It perhaps symbolises the bottom line of a parliamentary election. Aside from the specific policies, personalities and external social, political and economic factors, who seems to be the party likely to deliver capable, steady, confident and competent government?
A typically British attitude might be “I don’t mind who wins, so long as nothing changes”.
Oh, and what does it mean to say that Labour voters are “kestrel-strangling povs”? I assume “povs” are poor people. A kestrel is a kind of falcon, right? Why would poor people be in the habit of strangling kestrels? Why would they even have kestrels? Isn’t falconry a (long-dead) aristocratic pastime?
Not quite dead, but certainly a long way off recovery. Howard is a clear step backwards and will prove to be yet another caretaker leader who achieves nothing. Their dilemma lies in the fact that they have no credible and electable alternative to him.
Storm in a teacup forgotten by Christmas. Politicians of all colours will continue to dance around the issue hoping that someone else will make the first slip. The correct decision; integration all round, will remain some years off.
Doesn’t matter. Ultimately who’s in charge is not up to them.
A problem indeed and an argument for regional English governments. In the meantime, Scotland suffered for long enough at the hands of decisions made by English MPs and the English electorare, maybe it’ll give the English some appreciation of what it was like.
Not acceptable. Fortunately the Lords continue to dig their own grave and cultural progress moves on relentlessly. Each passing year makes their position more obviously ridiculous and the ultimate reform will come. I envisage a second house consisting of politicians and other worthies,sponsored by the Parties, but the public having a veto. A kind of “Big Brother” on a slower and more intellectual (it’s to be hoped!) scale.
The Tories have one fabulous asset. We know that no matter what we do, however much we stink the place out, whoever we piss off, at least 30% of the electorate will vote for us. We know what our bottom line is.
THis will also (IMHO natch) mean that should we introduce policies that will catch the floating voters, the same 30% will still vote for us (we have nowhere else to go)
I would think that the following Tory poicies would do the trick (mixed and matched):
Right to buy for ALL social housing
Patient’s pasports with a guaranteed maximum waiting time for operations.
Make school fees and private medical insurance tax deductable.
Make a case to stand up to the EU
More Police. Better Police. Police that go after the crimes that people care about - eg robbery, not bloody speeding (9 points in three months for god’s sake)
Introduce an element of accountability to the justice system - elect police chiefs and law officials.
Do something (god knows what) about asylum.
With that lot we’d stand a fighting chance.
You’d have to work out how to pay for the extra police and to reduce waiting times in hospitals. I’m not convinced any party can do much with that in a hurry.
I’m also not convinced the Tories have that 30% guaranteed. Sure, Labour may increasingly alienate floating voters, but both parties seem to be losing their traditional “core” to the wavering middle. That 30% may be 25% in the next election and down to 10% for the one after that.
By leaving the CAP. Easy peasy.
Ask me one on sport!
Is this a reference to that book A kestrel for a knave by any chance? It’s been a while, but it’s about this poor child up North somewhere for whom the only ray of sunlight in an otherwise dismal and hopeless existence is that he has trained a kestrel. Then his drunken big brother (Judd?) strangles it one night. I can’t remember why, but probably simply because he lives a drunken, dismal existence too and feels resentful of his little brother having a slight ray of hope.
I can’t say that Judd is viewed as representative of Labour voters though.
As for falconry, it’s not dead, it’s not aristocratic any more, it’s just time-consuming, requires constant dedication and navigating a bureaucratic minefield (laying your hands on a young bird of prey isn’t easy). But it’s not very “Cool Britannia”, “New Britain”, or even “modern, forward-looking, sweeping aside the ashes of the past, boldly stepping into a brave new…”
TONY! Shut the f*** up!
For more information:
Posted by jjimm:
New Zealand has adopted a “mixed-member” system: 60 MPs are elected from districts, and 60 by the straight “party-list” form of PR. Why wouldn’t that work in Britain? It’s simple enough. 300 borough MPs, 300 party-list MPs.
Posted by owlstretchingtime:
???
Why?
“Stand up” about what?
In the States we elect our county sheriffs. I would not recommend that system to anybody. It would be better if our sheriffs were appointed by the county commission and served at its pleasure. Making sheriffs “accountable” to the electorate also makes them politically independent – not what you want in a police force.
???
Yes and the film Kes by Ken Loach which is so ridiculously gritty that it is unintentionally hilarious (and intentionally hilarious whenever Brian Glover is on screen).
It’s the southern stereotype of the northern working class; Flat hats; whippets; brown ale and kestrel strangling. See also Andy Capp.
Social housing is that which is owned by the governement or quasi-official bodies (housing associations) it is typically lived in by the poorest people. I think their called “projects” in the US but I have the impression that standards are higher here.
At present there is a right to buy council houses if you are the tenant - with a a discount which has been reduced from 60% of the price to £16,000.
This was a huge vote grabber for the tories in the eighties.
At present you can’t buy Housing Association properties - extending the right to buy to those properies would have the same vote grabbing potential for those tenants.
And then build more social housing, agreed? If not, where do the unhoused go?
With no spending cuts, agreed?
Still with no spending cuts, agreed?
This is just Mailspeak. Over what?
ie. an increase in police spending? OK, agreed.
Oh Jesus. You have got to be kidding. And the candidate who wants Huntley hanged iiiiis…
Allow immigration comparable with the rest of Europe and the US, with enough social housing and increased healthcare/education to accommodate it all?
Upon preview, you advocate saving money by abolishing farming subsidies? Go owl!
Vote Conservative. The Unthinking’s Choice!
First tell us what Right To Buy has achieved. The positive things, I mean.
A guarantee that will be worth precisely nothing without increased NHS spending.
Now that’s going to help the Heath Service, I don’t think.
Put that in caps and you have yourself a tabloid headline! What exactly means is anyone’s guess. I thought we were part of the EU???
Don’t punish me for breaking the law, punish someone else! Why aren’t you out catching criminals!?
Actually you might have an idea there.
I don’t think you’ll get anyone to disagree with you there. But you’re going to have to be more specific.
I just want to say I don’t think the theme of this OP is as broad as it could be.
I just want to say…my god!! How the hell do you guys keep all this straight?? I thought OUR government was convoluted. We are obviously not in the same league as you guys.
One other thing. I ALSO thought you guys were in the EU. Aren’t you?? What are the main problems for the UK with the EU? I’d think they’d be your natural partners/allies as they are so close. Won’t joining the EU/getting more tightly bound to the EU have huge benifits all around eventually? What role would the UK play if they joined? I would assume a leading role, but maybe I’m wrong on this. Is this sentiment a majority opinion? If so, what DOES the majority want to do if they don’t join the EU?
Sorry for interjecting ignorant American type questions into your thread, but this is SO different from our system its unrecognizable to be honest…and its facinating stuff.
-XT
They are in the EU. They are not in the eurozone.
The UK is in the EU. Consequently there are thousands of politicians, civil servants etc from and in the UK working, administrating and regulating for the EU.
Unfortunately the mind-set in too many UK citizens (and let’s be frank here, I’m meaning the “Little Englanders”) is of the EU being a bunch of foreigners telling us what to do and needing stood up to. They have to be reminded that the EU is us.
The frequent tactic of the UK press to fabricate “Another daft EU regulation!!” stories doesn’t help.
I can’t do multiple quotes. So bear with me please:
Right to buy: What is it good for and why extend it:
If you remember the toe-curling kinnock election broadcast about what the labour party etc had done for him there was a bit about “the first person in my family to go to University” etc. Well, to a lot of families the right to buy meant that they were the first people in their families history to own their own home. That is a good thing. A person with a financial interest is a more demanding person, cares more about their property and so on.
It was also probably the greatest spreading of wealth in the nation’s history. That money will cascade down the generations. Money = choices. These people now have choices. If they spend it all on scratchcards, sunbeds and skydishes - that’s up to them
As to building more social housing - I’m not so sure that it’s a good thing, without the accompanying right to buy.
The NHS and health generally:
Is there anyone who thinks that the way the NHS is currently set up is the best possible way to deliver health care? Or even that it’s the least bad?
Given that it is broke - let’s fix it.
Let’s acknowledge that the private sector has a role to play and encourage it to bid for business. Make the governemnt the commisioning body and let the private sector be the executive arm, or at least a very large part of it.
If people are prudent enougfh to make their own health provision (bupa etc) then they should be rewarded by having a tax concession.
This will save money - so taxes can come down. THis sacred cow has got to go to bovine university*
Much the same should happen to education.
And the EU is not us. It’s them. Social democaratic welfare state expanding high tax and spend countries. That’s not anything I want any part of.
somehow, the headline “Fog on channel, Europe cut off” doesn’t seem so long ago…
Like Britain, then?
I think you only have yourself to blame for this becoming an incredibly broad “Ask the British Conservative” thread, owl.
Britain does not spend enough per capita on health, education, housing and policing compared to the rest of the industrialised world. There is no magic efficiency wand: almost any “broken” aspect *directly relates to underfunding.
Now, the option is to start dismantling the welfare state and becoming more like the US. I do not want to see in Britain the vast legions of homeless and hear horrific stories of selling one’s house to pay for cancer care which I encountered all too often in America.
You can have quality universal care with high taxes, or you can have visible poverty with low taxes. Quality universal care with low taxes are impossible, owl.