RicheyJames wrote:you do a great dis-service to neil kinnock by omitting him from your list of reforming labour leaders.
![Embarassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
The other points I think we're largely in agreement, just a matter of different emphasis.
RicheyJames wrote:you do a great dis-service to neil kinnock by omitting him from your list of reforming labour leaders.
I wish they all had your sense, Nick!nick the stripper wrote:If I were a Tory, I'd vote for none of these wankers and I'd shoot myself.
Seconded, Nick.boudicca wrote:I wish they all had your sense, Nick!nick the stripper wrote:If I were a Tory, I'd vote for none of these wankers and I'd shoot myself.![]()
now this i really don't understand. you lot are barely old enough to remember anyone but blair as pm yet you still exhibit a near-pavlovian response to the words "conservative" and "tory". i can just about understand this amongst those old enough to have lived through the thatcher years but why do "the kids" have this response? is it just received wisdom, folk memory or is it just that it's still "cool" to knock the tories? is a whole generation lost to the idea of sensible political discourse? is a considered weighing up of the issues and policies ignored in favour of a knee-jerk response to near-mythological bogeymen of the past?Dark wrote:Seconded, Nick.boudicca wrote:I wish they all had your sense, Nick!nick the stripper wrote:If I were a Tory, I'd vote for none of these wankers and I'd shoot myself.![]()
I'd rather be dead than be conservative. And a Tory too, that's just the icing on the bullet.
i find the last point curious - did your source say how the question was phrased? **genuine question**RicheyJames wrote:now this i really don't understand. you lot are barely old enough to remember anyone but blair as pm yet you still exhibit a near-pavlovian response to the words "conservative" and "tory". i can just about understand this amongst those old enough to have lived through the thatcher years but why do "the kids" have this response? is it just received wisdom, folk memory or is it just that it's still "cool" to knock the tories? is a whole generation lost to the idea of sensible political discourse? is a considered weighing up of the issues and policies ignored in favour of a knee-jerk response to near-mythological bogeymen of the past?Dark wrote:Seconded, Nick.boudicca wrote: I wish they all had your sense, Nick!![]()
I'd rather be dead than be conservative. And a Tory too, that's just the icing on the bullet.
this may be the time to mention the recent poll finding which revealed that sixty per cent of people actually approve of tory policies - until they find out that they're tory policies at which point the approval rating is halved...
i have to confess to not having seen the actual poll so i can't answer that. it was, however, referenced by simon carr in today's independent so i've written to ask him. it's a long shot but you never know...eastmidswhizzkid wrote:i find the last point curious - did your source say how the question was phrased? **genuine question**RicheyJames wrote:this may be the time to mention the recent poll finding which revealed that sixty per cent of people actually approve of tory policies - until they find out that they're tory policies at which point the approval rating is halved...
now this is what i don't get. are you saying that you would never vote for someone labelled as a conservative regardless of their stance on whatever issues are closest to your heart?as somebody who is old enough to remember thatcher getting in -and to have voted major out- i still wouldn't change my opinion on a policy i agreed with just because it was tory.
however, if asked "which of these policies would you vote for ?" , i would change my answer once i knew that it was the conservatives i was voting for .
not exactly; more that i wouldn't vote for a conservative government because that would entail voting for the rest of their inevitabe policies. to be honest, for anything close to my heart to be favourably championed by the conservatives the probability is that: a) they are only bandwagoning another party's policy due to it's popularity b)they have no intention of standing by it (pan-political hazard i know) or c) both.RicheyJames wrote:i have to confess to not having seen the actual poll so i can't answer that. it was, however, referenced by simon carr in today's independent so i've written to ask him. it's a long shot but you never know...eastmidswhizzkid wrote:i find the last point curious - did your source say how the question was phrased? **genuine question**RicheyJames wrote:this may be the time to mention the recent poll finding which revealed that sixty per cent of people actually approve of tory policies - until they find out that they're tory policies at which point the approval rating is halved...
now this is what i don't get. are you saying that you would never vote for someone labelled as a conservative regardless of their stance on whatever issues are closest to your heart?as somebody who is old enough to remember thatcher getting in -and to have voted major out- i still wouldn't change my opinion on a policy i agreed with just because it was tory.
however, if asked "which of these policies would you vote for ?" , i would change my answer once i knew that it was the conservatives i was voting for .
I'm old enough to remember conservative government in Belgium, and I'd never vote for the christian-democrats of nationalist parties available in Belgium. Even with their regime being only half as terrible as Tacher's.RicheyJames wrote:now this i really don't understand. you lot are barely old enough to remember anyone but blair as pm yet you still exhibit a near-pavlovian response to the words "conservative" and "tory". i can just about understand this amongst those old enough to have lived through the thatcher years but why do "the kids" have this response? is it just received wisdom, folk memory or is it just that it's still "cool" to knock the tories? is a whole generation lost to the idea of sensible political discourse? is a considered weighing up of the issues and policies ignored in favour of a knee-jerk response to near-mythological bogeymen of the past?
but political parties shift over time. it depends on what's important to you. a "moderate" tory party could quite easily be opposed to id cards and further erosion of civil liberties, commit to labour's spending plans on health and education, strengthen parliament's role in government and advocate a more robust approach to our relationship with america. these are actual proposals put forward by some of the current leadership hopefuls and right now they sound a damn sight more palatable to me than a continuation of the new labour project.eastmidswhizzkid wrote:not exactly; more that i wouldn't vote for a conservative government because that would entail voting for the rest of their inevitabe policies. to be honest, for anything close to my heart to be favourably championed by the conservatives the probability is that: a) they are only bandwagoning another party's policy due to it's popularity b)they have no intention of standing by it (pan-political hazard i know) or c) both.RicheyJames wrote:now this is what i don't get. are you saying that you would never vote for someone labelled as a conservative regardless of their stance on whatever issues are closest to your heart?
that would be a dilemma we'd have to face if we were in a two party system.RicheyJames wrote:but political parties shift over time. it depends on what's important to you. a "moderate" tory party could quite easily be opposed to id cards and further erosion of civil liberties, commit to labour's spending plans on health and education, strengthen parliament's role in government and advocate a more robust approach to our relationship with america. these are actual proposals put forward by some of the current leadership hopefuls and right now they sound a damn sight more palatable to me than a continuation of the new labour project.eastmidswhizzkid wrote:not exactly; more that i wouldn't vote for a conservative government because that would entail voting for the rest of their inevitabe policies. to be honest, for anything close to my heart to be favourably championed by the conservatives the probability is that: a) they are only bandwagoning another party's policy due to it's popularity b)they have no intention of standing by it (pan-political hazard i know) or c) both.RicheyJames wrote:now this is what i don't get. are you saying that you would never vote for someone labelled as a conservative regardless of their stance on whatever issues are closest to your heart?
fair comment...i'm as sick of this tories-in-labour's-clothing government as the next man and i think that if the lib-dems could have offered an electable alternative (by which i mean actually get elected ) they would/should have done it by now.RicheyJames wrote:but political parties shift over time. it depends on what's important to you. a "moderate" tory party could quite easily be opposed to id cards and further erosion of civil liberties, commit to labour's spending plans on health and education, strengthen parliament's role in government and advocate a more robust approach to our relationship with america. these are actual proposals put forward by some of the current leadership hopefuls and right now they sound a damn sight more palatable to me than a continuation of the new labour project.eastmidswhizzkid wrote:not exactly; more that i wouldn't vote for a conservative government because that would entail voting for the rest of their inevitabe policies. to be honest, for anything close to my heart to be favourably championed by the conservatives the probability is that: a) they are only bandwagoning another party's policy due to it's popularity b)they have no intention of standing by it (pan-political hazard i know) or c) both.RicheyJames wrote:now this is what i don't get. are you saying that you would never vote for someone labelled as a conservative regardless of their stance on whatever issues are closest to your heart?
What if it changed? What if it was now a party which didn't defend her social policy?RobF wrote: Just to be associated with hordes of individuals prepared to defend Thatcher's record on social policy, revel in the death of the Trade-Union movement and so on, no, it just doesn't bear thinking about. Party politics is dead in this country, middle-managers and mediocrity reign, and shall for the foreseeable future.
i'ld settle for just dead...RobF wrote:As a bonus, Thatcher has to, just has to, Die under a Labour Government, no matter how crappy.
So that she can laugh on her death bed about how the "other" party is doing more to conserve her economic legacy than her own boys?RobF wrote:As a bonus, Thatcher has to, just has to, Die under a Labour Government, no matter how crappy.
As long as she's in a great deal of pain, she can laugh all she wants. And if by "economic legacy", you mean crawling to the Russians (Don't mention Chechnya) and being dragged into Bush's crap because we sold all our domestic energy production potential for peanuts to Tory hacks, decimated the traditional industries and crafts of our nation for the sake of a wet-dream of competitiveness, dumped the North in a ditch the E.U. has only just managed to start dragging us out of, continued buying South-African coal to undermine our own mining industry DURING APARTHEID... etc. f**k her. Die, on fire if possible.Motz wrote:So that she can laugh on her death bed about how the "other" party is doing more to conserve her economic legacy than her own boys?RobF wrote:As a bonus, Thatcher has to, just has to, Die under a Labour Government, no matter how crappy.
Because of that statement...I agree with you....and I can think of a few more for on that fire if possible...thinking in the terms of an American president...but then again....I am glad that there are people out there that think like you.RobF wrote: continued buying South-African coal to undermine our own mining industry DURING APARTHEID... etc. f**k her. Die, on fire if possible.