Political Crossfire Forums

[Lord Hargreaves]

Conservative Leadership hopeful Dr. Liam Fox recently announced that if he was elected leader he would withdraw Conservative MEP's from the European Peoples' Party (EPP) group. This move comes as the group signed a document affirming its belief in "powerful trade unions, redistributive taxation and a high minimum wage", as well as refusing to rule out a United States of Europe.

This is a good move IMHO for 3 reasons:It sets Fox out as the clear Eurosceptic, and will bring Ken Clarke's dreaded subject - Europe - back to the table. This was no doubt designed to do just that.
Secondly its also as far as I can see the first time someone has actually promised to do something as Tory Leader rather than if they were prime minister. Its a solid, straight forward and attainable goal which compared to Ken Clarke's promises to "change British political culture" seems attainable and real. I think that would be a great plus point.
Thirdly - it is, of course, the right thing to do. While it may be embarrasing to some degree to publically admit in this way that even the conservative EPP group in Europe is not conservative enough for the Brits - its still clearly the way to go for British interests in Europe, and it will excite the base

I am warming to Liam Fox because of the rather brave positions he is taking in this leadership race, especially when compared to the other candidates. I read a piece on the slogans the candidates are going to be using yesterday: David Cameron is apparently going to use "Change to win", Ken Clarke is apparently going to use "Time to Win", and David Davis is apparently going to use "Modern Conservatism". Thank goodness elections aren't won on slogans (unless you talk to Harmonyontheright that is)

And whats Liam Fox's slogan? While these 3 men each sat round a table and came up with these cringingly awful slogans, Liam Fox was calling for 12 week abortion limits, has been unashamed in his support for Iraq, saying we should be "proud of the fact that they are helping to build a democracy in Iraq in the face of extremist forces who are determined to destroy it", has rallied against Tony Blair's "irresponsible reclassification of cannabis", and has been critical of mental health care under New Labour too.

The Message is clear: a vote for Ken Clarke is a vote for.........Ken, while a vote for Liam Fox is now for a coherent set of ideas to address Britain's problems. While DD and KC are most likely to get the 2 largest numbers of supporters to caryy them through to the grassroots (after the rule changes were defeated) - If I was a betting man, i might put my money on Liam. Hes the dark horse and the one to watch, and he is the guy I will support for the leader unless he is knocked out beforehand.

[The Councillor]

you're right the slogans are dreadful but I dont think Harmonyonthe Right was suggesting.

Some of Liam Fox's policy statements are good but being in support of lower abortion, withdrawing the Tories from the EPP and being in support of Iraqi democracy doesn't exactly equal broad appeal nor getting into government.

Im sorry but if the Tory party members are happy being denied power because they believe the party should just be a club that appeals to itself then so be it - with had a very successful record of that so far!

Once the party was broad, that party to be successful needs to be broad and that is why I also back Clarke.

Interesting enough a Labour councillor in Newham has just defected to the Tories and is now supporting Clarke as the man that can bring more LibDem and Labour voters over. That is important, being content flatlining on 30% support for 8 years demonstrates what happens when we appeal to ourselves.

If Lord Hargreaves wants to back Fox because he appeals to him fine, I want someone who appeals to a wider audience to get us in government. Fine talk and small print mean nothing if we do not have the power in the first place

[Lord Hargreaves]

my goodness you're all the same - "we need to be modeeeeeeeerate and more compaaaaaaaaaaaaasionate - conservatism in the Tory Party just puts off the voters"

CONSERVATISM IS DEAD IN THE UK

I've had it. If Clarke is elected leader - i'm leaving the party.

BTW have you prepared the letter to the membership telling them they can f**k off yet? I'll look for it in the mail. In your effort to gain the extra 10% of the population needed to win an election, you're willing to sacrfice the 30% you already have. A great shame, and if you suceed, you'd have finally managed to put the final nail in the coffin of the party.

[HarmonyOnTheRight]

But the councillor is right.

We have flatlined at 30% for far too long now. In 2001 we actually lost votes as a party and only cushioned it by winning back some UKIP/referendum party voters and a small slither of those who were not impressed with Blair's first term. At the same time, we actually lost several million Tory voters who switched to LibDem and didnt vote at all.

In 2005 we only marginally started winning back those extra slithers.

I think there are far too many party members happy having a party that represents just them and their outlook, than there are moderating the ideas, freshening the policy so that we can govern again and attract new voters.

Ask yourself a question, why at the moment are a set of polls showing that women, under-30s, most Tory activists, some ethnic minorities and the public at large more likely to vote tory, only if Clarke leads it.

[Lord Hargreaves]

HarmonyOnTheRight wrote:
Ask yourself a question, why at the moment are a set of polls showing that women, under-30s, most Tory activists, some ethnic minorities and the public at large more likely to vote tory, only if Clarke leads it.

Because Ken Clarke is more attractive to women, under-30s and ethnic minorities? Great - you have a strategy, lets rename ourselves the "Women, under-30s and ethnic minorities Party" and we could be sure to win that entire demographic - yes! - and then power will soon be ours! Then our party can start looking out for women, under-30s and ethnic minorities, we can gain in popularity, and keep on winning election forever. Just imagine the POWER, oh sweet and glorious POWER.

POWER POWER POWER POWER POWER

Then one day, at a conference in our 27th consecutive term, one of the eldest members would recall how we used to be called, of all names, the "Conservative" Party. Oh how the women, under-30s and ethnic minorities chuckled.

[bury]

Quote: I've had it. If Clarke is elected leader - i'm leaving the party.

God forbid the conservatives actually choose a leader popular with the public. Unthinkable!

[Ssushi]

There was a debate last night on the TV and the subject of the Cons leadership was discussed. I found it strange that on the one hand the Labour were clearly perceived as being right of centre, and the other Con. supporters couldn't understand that they were now with the wrong political party... Why don't you Cons simply change party support to the party which has successfully implemented Thatcherism?

Currently the Tories are simply knackered. They have has their political position stolen by New Labour and there's no-where for them to successfully challenge Labour from. If they move further right, they'll not get the masses to follow them. If they move further left they become old Labour. If they stay centre right, they have more or less the same political stance as Labour, only Labour have demonstrated that overall (and lets be fair, success is measured on balance and not on individual issues) they have delivered.

The Tories are knackered until such time that Labour screw things up.

[Lord Hargreaves]

bury wrote: Quote: I've had it. If Clarke is elected leader - i'm leaving the party.

God forbid the conservatives actually choose a leader popular with the public. Unthinkable!

David Beckham is popular with the public, yet strangely I don't want him to lead the party either...... :think:

[Lord Hargreaves]

Ssushi wrote: There was a debate last night on the TV and the subject of the Cons leadership was discussed. I found it strange that on the one hand the Labour were clearly perceived as being right of centre, and the other Con. supporters couldn't understand that they were now with the wrong political party... Why don't you Cons simply change party support to the party which has successfully implemented Thatcherism?

Blair = Thatcherism?!? :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

But I think you have a point when you say some conservatives are in the wrong party, since people like Councilor and harmonyontheright seem obsessed with the notion that elections can only be won in New Labour territory. They present their new modern-diverse-multiculti party as New Labour Lite, and then seem stunned when I reject it.

Ssushi wrote: Currently the Tories are simply knackered.
They aren't knackered in the sense that they have no energy - they have plenty of energy - its rather that they can't decide on ideas and where to go. This moderate vs right wing debate has taken place in the party since Thatcher left is still going strong - as you can see even from the Tory infighting on this forum - and I can't see an end in sight. While we squabble amongst ourselves, the public looks on, and that should be of grave concern to us.

Ssushi wrote: They have has their political position stolen by New Labour and there's no-where for them to successfully challenge Labour from. If they move further right, they'll not get the masses to follow them. If they move further left they become old Labour. If they stay centre right, they have more or less the same political stance as Labour,
As I already commented, its patently absurd and bordering on insane to think that New Labour has stolen the Conservative ground - any basic knowledge of the way public services or crime is run, and you'd see the huge casam of difference.

The argument, rather, is whether we should "moderate" to New Labour ground, stay where we are, or redefine ourselves further right. I don't know how the public would react to a - get this for novelty - right wing Conservative Party, since it seems clearer every day to be that conservatism is dead in the UK. Yet to move into New Labour style-territory, which Ken Clarke and others at least to me appear to be doing, that would be a far, far greater mistake. If the Tories yet again try to remodel themselves as being better than New Labour at "managering" New Labour-ism like they did in the last election, they will eventually loose all identity and be permanently crushed under Brown's big boots.

Ssushi wrote: only Labour have demonstrated that overall (and lets be fair, success is measured on balance and not on individual issues) they have delivered.

:ah: pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease

Ssushi wrote: The Tories are knackered until such time that Labour screw things up.

Thats the BBC style version of events, and I ain't buying it. Don't know what to do about it yet, but still, I ain't buying it.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: my goodness you're all the same - "we need to be modeeeeeeeerate and more compaaaaaaaaaaaaasionate - conservatism in the Tory Party just puts off the voters"

CONSERVATISM IS DEAD IN THE UK

I've had it. If Clarke is elected leader - i'm leaving the party.

BTW have you prepared the letter to the membership telling them they can f**k off yet? I'll look for it in the mail. In your effort to gain the extra 10% of the population needed to win an election, you're willing to sacrfice the 30% you already have. A great shame, and if you suceed, you'd have finally managed to put the final nail in the coffin of the party. \

Good only took 200 years about time it died.
Now to bring the liberal party back so people in this country can have a sane choice.

[Lord Hargreaves]

thefranzkafkafront wrote:

Good only took 200 years about time it died.
Now to bring the liberal party back so people in this country can have a sane choice.

You mean liberal as in libertarian?

Better than what we have at the moment I suppose :roll:

[Lord Hargreaves]

By the way, there is a new poll out showing the sheeple change their mind on their favourite Tory leadership candidate when ideas are presented with the picture: behold the linkage

What say you Clarke hussies?

[thefranzkafkafront]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:

Good only took 200 years about time it died.
Now to bring the liberal party back so people in this country can have a sane choice.

You mean liberal as in libertarian?

Better than what we have at the moment I suppose :roll:

Liberal has allways meaned libertarian, its just libertarain is the word liberals have to use becuase the radical left has knicked it and the jingoists can't be botherd to look up what it actually means.

[Snow Patrol]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:

Good only took 200 years about time it died.
Now to bring the liberal party back so people in this country can have a sane choice.

You mean liberal as in libertarian?

Better than what we have at the moment I suppose :roll:

Liberal has allways meaned libertarian, its just libertarain is the word liberals have to use becuase the radical left has knicked it and the jingoists can't be botherd to look up what it actually means.
Radical left my arse, it's used as a blanket term for almost anything non-conservative.

[Ssushi]

The reality LHG is that the Tories have little electoral chance in the next election... They currently have no place in the political landscape as they have no position of opposition... The last two leaders of the Tories have proved this; they fight elections on the premise of individual issues and not the big picture: i.e. 'The war in Iraq was wrong' or ' we need to stop immigrants coming into the country' (one issue per election, maybe they should get another female leader as women as better at multi-tasking :lol: ).

This simply does not give them any political leverage on Labour. Who can quote statistics on issues such as investment in the health service (run down by the Tories and brought up under Labour). On this issue you can talk all day about how inefficient the health service is, it doesn't matter as Tony Blair can easily counter by stating that he's addressing the efficiency but has in fact pumped huge $$ into it.

We have a stable economy and are in fact doing very nicely in these terms atm. The only significant issue which Labour have failed (in my humble opinion) is that of society. Britain continues to spiral downwards in a US following trend in this regard. The ground work was set by Thatcher and has not been addressed. Incidentally, I firmly believe that Thatcher paved the way for New Labour reforms by addressing the Unionised manner in which the country used to be run...

[thefranzkafkafront]

Snow Patrol wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:

Good only took 200 years about time it died.
Now to bring the liberal party back so people in this country can have a sane choice.

You mean liberal as in libertarian?

Better than what we have at the moment I suppose :roll:

Liberal has allways meaned libertarian, its just libertarain is the word liberals have to use becuase the radical left has knicked it and the jingoists can't be botherd to look up what it actually means.
Radical left my arse, it's used as a blanket term for almost anything non-conservative.

Thats true, i've seen plenty of posts by 'certain people' in p+g, where simply disagreeing with them earns you the title of liberal.

Its the misuse and complete ignorance of the actual theory gets my back up somthing chronic though.

[The Councillor]

The only Tory infighting around that Lord Hargreaves talks about is with himself. Debate about the future leader is not infighting.

In fact harmonyonthe riight seems to be suggesting how a party might win and if I get the jist it is about winning the under25s, BME and women ontop of the existing base - as polls may suggest.

I have to say I am disappointed by the pure emotion of Lord Hargreaves and the offensiveness of some of the words used. I think that is why a lot of people are put of voting for the kind of Tory that he seemingly represents - the slightly foaming at the mouth.

[Lord Hargreaves]

The Councillor wrote: The only Tory infighting around that Lord Hargreaves talks about is with himself. Debate about the future leader is not infighting.

Yes, but a leader is not just the pretty face you put on posters, it also means the general direction the party is going in. If you look at the speeches and the websites of the contenders, you will see they are setting out alternative visions for what they would do once they were PM - and its these as well as their charasma that we must take into account.

The Councillor wrote: In fact harmonyonthe riight seems to be suggesting how a party might win and if I get the jist it is about winning the under25s, BME and women ontop of the existing base - as polls may suggest.

I know what he was suggesting, and I was trying to get across my feeling that aiming for particular demographics seems really fake and cliched, because we're not a party of any demographic, we're a party for conservatives.

The Councillor wrote: I have to say I am disappointed by the pure emotion of Lord Hargreaves and the offensiveness of some of the words used. I think that is why a lot of people are put of voting for the kind of Tory that he seemingly represents - the slightly foaming at the mouth.

Hey, this is me - especially when I get desperate about "my" party and its direction and thus the future of my great country (I mean Britain not Europe by the way - you can't be totally sure with Clarke supporters). You can start plotting schemes for gaining power as much as you like - and good for you, hopefully the party can win soon - but you'll always have guys like me on your backs, hounding you so you don't forget the actual reason we want power in the first place.

[HarmonyOnTheRight]

I think Hargreaves and councillor are both right but that is what governing under conservatism needs to be about - a compromising tooing and froing of a politics that is generally on the same wing. Let's be honest we have all allied ourselves to the Conservative Party

[bury]

Quote: but you'll always have guys like me on your backs, hounding you so you don't forget the actual reason we want power in the first place.

There's the problem. The conservatives have to appease the right-wing grass roots and reach out to a liberal public. It can't be done.

On related point Malcolm Rifkind declared today that the conservatives should not appear right wing and should be more compassionate. I think its fair to say he's out of the running as leader