Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

ken clarke: 'bogus war put uk in grave danger'

peppery said:
Remember this is the Tory party we're talking about here. Given the choice between a popular politician who'll get support from all political wings and a snotty little neo-con bigot who only appeals to right wing loonies you know who those hapless fuckers will pick.
I actually saw an interview with the other guy (forget his name) and thought he was some sort of production-line nuLabour guy. Looked and sounded totally interchangable. "Blah blah tougher laws on terrorism, blah blah vision of the future etc"
 
He'd be the most fun to watch. And the best chance the Tories have is reducing the Labour majority, not winning. Since I only keep up with electoral politics for sport, I'd much rather see him in the race than any of the others they've got. He's more honest about being a cunt than most anyway - like admitting that his economic policies directly coincide with his own personal interest, not many will actually come out and say that and I'm sure he's done that at least once.

Likes Mingus as well, although Mingus would've chucked him out a window.
 
DoUsAFavour said:
<snip> Your lovable Ken is a head honcho with the war mongering uber fats cats.
I must say he did sound rather like he was standing on behalf of the Foreign Office when he was on C4 News.
 
Extraordinary statement that if Blair really believed the 7/7 bombings had nothing to do with Iraq he must be the only one.

How things have moved on since the vilification of Galloway for saying precisely that.

Clarke is an opportunist swine. As leader of the Tory party, and with this kind of performance, he would be the leader most likely to bring the Tories back into office. But he has next to no chance of winning because the Tory party hates him.
 
Well timed statement given that one of the bombers was just on BBC News 24 (posthumously by means of video) saying they did it because of Iraq.
 
Groucho said:
How things have moved on since the vilification of Galloway for saying precisely that.

Indeed Galloway judged that one well, he said it almost within 24 hours of the bombings if I remember rightly...
 
rebel warrior said:
I know it would be nice not to have a war criminal running the country, but do you seriously want the 'big beast' as PM? :eek:

stevbell512.jpg

Rather him than Galloway.
 
Harold Hill said:
Rather him than Galloway.

Do the IWCA take this approach because Clarke as a Tory who shits all over workers is better than just about the only MP who has declared total support for unofficial strike action by workers against New Labour's anti- union laws? Hmm...

Steve Bell on Galloway:

bell512.jpg
 
Saw him on C4 earlier. He has certinaly got it. You look at how IDS one over him and you can imagine certian people tearing there hair. But then the Tories are good at wasted potential, bad timing etc. Just look at Hauge.

<this post is in no endorsing those blue bastards btw>
 
rebel warrior said:
Do the IWCA take this approach because Clarke as a Tory who shits all over workers is better than just about the only MP who has declared total support for unofficial strike action by workers against New Labour's anti- union laws? Hmm...

Steve Bell on Galloway:

bell512.jpg

Good luck trying to convince anyone my own personal opinion automatically equals IWCA policy. Enough people already think you're a berk, don't make it easier for them.

If the choice was mine, I'd have almost any Tory over GG even Boris Johnson. In fact Kilroy Silk and Griffin are probably the only 2 people I can think of that I wouldn't rather have. Though if the choice was between those three then this country really is finished and I'll be long gone.

The point of including the cartoon in your post was what??
 
Harold Hill said:
Good luck trying to convince anyone my own personal opinion automatically equals IWCA policy. Enough people already think you're a berk, don't make it easier for them.

I happen to think that in some areas the IWCA are closer to the Conservatives than to socialist politics, so I suppose that many IWCA members would agree with you when you say 'I'd have almost any Tory over GG even Boris Johnson.'

There was a recent letter about Boris Johnson in SW:

Why ‘binge drinking’ makes powerful worry
Tory MP and toff Boris Johnson recently used an article in the Daily Telegraph to denounce “binge drinking” after an evening spent in Carlisle.

After missing a train he went to a pub in the town centre and was “stunned by the noise, the crowd, the smoke and the astonishing quantities of alcohol that were being necked by the denizens of Carlisle.

“It was a coldish night, but everywhere there was a pagan self-nudity. The pavements were Jackson Pollocked with the results of eating a kebab on top of eight pints of lager.

“Faces leered and weaved towards me, pale and waxy with drink, and everyone seemed to be hurling strange oaths and invitations.”

Johnson’s lurid and exaggerated description of a Carlisle night out reveals the truth behind politicians, and the media’s hysteria about “binge drinking”.

The establishment, represented by people like Johnson, wants to control us. It can’t bear the idea of groups of working class people enjoying themselves at the end of a hard working week.

Throughout history the people who have ruled over us have been afraid of the working class “mob”. They become extremely uncomfortable when ordinary people come together, in protest or drinking, as it offers a hint of the power to challenge their rule.

Simone Murray, Carlisle

The IWCA stands for what again - something about the working class, wasn't it?

The point of including the cartoon in your post was what??

You quoted Bells earlier cartoon about Clarke which I had put up, so thought you might appreciate one about Galloway, since you brought him up - this thread is about the war after all.
 
Interesting you type that because I can't recall any IWCA councillors voting for council house sell offs. And we all know who has.

I can't work out what your second point is meant to be. Because some bint wrote in to the SW writing some hysterical ott rubbish about how Boris must hate the working class because he objects to binge drinking, the IWCA aren't or can't represent the working class? Sorry but you'll have to join the dots for me there.

Can't any Respect member talk about the working class as anything other than an organised labour movement? Are you not allowed to or something? There must be some reason why.
 
Harold Hill said:
Interesting you type that because I can't recall any IWCA councillors voting for council house sell offs. And we all know who has.

Yeah - fucking Tories of the sort you seem to prefer to Gallowayites.

I can't work out what your second point is meant to be. Because some bint wrote in to the SW writing some hysterical ott rubbish about how Boris must hate the working class because he objects to binge drinking, the IWCA aren't or can't represent the working class? Sorry but you'll have to join the dots for me there.

You said you would prefer Boris Johnson or any Tory to Galloway - well you had better start coming up with some reasons why Boris is better for the working class than Galloway hadn't you...

Can't any Respect member talk about the working class as anything other than an organised labour movement? Are you not allowed to or something? There must be some reason why.

Well, the letter from SW which I posted portrayed the 'working class' out in the evening in town getting pissed - hardly organised and engaged in strike action at the point of production... But you are in enough of a hole as it is on this thread (defending anti-working class Tories), so I won't prompt you to dig yourself any deeper.
 
DoUsAFavour said:

Your spot on. This whole thread proves, that you can fool most off the people most off the time.

Ps RW, have you a point too make? Off couse binge drinking won`t be a problem when(in a billion years) RESPECT get elected, because all booze will be banned. I rather take my chances with the tories or labour.
 
mattkidd12 said:
Would you be worried if he got elected as PM though?

Clarke vs. Blair - wouldn't see a lot of difference.

rest of Labour vs. rest of Tories - yes quite worried.

Thing is though, the Tories haven't mastered the focus group/consultation/newspeak stuff that Labour use to push through their policies. I doubt they'd manage to be a whole lot worse, but they might be easier to deal with.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
It's extremely interesting in terms of the pressure that Clarke as tory leader would be able to put on Blair over his support for Bush's idiocy in Iraq.

Yeah, but if/when he got office...? His tune'd be rapidly changing as he felt the forces all round him to conform...

I don't think blair had any choice over his supporting the US. In effect the US make our decisions for us regarding foreign policy, and the only thing that can stop the UKG from slavishly following USG foreign policy is british public opinion. And that has to be perceived by those in office as likely to remove them from power.

Face it, the UK these days is a puppet state of the USA with regard to foreign policy.
 
JHE said:
...However, he does not favour withdrawal ASAP and does not even want a timetable for withdrawal. He said there should be some objectives to be achieved before bringing the troops home. However, he didn't specify those objectives - so it's not clear how his policy now differs from Blair's.
...
I havn't been following the No 10 line on this but was under the impression that Tony was for withdrawing all but a token force next year. Pretty close to a timetable.

It's signifigant Clarke making this speech. Galloway may have said the same but Clarke isn't a marginal colorful backbencher he could end up as the leader of the opposition.

As for being too old: De Gaulle was 68 when he founded the fifth republic, Reagan was 70 when he became president. Too fat and with a poor taste in shoes we can argue about.
 
fela fan said:
<snip> Face it, the UK these days is a puppet state of the USA with regard to foreign policy.
Sure, no argument there. Nor do I think Clarke would be likely to behave much differently to Blair if he were in office. I do think it'd be nice to see a bit more pressure on Blair in the media and in parliament about his atrocious bad judgement in going along with Bush in his utterly incompetent and lethally counterproductive Iraq policy though.
 
What this should establish is that the unspoken assumption of many trot posters, that the "anti war movement" is inherently "progressive", is wrong.
 
hibee said:
What this should establish is that the unspoken assumption of many trot posters, that the "anti war movement" is inherently "progressive", is wrong.

No - all this thread shows is that some members of the Conservative party (ie Ken Clarke) have a brain and even they could see that the Iraq war was going to be a fucking disaster.
 
hibee said:
What this should establish is that the unspoken assumption of many trot posters, that the "anti war movement" is inherently "progressive", is wrong.

Nah, what it should establish (or rather confirm) is that Kenneth Clarke is an opportunistic Tory.

My contempt for War Criminal Blair is unspeakable - but a Clarke government would be worse. At least Labour has a few principled politicians left, whereas the Tory party is full of right-wing lunatics (Gerald Howarth), bigots (Anne Winterton) and neo-cons (George Osbourne). They'd push the causes of Thatcherism far more than NuLabour have....
 
Yes, quite a lot of younger people might be inclined to say:

"Surely the tories can't be any worse than this bunch of bastards?"

Us old folk can tell them with quiet and absolute certainty,

"Yes they fucking well can!"
 
Clarke is a Ted Heath One Nation Tory. He believes in free enterprise, but with restrictions. John Major was exactly the same. Margaret Thatcher allowed Big Corporate businesses to prosper without scrutinisation, John Major believed that Government should be more intrusive than that. The Monopolys and Mergers Commission was introduced so that there would be more competition with Utility companies rather than one merged Company charging whatever they like, of which Thatcher was more supportive of (and so is Blair because of his own business interests. One friend who he appointed a Minister for European Trade and Competition, Lord Simon was involved in an Oil company who had paid people in Columbia to kidnap and murder protesters who had rallied against BP's collaboration with the Murder squads there).

I would like to think that we have the scenario of the late 50s with Gaitskill (who had very much the same opinions towards Home Affairs as Blair) and MacMillan fighting against each other for the middle ground, but I fear that it is not that simple anymore. But as Clarke does not have as many dodgy business affiaitions as Blair I may just be willing to vote Tory in the next election if he was to become leader, because if the Tories go back to their Centre ground, Labour may have to shift further left like they did when they picked Harold Wilson.
 
The Tories will never go back to the centre ground - they have the Curse of The Mummy and the effect of her leadership to thank for that. Most of the senior citizens in the party membership (probably 80% of all party members) won't take it either, supporting or a senior member like David Davies who shares their reactionary "hang 'em and flog 'em" beliefs. Younger members I spoke to whilst at uni would probably back a young, Thatcherite, firebrand neo-con rightwinger like George Osbourne, whose political beliefs were moulded from the Tory policies of the 1980's (harked back to and seen as a golden era amongst Conservative Future members). Amongst rank and file members, Ken Clarke will never be forgiven over his pro-European sentiments.

The Tory party are fucked and the only thing they can do is outflank NuLabour on the right.
 
If you want the Labour Party to shift left, then it is important that there is a strong left wing alternative for people to vote for to Labour's left - otherwise they will never break out of their policy of 'triangulation'. Voting Tory to shift Labour the Left seems a strategy doomed to end in tears.
 
rebel warrior said:
Yeah - fucking Tories of the sort you seem to prefer to Gallowayites.



You said you would prefer Boris Johnson or any Tory to Galloway - well you had better start coming up with some reasons why Boris is better for the working class than Galloway hadn't you...



Well, the letter from SW which I posted portrayed the 'working class' out in the evening in town getting pissed - hardly organised and engaged in strike action at the point of production... But you are in enough of a hole as it is on this thread (defending anti-working class Tories), so I won't prompt you to dig yourself any deeper.

I don't know what is more absurd, a Respect member trying to lecture me about whats good for the working class or one of the boards fairyland posters trying to make it look like I'm the one talking shite.

i) Not surprised you 'forgot' what I meant. Or are your councillors pasts forgotten the second they jump ship?

ii) Why not come up with some reasons why Galloway would be better for those working class people outside of trade unions?

iii) Are you saying one letter, which is entirely presumptive and doesn't seem to have any evidence for what it claims at its conclusion, is the sum total of my question above?
 
Wondered if anyone saw Kenneth Clarke on "This Week" (with Andrew Neil etc) back in May/June - along with Robin Cook...

It was an interesting programme - with a bit of mutual back slappling concerning Iraq.. and some equally interesting anti Blair stuff concerning Iraq..

I remember Robin Cook saying that Ken Clarke was the best leader the Tory Party never had..
 
Back
Top Bottom