I all started with the Cameron government didn’t it?
Sadly, no. It really didn't.
It depends on what you mean by "started". The Eurosceptic wing of the Tories have been a thorn in the side of Tory leaders since Thatcher, is that the start? UKIP success, particularly in the 2014 European elections, was a concern to the Cameron government in whether they would take enough votes from the Tories to swing the election away from them, does it start with UKIP?
On the other hand, the decision to hold a referendum was made by the Cameron leadership prior to the 2015 election, and agreed by the 2015 Parliament under his premiership.
I all started with the Cameron government didn’t it?
Sadly, no. It really didn't.
It depends on what you mean by "started". The Eurosceptic wing of the Tories have been a thorn in the side of Tory leaders since Thatcher, is that the start? UKIP success, particularly in the 2014 European elections, was a concern to the Cameron government in whether they would take enough votes from the Tories to swing the election away from them, does it start with UKIP?
On the other hand, the decision to hold a referendum was made by the Cameron leadership prior to the 2015 election, and agreed by the 2015 Parliament under his premiership.
Cameron wasn't expecting to run a majority government and thought that another alliance with the Lib Dems would mean he wouldn't be able to honour his promise to hold a referendum. Fool!
I was not a talking about Europe. I was picking up on austerity if you like. Cutting back started with Cameron. It was pursued by May. Let’s not forget the ATOS miracles. Where people were miraculously declared fit for work because they could breathe.
They were trying to change history to save us from the chaos under Ed Miliband.
So glad we didn't have that.
Anyone seen his twitter account - he has changed his name to "Chaos with Ed Milliband". He may not have made a good PM, but I like the fact that he has a sense of humour.
I all started with the Cameron government didn’t it?
Sadly, no. It really didn't.
It depends on what you mean by "started". The Eurosceptic wing of the Tories have been a thorn in the side of Tory leaders since Thatcher, is that the start? UKIP success, particularly in the 2014 European elections, was a concern to the Cameron government in whether they would take enough votes from the Tories to swing the election away from them, does it start with UKIP?
On the other hand, the decision to hold a referendum was made by the Cameron leadership prior to the 2015 election, and agreed by the 2015 Parliament under his premiership.
Cameron wasn't expecting to run a majority government and thought that another alliance with the Lib Dems would mean he wouldn't be able to honour his promise to hold a referendum. Fool!
Though the Lib Dems had had an on/off flirtation with a referendum since 2008.
I was not a talking about Europe. I was picking up on austerity if you like. Cutting back started with Cameron.
I think that's true - though there was a related issue of the financialisation of the UK economy and lack of any kind of industrial strategy. John Lanchester wrote an interesting article on the topic - in which the standout paragraph for me was:
"That has been the direction of travel in UK politics and economics since 1979, and both parties have pursued policies with that goal in mind. The Labour government offered more social protection but did so largely by stealth and without explaining and arguing for its actions. There was no strategy to replace the lost industry; that was left to the free market. "
The problem is nothing ever "starts" (or rarely). It always has precedents. The current set of ideas all go back to Thatcher, but she would be appaled by many of them. It is her ideology that drives the right wing.
The problem is nothing ever "starts" (or rarely). It always has precedents. The current set of ideas all go back to Thatcher, but she would be appaled by many of them. It is her ideology that drives the right wing.
Had Thatcher not been appalled (and I believe she would) then there were Geoffrey Howe, Francis Pym, Michael Heseltine and William Whitelaw to constrain the bloody awful Keith Joseph and Norman Tebbit. "One-Nation" Conservatives are few and far between nowadays.
I was not a talking about Europe. I was picking up on austerity if you like. Cutting back started with Cameron.
I think that's true - though there was a related issue of the financialisation of the UK economy and lack of any kind of industrial strategy. John Lanchester wrote an interesting article on the topic - in which the standout paragraph for me was:
"That has been the direction of travel in UK politics and economics since 1979, and both parties have pursued policies with that goal in mind. The Labour government offered more social protection but did so largely by stealth and without explaining and arguing for its actions. There was no strategy to replace the lost industry; that was left to the free market. "
Some people go back to Callaghan who remonstrated with the Labour conference (1976), and said that the good old days of Keynesian economics were over. Forward to austerity and neo-liberalism!
Yes, it's odd to remember those days, devaluation of the pound, which was considered heretical, and then cuts under Callaghan and Healey, at the behest of the IMF. Callaghan was John the Baptist to Thatcher.
As the curtain falls on Treeza's occupation of No. 10, I feel that her last official lie as Prime Minister needs to be noted: she will presumably tell the Queen that Boris will be able to command a Parliamentary majority and so form a stable government.
A minor lie among so many others, but still a fitting end to a career which has been founded on racism, untruth, inflexibility, and an astonishing ability to blame everyone else for her own glaring faults.
As the curtain falls on Treeza's occupation of No. 10, I feel that her last official lie as Prime Minister needs to be noted: she will presumably tell the Queen that Boris will be able to command a Parliamentary majority and so form a stable government.
A minor lie among so many others, but still a fitting end to a career which has been founded on racism, untruth, inflexibility, and an astonishing ability to blame everyone else for her own glaring faults.
I think you're spot on. I've made this point over on the Next Prime Minister thread. Constitutionally, Mrs May should remain PM until it becomes clear that someone else can command a majority...
She won't. Tory party before country. That is her premiership in one line.
As the curtain falls on Treeza's occupation of No. 10, I feel that her last official lie as Prime Minister needs to be noted: she will presumably tell the Queen that Boris will be able to command a Parliamentary majority and so form a stable government.
A minor lie among so many others, but still a fitting end to a career which has been founded on racism, untruth, inflexibility, and an astonishing ability to blame everyone else for her own glaring faults.
I think you're spot on. I've made this point over on the Next Prime Minister thread. Constitutionally, Mrs May should remain PM until it becomes clear that someone else can command a majority...
She won't. Tory party before country. That is her premiership in one line.
AFZ
There aren’t many politicians who putvcountry first, party second and self last. There are a few but I bet we’d all be hard pressed to name many. 😢
As the curtain falls on Treeza's occupation of No. 10, I feel that her last official lie as Prime Minister needs to be noted: she will presumably tell the Queen that Boris will be able to command a Parliamentary majority and so form a stable government.
A minor lie among so many others, but still a fitting end to a career which has been founded on racism, untruth, inflexibility, and an astonishing ability to blame everyone else for her own glaring faults.
I think you're spot on. I've made this point over on the Next Prime Minister thread. Constitutionally, Mrs May should remain PM until it becomes clear that someone else can command a majority...
She won't. Tory party before country. That is her premiership in one line.
AFZ
There aren’t many politicians who putvcountry first, party second and self last. There are a few but I bet we’d all be hard pressed to name many. 😢
Possibly, but there is an entire political party that has put its own interests first for over 150 years. The very one that presents itself as the party of patriotism, economic competence, good foreign relations and a sound defence policy.
Possibly, but there is an entire political party that has put its own interests first for over 150 years. The very one that presents itself as the party of patriotism, economic competence, good foreign relations and a sound defence policy.
Sorry, this is my soapbox issue; the incredible success of Tory propaganda such that much of the population believe the above... but:
Economic competence
There is literally no empirical support for this claim. Economic policy since 2010 has been a disaster and GDP/head has been actually static with falling living standards. Economic performance in the 1980s was also poor and the public-sector finances were flattered hugely by North Sea Oil receipts and privatisation receipts. Whether privatisation is correct or not for each sector, you can only sell the assets once and these receipts were included in the annual deficit figures. If you exclude them, the Thatcher government ran unsustainable deficits for most of the time in office. The actual deficits (including privatisation receipts) were larger in real terms than the supposed irresponsibility of Brown pre-2009.... So in reality they were far more irresponsible...
Good foreign relations
This could be a long list but for now let's just put Boris as Foreign Secretary in this box.
Sound defence policy
Let's just put the Falklands in here. I disagree Thatcher on basically everything. However, I do think that she deserves a lot of the plaudits she received for the prosecution of the war both in terms of courage in leadership and strategy.
But, that's only half the story and the first half is never mentioned by those on the right. It was a major strategic blunder by Thatcher that led to the invasion and it could have been avoided altogether - there's a lot of work on this now and how withdrawal of forces from the Southern Atlantic were a key part of 'allowing' the invasion. To be the evidence is compelling that if HM Government have acted earlier, the war would probably never have happened. This makes interesting reading.... So tell me who had the better defense policy: The leader who managed to reclaim the islands at significant human (and financial) cost or the one who five years earlier had deterred an invasion altogether?
I could go on and on.... I stand in awe at the Conservative Party's ability in one area alone: propaganda. I don't think it's surprising that I disagree with them on many issues and policies - my politics are extremely well-known on these boards. However, polling shows that on these issues and others, the view that the Tories are quite good at these things is widely held. And can be demonstrated to be simply untrue.
Hell yes, this is the definition of a Tory; one who puts party before country at all times.
And that's why we had not only a stupid referendum but a stupid referendum conducted in a very stupid way.
It's also why when faced with the herculean challenge of the aftermath of that stupidity, we had a Tory PM who refused to face reality because it would mean facing down her own party...
Thanks for putting flesh on the bones. I was thinking of Suez (1956) as an example of boneheaded foreign relations, followed by the Defence Review of 1957 as a brilliant example of how to piss off the Navy, the Army and the Air Force (yes, all three, no mean feat) and destroy a substantial part of Britain's high-tech industrial capability.
John Fucking Mann as an "independent" advisor on anti-semitism? May seems to be using her last 24 hours in office to troll Labour. He's about as independent as Torquemada.
John Fucking Mann as an "independent" advisor on anti-semitism? May seems to be using her last 24 hours in office to troll Labour. He's about as independent as Torquemada.
But strangely no one has an issue with Ms Coombs and her golliwog touting ilk.
Looks as though you might not have deleted/pasted over the pre loaded ‘http://’ that is automatically inserted in the link dialog, or something like that, and the actual link in your post is missing the ‘:’ after ‘https’. …If that’s any help!
I can't be absolutely sure, but I reckon from that picture that if Ms Coombs can remember the 1940s and 1950s, she must have a bloody good plastic surgeon.
Anyway, what particular bits of the 40s and 50s would she like to go back to? The Blitz? Rationing? No NHS? Capital punishment?
Actually, forget that last one - she probably thinks it's a good idea.
I can't be absolutely sure, but I reckon from that picture that if Ms Coombs can remember the 1940s and 1950s, she must have a bloody good plastic surgeon.
Anyway, what particular bits of the 40s and 50s would she like to go back to? The Blitz? Rationing? No NHS? Capital punishment?
Actually, forget that last one - she probably thinks it's a good idea.
She reminds me of the guys in their 70s who the gestalt seems to think fought in WW2
Comments
Sadly, no. It really didn't.
On the other hand, the decision to hold a referendum was made by the Cameron leadership prior to the 2015 election, and agreed by the 2015 Parliament under his premiership.
Cameron wasn't expecting to run a majority government and thought that another alliance with the Lib Dems would mean he wouldn't be able to honour his promise to hold a referendum. Fool!
So glad we didn't have that.
Anyone seen his twitter account - he has changed his name to "Chaos with Ed Milliband". He may not have made a good PM, but I like the fact that he has a sense of humour.
Frankly, I'd settle for a barely adequate one right now.
Though the Lib Dems had had an on/off flirtation with a referendum since 2008.
I think that's true - though there was a related issue of the financialisation of the UK economy and lack of any kind of industrial strategy. John Lanchester wrote an interesting article on the topic - in which the standout paragraph for me was:
"That has been the direction of travel in UK politics and economics since 1979, and both parties have pursued policies with that goal in mind. The Labour government offered more social protection but did so largely by stealth and without explaining and arguing for its actions. There was no strategy to replace the lost industry; that was left to the free market. "
Had Thatcher not been appalled (and I believe she would) then there were Geoffrey Howe, Francis Pym, Michael Heseltine and William Whitelaw to constrain the bloody awful Keith Joseph and Norman Tebbit. "One-Nation" Conservatives are few and far between nowadays.
Some people go back to Callaghan who remonstrated with the Labour conference (1976), and said that the good old days of Keynesian economics were over. Forward to austerity and neo-liberalism!
Yes, it's odd to remember those days, devaluation of the pound, which was considered heretical, and then cuts under Callaghan and Healey, at the behest of the IMF. Callaghan was John the Baptist to Thatcher.
Despised, possibly. Though there are a fair few contenders lining up for that among her putative successors.
Jesu, mercy. Mary, pray.
(TIACW)
A minor lie among so many others, but still a fitting end to a career which has been founded on racism, untruth, inflexibility, and an astonishing ability to blame everyone else for her own glaring faults.
I think you're spot on. I've made this point over on the Next Prime Minister thread. Constitutionally, Mrs May should remain PM until it becomes clear that someone else can command a majority...
She won't. Tory party before country. That is her premiership in one line.
AFZ
There aren’t many politicians who putvcountry first, party second and self last. There are a few but I bet we’d all be hard pressed to name many. 😢
Possibly, but there is an entire political party that has put its own interests first for over 150 years. The very one that presents itself as the party of patriotism, economic competence, good foreign relations and a sound defence policy.
Sorry, this is my soapbox issue; the incredible success of Tory propaganda such that much of the population believe the above... but:
Economic competence
There is literally no empirical support for this claim. Economic policy since 2010 has been a disaster and GDP/head has been actually static with falling living standards. Economic performance in the 1980s was also poor and the public-sector finances were flattered hugely by North Sea Oil receipts and privatisation receipts. Whether privatisation is correct or not for each sector, you can only sell the assets once and these receipts were included in the annual deficit figures. If you exclude them, the Thatcher government ran unsustainable deficits for most of the time in office. The actual deficits (including privatisation receipts) were larger in real terms than the supposed irresponsibility of Brown pre-2009.... So in reality they were far more irresponsible...
Good foreign relations
This could be a long list but for now let's just put Boris as Foreign Secretary in this box.
Sound defence policy
Let's just put the Falklands in here. I disagree Thatcher on basically everything. However, I do think that she deserves a lot of the plaudits she received for the prosecution of the war both in terms of courage in leadership and strategy.
But, that's only half the story and the first half is never mentioned by those on the right. It was a major strategic blunder by Thatcher that led to the invasion and it could have been avoided altogether - there's a lot of work on this now and how withdrawal of forces from the Southern Atlantic were a key part of 'allowing' the invasion. To be the evidence is compelling that if HM Government have acted earlier, the war would probably never have happened. This makes interesting reading.... So tell me who had the better defense policy: The leader who managed to reclaim the islands at significant human (and financial) cost or the one who five years earlier had deterred an invasion altogether?
I could go on and on.... I stand in awe at the Conservative Party's ability in one area alone: propaganda. I don't think it's surprising that I disagree with them on many issues and policies - my politics are extremely well-known on these boards. However, polling shows that on these issues and others, the view that the Tories are quite good at these things is widely held. And can be demonstrated to be simply untrue.
Hell yes, this is the definition of a Tory; one who puts party before country at all times.
And that's why we had not only a stupid referendum but a stupid referendum conducted in a very stupid way.
It's also why when faced with the herculean challenge of the aftermath of that stupidity, we had a Tory PM who refused to face reality because it would mean facing down her own party...
AFZ
(fixed link - DT)
What a pity that the country can't run away from B the P.
Three incompetent self-serving gobshites in a row must be something of a record, no?
The Conservatives don’t have a majority of 1.
But strangely no one has an issue with Ms Coombs and her golliwog touting ilk.
Anyway, what particular bits of the 40s and 50s would she like to go back to? The Blitz? Rationing? No NHS? Capital punishment?
Actually, forget that last one - she probably thinks it's a good idea.
She reminds me of the guys in their 70s who the gestalt seems to think fought in WW2