Heartland

RicheyJames wrote:you do a great dis-service to neil kinnock by omitting him from your list of reforming labour leaders.

Sorry Mr Kinnock. With me sharing his birthday and all!

The other points I think we're largely in agreement, just a matter of different emphasis.

If I were a Tory, I'd vote for none of these wankers and I'd shoot myself.

Neil Warnock -

"If I was manager of Wednesday I would sell all the decent players for peanuts play the weakest side possible and then sue for breach of contract when sacked"

I can't get away from that thought!

i love neil

nick the stripper wrote:If I were a Tory, I'd vote for none of these wankers and I'd shoot myself.

I wish they all had your sense, Nick!

it would have to be between the two davids -about whom i know too little to decide at the minute. however i think that michael howard has proved that the tory old guard are not the way forward. whether this is because of their role in thatcher's /major's governments or in spite of it, i don't think they will win over any floating voters (who probably wouldn't be floaters but hardcore tory if they wanted a return to the thatcher years).kenneth clarke has moved up the popularity polls as he has moved more to the centre,but i assume everyone old enough to remember his name will still associate him with the last tory administration.
fox is a joke -anyone of such standing in the party who has the political ambition and desire to legitimately stand as leader would have done so before now IMO;which makes him a tactic.
that leaves the "young" blood; which - a la new labour and blair's election- is surely what the conservatives need to wipe the slate clean and change their public image to an electable one.

hopefully they won't be successful.

boudicca wrote:

nick the stripper wrote:If I were a Tory, I'd vote for none of these wankers and I'd shoot myself.

I wish they all had your sense, Nick!

Seconded, Nick.

I'd rather be dead than be conservative. And a Tory too, that's just the icing on the bullet.

Dark wrote:

boudicca wrote:

nick the stripper wrote:If I were a Tory, I'd vote for none of these wankers and I'd shoot myself.

I wish they all had your sense, Nick!

Seconded, Nick.

I'd rather be dead than be conservative. And a Tory too, that's just the icing on the bullet.

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?

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...

RicheyJames wrote:

Dark wrote:

boudicca wrote: I wish they all had your sense, Nick!

Seconded, Nick.

I'd rather be dead than be conservative. And a Tory too, that's just the icing on the bullet.

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?

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 find the last point curious - did your source say how the question was phrased? **genuine question**
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 .

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:

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...

i find the last point curious - did your source say how the question was phrased? **genuine question**

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...

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 .

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?

RicheyJames wrote:

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:

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...

i find the last point curious - did your source say how the question was phrased? **genuine question**

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...

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 .

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?

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 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?

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.

Not because it's not cool. In Belgium it is considered quite cool to vote for nationalist or christian-democrat, I'm affraid. Loads of people even say in public they loved how our old prime minister Dehaene always said 'no comment' and pulled his pants up afterwards (it was funny, but that's no way to act, as you're responsible and should inform people of what you are doing). It's just because I find it important to go ahead. Of course one should not change everything just for the sake of changing things, but I cannot stand parties that only look back at the past and say how good the country was off when they were governing it. They don't offer an alternative, most of them just don't do anything but nagging.

I think it is important to look ahead, and not govern considering nothing but the past or present and thus not to keep a country in a fixed condition, because not advancing is going backward and even more so for a country.

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:

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?

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.

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.

RicheyJames wrote:

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:

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?

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.

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.

that would be a dilemma we'd have to face if we were in a two party system.

If I remember from the various threads and polls on this forum around at the time of the election, if the result of the last election had been determined by HLers, then we'd have a LibDem government which, based on its manifesto (usual disclaimers apply), would take the same 'anti-authoritarian, with state spending on health and education' stance as described above, but without the less pleasant Tory policies of old.

If the National Front started claiming to be anti-racist, pro-civil-liberties etc I still wouldn't vote for them because I do not trust the members of that party. Same applies to the Tories - they can promise anything they want, but they do not have my trust.

When you vote for a party you do not do it solely on their manifesto - you vote for them because you think they'd handle any of the infinite possible events and crises that could occur in a manner which you would find agreeable. The Tories could never do that for me, because whatever their manifesto promises, their approach to politics/life is intrinsically different to mine.

RicheyJames wrote:

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:

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?

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.

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.

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.
though i still feel that distrust of the tories intentions .i've often thought that (compared to new labour) at least you knew where you were with the tories- they were out to line their pockets at the expense of the poor/non wealthy; and if that meant they could force a few questionable moral self-rightiousnesses drown peoples throats at the same time,well what did you expect? i'm cynical enough to doubt whether that has changed,deep down. also being populist pre-ballot box has never guaranteed results afterwards, as we all know.
still,let's see who becomes tory leader and reassess what their policies are in a years time.

you never know...as we have discussed before i am always open to the possibility of the improbable.

Though it doesn't really make any sense, I would genuinely feel part of me had died if I was ever even tempted to tick the Tory box on a ballot.
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.

Luckily I am instinctively repelled by patriotism, social-conservatism, individualism, corporatism and politicking, so I don't think they'll ever swing far enough for me to need to consider this question at first hand.

As a bonus, Thatcher has to, just has to, Die under a Labour Government, no matter how crappy.

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.

What if it changed? What if it was now a party which didn't defend her social policy?

It's hard to explain. The party, the majority of their vocal suppporters, their press, their policies, their history, their presentation, their self-satisfaction, the "achievements" of their previous governments that they choose to emphasise... All these things represent to me a vision of society and an England I want no part of, under any circumstances.

Voting Tory would feel more like an act of Heresy than any kind of political statement, and I genuinely cannot see what they could do to bring me round.

RobF wrote:As a bonus, Thatcher has to, just has to, Die under a Labour Government, no matter how crappy.

i'ld settle for just dead...

with regard to what i said above though, it was genuinely an attempt to be open-minded.
realistically i don't ever envisage tory policy about facing sufficiently for them to be the lesser of the evils on offer -let alone have become a party i would consider voting for. in fact i have only ever voted tactically against them,believing them thus far to be the greater of said evils.
it would be harder these days to make such a distinction.

as the saying goes "if voting changed anything they'ld make it illegal".

It may well be cool to knock the Tories. The hell should I know?

Just because I've known Blair as PM for most of my life doesn't mean I support him.

Surprisingly, some teenagers DO have views, and some understanding of politics, as opposed to some of the ill-educated adults who'd want to keep the "kiddies far away from politics because they don't understand".

Two fingered salute.

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?

Motz wrote:

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?

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.

Today's insipid New-Labour boys may not wish to reverse the apparent acheivements of Thatcherism, but that does not mean they would, or could have shown the ruthlessnes, bigotry and plain cold-heartedness that piece of s**t did in initiating them in the first place.

There are several street parties long planned and funded by ex-miners, dockers, and community organisations across the nation for the day she pegs it. I fancy the Tyne-side one me-self. Though the Class-war one in London, planned for Trafalgar Square on the first Saturday post death should be a little more "active".

RobF wrote: continued buying South-African coal to undermine our own mining industry DURING APARTHEID... etc. f**k her. Die, on fire if possible.

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.

don't understand why you ain't mentioned fox. for:

a) the mastheads

b) he's cool and he's clever

c) peoples health is the next battleground

i think it likely he will use health when possible and this will win support, i think it likely he will be just right enough to stand out from the rest