[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊



jcdenton08

Offended Liver Sausage
NSC Patron
Oct 17, 2008
14,579
The thing is Cleverly is no Blair or even a Cameron, sweeping in all modern and electable - he’s a loon too. He’s just less loony than the others.

Is this all a clever plan to bring in Cleverly at a later stage to make him seem comparatively normal?
 




MJsGhost

Oooh Matron, I'm an
NSC Patron
Jun 26, 2009
5,030
East
The thing is Cleverly is no Blair or even a Cameron, sweeping in all modern and electable - he’s a loon too. He’s just less loony than the others.

Is this all a clever plan to bring in Cleverly at a later stage to make him seem comparatively normal?
Have you not seen enough (particularly over the last 7-8 years) to think this very unlikely?
 


dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,634
The thing is Cleverly is no Blair or even a Cameron, sweeping in all modern and electable - he’s a loon too. He’s just less loony than the others.

Is this all a clever plan to bring in Cleverly at a later stage to make him seem comparatively normal?
It's all too easy, when you're sitting in an echo chamber like this surrounded by people who think that Boris Johnson and Adolf Hitler are similar politicians, to believe the guff about Badenoch and Jenrick are lunatic right wingers. For heaven's sake, there are people on here who despised Sunak's government because it wasn't welcoming to immigrants and was cutting taxes. Reality is not needed in political beliefs.

Neither Badenoch nor Jenrick are anything outrageously right wing based on the history of British politics. They're traditional Tories, and they will get votes (just as Sunak would have) IF - a big if - the electorate believes they are competent. (Or perhaps more likely, if the electorate believes that Labour are incompetent and expensive.)
 


WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
27,786
It's all too easy, when you're sitting in an echo chamber like this surrounded by people who think that Boris Johnson and Adolf Hitler are similar politicians, to believe the guff about Badenoch and Jenrick are lunatic right wingers. For heaven's sake, there are people on here who despised Sunak's government because it wasn't welcoming to immigrants and was cutting taxes. Reality is not needed in political beliefs.

Neither Badenoch nor Jenrick are anything outrageously right wing based on the history of British politics. They're traditional Tories, and they will get votes (just as Sunak would have) IF - a big if - the electorate believes they are competent. (Or perhaps more likely, if the electorate believes that Labour are incompetent and expensive.)

You've mentioned on a number of occasions how left wing you consider this current Conservative party to be

Contrary to received wisdom on here, I believe that the Tories are as left wing as they have ever been. They tax more than any Labour government since Attlee, they spend ditto, they believe in immigration at levels far above any previous government of any hue. They believe in accepting EU legislation when they don't have to, they believe that criminals should not be sent to jail and should be released as early as possible if they are, they are opposed to private landlords (and by extension private tenants), and they appear to believe that all problems can be solved by more government intervention.

They need to move right, not left. They won't win votes with a policy of being just like Labour or Liberals.

Does this mean you would prefer to see them move towards Reform ?
 


dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,634
You've mentioned on a number of occasions how left wing you consider this current Conservative party to be



Does this mean you would prefer to see them move towards Reform ?
No. I would prefer them to move towards the Conservative parties of Thatcher, MacMillan (early), even Eden. I'm not a fan of million-a-year immigration and all-time-high taxes, nor of the Conservative policy (which they thought of before Starmer's mess-up) of releasing prisoners early and decriminalising shoplifting and burglary. Nor of their approach to defence that "the world is a lovely place and there is no need to have a credible army".
 




WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
27,786
No. I would prefer them to move towards the Conservative parties of Thatcher, MacMillan (early), even Eden. I'm not a fan of million-a-year immigration and all-time-high taxes, nor of the Conservative policy (which they thought of before Starmer's mess-up) of releasing prisoners early and decriminalising shoplifting and burglary. Nor of their approach to defence that "the world is a lovely place and there is no need to have a credible army".

If what you want are 1950's policies in 2024, then I think it may be worth you taking some time to read the Conservative and Reform manifestos from the last election rather than just look at the colour of the rosette and hope they'll turn the clock back :wink:
 


dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,634
If what you want are 1950's policies in 2024, then I think it may be worth you taking some time to read the Conservative and Reform manifestos from the last election rather than just look at the colour of the rosette and hope they'll turn the clock back :wink:
Not specific policies, it's the earlier attitudes towards individual freedoms and responsibilities that we have lost.
 


Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Jul 23, 2003
37,358
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
Not specific policies, it's the earlier attitudes towards individual freedoms and responsibilities that we have lost.
You talk about losing individual freedoms, yet Jenrick wants to abandon the ECHR. The mental gymnastics to want both the first and the second are off the scale. Either you're in favour of individual rights or you're not.
 






Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Jul 23, 2003
37,358
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
If what you want are 1950's policies in 2024, then I think it may be worth you taking some time to read the Conservative and Reform manifestos from the last election rather than just look at the colour of the rosette and hope they'll turn the clock back :wink:
To be fair Burnley’s stuck in the 1930s so he’s actually a moderniser.
 


dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,634
Like women’s freedom to be legal property of their husbands, and gay people’s rights to be imprisoned for what they do the privacy of their own bedrooms
I think women as chattels was a lot further back than that. But basically I was thinking of the relationship between the state and the family, because back then it was accepted that it was the parents'house job to raise and feed their children, not the state's. Of course, there was a lot less money around then, but I see no reason why the increased wealth of the nation should give the government any more reason to meddle.
 




Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
I think women as chattels was a lot further back than that. But basically I was thinking of the relationship between the state and the family, because back then it was accepted that it was the parents'house job to raise and feed their children, not the state's. Of course, there was a lot less money around then, but I see no reason why the increased wealth of the nation should give the government any more reason to meddle.
You think? Women couldn’t get mortgages in the 60s, because ‘you’ll get married & have children’.
It was difficult enough to stay in a job as a married woman, and in some cases you were expected to stay at home, without having children.
1970, I was sacked for being pregnant (already married).

it was difficult enough opening a bank account. Women couldn’t call the police when their husbands were beating them because it was only a domestic. There was no such thing as rape in marriage until the 90s. No such thing as maternity pay.
 


Since1982

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2006
1,618
Burgess Hill
It's all too easy, when you're sitting in an echo chamber like this surrounded by people who think that Boris Johnson and Adolf Hitler are similar politicians, to believe the guff about Badenoch and Jenrick are lunatic right wingers. For heaven's sake, there are people on here who despised Sunak's government because it wasn't welcoming to immigrants and was cutting taxes. Reality is not needed in political beliefs.

Neither Badenoch nor Jenrick are anything outrageously right wing based on the history of British politics. They're traditional Tories, and they will get votes (just as Sunak would have) IF - a big if - the electorate believes they are competent. (Or perhaps more likely, if the electorate believes that Labour are incompetent and expensive.)
Tosh. Traditional Tories are the likes of Nicholas Soames, Norman Tebbit and even Thatcher. They wouldn’t give the time of day to the likes of Honest Bob and Crazy Kemi with their pro Trump, anti Europe, anti ECHR views. The Tories are heading down a blind alley of extremism which will keep them out of power until they realise that the majority of British voters are centrist - either a little right or a little left. The crazy thing is that Corbyns Labour Party is a perfect case study for them to learn from but they are too far down the Reform / UKIP / Whatever Farage the grifter calls himself these days rabbit hole. The Tories have given Labour a free pass again.
 


A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
20,565
Deepest, darkest Sussex
I think women as chattels was a lot further back than that. But basically I was thinking of the relationship between the state and the family, because back then it was accepted that it was the parents'house job to raise and feed their children, not the state's. Of course, there was a lot less money around then, but I see no reason why the increased wealth of the nation should give the government any more reason to meddle.
It feels to me like you don't want to live in the actual 1950s but some sort of imagined 1950s where all the bad things didn't happen.
 




dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,634
It feels to me like you don't want to live in the actual 1950s but some sort of imagined 1950s where all the bad things didn't happen.
Possibly. Wouldn't you like to live in a period where only good things happened and bad things didn't? What I really want to do is live in the 2020's when the bad things don't happen.
 


Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Possibly. Wouldn't you like to live in a period where only good things happened and bad things didn't? What I really want to do is live in the 2020's when the bad things don't happen.
False nostalgia. I grew up in the 50s, was a teenager in the 60s. There were loads of bad things happening, believe me.
 




rippleman

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2011
4,988
I think women as chattels was a lot further back than that. But basically I was thinking of the relationship between the state and the family, because back then it was accepted that it was the parents'house job to raise and feed their children, not the state's. Of course, there was a lot less money around then, but I see no reason why the increased wealth of the nation should give the government any more reason to meddle.
1973 The Matrimonial Causes Act.

"After the Matrimonial Causes Act came into force divorce rates increased from 3 to 300 per annum. Women often had to abandon their petition as they were afforded only 1/3 of asset provision. The stigma and financial cost still meant that the vast majority were unable to see the process through.

Mercifully the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 addressed the financial position and remains the law today."

But as "a chattel" 1870.

It was only in 1990-91 that a wifes taxes were assessed separately from her husbands!
 




Me Atome

Active member
Mar 10, 2024
125
1973 The Matrimonial Causes Act.

"After the Matrimonial Causes Act came into force divorce rates increased from 3 to 300 per annum. Women often had to abandon their petition as they were afforded only 1/3 of asset provision. The stigma and financial cost still meant that the vast majority were unable to see the process through.

Mercifully the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 addressed the financial position and remains the law today."

But as "a chattel" 1870.

It was only in 1990-91 that a wifes taxes were assessed separately from her husbands!
Ah, 1973. A fine Conservative government under Heath.
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top