NationStates Jolt Archive

Conservative party realises it is, in fact, better off without Blameron! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=QH1P32P2IRXHHQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/07/22/ntories422.xml)

I am well aware this might appear political suicide by the Conservative Party, however, I would suggest that, after Brown's resounding victory in both by-elections, and the undoubtedly greater popularity he holds over Cameron, a demagogue such as Cameron is the last thing the party needs. Well, that and I want to see the look on his face if he is usurped.

a handful of Conservative MPs have called for his resignation

I've no doubt that he's quivering in his bed tonight. :rolleyes:

You know, it always used to be said that the secret weapon of the Conservative Party was loyalty. Funny how they've become unelectable since the Tebbit brigade came along and threw that out the window.

In the picture in the article doesn't it look like he is serenading someone? Oh well I never thought Cameron would be good enough as Prime Minister, he was chosen for his looks not his experience.

To be fair Chris, it's only "a handful of Conservative MPs" that are calling for a vote of no confidence.

And how many (unsuccessful) votes of no confidence were called against Blair?

Then, it was the left wing of the party being disgruntled. Now it's the right wing of the Tories who are ticked off that Cameroon isn't calling for tougher immigration and the reinstatement of capital punishment.

To be fair Chris, it's only "a handful of Conservative MPs" that are calling for a vote of no confidence.

And how many (unsuccessful) votes of no confidence were called against Blair?

Then, it was the left wing of the party being disgruntled. Now it's the right wing of the Tories who are ticked off that Cameroon isn't calling for tougher immigration and the reinstatement of capital punishment.

"Handful of Tory Mp's" have had the balls to call for his resignation; the majority of Tory MP's not on Cameron's "A-list" loathe the man, his politics, and his style.

I don't see old Labour opposition to Blair to be of the same threat as Conservative opposition to Cameron; if Cameron does succeed in pissing off the majority of the right, he loses a good proportion of his funding and loans.

"Handful of Tory Mp's" have had the balls to call for his resignation; the majority of Tory MP's not on Cameron's "A-list" loathe the man, his politics, and his style.
A member of the 1922 Committee, are we? :p

I don't see old Labour opposition to Blair to be of the same threat as Conservative opposition to Cameron; if Cameron does succeed in pissing off the majority of the right, he loses a good proportion of his funding and loans.
And the Tories loose any chance of ever winning a General Election.

Actually, that's not a bad idea.....

And the Tories loose any chance of ever winning a General Election.

Actually, that's not a bad idea.....

I think the chances of the Conservatives ever winning a General Election are long gone. Like most, I thought that they would pick up again eventually, but these days I'm becoming more and more convinced that what we are actually witnessing is the slow and undignified death of the party.

I think the chances of the Conservatives ever winning a General Election are long gone. Like most, I thought that they would pick up again eventually, but these days I'm becoming more and more convinced that what we are actually witnessing is the slow and undignified death of the party.
I think TbC's objections indicate that the Tory Party is already dead.

What we have is the Not-Quite-'New'-Labour Party, with added intolerance!

I think TbC's objections indicate that the Tory Party is already dead.

What we have is the Not-Quite-'New'-Labour Party, with added intolerance!

The party has been 'on the verge of recovery' for ten years now, and has barely moved an inch in the polls. Every few years, they chuck out a new leader who is going to 'turn the party around' - this generally lasts for about six months. Then the polls and by-elections results come in, and show that the party has not only moved, it is often less popular than before.

Add to this the fact that the party is completely divided, and starts to tear itself to shreds the second there is a bad result (and, let's be honest, there are a lot of them), I really don't see how it will ever recover.

People just don't like the Tories, and, as hard as it may be for the party to accept, I think that really is a fact. It has stayed at rock bottom for all this time, being propped up by the old guard. In all honesty, though, they will be dead within a decade, and the party will be gone.

People just don't like the Tories, and, as hard as it may be for the party to accept, I think that really is a fact. It has stayed at rock bottom for all this time, being propped up by the old guard. In all honesty, though, they will be dead within a decade, and the party will be gone.
Exactly.

The only way the Tories will win is if (like Cameron has been paying lip service to) the Tories stop being the Tories. But the Women's Institute, the 1922 Committee and several other remnants of the twentieth century won't have any of it.

The party has been 'on the verge of recovery' for ten years now, and has barely moved an inch in the polls. Every few years, they chuck out a new leader who is going to 'turn the party around' - this generally lasts for about six months. Then the polls and by-elections results come in, and show that the party has not only moved, it is often less popular than before.

Add to this the fact that the party is completely divided, and starts to tear itself to shreds the second there is a bad result (and, let's be honest, there are a lot of them), I really don't see how it will ever recover.

People just don't like the Tories, and, as hard as it may be for the party to accept, I think that really is a fact. It has stayed at rock bottom for all this time, being propped up by the old guard. In all honesty, though, they will be dead within a decade, and the party will be gone.

I would suggest New Labour might find much the same, as will the Lib Dems. Much as it is depressing, the British electorate simply do not seem to much care for politics provided they are in a reasonable economic state, hence, as long as such a situation continues, politics in the UK will die.

The party has been 'on the verge of recovery' for ten years now, and has barely moved an inch in the polls. Every few years, they chuck out a new leader who is going to 'turn the party around' - this generally lasts for about six months. Then the polls and by-elections results come in, and show that the party has not only moved, it is often less popular than before.

Add to this the fact that the party is completely divided, and starts to tear itself to shreds the second there is a bad result (and, let's be honest, there are a lot of them), I really don't see how it will ever recover.

People just don't like the Tories, and, as hard as it may be for the party to accept, I think that really is a fact. It has stayed at rock bottom for all this time, being propped up by the old guard. In all honesty, though, they will be dead within a decade, and the party will be gone.

Wow. To quote Blackadder, that's moving as far as 'an asthmatic ant with some heavy shopping'

I would suggest New Labour might find much the same, as will the Lib Dems. Much as it is depressing, the British electorate simply do not seem to much care for politics provided they are in a reasonable economic state, hence, as long as such a situation continues, politics in the UK will die.

No, I don't think the others are the same at all. There is dislike for Labour, certainly, but I would say that is only the 'normal' dislike that you get when any party has been in power for a long time. For the Tories, it is different; the 80s polarised people to such an extent that people actively hate the party, and would never vote for it.

I can't see the Lib Dems ever getting themselves into power, to be honest, but I can't see the Tories doing it either. I think Labour will continue ticking over for at least the next election, not particularly liked, but still considered the lesser of the evils. Who will take power away from them? I don't know, but I think it is a long way away and may well be someone who isn't even on the political scene at the moment.

No, I don't think the others are the same at all. There is dislike for Labour, certainly, but I would say that is only the 'normal' dislike that you get when any party has been in power for a long time. For the Tories, it is different; the 80s polarised people to such an extent that people actively hate the party, and would never vote for it.

I can't see the Lib Dems ever getting themselves into power, to be honest, but I can't see the Tories doing it either. I think Labour will continue ticking over for at least the next election, not particularly liked, but still considered the lesser of the evils. Who will take power away from them? I don't know, but I think it is a long way away and may well be someone who isn't even on the political scene at the moment.


To be fair, the Conservative party did actually win the 2005 election in England.

It's only really the north where anti-conservatism is endemic, and frankly, given that New Labour has failed to improve the quality life for those disaffected by Thatcher, I see little reason to assume that the north will ever remain a Labour bastion.

To be fair, the Conservative party did actually win the 2005 election in England.

It's only really the north where anti-conservatism is endemic, and frankly, given that New Labour has failed to improve the quality life for those disaffected by Thatcher, I see little reason to assume that the north will ever remain a Labour bastion.

Sorry Chris I beg to differ. On a constituency basis this may be true, but there are still large groups of people within the south east that are still vehemently anti tory. An ezamle of this would be east london - left wing through and through and vehemently anti tory. Go to any sink estate and you'll find plenty of people still very anti-tory.

However, I do agree with you concerning general apathy, these same anti-tory people are now generally anti Labour as well.

Sorry Chris I beg to differ. On a constituency basis this may be true, but there are still large groups of people within the south east that are still vehemently anti tory. An ezamle of this would be east london - left wing through and through and vehemently anti tory. Go to any sink estate and you'll find plenty of people still very anti-tory.

However, I do agree with you concerning general apathy, these same anti-tory people are now generally anti Labour as well.

Large groups of people? Perhaps. However, they tend to be located in constituencies and areas of high population density, such as East London and other such urban areas, which limits their relevance to very few seats. To my knowledge, but for Ipswich, Norwich, and the strangely Lib Dem bastion of Colchester, the south-east is homgenously conservative,

Large groups of people? Perhaps. However, they tend to be located in constituencies and areas of high population density, such as East London and other such urban areas, which limits their relevance to very few seats. To my knowledge, but for Ipswich, Norwich, and the strangely Lib Dem bastion of Colchester, the south-east is homgenously conservative,

Like I said you are looking at a constituency basis. There are areas for example where I live in Kent where Labour councillors have been elected for the last 50 years - not enough to control a council or a constituency but certainly enough to refute your claim. In areas predominantly Labour the Tories just seem to disappear.

Some examples. Many people would say that Kent would be a solid true blue area, yet a quarter of the Counnty Councillors are Labour. Conversely, many would say Glasgow is solid labour - the Tories have less than 10% of the seats on the city council.

Large groups of people? Perhaps. However, they tend to be located in constituencies and areas of high population density, such as East London and other such urban areas, which limits their relevance to very few seats. To my knowledge, but for Ipswich, Norwich, and the strangely Lib Dem bastion of Colchester, the south-east is homgenously conservative,

From your example I assume you are excluding London from the south east?

From your example I assume you are excluding London from the south east?

I always felt London was, for economic demographic, ethnic and political purposes, was a region unto itself. It simply is not like East Anglia for the most part.

Like I said you are looking at a constituency basis. There are areas for example where I live in Kent where Labour councillors have been elected for the last 50 years - not enough to control a council or a constituency but certainly enough to refute your claim. In areas predominantly Labour the Tories just seem to disappear.

Some examples. Many people would say that Kent would be a solid true blue area, yet a quarter of the Counnty Councillors are Labour. Conversely, many would say Glasgow is solid labour - the Tories have less than 10% of the seats on the city council.

Kent and Glasgow should not be compared as equivalents. A prize shithole like Glasgow is unlikely to have much truck with a party extolling the virtues of a reduced welfare state, personal responsibility and the like. If you were able to provide a region similar to Kent in demographics, economic strength and settlement size, but traditionally "red", then the comparison would be apt.

In any case, Labour councillors do not equate to anything other than an anticipated amount of stereotypical "Labour voters" in any region. If one divides a constituency into individual council seats, irrespective of where said consituency is, areas of lower income, and hence areas likely to vote Labour, will always remain.

Kent and Glasgow should not be compared as equivalents. A prize shithole like Glasgow is unlikely to have much truck with a party extolling the virtues of a reduced welfare state, personal responsibility and the like. If you were able to provide a region similar to Kent in demographics, economic strength and settlement size, but traditionally "red", then the comparison would be apt.

In any case, Labour councillors do not equate to anything other than an anticipated amount of stereotypical "Labour voters" in any region. If one divides a constituency into individual council seats, irrespective of where said consituency is, areas of lower income, and hence areas likely to vote Labour, will always remain.

You said that the south east was homogenously conservative, I have given evidence that it is not.

I am not comparing Kent and Glasgow, I am trying to show you that in many predominantly conservative areas, there is still a significant amount of Labour support, but that in predominantly Labour areas, there is very little to no Tory support.

You said that the south east was homogenously conservative, I have given evidence that it is not.

I am not comparing Kent and Glasgow, I am trying to show you that in many predominantly conservative areas, there is still a significant amount of Labour support, but that in predominantly Labour areas, there is very little to no Tory support.

It is upon the plane that concerns me; parliament.

I quite agree regarding the nature of conservative and labour heartlands; however, it is more a reflection of the nature of the appeal of the two parties than of their reputation; in a predominantly low income area, there is less likelihood of a profusion of higher income households than there is a profusion of low income households in "middle England".

It is upon the plane that concerns me; parliament.

I quite agree regarding the nature of conservative and labour heartlands; however, it is more a reflection of the nature of the appeal of the two parties than of their reputation; in a predominantly low income area, there is less likelihood of a profusion of higher income households than there is a profusion of low income households in "middle England".

Again i have to disagree. I no longer think that income is a major indicator in voting behaviour. Some tory MPs represent very poor constituencies in Birmingham and london and the converse applies for Labour - I would hardly describe Islington as poor.

Again i have to disagree. I no longer think that income is a major indicator in voting behaviour. Some tory MPs represent very poor constituencies in Birmingham and london and the converse applies for Labour - I would hardly describe Islington as poor.

Poor income constituencies in Birmingham= constituencies with high proportions of ethnic voters disaffected by Labour foreign policy and reticent to vote for a party likely to heavily tax whatever money they make for self-advancement.

It really is that simple in regard to such constituencies, whilst, once more, London is an anomoly. Being rather more cosmopolitan, Guardian readery (it's late, I'm tired, and that was the best adjective my poor brain can muster) and progressive than rural "middle class" areas, London should not be equated to other areas of the country.

Poor income constituencies in Birmingham= constituencies with high proportions of ethnic voters disaffected by Labour foreign policy and reticent to vote for a party likely to heavily tax whatever money they make for self-advancement.

It really is that simple in regard to such constituencies, whilst, once more, London is an anomoly. Being rather more cosmopolitan, Guardian readery (it's late, I'm tired, and that was the best adjective my poor brain can muster) and progressive than rural "middle class" areas, London should not be equated to other areas of the country.

Well at least we agree about apathy.

Apathy truly worries me in this country. I beleive we will see a sharp rise in the vote for extremist parties at the next General Elections because of this. Never thought I'd say it, but thank god for first past the post.

PS - is it me or has this been a very civilised discussion for both of us?

Well at least we agree about apathy.

Apathy truly worries me in this country. I beleive we will see a sharp rise in the vote for extremist parties at the next General Elections because of this. Never thought I'd say it, but thank god for first past the post.

PS - is it me or has this been a very civilised discussion for both of us?

Bloody hell it has. POO HEAD!:D

Provided the BNP and Respect don't become powerful (once more, First past the post actually has a plus side:eek:), extremist parties shouldn't be of great concern. God I hope we finally get a Monster Raving Loony MP soon...

Bloody hell it has. POO HEAD!:D

Provided the BNP and Respect don't become powerful (once more, First past the post actually has a plus side:eek:), extremist parties shouldn't be of great concern. God I hope we finally get a Monster Raving Loony MP soon...

Now that would be fun. There was a ctually a Loony mayor of Sheerness down here in Kent once. (If you've ever been to Sheerness you would know why, it is on the Isle of Sheppey, affectionately known as "Incest Island")

another one bites the dust.


me and my friend were trying to remember the name of the last conservative 'leader'. the one that looked like a vampire who came after ian and duncan smith. i remember him being very anti immigration despite being of albanian heritage or something. but i can't for the life of me remember the blighter's name. anyone?

Kent and Glasgow should not be compared as equivalents. A prize shithole like Glasgow is unlikely to have much truck with a party extolling the virtues of a reduced welfare state, personal responsibility and the like. If you were able to provide a region similar to Kent in demographics, economic strength and settlement size, but traditionally "red", then the comparison would be apt.

In any case, Labour councillors do not equate to anything other than an anticipated amount of stereotypical "Labour voters" in any region. If one divides a constituency into individual council seats, irrespective of where said consituency is, areas of lower income, and hence areas likely to vote Labour, will always remain.

i'd like to see you come up here and say that about glasgow. i'd even pay.

another one bites the dust.


me and my friend were trying to remember the name of the last conservative 'leader'. the one that looked like a vampire who came after ian and duncan smith. i remember him being very anti immigration despite being of albanian heritage or something. but i can't for the life of me remember the blighter's name. anyone?

Something Howard?