Self Destruct

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave J:
so Portillo's rebranding himself to be ready after Howard f*cks up, which is inevitable. Portillo's simply decided to out-Blair Blair.

---

Yeah, so is he now to be trusted or is he really plotting a fascist takeover when he's in?

quote:

---

Yeah, so is he now to be trusted or is he really plotting a fascist takeover when he's in?

---

No, he's absolutely not to be trusted. He's a politician!

Been there done it.

Graham Ricketts

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
If you have to go back 24 years to find a bad example I think you make my point for me. Thank you. I won't debate the economic illiteracy.

---

I'll assume that was addressed to me. In which case...

You spoke about the Tories needing to "invent" spinning via slogan. It's pretty clear they mastered deceptive slogans a long time ago. That's not making your point at all, Paul. It's contradicting it.

As for "economic illiteracy," we'll do the maths (I'll go slowly for you, Paul):
Approximately 1,000,000 unemployed when the Tories were elected.
Approximately 3,000,000 unemployed under the Tory government.
3,000,000 - 1,000,000 = 2,000,000.

So however you want to spin it, that's an increase in two million under a political party that campaigned with the slogan Labour Isn't Working.

'Need to start inventing' was what I wrote. You and Matthew may be living in the past but it's the 'Gordon and Tony wasting billions of pounds of public funds' government that is the matter of immediate moment.

It's really really stupid to be associating '3 million unemployed' with an individual politician, party or even government. Life is more complicated than that.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
'Need to start inventing' was what I wrote.

---

That's gibberish. The word "inventing" as you apparently mean it is either superfluous or wrong.

quote:

---

It's really really stupid to be associating '3 million unemployed' with an individual politician, party or even government. Life is more complicated than that.

---

The charges of "economic illiteracy" and being "really really stupid" are simply infantile name-calling unless you intend to back them up. Do you?

Davie

Ladies night at the Tory club must be like this

What I want to know, is how long will it take for the Liberal Democrats to be finally acknowledged as the official opposition? If Michael Howard is going to take over, it can't be very long
They don't have a clue, do they!

quote:

---

That's gibberish. The word "inventing" as you apparently mean it is either superfluous or wrong.

---

You think these snappy straw men fall fully formed from the clouds?

quote:

---

The charges of "economic illiteracy" and being "really really stupid" are simply infantile name-calling unless you intend to back them up. Do you?

---

Well, if you can justify your claim I might have to. But since you have not I don't see any point in starting.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
You think these snappy straw men fall fully formed from the clouds?

---

What? I think it may be time for your medication.

quote:

---

Well, if you can justify your claim I might have to. But since you have not I don't see any point in starting.

---

You already started, Paul. You just don't have the bottle to continue.

Well, I think it's unarguable that the Tories presided over a sustained period of mass unemployment, and very hard to argue against the perception that in some industries (steel, coal-mining, etc), major job cuts were government policy, and that significant cuts in public spending were a stated aim of Tory policy (even if not ultimately achieved). If anyone wants to argue that these policies were necessary to the future long-term health of the economy, that's one thing, but it's quite another to deny the Tories' responsibility for what happened under the Thatcher and Major governments. After all, it's the main reason why they are basically unelectable today, despite the failures of Blairism. Economics is obviously more complex than "Toryism = unemployment", and I suspect mass unemployment would have been a fact of life if Thatcher had never been PM (oh, happy thought), but if the Tories want to claim the "success" of modernising the economy, then they should expect to be blamed for the failures of that project as well, even if ultimately much of the economic cycle is outside the direct control of individual governments.

-- Ian

It's a pity that so many people who talk talk talk talk so-called politics can't be arsed voting when the times comes around, and our Oh so luvvly lads are gettin blown away for that very freedom ?
Fritz Innit.

Thatcher is Hitleresque, she spoke a great truism once though in that Nuclear Weapons cannot be dis-invented? Dennis was a good bloke though, What a Star³

Graham Ricketts

quote:

---

You just don't have the bottle to continue

---

I don't see any point in trying to discuss it with you. Your assertion that the Conservative governments of the 80s and 90s itself put 2 million people out of work and that this was somehow deliberate or avoidable is ridiculous.

Read Ian's message above.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
I don't see any point in trying to discuss it with you.

---

But you haven't tried, Paul. You've indulged in name-calling from a safe distance, and run for cover when challenged.

Just a reminder, as you seem unable to stay on topic: the debate was about spin. I quite understand how you don't want to expose your inadequacies in public - especially as the message you urged me to read backs up what I said about deceptive slogans.

There's no shame in admitting you were wrong. There is shame in cowardice.

Gentlemen, gentlemen, bitching will get you's nowhere, but it's nice innit. Now
these guys are real Poltical hero's as far as I'm concerned
http://rorypecktrust.org/ I expect you're both aware of the hype ? Democracy and
all that, I personally woted for Kennedy in my last electoral right (Now I'm not
allowed to cos ov my European Status) but remeber silence & peace are seperate
entities (twisting away).
Tschuß, Fritz (Durin the War)

Just avin a bit of unplugged ERic "Layla" ee ain't complainin.

Graham Ricketts

I must admit though Bhoyo, I do actually agree with Tom, I'm afraid you're slightly out of your league on this one, and Paul with respect you must think
before you type innit, I don't.
Cheers, Fritz

Graham Ricketts

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
I must admit though Bhoyo, I do actually agree with Tom, I'm afraid you're slightly out of your league on this one

---

Eh? I must have missed where Tom said that.

quote:

---

the debate was about spin.

---

And I was suggesting that the Conservatives need a few more catchy slogans. It's better if they have an element of truth (Labour isn't working) rather than being plain wrong (removed the automatic right to silence) and your assertion that the government put 2000000 people out of work in the early 80s.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by garyi:
So IDS is out.

Quite a dignified exit, he should be appluaded for that.

Have the tories insured they won't win the next election?

---

Missed all this whilst away. Returning to the original post...I could not see the tories winning the next election with IDS. So it appears that Howard will become leader of the tories - I still do not see the tories winning the next election unless he (Howard) has had a massive charisma insertion operation.

Looks like a third term for Blair - God help us all as he continues to dismember this country.

Cheers

Mike

Paul said "rather than being plain wrong (removed the automatic right to silence)"

Ok, to be more accurate, I should have said Howard was the home secretary who effectively removed the right to silence by allowing the prosecution to make negative inferences from a defendents refusal to speak rather than proving their case.

If he had remained in power he also had plans to introduce compulsory ID cards and to curtail the right to jury trials. Who knows given enough time he might well have got around to allowing detention without trial on unspecified charges.

My point was really that your original claim that Howard refused to pass populist measures becuase he feared an erosion of civil liberites was absurd given how his record shows precisely the opposite. To claim he is anything other than extremely illiberal is just "plain wrong".


Matthew

I'd like to see a more liberal/libertarian government. I voted for Blair in 1997 because I believed that their closer allegiance to all things Europen would make them more liberal and respectful to individuals' rights to privacy and justice.

How I was wrong. I think the current government leans ever closer to totalitarianism.

Howard set an authoritarian trend, and the Blair govenment has only followed his example.

I also hoped that they would operate in a more transparent fashion given their desire to combat "sleaze."

The opposite has happened. They cynically manipulate the right-wing media as their glove puppets to enable them to push through policies that really stink (by allowing leaks that the above pounce upon, only to announce a more relatively watered-down version to Parliament later that is so palatable by comparison with the speculation that went before that it is unopposed at the crucial parliamentary level) and they make use of the same media to dish dirt on anyone who doesn't tow their line, or anyone, including ordinary individuals with a grievance (Hatfield.)

If I genuinely believed that they had the nation's interests at heart, and not just those of the Inner Party then I'd be happy.

For this reason, I have an enormous amount of respect for the likes of Tony Benn and Clare Short - I don't agree entirely with their socio-political views, but I respect their honesty and integrity.

The Blair/Brown/Prescott axis has not a shed of these requisite qualites, imho - they are the epitome of vulgar Champagne Socialism.

And then there is the forked-tongue approach to immigration issues - say they'll tackle the problem and at the same time increase their electoral base for the future by letting anyone and everyone in, and later offer them citizenship (plus trinkets and ceremonies) when they've evaded every possible channel of deportation.

Regards,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on SUNDAY 02 November 2003 at 06:37.]

quote:

---

My point was really that your original claim that Howard refused to pass populist measures becuase he feared an erosion of civil liberites was absurd given how his record shows precisely the opposite.

---

It was just once, heard in a radio interview, many years ago.

I think your interpretation of the 'right to silence', then and now, is wrong. I found http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2000-May/010002.html quite interesting.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
And I was suggesting that the Conservatives need a few more catchy slogans

---

They seem to have lost the knack. Saatchi & Thaatchi mastered the black art of political propaganda in 1979. But Th**cher quickly became the most unpopular prime minister in British history (that's what the polls said in 1981-82), largely because of high unemployment. She didn't need catchy slogans to get re-elected. Instead, a vote-grabbing problem in the South Atlantic landed in her lap. Pure coincidence, of course.