| Genuine question....the Conservative party. 07:59 - Jun 25 with 2687 views | homer_123 |
If members elect Boris (as they surely will) - have they, single handedly, ruined the country in the space of 3 years?
Called a referendum in which to appease internal squabbling, blindly, never considering the situation where the public votes leave (as a party so far removed from what is happening in this country it isn't surprising to hear Cameron admit he never thought he'd lose the referendum).
Cameron then wilts, show's no backbone whatsoever and walks, leaving a divided party having to come up with new PM candidates....we end up with May....who calls an election and further stymies the party. We then watch, aghast though not surprised, at the party's inept attempts at negotiating an exit from the EU. Leaving it to the absolute last (and arguably too late) to actually consider any potential cross party involvement in said discussions.
May then walks after embarrassing herself on multiple occasions and now leaves us in the situation where a rabid, senile and demented member base is about to vote in Boris Johnson as our new leader. The Great Buffoon steps into 10 Downing St leading the UK on the world stage. Jesus wept.
What have the Conservatives ever done for us? Well, whatever you believe they have, in the space of 3 years they are about to obliterate it in a cataclysmic clusterf*ck of gargantuan proportions.
So long and thanks for all the fish. [Post edited 25 Jun 2019 8:08]
|  |
| |  |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 08:06 - Jun 25 with 1912 views | Steve_M |
Indeed. David Allen Green has long pointed out before that the so called 'natural party of government' has had a majority for two years since the mid-90s and in that time they did all of that. The likelihood of this leading to the break up of the UK is pretty high too (although then the SNP will be left as exposed as the Tories currently are by the gap between rhetoric and reality).
Also, of note is that the membership - always predominantly male, white and middle-aged - has become more extreme as more moderate members have left and been replaced by UKIPpy entryism.. |  |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 08:09 - Jun 25 with 1892 views | homer_123 |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 08:06 - Jun 25 by Steve_M |
Indeed. David Allen Green has long pointed out before that the so called 'natural party of government' has had a majority for two years since the mid-90s and in that time they did all of that. The likelihood of this leading to the break up of the UK is pretty high too (although then the SNP will be left as exposed as the Tories currently are by the gap between rhetoric and reality).
Also, of note is that the membership - always predominantly male, white and middle-aged - has become more extreme as more moderate members have left and been replaced by UKIPpy entryism.. |
What a sad and sobering thought Steve....the break up of the UK. | |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 08:12 - Jun 25 with 1879 views | Herbivore |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 08:09 - Jun 25 by homer_123 |
What a sad and sobering thought Steve....the break up of the UK. |
And what's sadder is that Tory members would happily sacrifice the Union if it meant delivering Brexit. What a state of affairs. |  |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 09:21 - Jun 25 with 1809 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
Can't argue with most of that.
Would also add that they have been allowed to do it by the non existent opposition. |  |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 09:23 - Jun 25 with 1812 views | chicoazul |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 08:06 - Jun 25 by Steve_M |
Indeed. David Allen Green has long pointed out before that the so called 'natural party of government' has had a majority for two years since the mid-90s and in that time they did all of that. The likelihood of this leading to the break up of the UK is pretty high too (although then the SNP will be left as exposed as the Tories currently are by the gap between rhetoric and reality).
Also, of note is that the membership - always predominantly male, white and middle-aged - has become more extreme as more moderate members have left and been replaced by UKIPpy entryism.. |
Good. There is clearly a very strong mandate for independence in Scotland and I think Republican parties now outnumber Unionist ones in Stormont. I'm all for English independence. |  |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 09:34 - Jun 25 with 1785 views | StokieBlue |
I agree with the majority of that.
The only point one could discuss is the referendum itself. Many of us aren't pleased it was called but the fact leave won means you can construct an argument to say it was the right thing to call a referendum given the result. To not have one is to ignore a significant proportion of the public.
Once it was in the manifesto he had no choice really. He needed to do better in putting over the remain case though - the whole campaign was poor.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 09:43 - Jun 25 with 1767 views | Oldsmoker |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 08:12 - Jun 25 by Herbivore |
And what's sadder is that Tory members would happily sacrifice the Union if it meant delivering Brexit. What a state of affairs. |
That poll where you got your info regarding the Tory members happily sacrificing the Union also stated they would be happy if it also meant the demise of the Tory party. That affirms what Steve M has said about UKIPers becoming members, because they don't care about the Tory party just their hard Brexit. |  |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 09:48 - Jun 25 with 1741 views | BackToRussia |
It's what they do. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 09:50 - Jun 25 with 1745 views | Darth_Koont |
They're certainly most to blame. But IMO we've been sleepwalking towards this for decades.
Brexit has laid bare a lot of the guff we tell ourselves about our country where there are fundamental structural defects, gaps and divisions. To deal with that we have had politicians, a political system and crucially our media that are simply not fit for purpose. At the risk of opening up another can of worms, none of this is much of a surprise from a Scottish or even social democratic perspective.
Bizarrely, when now dealing with reality, it also seems that a sizeable proportion of people want to march further into fantasy with the Brexit Party and the Conservative leadership election. |  |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 09:57 - Jun 25 with 1726 views | Guthrum |
Or this is merely a brief interlude, as the Johnson administration either 1) finds the unsolveable problems still cannot be solved, then wriggles/fudges their way out of them and/or 2) falls after a few weeks, before it has time to do much damage.
If you want chains of consequences, you have to go far further back than Cameron. After all, part of the problem he had was dealing with the after effects of the financial crash of 2008, which affected the UK badly as a by-product of Brown and Blair's policies on the finance of housebuying, demand for which exploded as a result of the bonfire of the pension funds in the Dot Com Bubble. That, in turn, was allowed by the deregulation of the markets under Thatcher (and the beginning of wealth concentration in London), who herself got into power riding upon a reaction to the unions making a political bid for power during the 1970s. Partly fuelled by inflation and high taxes under Wilson. The oil crisis of 1973 was partly the result of British foreign policy in the mid 1950s (the attacks on Nasser) and stretching back forty years before that.
But, on the other hand, that wage demand pressure in the time of Callaghan was destroying the UK's economy, old industry and mining was already running out of steam under pressure from the Far East and exhaustion of reserves. Without that market deregulation, we wouldn't have funded the burst of entrepreneurship which drove the technological revolution of the last four decades. Plus we would be 30 years further behind in tackling climate change and developing green alternatives. In being able to buy homes, many families have acquired assets which can be passed on to future generations.
Nothing is ever entirely clear cut. |  |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 09:57 - Jun 25 with 1720 views | Darth_Koont |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 08:06 - Jun 25 by Steve_M |
Indeed. David Allen Green has long pointed out before that the so called 'natural party of government' has had a majority for two years since the mid-90s and in that time they did all of that. The likelihood of this leading to the break up of the UK is pretty high too (although then the SNP will be left as exposed as the Tories currently are by the gap between rhetoric and reality).
Also, of note is that the membership - always predominantly male, white and middle-aged - has become more extreme as more moderate members have left and been replaced by UKIPpy entryism.. |
The SNP/Tory comparison is missing the point as per. The SNP or anyone else can look at how Scotland is performing on an economic, political and social level and argue that we should be getting more out of the Union (as should all regions).
Scotland is significantly worse off than many similarly sized Northern European countries, despite having the supposed clout and economic weight of the UK behind it. So it's not about some distant and unlikely rhetoric as much as the reality of where we already are and where we're heading. | |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 09:58 - Jun 25 with 1715 views | Oldsmoker |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 09:34 - Jun 25 by StokieBlue |
I agree with the majority of that.
The only point one could discuss is the referendum itself. Many of us aren't pleased it was called but the fact leave won means you can construct an argument to say it was the right thing to call a referendum given the result. To not have one is to ignore a significant proportion of the public.
Once it was in the manifesto he had no choice really. He needed to do better in putting over the remain case though - the whole campaign was poor.
SB |
That referendum was held 3 years and 2 days ago.
A Survation poll now puts the UK at 54% remain 46% leave.
I could construct an argument that the "will of the people" has changed but our political class will not entertain that idea and I don't know why that is. | |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:05 - Jun 25 with 1688 views | Guthrum |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 09:58 - Jun 25 by Oldsmoker |
That referendum was held 3 years and 2 days ago.
A Survation poll now puts the UK at 54% remain 46% leave.
I could construct an argument that the "will of the people" has changed but our political class will not entertain that idea and I don't know why that is. |
Quite simply because the result was what some of them actually wanted. Or, in other cases, they are reliant for continued power upon people upon people who are desperate not to lost the result they never thought they'd win. | |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:05 - Jun 25 with 1687 views | StokieBlue |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 09:58 - Jun 25 by Oldsmoker |
That referendum was held 3 years and 2 days ago.
A Survation poll now puts the UK at 54% remain 46% leave.
I could construct an argument that the "will of the people" has changed but our political class will not entertain that idea and I don't know why that is. |
That's not the point I was making though.
I was simply saying that at that point in time it could be argued that the public wanted a referendum. I didn't say I agreed with it.
I also didn't mention the contemporary situation at all.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:10 - Jun 25 with 1661 views | Oldsmoker |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:05 - Jun 25 by Guthrum |
Quite simply because the result was what some of them actually wanted. Or, in other cases, they are reliant for continued power upon people upon people who are desperate not to lost the result they never thought they'd win. |
So they're following the General Melchett maxim
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." | |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:11 - Jun 25 with 1662 views | Ftnfwest |
All pretty much true and they will pay the price for it sooner of later. The only thing i'd say is that when cross party talks were offered in December/January (still too late tbf) Corbyn instructed his MP's not to talk to the government (having demanded talks before that). |  | | |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:19 - Jun 25 with 1640 views | Steve_M |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:05 - Jun 25 by StokieBlue |
That's not the point I was making though.
I was simply saying that at that point in time it could be argued that the public wanted a referendum. I didn't say I agreed with it.
I also didn't mention the contemporary situation at all.
SB |
I think one could also argue that the very fact of the referendum forced people to take a position on something the majority of the country never particularly cared about, still don't care about and don't particularly understand. | |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:31 - Jun 25 with 1625 views | Guthrum |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:11 - Jun 25 by Ftnfwest |
All pretty much true and they will pay the price for it sooner of later. The only thing i'd say is that when cross party talks were offered in December/January (still too late tbf) Corbyn instructed his MP's not to talk to the government (having demanded talks before that). |
By then, it was far too late - as you said. Largely because, for two and a half years, the Conservatives had been insistent on running Brexit themselves, thus allowing it to become a party political matter and giving Labour the opportunity to be obstructive as an attempt to gain power themselves (or, at least, damage the Tories).
Should have been handed to a cross-party commission from the start, if not a full-blown National Government. | |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:36 - Jun 25 with 1616 views | WeWereZombies |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 09:57 - Jun 25 by Guthrum |
Or this is merely a brief interlude, as the Johnson administration either 1) finds the unsolveable problems still cannot be solved, then wriggles/fudges their way out of them and/or 2) falls after a few weeks, before it has time to do much damage.
If you want chains of consequences, you have to go far further back than Cameron. After all, part of the problem he had was dealing with the after effects of the financial crash of 2008, which affected the UK badly as a by-product of Brown and Blair's policies on the finance of housebuying, demand for which exploded as a result of the bonfire of the pension funds in the Dot Com Bubble. That, in turn, was allowed by the deregulation of the markets under Thatcher (and the beginning of wealth concentration in London), who herself got into power riding upon a reaction to the unions making a political bid for power during the 1970s. Partly fuelled by inflation and high taxes under Wilson. The oil crisis of 1973 was partly the result of British foreign policy in the mid 1950s (the attacks on Nasser) and stretching back forty years before that.
But, on the other hand, that wage demand pressure in the time of Callaghan was destroying the UK's economy, old industry and mining was already running out of steam under pressure from the Far East and exhaustion of reserves. Without that market deregulation, we wouldn't have funded the burst of entrepreneurship which drove the technological revolution of the last four decades. Plus we would be 30 years further behind in tackling climate change and developing green alternatives. In being able to buy homes, many families have acquired assets which can be passed on to future generations.
Nothing is ever entirely clear cut. |
Most coherent post of the thread so far, but I would add in to that the softening factor of the welfare state that allowed some of the harder market realities to be accommodated without across the board austerity, for that we have to add in Attlee's immediate post war government to complete the dialectical view.
Unless we take it further back to include Chartists and Covenanters. [Post edited 25 Jun 2019 10:39]
|  |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:38 - Jun 25 with 1604 views | Guthrum |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:10 - Jun 25 by Oldsmoker |
So they're following the General Melchett maxim
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." |
More proactive than that. A deliberate contradiction of inconvenient facts and avid promotion of propaganda supporting their position. | |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:43 - Jun 25 with 1593 views | WeWereZombies |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 09:34 - Jun 25 by StokieBlue |
I agree with the majority of that.
The only point one could discuss is the referendum itself. Many of us aren't pleased it was called but the fact leave won means you can construct an argument to say it was the right thing to call a referendum given the result. To not have one is to ignore a significant proportion of the public.
Once it was in the manifesto he had no choice really. He needed to do better in putting over the remain case though - the whole campaign was poor.
SB |
In many situations a 52/48 vote would be regarded as inconclusive so to say that Leave won is debatable. What we can say is that the United Kingdom has been divided on a scale I find it hard to recall ever since. Did the majority of the populace, or the electorate even, want a referendum or was it a vociferous minority who were able to spin Conservative Party members to threaten David Cameron's position if he did not call one? | |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:45 - Jun 25 with 1580 views | StokieBlue |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:43 - Jun 25 by WeWereZombies |
In many situations a 52/48 vote would be regarded as inconclusive so to say that Leave won is debatable. What we can say is that the United Kingdom has been divided on a scale I find it hard to recall ever since. Did the majority of the populace, or the electorate even, want a referendum or was it a vociferous minority who were able to spin Conservative Party members to threaten David Cameron's position if he did not call one? |
I think you are clutching a bit, given the rules laid out it was majority wins. It's better to fight on actual valid points.
I think my point stands. I didn't agree with it but given the result it wasn't an unreasonable decision to call it given a lot of people clearly voted to voice their opinion. It needs to be looked at objectively.
It has lead us to disaster though.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:59 - Jun 25 with 1552 views | Guthrum |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:36 - Jun 25 by WeWereZombies |
Most coherent post of the thread so far, but I would add in to that the softening factor of the welfare state that allowed some of the harder market realities to be accommodated without across the board austerity, for that we have to add in Attlee's immediate post war government to complete the dialectical view.
Unless we take it further back to include Chartists and Covenanters. [Post edited 25 Jun 2019 10:39]
|
Add in Liberals up to 1914, the National Government of the 1930s and Churchill's wartime administration who engendered and oversaw the planning of the Welfare State which was enacted by Attlee. | |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 11:03 - Jun 25 with 1541 views | BackToRussia |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 10:45 - Jun 25 by StokieBlue |
I think you are clutching a bit, given the rules laid out it was majority wins. It's better to fight on actual valid points.
I think my point stands. I didn't agree with it but given the result it wasn't an unreasonable decision to call it given a lot of people clearly voted to voice their opinion. It needs to be looked at objectively.
It has lead us to disaster though.
SB |
Although the idea that David Cameron would do anything because ordinary people wanted it is of course laughable. He did it to further his own interests of course, and it failed spectacularly. Fine for him though isn't it. | |
| |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 11:04 - Jun 25 with 1541 views | WeWereZombies |
| Genuine question....the Conservative party. on 09:57 - Jun 25 by Darth_Koont |
The SNP/Tory comparison is missing the point as per. The SNP or anyone else can look at how Scotland is performing on an economic, political and social level and argue that we should be getting more out of the Union (as should all regions).
Scotland is significantly worse off than many similarly sized Northern European countries, despite having the supposed clout and economic weight of the UK behind it. So it's not about some distant and unlikely rhetoric as much as the reality of where we already are and where we're heading. |
You could argue that the SNP majority in Holyrood already leaves them exposed to the realities of government, although some would argue that the limited powers do not allow that but it does become a little less 'Stoneybridge' each year. Perhaps we are at the beginning of a less violent transition than the one that eventually saw Irish independence which will also have a less disrupted economic cycle (Scotland always had an industrial strength within the Empire that Ireland was either denied or lacked, the legacy remains and sustains national wealth).
I think a lot depends on whether it is just Scotland or Scotland and Northern Ireland that find a way of retaining membership/ customs union rights, this could either exacerbate or smooth the political situation. Or the politicians and the populace might just finally see sense and accept that the two unions, European and United Kingdom, have merits that outweigh the demerits and retain a greater stability. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
