laughing!. Social liberialism is something of a dealbreaker, and the concept of govt. letting people live their lifes as they choose as far as possible is also important. The only thing that'd _make_ me vote for a certain party would be if some really important issue came up and 1 party really captured my view on it; something like a war, or similar.

Do you think if the "Liberal Party" faction joined with the conservatives that they couls beat Labour in the next election?


:rolleyes: Labour only has 35% of the vote at the moment so I would think so.

35% of the votes doesn't mean 35% of seats. Thats one area Lib Dems and Tories differ. Proporsional representation, I don't agree, having 5% or so Mps BNP doesn't appeal to me.

35% of the votes doesn't mean 35% of seats. Thats one area Lib Dems and Tories differ. Proporsional representation, I don't agree, having 5% or so Mps BNP doesn't appeal to me.

ah, but if you were for example to add the cons and libs in every seat together Labour would have litterally like 20 seats. Not that that will happen but if Libs vote Torrie then % will turn to seats.

ah, but if you were for example to add the cons and libs in every seat together Labour would have litterally like 20 seats. Not that that will happen but if Libs vote Torrie then % will turn to seats.

If Charles Kennedy remains leader, I predict that the Lib Dems will lose many seats to the Tories in 2009, enough to cause the party to convulse, and probably make a decisive shift to the left.

Elgesh']I don't think they'll join. I think some MPs might, and it'll divide the LibDems enough for the tories to capitalise by weakening the Libdems at the party level, while making it look to voters as though its a Libdem problem, nothing to do with that nice Mr Cameron and his party... Simultaneously, seeing that some libdems go for cameron will attract undecided voters who worry about voting tory on principle.

I should add that as long as a good centrist party rules us, I'm not too bothered who gets in - avoid the extremes and we're laughing!. Social liberialism is something of a dealbreaker, and the concept of govt. letting people live their lifes as they choose as far as possible is also important. The only thing that'd _make_ me vote for a certain party would be if some really important issue came up and 1 party really captured my view on it; something like a war, or similar.

David Cameron is NOT a centrist, not even centre-right. His economic policies recall the right-wing radicalism of Thatcher.

What is this guy's stance on the EU? That's really the only thing that matters to me...because with Schröder gone, and Chirac gone in a few months...this guy might make all the difference.

What is this guy's stance on the EU? That's really the only thing that matters to me...because with Schröder gone, and Chirac gone in a few months...this guy might make all the difference.

He's not a huge fan I believe. I think he's planning to withdraw the conservative MEPs from the EPP and ally then with the more euroskeptic blocs.

Meh. The UK was ripped over the rebate anyway.

What is this guy's stance on the EU? That's really the only thing that matters to me...because with Schröder gone, and Chirac gone in a few months...this guy might make all the difference.

He wants to withdraw from the EPP (the main centre-right grouping in the European Parliament) because it advocates further integration.

David Cameron is NOT a centrist, not even centre-right. His economic policies recall the right-wing radicalism of Thatcher.
Our twin aims as a party in advancing these propositions over the next four years should be to restore our reputation for economic competence, and to demonstrate that we are in this for everybody – not just the rich.

A new generation of concerned citizens want prosperity for themselves and progress for the poor – whether living on the other side of the street, or on the other side of the world.Apparently he plans to do this through the classical liberal ethos of the free market, free trade, the rule of law, honest government, sound finances, economic progress and social advancement. I would certainly be dubious about how he plans to do these things in this manner, but I don't see anything hugely reactionary in the rhetoric. It is probably a load of old tosh, but I haven't seen much evidence that Bliar and Kennedy (and everyone else, for that matter) are especially genuine either.

Source: http://www.politics.co.uk/singleitemandlistpage.aspx?menuindex=430018446&itemid=15085520