Conservatives move closer still to Labour

[Architect]

The one stated. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills are a bit lacking? If so, please tell me which bit you found difficult to understand, and I shall gladly help you.

Which is rich coming from someone who asserts that it as "acceptable" for parents to kill their children....

 

[brodski]

Are you suggesting that a nationalist government taking power in Scotland wasn't interesting?

Ok, I should have said national party politics.
Local and lower teir elections are a differnt matter.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I know it is a tiny manoeuvre but it is the start of the sort of movement that we haven’t seen from the Tory party in ten years.
Party politics is about to get interesting again…

Ok.

I have to say though, that if this gets you off, party politics must have been extremely tame in the UK for quite a while.

 

[Architect]

Ok, I should have said national party politics.
Local and lower teir elections are a differnt matter.

No, you should have said UK party politics!

Anyway, it'll be no concern of Scotland soon enough.

 

[DanishDynamite]

No, you should have said UK party politics!

Anyway, it'll be no concern of Scotland soon enough.

Little hopes in little minds.

I wonder what the position of the Tories would be regarding the independence of Scotland? Have they made a manuever on this yet?

 

[Architect]

Little hopes in little minds.

I wonder what the position of the Tories would be regarding the independence of Scotland? Have they made a manuever on this yet?

Given that Scotland has the same population as Denmark, I find that first comment rather amusing. I do wonder if your forefathers made the same type of comment just before Norway got independence.....hey, just a moment, don't they have a better standard of living and GDP than you guys???

And why would the Tories have any impact on Scottish independence? They're not in power in Scotland, nor will they ever be?


ps...that's manouevre.

 

[Darat]

Are you suggesting that a nationalist government taking power in Scotland wasn't interesting?

In terms of the UK - it's interesting, like say Livingstone returning as a "Labour" Mayor of London, but in terms of party politics which is what Broidski was talking about - no it isn't interesting - I suggest you re-read the OP to understand the context of this thread.

 

[brodski]

No, you should have said UK party politics!

Anyway, it'll be no concern of Scotland soon enough.

Nope, there is only one National government in the UK at the moment
And the Scots Nats control of Hollyrood is of little relevance to over 90% of the UK population, especially as eventual Scottish independence was a done deal when regional government in England was rejected- it's just a matter of time.

 

[Darat]

Could I ask as the thread starter for this not to be diverted into yet another "Scotland" thread and it sticks to what the opening post was about. Thanks.

 

[Darat]

I've been following this story and I am starting to be suspicious that this is mostly a party political issue in the sense it's been chosen by Cameron and his team to be their "Clause 4" moment.

It has certainly sparked some dissention from Conservative MPs and party Members.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6669291.stm

Cameron warning to grammar rebels

Conservative leader David Cameron has slapped down backbench rebels demanding a u-turn over grammar schools.

...snip...

It comes after Mr Cameron launched an attack on his website on what he called the Telegraph's "near hysterical" coverage of the grammar school debate.

"They simply don't understand that the idea of introducing a few extra grammars says nothing to thousands of parents worried about children languishing in failing schools," wrote Mr Cameron, In a sign of strained relations with the Tory-supporting newspaper.

'Hopelessness'

The policy was denounced as "ridiculous" and "absurd" at a meeting of the influential 1922 committee of backbench Tory MPs on Thursday.

They complained there had been no debate within the party about opposing academic selection.

Edward Leigh, chairman of the right wing Cornerstone group said: "We should not rule out state schools being able to select pupils and grammar schools have been one way of getting people out of inner city ghettos."

...snip...

Willetts used statistics in his speech to make his argument, so far I've not heard one Tory "rebel" either attack those statistics or argue why Willets' conclusions are wrong using actual data, all I've read and heard are appeals to emotion. Anyone seen any reasoned counter-arguments?

 

[Architect]

Could I ask as the thread starter for this not to be diverted into yet another "Scotland" thread and it sticks to what the opening post was about. Thanks.

If we're going to talk about clause 4, can I ask it to be diverted into a seperate "English" thread?

 

[brodski]

If we're going to talk about clause 4, can I ask it to be diverted into a seperate "English" thread?

Why, did the Labour party in Scotland and Wales not recognise or ratify Clause 4?

ETA to answer my own question- it's as much a "scottish" issue as it is an "English" issue.

http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/aboutscottishlabour/

 

[Darat]

If we're going to talk about clause 4, can I ask it to be diverted into a seperate "English" thread?

As I said - I ask as the thread starter for this not to be diverted into yet another "Scotland" thread and it sticks to what the opening post was about. Thanks.

 

[Architect]

Ach, I'll leave you in peace!

 

[brodski]

I've been following this story and I am starting to be suspicious that this is mostly a party political issue in the sense it's been chosen by Cameron and his team to be their "Clause 4" moment.

It has certainly sparked some dissention from Conservative MPs and party Members.

I don’t see how this is a "clause 4" moment, surely it’s a return to Tory values. After all, Thatcher closed more grammar schools than any other Education Secretary.

 

[Darat]

Well as I've always maintained Thatcher was not a traditional Tory (indeed if she was she'd hardly have become PM or even a MP in the first place ) and quite often her actions were in contrast with her rhetoric and stated "principles".

 

[brodski]

Well as I've always maintained Thatcher was not a traditional Tory (indeed if she was she'd hardly have become PM or even a MP in the first place ) and quite often her actions were in contrast with her rhetoric and stated "principles".

No, she wasn't a traditional Tory (More of a Gladstonian liberal, but without the social conscience), but by the end of her reign she had redefined what it meant to be a "traditional" Tory.
15 years is a long time in politics.

 

[Rolfe]

Look, the election is 2 years way. There will be all sorts of manuevers and various outrages at this or that scandal between then and now. Trust me, this tiny manuever is just that.

Unlike in Scotland (and I believe the USA), there is no set interval between elections for Westminster. We're all assuming the next Westminster general election will be in 2009, but that isn't necessarily so.

I've heard a very reasonable-sounding theory that Gordon Brown may intend to call a snap general election in the autumn of this year, if the opinion polls suggest that Labour is in a favourable position at that time.

I can see the logic. New leader may lead to a "honeymoon" increase in the Labour poll position, and taking advantage of this to gain his own mandate, and at the same time put off the need to go to the country on his actual record until 2011 or 2012, does have its points.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

Pragmatically given the state of the Labour party finances I doubt they could afford a General Election this autumn.


(Although if, as customary, the outgoing PM has an honours list that may change...

 

[brodski]

Unlike in Scotland (and I believe the USA), there is no set interval between elections for Westminster. We're all assuming the next Westminster general election will be in 2009, but that isn't necessarily so.

I've heard a very reasonable-sounding theory that Gordon Brown may intend to call a snap general election in the autumn of this year, if the opinion polls suggest that Labour is in a favourable position at that time.

I can see the logic. New leader may lead to a "honeymoon" increase in the Labour poll position, and taking advantage of this to gain his own mandate, and at the same time put off the need to go to the country on his actual record until 2011 or 2012, does have its points.

Rolfe.

There doesn’t need to be a generals election until 2010, however there is a belief, almost a superstition, in the Westminster village that calling an election in at the very end of a parliamentary term almost guarantees defeat.

I’m not sure if this is supported by data, and even if I is it could easily be a case of causation going the other way- Governments who are most likely to lose power (and know it) are also most likely to hang on until the very last moment in the hope that their political fortunes will change (see Major 1992-1997).

I think that a snap election would be an error from Brown; Cameron is only just starting to set out his policies, so they haven’t had time to be torn apart yet. Brown OTOH has been at the centre of government policy for 10 years, but for most people has little policy identity separate from Blair. I think that it would be to Labours great advantage to allow both Cameron and brown to develop public policy “personalities” before calling an election.

Oh and you are correct, the USA does have fixed (federal) election cycles.