Tories 28 points up in the polls

[Mr Blunt]

As an example of this, if you ever watch question time and George Galloway is on there you will get people whom applaud him whatever drivel he says.

They applaud him because their own mind is so twisted by their hatred of the USA/Israel, they are not even listening to what Galloway says and what he does, they applaud like morons.

If you listen to what Galloway says at times it is absolutely ridiculous, it is plain absurd, but he himself in his own mind has become so twisted by his own prediduces against the USA and Israel that he allowed himself to become like this and eventually to become a puppet of Saddam Hussein (which is what he became).

Not once did he ever think to himself in this whole process, I may dislike the USA/Israel but two wrongs don't make a right and I am not going to be a mouthpiece to one of the most evil dictators since the end of the Second World War.

I agree with the Goerge Galloway point i cant stand the man. When i was at college a few years ago i studied politics and my teacher use to make it very clear the class that that the tory's were nasty and a horrible goverment and brainwashed so many in that room for a two years. He clearly came from a left politically perspective however i can see how this can work both ways. I do feel somewhat that this is why so many of my university class mates are the same they seem so polictically to the left and you ask why they are and they dont know.

Oh well each to there own but it just seems to be that its fashionable for students to be this way politically.

 

[Mr Blunt]

Sorry sent it twice

 

[London Calling]

Totally agree. Labour have invested far more than any previous administration in the past 40-50 years.

One of the few areas they've delivered on their promises IMO, but we won't see the benefits for at least another decade.

so why aren't they telling people about their achievements?

 

[Dandyman]

It's hard to see anything other than a massive Tory landslide and Neo-Labour wipeout at the next election. What I would ask teh Tory voters on here is what exactly they think Cameron would do that would be better than Blair/Brown?

All the things I detest about this government, are either issues that Cameron has supported them on and would be even more reactionary in relation to.

If a wipe-out of the present Labour ranks lead to the creation of a new broad-front, trade union backed left-wing party it would be IMO worth the pain of a Lord Snooty government.

 

[Buzzer]

It's hard to see anything other than a massive Tory landslide and Neo-Labour wipeout at the next election. What I would ask teh Tory voters on here is what exactly they think Cameron would do that would be better than Blair/Brown?

All the things I detest about this government, are either issues that Cameron has supported them on and would be even more reactionary in relation to.

If a wipe-out of the present Labour ranks lead to the creation of a new broad-front, trade union backed left-wing party it would be IMO worth the pain of a Lord Snooty government.

I was with you up to the Lord Snooty bit, Dandyman. I'm hoping he delivers on his promises of real social justice, hypothecated green taxes married with tax breaks elsewhere, a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, abolition of ID cards, English and Welsh only voting on English and Welsh issues, less big brother from the Government and sort out the transport system.

If Brown goes tonight then Harman is in power. Hardly a working class girl herself. Come on, mate. Don't you think the class war belongs with Thatcherism back in the 20th century?

 

[London Calling]

I was with you up to the Lord Snooty bit, Dandyman. I'm hoping he delivers on his promises of real social justice, hypothecated green taxes married with tax breaks elsewhere, a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, abolition of ID cards, English and Welsh only voting on English and Welsh issues, less big brother from the Government and sort out the transport system.

If Brown goes tonight then Harman is in power. Hardly a working class girl herself. Come on, mate. Don't you think the class war belongs with Thatcherism back in the 20th century?

And there lays a problem, its back to the C19th, with two tory parties, vying for small proportion of the population that vote.

 

[London Calling]

Why don't we have a radical party in the uK, in 1890, Engels described the East End of London as the "world's largest and wretched working class district" he believed it what radicalise aka Germany.


But no?

 

[Buzzer]

And there lays a problem, its back to the C19th, with two tory parties, vying for small proportion of the population that vote.

So perhaps it is class after all.

I'd say the middle classes ARE accurately and adequately represented by the main 3 parties (plus nationalists), the upper classes are so small as to be insignificant and they're subsumed within the current system.

It's the working class that isn't adequately represented if I read what you and Dandyman are saying. How big is the working class vote though and what does it aspire to? Interesting that this is where the BNP have been making ground with the white working class.

I'm gonna make no assumptions here even though I'd say that I come from working class roots. I'm genuinely interested to know if there is a real and widespread appetite for a genuinely socialist run Britain rather than the free-market leaning mixed economy that all 3 parties espouse.

 

[philsussex]

I know nothing about politics. All I know is that you have to vote Tory. So this poll must be good news.

 

[London Calling]

So perhaps it is class after all.

I'd say the middle classes ARE accurately and adequately represented by the main 3 parties (plus nationalists), the upper classes are so small as to be insignificant and they're subsumed within the current system.

It's the working class that isn't adequately represented if I read what you and Dandyman are saying. How big is the working class vote though and what does it aspire to? Interesting that this is where the BNP have been making ground with the white working class.

I'm gonna make no assumptions here even though I'd say that I come from working class roots. I'm genuinely interested to know if there is a real and widespread appetite for a genuinely socialist run Britain rather than the free-market leaning mixed economy that all 3 parties espouse.

Statistically, the working class, or if we live in a class less society. The social groups e and d, should dictate the Government. If you throw in the social group c as well. Then we have all the perceived low level managerial, but skilled labourers.

As you know , I often use Nordic countries as an example, why do countries such as Sweden, Denmark that appear to be class less but have much more radical, left leaning Governments. The Swedes were practically a model socialist democratic model from 45 to the late 90's.


On paper, with our industrial history, our poor housing, squallor, inner city areas, the sink estates that still remain, the excluded society, the chavs.

We should have at least a viable radical alternative.

But like you, I cannot see where it is coming from, the British seem to want a low quality services, they love the bargain, they love the knock off, they love the dodgy deal, they love bunking fares, they love everything that demeans society, they love everything, that means we as a society do not demand and expect to get quality.

The Daily Mail espouses the no state, the low threshold of service.

I just want quality aka the Nordic countries, I want quality civic infrastructure, great schools, hospitals, polite and good service, I want Ice Cream tasting of cream, coffee, that hits the mark, public transport that is clean frequent that meets my neeeds and where customers pay and do not cheat. I belived in my youth of a socialist utopia, will I het utopia through Cameron?

LC after a glass or two or three of cheap wine.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

....but we won't see the benefits for at least another decade.

That is a very good point.

The Conservatives take the flak for the turmoil in the 80s/90s (obvisouly they were contributory), but did they not inherit a country that was on it's knees? Inflation reaching 15%? I would like to hear the alternatives to defeating the unions that were in danger of keeping Britain in the dark ages. What were the alternatives to their actions? Should they have continued subsidising the coal industry? Did we have enough money to bring our public services forward? Why did we need to cash in on our public services?

Similarly, Labour seem to get all the plaudits for our recent boom. The seeds were sowed long before Blair and Brown took over, by the best Chancellor of the modern era (take a bow Ken Clarke).

Labour gain plaudits for the falls in crime. Not only does crime fall in a period of economic growth, but it was the policies of the Tories that instigated the decrease in crime. In actual fact, the decrease in crime was not so great when Labour instigated their own policies to replace the policies of the previous regime.

Whilst that will obviously come across as a pro-Tory post, I do not feel they are given enough credit. I was not around in the 70s. Was it a shining beacon of how a country should operate? Do you think the Tories deliberately ensured that millions lost their jobs or did they takeover a country that was falling to pieces?

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

If a wipe-out of the present Labour ranks lead to the creation of a new broad-front, trade union backed left-wing party it would be IMO worth the pain of a Lord Snooty government.

The thing is that experiences of the past have shown that that type of party is either unelectable or so bad at governing that they only last one term i.e. Labour before Blair

 

[Simster]

I would like to hear the alternatives to defeating the unions that were in danger of keeping Britain in the dark ages.

For me, this is the biggest MYTH the Tories have ever trotted out.

So which unions did the Tories stand up to then? Oh yes; the miners. And guess what? We haven't got a mining industry any more. Then they stood up to the unions in manufacturing - and now we don't have a car industry. So no, hardly a good case for "standing up to unions" per se.

Crushing unions is a very bad thing, the same way as lefties talking about strikes as good news as it is all about the oppressed workers fighting back against the evil capitalists. In the end, it's all bad news.

 

[User removed 4]

For me, this is the biggest MYTH the Tories have ever trotted out.

So which unions did the Tories stand up to then? Oh yes; the miners. And guess what? We haven't got a mining industry any more. Then they stood up to the unions in manufacturing - and now we don't have a car industry. So no, hardly a good case for "standing up to unions" per se.

Crushing unions is a very bad thing, the same way as lefties talking about strikes as good news as it is all about the oppressed workers fighting back against the evil capitalists.

the print unions ?we still have a newspaper industry.

 

[sten_super]

For me, this is the biggest MYTH the Tories have ever trotted out.

So which unions did the Tories stand up to then? Oh yes; the miners. And guess what? We haven't got a mining industry any more. Then they stood up to the unions in manufacturing - and now we don't have a car industry. So no, hardly a good case for "standing up to unions" per se.

Crushing unions is a very bad thing, the same way as lefties talking about strikes as good news as it is all about the oppressed workers fighting back against the evil capitalists. In the end, it's all bad news.

Do you believe in keeping ailing and uncompetitive industries going through subsidisation then? These industries going to the wall was a bad thing in the short term, as it created structural unemployment. However, in order to keep these industries 'competitive' someone (in all probability the government) would have to pump billions and billions of pounds in year after year. Surely in the long run the economy is better off without that millstone around it's neck?

 

[London Calling]

Do you believe in keeping ailing and uncompetitive industries going through subsidisation then? These industries going to the wall was a bad thing in the short term, as it created structural unemployment. However, in order to keep these industries 'competitive' someone (in all probability the government) would have to pump billions and billions of pounds in year after year. Surely in the long run the economy is better off without that millstone around it's neck?

generally agree that you can't subsidise manufacturing industry, but coal is different, as a natural energy resource, the price can fluctuate greatly. I refer to the gas and oil market at the moment.

No, I do not agree that poor inefficient low production colleries should have kept opened, but that wasn't the case with UK Coal. Now we have limted supplies and the price is high again and we have limited resources to gas, oil.

At the same time, the Government then should have invested "savings" in alternative technologies aka the Danes with CHP and wind power.

 

[Simster]

Do you believe in keeping ailing and uncompetitive industries going through subsidisation then? These industries going to the wall was a bad thing in the short term, as it created structural unemployment. However, in order to keep these industries 'competitive' someone (in all probability the government) would have to pump billions and billions of pounds in year after year. Surely in the long run the economy is better off without that millstone around it's neck?

I don't agree entirely. Sacking 50,000 people at once means you're suddenly paying out dole money and other benefits to those people *indefinitely* along with other small local businesses that inevitably go to the wall. If you talking millstones, how about that?

It's just not good enough for a government to let letting ailing British industries go the wall without some sort of contingency plan.

Bushy, I do take your point about the printing industry although the printing industry was not threatened with wholescale closure as much as much-needed modernisation and re-location.

 

[London Calling]

I don't agree entirely. Sacking 50,000 people at once means you're suddenly paying out dole money and other benefits to those people *indefinitely* along with other small local businesses that inevitably go to the wall. If you talking millstones, how about that?

It's just not good enough for a government to let letting ailing British industries go the wall without some sort of contingency plan.

Bushy, I do take your point about the printing industry although the printing industry was not threatened with wholescale closure as much as much-needed modernisation and re-location.

Good point - a phased withdrawal was undewrtaking by most European nations, not the lets 'em go down the swanney.

As a result of the piss poor management of our industry, we are still left with industrial ghost towns.

The writing was on the wall with all sectors, but the planning and building of business parks, science centres, would have helped to attract alternative industies.

Years after the destroying of the Coal Industry, British Coal was given this remit. 5 years too late.

 

[User removed 4]

Bushy, I do take your point about the printing industry although the printing industry was not threatened with wholescale closure as much as much-needed modernisation and re-location.

unfortunately my dad was one of five thousand sacked by murdoch during the 1985 wapping strike, they were badly let down by incompetent union leadership.

 

[binky]

For me, this is the biggest MYTH the Tories have ever trotted out.

So which unions did the Tories stand up to then? Oh yes; the miners. And guess what? We haven't got a mining industry any more. Then they stood up to the unions in manufacturing - and now we don't have a car industry. So no, hardly a good case for "standing up to unions" per se.

Crushing unions is a very bad thing, the same way as lefties talking about strikes as good news as it is all about the oppressed workers fighting back against the evil capitalists. In the end, it's all bad news.

You seem to have cause and effect muddled up.

The coal industry and the (majority of) the car industry were uneconomic to run in the emerging global market.
The unions stock response when "threatened" with changes to working practices to improve efficieny, was to go on strike. Their response to having to accept an industry appropriate wage increase was to go on strike.
Clearly this was unsustainable in the long term.
Throughout the late 60s and 70s, successive labour governemts simply gave way, and paid up.
This resulted in the inefficiencies increasing.

By the time Magaret Thatcher came to power, both industries were being propped up by the tax payer.
The coal industry in particular was selling product which could be imported at only 25% of the cost.
There is a school of thought, which calls for strategically important industries to be government supported. Both coal and auto industries fall into this category.

Thatcher however, brought the economics of the corner shop to bear, and simply refused to continue subsidising the industries.
This is what led to the union conflicts.

In truth, the loss of these industries was a blow to the UK, and in hindsight, it would have been preferable to keep them.
However, the unions and successive weak governments both labour and tory, had made that impossible.

The loss of those industries, and the bulk of British manufacturing was the price we had to pay to pull the country out of bankrupcy. (Remember the IMF bailout?)

Yes, the early 80's were bad, but they were the consequence of labour and union policies of the 60s and 70s, and the inability of the weak Heath government to halt the rot.

By the way, does anyone remember the classic labour days of the mid-late 70s?

The enforced 3 day working week
Power cuts
Uncollected rubbish leading to huge rat infestations
Unburied bodies.
The Austin Allegro

The 80's were a beacon of hope to many of that generation after enduring labour through those times.