The Tories

[SuitsBlueX2]

homophobe

Talk to you don't I.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

What a Pandora's box that is. Science can prove allsorts, lets not choke there. I agree parentS have an important role, why then are men second class citizens in the eyes of the law regarding their children? My take on single parentage and the 'underclass' are a touch strong, and not for here. As for adoption, I now see something I did not, I am sorry for my forceful headon approach. Are such approvals required for 'natural' parents? We both know the answer. As for unprotected sex, it is as old as time itself, give the latest generation some hope, somewhere to go, a goal, a life, something to strive for. Provide desolation and worthlessness and they will escape into alcoholism and drugs - where allegedly a lot of teenage pregnancy is rife. My entire bug-bear with your stance has been, if you expect parents to suddenly pay for their childrens education, what happens to the poor buggers born to Karen Matthews? A trollop that cares more about her next fix of ***s and booze than her numerous children. And if financial reward is not the goal, why do those without cite it as reason, and those with it flaunt it and use it so mercilessly?

Instinctively I think that help is best delivered as close to the source as possible. Ideally that should come from family, friends etc rather than the state. Maybe globalisation and the mobility it's created has eroded that to an extend. My brain is kinda pooped so I think I'll call it a night on that note.

Thanks for the debate all.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

Talk to you don't I.

ooh, you outrageous flirt

*attaches lashes and reaches for guyliner

 

[davek]

You have to bear in mind that, just as we are all bemoaning the lack of a decent choice for the forthcoming General Election, the electorate then had an even worse choice : Thatcherite Conservatives or a Labour party in even more disarray in the late '70's & early '80's than the Conservatives have been in the late '90's & early 2000's. Understandably, many were attracted by Thatchers image of strong leadership & a clear sense of direction. Others, as mentioned, sought to find new political alternatives.

You might have a point for the '79 election, but the subsequent re-election of the Tories was on the basis of a southern working class acting out of narrow self interest when the choice of a less divisive way forward from a coherent Labour Party was there for the taking. As I said above in this thread...there's a serf mentality that you just cant knock out of some people. Their subservience will always be delivered for a handful of crumbs.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

You might have a point for the '79 election, but the subsequent re-election of the Tories was on the basis of a southern working class acting out of narrow self interest when the choice of a less divisive way forward from a coherent Labour Party was there for the taking. As I said above in this thread...there's a serf mentality that you just cant knock out of some people. Their subservience will always be delivered for a handful of crumbs.

I'd have to disagree somewhat there. Labour were in an even worse state come the '83 election than they were in'79, hence Gerald Kaufman describing their manifesto as "the longest suicide note in history". Kinnock had started to turn things 'round by '87 but the Conservatives took advantage of the effect the SDP had of splitting the electorate, I'm sure he would have won in '92 but for that embarrssingly triumphalist eve of election rally (Sheffield?). New Labour saved all their triuphalism until after the election in '97.

 

[linglong]

I'm not too sure where this obsession comes from with Maggie - it's like listening to my 80 year old Mum going on about Hitler. It's 30 years since she was elected & it's 19 years since she was PM. Thatcherism was not traditional "One Nation" Conservative thinking but rather extreme right wing, however it was a time of extremes - one only has to think back to Militant, Socialist Workers Party, Michael Foot's emasculated leadership of Labour & the formation of the SDP drawing members from both main parties towards the centre ground that had been largely vacated.

Good points mate i feel the she devil became the focal point for many people,her policies laid the foundation for the world as it is today,now is that world better than it was before Thatch? no i would argue but rose tinted specs can do that to a man,plus i dont have a time warp machine to use just now to go back and change history.

Labour in the 80's where unelectable even as a party member i could see that they had to change,now wether they changed for the good only history can decide.

I still though wonder at the stupidity of the electorate the tories had said clearly there would be a poll tax in 1987 and where still voted in comfortably only to find a couple of years later that that particular nugget of legeslation would hit everyone hard in the pocket..so people rioted marched etc with that single move her time and her ideolgy was up she had become unelectable and was pushed out after a struggle while i dont think (thankfully) we'll ever see anything as extreme as her in my lifetime again i feel this current tory leadership will hit everyone hard,the spending cuts that have to be made (thanks for that bankers!) will hit the public sector hard and jobless numbers will shoot up rapidly.

I have yet to see a single tory policy that is set in stone and is workable,not a one the latest nonsense hit the scrounger on incapcity benefit that'll make everything fine..erm no it wont..where the hell are they going to find jobs for these people? there arent that many kncking around at the moment we're in the teeth of a recession,so we go back to the tired and failed tory poilcies of YTS schemes,more scheme jobs if you've been out of work for a few months..its just (what i call) "paper politcs" no substance to it just headline grabbing in the hope that they'll grub up a few more votes by doing so,now of course labour as just as bad at doing that and it makes my blood boil.

Another thing that really gets on my paps about politics is the fact NON of the leaders will face up to a hard hitting journalist (indeed are there any left?) no they prefer to go onto the likes of frigging GMTV and breakfast news and take the very soft option,**** me those idiots who sit on the sofa can hardly remember thier fecking names and gush so much at meeting these people it makes me ill.

I really do hate the dumbing down of our politcal system and sadly i think we have to balme Blair for much of that.

 

[davek]

I'd have to disagree somewhat there. Labour were in an even worse state come the '83 election than they were in'79, hence Gerald Kaufman describing their manifesto as "the longest suicide note in history". Kinnock had started to turn things 'round by '87 but the Conservatives took advantage of the effect the SDP had of splitting the electorate, I'm sure he would have won in '92 but for that embarrssingly triumphalist eve of election rally (Sheffield?). New Labour saved all their triuphalism until after the election in '97.

I think you're underestimating how riven by factionalism the Tories were at the time. They won that next election in '83 on a bounce from the Falklands campaign. But they'd torn the country apart with their industrial policy and even within the Tory Party the 'one nation' lot were in open rebellion with the lunatics in the cabinet driving the project on. Labour may have been presented as a divided house, but it was ever thus with Labour, and still is. Shorn of all the bullshit surrounding militarism v Pacifism, there was a choice at that election between more market fundamentalism and a policy to invest public money in industry and expand through better infrastructure...sounds familiar to us today. But this was the era when the north-south chasm grew and sectional interests trumped everything else. The Tories rode their luck on a blend of jingoism and keeping a service sector and light industry biased southern working class onside and weilding the axe elsewhere. Of course, the SDP splitting the progressive vote didn't help either.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

I think you're underestimating how riven by factionalism the Tories were at the time. They won that next election in '83 on a bounce from the Falklands campaign. But they'd torn the country apart with their industrial policy and even within the Tory Party the 'one nation' lot were in open rebellion with the lunatics in the cabinet driving the project on. Labour may have been presented as a divided house, but it was ever thus with Labour, and still is. Shorn of all the bullshit surrounding militarism v Pacifism, there was a choice at that election between more market fundamentalism and a policy to invest public money in industry and expand through better infrastructure...sounds familiar to us today. But this was the era when the north-south chasm grew and sectional interests trumped everything else. The Tories rode their luck on a blend of jingoism and keeping a service sector and light industry biased southern working class onside and weilding the axe elsewhere. Of course, the SDP splitting the progressive vote didn't help either.

It's not a case of underestimating the divisions within the Conservative party, but recognising that those disagreements never made the party appear a risky choice to the electorate, as happened later under Major due to the unresolved issue of Europe, despite the fact he & Clarke had actually done a decent job of turning the economy round (shame Brown didn't look after it better!). Whereas, Labour were presented as being on the verge of collapse : some members to the right leaving for the SDP, others on the left rallying around Tony Benn, & if you were to believe much of the media the Socialists were fast losing ground to the Communists! The way the whole "red peril" angle was played you'd have thought it was McCarthyite America in the '50's!

 

[BadWool76]

I love this forum ! Classic debate .

 

[davek]

It's not a case of underestimating the divisions within the Conservative party, but recognising that those disagreements never made the party appear a risky choice to the electorate, as happened later under Major due to the unresolved issue of Europe, despite the fact he & Clarke had actually done a decent job of turning the economy round (shame Brown didn't look after it better!). Whereas, Labour were presented as being on the verge of collapse : some members to the right leaving for the SDP, others on the left rallying around Tony Benn, & if you were to believe much of the media the Socialists were fast losing ground to the Communists! The way the whole "red peril" angle was played you'd have thought it was McCarthyite America in the '50's!

They were unelectable in large swathes of the country DENNIS, that's the point I'm making. Outside of a populous, well taken care of southern English working class they were obliterated during the 80s in the rest of Britain.

To go back to where we came in on this dialogue, you stated: "Understandably, many [voters] were attracted by Thatchers image of strong leadership & a clear sense of direction."....in relation to the 79 election and, presumably, from what you've just posted, the 83 election.

We can argue the toss about whether the anti-trade union/jingoism hardline approach got them elected all night long. But I'd say the perception of a unified Tory Party/disunited Labour Party (Militant, in reality, a rump) in the electorate's frame of reference was trumped all day long by sectional interests...and that seems clearly born out by the glaring geo-political map of Britain in the 80's.

Perception will always be trumped by materialism.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

They were unelectable in large swathes of the country DENNIS, that's the point I'm making. Outside of a populous, well taken care of southern English working class they were obliterated during the 80s in the rest of Britain.

To go back to where we came in on this dialogue, you stated: "Understandably, many [voters] were attracted by Thatchers image of strong leadership & a clear sense of direction."....in relation to the 79 election and, presumably, from what you've just posted, the 83 election.

We can argue the toss about whether the anti-trade union/jingoism hardline approach got them elected all night long. But I'd say the perception of a unified Tory Party/disunited Labour Party (Militant, in reality, a rump) in the electorate's frame of reference was trumped all day long by sectional interests...and that seems clearly born out by the glaring geo-political map of Britain in the 80's.

Perception will always be trumped by materialism.

I quite agree that different parties seem to do better in certain parts of the country than others, such as the tendency of the Liberals to often do well in the West Country for some reason. I take it that you feel that the Conservatives were re-elected by a small but significant geographically advantaged group of voters driven by their own self-interest & all the other factors are largely irrelevant. Whilst your point has merit, I wouldn't be so dismissive of the other factors. Perception does play a large part in how people vote - remember New Labour in '97 storming to victory on little more than Tony Blair's smile, Tory disunity over Europe & an intangible sense of "it's time for a change", heavily promoted via the "anybody but the Tories" campaign that encouraged Liberals & Socialists to switch allegiances where the other party had a greater chance of beating the Conservatives.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

middle England is to blame

 

[davek]

I quite agree that different parties seem to do better in certain parts of the country than others, such as the tendency of the Liberals to often do well in the West Country for some reason. I take it that you feel that the Conservatives were re-elected by a small but significant geographically advantaged group of voters driven by their own self-interest & all the other factors are largely irrelevant. Whilst your point has merit, I wouldn't be so dismissive of the other factors. Perception does play a large part in how people vote - remember New Labour in '97 storming to victory on little more than Tony Blair's smile, Tory disunity over Europe & an intangible sense of "it's time for a change", heavily promoted via the "anybody but the Tories" campaign that encouraged Liberals & Socialists to switch allegiances where the other party had a greater chance of beating the Conservatives.

That's all true, but I think it comes down ultimately to this: you cant polish a turd. Intangibles get you so far but there's got to be something beyond it. The Tories were a busted flush in 97 and Labour were able to grab the attention of voters with talk of a Third Way that brokered a social contract between the individual and the State (the ideology) - and harnessed it to stuff like the introduction of a national minimum wage and pumping massive time and resources into investing in the NHS (the material).

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

That's all true, but I think it comes down ultimately to this: you cant polish a turd. Intangibles get you so far but there's got to be something beyond it. The Tories were a busted flush in 97 and Labour were able to grab the attention of voters with talk of a Third Way that brokered a social contract between the individual and the State (the ideology) - and harnessed it to stuff like the introduction of a national minimum wage and pumping massive time and resources into investing in the NHS (the material).

I'd like to think you're right, but somehow I feel you're giving the electorate too much credit - let's face it the election result is to some degree determined by whatever the Sun says, sadly. For Brown, as for Major previously, once the Sun ditches you so does a sizeable chunk of the electorate.

 

[Goat]

If we could all of GOTs 6,000+ members to vote Labour they would walk it, I think theres only about 8,000 people that bother to vote anyway.