Precautions in case of a Labour win

DairyQueen

zagfles wrote: »

Leaving the EU then having a Corbyn govt would be the nightmare scenario.

Plus one to that. This is also my greatest concern.

zagfles

MaxiRobriguez wrote: »

Sorry if this deviates the conversation slightly but whilst we're all happy to discuss how radical a Corbyn government may or may not be, are any One Nation Tories' not concerned the state and direction of their party at the moment?

Banished are the likes of what were once considered reasonable, pragmatic Tories like Ken Clarke and Phil Hammond and the wealth of experience in governing. Replaced by what looks more and more like a cabal of chancers each day that passes:

The great Orator Boris Johnson, who can barely deliver a coherent speech, Mr "F Business", father of multiple illegitimate children who he doesn't give a hoot about, alleged wifebeater, quite happy to trash parliamentary norms to get his way, using a Brexit crisis he doesn't give a stuff about how it actually ends in order to realise his dream of becoming PM. Nice guy.

The strong, unrelenting Demonic Raab, another one happy to trash parliamentary norms. Advertises for unpaid roles despite them being full time positions, bullies his staff, sexually harasses others, twelve of them, apparently. Refused to criticise Saudi Arabia in their role of murdering a journalist because didn't want to put the arms trade at risk.

The bounce-back-ability of Priti Patel, forced to resign from Government for getting caught undertaking multiple off-the-record lobbying mission which would have seen British taxpayer money used to fund hospitals for Israeli forces.

Andrea Leadsom, ridiculous lies about managing billions of pounds of funds whilst at Invesco. Told the country she'd make a better PM than May because she had children, unlike May (nice!). Won't employ a man in a role working with children because all !!!!!philes are men. Climate change denier.

Matt Hancock, described prorogation of parliament as disrespecting our war dead when running for PM. "It goes against everything those men who waded onto those beaches fought & died for - and I will not have it" - clearly he does have it.

So I ask you this Tory voters. Where is the competency in YOUR front bench? Why on earth are these complete and utter morons who wouldn't have made it past a first promotion in the private sector the people to deliver capable Government for the next 5 years? "They're not Labour" isn't an answer, because there's a few parties which aren't Labour, who have maintained a sense of decency and pragmatism across the political spectrum.

The Tory party as we knew it is dead, the entryists have turned it into little more than an shouty shouty party who's policies have no plan for the country for a year let alone 5, they're just designed to win an election. What then? A bunch of low IQ fools undertaking the biggest economic change this country has undertaken in generations. Good grief I long for Cameron back.

Mostly agree. The problem the Tories have of course is that they are and always have been completely divided over Europe, at a time when they need a clear consistent policy.

How could they go into an election at this time, with Brexit on the top of the agenda, expecting people to believe what they put into their manifesto, when people know that whatever their manifesto says on Europe half their MPs won't back it?

The real problem is the voting system in the UK. Both Tory and Labour parties are a very uneasy coalition of people with very different views.

If we had a proper PR system like most other democracies, or even had the AV referendum won, both the Tories and Labour could split into two parties, the right wing ERG Tories and the one-nation Tories, and hard left Labour and the New Labour.
Then the people would get to choose whether to vote for a Ken Clarke or JRM type Tory party, and a Blair or Corbyn type Labour party. And it's highly unlikely any of them could ever govern alone, which means the extremists are sidelined and governments are more likely to be centrist, as the centrists have more choices who to form a coalition with.

Cameron should have campagined for AV. He'd probably still been PM if he had.

SonOf

IDS was about to be investigated by the UN regarding cruelty to those less fortunate ie disabled people, when he resigned.

No he wasn't. The UN doesn't have the power to do such a thing. They write reports but these reports (in various areas) are often considered inaccurate and one sided due to the nature of those they interview in their research.

MaxiRobriguez

DairyQueen wrote: »

I just love a newbie rant.... and so eloquent too.;)

I have yet to find ranting persuasive. Quite the contrary, it tends to alienate those whom you are trying to persuade. The more 'shouty shouty' you are the less convincing your arguments (been there; ironed the t-shirt).

The highlighted comment indicates to me that you are under 40 and not a scholar of economic or social history.

I am under 40, and quite open with that on this forum, so don't pat yourself on the back too quickly for working that one out.

Slightly ranty maybe, but a valid question still I believe. Labour receives flak for having an incompetent front bench, but from my viewpoint I would suggest that the current Tory lot are somehow worse.

I'm no Corbyn fan by the way. I think he's quite weak compared to those around him. I also voted Brexit, so I have no skin in the game trying to encourage people to vote for parties who are opposed to Brexit.

So I revert to the purpose of the original question: Are One Nation Tories happy with the direction the party is going in and are they content with the quality of the front bench?

jimi_man

DairyQueen wrote: »

I just love a newbie rant.... and so eloquent too.;)

I have yet to find ranting persuasive. Quite the contrary, it tends to alienate those whom you are trying to persuade. The more 'shouty shouty' you are the less convincing your arguments (been there; ironed the t-shirt).

The highlighted comment indicates to me that you are under 40 and not a scholar of economic or social history.

You just know that when someone's main rant is based on personal attacks, there is no real argument.

cfw1994

MaxiRobriguez wrote: »

<a lot of stuff>

The Tory party as we knew it is dead, the entryists have turned it into little more than an shouty shouty party who's policies have no plan for the country for a year let alone 5, they're just designed to win an election. What then? A bunch of low IQ fools undertaking the biggest economic change this country has undertaken in generations. Good grief I long for Cameron back.

On the 'stuff' rant - it is hard to argue that our politicians are not the worst we have had in decades. I don't hugely disagree with much of your sentiment....yet I look across the House and realise that the opposition is pretty well just as bad. An effective opposition would be running rings around the shambles that is the current Tory party, & yet, here we are, facing an election no-one wants but the Country needs in order to try to break a deadlock. I suspect it may turn to another hung Parliament and more months-to-years of shambolic politics

Mmmm.....I am broadly conservative (perhaps small c), but I do massively worry about the possibility of protest politician Corbyn and his highly marxist sidekick gaining entry to power - I seriously fear for the value of everything I fiscally own (pension, house). I am not convinced at all that they would do a better job looking after NHS/police/education. Let's see what the manifesto's 'promise'.
I also remember when the railways were nationalised - it wasn't a bed of roses, & nationalising things in this day & age is, in my mind, not the answer. That said......I'd prefer us to have more UK-based ownership of our power & water. These things will become pretty important over time.....

That last piece I've highlighted....well, perhaps, right up to the point he allowed a RIDICULOUS referendum without requiring a sensible majority (I would have said we need a 10% swing to embark on such a project as Brexit). In that single moment, he defined the mess we are in for a good 10 years, I would suggest.
Equally, Corbyn is clearly also a Brexiteer at heart - why else did he fail to rally people around remain?

MaxiRobriguez wrote: »

Labour receives flak for having an incompetent front bench, but from my viewpoint I would suggest that the current Tory lot are somehow worse.

No. As to the Tory's holding some sort of monopoly on being ""a bunch of low IQ fools"....well, as I said above, a smarter opposition would be sweeping to power, so I think the balance is equal there...I am staggered by how awful Labour has been under Corbyn

*sigh*

What a mess Politics is. No wonder we are seeing the biggest exodus of MPs that I believe has ever occurred (#NoProofFound)

[Deleted User]

DairyQueen wrote: »

'Socialism' covers a broad political spectrum. Blair liberalism is very different from the far-Left idealism of Momentum.
EU.

Agree that “socialism” means different things to different people, but Karl Marx was very clear and specific. Socialism = proletariat controls means of production. Milne and McDonnell have both read and understood Marx and Corbyn has read Marx. They all loved his books and called themselves socialists and/or Marxists at various times.

So, Sweden is not socialist because Volvo and Ericsson, which produce the wealth, are not publicly owned and nor are they controlled by workers. Blair and Brown were not socialist according to Marx because having a capitalist system generate wealth and then redistribute isn’t socialism. USSR, Cuba, N Korea, Venezuela have all had key wealth producing companies nationalised. That’s socialism.

Transfer of shares to employees, placing workers on the boards... those are socialist measures in a true Marxist sense. We’ve seen what happens next.

That’s why I don’t think tweaking one’s pension or taking the 25% early would help to protect anyone.

shinytop

I tell you what, if Boris gets in I won't be hanging around in this country, I'll be moving to Spain or maybe France.


Oh, wait a minute ...

Triumph13

zagfles wrote: »

Mostly agree. The problem the Tories have of course is that they are and always have been completely divided over Europe, at a time when they need a clear consistent policy.

How could they go into an election at this time, with Brexit on the top of the agenda, expecting people to believe what they put into their manifesto, when people know that whatever their manifesto says on Europe half their MPs won't back it?

The real problem is the voting system in the UK. Both Tory and Labour parties are a very uneasy coalition of people with very different views.

If we had a proper PR system like most other democracies, or even had the AV referendum won, both the Tories and Labour could split into two parties, the right wing ERG Tories and the one-nation Tories, and hard left Labour and the New Labour.
Then the people would get to choose whether to vote for a Ken Clarke or JRM type Tory party, and a Blair or Corbyn type Labour party. And it's highly unlikely any of them could ever govern alone, which means the extremists are sidelined and governments are more likely to be centrist, as the centrists have more choices who to form a coalition with.

Cameron should have campagined for AV. He'd probably still been PM if he had.

Be careful what you wish for regarding PR. It can work yes, but it can also go horribly wrong with mainstream parties having to go into coalition with extremists to form a government thus giving them disproportionate power.

zagfles

Triumph13 wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for regarding PR. It can work yes, but it can also go horribly wrong with mainstream parties having to go into coalition with extremists to form a government thus giving them disproportionate power.

The current system can give extremists total power, not disproportionate! PR gives moderates the advantage, they can choose whether to form a coalition with parties to their left or their right. They can prevent any extremist policies being implemented, because the majority in parliament will always be against them.

It's like all the fuss about the DUPs attitude towards gay rights after the C&S agreement. Totally irrelevent, because they didn't get to influence policy in that area at all, because they're on the extreme edge.

That's why extremists like the current system. It's their only hope of getting their policies implemented.