NationStates Jolt Archive

Before reading the rest of my post, I urge you to read this Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/02/ncam02.xml). It allocates space to his statements roughly proportional to the amount of space they took up in the actual interview, rather than focusing entirely on his attack on Brown which seems to have taken over most of the mass media's reporting (eg. the BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4572776.stm) which has allocated about 45% of its article to the Brown stuff).

As a Tory, Im more worried about the rest of the stuff he said rather than the passing (and probably accurate) remarks on Brown. Cameron appears to have completely abandoned the libertarian-capitalist ground I thought he was going to take, with quite sensible policies like the NHS passport scheme. Instead, he's decided to go social-democrat and say that NHS will remain unchanged (from my perspective, Blair's NHS proposals are better than what Cameron has promised although I dont know if they'll survive the transition to Brown) and then come out with a lot of Left wing rhetoric attacking business and saying that reforms to the NHS would only benefit the rich.

Well let us take the patient passport scheme. It's offering people the cost of their operation to go private. Is this benefitting the rich? Well, yes. People who can afford to top up the voucher with their own money can jump the queue. Is this at the expense of those who cant afford? Frankly, no. The NHS is spending no more than it would have done, but patient passport frees up beds that those who were going to have their operations done on the NHS no longer need. So waiting lists shorten and the poor actually benefit. Sure, they dont benefit as much, but they havent put any money up either. No one loses out under patient passport and everyone gains.

But I digress. I didnt post this to defend patient passport, although I think it's an excellent scheme with far more merit that anything Labour has come out with, and it has been barely publicised and explained even during the election when it was the crux of the Tory health manifesto. What Im worried about is the the tack that Cameron is taking. What I think he should have done is:

1) Set out a libertarian capitalist manifesto with moderate proposals like patient passport that dont heavily affect the way the NHS and other services work and dont disadvantage anyone.

2) Ditch all the rubbish about beating up asylum seekers and general social right wing rubbish.

3) Use Cameron's youthfulness and popularity to get people to listen to and trust the Tories in their policies which are actually quite valid.

What he has done instead is completely rule things out and gone completely Social Democrat. Now, I dont honestly think that these are his actual views, but I dont think he can get out of anything he's said right now. Either he doesnt try, and we end up with essentially Labour or further left, or he does try and no one trusts him, leading to him being voted out after just 4 years, and we get about 8 - 12 years of destructive socialism.

To be honest, as a Tory, looking at what Cameron has promised as so far, I am seriously considering look at what Brown has to offer. I dont feel enthused by this, I feel extremely disappointed. There is more to politics than winning an election - there's what you do with it too.

Note: This is not a thread for attacking the patient passport policy, or debating socialism vs capitalism, but for discussing the Tory party.

So the Tories finally realised Thatcher isn't God Incarnate eh?

Good luck with that one...

It is for reasons of policy entirely that I would have elected Davis or Fox as leader in precedence to cameron.

Haha, I love the way Cameron is pretty much imitating New Labour. Though I hate the way New Labour is pretty much Tory anyway.

I think I shall join the Labour Party in the hope that one day I can help take it back to how it should be :P

I don't mind the "battle between the middle right" but I guess thats because I like a lot of what they're both saying. Cameron looks very good to me.

The debate on cameron is irrelevant, I remember what the tory's did to the country in the 80's and 90's especially the parts of it that didn't vote tory.

So while i still draw breath there will NEVER EVER EVER be another Tory government!

Haha, I love the way Cameron is pretty much imitating New Labour. Though I hate the way New Labour is pretty much Tory anyway.
It really isnt.

I think I shall join the Labour Party in the hope that one day I can help take it back to how it should be :P
Hears to that! You'll finish the damn thing off once and for all.

I don't mind the "battle between the middle right" but I guess thats because I like a lot of what they're both saying. Cameron looks very good to me.
Meh. What Brown is doing right now is utterly stupid - he's tripled spending on the NHS since 1997 and yet hospitals are closing. Where is this money going? Bureaucracy. It's going on creating jobs which boosts the economy in the short term but ruins it in the long term. I really dont understand the obsession we have with the health service - you'd think we were all ill all the time - a privatised system with government-funded insurance for the poor would be a much better system, with much less bureaucracy and use of the health service for political gain.

The debate on cameron is irrelevant, I remember what the tory's did to the country in the 80's and 90's especially the parts of it that didn't vote tory.

So while i still draw breath there will NEVER EVER EVER be another Tory government!
This kind of view is silly, dogmatic and completely defeats the object of democracy. Sadly, it's common in Britain.

I carry no torch for the tories and don't know anyone who does (living in scotland :D), but Cameron's not repellent, weird, a snot, or a non-entity. He's giving the Tories a human face, acceptable policies, a new direction, and good copy at a time when the Labout party's looking old, tired, and fractious.

If I was a tory I'd be delighted.

Political parties have to move with the times and desires of the people they represent. At the moment, people in Britain want a centre~right party with a 'let's-be-nice-to-poor-people' figleaf. Cameron's tories could easily fit the bill. In another generation, perhaps things will be different, and people ill want a more left wing or a more right wing government - then the parties will have to compete on those grounds.

As a political party, you have to compete on the pitch that the public gives you :) Tories are placing themselves well, sensibly, and acting shrewdly at the moment.

Before reading the rest of my post, I urge you to read this Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/02/ncam02.xml). It allocates space to his statements roughly proportional to the amount of space they took up in the actual interview, rather than focusing entirely on his attack on Brown which seems to have taken over most of the mass media's reporting (eg. the BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4572776.stm) which has allocated about 45% of its article to the Brown stuff).

As a Tory, Im more worried about the rest of the stuff he said rather than the passing (and probably accurate) remarks on Brown. Cameron appears to have completely abandoned the libertarian-capitalist ground I thought he was going to take, with quite sensible policies like the NHS passport scheme. Instead, he's decided to go social-democrat and say that NHS will remain unchanged (from my perspective, Blair's NHS proposals are better than what Cameron has promised although I dont know if they'll survive the transition to Brown) and then come out with a lot of Left wing rhetoric attacking business and saying that reforms to the NHS would only benefit the rich.

Well let us take the patient passport scheme. It's offering people the cost of their operation to go private. Is this benefitting the rich? Well, yes. People who can afford to top up the voucher with their own money can jump the queue. Is this at the expense of those who cant afford? Frankly, no. The NHS is spending no more than it would have done, but patient passport frees up beds that those who were going to have their operations done on the NHS no longer need. So waiting lists shorten and the poor actually benefit. Sure, they dont benefit as much, but they havent put any money up either. No one loses out under patient passport and everyone gains.

But I digress. I didnt post this to defend patient passport, although I think it's an excellent scheme with far more merit that anything Labour has come out with, and it has been barely publicised and explained even during the election when it was the crux of the Tory health manifesto. What Im worried about is the the tack that Cameron is taking. What I think he should have done is:

1) Set out a libertarian capitalist manifesto with moderate proposals like patient passport that dont heavily affect the way the NHS and other services work and dont disadvantage anyone.

2) Ditch all the rubbish about beating up asylum seekers and general social right wing rubbish.

3) Use Cameron's youthfulness and popularity to get people to listen to and trust the Tories in their policies which are actually quite valid.

What he has done instead is completely rule things out and gone completely Social Democrat. Now, I dont honestly think that these are his actual views, but I dont think he can get out of anything he's said right now. Either he doesnt try, and we end up with essentially Labour or further left, or he does try and no one trusts him, leading to him being voted out after just 4 years, and we get about 8 - 12 years of destructive socialism.

To be honest, as a Tory, looking at what Cameron has promised as so far, I am seriously considering look at what Brown has to offer. I dont feel enthused by this, I feel extremely disappointed. There is more to politics than winning an election - there's what you do with it too.

Note: This is not a thread for attacking the patient passport policy, or debating socialism vs capitalism, but for discussing the Tory party.

As a Liberal Democrat who is more liberal than social democrat I largely agree with you.

Elgesh']Political parties have to move with the times and desires of the people they represent. At the moment, people in Britain want a centre~right party with a 'let's-be-nice-to-poor-people' figleaf. Cameron's tories could easily fit the bill.
I would agree with this, but Cameron's party is not centre-right anymore; it could even be considered further left than Labour. There are plenty of ways, like the patient passport scheme, that you can make the health system, Etc. more competitive and market-based without disadvantaging the poor. What Cameron seems to be edging to is a public NHS but with loads of bits of it contracted out to private companies, which is what Blair has been doing, and it has proved to be pretty awful in the past - look at Railtrack - because there is no real competition in the system, just an illusion of competition. No one can choose between different providers, the government can jsut swap them all around every few years if they get too many complaints. It's a socialist's approach to the free market, it's utterly dire and it will fail.

I can't claim to know much more than the barest basics about the political parties in the U.K., but the way I read the Telegraph piece, it's just an effort to reach out to those in the political centre rather than a full-on repudiation of the Tories' main tenets.

If that is the case, it's no different from people in both main U.S. parties playing to the centre rather than to their respective extreme wings. If Bush had ignored the centre and pandered solely to the right during election years, someone else would have been President. If Clinton hadn't appealed to the centre, he wouldn't have been President.

On some level, I think Cameron is right to distance himself somewhat from Lady Thatcher, though I doubt anyone in the Republican party who isn't a centrist would be as quick to distance themselves from Reagan.

This kind of view is silly, dogmatic and completely defeats the object of democracy. Sadly, it's common in Britain.

I'm not holding someones head under water and forcing them not to vote tory (although now the idea has hit me.....)

What defeats the object of democracy is where only two parties are able to win an elected majority (and thus in the UK control the house of commons) and they are both arguing over doing the same thing by the same means on a very small number of issues.

HOWEVER
I'm not sure whether the kind of pr (or half arsed pr) system that is in place at Holyrood would be good for a national parliament (even though it would mean no more tory governments yeah!).

The Tories put power before what was right for the country when I was very young and I don't trust them not to do it again and thus undo all the repairing and regrowing that every city outside of london and the sout east of england has managed to do over the last ten years.

I don't belive the tories care about me and the issues I worry about they are clearly only intrested in power for powers sake and thats the LAST kind of person you want in government.

I vote lib dem and i guess would be classed as quite left wing wing so it did seem strange to find my self feeling rather sympathetic towards cameron. It seems I am not alone http://www.libdems4cameron.com/.

Its a bit strange. I dont quite get why hes talking like this and I also get the immpression that its not what he really thinks. I think hes trying to get support from all the people who feel disillusioned by labour or dont believe lib dem will ever have a chance. thats a lot of potential votes.

anyway, i think i'll stick with lib dem!I wont be dismissing the tories for what thatcher did, I just dont believe that man can or even intends to majorly change the whole direction of the party!

It is for reasons of policy entirely that I would have elected Davis or Fox as leader in precedence to cameron.

If only Fox had got through to the last round...

I would almost certainly have voted for him. I did vote for Cameron, but every day I feel more and more regret.

The debate on cameron is irrelevant, I remember what the tory's did to the country in the 80's and 90's especially the parts of it that didn't vote tory.

So while i still draw breath there will NEVER EVER EVER be another Tory government!

Many in Canada said the same thing.

Thank Jebus they were wrong.

What do Most of you think about Tony Blair and when will Mr. Brown take power?

Labour - Laughing its ass off because they are in fact Right-Wing
LibDems-Crying because they will never ever ever win
Conservatives-Biting hands because the new generation has NO tories.

Basically... Either a party will emerge to fill the power Vacuum that Conservatives will leave, or we get a 1 party state :)
Dont say Liberals will fill the gap because you cant honestly believe that

I'm not holding someones head under water and forcing them not to vote tory (although now the idea has hit me.....)

What defeats the object of democracy is where only two parties are able to win an elected majority (and thus in the UK control the house of commons) and they are both arguing over doing the same thing by the same means on a very small number of issues.

HOWEVER
I'm not sure whether the kind of pr (or half arsed pr) system that is in place at Holyrood would be good for a national parliament (even though it would mean no more tory governments yeah!).
Actually if we had had PR at the last election the Tories would have ended up with far more seats. The problem with PR is you end up with lots and lots of weak governments controlled by small parties allying the bigger ones and nothing ever gets dont. It might be more democratic but I dont think it's best for the country.

The Tories put power before what was right for the country when I was very young and I don't trust them not to do it again and thus undo all the repairing and regrowing that every city outside of london and the sout east of england has managed to do over the last ten years.

I don't belive the tories care about me and the issues I worry about they are clearly only intrested in power for powers sake and thats the LAST kind of person you want in government.
Did they? This is news to me. In what way did they "put power before what was right for the country"?

Dont say Liberals will fill the gap because you cant honestly believe that

Who is there new leader now Kennedy is gone?

Labour - Laughing its ass off because they are in fact Right-Wing
LibDems-Crying because they will never ever ever win
Conservatives-Biting hands because the new generation has NO tories.

Basically... Either a party will emerge to fill the power Vacuum that Conservatives will leave, or we get a 1 party state :)
Dont say Liberals will fill the gap because you cant honestly believe that

What about the British National Party?

What about the British National Party?

will the Minorities will vote for them?

I don't think so

What about the United Kingdom Independance Party they are the third biggest but they don't advertise!

will the Minorities will vote for them?

I don't think so

C'mon, give them one majority.

It could be very amusing.

I used to live in a town called boston in Linconshire they could of had Boston and skegness if it wasnt for less than 1000 votes so i heard!

What about the United Kingdom Independance Party they are the third biggest but they don't advertise!

Kilroy f*cked them for the next decade.

So Do you really think that the BNP could Recover after the Court Trial of there leader?

Labour - Laughing its ass off because they are in fact Right-Wing
LibDems-Crying because they will never ever ever win
Conservatives-Biting hands because the new generation has NO tories.

Basically... Either a party will emerge to fill the power Vacuum that Conservatives will leave, or we get a 1 party state :)
Dont say Liberals will fill the gap because you cant honestly believe that

The liberals may not win the election, but but they have enough pull to effect the outcome for the other partys. What we may end up with is a parlemnt with no absolute majority (ie. more libDems than there diffence between conservative and labour seats), which would be very intresting.

BNP as a political majority party ... :(
It WOULD present a good reason to vote INTELLECTUAL SOCIALIST on the ballots 2016 in wales, 2020 in Britain.

We stand for...
Lower MP wages
International-Corportation Tax
Small Buisness Subsidy-Paid by Corporation Tax
Average Wage rise
NO PRIVATE HEALTHCARE OR SCHOOLIN!!
Burning Chavs
Drooling over hot emo's :)

The liberals may not win the election, but but they have enough pull to effect the outcome for the other partys. What we may end up with is a parlemnt with no absolute majority (ie. more libDems than there diffence between conservative and labour seats), which would be very intresting.
Isnt that called a Hung Parliament?

Cameron is the leader of the wrong party. He should be the Lib Dem leader. And he'd get my vote if he was.

Cameron is the leader of the wrong party. He should be the Lib Dem leader. And he'd get my vote if he was.

Seconded :)

Cameron is the leader of the wrong party. He should be the Lib Dem leader. And he'd get my vote if he was.

Then visit www.libdems4cameron.com

But don't visit www.libdems4cameron.co.uk

Its written by Lid Dems in reponse and seems to think that they have always had an exclusive monopoly on the Environment and quickly reduces into lots of "Remember Iraq, Remember Iraq!" type arguments

Then visit www.libdems4cameron.com

But don't visit www.libdems4cameron.co.uk

Its written by Lid Dems in reponse and seems to think that they have always had an exclusive monopoly on the Environment and quickly reduces into lots of "Remember Iraq, Remember Iraq!" type arguments

Could there be a possible Merger "The Conservative Liberal Democrats" or Con\Lib Dem!

Could there be a possible Merger "The Conservative Liberal Democrats" or Con\Lib Dem!

That would fry the circuits of any American politcal commentator.

That would fry the circuits of any American politcal commentator.

:D

If there was a merger there would be some serious Trouble for Labour in almost all elections.

If there was a merger there would be some serious Trouble for Labour in almost all elections.

mmmm true although you'd have difficulty getting Lib Dems to agree. The Party would be largley Tory, its the bigger party, and most Lib Dems were suckled on Thatcher ate my Children stories

mmmm true although you'd have difficulty getting Lib Dems to agree. The Party would be largley Tory, its the bigger party, and most Lib Dems were suckled on Thatcher ate my Children stories

Poor fellows, political genius she was....:)

What he has done instead is completely rule things out and gone completely Social Democrat. Now, I dont honestly think that these are his actual views, but I dont think he can get out of anything he's said right now.


What i fear, and a lot of my friends fear is that Cammeron's disguising the Tory party, proposing radical (libdem) ideas, probably to mask the stigma around the Asylum Seekers (which the Torys concentrated so much on at election), as well as the old Thatcherite memories.

(We're all liberals, though - i'm extremely annoyed at the LibDem's for forcing Kennedy's resignation).

As you said, either what he proposes isn't what he truly believes in, or he does, just he's in the wrong party. Either way, they'll only support him and his proposals for as long as his young, charismatic, New Labour personality gains them the swing vote.

And in typical Labour/ Tory/ Some LibDem style he does so by attacking the other parties. Unfortunately our Political System sometimes lacks true substance.

In short - yeah... Cameron, please, please, please come join the Liberal Democrats?

As for the BNP, its not ONLY "minority" groups that would suffer:

Anyone who doesn't have 3 generations of british blood - ie: you, your parents, your grand parents face being deported. I don't think you can call people with irish blood Minorities. Nor do we want to loose the great british Stephen Fry.

IdealA2-dot-com - I agree with you, mostly. The asylum seeker stuff was rubbish they should have ditched ages ago, but Thatcher's party was really good - right wing economics, fairly liberal socially, pro-EU (but also pro-Britain in the EU) and no focussing on stupid pseudo-racism.

What about the United Kingdom Independance Party they are the third biggest but they don't advertise!
All they do is take votes off of Tory MPs and then lose anyway. Pointless. They should only stand in the Euro elections.