An open letter to the UK's political leaders (984 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.98 on 59 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Adereterial (View user info) at 2005-05-06 06:05:51 EDT
(Yes, before you whine, this is aimed mainly at UK Uberusers, or indeed anyone who actually cares what happened here last night. If you don't I suggest you don't read this...)
Mr. Blair - I feel the need to offer my congratulations despite the fact I hoped, and worked, for a very different result. I cannot help thinking that for the past few weeks, months, maybe even years, your heart has not been in what you do; that you go through the motions knowing that your days are numbered, and that the man who will succeed you will inflict more damage on this nation, and on your party, than anyone else I can think of. Members of your cabinet have become liabilities, rocked by the very scandals that afflicted the Conservatives in 1997.
Your majority is halved. You have 37% of the votes cast. Only about 1 in 5 people able to vote actually voted for you, and the Conservatives are not exactly far behind.
You have no mandate for government - no real popular support. The halcyon days of 1997 are long over. Your constituency record is appalling. You won - but only just. Take that thought forward, and treat the electorate with the respect - and caution - it deserves. Your domestic record, which is not as great as you would hope, will not sustain you forever.
Mr. Howard - The very worst thing you can do at this point is resign. The Conservatives need stability; a leadership campaign now will only make matters worse. Choose a successor, a credible, decent man - or woman - and give them the support they need and deserve. Bring William Hague back into the cabinet, and have nothing more to do with Oliver Letwin.
This is a beginning - a small one, admittedly - but from small acorns... The result wasn't exactly as you had hoped for, and I hope you knew that victory yesterday was impossible, but it was close. The difference in voter share is minimal.
Core Conservative values are those that speak the loudest to the British people - low taxes, small government, aid for those who cannot support themselves, gentle support and encouragement for those who work hard for themselves and their families, penalties for those who take without giving back, respect for traditions but change where needed, and only when needed. Speak to these values. Forget 'flavour of the month' campaigns, like immigration. Offer a genuine and challenging opposition. But more than anything, recognise that the party recovery is still ongoing, and whilst the next election might be the one, nothing is guaranteed.
Mr. Kennedy - recognise one key fact. The Conservatives are NOT your enemy. Being the opposition of the opposition is a guaranteed recipe for failure. Challenge the party in power, not the one that isn't. Be a distinct political force, but work with the Conservative opposition on those issues where your interests coincide. You cannot challenge both parties effectively at once.
Real political clout is a decade away at least, but it will never come if you don't work out who to challenge, and when.
To all - resist the desire for radical electoral reform; slow evolution have given us a system which works, for the most part, and which represents the path used to get us to this point. Resist any calls for proportional representation, unless you want the BNP to start gaining seats. Protect the House of Lords - it did more to protect democracy in it's undemocratic state than it will ever do if directly elected. Take note of the desires of the people who voted for you, and remember your constituencies are just as important as Westminster, especially when it comes to your own political career.
For the record, I voted Conservative.
User Reviews
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2005-05-09 11:50:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Dammit I missed the debate.
Just one thing, 'communist' Ruissia wasn't actually comunism it was just a dictatorship like north korea only a bit less insane.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-09 11:17:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fee-based education is a natural Conservative policy.
--------------------
That it may be, but in the 18 solid years of Tory government, where were the tuition fees?
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-09 11:14:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bellebrown (user info) at 2005-05-09 09:49:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
It's only people who's total family income is about £30,000 a year that have to pay tuition fees... and like I said, that's only when they've completed the course, and are earning over £15,000 per year.
That's up to (not all uni's will charge this much) £9,000 interest free for a lifetimes worth of work opportunities...
Most 18 year olds will spend that on a credit agreement for a car that they're still paying for when they sell it three years later.
------------------
Belle - that's crap. Whether you pay tuition fees or not is dependant on how much your family earns the year before you attend. My mother, in that year, earned approx £45,000. The year I went to uni, she earnt the sum total of £10,000, as she is self employed and commission based. Nonetheless, I had to pay tuition fees, as it is her previous years earnings which were taken into account. Fortunately my grandparents stepped in.
The new system they are proposing may well be better but it doesn't help the current and recent students who have been screwed by a government who got their education for free. A degree does not constitute a lifetime of work opportunities as there are too many students with too many average grades, and the only way to distinguish yourself is to try and find funding for a masters.
Submitted by Jungle_Jimanee (user info) at 2005-05-09 10:08:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Some well reasoned responses,, one of the problems with supporting a party is that you are answerable to their bad points, a solution would be single issue voting on issues that trancend political parties (abortion, Europe, immigration, etc).
1) Really I feel that you should, by privatising everything they are pushing us that way, they raped the NHS back in the day, to clear the way for private health care. This will ultimately lead to a situation like America.
2)
"I have never at anytime stated that I believe core Tory values to be a fully effective policy for government "
Why do you support them then? I like the idea of small government, lower taxes and a welfare state, but I don't want a government that does not stand up for our rights with the corporations, taxes the poor and has never demonstrated any concern for the welfare state they tried to destroy. Poll tax anybody?
3) "cutting 'corporate' red tape can have a positive benefit for everyone"
These laws are regularly reviewed and again the Tories have a terrible history on red tape. They made the schools and hospitals compete, which wildly increased paperwork in the name of efficiency.
"Cutting red tape in the benefit system" This is just a lie, the papers and the Tories are always whingin on benefit scroungers, this leads to more red tape to stop them.
Why are Labour not cutting this red tape? Probably because it is not there to cut.
4) Cool
5)
"Communism has NEVER actually even managed to get started on this planet"
It has, Jamaica and China. Anyway I'm not supporting hardcore communism, it's too extreme. I prefer a "cap" on how much someone can earn/ own and a minimum wage that you can live on.
I think we should move away from extremes and meet somewhere in the middle, the Tories will never do that.
"This is pure nonsense - The Bolsheviks were centrilised, autocratic and dictatorial even before 1917 - yes, they suffered at the hands of the Western Allies but this tendancy is visible from the outset - as it is in all Communist parties. "
That's one example and it's Russian, they don't count as they are mental (not an argument I know, but please get my point).
If it hadn't been for capitalist forces, Mao wouldn't have gained the support to seize leadership.
I think it more the case that if a country feels threatened a power hungry madman will take charge (Bush).
Submitted by Bellebrown (user info) at 2005-05-09 09:49:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's only people who's total family income is about £30,000 a year that have to pay tuition fees... and like I said, that's only when they've completed the course, and are earning over £15,000 per year.
That's up to (not all uni's will charge this much) £9,000 interest free for a lifetimes worth of work opportunities...
Most 18 year olds will spend that on a credit agreement for a car that they're still paying for when they sell it three years later.
Submitted by Jungle_Jimanee (user info) at 2005-05-09 09:49:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Everyone fails to notice that the students who come from non traditional Uni backgrounds (first generation, low income) don't have to pay still (or only pay a small amount), and you don't hear anyone going on about all the grants and support that is available and doesn't have to be paid back (and these are open to everyone - even your tarquins III). "
Well there is no mileage for pro labour stories, just like minimum wage has been forgotton.
Submitted by Bellebrown (user info) at 2005-05-09 09:43:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Um, I'm not anti tuition fees (and I work in a Uni).
Why shouldn't they pay for getting a degree if the family can afford it. The debt goes to the student, and you pay it back when you earn over £15,000.
Based on current findings - graduates will earn double what a non-graduate earns in less than seven years...
And the repayments (without interest remember) work out at something like £30.00 a month if you earn £16,000.
Everyone fails to notice that the students who come from non traditional Uni backgrounds (first generation, low income) don't have to pay still (or only pay a small amount), and you don't hear anyone going on about all the grants and support that is available and doesn't have to be paid back (and these are open to everyone - even your tarquins III).
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-05-09 09:27:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I see jimanee has already called you on your two objections to Blair policies - top-up fees and the Iraq war. He/she rightly points out that they are policies the Tories would have embraced. Indeed Howard explicitly said he would have done the same as Blair over the war.
Fee-based education is a natural Conservative policy.
This is why the Tories had so little credibility attacking over these issues, and Blair had so much trouble. He co-opted Tory policies, effectively neutering themir opposition - and at the same time absorbed the backlash from his own supposed base which emphatically did NOT support them.
People call Blair "Thatcherite" for good reason.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-09 09:24:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jungle_Jimanee (user info) at 2005-05-09 07:11:29 (#)
Ranking: 2
Hi Adereterial,
Been following this post for a while, whilst considering a response. I have severe issues with nearly everything you said and the thinking behind it, which is why I gave a plus two for the effort.
How old where you during the last Conservative government? Do you remember that the Conservative caused recession? Do you remember the "cash for questions" scandal: http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Cash_for_Questions, the implications of that were horrifying; most of the Tories were probably on the take. Margaret Thatcher went on to a million pounds a year job at Phillip Morris (The Tobacco Company); her son tried to overthrow a country.
Have a problem with the trains that's the Tories for you, running it down for a decade and then selling it, that didn't work, did it? I think that decision has killed a fair few people.
"It may well be correct - but I did make a point that this was base ideology, and above all, theoretical. In fact, I made that doubly clear, as it explains how the Conservatives can be in favor of a welfare state, lower taxes and smaller government all at the same time. "
This is a fantasy as pointed out by others, and this lower taxes makes everybody spend more, then the rich get richer and then it all trickles down theory is rubbish too. They have been doing this for years; there is no evidence of this having ever worked, look at America where the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
The real problem with the world is the rich. Simple but true. The conservatives want to maintain this status quo for their rich pals, that and winning elections is all they care about. This enables them to give tax breaks to the rich, cut public spending, cut corporate "red tape" (hey, don't we need regulations to stop companies from damaging the people?), bugger up the country and let some other sod clean up.
Do you remember the hue and cry concerning minimum wage, Labour's election promise that they kept? All the papers bar the Guardian were against it, the Conservatives argued bitterly saying that unemployment would spiral. And has it? No, quite the opposite, it came in, I got a pay rise in my second job and unemployment dropped to an all time low.
Most of the English newspapers are owned by rich corporate interests, they could not be seen supporting the Tories during their failure in 1997, but they have been after Labour ever since. What paper do you read the Daily mail or telegraph by any chance, ever compared them to other papers on the same subject?
Do that for a while and you will see the thick one-sided bias in them, they consistently have a different negative Labour story on their front covers when everybody else is reporting something else.
The reason why I ask is the auto programmed statement you came out with:
"I know but in theory communists have a good idea. Unfortunately in real life it just doesnt work.
----------------
Preaching to the choir on that one. "
Let's examine this on shall we. What do you mean it does not work, I think any new system of government would have a problem fighting off America and England, no they did not stand a chance against deep seated capitalism. Go research the history of Jamaica, they had a fairly elected Communist Government, until America flooded the country with guns. What about China, I have heard that we might find out that Communism works.
The Capitalist West has had a destructive effect on every Communist Government, which helped push them towards dictatorship; they never stood a chance.
I' d like to finish this rant with: Capitalism does not work.
We need to consume at an ever increasing rate to keep up demand to stop the system crashing, and we will run out of resources. Capitalism created this demand and will ultimately kill the species, unless something changes.
-----------------
OK - responses:
1, Your comment about America may be valid, but I cannot concede that there is a direct comparison to be made with the British Welfare State and the American system.
2, I have never at anytime stated that I believe core Tory values to be a fully effective policy for government - it's not, it is theoretical at best and impractical at worst. However, these are values which do speak to everyone person here, and they have been all but ignored in the past three election campaigns. I think they are important.
3, Protection of the status quo - eg protecting their rich friends - is a misnomer I believe stems from the name of the party and not any real, active policy in the past 8 years. It has some basis in history and I will concede this - but the party has, can and should change to be more representative. Additionally, cutting 'corporate' red tape can have a positive benefit for everyone, including employees and entrepreneurs, corporate tax breaks can encourage new companies to flourish. Some red tape designed to protect us does nothing of the sort. Cutting red tape in the benefit system, tax system etc WOULD have positive benefits for everyone, and should at the very least save time, if not money.
Oh, and I never argued that lower taxes encourage people to spend more - I argued that lowering taxes instead of giving a credit after the tax has been taken might save time, money and resources.
4, If I read a paper, I'll read the Times, or occasionally the Express. More often than not, I just use the Beeb website. The Mail annoys me thoroughly.
5, Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto? Are you aware of how Communism is to be established - after a capitalist system? Communism will never work because there will always be someone who wants to keep their profits and status; always someone who wants to try and profit from Communism as a whole; always will the majority of people require leadership and direction - however minimal - in their lives. Communism ignores basic human nature. Communism has NEVER actually even managed to get started on this planet. The theory is wonderful, but that is all it is - a theory.
'The Capitalist West has had a destructive effect on every Communist Government, which helped push them towards dictatorship; they never stood a chance.'
This is pure nonsense - The Bolsheviks were centrilised, autocratic and dictatorial even before 1917 - yes, they suffered at the hands of the Western Allies but this tendancy is visible from the outset - as it is in all Communist parties.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-05-09 09:22:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-09 08:44:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-05-09 08:25:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
I think Adereterial is too young to remember how deeply unpopular the Tories were in power. I am too, but the anger towards them that persists to this day is there for all to see. They will not be back anytime soon.
------------------
They were so unpopular, they survived for 18 years. I think that's a pretty irreconcilable fact.
What is more important is that hardly anyone can remember how bad things were under a Labour government... and how unpopular they were.
They will be back, I truly believe that, but a lot needs to change.
=====
I'm not saying they were unpopular throughout those 18 years. Those 18 years made them unpopular. You cannot deny how widely disliked John Major was. He keeps such a low profile nowadays for good reason. The rout of '97 did not occur out of the blue, it was a consequence of their extended time in power (with credit to Tony Blair also, of course).
You say the Tories need to change. That much is obvious. That they will - that most definitely is not. Conservative support is overwhelmingly focused in the elderly, a group not known for their willingness to change. The Tory pool of political "talent" is still largely drawn from the Thatcher and Major years - and it is tainted by association. You must acknowledge the distrust of Michael Howard, who was a despised Home Secretary under Major.
I don't think the Tories will be resurgent until enough time passes that most voters do not remember '79-'97 and most politicians have risen up since that era. Obviously, this will not be soon.
Submitted by Jungle_Jimanee (user info) at 2005-05-09 09:21:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Labour have undoubtedly built on that, but the foundations were in place when they gained power. "
I haven't forgotten and it is a valid point, but there is no evidence to say that they could have carried it off. Labour has, met its unbussiness friendly election promises, invested in public services and fought two wars.
"Economic prosperity is based a great deal at the moment on housing prices, a situation which cannot continue and will implode, sooner or later. What will your opinion be of Labour when it does implode, and we're all left with negative equity?"
You cannot, not for even a moment, compare this to the bubble effect caused by the Tories, we have been growing at that steady sustainable 2% so highly prised by economists. This has been threatening to implode for five years and everybody is watching it like a hawk, not like the last time, you just might be looking at the real thing.
And I don't see how lowering taxes will help this situation.
"Labour have insisted on bringing student tuition fees despite the fact that NO ONE actually wanted it to happen, same situation will probably occur with top-up fees. "
They had to as the Tories gave the polytechnics university status, there never was the money to pay for this. It is not hard to think that the Tories did this so that money for students would have to be phased out so that only the rich can afford to go. Top up fees, blame the Tories.
". This so-called 'binary' system ended in 1992 when the polytechnics were given university status. There are now 96 universities, and over 60 colleges and institutes of higher education. Growth has raised concerns about quality of courses, as funding and lecturer numbers have not risen in line with student numbers. The British Government has now slowed down expansion, and is reviewing the whole system. "
http://www.education.man.ac.uk/langlit/bc/higher01.html
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-05-09 09:02:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-09 08:42:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually, I'm 25, and I remember clearly. I wasn't quite old enough to vote in 1997 - 5 months out. I'm also a historian, and I guess I have a slightly more critical take on Labour because of that.
Labour have no better track record when it comes to most points than the Conservatives. Yes, there was a recession, but everyone seems to forget that it was the Tories who brought us out of it, and that the economy was in pretty good shape in 1997. Labour have undoubtedly built on that, but the foundations were in place when they gained power. Economic prosperity is based a great deal at the moment on housing prices, a situation which cannot continue and will implode, sooner or later. What will your opinion be of Labour when it does implode, and we're all left with negative equity?
Labour have insisted on bringing student tuition fees despite the fact that NO ONE actually wanted it to happen, same situation will probably occur with top-up fees. They went to war in Iraq despite overwhelming public opinion to the contrary - 1 in every 6 people in this country marched the streets in protest, yet they still went ahead.
---------------------------------
That's freakish... if you replaced the word "Conservative" with "Labor", and "Labour" with "Liberal", and 1997 with 1996, and you could be talking about Australia there.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-09 08:44:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-05-09 08:25:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
I think Adereterial is too young to remember how deeply unpopular the Tories were in power. I am too, but the anger towards them that persists to this day is there for all to see. They will not be back anytime soon.
------------------
They were so unpopular, they survived for 18 years. I think that's a pretty irreconcilable fact.
What is more important is that hardly anyone can remember how bad things were under a Labour government... and how unpopular they were.
They will be back, I truly believe that, but a lot needs to change.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-09 08:42:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bellebrown (user info) at 2005-05-09 07:32:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
I think based on the comments above, he'd be too young to remember what it was like with the Tories in power.
I wasn't old enough to vote, but I'm old enough to remember my dad looking ten years older and worrying about his job all of a sudden...
I also remember them privatising everything - and I distinctly remember NOT ONE person actually wanting it to happen.
------------------
Actually, I'm 25, and I remember clearly. I wasn't quite old enough to vote in 1997 - 5 months out. I'm also a historian, and I guess I have a slightly more critical take on Labour because of that.
Labour have no better track record when it comes to most points than the Conservatives. Yes, there was a recession, but everyone seems to forget that it was the Tories who brought us out of it, and that the economy was in pretty good shape in 1997. Labour have undoubtedly built on that, but the foundations were in place when they gained power. Economic prosperity is based a great deal at the moment on housing prices, a situation which cannot continue and will implode, sooner or later. What will your opinion be of Labour when it does implode, and we're all left with negative equity?
Labour have insisted on bringing student tuition fees despite the fact that NO ONE actually wanted it to happen, same situation will probably occur with top-up fees. They went to war in Iraq despite overwhelming public opinion to the contrary - 1 in every 6 people in this country marched the streets in protest, yet they still went ahead.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-05-09 08:25:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think Adereterial is too young to remember how deeply unpopular the Tories were in power. I am too, but the anger towards them that persists to this day is there for all to see. They will not be back anytime soon.
Submitted by Jungle_Jimanee (user info) at 2005-05-09 07:45:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"I also remember them privatising everything - and I distinctly remember NOT ONE person actually wanting it to happen. "
I agree they did so many destructive things. For the record privatising BT was a good and necessary move, but the water, power and rail needed to be kept under public control.
Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with any other country being in charge of our water supply?
Submitted by Bellebrown (user info) at 2005-05-09 07:32:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think based on the comments above, he'd be too young to remember what it was like with the Tories in power.
I wasn't old enough to vote, but I'm old enough to remember my dad looking ten years older and worrying about his job all of a sudden...
I also remember them privatising everything - and I distinctly remember NOT ONE person actually wanting it to happen.
Submitted by Jungle_Jimanee (user info) at 2005-05-09 07:11:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Hi Adereterial,
Been following this post for a while, whilst considering a response. I have severe issues with nearly everything you said and the thinking behind it, which is why I gave a plus two for the effort.
How old where you during the last Conservative government? Do you remember that the Conservative caused recession? Do you remember the "cash for questions" scandal: http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Cash_for_Questions, the implications of that were horrifying; most of the Tories were probably on the take. Margaret Thatcher went on to a million pounds a year job at Phillip Morris (The Tobacco Company); her son tried to overthrow a country.
Have a problem with the trains that's the Tories for you, running it down for a decade and then selling it, that didn't work, did it? I think that decision has killed a fair few people.
"It may well be correct - but I did make a point that this was base ideology, and above all, theoretical. In fact, I made that doubly clear, as it explains how the Conservatives can be in favor of a welfare state, lower taxes and smaller government all at the same time. "
This is a fantasy as pointed out by others, and this lower taxes makes everybody spend more, then the rich get richer and then it all trickles down theory is rubbish too. They have been doing this for years; there is no evidence of this having ever worked, look at America where the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
The real problem with the world is the rich. Simple but true. The conservatives want to maintain this status quo for their rich pals, that and winning elections is all they care about. This enables them to give tax breaks to the rich, cut public spending, cut corporate "red tape" (hey, don't we need regulations to stop companies from damaging the people?), bugger up the country and let some other sod clean up.
Do you remember the hue and cry concerning minimum wage, Labour's election promise that they kept? All the papers bar the Guardian were against it, the Conservatives argued bitterly saying that unemployment would spiral. And has it? No, quite the opposite, it came in, I got a pay rise in my second job and unemployment dropped to an all time low.
Most of the English newspapers are owned by rich corporate interests, they could not be seen supporting the Tories during their failure in 1997, but they have been after Labour ever since. What paper do you read the Daily mail or telegraph by any chance, ever compared them to other papers on the same subject?
Do that for a while and you will see the thick one-sided bias in them, they consistently have a different negative Labour story on their front covers when everybody else is reporting something else.
The reason why I ask is the auto programmed statement you came out with:
"I know but in theory communists have a good idea. Unfortunately in real life it just doesnt work.
----------------
Preaching to the choir on that one. "
Let's examine this on shall we. What do you mean it does not work, I think any new system of government would have a problem fighting off America and England, no they did not stand a chance against deep seated capitalism. Go research the history of Jamaica, they had a fairly elected Communist Government, until America flooded the country with guns. What about China, I have heard that we might find out that Communism works.
The Capitalist West has had a destructive effect on every Communist Government, which helped push them towards dictatorship; they never stood a chance.
I' d like to finish this rant with: Capitalism does not work.
We need to consume at an ever increasing rate to keep up demand to stop the system crashing, and we will run out of resources. Capitalism created this demand and will ultimately kill the species, unless something changes.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-09 05:17:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2005-05-07 08:13:46 (#)
Ranking: 2
The decline in popular support for labour could give a chance for another party to rise to the fore, but there's very little credible opposition. The conservatives, whilst running a slightly improved campaign, are never going to get elected in the state they're in. If the Lib Dems weren't so damn wooly they'd have a decent chance.
I support the SNP, but voted Lib Dem for my 'home' constituency as the SNP don't have too many candidates in Hampshire. Lucky thing I did- they only scraped in by 135 votes.
If anyone can guess my home constituency from that i'll give them a cookie.
----------------------
Ooh... Romsey, by any chance? But I thought it was only 125 votes.
Can I have my cookie now please?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-05-08 18:11:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If Britain had a unified left (Labour + Lib Dem votes) then the Tories would be a joke. Take the active electorate and split it broadly into "left" and "right" and "left" would take about 60-70%. Were it not for the split between yellow and red, the blues would forever lose.
Bob may not see this again, but in answer to:
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-05-06 08:14:26 (#)
Ranking: 1
Dumb question: How can a conservative party be the proponent of social welfare, yet be for smaller government and lower taxes? Isn't that kind of contradictory?
====
...because Blair has outmanouvred the Tories so deftly that they are literally forced into a tiny little corner, where they are forced to adopt seemingly contradictory policies (standing upside down).
Or, more vividly, he has them bent over a knee high table with their ankles in the air and a broom handle up the rear.
The Tories cannot publicly call for reduced public services (their core small government philosophy), because the electorate would not support it. This forces them to attack the current government's handling of the police, NHS, etc, while loudly proclaiming they would not cut but rather improve those services if they won. Of course, this severely weakens their ace card, the promise of lower taxes - their policies are not really those of opposition. Hence the focus on personality in this election.
The Conservative party got nuked in '97, and they still haven't recovered. It's doubtful if they ever will. This election did not see a resurgence in the core Tory vote, their vote stayed static. Rather they were the undeserving benefactors of a split in the "left" vote.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-05-07 09:04:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
For the record, I voted Conservative.
-------------
Me too, but only really to take seats away from the party that was obviously gonna win.
I still want a Labour government, just one with less seats and a conscience.
Submitted by tuesdaydelay (user info) at 2005-05-07 08:28:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2005-05-07 08:13:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The decline in popular support for labour could give a chance for another party to rise to the fore, but there's very little credible opposition. The conservatives, whilst running a slightly improved campaign, are never going to get elected in the state they're in. If the Lib Dems weren't so damn wooly they'd have a decent chance.
I support the SNP, but voted Lib Dem for my 'home' constituency as the SNP don't have too many candidates in Hampshire. Lucky thing I did- they only scraped in by 135 votes.
If anyone can guess my home constituency from that i'll give them a cookie.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2005-05-06 19:00:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/65821
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-05-06 15:40:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Tony Blair, fuck the poll numbers, do you think George W. Bush gives a souse's tit about poll numbers???
Kick ass and act like everyone in the country voted for you!
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-05-06 13:28:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-06 12:20:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
It may well be correct - but I did make a point that this was base ideology, and above all, theoretical. In fact, I made that doubly clear, as it explains how the Conservatives can be in favour of a welfare state, lower taxes and smaller government all at the same time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It also points that a) it doesn't work and b) it was never supposed to. They do not care about people. They do not see people as important. Don't get me wrong, I'm as big a middle class snob as the next man, I hate poor people. I do, however, realise that a country is it's people. Not it's geographical location, not it's wealth or even it's industry and political clout. It's the people.
If a countries people are miserable, that country is a failure.
Submitted by Santa_Claus_ (user info) at 2005-05-06 13:08:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ubersite is America, and in America, nobody cares.
GO USA!
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-06 12:34:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jo (user info) at 2005-05-06 12:28:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
I know but in theory communists have a good idea.. Unfortunately in real life it just doesnt work.
----------------
Preaching to the choir on that one.
Submitted by Jo (user info) at 2005-05-06 12:28:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I know but in theory communists have a good idea.. Unfortunately in real life it just doesnt work.
Submitted by Davros (user info) at 2005-05-06 12:26:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for a well written piece, even though I disagree with some of your arguements.
For Labour to succeed (In the future) they need to move slightly back to the left.
For the conservatives to succeed (In the future) they need to move slightly back to the right.
For the LibDems to succeed (In the future) they need to take up the slack offered by the other parties.
For the BNP to succeed (In the future) they need to lobotomise three quarters of the population.
I voted Labour, for your information.
However, if we had been voting seperately for a PM, I probably would have gone with Kennedy.
I liked this though.
Fuck the BNP http://www.ubersite.com/m/65793
-Dave
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-06 12:20:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It may well be correct - but I did make a point that this was base ideology, and above all, theoretical. In fact, I made that doubly clear, as it explains how the Conservatives can be in favour of a welfare state, lower taxes and smaller government all at the same time.
Submitted by Jo (user info) at 2005-05-06 11:34:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Berty's post below is correct only they don't sack people. They hold all promotions etc for a few months and up the amount of retirement benefit they will pay. People over 50 think 'stuff it' and retire. That eventually gets rid of the majority of the 'proposed cuts', the union is happy as there were no redundencies and everything goes on as normal. Money is not really saved because once its all over they employ/promote more people to take on the old jobs... but at some point they can say 'look, we got rid of x number of staff. Aren't we good!'
Politicians don't lie, they just twist the truth so much you don't realise what it is they actually mean.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-05-06 11:12:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Therefore - eliminate the unnecessary levels of tax/credit, save money on wasteful administration and red tape, and lower tazes. Theoretically at least.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuh-uh! All you'd do is swap one form of admin and beurocracy for another. The way the Inland Revenue works is through codes, as you are aware your tax code designates your tax level which is taken out of your pay. Stay with me here 'cause this is going to twist and turn a bit and it does even my head in thinking about it.
So... lets say we go with scrapping tax welfare and laying off hundreds of inland revenue number crunchers, don't worry about them they'll go become regular accountants, lets say that in doing so you save 70 million quid, from the scrapping of tax breaks you save another 150 million (these are random figures, the reality would probably be significantly less). So we've saved a whopping 220 million pounds. We give ourselves a pat on the back and start doing something with the money to celebrate.
So now the amount of tax the working family needs to pay goes down right? I mean we just shaved 220 million pounds out of the Inland Revenue's budget.
What on earth gave you that idea? Tax is a very complicated issue, it's all tied up with interest rates and corporate tax levels, not to mention inflation in the general sense. We shall, however, in our great benign wisdom, offer a tax cut on the lowest tax bracket of 2%. Aren't we great.
End result: Goverment coffers up 220 million a year, working families and other poor people = living in a world shit.
Scrapping Social Assistance is basically getting rid of intensive care so as not to 'mollycoddle' the sick.
Submitted by Jo (user info) at 2005-05-06 10:59:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I voted labour, Mainly because i work for the government and with them in i stand to get a promotion faster, But i did look at the others. At least under labour we have a stable economy and a slightly promising future.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-05-06 10:57:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That makes sense.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-06 10:22:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-05-06 09:11:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-06 07:56:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-05-06 07:14:17 (#)
Ranking: -1
"Resist any calls for proportional representation, unless you want the BNP to start gaining seats."
You wouldn't want the people who got votes to get seats now, would you?
You voted Conservative? No shit.
---------------
I will never, ever challenge the right for the BNP to ezist, speak freely, campaign, and be elected to Parliament in any number. If they win a constituency, all well and good. What I will challenge is the implementation of an electoral system which positively encourages radical fringe elements to gain a disproportional influence in government. The Nazi Party stood where the BNP now stand and look what happened - PR is a bad idea.
---------------------------
How is it a disproportionate influence in government??? It's proportionate, that's the idea! And as much as I hate what the BNP stands for (I'd never heard of them 'til this post) I still reserve the right of the British public who vote for them to have their voice heard.
But anyway, just because people are spread out across a nation doesn't mean they shouldn't get representation - here in Australia, the Greens poll 8%, but didn't win one seat last October. The Nationals on the other hand, with a conservative rural constituency, polled 7% and got 12 seats.
-------------------
Their influence becomers disproportionate for several reasons:
1, Their relative minorities and single issue politics means they are more likely to participate in votes and are less likely to abstain from voting in key issues.
2, Their politics are controversial so they will inevitably gain more press, radio and TV coverage.
3, In every PR situation fringe groups inevitably gain more and more seats as a result of PR than they would do under FPP systems, due to the reasons above.
PR encourages splinter parties and instable governments - this has been proven time and time again.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-06 10:15:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-05-06 08:48:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-05-06 08:14:26 (#)
Ranking: 1
Dumb question: How can a conservative party be the proponent of social welfare, yet be for smaller government and lower taxes? Isn't that kind of contradictory?
------------------------------------------------
He's right you know.
---------------------
No he's not. Social welfare means providing for those that need it, when they need it, and leaving them the hell alone to get on with their lives when they don't. Think about it - lower taxes mean more income, more income means less need for 'income support' 'working families tax credit' etc etc etc, because the money is already there. Theoretically, eliminating a level of taxation then tax breaks for those affected by higher taxes removes a level of administrative and bureaucratic costs. It might not work in practice - I am no economist. Surely everyone can see the stupidity - and cost - of taxing someone then giving them back some of that money in the form of tax credits, tax breaks, or refunds is not only timeconsuming, but inefficient and wasteful.
Therefore - eliminate the unnecessary levels of tax/credit, save money on wasteful administration and red tape, and lower tazes. Theoretically at least.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-05-06 09:11:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-06 07:56:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-05-06 07:14:17 (#)
Ranking: -1
"Resist any calls for proportional representation, unless you want the BNP to start gaining seats."
You wouldn't want the people who got votes to get seats now, would you?
You voted Conservative? No shit.
---------------
I will never, ever challenge the right for the BNP to ezist, speak freely, campaign, and be elected to Parliament in any number. If they win a constituency, all well and good. What I will challenge is the implementation of an electoral system which positively encourages radical fringe elements to gain a disproportional influence in government. The Nazi Party stood where the BNP now stand and look what happened - PR is a bad idea.
---------------------------
How is it a disproportionate influence in government??? It's proportionate, that's the idea! And as much as I hate what the BNP stands for (I'd never heard of them 'til this post) I still reserve the right of the British public who vote for them to have their voice heard.
But anyway, just because people are spread out across a nation doesn't mean they shouldn't get representation - here in Australia, the Greens poll 8%, but didn't win one seat last October. The Nationals on the other hand, with a conservative rural constituency, polled 7% and got 12 seats.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-05-06 08:48:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-05-06 08:14:26 (#)
Ranking: 1
Dumb question: How can a conservative party be the proponent of social welfare, yet be for smaller government and lower taxes? Isn't that kind of contradictory?
------------------------------------------------
He's right you know.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-05-06 08:31:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for voting Conservative
+2 for your comments TO the Conservatives
+2 for "halcyon."
+2 because I think much of this was applicable outside the UK.
+2 because it was also quite well written.
----------
+2 (I'm not sure how the math worked out that way, but Bart tells me it is correct.)
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-05-06 08:17:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
F**king nonsense. These are people who have made a conscious and deliberate choice. How many young offenders come from good homes, with caring, devoted, intelligent parents, went to good, often private schools, who had every benefit in life handed to them? Criminal does not breed criminal. Criminality is a choice - whether a conditioned choice or not. Blaming a government, society, or parental upbringing for an individuals choice is PC nonsense. By that logic I should be in jail by now, or the single mother of three all by different fathers. These elements should be forced to take responsibility for their actions.
-------------------------------------------------------
I must confess I'm having a little trouble understanding this statement. I mean, how many criminals DO come from good backgrounds (Tory MP's and their offspring aside)? Not many.
Besides that though I have to ask you, what is your soloution? Kill them? Forced labour, maybe? I'm talking about treating the actual CAUSES of the problems rather than cramming people into overcrowded prisons. I find myself tempted to use the expression Q.E.D again as this simply underlines the Tory "fuck everyone who can't pay tax" approach.
Don't weep for Micky though mate, I mean your gonna need someone better than him whatever your views.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-05-06 08:14:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Dumb question: How can a conservative party be the proponent of social welfare, yet be for smaller government and lower taxes? Isn't that kind of contradictory?
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-06 08:06:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Arthur_Dent (user info) at 2005-05-06 08:04:33 (#)
Ranking: 2
Howard has stood down.
-------------
I know. Fuck.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-06 08:05:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
These are people who have been let down by society, by their family units and by the institutions that where supposed to educate them and help them grow.
-------------------
F**king nonsense. These are people who have made a conscious and deliberate choice. How many young offenders come from good homes, with caring, devoted, intelligent parents, went to good, often private schools, who had every benefit in life handed to them? Criminal does not breed criminal. Criminality is a choice - whether a conditioned choice or not. Blaming a government, society, or parental upbringing for an individuals choice is PC nonsense. By that logic I should be in jail by now, or the single mother of three all by different fathers. These elements should be forced to take responsibility for their actions.
Submitted by Arthur_Dent (user info) at 2005-05-06 08:04:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Howard has stood down.
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2005-05-06 07:59:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
In Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, David Exley (BNP) polled 5,066 votes (13.13%). The seat was won by Labour's Shahid Malik.
hahahaha
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-06 07:56:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-05-06 07:14:17 (#)
Ranking: -1
"Resist any calls for proportional representation, unless you want the BNP to start gaining seats."
You wouldn't want the people who got votes to get seats now, would you?
You voted Conservative? No shit.
---------------
I will never, ever challenge the right for the BNP to ezist, speak freely, campaign, and be elected to Parliament in any number. If they win a constituency, all well and good. What I will challenge is the implementation of an electoral system which positively encourages radical fringe elements to gain a disproportional influence in government. The Nazi Party stood where the BNP now stand and look what happened - PR is a bad idea.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-05-06 07:23:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-05-06 07:14:17 (#)
Ranking: -1
"Resist any calls for proportional representation, unless you want the BNP to start gaining seats."
You wouldn't want the people who got votes to get seats now, would you?
You voted Conservative? No shit.
-----------------------------------------
I missed that one, thank you Thorpe.
Still I agree with him that the BNP are proper dodgy. They're just an over-reaction to their own fears.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-05-06 07:14:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
"Resist any calls for proportional representation, unless you want the BNP to start gaining seats."
You wouldn't want the people who got votes to get seats now, would you?
You voted Conservative? No shit.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-05-06 07:08:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
*24 years
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-05-06 07:08:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
On Michael Howard: "Howard is not a failure - not a complete one." Q.E.D.
On everything else (which is far more important):
Core Conservative values are those that speak the loudest to the British people - low taxes, small government, aid for those who cannot support themselves, gentle support and encouragement for those who work hard for themselves and their families, penalties for those who take without giving back, respect for traditions but change where needed, and only when needed. Speak to these values. Forget 'flavour of the month' campaigns, like immigration. Offer a genuine and challenging opposition.
I'll quote Margaret Thatcher in saying "community is dead" and good riddance, BUT that dosn't mean I am blind to the fact that there are genuinly vulnerable people. A lot of vulnerable parts of society are not even recognised as vulnerable members. Criminals for instance, specifically young offenders. These are people who have been let down by society, by their family units and by the institutions that where supposed to educate them and help them grow. Conservative approaches to this problem has traditionally been a rather heavy handed one. Conservative efforts to alleviate poverty during the 70's don't really bear thinking about and their "gentle support" has been implemented in the closure of social programs (I cite the closure of mental institututions during 1981, which was justified by these "support those who support themselves) philosophy). Now, 15 years later, the Tories had the gall to use the story of that man who was let out into the community as part of the "care in the community" proposal that THEY put into place for their own political gains, hoping that most wouldn't realise that it was their own policies that had led to this dangerous individual being released in the first place.
In summary I'm saying that the Conservatives "fuck everyone who can't pay tax" philosophy is socially regressive.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2005-05-06 06:40:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-05-06 06:21:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
Howard is a failiure, even you as a conservative must realise that. Why the hell do you want things to stay the same? The world is changing everyday. What golden age are you harking back to anyway? The 70's?
Just tell me what you stand for? What the hell are you actually saying? Stability? Is that your bag? It's the only rational thing I can assume you want. Perhaps with superiour leadership I'd understand your allegience but with that worm in charge all you'll have is policy devoted to point scoring, not progress.
---------------------
Howard is not a failure - not a complete one. He was the only viable option for leader after Ken Clarke declined to stand - there was no-one else. Would you have rather had, say, Oliver Letwin?
The reason I don't want him to resign immediately is not because I like him as a leader (though I do like him as a person), but because the party needs to sit back for a time after the election and take stock. A change of leader is inevitable and necessary, but to do it now would result in nothing. There are credible, honorable Conservative MPs with the ability to lead the party AND run the country but they cannot just simply appear out of the woodwork and take over. They need to be primed, prepared, and then presented not only to the general electorate but the party rank and file. The party needs to stabilise and an leadership campaign after a snap resignation after what was actually a relatively successful election for the Conservatives will cause nothing but instability.
I'm not harking back to a Golden Age - but I do believe that core Conservative values - core Tory values, if you will, are those which speak the loudest to all of us. Who actually wants higher taxes, more government interference, more legislation governing our lives? Anyone? Yes, the world is changing, and the Conservatives need to change with it. But the best method of doing this is to hold onto the core values, those ultimate ideals, which are still viable, are valid, and are important, and use them to make sense of the change.
And please tell me what is wrong with stability as a policy for government? We live in an unstable world, and forgive me but I would at least like my politicians to make a genuine stab and ironing out some of the uncertainty in our lives - it is, ultimately, what we elect them for. Be careful here - I'm arguing for stability, not stagnation.
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2005-05-06 06:38:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
so ummm.... Mr Prime Minister - I want you to sort your shit out and stuff.
sort out what ?
well, you know - scandals n shit
anything else ?
just a general complaint - taxes doctors pakis war and whatever
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-05-06 06:34:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Everything you ever wanted to know about I3reakneq
User id: 18080
Registered on or around: 2005-04-13 04:07:23
# Messages posted: 0
# Reviews written: 0
# Times these posts have been reviewed : 0
# Hits: 0
Average rating of all messages: 0.00
======================
This guy waited 3 weeks for his first review, just to tell you conservatives suck.
Reminds me of the great answer.
"42"
Submitted by I3reakneq (user info) at 2005-05-06 06:27:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
conservatives suck
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-05-06 06:24:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
To all - resist the desire for radical electoral reform; slow evolution have given us a system which works, for the most part, and which represents the path used to get us to this point. Resist any calls for proportional representation, unless you want the BNP to start gaining seats. Protect the House of Lords - it did more to protect democracy in it's undemocratic state than it will ever do if directly elected. Take note of the desires of the people who voted for you, and remember your constituencies are just as important as Westminster, especially when it comes to your own political career.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with all this though. Spot on.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-05-06 06:21:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Howard is a failiure, even you as a conservative must realise that. Why the hell do you want things to stay the same? The world is changing everyday. What golden age are you harking back to anyway? The 70's?
Just tell me what you stand for? What the hell are you actually saying? Stability? Is that your bag? It's the only rational thing I can assume you want. Perhaps with superiour leadership I'd understand your allegience but with that worm in charge all you'll have is policy devoted to point scoring, not progress.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-05-06 06:20:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
spot on.
Not like I know anything.
Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2005-05-06 06:12:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Bring back Lord Sutch I say.