Is the new british Tory leadership a threat?

[sweetheart]

Howard was part of John Major's administration, and a rather ruthless and sad character at that, but he seems to believe the Tories have the magic wand of the bushaviks to win power back.

For those aware of these chaps and what they're about, do you think they could ever win back power with these "same old tories", or has re-electing a bad history lesson consigned the tory party to the bin?

Many folks here rail on Tony Blair, as i have myself for his poodle undermining of "labour" and liberal interests by giving the GOP international credence, yet, if our railing on him ultimately unseats labour, our objectives fail completely.

A tory administration would be more than poodles to america... they would re-instate GOP economics (unemployment, deficits and decline). They are as evil as any BFEE, and have no place near power. Beware of any strategy to bash tony blair. Its like complaining about clinton in 2000 elections and thinking bush might be a refreshing change.

[Spentastic]

1. No

That's the short answer. The Tories are so mental as to be unelectable. If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd say that New Labour are in fact a Tory Trojan Horse.

The Tories act mental and foam at the mouth, Tony moves towards them to pacify the middle. The Tories are happy.

I diagree entirely about bashing Tony Blair. He has to go. He's gutting this country and needs to be held to account. This is a Labour government that is going to MAKE me carry an ID card. An idea that Tony applauds.

Lords reform - stalled by Tony

PFI - accelarated under Tony

Foundation hospitals - Bye Bye NHS

Tuition fees - Debt ridden students now the norm

LIED US INTO A WAR.

Tony Blair is damaging the Labour party in the same way that Clinton damaged the keft in the U.S. If you can't stay true to your roots then your roots will desert you.

[sweetheart]

2. Ok, so tony goes

Just it must be done that labour is united. I have no real attachment to him as an individual, but like cinton, his blairism has so changed labour, as you say, that it threatens the party's ability to stay in power with the monster raving tory party howling at the gates.

If labour can change leadership and still show coherence, better indeed. Just who is that leader? mandelson? blunkett? straw? cook? prudence? My favorite would be ken livingston.. do you think he would have a chance?

I hear you on the ID card. I'd have to get one also... but woudn't it be sorta like a drivers license, that you have a week to present it on demand?

My only point is that, like clinton, the washout third way center political gambit by blair can create a voter's wish for a change... and a change is only another party... it seems to me a similar feeling to the 2000 usa election... hidden dissatisfaction with clinton democrats(and not so hidden) got us the shrub... god forbid dissatisfaction with Rt.hon.blair gets us a howard.

[Spentastic]

3. This is the problem

In his quest for the third way Tony essentially emasculated his party in order to neutralise possible threats to him. There are no real credible, powerful "new" Labour figures.

Livingstone would get trounced in a general election. Antipathy to Blair only goes so far and Ken is still deeply mired in the GLC debacle and the press would have a field day. Ken likes the ladies and he's not adverse to giving blokes a slap.

If Labour are to remain in power, I think the Brown is the only choice. I think the differences between him and Blair are finally being driven out. Perhaps he could be a step in the right direction?

"I hear you on the ID card. I'd have to get one also... but woudn't it be sorta like a drivers license, that you have a week to present it on demand?"

No it's deeper than that. It's a stupid idea. Its stated aims are to stop terrorists so stupid as to not need explanation, actually let me exapnd "Hello I'm terrorist A here's my ID I'm here to blow up that building" , counter benefit fraud (hasn't worked in France etc.) and it allows the government to keep a detailed record of your most personal information. I can throw my other ID's away and the government would find it fairly difficult to id me. Once they have my Iris scan, DNA or whever else they want you're permanently at risk of being identified. With a liberal government this is not important. Ask the Germans if liberalism always prevails.

The reason that the Tories are toast at the moment is that Blair stole their voters. He had a historic chance to drag the country to the left but he bottled it when the business leaders told him to.

[billyskank]

17. Gordon Brown would not be an improvement

in my opinion. He is probably even more pro-corporate involvement in public services than Blair. It was he who was the architect behind most of the public finance initiative (PFI) projects, not to mention the fragmentation and part-privatisation of the London underground railway, very similar to the disastrous privatisation of our main railways that was undertaken by the Tories and is now slowly beginning to be undone.

It is also always the treasury under Brown that is most vociferous in denouncing any Labour MP who has the temerity to suggest that maybe we could make our income tax system a mite more progressive.

And Brown is, if anything, more Atlanticist than Blair is. He is no europhile. At the most benign level, most of his political ideas come from America, like his myriad tax credits, and can anyone seriously see him saying no to Bush? I cannot.

He is also a very divisive figure, brooding, and I hear difficult to get along with. He is reported to irritate many of his cabinet colleagues when it is unnecessary - hardly the kind of collegial political master operator that makes for prime ministerial material.

[legin]

5. I don't know, I think you are probably right but

it is just that when I saw the new shadow cabinet what I starting thinking of was the native puppet governments put in place by the Nazis when they invaded a country, same in the Eastern European countries when the Soviets started taking over. Probably just paranoia.

Although there are two key positions for me in the way the world is at the moment, PM and Foreign Secertary, right-wing yes, pro-israel yes, pro-u.s. yes.

It looks more like that it has been designed for bush* more than for the british people. bush* has only got to have a little chat with Murdoch and the Sun is back to anti-Labour again, and I am sure bush* can cook up other things.

Hopefully I am just being paranoid.

[legin]

6. while blair has been pretty good to bush*

he hasn't been perfect by any means, I would guess that the roadmap was a price bush* had to pay to blair for his help in Iraq, the price probably also included the ignomy of being dragged through the UN. I can't help thinking that both these things must have pissed off the neo-cons quite considerably.

Now if the Conservatives can put in a more competitive tender, I sure things can be taken care of.

[jonoboy]

7. Tony Blair is like a Young Conservative

..well not so young anymore.. but all the same ideals

The Cons are hopeless, the only hope is for change within Labour.

[rooboy]

4. Weakening Blair doesn't equate to strengthening the Tories...

the Liberal Democrats have gained a lot from the recent rumblings too. It's hard to see the UK public being ready to stomach a conservative government in the near future.

[Mairead]

8. Exactly. New 'Labour' badly want undermining, and it can be done

very well by everyone getting behind the Lib Dems. The Tories needn't even be given a look-in.

[sweetheart]

19. but pretty much it does

voting intention polls show the libdems at neutral and the tories gaining from labour disillusionment.

Though the libdems have strengthened their front bench, it hardly changes the fact that they're trying to gain seats by morphing towards the torys... a bad move and they're back in the doghouse.

Labour is in trouble because of a succession problem... though the party may indeed have a 10 year + grip on power from this point, the post-blair world is uncertain, as prudence brown has lacked the touch towards being political. He's brutish instead, but that is sort of keeping with the scottish personality... not a vote winner that.

I think if i put your last sentence in context, you'll understand the concern: the date: november, 1999: "It's hard to see the US public being ready to stomach a republican president in the near future." How much confidence would you have had back then of the republican fraud-election-2000.

[Loonman]

9. Like Blair is any worse?

Blair is Bush's lap dog.


Jump Tony, Jump!

Good dog!

[Screaming Lord Byron]

10. Prediction - Michael Howard couldn't win a game of snap. n/t

[Ficus]

11. Don't know a whole lot about Brit politics

and it interests me a great deal, but I won't comment on it because as I said, I don't know much.

Here's the question I'd like to put out there though. Do you think if Tony Blair could run for President in the US, he'd beat Bush? He's very Clinton-like IMO, and very popular here as well, for just the average kind of citizen (lefties here hate him). I guess overall I kinda liked the guy always (minus his actions in the last year or so), but then again he wasn't my PM.

[sweetheart]

12. given a constitutional amendment

That a scottish born man could become US president, Blair would trounce bush soundly.

If you have a look around the british papers:
www.telegraph.co.uk
www.guardian.co.uk
murdochs times i'll leave out
www.scotsman.co.uk

You'll read about howard and his first challenges to TB at the dispatch box. (In parliment when the prime minister has to take questions... "question time" every wednesday... the best entertainment in britain... or sorely lacking during the fishface previous leader whos name i've already forgotten.)

Howard is more formidable than the others, but that crowd is dark and sinister. The only policy they have is tax cuts... sounds familiar eh?

[T_i_B]

13. "Howard is more formidable than the others"

I disagree on that point. The best leader for the tories, who would have been most able to reform the party and bash it back into shape would have been Portillo. However, he is leaving politics at the next election.

As to PMQ's, I saw the highlights on the news and both Blair & Howard seemed more interesting in debating what the other had been up to in the 80's (poll tax, CND etc) than debating the here & now. All in all not a good omen for things to come.

[sweetheart]

14. portillo was their last hope

seeing him wearing a tesco uniform was endearing. I hope he gives up his coward genes and comes back swinging when howard loses the next election. That bugger will never drop his baggage, and no amount of PR (they just hired the PR guru for O2) will change the nasy party when the nasy party's old henchmen are behnind the helm.

I'm not sure which has a more evil look in his eyes, howard or ancram, but i would not trust my daughter, dogs, or even a field mouse to either one of them.

[AP]

16. turning their back on Portillo shows they don't care about democratically

winning elections.

I think they have something dirty up their sleeves.

[Ficus]

18. I watched some of that on

BBC World and try to watch question when it's on C-SPAN. I really wish that Bush would have to come before Congress so folks like Robert Byrd and Tom Harkin and company could rip him up. However that british wit would be lacking that makes the whole thing so funny!

Howard is more formidable than the others, but that crowd is dark and sinister. The only policy they have is tax cuts... sounds familiar eh?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Torries are basically our Republicans. So yeah, I'm not too surprised.

[AP]

15. Another way to look at it: picking Howard is like Bush picking Cheney.

If they have something up their sleeves, they don't need "electable" leaders.

They just need to get the fascist old guard in place so that when they take power they're ready to roll without have any politicians like Portillo who would actually make concessions to the democratic fancies of the people (like on the pound, or wedge issues like race).