Thread: Wake up Dave - time for a Tory policy shift?

Originally Posted by seaweed

The last time a Labour canvasser came to my door I told him to get his filthy Bolshevik feet off my nice clean garden path. I now realise that was very wrong of me, and I should have engaged him in discussion - for a very, very long time so that I wasted the max amount of his time and bggered up the rest of his evening's work.

Labour are Bolsheviks? Their aim is the revolutionary overthrow of the system in favour of a proletariat-run country. I think not.

I think our current government is probably a muddled amalgam of ultra-liberalism and hypocrisy-on-a-stick, but they're certainly not Bolsheviks.

Wake up Dave?!?!

Fcuk off Dave more like.

The dozy ponce wants women-only shortlists, doesn't have a word to say about immigration, has got more 'quiff' than Blair and not one solitary noteworthy policy but a gazzillion soundbites.

Fcuk'im and give me 'The English Democrats' any day of the week.

Originally Posted by Biped

Wake up Dave?!?!

Fcuk off Dave more like.

The dozy ponce wants women-only shortlists, doesn't have a word to say about immigration, has got more 'quiff' than Blair and not one solitary noteworthy policy but a gazzillion soundbites.

Fcuk'im and give me 'The English Democrats' any day of the week.

Someone needs to poke him in the ribs when he comes out with something a bit bone - but the boy is young...

You are taking the pish I hope.

The English Democrats - candidate Gary Bushnell (yes that Sun columist bloke):

http://www.englishdemocrats.org.uk/i...=123&Itemid=71

"Garry organises an annual Variety Show each year on St Georges Day (23 April) at the Circus Tavern in Purfleet, Essex"

When someone puts that on their CV on their party website, you really have to wonder what his other skills are :D

Originally Posted by Ancient_Mariner

Originally Posted by doc80905

There's enough there to bury, to destroy the Labour party for good. I'm just not all that sure that Daves the man for the job unfortunately.

Labour's death warrant would be legislation limiting political donations to £50,000. That would effectively cut off the funding from the unions which would spell the end of the Labour party.

It would also spell the end of the political careers of Gordon, Harriet Harman, Kieth Vaz and a host of other Arrse favourites who, as NEC members, would become personally liable for Labour's debt if the party went under. With no prospect of coming up with millions of pounds each, they'd become personally bankrupt and barred from sitting in Parliament.

The next Tory government has a golden opportunity to destroy the Labour party, a cancer that has infected this country for a century, rather than just drive it from government for a generation. Like you, I doubt that Dave has the balls to drive the stake through their heart.

Yes, I'd do that and I'd also bring in a form of PR voting.

Labour don't win the popular vote in the UK, with a PR system they would become extinct overnight as a political party as the Tories and Liberals sweep up 60-70% of the vote between and turn them into seats.

Originally Posted by Whet

I think we should nail this Union donations myth once and for all.

IF the part of the members donation is looked on as a block payment by the union, then all the union will do is make sure that the member agrees to make a donation (or not) to the Labour party. Collected and delivered by the union, but donated by the individual member.

Thus the unions will not b donating, but facilitating the donations of individuals.

I'm not daft - but I've read your post 3 times now and don't have a clue what you are trying to say.

I do know that unions get their money from members, and that unions pay a hefty chunk of that money to the Labour party to ruin the country.

Originally Posted by Whet

I think we should nail this Union donations myth once and for all.

IF the part of the members donation is looked on as a block payment by the union, then all the union will do is make sure that the member agrees to make a donation (or not) to the Labour party. Collected and delivered by the union, but donated by the individual member.

Thus the unions will not b donating, but facilitating the donations of individuals.

So no bloc voting then on Labour agendas. Also, I presume that when a 'member' joins a union, they have to formally give consent for a part of their union fee to become a donation to the Labour party, or is consent assumed?

Do the unions ever lie about where the money goes?

Originally Posted by PoisonDwarf

Originally Posted by seaweed

The last time a Labour canvasser came to my door I told him to get his filthy Bolshevik feet off my nice clean garden path. I now realise that was very wrong of me, and I should have engaged him in discussion - for a very, very long time so that I wasted the max amount of his time and bggered up the rest of his evening's work.

Labour are Bolsheviks? Their aim is the revolutionary overthrow of the system in favour of a proletariat-run country. I think not.

I think our current government is probably a muddled amalgam of ultra-liberalism and hypocrisy-on-a-stick, but they're certainly not Bolsheviks.

Let's be honest New Labor are hardly Reds, much of the party is often ideologically indistinguishable from their Tory foes. To pretend otherwise is to indulge in the narcissism of small differences.

New Labor as configured today indulge in the odd bit of culture warfare but rarely even pay lip service to Socialist ideals. Brown in fact has been rather eager advocate of importing very questionable intrusions of commerce into the public sector from across the pond. Pork fueled PPIs and private sector efficiencies were what possessed him.

In the 90s New Labor reinvented themselves as a risk adverse, business friendly party once glossily personified by Tony Blair. It was a winning formula for an ideologically apathetic and safety obsessed electorate. Now after over a decades crony serving stasis that timid centrism is smeared all over Brown and it stinks of corruption.

If anything what they are is the real inheritors of the Whig tradition. Yerman Scruton had this to say about their ilk:

It was fiercely partisan and righteously judgemental, dividing the personnel of the past into the good and the bad. And it did so on the basis of the marked preference for liberal and progressive causes, rather than conservative and reactionary ones. [...] Whig history was, in short, an extremely biassed view of the past: eager to hand out moral judgements, and distorted by teleology, anachronism and present-mindedness.