The Conservative Party: Dead In The Water?

[Pavilionaire]

Do you think that the Conservative Party is finished?

I see Gordon Brown now has a 10-point lead over David Cameron and a snap election is a distinct possibility. The Post-Major years have seen Hague, Duncan-Smith, Howard and now Cameron struggle to unite the party and come up with new ideas to rival Labour.

Reading the "Reclaim the streets" thread you realise that politicians in this country of all political persuasions lack to balls to get to grips with the social ills that pervade our society.

The Tories are still split on the big issues like Europe and the Euro, immigration, law and order and I wonder whether they'll ever be a force again.

Just what ARE David Cameron's policies? Are they any different to those of Blair?

It annoys me so much because I reckon if the Tories had the balls and tenacity to come up with some radical policies they'd walk the next election, for example:

1. Tougher sentences for criminals and build more prisons, fines on negligent parents for anti-social behaviour of their kids
2. Overhauling an over-complicated tax system with a flat rate of tax and reform of the benefits/tax credits system
3. A structured withdrawal from Afghanistan / Iraq
4. Proper immigration controls and a freeze on all immigration for 2 years.
5. A foreign policy that works closer with the EU and doesn't kow-tow to the States.
6. Legalisation of some drugs, proper state-funded rehab and education programmes and adoption of best-practice from countries like Holland, Spain etc.

So what's stopping them grasping the nettle?

 

[beorhthelm]

yes, they come up with so few concrete policies. mentioned flat taxes a few years back, but not followed up and dont seem to be pushing the issue. they are so wrapped up with image that they've forgotten about actual politics. yes, they are dead until they are willing to scare a few voters on the centre-left (who will probably vote liberal anyway).

 

[Bob!]

Do you think that the Conservative Party is finished?

I see Gordon Brown now has a 10-point lead over David Cameron and a snap election is a distinct possibility.

Well, obviously The Labour Party don't believe they are finished, why call an early election if the opposition is no longer going to be relevant?

 

[glasfryn]

Probably because they are pathological liars and all those you listed would never appear.
In my long working life I was once a prison officer and the Tories were whinging on about building more prisons then and as for the rest of the list it certainly would not give me any inclination to vote for them even if they actually implemented any of them

 

[Gwylan]

D
It annoys me so much because I reckon if the Tories had the balls and tenacity to come up with some radical policies they'd walk the next election, for example:

1. Tougher sentences for criminals and build more prisons, fines on negligent parents for anti-social behaviour of their kids
2. Overhauling an over-complicated tax system with a flat rate of tax and reform of the benefits/tax credits system
3. A structured withdrawal from Afghanistan / Iraq
4. Proper immigration controls and a freeze on all immigration for 2 years.
5. A foreign policy that works closer with the EU and doesn't kow-tow to the States.
6. Legalisation of some drugs, proper state-funded rehab and education programmes and adoption of best-practice from countries like Holland, Spain etc.

So what's stopping them grasping the nettle?

1. A very expensive option - each prisoner costs the state about £35k a year - and that's before the costs of new prisons (as we're totally full). Taxes would have to rise to pay for it. That's also ignoring the fact that prisoners tend to have a high reoffending rate, so they're more likely to reoffend. And we already give the second longest sentences in Europe, so something's not working

2 All well and good but the flat rate would have to be pitched well above current minimum. I can't see a Tory proposal that people earning about £25k or under would have to pay more so that traders in the City could get a £100k tax cut being much of a winner.

3 Now you're talking.

4 Now you're not .... that would be terrible. There are already some agricultural companies saying that their workforces are struggling to cope. Building firms and the NHS would need to find more people too.

5 Totally agree - although I can't see the Tories adopting that.

6 Totally agree. In fact, if this were implemented I expect that there would be a decline in crime obviating the need for point 1.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Well, obviously The Labour Party don't believe they are finished, why call an early election if the opposition is no longer going to be relevant?

Because by winning a general election Brown will have been elected PM by the people, not by his party.

I believe his advisors will push him to act quickly to call the election to "cash in" on perceived Tory disunity, but the reality is he'd walk it any time over the remainder of this parliament because the Tories are, and have been for a decade, a complete shambles.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Do you think that the Conservative Party is finished?

I see Gordon Brown now has a 10-point lead over David Cameron and a snap election is a distinct possibility. The Post-Major years have seen Hague, Duncan-Smith, Howard and now Cameron struggle to unite the party and come up with new ideas to rival Labour.

Reading the "Reclaim the streets" thread you realise that politicians in this country of all political persuasions lack to balls to get to grips with the social ills that pervade our society.

The Tories are still split on the big issues like Europe and the Euro, immigration, law and order and I wonder whether they'll ever be a force again.

Just what ARE David Cameron's policies? Are they any different to those of Blair?

It annoys me so much because I reckon if the Tories had the balls and tenacity to come up with some radical policies they'd walk the next election, for example:

1. Tougher sentences for criminals and build more prisons, fines on negligent parents for anti-social behaviour of their kids
2. Overhauling an over-complicated tax system with a flat rate of tax and reform of the benefits/tax credits system
3. A structured withdrawal from Afghanistan / Iraq
4. Proper immigration controls and a freeze on all immigration for 2 years.
5. A foreign policy that works closer with the EU and doesn't kow-tow to the States.
6. Legalisation of some drugs, proper state-funded rehab and education programmes and adoption of best-practice from countries like Holland, Spain etc.

So what's stopping them grasping the nettle?

But you could say all political parties are split on all of those issues. The biggest difference I can see is that the tories are generally less nanny state than Labour.

Maybe we need more prisons but sentences have never been higher and crime is getting lower, so something must be working.

Haven't the Lib Dems gone for a flat rate of tax. Doesn't seem like it has made them very popular.

Withdrawl might be popular but would be a huge u-turn for the tories, that would lose them more votes than they gained

The case for immigration is proven. We need cheap labour. What we don't need are illegal immigrants, and we should spend more money trying to stop them coming in and then getting rid of them. The difference is crucial though.

Our link to the yanks is the reason we punch above our weight internationally and economically. Only a fool would try to sever it.

This is the tory party not some left wing party. Soft on drugs won't win you votes

 

[Brovion]

Although it's not been mentioned it's possible that some Tories may well split off and form a new party a bit like the SDP did with Labour back in the 1980s. You could argue that they've already done that with the UKIP and the Referendum parties but they were just for the lunatic fringe.

I think the split if it comes will come from the left and not the right. If Cameron gets ousted and the Tories lurch to the right (again) you might see the more modern Tories breaking away and forming their own organisation; thus leaving the blue-rinse brigade and the Sir Bufton Tuftons to stew in their own colostomy bags.

 

[Gwylan]

Although it's not been mentioned it's possible that some Tories may well split off and form a new party a bit like the SDP did with Labour back in the 1980s. You could argue that they've already done that with the UKIP and the Referendum parties but they were just for the lunatic fringe.

I think the split if it comes will come from the left and not the right. If Cameron gets ousted and the Tories lurch to the right (again) you might see the more modern Tories breaking away and forming their own organisation; thus leaving the blue-rinse brigade and the Sir Bufton Tuftons to stew in their own colostomy bags.

I've thought this was a possibility for some time. There are some Tories who are very centrist and there are some who could easily fit into the BNP/UK IP. What's kept them together is the thought that the Tory party is a successful vote-winning machine and they're better off in it. But if the Tory party isn't successful does this argument apply any more?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Gwylan, senior prison officers are saying we need at least 15,000 more prison places to alleviate overcrowding. Who is to say the overcrowding isn't contributing to the problem and, therefore, pushing costs up? If you release criminals early it will cost the government money because they'll commit more crime whilst out instead of being behind bars.

Re flat rate tax - the Eastern Europeans are doing it and the simplified regime is attractive to foreign investors. We WILL lose out in the long-term to the Hungary / Poland / Czech / Baltics States if we don't straighten it out.

Re immigration - there's a massive backlog of cases that need to be sorted and the constant uncontrolled influx means there are no effective controls on who has come in, where they are and what they are doing. A 2-year moratorium would give us time to absorb the influx. By correctly logging them onto the system or deporting them we'll bring them into the tax system or kick them out and reduce crime.

 

[Simster]

I'd say that the Tory party cannot survive without it moving into the centre ground - and I don't mean just the leader and a few cronies. In fact, the amazing thing is that the Tories were ever able to last this long whilst being so far to the right when you consider that 70% of votes being cast are for the two centre-left parties. It just goes to show how terrified middle England was/is of an extremely powerful trade union lobby holding the country to ransom before they were justifiably taken to task by Thatcher and Kinnock.

I'm amazed the Tories haven't learnt the lesson that Labour learnt; that they need to be truly fighting for the middle ground. That is where elections are won and lost and you need to make proper changes to your party to convince the electorate; simply electing a pretty boy leader on its own is not enough.

 

[London Calling]

1. Need to create society of less criminals, look at best pratice and the societies with smaller number of prisons and inhabitants of such places, have a more equal society, invest in the child and raise more taxes to pay for drug rehabilation programmes etc
2. Vast majority of people pay the 22% tax anyway, I would introduce a higher tax threhold at the £50 k mark and also £100,000. Increase the level of income tax and have less VAT and other indirect taxes. More tax redistribution is needed.
3. Aghanistan. We are there to protect the future oil pipes to run through it and destroy the poppy fields, pull out and our societies will forever be flodded woth smack.
4. ? May win you votes but has **** all to do with a improved society?
5. Agree but the majority of the country wouldn't understand the benefits of this "internationalism"
6. Not sure, we have the biggest misuse of drugs, in Holland drugs is not tolerated outside of the inner cities and ther Spanish of the biggest users of crack and cocaine?

 

[Beach Hut]

Completely dead ducks - all went wrong when they did not elect Hezza as leader

 

[Gwylan]

Re flat rate tax - the Eastern Europeans are doing it and the simplified regime is attractive to foreign investors. We WILL lose out in the long-term to the Hungary / Poland / Czech / Baltics States if we don't straighten it out.

Foreign investors don't vote - the electorate does. And I repeat: a party that promises to increase taxes for most people (which is what a flat rate would mean) would be a guaranteed vote loser.

I agree with London Calling. I think a party that offered an increase in top rate to bigger earners would win votes for it.

 

[Pavilionaire]

It seems to me that too many politicians are worried about policies that they perceive will lose them votes, rather than coming up with policies that will enthuse voters and actually make them believe that by voting they can make a real difference.

Drugs is a classic case. We've made no progress in 30 years on this, drugtaking is widespread and kids who are otherwise law-abiding have to mix with the criminal fraternity to score their gear.

Drugs is still the nightmare of every parent, it is responsible for so much crime and wastes so much police time, but are the present policies really the best we can come up with? Surely a massive educational campaign followed by the legalisation and state control of the supply and a targeted clampdown on drug-dealing would be better than what we've got at present?

 

[The Large One]

I've thought this was a possibility for some time. There are some Tories who are very centrist and there are some who could easily fit into the BNP/UK IP. What's kept them together is the thought that the Tory party is a successful vote-winning machine and they're better off in it. But if the Tory party isn't successful does this argument apply any more?

I get the feeling that, at times, the Tory Party forgets that it's not in power while at the same time feeling that Labour forgets that it IS in power. Only the change of leadership within Labour is going affect that state of affairs, because Labour is now moving on from the party which won the election in 1997.

It has often been said that Labour were more effective in opposition - especially during the 1990s - than they are in government. That's a separate argument apart from to say, one, what did that say about the Tory government during the 1990s, and two, what has said Tory Party done about it?

Carried on bickering, it appears.

Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Tony Blair successively did away with long-standing views and policies because it made them unelectable. They were considered too left-wing, and too much in the grip of the Trade unions. The fact that they were seen to be aligning themselves with the so-called enemy from over the eastern horizon (the USSR and the Eastern Bloc) didn't help them in the popular vote either.

However, modern day UK politics isn't really about Left v Right any more in the way it was from 1945-1990. It's not about sticking to any given doctrine salvishly, or having political principles because that's who you say you are, mainly because that kind of dogma is ultimately self-defeating. What we have in this country is a political party which won the hearts and minds of the country because it was first in the race to win the 'middle ground' (i.e. picking and choosing bits of old policies from both sides of the traditional political divide and re-packaging it) at a time when extremist - and by that I mean Labour being as far left as the Tories being to the right - politics were not considered desirable. Nor have they been in the intervening years.

The Tories, I feel, are still to grasp that, and are still fighting a Labour Party of Michael Foot, Tony Benn and George Brown.

 

[Gwylan]

However, modern day UK politics isn't really about Left v Right any more in the way it was from 1945-1990. It's not about sticking to any given doctrine salvishly, or having political principles because that's who you say you are, mainly because that kind of dogma is ultimately self-defeating. What we have in this country is a political party which won the hearts and minds of the country because it was first in the race to win the 'middle ground' (i.e. picking and choosing bits of old policies from both sides of the traditional political divide and re-packaging it) at a time when extremist - and by that I mean Labour being as far left as the Tories being to the right - politics were not considered desirable.

I think that what you say is right but if the Labour strategy is to pick popular policies from both sides and occupy the centre ground, then what can the Tories do? They either do exactly the same - in which case, there's a danger that there's np compelling reason to vote for them? Or they move to the extreme right, which has already proved unpopular.

Cameron obviously believes the former, the likes of Redwood and Osbourne appear to believe the latter. Reckon this argument will run and run.

 

[The Large One]

I think that what you say is right but if the Labour strategy is to pick popular policies from both sides and occupy the centre ground, then what can the Tories do? They either do exactly the same - in which case, there's a danger that there's np compelling reason to vote for them? Or they move to the extreme right, which has already proved unpopular.

Cameron obviously believes the former, the likes of Redwood and Osbourne appear to believe the latter. Reckon this argument will run and run.

That's EXACTLY their problem. It's a bit like a game of musical chairs. Two people left in - one chair, and the fat bloke has won the chair and IS not going to shift. However, it's a crap analogy because the Tories still haven't learned to play this game.

The Tories are only contemplating 'middle ground politics' after, what, ten years? And look at the grief Cameron is getting from his party. I'm just wondering if he is going to take on his party in the same way Kinnock did in 1985 - blow it apart in order to piece it back together in his own 'progressive' rather than traditional mould.

 

[Simster]

I think that what you say is right but if the Labour strategy is to pick popular policies from both sides and occupy the centre ground, then what can the Tories do? They either do exactly the same - in which case, there's a danger that there's np compelling reason to vote for them? Or they move to the extreme right, which has already proved unpopular.

Cameron obviously believes the former, the likes of Redwood and Osbourne appear to believe the latter. Reckon this argument will run and run.

Well Cameron is right - the centre ground is where the Tories must be. And you're right about the danger of there being no compelling reason to vote for them - it's a case of providing effective opposition and moving in when the other lot become too complacent.

 

[Napper]

the war aside Labour have done a superb job turning this country round, everyone likes to knock the government but most people recognise deep down what they have done for the UK.

After how the tories ran the country before , I can't see them getting back in for at least another 2 terms