Tories the future (part1)
Discussion
Mrr T said:
Esseesse said:
Mrr T said:
Disagree on both counts.
CMD can earn far more on the lecture/directors train.
Boris has only a small following in the Tory party. More likely Osbourne but the race will be vary open. I would like Owen Patterson.
This does assuming I am right and vote UKIP gets Labour.
I wonder if you polled grass roots members on who they'd like as leader and added Mr Farage in there how well he'd do....CMD can earn far more on the lecture/directors train.
Boris has only a small following in the Tory party. More likely Osbourne but the race will be vary open. I would like Owen Patterson.
This does assuming I am right and vote UKIP gets Labour.
Either way, I'd suggest that most voted for Cameron over Davis because of his salesman like qualities rather than particularly what he stood for. They voted for someone they thought would get them in and gave up their principles to do so.
Derek
I disagree. History is important but it's not circular. Paradigms do shift. The old Labour party were much easier to beat because they were basically Eastern Bloc communists who actively tried to wreck stuff. Competent management of thr economy was enough for MacMillain and Heath, and even Thatcher.
The modern Labour party post Blair is much more subtle. They have realised that in order to have money to waste they need a functioning economy and so allow this to continue.
Competent management is no longer enough because (at least in the minds of the public) Labour offer this too.
And as for chasing the "middle ground" - how? What middle of the road things can the Tories offer that will get people to vote for them?
The most obvious places that the Tories are losing votes and indeed seats is to what I assume you are calling the "nutty right" - UKIP, with their offer of controlled immigration and self governance. The sort of "nutty" policies that most countries around the world take for granted.
It's not a case of moving to the right as in restoring the ddeath penalty or repatriating immigrants according to ethnicity. It's a case of upholding some of the basic principles that just about any party, let alone a supposedly conservative one, should. And it seems one that many Conservative voters and even MPs do hold.
Yet for some reason the grip of "Europe" on certain sections of the paŕty is so strong that the withering death we are seeing is preferable to withdrawal.
I disagree. History is important but it's not circular. Paradigms do shift. The old Labour party were much easier to beat because they were basically Eastern Bloc communists who actively tried to wreck stuff. Competent management of thr economy was enough for MacMillain and Heath, and even Thatcher.
The modern Labour party post Blair is much more subtle. They have realised that in order to have money to waste they need a functioning economy and so allow this to continue.
Competent management is no longer enough because (at least in the minds of the public) Labour offer this too.
And as for chasing the "middle ground" - how? What middle of the road things can the Tories offer that will get people to vote for them?
The most obvious places that the Tories are losing votes and indeed seats is to what I assume you are calling the "nutty right" - UKIP, with their offer of controlled immigration and self governance. The sort of "nutty" policies that most countries around the world take for granted.
It's not a case of moving to the right as in restoring the ddeath penalty or repatriating immigrants according to ethnicity. It's a case of upholding some of the basic principles that just about any party, let alone a supposedly conservative one, should. And it seems one that many Conservative voters and even MPs do hold.
Yet for some reason the grip of "Europe" on certain sections of the paŕty is so strong that the withering death we are seeing is preferable to withdrawal.
AJS- said:
Derek
I disagree. History is important but it's not circular. Paradigms do shift. The old Labour party were much easier to beat because they were basically Eastern Bloc communists who actively tried to wreck stuff. Competent management of thr economy was enough for MacMillain and Heath, and even Thatcher.
The modern Labour party post Blair is much more subtle. They have realised that in order to have money to waste they need a functioning economy and so allow this to continue.
Competent management is no longer enough because (at least in the minds of the public) Labour offer this too.
And as for chasing the "middle ground" - how? What middle of the road things can the Tories offer that will get people to vote for them?
The most obvious places that the Tories are losing votes and indeed seats is to what I assume you are calling the "nutty right" - UKIP, with their offer of controlled immigration and self governance. The sort of "nutty" policies that most countries around the world take for granted.
It's not a case of moving to the right as in restoring the ddeath penalty or repatriating immigrants according to ethnicity. It's a case of upholding some of the basic principles that just about any party, let alone a supposedly conservative one, should. And it seems one that many Conservative voters and even MPs do hold.
Yet for some reason the grip of "Europe" on certain sections of the party is so strong that the withering death we are seeing is preferable to withdrawal.
The thread is about the tories and for them, I think their history should be something to learn from and not follow. How far back should history take us? To the days of being dominated by the landed gentry, and by the HoL? Or just perhaps post war. I disagree. History is important but it's not circular. Paradigms do shift. The old Labour party were much easier to beat because they were basically Eastern Bloc communists who actively tried to wreck stuff. Competent management of thr economy was enough for MacMillain and Heath, and even Thatcher.
The modern Labour party post Blair is much more subtle. They have realised that in order to have money to waste they need a functioning economy and so allow this to continue.
Competent management is no longer enough because (at least in the minds of the public) Labour offer this too.
And as for chasing the "middle ground" - how? What middle of the road things can the Tories offer that will get people to vote for them?
The most obvious places that the Tories are losing votes and indeed seats is to what I assume you are calling the "nutty right" - UKIP, with their offer of controlled immigration and self governance. The sort of "nutty" policies that most countries around the world take for granted.
It's not a case of moving to the right as in restoring the ddeath penalty or repatriating immigrants according to ethnicity. It's a case of upholding some of the basic principles that just about any party, let alone a supposedly conservative one, should. And it seems one that many Conservative voters and even MPs do hold.
Yet for some reason the grip of "Europe" on certain sections of the party is so strong that the withering death we are seeing is preferable to withdrawal.
If we take the latter then the most successful tory PM, arguably the best post war PM, was hardly typically right. She was practical. She addressed each problem as it came on the basis of what was best. She did not have to refer to history books to find the proper route. She did not follow tory dogma, and certainly not the history.
It was when she followed right-wing politics that she lost the support, both of the mainstays of her party and the country. She never reverted to the levels of unpopularity that she 'enjoyed' at the start of her terms though. Her biggest mistakes were such matters at the poll tax. Despite the fact I had four adults living at my house at the time, I felt the poll tax was a fairer way of going about things. But what a way to present it. It was, at best, inept.
Whilst she dominated the right-wing she was secure, but she, even she?, could not keep it up. That's where history comes in. No tory PM has ever managed to amalgamate the two wings of the party for any length of time. Thatcher was perhaps the most successful, but she did it by being a dictator. But they didn't like it up 'em.
She cultivated certain right wing Ps, the sensible ones in the main.
We have a party that says it will increase spending on the police, prisons, armed forces, and more. It suggests longer and more custodial sentencing. It uses immigration as its main standpoint. It is, in fact, historically tory. If the conservatives fight it on a similar basis, going more to the right, then it leaves the middle ground clear, with not LDP to fill it.
Or should the tory party fight the UKIP by pointing out the costs of all the largess?
Blair was successful because he presented a solid, cooperative party against the squabbling tories. He had no beliefs though. None that I could see.
@GoodwinMJ: Reminder before tonight's poll. The last (@Survation) Rochester & Strood poll OCT 1-2:
UKIP 40
CON 31
LAB 25
LD 2
If UKIP win Rochester, which is beginning to look likely, CMD may well be outed...
Who would the Tories want as leader?
Latest poll, I know we all luv 'em, will be out in a few mins.
UKIP 40
CON 31
LAB 25
LD 2
If UKIP win Rochester, which is beginning to look likely, CMD may well be outed...
Who would the Tories want as leader?
Latest poll, I know we all luv 'em, will be out in a few mins.
steveT350C said:
@GoodwinMJ: Reminder before tonight's poll. The last (@Survation) Rochester & Strood poll OCT 1-2:
UKIP 40
CON 31
LAB 25
LD 2
If UKIP win Rochester, which is beginning to look likely, CMD may well be outed...
Who would the Tories want as leader?
Latest poll, I know we all luv 'em, will be out in a few mins.
If the conservatives lose then this could be the greatest election I will have ever witnessed. UKIP 40
CON 31
LAB 25
LD 2
If UKIP win Rochester, which is beginning to look likely, CMD may well be outed...
Who would the Tories want as leader?
Latest poll, I know we all luv 'em, will be out in a few mins.
Derek
I would interpret things a bit differently. While Thatcher may not have been as dogmatic at the time as some present day Thatcherites might imagine she very clearly did have an ideological belief in free markets and limited government which guided many of her actions.
One of her first and most impressive (from my point of view) acts was to get rid of exchange controls, against considerable opposition from moderates in her own party who thought they should be reduced or phased out gradually.
Of course like any politician she courted popularity and would take such opportunities to build it as she could, but there definitely was an ideology there.
For the sake of comparison, which post war PM was more "right wing" than Thatcher? Or more ideologically commicommitted to small government?
I would interpret things a bit differently. While Thatcher may not have been as dogmatic at the time as some present day Thatcherites might imagine she very clearly did have an ideological belief in free markets and limited government which guided many of her actions.
One of her first and most impressive (from my point of view) acts was to get rid of exchange controls, against considerable opposition from moderates in her own party who thought they should be reduced or phased out gradually.
Of course like any politician she courted popularity and would take such opportunities to build it as she could, but there definitely was an ideology there.
For the sake of comparison, which post war PM was more "right wing" than Thatcher? Or more ideologically commicommitted to small government?
Tory party is split on so many issues. For example the British Election Study, academic research that's been going for decades shows that the Tory party does not connect with black , Asian and mixed heritage voters. This has been the case for years and essentially they are making no progress. With the increasing diversity of Britain this is a long term problem for the Tories. Many ethnic voters who, for example, believe that fair controlled immigration together with the countries willingness to be a haven for people genuinely in peril and needing a haven, yet still do not innately trust the Tories.
Yet it's impossible to attract this sector and at the same time attract UKIP supporters.
Tories need to make their mind up what they really stand for. To be fair Dave tried that but his refusal to even discuss certain issues have been and will be his eventual downfall.
I don't think Rochester will see the end of him. 2015 GE certainly will.
Next leader? Pass.
Yet it's impossible to attract this sector and at the same time attract UKIP supporters.
Tories need to make their mind up what they really stand for. To be fair Dave tried that but his refusal to even discuss certain issues have been and will be his eventual downfall.
I don't think Rochester will see the end of him. 2015 GE certainly will.
Next leader? Pass.
AJS- said:
Derek
I would interpret things a bit differently. While Thatcher may not have been as dogmatic at the time as some present day Thatcherites might imagine she very clearly did have an ideological belief in free markets and limited government which guided many of her actions.
One of her first and most impressive (from my point of view) acts was to get rid of exchange controls, against considerable opposition from moderates in her own party who thought they should be reduced or phased out gradually.
Of course like any politician she courted popularity and would take such opportunities to build it as she could, but there definitely was an ideology there.
For the sake of comparison, which post war PM was more "right wing" than Thatcher? Or more ideologically commicommitted to small government?
Sorry, I think I wasn't clear what I meant. I would interpret things a bit differently. While Thatcher may not have been as dogmatic at the time as some present day Thatcherites might imagine she very clearly did have an ideological belief in free markets and limited government which guided many of her actions.
One of her first and most impressive (from my point of view) acts was to get rid of exchange controls, against considerable opposition from moderates in her own party who thought they should be reduced or phased out gradually.
Of course like any politician she courted popularity and would take such opportunities to build it as she could, but there definitely was an ideology there.
For the sake of comparison, which post war PM was more "right wing" than Thatcher? Or more ideologically commicommitted to small government?
Thatcher had her own beliefs, I agree fully with you there. There are few, I assume, who would not. Mind you, I'm not certain she was true to them in later years. What I meant was that there was no concentration on 'traditional' conservative doctrine. That's about it.
I would not say small government is necessarily unique to tories. It is, of course, classic liberal, which is how I'd describe my own beliefs, although by no means a liberal.
As for post war tory PMs, Churchill went with the wind. He had no real beliefs as regards politics.
Earl Hume? Further right than Thatcher, as was Eden. Both somewhat upper upper class, and that was their beliefs.
Macmillan confused me at the time and still does. I'm not alone there. I've read a couple of books about him, one particular, the other on Suez, and they contradicted one-another. I've no idea whether he was right wing or not but there is little doubt that some of his actions were not middle of the road.
Thatcher was a one-off. Not traditional tory. At the time she came out of nowhere as leader of the opposition. The first scientist as a PM I believe.
Seems like Boris Johnson is lining himself up for the leadership role next. Clever long term campaign of popular baffoonery to become well known then using the mayoralty to establish serious Boris.
I don't doubt his intelligence and he does have a charm but I don't see him as the saviour of the party unless he can unite them behind a common goal that is more compelling than simply keeping Labour out.
I don't doubt his intelligence and he does have a charm but I don't see him as the saviour of the party unless he can unite them behind a common goal that is more compelling than simply keeping Labour out.
Tories have a spectrum of views that can never be reconciled. But so do Labour - we have seen those surface enough in the past, in the recent past most importantly perhaps in the split in votes between the Miliband brothers.
Do indeed do UKIP. About the only thing that they have in common is a desire to leave the EU and a dislike for the "establishment parties". That can be seen in the very disparate views in this forum or in Farages rejection of the last GE manifesto for example.
So indeed do the LibDems have factions, less noticeably today perhaps, but that is largely because people don't take so much notice of them.
In democratic party politics there are 2 solutions - broad churches with internal tensions as we or US have, or coalitions of disparate parties and thus external tensions in some several continental European countries. Our FPTP system favours the former, splitting can mean both factions fail at elections- as is arguably the risk now if you see UKIP, as many do, as a breakaway faction from the Tories (and in anticipation of argument on that score, take a look at the leadership - how many are ex-Tories?)
Do indeed do UKIP. About the only thing that they have in common is a desire to leave the EU and a dislike for the "establishment parties". That can be seen in the very disparate views in this forum or in Farages rejection of the last GE manifesto for example.
So indeed do the LibDems have factions, less noticeably today perhaps, but that is largely because people don't take so much notice of them.
In democratic party politics there are 2 solutions - broad churches with internal tensions as we or US have, or coalitions of disparate parties and thus external tensions in some several continental European countries. Our FPTP system favours the former, splitting can mean both factions fail at elections- as is arguably the risk now if you see UKIP, as many do, as a breakaway faction from the Tories (and in anticipation of argument on that score, take a look at the leadership - how many are ex-Tories?)
Derek
I think it's more the case that we've exhausted the usefulness of the broad term "right wing" here. Eden and Hume may have been more traditionalist than Thatcher but I don't see them being anywhere near as committed to the free market or promoting an entrepreneurial society as Thatcher.
Perhaps I am missing something, but this seems to go right to the heart of the Tory split.
I think it's more the case that we've exhausted the usefulness of the broad term "right wing" here. Eden and Hume may have been more traditionalist than Thatcher but I don't see them being anywhere near as committed to the free market or promoting an entrepreneurial society as Thatcher.
Perhaps I am missing something, but this seems to go right to the heart of the Tory split.
JustAnotherLogin said:
Tories have a spectrum of views that can never be reconciled. But so do Labour - we have seen those surface enough in the past, in the recent past most importantly perhaps in the split in votes between the Miliband brothers.
As evidenced by certain union barons floating the idea of a new party formed around the unions, as Ed isn't tugging his forlock with enough vigour.Matthew Parris basically calling the residents of Clacton basically worthless after the UKIP routing. Another middle class, independently educated Cambridge journalist london centric dork. They can't 'get it' or change, even if the electorate show thier distaste, because as mentioned befire, they don't mix with common folk. They must be absolutely s
t scared of them. I suppose if you mix with your own at work, shop at waitrose, john lewis, kids at independent school, you could hardly ever meet a working class person.
t scared of them. I suppose if you mix with your own at work, shop at waitrose, john lewis, kids at independent school, you could hardly ever meet a working class person. crankedup said:
I did say perceived!
Agreed milliband seems out of touch, I disagree that the Labour Party are still deceiving large swathes of the public regards representation of the 'ordinary workers'. They are still making attempts at this of course, but reality is that many hardcore Labour voters are deserting the Party and moving across to UKIP. Perhaps it is the case that the established two major parties have both had their day.
Either way I find it infuriating that front bench politicians, in many cases, have almost no concept of ordinary people. Labour do seem to do a better job at this particular pretence, but the day is dawning.
I think that both main parties seem to exist in a little london centric bubble of PC right-on bullsAgreed milliband seems out of touch, I disagree that the Labour Party are still deceiving large swathes of the public regards representation of the 'ordinary workers'. They are still making attempts at this of course, but reality is that many hardcore Labour voters are deserting the Party and moving across to UKIP. Perhaps it is the case that the established two major parties have both had their day.
Either way I find it infuriating that front bench politicians, in many cases, have almost no concept of ordinary people. Labour do seem to do a better job at this particular pretence, but the day is dawning.
t laden dreamworldIf anything i think that tory party are slightly more aware that something does exist outside of the M25.
The main reason people vote labour is to keep the tory party out
While most tory voters are voting tory to keep the labour party out
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff