Tory - The caring conservatives

[Hastings gull]

to few

not a great deal of help.

 

[Pavilionaire]

one word
expences

One word
dictionary

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

really, are you going to compare witnessed assaults and intimidation to an anecdote? someone did something stupid 30 years ago, therefore harassment of associates today is OK? i know you only post these sorts of comments for the rise, and im obliging, but its evident that one side of the argument thinks they have license to be personally vindictive and use unpleasant language, while claiming the others are the nasty ones.

Ffs man. You're reading way too much into my post.

 

[beorhthelm]

Ffs man. You're reading way too much into my post.

that part was aimed at a wider group than your self. i dont believe you represent an entire side of the argument here. maybe just one small contributor.

 

[drew]

By the way, @Hastings gull is correct when he talks about there being more career Labour MPs who have barely done a day's work, than Tory ones.

Case in point: My Oxbridge educated cousin is a tiresome right-on Labour activist and his whole life is being geared around being an MP. I hope he never makes it. In fact, my heart will sink if he does. Why? Well he grew up NEVER having taken so much as a part time job (thanks to his mollicoddling parents). Then of course, he came out of Oxford apparently expecting a decent job to fall into his lap. But who in their right mind is going to give a well paid job to someone who has literally *never* worked? So now he is doing some very dull job (which is fine, as we all have to start somewhere) but instead of knuckling down with a career path in mind, he's hell bent on reaching the upper echelons of the Labour party with a hope of being selected as an MP candidate.

Seriously, how is putting up someone like this doing any good to the country? It is no better than having silver-spooned gimp Call Me Dave running the country.

With the Lib Dems having understandably been taken to the cleaners, and the prevalence of the UKIP little Englanders, I am just so depressed by the state of British politics at the moment. I really don't want to vote for any party.

Carlton Communications gave someone a very well paid job when they hadn't worked before, thanks in part to the intervention of Lady Astor, his mother in law!

 

[glasfryn]

One word
dictionary

what are my mother?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

A lot can happen in 5 years. I couldn't see Labour winning with John Smith in charge. Not because of teh Labour policies, but purely with how he would resonate with the electorate.

Labour policy is not established yet however there is a clear mandate for Labour to be a genuine opposition party. I think JC is the ideal candidate to lead that transformation. It's possible he would choose to stand down once this is achieved and let a younger man take on the challenge.
If an Andy Burnham was available to lead at that point, would you still see Labour as unelectable?

Yes because one kind of transformation has already occurred with the large influx of new members dragging Labour further to the left/back to it's roots.

The next few months/years will see the mainly New Labour parliamentary party trying to undermine/ remove Corybn before he completes the transformation you hope for. If he survives and strengthens his position I can see many New Labour MP's hanging around till the next election hoping the party comes to it's senses after the inevitable defeat. If Corybn goes before the election I doubt the membership would be very happy and certainly in no mood to elect an Andy Burnham type. It may end up with the New Labour elements splitting to form or join another party.

Not sure if the electorate will see the above spectacle as 'a genuine opposition party'.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

What Labour need to do is find a John Smith type who basically made them electable again after Foot and Kinnock. Of course it would help if they don't have a heart attack and allow a young warmonger to take over.

 

[El Presidente]

What Labour need to do is find a John Smith type who basically made them electable again after Foot and Kinnock. Of course it would help if they don't have a heart attack and allow a young warmonger to take over.

I think you will find GOD told him to go to war.

 

[El Presidente]

One small catch ..... we don't use PR ( although we should ) so the comparison between strike votes and how we currently elect our representatives is currently utterly false.

The thing that concerns me about the new union legislation is that strikes are at an all time low, so why is the government introducing legislation in relation to Unions if they are not causing work based disruption/defending members rights (delete as necessary).

There are significant structural problems in relation to working practices, low productivity, health, education and infrastructure that the government could be focussing on.

That they choose instead to introduce (or try to introduce) legislation in relation to fox hunting, trade unions, change the way the BBC operates and so on seems to trivialise some major failings and issues in this country. It's as if because they had a surprise victory in the May elections they are celebrating by giving all groups they perceive to by anti-Conservative a kicking.

It does them little credit, they have the mandate under our electoral system to make policy for the first time since 1997 and their approach seems to one of spite, revenge and malice rather than having the courage of their convictions to make policy that will have a positive legacy, regardless of one's political views on them.

 

[gregbrighton]

Nasty vicious Tories.

 

[Igzilla]

Politics, philosophy and economics, seems to be the standard degree for wannabe politicians of whatever hue.

Notice it doesn't include Science, which is why you get homeopathic friendly Health secretaries and a general dismissal of sound scientific evidence for climate change...

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Notice it doesn't include Science, which is why you get homeopathic friendly Health secretaries and a general dismissal of sound scientific evidence for climate change...

And let's not forget the sound and medically rational drug policy advise from David Nutt which was summarily dismissed as it didn't fit with the politics.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The thing that concerns me about the new union legislation is that strikes are at an all time low, so why is the government introducing legislation in relation to Unions if they are not causing work based disruption/defending members rights (delete as necessary).

There are significant structural problems in relation to working practices, low productivity, health, education and infrastructure that the government could be focussing on.

That they choose instead to introduce (or try to introduce) legislation in relation to fox hunting, trade unions, change the way the BBC operates and so on seems to trivialise some major failings and issues in this country. It's as if because they had a surprise victory in the May elections they are celebrating by giving all groups they perceive to by anti-Conservative a kicking.

It does them little credit, they have the mandate under our electoral system to make policy for the first time since 1997 and their approach seems to one of spite, revenge and malice rather than having the courage of their convictions to make policy that will have a positive legacy, regardless of one's political views on them.

That I can only give this post ONE thumbs up, makes me sad.

 

[Stato]

The thing that concerns me about the new union legislation is that strikes are at an all time low, so why is the government introducing legislation in relation to Unions if they are not causing work based disruption/defending members rights (delete as necessary).

There are significant structural problems in relation to working practices, low productivity, health, education and infrastructure that the government could be focussing on.

That they choose instead to introduce (or try to introduce) legislation in relation to fox hunting, trade unions, change the way the BBC operates and so on seems to trivialise some major failings and issues in this country. It's as if because they had a surprise victory in the May elections they are celebrating by giving all groups they perceive to by anti-Conservative a kicking.

It does them little credit, they have the mandate under our electoral system to make policy for the first time since 1997 and their approach seems to one of spite, revenge and malice rather than having the courage of their convictions to make policy that will have a positive legacy, regardless of one's political views on them.

Spot on.

I think Vyvyan Basterd had it correct when he said 'Viva El Presidente!'

 

[glasfryn]

The thing that concerns me about the new union legislation is that strikes are at an all time low, so why is the government introducing legislation in relation to Unions if they are not causing work based disruption/defending members rights (delete as necessary).

There are significant structural problems in relation to working practices, low productivity, health, education and infrastructure that the government could be focussing on.

That they choose instead to introduce (or try to introduce) legislation in relation to fox hunting, trade unions, change the way the BBC operates and so on seems to trivialise some major failings and issues in this country. It's as if because they had a surprise victory in the May elections they are celebrating by giving all groups they perceive to by anti-Conservative a kicking.

It does them little credit, they have the mandate under our electoral system to make policy for the first time since 1997 and their approach seems to one of spite, revenge and malice rather than having the courage of their convictions to make policy that will have a positive legacy, regardless of one's political views on them.

maggie lives

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The thing that concerns me about the new union legislation is that strikes are at an all time low, so why is the government introducing legislation in relation to Unions if they are not causing work based disruption/defending members rights (delete as necessary).

There are significant structural problems in relation to working practices, low productivity, health, education and infrastructure that the government could be focussing on.

That they choose instead to introduce (or try to introduce) legislation in relation to fox hunting, trade unions, change the way the BBC operates and so on seems to trivialise some major failings and issues in this country. It's as if because they had a surprise victory in the May elections they are celebrating by giving all groups they perceive to by anti-Conservative a kicking.

It does them little credit, they have the mandate under our electoral system to make policy for the first time since 1997 and their approach seems to one of spite, revenge and malice rather than having the courage of their convictions to make policy that will have a positive legacy, regardless of one's political views on them.

This. Thumbsup. This again.

 

[piersa]

Revolting people. I don't think people realise just how much our pensioners rely on things like free bus travel. Again, Tory voters, hang your heads in shame, hang your heads.

You embarrass yourself with inevitable regularity.

 

[Soulman]

You embarrass yourself with inevitable regularity.

[emoji106] [emoji1]

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Yes because one kind of transformation has already occurred with the large influx of new members dragging Labour further to the left/back to it's roots.

The next few months/years will see the mainly New Labour parliamentary party trying to undermine/ remove Corybn before he completes the transformation you hope for. If he survives and strengthens his position I can see many New Labour MP's hanging around till the next election hoping the party comes to it's senses after the inevitable defeat. If Corybn goes before the election I doubt the membership would be very happy and certainly in no mood to elect an Andy Burnham type. It may end up with the New Labour elements splitting to form or join another party.

Not sure if the electorate will see the above spectacle as 'a genuine opposition party'.

Possibly... Possibly not... Who knows what will happen. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
New Labour policies have been roundly defeated in two elections.
New Labour took their core vote for granted in the last election and allowed the SNP to take over the vast majority of their safe seats in Scotland.

Labour have to look at that and make a decision what their policies need to be to defeat the Tories.
I think Corbyn is a good man to have at the helm to start that debate.