Gordon Brown's make or break speech

Reginald said:
To agree with RichardM and Darat, any Tory who considered the party in the 80's as being their kind of thing and a great ideology to stand for makes me cautious.


Interesting to note that in 2010 there will be people voting who were not even alive during the Thatcher era.
Click to expand...

Excellent avatar, sorely missed.
 
malbui said:
I'm demonstrating my vast ignorance of British politics here, but does joining a party necessarily demonstrate full adhesion to its ideology? Take the case of Tony Blair: first stood as a candidate in 1983 (I believe) when Labour's manifesto was somewhat leftist, and then rose through the ranks and presided over the complete transformation of the party. I wonder if party allegiance might not sometimes be not so much a question of seeking kindred spirits, but rather looking for the easiest path to personal gain and power.
Click to expand...
In 1983 the Labour party expelled a number of members who did not have full adhesion to its ideology and looked to transform the party.
 
malbui said:
I'm demonstrating my vast ignorance of British politics here, but does joining a party necessarily demonstrate full adhesion to its ideology? Take the case of Tony Blair: first stood as a candidate in 1983 (I believe) when Labour's manifesto was somewhat leftist, and then rose through the ranks and presided over the complete transformation of the party. I wonder if party allegiance might not sometimes be not so much a question of seeking kindred spirits, but rather looking for the easiest path to personal gain and power.
Click to expand...


With many in the current shadow cabinet it is a bit more than the fact that they joined the party - for example Cameron, have a look at what he used to do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron#Conservative_Research_Department .
 
Lothian said:
In 1983 the Labour party expelled a number of members who did not have full adhesion to its ideology and looked to transform the party.
Click to expand...

OK, but does that really answer my question? Blair himself clearly led a major transformation of the party and has never been, as far as I'm aware, expelled from it.
 
malbui said:
OK, but does that really answer my question? Blair himself clearly led a major transformation of the party and has never been, as far as I'm aware, expelled from it.
Click to expand...
You can hold different views within limits.

The changes under Blair were approved by the membership. The new Labour changes were not just Blair. The ideas started many years before he took power under both Kinnock and Smith. Basically Labour had lost so many elections that the party realised that some change was needed.
 
richardm said:
Edit: If you want a shadow Home Secretary who'd like to hang people in private you only need to go back as far as David Davis.
Click to expand...

And the current one, who wants to bring back capital punishment.

Top 10 Cameron Flip Flops

Some of the more interesting:

5. Minimum wage


In December, David Cameron said that the minimum wage had ‘turned out much better than many people expected, including the CBI.’ He himself has said the minimum wage ‘would send unemployment straight back up.’


Opposed:


‘Labour’s plans for minimum wages, the Social Chapter and large increases in spending and taxes would send unemployment straight back up.’

The Chronicle (Stafford), 21 February 1996


‘The Labour Party opposed each and every one of our reforms. Even today they would burden business with the minimum wage, the Social Chapter, and trade union privileges.’

Stafford Post, 24 April 1997


‘Labour would spend and tax, restore union privileges and burden business with the minimum wage and the Social Chapter. Mortgage rates, prices and unemployment would rise – as they have under every previous Labour Government.’

Staffordshire Newsletter, 25 April 1997


Supported:


‘I think the minimum wage has been a success, yes. It turned out much better than many people expected, including the CBI.’

The Observer, 18 December 2005

....

7. Devolution


David Cameron was strongly critical of Labour’s decision to establish a Scottish Parliament. But he declared to Scottish voters last year that ‘You have got to believe in devolution heart and soul’.


Opposed:


‘Far too much of our tax pays for bureaucracy – and under Labour it is running wild. We have new Parliaments for Scotland and Wales, new regional development agencies and a host of quangos stuffed with Labour politicians. And for what?'

Oxford Journal, 19 May 2000


Supported:


‘You have got to believe in devolution heart and soul and therefore it is up to the Scottish Tories what manifesto they write for Scotland. If I am elected, I will spend time in Scotland and do what I can to help, but it is their decision.’

The Times, 21 November 2005

......

9. Section 28


In November, David Cameron said he was glad Section 28 has been repealed. But when Labour repealed Section 28, David Cameron criticised the Prime Minister for moving ‘heaven and earth to allow the promotion of homosexuality in schools’ and for an obsession with a ‘fringe agenda.’


Opposed:


‘The Blair government continues to be obsessed with their ‘fringe’ agenda, including deeply unpopular moves like repealing Section 28 and allowing the promotion of homosexuality in schools.’

Oxford Journal, 5 May 2000


‘Labour has ripped the last recognition of marriage from the tax system by abolishing the married couples’ allowance and spend an inordinate amoutn[sic] of time trying to allow the promotion of homosexuality in schools by repealing Section 28. Blair apparently thinks that because he is lucky enough to have a loving wife, three kids and a new baby, he is automatically ‘pro-family’.’

Oxford Journal, 28 July 2000


‘The most staggering sentence in the Blair memo is: ‘it is bizarre that any Government I lead should be seen as anti-family’. Why? Blair has moved heaven and earth to allow the promotion of homosexuality in schools and has abolished the married couples’ allowance, taking away the last recognition of marriage in the tax system.’

Witney Gazette, 2 August 2000


Supported:


‘One section of our community did feel discriminated against by Section 28, and so I'm glad on that basis that it's gone.’

BBC Politics Show, 13 November 2005
Click to expand...
 
It's puzzling that Cameron's Conservatives have little concern for now being in a EU alliance with the For Fatherland and Freedom party, a Latvian party that participates in an annual event commemorating the Latvian Waffen SS.
 
richardm said:
Yeah, I think it was quite an old expression when the Sun used it. I don't know if you're aware, but I was alluding to another famous Sun headline that followed an election, "It was The Sun Wot Won it" :)
Click to expand...

Gotcha

:D
 
I just wish politicians would admit when they are wrong and then act to put it right.....

Like here....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CND6i2o7tTE

THAT'S the kind of "stand up and take it like a man" we want to see :D

I for one would have a great deal more respect if they did.
 
I heard that Lord Palmerston was once a Tory too. I'm sure if Cameron gets in, then he'll send the Royal Navy down to attack Greece. Liverpool was a Tory as well, so I'm also sure that any riots will be dealt with by massed charges from the Royal Tank Brigade under Cameron.

On a slightly more serious note, Cameron is not Thatcher. Thatcher is no longer head of the Conservative Party. Thatcher was PM 18 years ago. Eighteen. It'll be 19 years when the election is called. Cameron, for me, seems to be a decent guy with some good plans. The Tories stood against 42 Day Detention and ID Cards, issues close to my heart. They made the mistake of believing Blair on WMD in Iraq, but supported the war for what I feel are good reasons, namely getting rid of horrendous dictators. (That's a whole other topic though). His change in opinions on various issues, mockingly called 'Flip Flops', make him seem even better to me. Gay rights, supporting a referendum on both the EU Constitution and Scottish Independence are all things I'd support. I'm going to read the Tory Manifesto very carefully when I vote next year. Either way, at least the Tories don't have the Lord of Darkness, Mandleson.

Of course, if enough Scots leave when Cameron comes in next year, hopefully they'll end up voting for Scottish Financial Independence, rather then the madness of full Independence.
 
Uzzy said:
Of course, if enough Scots leave when Cameron comes in next year, hopefully they'll end up voting for Scottish Financial Independence, rather then the madness of full Independence.
Click to expand...


Why do you hate Scotland?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Why do you hate Scotland?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

You have all the nice Women? And the countryside? Grrh.

Perhaps my use of the term 'Madness' was a bit too strong, yes. I don't hate Scotland. You've got a lovely country up there. I just don't think full Independence would be in your best interest.

You'd no doubt run it highly effectively. Scotland has produced plenty of able politicians, along with lots of highly educated people needed for running a country. It'd just be a case of moving from being part of a nation that's got a permanent seat on the UN Security Council to a nation that's got an equivalent GDP and influence on the world stage to Slovakia, Iceland or Latvia.

We're better together, you know. If you do vote for Independence, then good luck to you. But I'd be sad to see Scotland go.
 
Uzzy said:
We're better together, you know.
Click to expand...

Is what people said when it came to Indian Independence.

I'm curious as to why Cameron flip-flopping makes him a better man, in your opinion. How many times does one have to do a complete 180 for you to doubt their political authenticity?

Griffin currently says that he believes in the Holocaust (As opposed to what he stated years ago) and doesn't want to force a deportation blacks and asians (As opposed to what he stated years ago). Do you believe him?

As they say, actions speak louder than words.

Where was Cameron on the vote repealing Section 28, for example? http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/divisi...09&mpn=David_Cameron&mpc=Witney&house=commons
 
Flip-Flopping is no bad thing, in my mind, if I feel the change is an authentic one. The Blair that joined the Labour Party no doubt 'Flip-Flopped' on most of those issues. Heck, didn't he claim to have inhereted Thatcher's legacy? Can people not change their minds on things anymore?

I also find you bringing up Griffin to be utterly rediculous and offensive, and it has no relevance to this discussion. I don't give a flying **** what that Nazi thinks. He's not in the political mainstream.

Regarding actions, Cameron voted yes on the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) and the Civil Partnership Act which to me seems far more meaningful and representative of his views now on gay rights then the Section 28 vote, especially as he later mentioned that he is glad Section 28 is gone. (Probably have to search for it in that link)
 
As an aside, you should really be asking why Fink hates Scotland so much he'd be willing to abandon the country if Cameron gets in. Hell, my local MP is Conservative, so I'm living under a government I dislike. I'm not about to leave the UK though. Oh well. Fink, dear boy. Lets see your travel papers on May 2nd, 2010.

Anyway, there is one aspect of Scotland I really dislike. The Scottish Nationalists who think that the Act of Union 300 years ago was the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of humanity, and that since then, we English have occupied the country, raped and pillaged her of her resources and generally acted like tyrants. So basically those who think Braveheart is an accurate representation of history.
 
Uzzy said:
I also find you bringing up Griffin to be utterly rediculous and offensive, and it has no relevance to this discussion. I don't give a flying **** what that Nazi thinks. He's not in the political mainstream.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does have relevance. He has made an effort to reject his prior Holocaust denial and 'send-em-all-back' philosophy, yet you still call him a Nazi. Why? Because you know what he actually is, despite the flip-flops.
 
Because I don't trust Nazi's, duh. Sane politicians, however, can change their mind over things. Heck, your list of the Top 10 Flip-Flops contains some of Cameron's quotes on the Minimum Wage.

He's opposed to it in 1996, but in favour of it in 2005. You seem to consider this a flip-flop, but I think it's a rational response to evidence, and changing one's mind because of that evidence. The Minimum Wage clearly didn't cause a rise in unemployment, businesses to close or any of the things that were being put forward by opponents of it in 1996, so it's entirely a good thing to support it now. I consider the fact that he changed his mind on the issue to be a good point in Cameron's favour. A change in ideology when evidence supports it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom