[tahir]

Agree, but they've had some appalling leaders recently and howard hasn't managed to get the popular vote either, they need stability but they also need a charismatic leader

[jema]

I think they are fairly stuffed, the only type of Tory party that would be electable is the more Heathite sort of one nation toryism, but Blair has occupied that ground.
So the Tories are left jumping on bandwagons, until people get sick to death of Labour I think they therefore stand no chance.

Not that i'm crying about it

[tahir]

I think he'd look better in dreads

[Andy B]

You already pay once, you have got no choice and god help you if you get ill, if you want fixing quickly you will probably end up going private anyway, again you wont have much choice!

[sean]

You already pay once, you have got no choice and god help you if you get ill, if you want fixing quickly you will probably end up going private anyway, again you wont have much choice!

[tahir]

Very true

[bagpuss]

The private heath service only works because they can pick and choose acute non emergency and elective cases and as such delivery a response quickly

If you develop a chronic condition or have a chronic condition before you start they can refuse to treat you while the health service qill treat anyone and everyone

the NHS does need improving with more staff and more money for equipment and new treatments but it is one of the things I am very proud that we have and I for one would not want it any other way

I will point out here though that I do have a vested interest in the NHS as without it I would be paying out upwards of £100 every few weeks for insulin

[bagpuss]

I think the only circumstance I would vote tory is if it was vote tory or let a party such as the BNP get in. Thankfully that is very unlikely to happen

[boff]

And dont forget that when they do screw up in the operating room they deal with it by taking the patient to the nearest A&E dept !!!

[judith]

Widdecombe?
Well, at least she has hair

[tahir]

And dont forget that when they do screw up in the operating room they deal with it by taking the patient to the nearest A&E dept !!!

[Jonnyboy]

David Davies would be my bet.

I think that Michael Howard did a good job. He worked hard to stop the infighting and gathered the party around him. He was an effective questioner of TB at PM Q's and a good communicator to the public.

He's left the party in a better position than it was, by leaving now he gives the party a chance to decide on it's direction rather than mistakingly thinking that 'one big push' will get it into power in it's current form.

Our political system needs effective opposition, Since 1997 the Conservative party failed to meet that role despite having an easy target in their sights, Howard went someway to redress that.

On the whole he was a good interim party leader, which in hindsight is probably all he wanted to be.

It's daft for anyone to crow over his resignation, his position was universally seen as secure.

[Andy B]

David Davies would be my bet.

I think that Michael Howard did a good job. He worked hard to stop the infighting and gathered the party around him. He was an effective questioner of TB at PM Q's and a good communicator to the public.

He's left the party in a better position than it was, by leaving now he gives the party a chance to decide on it's direction rather than mistakingly thinking that 'one big push' will get it into power in it's current form.

Our political system needs effective opposition, Since 1997 the Conservative party failed to meet that role despite having an easy target in their sights, Howard went someway to redress that.

On the whole he was a good interim party leader, which in hindsight is probably all he wanted to be.

It's daft for anyone to crow over his resignation, his position was universally seen as secure.

[Jonnyboy]

David Davies would be my bet.

I think that Michael Howard did a good job. He worked hard to stop the infighting and gathered the party around him. He was an effective questioner of TB at PM Q's and a good communicator to the public.

He's left the party in a better position than it was, by leaving now he gives the party a chance to decide on it's direction rather than mistakingly thinking that 'one big push' will get it into power in it's current form.

Our political system needs effective opposition, Since 1997 the Conservative party failed to meet that role despite having an easy target in their sights, Howard went someway to redress that.

On the whole he was a good interim party leader, which in hindsight is probably all he wanted to be.

It's daft for anyone to crow over his resignation, his position was universally seen as secure.

[judith]

Well it doesn't bother me at all, but it probably isn't what the Tory party needs.

[Jonnyboy]

That doesn't say much for our electorate, Brown is seen as a better PM in waiting than TB is, and he has little charisma.

I would hope that the voters would go for ability over personality.

[jema]

That doesn't say much for our electorate, Brown is seen as a better PM in waiting than TB is, and he has little charisma.

I would hope that the voters would go for ability over personality.

[tahir]

Just doesn't happen, Blair was much more convincing than Kinnock, Thatcher was the sort of leader that really got people motivated, pure personality.

[judith]

There is a difference between BEING a personality and HAVING a personality!

[cab]

I'm not planning to crow over it, but I'm a bit bemused by it.

John Major was seen, when he was appointed, as an interrim leader. He scraped thgough in '92 with a wafer thin majority that got even thinner as Tories started dying all around him (there were a LOT of by elections in that parliament, and the Tories seemed to lose all of them). It surprised everyone that he won in '92.

Hague was clearly someone there to keep the party ticking over till they could find a real leader; no one expected him to do well, he didn't disappoint.

IDS... I can't for the life of me imagine what the Tories were thinking.

Howard just seemed to be the best of a bad lot when he came to power, and then he made it quite clear that he was actually worse than the others. Drumming up racial troubles, making a fool of himself in hospitals, etc. He's brought the Tories to being within a gnats whisker of being credible, but here's the crunch; Genghis Khan could have beaten the current Labour Party. Billy the Fish would have been a more effective against the Labour party. You could have put a barbie doll in charge of the Tories and they'd have walked a comfortable majority in this election. Of all of the soft targets in thie history of Democracy, none come close to being as soft as the current Blair government. And Howard couldn't crack it.

History will judge that he failed.

[cab]

Skinner retired didn't he? Shame, 'cos Skinner versus Johnson at PMQ's would be marvellous.

[Bernie66]

We are talking about a political party here remember

[boff]

thats the politicians out then..

[Bugs]

So, not a politician then?

Bob Flowerdew for PM, I say.

[tahir]

I'd vote for him

[Bernie66]

Green yes, can't bring myself to say lefty with a straght face looking at Bliar etc

[Andy B]

I'm not planning to crow over it, but I'm a bit bemused by it.

John Major was seen, when he was appointed, as an interrim leader. He scraped thgough in '92 with a wafer thin majority that got even thinner as Tories started dying all around him (there were a LOT of by elections in that parliament, and the Tories seemed to lose all of them). It surprised everyone that he won in '92.

Hague was clearly someone there to keep the party ticking over till they could find a real leader; no one expected him to do well, he didn't disappoint.

IDS... I can't for the life of me imagine what the Tories were thinking.

Howard just seemed to be the best of a bad lot when he came to power, and then he made it quite clear that he was actually worse than the others. Drumming up racial troubles, making a fool of himself in hospitals, etc. He's brought the Tories to being within a gnats whisker of being credible, but here's the crunch; Genghis Khan could have beaten the current Labour Party. Billy the Fish would have been a more effective against the Labour party. You could have put a barbie doll in charge of the Tories and they'd have walked a comfortable majority in this election. Of all of the soft targets in thie history of Democracy, none come close to being as soft as the current Blair government. And Howard couldn't crack it.

History will judge that he failed.

[Jonnyboy]

That's just a subjective opinion, by your own argument Major would have been a far easier target and yet he still won.

I would consider it presumptuous to assume how this will be seen in the future.

[judith]

But isn't that a perfectly rational reason for maintaining the status quo?

[Guest]

Green yes, can't bring myself to say lefty with a straght face looking at Bliar etc

[Andy B]

But isn't that a perfectly rational reason for maintaining the status quo?

[Northern_Lad]

Ah, but you can't privatise, nationalise, PFI or PPP it. Nor will it emigrate or imigrate, be subject to an ASBO, be pro- or anti-war. It uses neither public nor private transport, doesn't support or oppose anyone and it doesn't have MRSA. In a political terms it simple does not exist.

[cab]

I thought immediately in 1992 that the election would be viewed as one Labour lost, rather than one the Tories won. I still tend to think that it's viewed that way.

And indeed, it's always presumptious guessing how the future will judge people. I know that. So call me presumptious; I think Howard will be remembered as a failure. Couldn't even kick Blair when he was down.

[Jonnyboy]

Nah, that doesn't cut it. Any and every commentator was saying that the Iraq war wouldn't impact the polls. It impacted Blair's rating but the overall labour party support was largely unaffected.

Brown was wheeled out for precisely that reason. It's plain that Howard has taken the conservatives forward, especially considering the state they were in when he took over the reigns.

Now Kinnock, he had no excuse for losing, not even being Welsh and ginger.

[Silas]

I don't think he has taken them forward so much as stopped the decline. His share of the vote was pretty much the same as last time, the liberals splitting the votes helped him a lot.

There is no doubt that his scare tactics on immigration helped him. My Mil and FIL have been life long labour supportes, but are from that age where they do not see racism as it really is. For the first time in their lives they voted tory, my FIL said it made him feel almost physically sick, but he was worried about the 'floods of immigrants and assylum seeker'

So there we are.

[cab]

I don't believe that for a minute; the way that the Libs have taken so many seats from Labour is testament to that. Our local ex-MP blames the war for her loss entirely; she has a point.

[cab]

So ageism is allright then?

I don't believe that people get racist (or gullible, or susceptible to racism) as they get older. I've seen too many people mellow rather than harden as they age.

The Idiot Howard has done a good job of quietly playing the race/immigration issue for all its worth. That's a damned good reason why the Tory party ought to move on from him as soon as possible.

Just a shame they're so short of good candidates for leadership. Widdacombe anyone?

[Silas]

So ageism is allright then?

I don't believe that people get racist (or gullible, or susceptible to racism) as they get older. I've seen too many people mellow rather than harden as they age.

The Idiot Howard has done a good job of quietly playing the race/immigration issue for all its worth. That's a damned good reason why the Tory party ought to move on from him as soon as possible.

Just a shame they're so short of good candidates for leadership. Widdacombe anyone?

[cab]

You see, most of the people of that age group who I've talked to on this subject lament the loss of the terminology without ever lamenting the fact that people of different ethnicities are now treated more fairly. My father (80), for example, is happy to deal with Asians, treats them as he does anyone else because he's genuinely not bothered what peoples skin looks like, but he's somewhat at a loss to come up with a terminology that might not be considered offensive in our 'enlightened' age.

Not so many people who are older are genuinely racist; many of them are 'politically incorrect'. In my opinion, political correctness doesn't often aid in combatting racism when applied to older people.

[auote] Nothing deliberate, just ignorant indoctrination. My FIL is a very nice bloke actually, and does not seem himself as racist in any way. But he is, and we almost ruines a holiday a few years ago when arguing the point.[/quote]

With respect, that's your FIL; and drawing a conclusion from a subset (as you're doing) is displaying prejudice.

But never mind, we're getting off-topic here.

[jema]

This is quite a good point, but one with many gray areas (no pun intended) age should not be seen as a barrier to people being educatable in attitude.
Whilst some sensitiviy is needed, just because someone who is 80 was once living in a world where P*k* was an acceptable term and not seen as particularily racist, is no reason not to challenge them on using the term in this day and age.
For old people to lead a good life, they must do it in a modern more racially enlightened society, it will do them a favour to push them to change. My FIL managed this sort of change with a bit of pushing and I think it did him a lot of good. Not least in his final months in hospital with a largely ethnic nursing staff.

[Jonnyboy]

So why didn't the liberals take seats from the conservatives, their decapitation strategy was a failure. Plus the conservatives took seats from labour.

[moogie]

I'd have preferred to vote for Sooty than any of the candidates that actually stood. Or Sweep or Sue.

[cab]

The tories took seats from Labour because Labour are very, very unpopular, for a ruling party. The libs failed to take seats from the Tories because, in those seats, people voted Tory in greater numbers to keep the Liberals (more likely to side with Labour, and more likely to reduce any Tory majority) out; I also strongly feel that the negative 'decapitation' strategy stung more Tories into voting. I think that really, really backfired on the Liberals.

[cab]

A lot of employers have equal opportunities policies thattry to ensure representation of minorities in the workplace, but that's VERY different to policies that deal with racism in the workplace.

[cab]

You're not the first person to tell me that, and people have told me that all my life. But I've also dealt with people from all sorts of backgrounds over the years, and while I've only met a couple of people who were dumb enough to actuallt believe that I've met dozens who assumed that everyone else thought that. Paradoxical.

[Andy B]

A policeman that i know has recently had to deal with 4 assault cases 3 of whites against asians 1 of asians against whites, unrelated. The first 3 were dealt with as race related the latter as pure assault. All four attacks took place within 50 yards of each other over a 2 week period. Despite the fact that as far as he could see it all the cases stemed from a bit too much drink all three asians insisted that they were the victims of racism. The white lad didn't. If the police are told their is racism involved they have to deal with it more seriously. Should they all be dealt with as assault, or all dealt with as racism.

[cab]

So some of the victims believed that the assaults were racial in motive, and one didn't. The police followed up the suspicions of those who thought they were the victim of racially motivated crime.

What's wrong with any of that?

Doesn't matter one iota what colour these guys were, what the Police are doing there seems fine.

[Andy B]

So some of the victims believed that the assaults were racial in motive, and one didn't. The police followed up the suspicions of those who thought they were the victim of racially motivated crime.

What's wrong with any of that?

Doesn't matter one iota what colour these guys were, what the Police are doing there seems fine.

[jema]

I really don't know what point you are trying to make, it sounds like you are saying that some assaults blamed on racism are not actually racist, or are at any rate more complex than that.
So therefore racism should not be considered as a factor in assualt
Is that what you are saying? People who are victims of racist assaults would I am sure not agree.

[Andy B]

I really don't know what point you are trying to make, it sounds like you are saying that some assaults blamed on racism are not actually racist, or are at any rate more complex than that.
So therefore racism should not be considered as a factor in assualt
Is that what you are saying? People who are victims of racist assaults would I am sure not agree.

[cab]

And? You're saying that the issues are complex and that sometimes people are right when they say that an assault is racist in motivation and sometimes they're wrong? Where are you going with this?

[cab]

I submit to you that the above statement is cobblers; any Police force is obliged to look at comments that a crime might be racially motivated, whichever colour the victims or attackers may be. I have seen no evidence at any time that the Police treat white victims of assault worse than black victims; if anything, the changes in the Police force to combat 'institutional racism' demonstrate the reverse.

[Andy B]

And? You're saying that the issues are complex and that sometimes people are right when they say that an assault is racist in motivation and sometimes they're wrong? Where are you going with this?

[moogie]

A lot of employers have equal opportunities policies thattry to ensure representation of minorities in the workplace, but that's VERY different to policies that deal with racism in the workplace.