Well they got a thrashing in the local elections.
I think it's a reflection on the fact they are realy the second Conservitive party, and people (labour) are fed up with it.
What are your thoughts?
From here it looks like a sinking ship; the recent reshuffle seems like too little too late. However even though Conservatives have passed the 40% mark (for the first time since 1992) I don't feel it is justified to assume they are going to be next in power. For many I think just seeing Tony Blair out the door will be enough to restore their voting faith in Labour, possibly with a further cabinet reshuffle.
Glad to see the BNP horror story didn't come to too much (except Barking 
) I find it interesting that many people have forgotten that Gordon Brown will be the next Prime Minister. Brown is certainly going to inherit a tarnished government and party. T'is inevitable for a government in power for so long to loose popularity. Brown will have to throw out all of the Blairites immediately. Look how long it has taken the Tories to shed Thatcher's legacy, and only now that they have done so do they appear respectable and viable.
I would still not vote Tory though, Cameron has no experience, nor will his non-Thatcherite cabinet. We would probably end up seeing even more spin doctors and civil servants surrounding Cameron than currently aid Blair.
But Labour deffinately look to be on the way out. After being in power for so many years they are viewed as responsible for all the anguishes in that time. Which will cumulate into a public longing for change.
| otiscom wrote: |
Well they got a thrashing in the local elections.
I think it's a reflection on the fact they are realy the second Conservitive party, and people (labour) are fed up with it.
What are your thoughts?
|
Well, for one person, I am pleased that they got a thrashing in the elections. As you may have been able to tell, I am a Tory at heart (although they are also pretty crap these days).
I'm not so sure how you make the assumption that they are the second Conservative party though - I find that a little confusing, or perhaps a little naive.
In general, political parties seem to reflect the opinion trends of the populace. When people are generally a little more extreme (generally speaking) in their opinions, then the parties become more diverse, and in turn extreme. A good example of this is the Thatcher years. In that era, the Tories were very right wing, and Labour was in turn, quite left wing. In these more moderate, liberal days, the parties appear to be much closer together. Indeed they could both be described as quite mid to right wing in outward appearances. However, the fiscal policies normally define the subtle differences between the two. Labour is, as usual, geared up to supporting the non-earning or social state, whereas the Conservatives are more geared towards supporting the small business or business world in general, thus favouring the working man and favouring less, the social state.
I have to say that I don't personally believe that if the Tories had been in power, then we wouldn't have had the police state we now find ourselves in. Neither do I think that we would have quite so many people from Kosovo or the former Soviet states being a drain on our social structure and resources. In fact, I believe that the increased level of immigration is nothing more that an importation of free voters for Blair. Now, that's a politically incorrect statement.... | Quote: |
| police state we now find ourselves in |
A bit dramatic there!
Your last paragraph is interesting as I have a lecturer (albeit a crazy one) who insists that terrorism in the UK is a result of Blair's failure to distribute wealth to minorities!I wouldn't be so sure that it's a bit over dramatic.
After all, think back to 1984, the Orwell Book, and then the movie that came out.
When it came out, with subjects such as:
Police Search and Seizure Rights without cause
Monitored Public Streets
Monitored Communications
etc, etc.
We all said, "Thank God that doesn't happen here, in the U.K. in our little land of freedom"....
OK, so now....
CCTV cameras everywhere with the Police able to access them at will.
Traffic Cameras, to add to above.
Web traffic monitored.
Telephone traffic monitored.
Police able to stop you in your vehicle without any suspicious behaviour on your part.
Freedom of speech UNLESS it's anti-government or non-PC ???
So, tell me that I'm being over-dramatic when I refer to a Police State...
OH, and shortly around the corner for us...
In the U.S., the Patriot Act (Which Tony seems to love) specified that by the year 2007, all U.S. cell phones MUST include GPS chips. Is this for your benefit, so that you can have SATNAV on your phone? Hell No, this is for tracking purposes.
How long till our every move can be traced, whether we're criminals or not?
and how does everyone respond? Simple. They don't, like good sheep.
| monkeystravels wrote: |
| I find it interesting that many people have forgotten that Gordon Brown will be the next Prime Minister. |
That all depends. Firstly he really should be voted into being leader of the party which he may not though it is likely, secondly, Blair has said he'll server a full term so when and if Brown becomes leader the next general election will be taking place so he wont actually be priminister as parliament will be dissolved.
| shaggly wrote: |
| Freedom of speech UNLESS it's anti-government or non-PC ??? |
Everyone talks anti-government and people are on TV all the time mocking Blair himself. If that was at all true we wouldn't have naything like that. Anti-government in the sense of 'I'm going to blow the house of commons up' is of course an entirely different matter
(New) Labour is nothing like the conservatives, past or thankfully present. I honestly feel that it's thanks to labour we are where we are now. Its not the best place in the owrld where we could be but its better than if we had been led by the tories or anyone else.
We also know why everyones againt blair as well. Iraq! Thats the major problem. Not neccesacrily the fact we went, but the reasons we went. Had he just said, 'Saddam's evil, torturing his own people, wever going over to save a country' he'd be laughed at but he wouldnt be hated. The whole work up and the 'sexed-up' documents were bad but the total of no WMD made things worse. Afganistan seemed alright because of the terrorists, taliban and we were protecting everyone, trying to rid the world of terrorism and liberating a country. Iraq shouldve been the same but wasn't.
Blair came to power because he was fab. Took the part and country we wouldn't've dreamt of going. he was young, powerful, enthusiastic etc. he still is and has a great mind and will do great things in his last term. Other big members are of course Brown. The best man in the country for controlling money, wouldn't want anyone else doing it at all. He is rather overwhelming and has beaten anyone whos questioned him in the house of commons. John reid, quiet but his brains ticking faster than a AMD FX-60, never be PM but whatever he's in charge off will be good.
I'm stopping now because I'm tired. I'll check what else has been said tomorrow. I know I've proably deviated from the topic but the topic title was rather undescriptive 
Its about time Labour was out of government. Blair or Brown neither have policies that reflect what the British people want and need. Whether you like them or not the Tories will put an end to the mass immigration and the consequential drain on our resources; use public money more effectively where its needed in hospitals and schools and end the countless jobs within the public sector that are bureaucratic and serve no real purpose or effectiveness to the British people.
The Labour party being thrown out will have a greater advantage, more than any other..... getting rid of John Prescott. He is no more than a thug.
Speaking of thugs, it was good to finally see the back of Charles Clarke. He really had nothing good to offer.
Gordon Brown has hardly done great things for the economy. Taking every excuse to increase taxes and sending public services down the pan isn't exactly something that impresses me.
Labour is nothing like the conservatives, however they are very much neoconservative in their policies and campaigning. They spend so much time slagging off the Tories and don't take the time to make the critical changes that are needed to make them a working government again.
As far as I can tell, the Labour party does have its problems at the moment. It seems that the UK press are trying to actively harm the government by picking at every single cabinet member. Sometimes they're right, but quite often they end up removing competent politicians over minor misdemeanors.
The real problem with UK politics is that there are no real viable alternatives to Labour.
The Conservatives are a good party if you come from a reasonably wealthy background. They don't provide well for poorer people, believing that if their MP can make something of his life, why can't everyone? I disagree with this. There are those who can't get jobs. There are those who aren't capable of earning enough money to live no matter how hard they try, and under Tory control, these people would be in real trouble. Labour work for everyone - both rich and poor, and I think this is the right stance.
The Lib Dems are not as competitive as they seem. In the last elections, the Lib Dems seemed to have gained a lot of ground, but this was only because Labour lost so much. The lost share of the vote was generally split between Lib Dems and the Tories, neither of whom really capitalised on the changes.
There aren't really any "other" parties that can provide any real competition to the big three, so really - Labour are the best of a bad bunch.
Unfortunately, as sad and cynical as it sounds, I wouldn't hold my breath for any changes of government any time soon.
If the next General Election looks as though it may be close, Blair will just open the floodgates again, and let in a few more thousand "bought & paid for" Eastern European Voters...
