A New Top Tory, Will It Make Any Difference?

[Quiff Boy]

the tory swing is more back to the center, rather than to the left, but yes.

as far as i can tell its because they are the by definition the opposition party, while labour (our elected party) has shifted more to the right... not "the right" as in right-wing, like a lot of european countries have, but more towards a less interventionist, more commerce and free-enterprise driven approach that thatcher and reagan embodied in the 80s

and thats while still trying to "nanny" us over many other social issues...

labour are having a serious indentity crisis

[andymackem]

My old stomping ground! There's nothing wrong with it round there & the chippy by St Mary's is the best in town!
I've got 1st hand experience of how bad it can get down the other end of town - it is as bad they say...

Apologies for interrupting the political hoohah with a bit of parochial chat!

I usually get my chips from Oldhams, just up from the Palace Theatre (now sadly closed and boarded up). I've been known to sup a couple in the Spread Eagle when occasion demands but most of my social engagements are along Hamlet Court Road or in London.

As for the politics, I think the problem with RJ's compassionate left-ish tory party would be whether anyone could believe in them. Past experience suggests in government they wouldn't live up to the manifesto, although that complaint can justly be levelled at any party.

[Francis]

i think brown's labour party will cling on for another term

So you think Tony will cede power to Gordon before the next election? I'm not so sure. I don't think he'll do it willingly. He seems to have set his sights on breaking Maggie's record, nevermind the unprecedented Labour 3rd term. And I don't think he'll be keen to depart before the Iraq situation looks like a good decision after all. He may be forced out given the challenges ahead in convincing his backbenchers to support the upcoming unpopular legislation regarding detention of suspected terrorists, ID cards and proposed reforms in health and education. And assuming Gordon takes over, will he survive the growing debacle over pensions and the threat of increasing fuel costs, house price inflation and the emerging economies to the stability of our own prosperity? Things could look far less rosey in a few years' time. The question seems to be, will David Cameron, during the four or so years from now to the next election, be able to maintain his air of bright new thing, rally the power-hungry Tory faithful despite the misgivings of their right-wing tendency and take advantage of the public's inevitable tiring of the Labour dynasty.

[Ocean Moves]

hopefully someone with enough charisma to wipe the (withering)
smile off Tonys face. Nobody has had ANY charisma since Thatcher,
but plenty of limp lettuces in the running (William VVVague ?)

[Ocean Moves]

And I don't think he'll be keen to depart before the Iraq situation looks like a good decision after all.

Humm...could be awhile then ?

[RicheyJames]

blimey. this has moved on a bit hasn't it?

in summary, yes, thatcher did some bad things. she also did some good things. she even did some good things in a bad way. blair (and every other pm) is pretty much the same.

agreed, the tories have a trust problem. but cameron has (at least) four years to work on this. by the time of the next election, we will be seeing voters who were still in nappies when the tories were last in power. will they be able to look beyond the past and accept cameron's (hypothetical, i admit) new-look conservatives at face-value? labour did, after all, eventually managed to shake-off the "winter of discontent" and associated baggage of the late-70s.

yes, francis, i think blair will go before the next election. in fact, i think he'll go sooner rather than later. whether he jumps or is pushed is still to be determined. and, yes, brown will have a tough task on his hands when he does finally get the job he's long-coveted. i just feel that labour are still too far ahead in terms of seats for the conservatives to muster a majority next time out. a hung parliament, on the other hand, must be a very real possibility.

[MrChris]

That's a hard question. Thankfully, the assembled blue-rinsed and bigoted brigades of the anti-revolution - sorry, the party members - would never go for it. I don't think the phrase 'wake up and smell the coffee' works for over-70s...

err... who exactly do you think the 134,446 tory party members who voted for cameron are? anway stop dodging the question!

Okay, okay, it's a good point. However, I still think these members have voted for 'youth' and 'dynamism' and an image that will play well electorally, not for a shift to the left. Interestingly, the Guardian leader yesterday analysed Cameron's Commons voting record, which is pretty darned right-wing, it turns out.

So, back to the question: no, I don't think I would, at least not at first. Politics is at least partly tribal, as we know, and the one fixed point in my political life has been 'anything but the tories'. I'd find it at the least troubling to vote for a party that within my own lifetime had done so many pernicious things, and which had in the past cynically appealed to racist and homophobic sentiments. If I felt that a transition to the left was really sincere, and sustained, I'd have to re-evaluate, and perhaps ultimately I could do it, but it'd be darned hard. I won't pretend that this answer is fully 'rational', though...

[MrChris]

On the electoral thingie, by the way, I spend a lot of time with political scientists and they tell me that the Tories would have to win the next election by at least a clear four percent even to tie with Labour in the number of SEATS won. No, it makes little sense to me either*, but hey, that's our electoral system!







* okay, it's to do with the distribution of votes between constituencies, which means that Labour votes are more 'efficient' in winning seats. I can explain further if anyone is genuinely interested.

[RicheyJames]

On the electoral thingie, by the way, I spend a lot of time with political scientists and they tell me that the Tories would have to win the next election by at least a clear four percent even to tie with Labour in the number of SEATS won. No, it makes little sense to me either*, but hey, that's our electoral system!

* okay, it's to do with the distribution of votes between constituencies, which means that Labour votes are more 'efficient' in winning seats. I can explain further if anyone is genuinely interested.

indeed. and recent boundary changes haven't exactly helped the tories either (and i think there's more due before the next election).

what are you doing hanging around with political scientists anyway? genuine question. pm me if you want to avoid derailing one of the few interesting threads on here.

[MrChris]

Well, in a sense I am a political scientist, although that's not how I would define myself personally. Anyway, I teach one branch of politics (political philosophy) for a living.

[RicheyJames]

ah! the anti-tory, left-wing, guardian-reading thing makes sense now. although all my lecturers were marxists apart from one rabid arch-thatcherite. which was fun at the departmental christmas drinks party.

[MrChris]

Yes. Although I sometimes read the Independent because it's easier, and has bigger pictures. Sadly, this is not a joke.

[RicheyJames]

i sometimes read the guardian because my newsagent has sold out of the independent.

[smiscandlon]

Heh heh. This MrChris / RicheyJames dialogue is oddly reminiscent of the Chat with God thread.

[emilystrange]

re richey's comment about those still in nappies when tories were last in power.. the new generation is coming through. a disturbing number of 18 year olds were seen to say that they were voting tory earlier this year because they didn't like blair. no idea of, and no interest in, recent political history, and they couldn't say what they liked about the tories either. they just weren't labour.

[a.r.kane]

In the words of the Bunnymen "We don't know what we want but we know we like extremes'.

[MrChris]

re richey's comment about those still in nappies when tories were last in power.. the new generation is coming through. a disturbing number of 18 year olds were seen to say that they were voting tory earlier this year because they didn't like blair. no idea of, and no interest in, recent political history, and they couldn't say what they liked about the tories either. they just weren't labour.

Last week I made the mistake of mentioning Greenham Common in a class on feminism. Rows and rows of blank faces. It sure made me feel old!

[emilystrange]

and the rest of us, thanks.. hee

honestly. what DO they teach them these days?

[RicheyJames]

re richey's comment about those still in nappies when tories were last in power.. the new generation is coming through. a disturbing number of 18 year olds were seen to say that they were voting tory earlier this year because they didn't like blair. no idea of, and no interest in, recent political history, and they couldn't say what they liked about the tories either. they just weren't labour.

re richey's comment about those still in nappies when labour were last in power.. the new generation is coming through. a disturbing number of 18 year olds were seen to say that they were voting labour earlier this year because they didn't like thatcher. no idea of, and no interest in, recent political history, and they couldn't say what they liked about labour either. they just weren't the tories.

[emilystrange]

no, i don't think so

[RicheyJames]

my god. what a devastating counter-argument. i am literally struck down by the power of your logic and rhetoric.

like it or not it's true. and i should know because i was stuck in an a-level politics class with the buggers. it may not surprise you to learn that i consistently argued the tory line in those classes just to challenge the consensus.

[emilystrange]

not really.
and i'm not bound by any rule to create a counter argument, actually, although i did think about it a lot. i just decided to converse with your lady on msn instead of typing it out.

should not an a level class in politics HAVE an interest? mine did.. 1984-86 though

[RicheyJames]

i'm not bound by any rule to create a counter argument

true. it does make the debate essentially pointless though. you must be spending too much time with schoolchildren.

should not an a level class in politics HAVE an interest? mine did.. 1984-86 though

you'd think so wouldn't you? unbelievably one of my colleagues in that class was proud of the fact that he didn't need to watch the news or read a paper because he could find out everything that was happening from spitting image and have i got news for you.

[emilystrange]

hmm. yes. at this time of year, neither they nor i are corpus mentis, never mind what else is going on.

spitting image we had, i think it had only just started around that time. we did sit and watch the brighton bombing aftermath and have a good debate about that.. we were supposed to be watching the speeches and falling asleep. nothing like a morning set of conference speeches for insomnia

[RicheyJames]

if you have nothing to say it's often better to say nothing. i think abe lincoln once said something similar.