Head Honcho Posted 26 June 2007 Posted 26 June 2007 Having studied British History at A-level for the past year, one thing I can tell you is that no matter how down-and-out the Conservative party may seem, they ALWAYS bounce back. WTF No Shit Sherlock! Of course they've always bounced back! Labour had never won two election in a row until Blair. Thankfully they've shot themselves in the foot many times since 1997 and will rue the day they shafted Heseltine in favour of John Major.
lookwhaticando Posted 26 June 2007 Posted 26 June 2007 Should've picked Portaloo when Sir John stepped down in '97.
Hullfox Posted 26 June 2007 Posted 26 June 2007 As his constituents elected him as a tory, will he have the courage of his convictions to initiate a by election? Somehow I doubt it.
stez Posted 26 June 2007 Posted 26 June 2007 As his constituents elected him as a tory, will he have the courage of his convictions to initiate a by election?Somehow I doubt it. to be fair to me, i voted him as quentin davis not quentin davis tory candidate
Head Honcho Posted 26 June 2007 Posted 26 June 2007 Should've picked Portaloo when Sir John stepped down in '97. Think they may have done if it weren't for many of his peers being aware of his homosexual tendencies!
Hullfox Posted 26 June 2007 Posted 26 June 2007 to be fair to me, i voted him as quentin davis not quentin davis tory candidate Would you have voted for him as Quentin Davies if he were a BNP candidate though?
Head Honcho Posted 26 June 2007 Posted 26 June 2007 Would you have voted for him as Quentin Davies if he were a BNP candidate though? Ouch!
stez Posted 26 June 2007 Posted 26 June 2007 Would you have voted for him as Quentin Davies if he were a BNP candidate though? probably not, because i wouldn't have agreed with many of the policies he had
Hullfox Posted 26 June 2007 Posted 26 June 2007 Rumour is that he will stand as Tony Blair's replacement in Sedgefield. They love a Tory wearing a red rosette up there.
Flynny Posted 26 June 2007 Posted 26 June 2007 Rumour is that he will stand as Tony Blair's replacement in Sedgefield.They love a Tory wearing a red rosette up there. Smashing.
lookwhaticando Posted 26 June 2007 Posted 26 June 2007 Floor-crossing MPs really get on my tits. There was a candidate out in BC at the last election - he was elected as a Liberal candidate. After the election, which the Conservatives won, he decided he fancied a bit of the governing action so he crossed the floor to join the minority Tory administration. The locals were unimpressed - they voted for a Liberal, not a Tory. In much the same way, a much more high profile Tory switched to the previous administration at a critical time. One of the most recognizable MPs in the country (blonde, rich, attractive - well known) switched to the governing Liberal party and took up a Cabinet post on the day of a crunch vote (one which was essentially a confidence vote, no less) in the house. The vote was won by a majority of just 1. Her defection effectively saved the government. Her case was spectacular - the constituency she was elected to is fiercely conservative. They've returned a conservative in every election since god knows when, apparently. The voters in her constituency weren't best pleased that she switched sides like that. She had run for the leadership of the Tories back in 2003/04, switched sides in 05, and then ran for leadership of the Liberals after they lost the election in 06. She's now quitting politics after just a few years. But yeah, I don't think it's right that candidates can just hop to the other side whenever they fancy it. I don't agree with it at all. Candidates should state their intentions a given time period in advance - two months perhaps - and trigger a by-election. I think they should have the confidence and backing of their constituents before they can make such changes to their standing.
Head Honcho Posted 26 June 2007 Posted 26 June 2007 Rumour is that he will stand as Tony Blair's replacement in Sedgefield.They love a Tory wearing a red rosette up there. Boro fan is he?
davieG Posted 26 June 2007 Posted 26 June 2007 Floor-crossing MPs really get on my tits. There was a candidate out in BC at the last election - he was elected as a Liberal candidate. After the election, which the Conservatives won, he decided he fancied a bit of the governing action so he crossed the floor to join the minority Tory administration. The locals were unimpressed - they voted for a Liberal, not a Tory. In much the same way, a much more high profile Tory switched to the previous administration at a critical time. One of the most recognizable MPs in the country (blonde, rich, attractive - well known) switched to the governing Liberal party and took up a Cabinet post on the day of a crunch vote (one which was essentially a confidence vote, no less) in the house. The vote was won by a majority of just 1. Her defection effectively saved the government. Her case was spectacular - the constituency she was elected to is fiercely conservative. They've returned a conservative in every election since god knows when, apparently. The voters in her constituency weren't best pleased that she switched sides like that. She had run for the leadership of the Tories back in 2003/04, switched sides in 05, and then ran for leadership of the Liberals after they lost the election in 06. She's now quitting politics after just a few years. But yeah, I don't think it's right that candidates can just hop to the other side whenever they fancy it. I don't agree with it at all. Candidates should state their intentions a given time period in advance - two months perhaps - and trigger a by-election. I think they should have the confidence and backing of their constituents before they can make such changes to their standing. This is why I don't believe in party politics, each MP should be voted for and vote on what their own beliefs are not some party political document drawn up by career politicians. It's impossible for 350+ MPs to agree on every aspect of a manifesto no matter who draws it up, by definition they are regularly voting against their beliefs, even abstaining is in effect a vote for something. The House of Commons should be full of independent individuals and thinkers, we should vote for a Prime Minister and he/she should then be allowed to select a Cabinet, that best matched their own proclaimed beliefs from any of the MPs elected. That to me would be much closer to democracy, we would vote for the individual candidate who best matched our own individual aspirations, we would accept as individuals the areas of disagreement that would be of lesser importance to us. A utopian concept I suspect many will think but if the will was there achievable. Well one can dream
Rincewind Posted 27 June 2007 Posted 27 June 2007 I don't think any politician has any real policies or views any more. Labour used to be for the working man and actually reformed and agreed to a lot of the union laws. Now they try to keep the bosses and big buisness happy. The Tories used to be for the bosses and landowners. They still are to some extent but now that a lot of families have their own house and own two cars they tell them they are equals and anyone worse off than them are just scroungers or illegal entrants to this country. So in reality there is not a lot between them. The Lib Dems may have one or two ideas. I like PR voting but if the Lib Dem got in because of it they would change it back. The media print the stuff that sells stories notfacts. There may be policies from both parties that may work but while the two main partys are in opposition they will not support them. They have to be seen to disagree then amend them without changing them by branding the policies under a different name. Call me skeptical because that is what I am.
Guest Posted 27 June 2007 Posted 27 June 2007 A-ha!!And by A-ha, I mean hmmmm.... A bunch of talentless Norwegian gimps? Who are also dead ugly?
Jon the Hat Posted 27 June 2007 Posted 27 June 2007 they're And if they still are it won't be for long, I've not known a party go for so long with an absolute absence of policy before (for fear of upsetting anyone that may vote for them). It's a riot. About time I made an appearance The Cameron project is at risk of failure. While it makes no sense to announce detailed policies at this point in the Election cycle, to keep everything this close to his chest looks dangerously like not having any ideas at all. While I actually think they do have policies (if not a manifesto) there are playing a game which could backfire. I am hoping they are saving the first salvo for Brown's inaugaral policy changes. This will give them something to actually oppose without Labour having the option of a complete backtrack following the change in leadership. Actually thinking about it, it is possible that the ongoing doubts about when Blair would walk the plank is the reason why Cameron has kept so quiet. If we don't see some genuine ideas coming out after Brown has outlined his plans I will start to worry. If they leave it too late, the party and the public may simply get fed up. As for the defector I have no respect for people who claim to reject a party line or lack of, then conveniently align themselves to another one which is no closer to their alleged personal beliefs than the one they left. Should be made to stand down as an MP immediately.
Mort Posted 27 June 2007 Posted 27 June 2007 Rumour is that he will stand as Tony Blair's replacement in Sedgefield.They love a Tory wearing a red rosette up there. Doubt it, they'll probably have the by-election on the same day as the Ealing by-election (that way its harder for the LibDems to get a "bandwagon" going - even though it'd take a massive upset for someone other than the Labour candidate to win the seat)... if he's after a seat the national party might look to do what they did for Shaun Woodwood and find him a safe seat that he and his butler can call home, but i don’t think many CLPs would be too happy with someone like Davies popping up and effectively demanding a safe seat, but I'd have thought Brown could wrangle it if he's so minded. As for Sedgfeild, it'll be interesting if, as is being reported Blair steps down as an MP doubt there will be any big shocks in that by-election but he is God up in that bit of 'county D' and has a massive personal vote... one of his protégé, Patrick Diamond (policy wonk and staunch Blairite) is apparently being lined up for the seat and I'd have thought Tony's tacit support means if he wants the nomination he'll get it and be pretty much guaranteed as the next MP by dint of being the Labour candidate. Should've picked Portaloo when Sir John stepped down in '97. He lost his seat in ’97, otherwise he would probably have stood for the leadership and won… though I doubt he’d have had the success that Cameron has had in getting the Conservative party back to being a competitive national force (and what ever your view of “Dave†he’s been the more successful than any of the last few Tory leaders). As it is he’s now a media “talking head†who regularly wallows in his own bitterness… though I tend to think he’s worth listening to on things like Foreign policy were he seems to know his stuff, its just when he repeatedly criticizes the Tory party for failing to elect him leader that he gets a bit repetitive. Boro fan is he? Sedgefield!... That’s Mackem territory! Sunderland fans up there mate! The Cameron project is at risk of failure. While it makes no sense to announce detailed policies at this point in the Election cycle, to keep everything this close to his chest looks dangerously like not having any ideas at all. While I actually think they do have policies (if not a manifesto) there are playing a game which could backfire. I am hoping they are saving the first salvo for Brown's inaugaral policy changes. This will give them something to actually oppose without Labour having the option of a complete backtrack following the change in leadership. Actually thinking about it, it is possible that the ongoing doubts about when Blair would walk the plank is the reason why Cameron has kept so quiet.If we don't see some genuine ideas coming out after Brown has outlined his plans I will start to worry. If they leave it too late, the party and the public may simply get fed up. Agree that this will be a very tough time for Cameron… but wasn’t always going to be? As for the policies I think the “policy reviews†come in at the end of the summer or during the autumn, so that should provide some clearer indication of Cameron and the Party’s trajectory from there on in and they should come in just as Brown/Labour’s ‘honeymoon’ is coming to an end… though on the issue of the ‘honeymoons’ Labour have failed to make any progress in the polls, bar the Mori poll at the weekend, both YouGov and Com Research have Labour in the lead with a tiny net improvement… so don’t think there’s any need for the Tories to panic. Though they’ll need to ride this out and then try and gain some traction when Labour/Brown are no longer able to dominate the news agenda in the same way as they can at the moment.
Katy Posted 27 June 2007 Posted 27 June 2007 A bunch of talentless Norwegian gimps? Who are also dead ugly? How very dare you! At least they weren't playing nancy and dancy a la Durun Durun *que well old debate about which 80's crapband woh bettoh*
Mort Posted 27 June 2007 Posted 27 June 2007 Lots of talk in Westminster that another defection… apparently Ed Balls (Brown’s protégé) was crowing about it at a Fabian event last night. Was the suggestion it could be John Bercow (a liberal Tory MP), but his office has denied it… so no idea who it could be, might no even be a Tory, either way it doesn’t sound too encouraging unless you’re a Brownite. <_<
Thracian Posted 27 June 2007 Posted 27 June 2007 From what I heard of Davies on television last night the Labour Party is welcome to him. Mr Sincerity personified. Member of Parliament? After getting it wrong as many times as even he was forced to admit he didn't sound capable of leading the blind let alone helping to lead a country.
Guest Posted 27 June 2007 Posted 27 June 2007 How very dare you! At least they weren't playing nancy and dancy a la Durun Durun *que well old debate about which 80's crapband woh bettoh* Too right!! How dare you diss Duran Duran.
lookwhaticando Posted 27 June 2007 Posted 27 June 2007 He lost his seat in ’97, otherwise he would probably have stood for the leadership and won… though I doubt he’d have had the success that Cameron has had in getting the Conservative party back to being a competitive national force (and what ever your view of “Dave†he’s been the more successful than any of the last few Tory leaders). As it is he’s now a media “talking head†who regularly wallows in his own bitterness… though I tend to think he’s worth listening to on things like Foreign policy were he seems to know his stuff, its just when he repeatedly criticizes the Tory party for failing to elect him leader that he gets a bit repetitive. Didn't he stand in a more recent round? 2001 if I'm not mistaken... when the Tory party made one of it's biggest mistakes in recent times, by appointing the terminally dull Ian Duncan-Smith. I don't think the Tories would have made so little progress if Portaloo had been elected - either in '97 or '01. He was certainly far superior to IDS who was about as inspiring as a plain brown piece of corrugated cardboard. How very dare you! At least they weren't playing nancy and dancy a la Durun Durun *que well old debate about which 80's crapband woh bettoh* A-Ha!.
Mort Posted 27 June 2007 Posted 27 June 2007 Didn't he stand in a more recent round? 2001 if I'm not mistaken... when the Tory party made one of it's biggest mistakes in recent times, by appointing the terminally dull Ian Duncan-Smith. I don't think the Tories would have made so little progress if Portaloo had been elected - either in '97 or '01. He was certainly far superior to IDS who was about as inspiring as a plain brown piece of corrugated cardboard. A-Ha!. I agree, he stood in the Kensington by-election (1999?) and Kensington being Kensington was shoe-in and got back into parliament... he really threw the leadership away after the 2001 election, just went about alienating the sections within the Tory Party and Tory MPs, but as i say i agree he'd have be a big improvement on IDS or Hauge and may have mounted the kind of recovery that has only just started on for the Tories under Cameron... but i get the sense the Tories were always going to have a spell of being in the gutter after 1997 maybe a different leader could have helped but it might not have made all that much difference.
Sir Fynwy Posted 27 June 2007 Posted 27 June 2007 People who refer to the current tories as 'The Cameron Project' really make me laugh, it makes it seem a bit like a junior school history assignment, which is probably a realistic image.
Finnegan Posted 27 June 2007 Posted 27 June 2007 People who refer to the current tories as 'The Cameron Project' really make me laugh, it makes it seem a bit like a junior school history assignment, which is probably a realistic image. It's the ones that believe the Tories have actually changed that get me. As long as they still represent the same middle-class, middle-aged, well-to-do demographic their politics will remain as they ever were. Cameron and his spin doctors attempting to make the party look fresh and youthful is ludicrously transparent - he's still just another stiff in a suit to the "youf" of today. Pulling in a few younger bigots to your voting pool because the country's media sensationalism is all a-buzz on the idea of immigration doesn't really count as broadening your demographic. The Tory party aren't hip and cool, they're like your grandad in a Rolling Stones t-shirt getting "down" with emo-scene-teens. Besides, this is how politics works, the Opposition pretend they'd do everything better than the current government, they act as neutrally as possible and then BANG you vote for them and the true colours come out. And the Tory colours are blue, now and forever.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.