If the Tories got in at the next Gen Election

[Steven Gill]

Third sector?

The rest is happening anyway, and despite who is in power the privatisation of all public services will happen. Labour are not going to nationalise or renationalise public services and utilities. The anti-union legislation will never be repealed. Habeas corpus has gone out the window, along with other civil rights...

Don't be so Cynical, it's infectious.

 

[audiotech]

Of being a singularly white w/c disease.

That some on the left have thought this?

 

[scott_forester]

The process will continue hence 'more'. It is in fact the case that New Labour have privatised more Civil Service jobs than the Thatcher and Major Govts combined. It is also the case that Labour have precided over breaching sacred territory - the 'no go' areas of privatising schools and hospitals. This is something Thatcher dared not do.

That's my point if Labour back get in I can't see their attitude towards the private sector being that different than the Tory party. What has surprised me (and I do vote Tory) is that the Conservatives appear to be far more pro civil liberties than Labour. I mean they passed a law pretty much to stop one guy protesting.

 

[Haller]

Cameron, on the other hand, is giving all the fluffy electoral-friendly image stuff now, but will resort to core tory values once in power. Those on the margins of society, watch out!

This is essentially the argument that the Tories tried to get to stick with the emergence of New Labour - it's not really new, underneath they're still the same. They were wrong, and the claim (particularly in the 'demon eyes' poster) failed to chime with the public because it was so obviously wrong.

The fight against Cameron is going to have to accept that he genuinely is changing the party - 'same old Tories' simply won't work.

 

[Haller]

I think all of Cameron's efforts will be on acheiving a devolutionary settlement with Scotland and repositioning Britain's relationship with the EU.

I think you're right: devolution is going to be a key dividing line between the parties. It's in the interest of the Tories to increase devolved powers for Scotland, and in return reduce the number of Scottish constituencies. Conversely, it's in Labour's interests to keep the situation as it is. The Tories will present themselves as the party of progress - using the word 'modern' so much it's going to get really annoying.

 

[scott_forester]

I think you're right: devolution is going to be a key dividing line between the parties. It's in the interest of the Tories to increase devolved powers for Scotland, and in return reduce the number of Scottish constituencies. Conversely, it's in Labour's interests to keep the situation as it is. The Tories will present themselves as the party of progress - using the word 'modern' so much it's going to get really annoying.

At the moment polling would suggest that the majority of Scots don't want separation. I suspect it's more a question of winning back the voters Blair woed.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ever since Gaitskell tried to get rid of it in 1959 Clause 4 has been more of a symbol than a genuine or achievable aspiration.

Clause 4 may well have been purely symbolic, but it's what it was symbolic of that was important; an interest in a progressive and equality-minded politics and an overt commitment to redistributive policies.

 

[Poi E]

A lot of traditional tories thought the end of the world was going to happen when Tony Blair's New Labour were elected. After years of Tory rule they expected to be targetted by the new regime.
.

Yeah, but then they did very fucking well, and probably liked a bit of war, too.

With bluestreak, see re: tories continuation of a cynical trend of private distribution of non-profit services. Unsure foreign policy, occasional tirades against Europe, no environmental policies apart from upping fuel tax. Trend towards "flat tax" policies, "vouchers" in education and health care, further lax supervision of the financial sector and no willingness to reinforce the gathering of tax revenue from that lot. Even further disregard for fracturing of the union; occasional bits of xenophobia to grab the BNP vote. Uninformed accessory to the rise of the extreme right in the UK.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Domestically, I don't think a Cameron government will be radically different from Blair/Brown. We won't have ID cards and will get a bit less nanny state bollocks but I think all of Cameron's efforts will be on acheiving a devolutionary settlement with Scotland and repositioning Britain's relationship with the EU.

As I said in my post the Tories in power will indeed continue with the privatisation programme started by Blair/Brown, but will accelerate it. There will be no possible criticism from the Opposition party who started it so Cameron will be in a position to push it very much further. He will be pushed by his business supporters to do this. This acceleration and the social consequences on a very large scale will be how they will be radically different.

I cannot see the Conservative and Unionist Party - that is their name - doing anything towards the devolution of Scotland even though that is the centre of a lot of Labour votes. Once the Tories are elected the Labour voting base will be of no concern to them.

On repositioning Britain's relationship with the EU I think Cameron would have a problem with this. To begin with the Tory party is split down the middle on Europe. Many Tories want to play the Little Englander, while their business supporters are very much in favour of Europe and its 'flexible working' agenda. In any case the UK has now signed up to the de facto constitution.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I cannot see the Conservative and Unionist Party - that is their name - doing anything towards the devolution of Scotland even though that is the centre of a lot of Labour votes. Once the Tories are elected the Labour voting base will be of no concern to them.

I think you could probably make a case for the tories letting Scotland go (regardless of their "Unionist" suffix) purely because their power base is, and seems likely to continue to be, negligible. Shucking Scotland off could be far less embarrassing politically than hanging onto a nation that has resolutely kept them as a minority political force (and one that has progressively shrunk over the last 25 years).

 

[FridgeMagnet]

This is essentially the argument that the Tories tried to get to stick with the emergence of New Labour - it's not really new, underneath they're still the same. They were wrong, and the claim (particularly in the 'demon eyes' poster) failed to chime with the public because it was so obviously wrong.

The fight against Cameron is going to have to accept that he genuinely is changing the party - 'same old Tories' simply won't work.

Well. Cameron certainly is trying to change the party (into something that could actually get elected) but he doesn't have a clear ideology, and it is pretty obvious - while that may be enough to give the impression that the Tories aren't just the old Tories, it's not nearly the difference between Old and New Labour, or, for that matter, the difference between the Tories pre-Thatcher and post. There's quite enough "same old same old" that can be used. That Eton photo is a good example.

The danger comes when people say "well so what, NL are a bunch of cronyist cunts who don't care about us, the Tories are a bunch of cronyist cunts who don't care about us, might as well swap the cunts round occasionally to stop them getting too comfortable" - that's kind of hard to deny, even if you think that there is a hierarchy within cunthood.

 

[Haller]

At the moment polling would suggest that the majority of Scots don't want separation. I suspect it's more a question of winning back the voters Blair woed.

I can't see any major Westminster party offering separation at this stage - but a trade-off that allowed for greated devolved powers in exchange for Westminster seats is a very real possibility. It's in the interests of every party except Labour.

 

[Haller]

Well. Cameron certainly is trying to change the party (into something that could actually get elected) but he doesn't have a clear ideology, and it is pretty obvious - while that may be enough to give the impression that the Tories aren't just the old Tories, it's not nearly the difference between Old and New Labour, or, for that matter, the difference between the Tories pre-Thatcher and post. There's quite enough "same old same old" that can be used. That Eton photo is a good example.

When it comes to being elected, it's not about ideology. Blair's policy positions were indistinguishable from where Kinnock had ended up. It's about perception. And the perception is that Cameron is not a nasty old Thatcherite Tory. To paint him as such is a waste of time and energy.

I don't know the Eton photo to which you refer, but I don't actually think the Old Etonian angle is going to make any difference whatsoever.

 

[scott_forester]

I can't see any major Westminster party offering separation at this stage - but a trade-off that allowed for greated devolved powers in exchange for Westminster seats is a very real possibility. It's in the interests of every party except Labour.

But given that there doesn't appear to be a demand in Scotland for increased devolution I can't see them doing it. How knows, I suspect at the moment the Tories just have to sit back and watch Labour get on with it. What Gordon should do is dump all the unpopular extra taxes he's planning to bring in e.g. more yet on petrol and scrap ID cards, detention without trail etc. He can say he's listened then.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

When it comes to being elected, it's not about ideology. Blair's policy positions were indistinguishable from where Kinnock had ended up. It's about perception. And the perception is that Cameron is not a nasty old Thatcherite Tory. To paint him as such is a waste of time and energy.

I don't know the Eton photo to which you refer, but I don't actually think the Old Etonian angle is going to make any difference whatsoever.

Sure, no, it isn't directly about ideology, but actually having one does help to create an image, and the Tories at the moment don't have that, either from ideology or spin or both. Apart from "not being NL" they are not pushing a consistent message as yet.

In a situation where one can't say "the Tories stand for X" they are still vulnerable to historical comparisons - Cameron isn't a Thatcherite, certainly, but memories of old Tory sleaze from that era will still be attached to the party and anyone in it, in the absence of anything countering them.

 

[mozzy]

Whilst reading this thread - it's very interesting - it occurr's that when we speak of the present Tory Party, we say "David Cameron" and what would it be like if the Tory's were in power with him as leader.

However, it is still a little while till the next election, and I just had a thought "how different would the Tory party be if he leaves?"

For example, some posts have said that he does not have a clear idealology, which i completely agree with, and i wonder if the Torys are just using him as a "front man" for the time being to soften their image to gain votes, and around the time when the big election comes, they will get rid of him and replace him with someone else.

I really can't see him as PM, and nor can many other people i speak to either - i reckon he is just being used by the real big wigs whilst they ease themselves back into the public for the time being - but who knows, i am certainly no expert - just random thoughts.

 

[Dan U]

Mass sell of of public services and shared property. Closedown of the third sector, or transferral of responsibility from PS welfare to charitable organisations, increased use of PFI, esp. for education / health etc etc.

?

and that would be different to Gordon Brown how?

shocking really.

 

[Haller]

Sure, no, it isn't directly about ideology, but actually having one does help to create an image, and the Tories at the moment don't have that, either from ideology or spin or both. Apart from "not being NL" they are not pushing a consistent message as yet.

I think that actually Cameron is pushing a message of being the continuation of New Labour by other means.

My suspicion is that the Blair era will increasingly be looked back on with approval, and even affection, over the next couple of years as a time of plenty and of rising living standards for the majority. Cameron will tap into a sense of nostalgia for the good times before Brown.

When Blair came to power, a large part of his popular appeal was that he sold an image that promised to fulfil Major's aspiration of 'a country that was at ease with itself'. Cameron, particularly with his family photo-ops, is aiming at the same target. And as Brown's premiership loses its way, it will be a powerful media image.

 

[Groucho]

That's my point if Labour back get in I can't see their attitude towards the private sector being that different than the Tory party. What has surprised me (and I do vote Tory) is that the Conservatives appear to be far more pro civil liberties than Labour. I mean they passed a law pretty much to stop one guy protesting.

yeh, in opposition

 

[Groucho]

Research shows they do worst of all in areas of high unemployment and where there are large numbers of benefits claimants - and the higher up the scale you go from here the better they do. Peaking with their best results in the lower middle class and in areas with a mix of these and the better off w/c.

It took them long enough to realise this though, and, in common with the myth much beloved by many on the left of fascism being a white w/c disease, they disproportionately targeted the sort of old-school w/c areas with very little success. Griffin changed their focus though after realising what was going on and they now target the top-end of w/c bottom half m/c areas.

I agree, but in so far as it is a myth of 'the left' this resides with the middle-class guardian reading New Labour apologist 'left' who like nothing better than to snear at the 'ignorant' working class.

The traditional base for fascism is the middle-class. Nonetheless the BNP and the FN in France both also pick up some support from sections of the working class. Hence the BNP success in Barking & Dagenham.

 

[Swan]

I think a Tory Government would strengthen the pro devolution arguments,and increase the chances of a yes vote for more powers here in Cymru.From what I have read it would also give a boost to the pro independence vote in Scotland.

 

[Groucho]

lol

If the last time is anything to go by, it'll be a riot



lmfao

lol

 

[toblerone3]

Extraordinarily myopic thread in its obsession with the BNP, but it does date from before the big banking collapse of September 2008.

 

[stuff_it]

Extraordinarily myopic thread in its obsession with the BNP, but it does date from before the big banking collapse of September 2008.

Banking crisis? Which BNP are you on about?

http://www.bnpparibas.com/

 

[Streathamite]

If it turns out that they instead actually have a clue and stop the wasteful PFI deals, get rid of tax credits and just tax people less, stop the madness of ID Cards, bring back a measure of regulation to the City of London and the financial system generally and they resist the temptation to endlessly reorganize the NHS, the Police, the legal system or indeed any part of Government then we might well be better off.

of these, only tax breaks for the affluent and wealthy and ID cards abolition are even remotely likely. the rest simply won't happen

 

[Vincy Oommen]

Hi all, just watch this video
This is the technology for the next generation election
http://youtu.be/PUJEYBg-Dkw

 

[Vincy Oommen]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PUJEYBg-Dkw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[stuff_it]

What they're going to have it on normal ATMs? Or it's going to be done in San Andreas?

 

[DotCommunist]

 

[_angel_]

It depends what Tories get in.

If we end up with the Thatcherite, PFI-loving, paid-up members of the political class goons that Cameron seems to be one of then the country is pretty much fucked.

If it turns out that they instead actually have a clue and stop the wasteful PFI deals, get rid of tax credits and just tax people less, stop the madness of ID Cards, bring back a measure of regulation to the City of London and the financial system generally and they resist the temptation to endlessly reorganize the NHS, the Police, the legal system or indeed any part of Government then we might well be better off.

New Labour does get a lot of deserved bile for its policies but they really should get as much bile for being utterly incompetent, if not corrupt, in the way they bring those policies about.

If they just "got rid" of tax credits, at a stroke millions would (and are) being cut off financially and have to leave their jobs. They are getting rid of tax credits and the universal credit won't save any money, but cause chaos for millions. The current system is chaos, you can be certain the new one will shit on even more people.