Politics yet again

[Sylvester 15]

What do you guys think (particularly Oli) of David Cameron?

I haven't read the updated manifesto of the Tory party lately but he sounds more like a Tory leader that's a bit more agreeable, especially as he's trying to shift the party to the centre ground. Certainly the Cons are now further left than Labour which is currently following a continuation of John Major's policies, with spin added for further effect.

Blair's government is still strong enough to win the next election as far as i'm concerned, however, i believe the longer it is fronted by Tony Blair the worse it's chances will become.

The Liberal Democrats are seemingly falling apart at the seems now that Charles Kennedy has gone, potential supporters switching to Lab or Con instead.

Looking at the opinion polls on the potential successor of the Government, Gordon Brown, it appears he's not that popular, less so than Blair. Which strikes me as odd as i'd be much happier with Brown running it than Blair.

I think we're going to see a real revolution in the political makeup of this country. If the Tories pick up Clause 4 (and some have considered it, they're that desperate to win), then it could be amusing. And they might even win.

[Geordie582 18]

As long as Labour has the Scots to keep them and they continue to tinker with the constitutional makeup of this country, I can't see us ever getting Labour out!

I also think that all the 'scandals' visited on the other parties are too convenient not to have been started by the left. Typical left tactics.

[burpalot 0]

aaaahhhhhhhhh don't forget about the green party

BURPALOT

[Emperor Oli 0]

What do you guys think (particularly Oli) of David Cameron?

Well I was in favour of him during the contest, but so far he's not living up to my expectations however I think he needs a while longer though to firmly pass judgement. The reason I've begun to dislike him is that he is shifting the party to the centre ground; not supporting grammar schools, abandoning the "Patient Passport" for the NHS and keeping tuition fees for heaven's sake. So far, there is nothing to choose between him and Tony Blair. I know that elections have to be won in the centre ground, but Cameron seems to be abandoning all the policies which were previously mainstays of a Tory government and sprinting for the left wing. I'm all for one nation Conservatism (which Cameron seems to be turning out as), but this is silly. By the by, there is no manifesto to read. Cameron has been dragging his feet and has no specific policies to date, just "Beliefs" and "Ideologies".

I thought it rather laughable that Simon Hughes predicts a Lib Dem landslide. They were bad enough before the election, but after the alcoholism and rent boy revelations, I can't see how they really can be a credible force in British politics. The Lib Dems dropped five percentage points in the Telegraph's YouGov poll to about 13% today.

And the day the Tories pick up Clause 4 is the day I stop supporting them. I presume you mean the Labour one at any rate. If the Conservatives can get their act together, they can go to town on this government's mishandling of the economy, failing of the NHS, failing of a generation of schoolchildren and failure to carry out half of its manifesto commitments.

[Jamesred 1]

As long as Labour has the Scots to keep them and they continue to tinker with the constitutional makeup of this country, I can't see us ever getting Labour out!

One day we will rule the WORLD!!!!

then again probobaly not.

[Geoff T 3]

David Cameron is hell bent on tearing up the Conservative election manifesto of 2005. And who was its prime author - David Cameron!

How desperate can you get?

G

[Sylvester 15]

They are getting real desperate.

The problem with the Tories is i love half of their traditional policies and i dislike the other half. Tory economic policies, 'privatisation' and favouring the rich is not my idea of economic handling. From a social level though; tough on crime, pro-death penalty, pro-corporal punishment and anti-Europe are exactly the things i'm going to vote for. To morals i say yes.

The Lib Dems (or rather the Liberals pre-88), well i used to like their economic policies, middle ground half socialist/half capitalist. I don't like nationalisation as i don't trust the government and it means income tax increases, likewise i dislike the private sector (as a deregulated body) because it means companies can get away with murder and monopolise and give not a care in the world for their customers/patients/passengers.

My ideal economic stance is one of government regulated privatism. I.e keep companies small, prevent monopolies and protect the consumer, but the government doesn't own anything they just keep companies in check. So it's regulated market. I suppose Blair's party has been trying this and i'm okay with the current government's economic policies. Their social policies though are far too left wing. I.E Political correctness, protecting criminals by giving them rights for heavens sake. That farmer that shot those intruders should have been given a medal not a prison sentence! The surviving lout that broke in should have been whipped in public.

I suppose we're both Conservatives Oli but we admire different eras of the party. From reading your posts i've always thought you a fan of the New Right, Thatcher etc. The big words being Privatisation, free market and low taxes.

You know my position on Thatcher, my opposition to her comes not because i'm anti-Tory but because i idealise a different Tory period altogether, with different policies (Baldwin/Chamberlain specifically). As MacMillan said Thatcher sold the family silver. Britain was a great powerful industrial nation because she was a producer, and could capitalise the market. So i always thought selling off all the heavy industry to cheaper foreign competition was going against her ideal of Victorian principles (i.e what made Britain self sufficient and the most powerful nation in the world). Sure the Unions needed crushing because they were causing havock in the 70s.

My priciple would have been to make everyone buy British, i.e protective tariffs. Whilst adopting an isolationist policy and stuff Europe. I also wouldn't have let the Empire go, especially South Africa with all that gold, which would help to reintroduce a gold standard.

I would have dumped all the other colonies swiftly but maintained India and South Africa, afterall they were the important two.

Perhaps i like Victorian politics? Quite the imperialist, pro-heavy industry, pro-royalty, pro-House of Lords, pro-tariffs and protectionism of our national heritage (imperial weights and measures) and culture.

Getting a party that believes that though these days is hard.

Basically if a time machine was invented and Benjamin Disraeli could be brought to the the present and ran for election i'd vote for him.

[Geordie582 18]

Basically, I mistrust all politicians (& my son in law is one!) . Money gets power & privilege or Power gets money and privilege, either way the voter is the last thing on their minds once they are in!.

You may claim Conservative credentials, Sylvester, but your wishes would fit more with Stalin that Cameron. More state control?? No way>

Edited January 28, 2006 by Geordie582

[Emperor Oli 0]

I suppose we're both Conservatives Oli but we admire different eras of the party. From reading your posts i've always thought you a fan of the New Right, Thatcher etc. The big words being Privatisation, free market and low taxes.

You know my position on Thatcher, my opposition to her comes not because i'm anti-Tory but because i idealise a different Tory period altogether, with different policies (Baldwin/Chamberlain specifically). As MacMillan said Thatcher sold the family silver. Britain was a great powerful industrial nation because she was a producer, and could capitalise the market. So i always thought selling off all the heavy industry to cheaper foreign competition was going against her ideal of Victorian principles (i.e what made Britain self sufficient and the most powerful nation in the world). Sure the Unions needed crushing because they were causing havock in the 70s.

My priciple would have been to make everyone buy British, i.e protective tariffs. Whilst adopting an isolationist policy and stuff Europe. I also wouldn't have let the Empire go, especially South Africa with all that gold, which would help to reintroduce a gold standard.

I would have dumped all the other colonies swiftly but maintained India and South Africa, afterall they were the important two.

Perhaps i like Victorian politics? Quite the imperialist, pro-heavy industry, pro-royalty, pro-House of Lords, pro-tariffs and protectionism of our national heritage (imperial weights and measures) and culture.

Getting a party that believes that though these days is hard.

Basically if a time machine was invented and Benjamin Disraeli could be brought to the the present and ran for election i'd vote for him.

Definitely. It's a shame that Cameron pointedly distanced himself from Thatcher, I think that lost him support from grassroots Tories.

Although Thatcher did sell off state-run industries, she did so because there were loss making, and technically inefficient in a changing world. To keep them state-run would have created a larger burden on successive governments and the taxpayer.

As I'm sure you know, protectionism never works - in part it caused the WSC in 1929. Isolating ourselves from Europe would be catastrophic economically, as the Europeans are our largest trading partner. The problem with protectionism is that other countries would reciprocate by putting tariffs on our goods, so we wouldn't be able to buy anything from abroad, nor would be be able to sell it. Now I'm all for self-sufficiency, but there are some things Britain can't make as cheaply as other countries. I would rather pay less money for a foreign car than pay more for a lesser-quality British one, such as the monstrosities made by British Leyland.

Like you, I would be all for keeping the colonies, but I wouldn't want them if they were in a state like India in 1947. I also have something of a penchant for Victoria politics, however the only reason it was pro-heavy industry then was because it was the industry that made the most money for the treasury. In the 80s, that had switched to the service sector, so manufacturing jobs became less and less important. It all started going downhill when MPs got salaries and the Parliament Act was passed.

[Sylvester 15]

Basically, I mistrust all politicians (& my son in law is one!) . Money gets power & privilege or Power gets money and privilege, either way the voter is the last thing on their minds once they are in!.

You may claim Conservative credentials, Sylvester, but your wishes would fit more with Stalin that Cameron. More state control?? No way>

Well that's been said before! Although i should point out i have a thing about heirarchy... gotta maintain heirarchy. So not quite Stalin.

[Peter 615]

Camerons success will depend on how the tabloids take to him,or more to the point how the tabloids don't take to Brown.

Actual policies won't come into it although I presume the Tories will make hay with immigration,asylum seekers and paedophiles.

The balance of power is swinging...helped along by the recent alcoholic,homosexual escapades of the Democrats(The Tories will absorb the shocked orange twinsett brigade).

If we are to endure another term of Labour they will need to nurture Joe Public who seem only interested in parading around in shoddily made designer gear,borrowing beyond their means and watching tat like Big Brother.....Watch those spin Drs go.

[Sylvester 15]

Definitely.  It's a shame that Cameron pointedly distanced himself from Thatcher, I think that lost him support from grassroots Tories.

Although Thatcher did sell off state-run industries, she did so because there were loss making, and technically inefficient in a changing world.  To keep them state-run would have created a larger burden on successive governments and the taxpayer.   

Don't knock Leyland they made some damn good buses and lorries.

Talking of burdens on the taxpayer; The Welfare State is definately gonna have to change. Welfare States work when there's about 95% employment. That is lots of people paying in. With a booming population and job cuts you get less jobs to go around, more people about and less money going in, in inverse proportion to money being taken out. Either the Welfare State has to be curtailed and restrictions have to be proposed or you have to create jobs and aim for full employment.

The governments of the 1950s and 60s aimed for full employment. This is not neccessarily a solution to the problem though, because goverments have to pay for job creation, especially when the economy is in stagnation. So extra burden falls on the workers, whilst people not paying in seem to not notice.

Therefore the obvious solution is to cutail the Welfare State. The current government plans to cut down on incapacity benefits (and to weed out the people that don't want to work out of idleness rather than out of necessity) is long overdue in my opinion. I believe this has only come about because T. Blair is worried about the Tories.

I still agree that the NHS should be free to all natives, or those that have lived within the UK for over 5 years and have shown integration within the British society (as in the French system of forced integration and promotion of French ideology over other cultures has created less grounds for fundamentalism to grow, rather than a British setup of 'us' versus 'them' that seems to dominate some cities, hence the race riots as shown in Birmingham last year). It would also help to curtail immigrants arriving just because the health service happens to be free. Hopefully that'd keep immigrants coming in that want to live in Britain, be British and become British, but would stop fundamentalist religious types coming in who hate Britain and all it stands for but yet come here for a cushy life.

Also the government should greatly curtail benefits, especially to 18 years olds who have never had a job that claim the benefits straight up because they can't be bothered. For once workers should be rewarded by having to pay less for medication in chemists, and get opticians appointments at reduced rates. There should be an incentive to get a job, these benefits being less based upon income but more based upon hours worked. Taxi drivers, bus drivers, carers in homes and other long shift jobs (often low pay, except for the latter), should be rewarded for the amount of hours put in.

Obviously high income jobs that mean employees can work shorter hours and earn much more probably wouldn't need as much subsidising, because money would be less tight, although they should still get rewarded for their work. So managers get less subsidising than their employees. Where does this subsidising come from, well redirect it from the cut benefit claims.

People who are quite clearly disabled or suffer other issues that mean they realistically cannot work, or struggle even to get around the house they should have the current system retained.

Those that are off for more minor things, or simply are out of work for prolonged periods should recieve less subsidisation and should pay more for their health care simply as an incentive to get a bloody job.

[TomGoodheart 403]

tough on crime, pro-death penalty, pro-corporal punishment and anti-Europe are exactly the things i'm going to vote for. To morals i say yes.

Sorry Sylvester - are you saying these are moral things or that you are also for morals?

[Sylvester 15]

Punishing criminals and disuading re-offenders i would think is increasing levels of morality, no?

Look at the chav explosion since the Blair government got in. Crime is up (either that or the police are doinmg a better job of finding crime than previously). The general tone on the streets in some city centres has never been particularly good but there's alot of people stood around in hoods, 'happy slapping' people or smashing stuff in because they're bored. The police can't seem to do a great deal because many of these individuals are underage and thus the police's hands are tied.

The real problem is the fact that the children aren't brought up correctly by their parents, the reason for that is because parents themselves were not brought up correctly, are often teenagers and haven't got a frigging clue what to do.

Now do-gooders have been going around cutting back what teachers can do, and preventing parents from smacking their children, it'sgot the the point where everyone is powerless against kids and kids know it. If they get away with that kind of 'no one can touch me' behaviour as a kid where they have to answer to no one, then they generally continue like that as adults. Often thinking the country owes them a living.

It'll only get worse.

[Geordie582 18]

Hear! Hear! My thoughts exactly! Under the general heading of 'PC', minorities are now running this country with their kooky ideas. I just can't see an end to it. At 76, I don't think it will affect me very much, but I despair for my children, grandchildren and great grand-children. How far in the future it will go is anyone's guess. Global warming has a real competitor for ending civilisation!

[TomGoodheart 403]

Punishing criminals and disuading re-offenders i would think is increasing levels of morality, no?

Well... yes and no. If one accepts that morality is related to the degree of conformity to certain rules and standards of behaviour then, in principal, it is.

In practice there doesn't seem to me to be much evidence that any of the things you previously cited (death penalty, corporal punishment ) have the desired effect. ie no.

Ideally I think we need to help (particularly young) people find some purpose and value in their lives. The trouble is that since the 1980's money, 'fame' and ostentation have become the benchmark of success and happiness. Chavs in my view are Thatcher's children, not Blair's. Perfect consumers for whom more designer clothes and recreational drugs have become something to die for, or at least worth kicking someone else's head in for.

Personally I think that political divisions are a reflection of two different ideologies. One is broadly 'exclusive' and promotes the idea that life is a struggle - everyone has to look out for themselves because the world is a hostile place - a sort of 'batten down the hatches mentality'. The other is more 'inclusive' , tends to look on others as intrinsically good and so values cooperation as a means of achieving goals.

One need only consider the inscription on the Statue of Liberty

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.

I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

and then reflect upon how the United States now treats immigrants, dissenters and the poor to see which direction we are heading.

Obviously I believe we need more of the 'inclusive' and less of the 'exclusive' but how we achieve this I don't know. I do my best on a personal level but whether I can change society I don't know. I just know I haven't given up hope quite yet!

[Sylvester 15]

The current government has been saying their getting tough on crime. Every week in the newspapers i read another article on some staement made by Blair or whoever about how the government's going to get tough and crack down on it. We've been cracking down and getting tough on crime for the last 5 or 6 years... so we're told.

Is this government ever actually going to live up to any of it's promises?

Education, education, education. I know lets shove up University fees from £1100 to £3000!

The only successful education reforms this government has done is drilling Political Correctness home. Unless your a minority group of some sort then you're free to say as you want, otherwise it's racist/sexist/ageist...

Enough of this madness.

[TomGoodheart 403]

I think you're crediting 'the government' with more influence than it actually has Sylvester. If governments could actually do anything I suspect someone would have done away with them by now!

[Sylvester 15]

Yes well the govt would be more credible if it didn't make promises it couldn't realistically fulfil.

I know i can dream.

[Rob 3,152]

Personally I think that political divisions are a reflection of two different ideologies. One is broadly 'exclusive' and promotes the idea that life is a struggle - everyone has to look out for themselves because the world is a hostile place - a sort of 'batten down the hatches mentality'. The other is more 'inclusive' , tends to look on others as intrinsically good and so values cooperation as a means of achieving goals.

So where does this leave me? I want a society where government money spent is used in an effective manner for the majority with a fair share spent on all. This is inclusive because everyone needs something provided by the state, but not necessarily the same thing as the person next door. At present, disproportionate amounts appear to be spent on those sections of society who reject any notion of working for the common good ie. society, yet are first in the queue for handouts from the very people they stick two fingers up to. Society isn't something you can opt into and out of. However, if you take the view that being a member of society is an optional thing, then what remains of society (the vast majority of this country) should have the right to reject those working against the majority. This is not the exclusive ideology you allude to but an inclusive one. The exclusion is currently the preserve of our current government who rake in excessive amounts of taxpayers' money to pee against the metaphorical wall. All we can do is hope it's our wall they use.

[Sylvester 15]

And where does someone like me whose economically centrist and social right sit in all this?

I care not for big private companies and greed nor do i care for nationalisation and handing money out willy nilly. The economic outlooks on both left and right are too extreme.

I agree with Rob on economic issues. For me there has to be some balance.

Tony Blair is the closest i've come to anyone who thinks remotely like me, except the problem with me and Blair is we are seemingly mirror images.

The Labour party seems to stand for economically right wing pro-privatisation, and socially centre to left. Whereas i favour it the other way around, socially right and economically centre, which probably explains why i'm not liking Blair.

Although if David Cameron can shift the Tory party's economic policy to the centre ground (which is what he's trying to do) then i'd be quite happy to vote for them. Socially i expect they'd stay right of the border.