LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
1997 was a wipeout.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
Took them a decade and a half to recover and they needed an American induced global financial crisis and the biggest recession in modern times recorded just to go cap in hand to the LDs to join a coalition to get in.
0 -
Possibly. It will depend on the results. If they need a coalition to get a majority then they may do it, but not sure there are any good options. If they get a slim absolute majority then they may not, but in either scenario, the hard left side of the party comes into play.morstar said:
They all ‘say’ that though. None of them mean it beyond hoping they won’t have to.Stevo_666 said:
We'll have to see if they do get it, but I am not optimistic, especially if they end up with a slim majority and are then reliant on the swivel eyed hard left to get stuff through. They have said they won't go for a coalition with other parties, which makes this more likely.surrey_commuter said:
What do you think they would do worse than Brexit, nationalisation, increased red tape, yo-young corp tax and record high personal taxation?Stevo_666 said:
If a Labour win is as nailed on as some people claim, then the looney left is what we should be concerned about.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
Whilst I am quite content with Sunak, I find your fear of non blue rosettes to be strange as you seem to fear the very things your own side does."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You should be more grateful, it was your only shot at power.rick_chasey said:
1997 was a wipeout.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
Took them a decade and a half to recover and they needed an American induced global financial crisis and the biggest recession in modern times recorded just to go cap in hand to the LDs to join a coalition to get in."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I’m not a dyed-in-the-wool LD. Not especially a fan of them at the moment. Surprisingly anti-business.Stevo_666 said:
You should be more grateful, it was your only shot at power.rick_chasey said:
1997 was a wipeout.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
Took them a decade and a half to recover and they needed an American induced global financial crisis and the biggest recession in modern times recorded just to go cap in hand to the LDs to join a coalition to get in.
They are also leaders in the pack for local NIMBY behaviour.0 -
I think there needs to be a change of direction on some fronts but no other party is going to do it. If Truss and Kwarteng (who admittedly weren't the right people to lead) hadn't gone OTT last year, that could have been a start. I suspect there will need to be another Thatcher style revolution, which may be more likely if we get the predicted taste of leftiebollox in action after the next GE.rjsterry said:
I'm not sure the party you want the Conservatives to be exists any more. They still recite the creed but their actions are diametrically opposed. It's difficult to think of how they could have been more obstructive to the construction and development sector.Stevo_666 said:
If a Labour win is as nailed on as some people claim, then the looney left is what we should be concerned about.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
OK, fair enough.rick_chasey said:
I’m not a dyed-in-the-wool LD. Not especially a fan of them at the moment. Surprisingly anti-business.Stevo_666 said:
You should be more grateful, it was your only shot at power.rick_chasey said:
1997 was a wipeout.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
Took them a decade and a half to recover and they needed an American induced global financial crisis and the biggest recession in modern times recorded just to go cap in hand to the LDs to join a coalition to get in.
They are also leaders in the pack for local NIMBY behaviour.
So let's say that in future the Tories reinvent themselves (in your eyes) as a centre right, business friendly party that gives value for money to tax payers and you are by then a well off businessman in his forties. Could we see you cross the political divide?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Quite surprised you wouldn’t want to go back to the start of Thatcher’s Britain!Stevo_666 said:
And we sure as hell don't want to go back there.rick_chasey said:
Yes this isn’t 1979surrey_commuter said:
What do you think they would do worse than Brexit, nationalisation, increased red tape, yo-young corp tax and record high personal taxation?Stevo_666 said:
If a Labour win is as nailed on as some people claim, then the looney left is what we should be concerned about.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
Whilst I am quite content with Sunak, I find your fear of non blue rosettes to be strange as you seem to fear the very things your own side does.0 -
Pross said:
Quite surprised you wouldn’t want to go back to the start of Thatcher’s Britain!Stevo_666 said:
And we sure as hell don't want to go back there.rick_chasey said:
Yes this isn’t 1979surrey_commuter said:
What do you think they would do worse than Brexit, nationalisation, increased red tape, yo-young corp tax and record high personal taxation?Stevo_666 said:
If a Labour win is as nailed on as some people claim, then the looney left is what we should be concerned about.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
Whilst I am quite content with Sunak, I find your fear of non blue rosettes to be strange as you seem to fear the very things your own side does.
And if we did, it wouldn't be long till we joined the EU & Single Market. Result.
Just reading up on that a bit, I've realised the trashing of the UK's economy by the Tories is a cunning ruse:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.13068At the heart of the UK’s argument with its EEC partners was money: the British government was determined to pay less into the Community's common budget. The British argument was sound: on a per capita basis, the UK (with Greece, Italy and Ireland) was one of the poorer members of the EEC. Yet, Britain made a bigger contribution to the EEC’s annual budget than any other member state apart from Germany. Indeed, Germany and Britain were the only net contributors. Every other member government received more from EEC expenditure in their own countries than the amounts they had paid into the common budget in the first place.
So, we become poorer than everyone else, and re-enter as a net beneficiary... genius!
This is what Thatcher presented to Europe... sounds like a good idea to me, and just as relevant now as it was then:If the problems of growth, outdated industrial structures and unemployment which affect us all are to be tackled effectively, we must create the genuine common market in goods and services which is envisaged in the Treaty of Rome and will be crucial to our ability to meet the US and Japanese technological challenge. Only by a sustained effort to remove remaining obstacles to intra-Community trade can we enable the citizens of Europe to benefit from the dynamic effects of a fully integrated common market with immense purchasing power. The success of the United States in job creation shows what can be achieved when internal barriers to business and trade come down. We must create the conditions in which European businessmen, too, can build on their strengths and create prosperity and jobs. This means action to harmonise standards and prevent their deliberate use as barriers to intra-Community trade; more rapid and better coordinated customs procedures; a major effort to improve mutual recognition of professional qualifications; and liberalising trade in services, including banking, insurance and transportation of goods and people. If we do not give our service and manufacturing industries the full benefit of what is potentially the largest single market in the industrialised world, they will not be fully competitive at international level, and will be unable to create much needed jobs within the Community.
But I digress...0 -
Sure if they also recognise growing inequality hurts everyone in the long run not just the poor.Stevo_666 said:
OK, fair enough.rick_chasey said:
I’m not a dyed-in-the-wool LD. Not especially a fan of them at the moment. Surprisingly anti-business.Stevo_666 said:
You should be more grateful, it was your only shot at power.rick_chasey said:
1997 was a wipeout.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
Took them a decade and a half to recover and they needed an American induced global financial crisis and the biggest recession in modern times recorded just to go cap in hand to the LDs to join a coalition to get in.
They are also leaders in the pack for local NIMBY behaviour.
So let's say that in future the Tories reinvent themselves (in your eyes) as a centre right, business friendly party that gives value for money to tax payers and you are by then a well off businessman in his forties. Could we see you cross the political divide?
I think they’re institutionally incapable of that.
Ultimately as free market as they claim to be, currently they’re not and regardless of that they, and the clue is in the name, are fundamentally opposed to meritocracy.
If they discussed the feckless public school boy bell ends like they discussed benefit scrounged I’d believe them, but they usually *are* them.
They’re interested in protecting the privilege, not making people earn it0 -
I think it’s quite possible to desire conservative principles whilst disliking the actual Conservative Party.
Definitely where I find myself. I want policies that allow hard work to be rewarded that don’t trivialise and devalue public sector or less skilled workers and that don’t lock in protecting wealth for a narrow range of the population at the expense of huge swathes of it.
Compassionate Conservatism is a good ideal. Unfortunately, it’s an oxymoron.0 -
rick_chasey said:
Sure if they also recognise growing inequality hurts everyone in the long run not just the poor.Stevo_666 said:
OK, fair enough.rick_chasey said:
I’m not a dyed-in-the-wool LD. Not especially a fan of them at the moment. Surprisingly anti-business.Stevo_666 said:
You should be more grateful, it was your only shot at power.rick_chasey said:
1997 was a wipeout.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
Took them a decade and a half to recover and they needed an American induced global financial crisis and the biggest recession in modern times recorded just to go cap in hand to the LDs to join a coalition to get in.
They are also leaders in the pack for local NIMBY behaviour.
So let's say that in future the Tories reinvent themselves (in your eyes) as a centre right, business friendly party that gives value for money to tax payers and you are by then a well off businessman in his forties. Could we see you cross the political divide?
I think they’re institutionally incapable of that.
Ultimately as free market as they claim to be, currently they’re not and regardless of that they, and the clue is in the name, are fundamentally opposed to meritocracy.
If they discussed the feckless public school boy bell ends like they discussed benefit scrounged I’d believe them, but they usually *are* them.
They’re interested in protecting the privilege, not making people earn it
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That would be fine if we don't have to take on all the other EU stuff that goes with it, as I've said before.briantrumpet said:Pross said:
Quite surprised you wouldn’t want to go back to the start of Thatcher’s Britain!Stevo_666 said:
And we sure as hell don't want to go back there.rick_chasey said:
Yes this isn’t 1979surrey_commuter said:
What do you think they would do worse than Brexit, nationalisation, increased red tape, yo-young corp tax and record high personal taxation?Stevo_666 said:
If a Labour win is as nailed on as some people claim, then the looney left is what we should be concerned about.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
Whilst I am quite content with Sunak, I find your fear of non blue rosettes to be strange as you seem to fear the very things your own side does.
And if we did, it wouldn't be long till we joined the EU & Single Market. Result.
Just reading up on that a bit, I've realised the trashing of the UK's economy by the Tories is a cunning ruse:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.13068At the heart of the UK’s argument with its EEC partners was money: the British government was determined to pay less into the Community's common budget. The British argument was sound: on a per capita basis, the UK (with Greece, Italy and Ireland) was one of the poorer members of the EEC. Yet, Britain made a bigger contribution to the EEC’s annual budget than any other member state apart from Germany. Indeed, Germany and Britain were the only net contributors. Every other member government received more from EEC expenditure in their own countries than the amounts they had paid into the common budget in the first place.
So, we become poorer than everyone else, and re-enter as a net beneficiary... genius!
This is what Thatcher presented to Europe... sounds like a good idea to me, and just as relevant now as it was then:If the problems of growth, outdated industrial structures and unemployment which affect us all are to be tackled effectively, we must create the genuine common market in goods and services which is envisaged in the Treaty of Rome and will be crucial to our ability to meet the US and Japanese technological challenge. Only by a sustained effort to remove remaining obstacles to intra-Community trade can we enable the citizens of Europe to benefit from the dynamic effects of a fully integrated common market with immense purchasing power. The success of the United States in job creation shows what can be achieved when internal barriers to business and trade come down. We must create the conditions in which European businessmen, too, can build on their strengths and create prosperity and jobs. This means action to harmonise standards and prevent their deliberate use as barriers to intra-Community trade; more rapid and better coordinated customs procedures; a major effort to improve mutual recognition of professional qualifications; and liberalising trade in services, including banking, insurance and transportation of goods and people. If we do not give our service and manufacturing industries the full benefit of what is potentially the largest single market in the industrialised world, they will not be fully competitive at international level, and will be unable to create much needed jobs within the Community.
But I digress..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
Why not set one up? If the gap in the market is that obvious...rick_chasey said:I’d vote for the meritocracy party
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
I'm fine with it."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
-
Meritocracy means you don't get to pass on your wealth to your kids surely.Stevo_666 said:I'm fine with it.
0 -
rick_chasey said:
With all due respect Stevo you’re not gonna vote for a Rick Chasey party haha
But how would I know it's you in real life? "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Not slipping down a slippery slope at all... no, they might do this sort of thing in Moscow (arresting peaceful protesters and press), but not in the UK... surely not, with Braverman at the helm...
0 -
How would they manage that with nothing left to sell off and having done their damnedest to make home ownership as difficult as possible. There are precious few council homes left to sell because hardly anyone can build any. There are a couple of voices within the party that seem to have realised that the nimbyism of Villiers and her fellow idiots is hurting them electorally but the rest are as anti-development as ever.Stevo_666 said:
I think there needs to be a change of direction on some fronts but no other party is going to do it. If Truss and Kwarteng (who admittedly weren't the right people to lead) hadn't gone OTT last year, that could have been a start. I suspect there will need to be another Thatcher style revolution, which may be more likely if we get the predicted taste of leftiebollox in action after the next GE.rjsterry said:
I'm not sure the party you want the Conservatives to be exists any more. They still recite the creed but their actions are diametrically opposed. It's difficult to think of how they could have been more obstructive to the construction and development sector.Stevo_666 said:
If a Labour win is as nailed on as some people claim, then the looney left is what we should be concerned about.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
I'd agree that the Lib Dems seem to have jumped on the nimby bandwagon as a handy way to win a by-election and who knows what Labour thinks, but right now there's only one party actively making the business and regulatory environment more difficult for me.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Because a meritocracy require 100% inheritance tax.Stevo_666 said:rick_chasey said:With all due respect Stevo you’re not gonna vote for a Rick Chasey party haha
But how would I know it's you in real life?
Naturalment.0 -
A meritocracy purist then. We'll leave it at that and I'll watch out for the new party.rick_chasey said:
Because a meritocracy require 100% inheritance tax.Stevo_666 said:rick_chasey said:With all due respect Stevo you’re not gonna vote for a Rick Chasey party haha
But how would I know it's you in real life?
Naturalment."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well clearly only one party at a time can do that, but don't expect anything different in 2025. It kind of validates my view that the best thing governments can do is get out the way of business and wealth creation to the greatest extent possible.rjsterry said:
How would they manage that with nothing left to sell off and having done their damnedest to make home ownership as difficult as possible. There are precious few council homes left to sell because hardly anyone can build any. There are a couple of voices within the party that seem to have realised that the nimbyism of Villiers and her fellow idiots is hurting them electorally but the rest are as anti-development as ever.Stevo_666 said:
I think there needs to be a change of direction on some fronts but no other party is going to do it. If Truss and Kwarteng (who admittedly weren't the right people to lead) hadn't gone OTT last year, that could have been a start. I suspect there will need to be another Thatcher style revolution, which may be more likely if we get the predicted taste of leftiebollox in action after the next GE.rjsterry said:
I'm not sure the party you want the Conservatives to be exists any more. They still recite the creed but their actions are diametrically opposed. It's difficult to think of how they could have been more obstructive to the construction and development sector.Stevo_666 said:
If a Labour win is as nailed on as some people claim, then the looney left is what we should be concerned about.surrey_commuter said:Why are people so convinced the Tories will be wiped out, so enabling them to de-loon themselves.
Surely it is more likely it will look like 1997 with 30% of the vote and 165 seats. As the safest seats seem to be held by the biggest loons there problems may only just be starting.
I'd agree that the Lib Dems seem to have jumped on the nimby bandwagon as a handy way to win a by-election and who knows what Labour thinks, but right now there's only one party actively making the business and regulatory environment more difficult for me."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
This is what I mean, you’re not really interested in meritocracies 😜Stevo_666 said:
A meritocracy purist then. We'll leave it at that and I'll watch out for the new party.rick_chasey said:
Because a meritocracy require 100% inheritance tax.Stevo_666 said:rick_chasey said:With all due respect Stevo you’re not gonna vote for a Rick Chasey party haha
But how would I know it's you in real life?
Naturalment.0 -
Maybe we already have enough? Seems to have worked pretty well for merick_chasey said:
This is what I mean, you’re not really interested in meritocracies 😜Stevo_666 said:
A meritocracy purist then. We'll leave it at that and I'll watch out for the new party.rick_chasey said:
Because a meritocracy require 100% inheritance tax.Stevo_666 said:rick_chasey said:With all due respect Stevo you’re not gonna vote for a Rick Chasey party haha
But how would I know it's you in real life?
Naturalment. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If you remember Dan Neidle skewering Zahawi, you might be surprised to see him defending Rees Mogg.
He's certainly interesting to follow - yesterday he was highlighting the Fujitsu/Post Office debacle, and how the PO had paid bonuses to PO bosses for supposedly finalising the settlement with POs, but based on faulty data.0 -
-
The Sunak stuff on GPs very much has the desperation of the Cones Hotline at its core... new phone lines will solve the problem, yeehaw!
0
