PDA

View Full Version : Tory implosion



crackerjack
18-05-2013, 10:04 AM
Seriously though, wtf?

IdleRich
19-05-2013, 11:57 AM
It feels like the Major days again. I'm enjoying watching it. Glad Cameron is extremely relaxed anyway.

crackerjack
19-05-2013, 02:47 PM
It feels like the Major days again. I'm enjoying watching it. Glad Cameron is extremely relaxed anyway.

It's way worse than Major. It looked worse than it was under him cos it only needed a handful of dissidents to deny him his majority. Now on gay marriage and the QS resolution you've got the overwhelming majority of the non-payroll vote going against Cameron. It's catastrophic for him.

baboon2004
19-05-2013, 06:01 PM
Most enjoyable to watch. I liked this in particular:

'According to the Spectator, which specialises in navigating this crazy maze, there are "eight key Eurosceptic factions" in the Tory party.'

IdleRich
19-05-2013, 06:04 PM
I hope you're right. If only there was some kind of credible opposition to take advantage though.

DannyL
20-05-2013, 09:35 AM
I hope you're right. If only there was some kind of credible opposition to take advantage though.

... and also I really wish it had happened before they got their bill to gut the NHS through. That's the real tradegy to me. Am also wondering about thier "reforms"/attacks on education and teachers. Would be nice to see the wheels come off on some of this stuff but it seems unlikely.

Mr. Tea
20-05-2013, 05:51 PM
I keep hearing awful things about how this NHS bill will be basically irreversible. How can that be? How can any government create a law that a future government cannot, even in principle, revoke or amend?

Or is the idea that, as with the trains, any future renationalization will simply be so prohibitively expensive that in practice no government would be able to afford it?

crackerjack
20-05-2013, 06:09 PM
I keep hearing awful things about how this NHS bill will be basically irreversible. How can that be? How can any government create a law that a future government cannot, even in principle, revoke or amend?

Or is the idea that, as with the trains, any future renationalization will simply be so prohibitively expensive that in practice no government would be able to afford it?

or more like that the tangle of vested interests and long-term contracts will make it impossible?

crackerjack
20-05-2013, 06:14 PM
Why is the Tory party so mental about Europe though? Aside from the Little Englanderism, obv, and it being a socialist conspiracy to steal our freedumbz with working-time directives and the like.

I mean, obviously it's important, but they're 24ct crackers.

Is it cos the party has never forgiven the Europhiles for bringing down Thatcher?

DannyL
20-05-2013, 08:19 PM
or more like that the tangle of vested interests and long-term contracts will make it impossible?

Both the above I reckon. It's a bit like re-greening a wasteland. Once the damage has been done, it's very hard to bring it back. Osbourne was making negative noises about PFI early on in his tenure but has long since ceased to do so. I guess this is because it's now part of the mechanics of "how things are done" and unpicking the holes would force him to put some uncomfortable debts back on the slate.

I share the puzzlement about Tories & Europe. I don't understand it beyond xenophobia and "last vestige of Empire" fantasies. Can anyone explain?

DannyL
20-05-2013, 08:20 PM
Ooops, I forgot to mention the Dunkirk spirit and hating the French, but the question remains....

Mr. Tea
20-05-2013, 09:47 PM
or more like that the tangle of vested interests and long-term contracts will make it impossible?

Well what I meant was, suppose some future Labour government finally expunges the last traces of Blairism from the party, convinces the public that well-funded public services are in its interest and has the reincarnation of Nye Bevan as health minister: would it then nonetheless be impossible to reverse the changes going through at the moment?

Patrick Swayze
21-05-2013, 12:41 PM
http://www.bigissue.com/mix/news/2385/norman-tebbit-maybe-id-be-allowed-marry-my-son


“When we have a queen who is a lesbian and she marries another lady and then decides she would like to have a child and someone donates sperm and she gives birth to a child, is that child heir to the throne?’

“It’s like one of my colleagues said: we’ve got to make these same sex marriages available to all.

“It would lift my worries about inheritance tax because maybe I’d be allowed to marry my son. Why not? Why shouldn’t a mother marry her daughter? Why shouldn’t two elderly sisters living together marry each other?”

properly mental

Patrick Swayze
21-05-2013, 12:43 PM
It's almost entertaining seeing all these politicians on the right writhing around searching for increasingly bizarre arguments against gay marriage, when really they just don't like gay people.

Slothrop
21-05-2013, 12:47 PM
Eg Roger Gale. As someone on twitter pointed out - "Sir Roger Gale MP: '98% against equal marriage' Is it the sanctity of his first, or his second, marriage that he's seeking to defend?"

Patrick Swayze
21-05-2013, 01:52 PM
the idea of an artificially inseminated lesbian queen reminds me of this


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72TopWbXJg

Mr. Tea
21-05-2013, 04:11 PM
I think it's fairly obvious that people really know they've lost the argument when they're coming out with stuff that nonsensical. It just smacks of desperation.

http://i.imgur.com/LX94vI2.png

Mr. Tea
21-05-2013, 04:16 PM
Lord Tebbit also launched a verbal assault against Cameron’s ministerial team, claiming the disunity that continues to split the Tory party shows that ministers have “fucked things up”.

He said: “Most of them haven’t even worked in a bank! They went straight into politics. The consequences are that they don’t perceive much of what’s going on in the rest of the world. They fucked things up."

Heaven forfend! :rolleyes:

woops
21-05-2013, 04:25 PM
What's to stop me walking into a bank and starting to manage it ?!
Maybe I'll marry a few male relatives on the way !!
And put their face on the £5 note !! !! !!

Yeah, that kind of stuff writes itself really.

Mr. Tea
21-05-2013, 04:55 PM
What's to stop me walking into a bank and starting to manage it ?!
Maybe I'll marry a few male relatives on the way !!
And put their face on the £5 note !! !! !!

Yeah, that kind of stuff writes itself really.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR3YvrNpssM&list=PL1E0F41C8D2A7F7AE&feature=player_detailpage

comelately
21-05-2013, 09:49 PM
The Tory Implosion is amusing, but I'm not sure the underlying 'common ground' hypothesis that you can use issues like Europe to coax the English population around a conservative-with-a-very-small-c-manifesto is completely bonkers.

crackerjack
22-05-2013, 11:02 AM
The Tory Implosion is amusing, but I'm not sure the underlying 'common ground' hypothesis that you can use issues like Europe to coax the English population around a conservative-with-a-very-small-c-manifesto is completely bonkers.

Think immigration and welfare have more traction than Europe (even though the former is linked), which never shows among lists of main voter concerns. All makes it even odder that so many of them are getting het up about gay marriage. It's like waving a flag saying 'We're fucking mad'.

craner
22-05-2013, 11:47 AM
Isn't the basic Tory attitude to Europe that a common free trade area/community is alright, but unaccountable supranational economic and political union is not?

Isn't the Tory position on gay marriage that if you ditch the religious heterosexual basis of marriage, you might as well junk the whole institution as it becomes non-sensical (quite a good secularist argument, as it happens), which Tebbit was illustrating with some weak jokes?

In theory, these are conservative postitions (certainly the latter is). Why shouldn't a conservative party be making these arguments if it has any philosophical weight or integrity left?

crackerjack
22-05-2013, 02:46 PM
Isn't the basic Tory attitude to Europe that a common free trade area/community is alright, but unaccountable supranational economic and political union is not?


That's the position of the Tory party, including its leader. But the majority of their backbenchers chose to effectively say they don't believe their leader and vote for a tut-tut motion against their govt's Queen's speech.



Isn't the Tory position on gay marriage that if you ditch the religious heterosexual basis of marriage, you might as well junk the whole institution as it becomes non-sensical (quite a good secularist argument, as it happens), which Tebbit was illustrating with some weak jokes?


Tebbit's 'weak jokes' as you call them have actually been a fairly regular feature of this argument - he made them at length in his Telegraph interview the previous week (perhaps looking kindly on the daft old bugger they chose not to quote directly, so no one picked up on it till he said the same thing to Big Issue) and others have said similar. But it's been fun watching the party of individualism making the argument that their marriage is somehow weakened by the nature of other people's.

Really this is a bid to humiliate their leader. But of course you know that already and are just whiling away a grey Wednesday.

craner
22-05-2013, 03:24 PM
But that's a by-product of the Thatcher contract, isn't it? Individualism vs. Tradition, Liberalism vs. Authoritarianism in one party and one person. That 'Thatcherism' never sat comfortably with the old Tory Party or even with Mrs. Thatcher herself. That's why it's more interesting than it would be otherwise. The fatal contraditions can be summed up in one personage: Rupert Murdoch. The Tories made divorce easier and unleashed a large wave of pornography and yet somehow sought to defend the traditional institution of marriage. You should take them more seriously.


Isn't the basic Tory attitude to Europe that a common free trade area/community is alright, but unaccountable supranational economic and political union is not?

I haven't being close attention to parliamentary chicanery, I must admit, but if not that then what is the Backbench Eurosceptic argument? An Atlantic Alliance? The Commonwealth? Protection and isolationism? Autarky?

crackerjack
22-05-2013, 04:13 PM
But that's a by-product of the Thatcher contract, isn't it? Individualism vs. Tradition, Liberalism vs. Authoritarianism in one party and one person. That 'Thatcherism' never sat comfortably with the old Tory Party or even with Mrs. Thatcher herself. That's why it's more interesting than it would be otherwise. The fatal contraditions can be summed up in one personage: Rupert Murdoch. The Tories made divorce easier and unleashed a large wave of pornography and yet somehow sought to defend the traditional institution of marriage. You should take them more seriously.


It may provide something interesting for you to chew over in your next Whither Red Toryism seminar, but I find it hard to separate these people from the party that passed section 28. Especially when Tebbit sits down to warn us all about the dangers of a lezzer queen, artificial insemination and gay mariage combining to put a three-headed alien metrosexual on the throne (and probably turning Buck Palace into the new Dalston while she's at it). I'd also take them much more seriously if they weren't busily shitting on that part of the social contract embodied by the welfare state. I think you're being too kind to them.


I haven't being close attention to parliamentary chicanery, I must admit, but if not that then what is the Backbench Eurosceptic argument? An Atlantic Alliance? The Commonwealth? Protection and isolationism? Autarky?


But the point is they've taken Cameron's promise of a post-election referendum and said 'We don't believe you. Pass the bill now.' Even though the bill can't pass cos the Lib Dems won't let it and it wouldn't be binding on the next govt if they did. It's not just gesture politics, it's gesture politics to weaken their own leader.