FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Tories in Opposition
Tories in Opposition
Jump to: Newest in thread
Tory voters got a lot of stick in the forums in the months leading up to the election. Some justified, so not so.
So are you enjoying your time in opposition, watching the Labour faithful trying to defend their heroes like you did a year ago? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Tory voters got a lot of stick in the forums in the months leading up to the election. Some justified, so not so.
So are you enjoying your time in opposition, watching the Labour faithful trying to defend their heroes like you did a year ago? "
It's the same shit show, just a different colour |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Tory voters got a lot of stick in the forums in the months leading up to the election. Some justified, so not so.
So are you enjoying your time in opposition, watching the Labour faithful trying to defend their heroes like you did a year ago?
It's the same shit show, just a different colour "
I can agree with that.
Been a conservative voter all my life but I thought after David Cameron, they were piss poor at best.
Teresa May was ok but the wrong person at the time.
BoJo was just a buffoon
Liz Trust was just a bad choice and never really got chance to prove people wrong
Sunak was a great orator but not much more than that. Charismatic but too much style over substance.
And now we have the muppet show. If I didn’t know better (actually do
I know better or am I just hoping) I’d say their goal is to make things so bad that they just can't be fixed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Tory voters got a lot of stick in the forums in the months leading up to the election. Some justified, so not so.
So are you enjoying your time in opposition, watching the Labour faithful trying to defend their heroes like you did a year ago?
It's the same shit show, just a different colour
I can agree with that.
Been a conservative voter all my life but I thought after David Cameron, they were piss poor at best.
Teresa May was ok but the wrong person at the time.
BoJo was just a buffoon
Liz Trust was just a bad choice and never really got chance to prove people wrong
Sunak was a great orator but not much more than that. Charismatic but too much style over substance.
And now we have the muppet show. If I didn’t know better (actually do
I know better or am I just hoping) I’d say their goal is to make things so bad that they just can't be fixed "
I don't vote anymore and have come to the conclusion it doesn't matter who you vote for. All parties are puppets serving their paymasters, the real genuine politicians will never get their hands anywhere near the levers of power. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *otMe66Man 7 days ago
Terra Firma |
"I do laugh at the tory voter though, who even 14 years into Tory governments would bring up the Blair government as the cause of the problems, but now expect Labour to fix things in a year."
We shouldn't expect problems to disappear because we have a new government. However, what we should expect is the sitting government not make the problems worse or create problems that are going to be an issue for years to come.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the thread title is an oxymoron written by a mournful optomist to explain the deafening silence from CCHQ policy makers.  "
The only moron here is…. Yeah you guess it, what do we have for him Jonny |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the thread title is an oxymoron written by a mournful optomist to explain the deafening silence from CCHQ policy makers.
The only moron here is…. Yeah you guess it, what do we have for him Jonny "
the OP?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 7 days ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"the thread title is an oxymoron written by a mournful optomist to explain the deafening silence from CCHQ policy makers. "
This is it….. the official opposition’s policy position at the moment is that they officially have no policies themselves….. just to oppose everything!
So you get position like in both of the trade deal statements (the US and the EU) and the Isreal statement yesterday, where you have their front benchers saying one thing… and their backbenchers saying something completely different! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the thread title is an oxymoron written by a mournful optomist to explain the deafening silence from CCHQ policy makers."
"This is it….. the official opposition’s policy position at the moment is that they officially have no policies themselves….. just to oppose everything!"
I distinctly remember 2 years ago that Labour supporters were saying that you couldn't possibly expect their party to define any policies so far away from the election.
"So you get position like in both of the trade deal statements (the US and the EU) and the Isreal statement yesterday, where you have their front benchers saying one thing… and their backbenchers saying something completely different!"
You mean exactly like the party that's in government? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the thread title is an oxymoron written by a mournful optomist to explain the deafening silence from CCHQ policy makers.
This is it….. the official opposition’s policy position at the moment is that they officially have no policies themselves….. just to oppose everything!
So you get position like in both of the trade deal statements (the US and the EU) and the Isreal statement yesterday, where you have their front benchers saying one thing… and their backbenchers saying something completely different! "
the front benchers are conflicting with each other.... mel stride was saying the opposite to Bad Enoch in separate interviews 45mins apart this afternoon .... i think it's safe to say that the torys are going from weakness to weakness and they'll disappear up their own existance in two or three years |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the thread title is an oxymoron written by a mournful optomist to explain the deafening silence from CCHQ policy makers.
This is it….. the official opposition’s policy position at the moment is that they officially have no policies themselves….. just to oppose everything!
So you get position like in both of the trade deal statements (the US and the EU) and the Isreal statement yesterday, where you have their front benchers saying one thing… and their backbenchers saying something completely different! "
That could also be an accurate description of Labour pre election |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the thread title is an oxymoron written by a mournful optomist to explain the deafening silence from CCHQ policy makers."
"This is it….. the official opposition’s policy position at the moment is that they officially have no policies themselves….. just to oppose everything!
So you get position like in both of the trade deal statements (the US and the EU) and the Isreal statement yesterday, where you have their front benchers saying one thing… and their backbenchers saying something completely different!"
"That could also be an accurate description of Labour pre election"
It's an accurate description of Labour today. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There are very few free votes in the commons. MPs are expected to tow the party line or have the whip removed. Labour are expected to vote with the government and the opposition are expected to vote against the government.
The opposition don’t need any official policies because they are not making policy, the government are. But that is not to say they don’t have any. Like Labour did in opposition, as the election draws near they will make their policies clear, same as all the other parties.
I remember so many posts saying Labour won’t make any mistakes when they get in power. Well I’m struggling to see what they have got right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Tories are reinventing themselves with new policies to be announced at their annual conference in Manchester. A telephone box has been freshly painted to host their all their MPs."
That box will be too big for Labour after the next election. Will be the biggest loss of seats even in the history of parliament |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 6 days ago
Terra Firma |
"the thread title is an oxymoron written by a mournful optomist to explain the deafening silence from CCHQ policy makers.
This is it….. the official opposition’s policy position at the moment is that they officially have no policies themselves….. just to oppose everything!
So you get position like in both of the trade deal statements (the US and the EU) and the Isreal statement yesterday, where you have their front benchers saying one thing… and their backbenchers saying something completely different! "
As been mentioned already, this reflects the labour government over the last 11 months.
Miliband contradicting the party line over net zero and kicked into touch.
Reeves did not accept the flexible working policies by Jonathan Reynolds was acceptable for her staff.
Reeves disability cuts caused 100 labour MP's to sign a letter opposing the cuts.
Rayner continues to push Reeves on taxing groups she recommends, rather than allow her to get on with her job and support the chancellor.
WFA, does not need explaining.
For a party that had so much time to get their plan together and everyone on the same page, they missed the mark. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think there’s too broad a spectrum of opinions in both the conservative and Labour parties for there to be harmony.
There’s Labour MPs who think the entire 3rd world and much of the developing world should come to the UK and get a free house and benefits for life, and every business should be nationalised regardless of size. After all, people shouldn’t have money, only the state should have money. Everyone should be on minimum wage, except them and their mates of course. Then there’s the more centrist Labour MPs who actually have some common sense but after the failure of the gang of 4 and the SDP, they know leaving Labour would mean never having any power.
The conservatives have the same issues of course. Some would happily see all benefits scrapped, corporation tax abolished and “Jonny foreigner” sent back where he came from. But there’s also more centrist MP who probably have more in common with the Lib Dem’s but know joining them would mean never having any power.
Reconciling those extremes with one party is never going to be easy. But the power behind the thrones, the unions with Labour and big business with the Tories, are usually the ones steering the ship. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I know it's not a common view but I think there's far more that unites the parties in the UK than divides them.
The vast majority of MP's share a large core set of beliefs about how the UK should be run.
But the adversarial nature of the game means that differences are magnified by the MPs themselves, the media and even all of us - because it's often more fun to throw custard pies than engage in serious discussion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I know it's not a common view but I think there's far more that unites the parties in the UK than divides them.
The vast majority of MP's share a large core set of beliefs about how the UK should be run.
But the adversarial nature of the game means that differences are magnified by the MPs themselves, the media and even all of us - because it's often more fun to throw custard pies than engage in serious discussion."
Very true |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A lot of the Labour supporters who were vocal in the politics forum pre General Election seem to have disappeared.
Probably too embarrassed and not got the nuts to defend their poor decisions."
More likely, they've got nothing to complain about now! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I know it's not a common view but I think there's far more that unites the parties in the UK than divides them.
The vast majority of MP's share a large core set of beliefs about how the UK should be run."
That's an interesting thought. Can you give us some examples of things that they hold in common? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
There’s Labour MPs who think the entire 3rd world and much of the developing world should come to the UK and get a free house and benefits for life, and every business should be nationalised regardless of size.
"
Are there?
Name one, with a source? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That's an interesting thought. Can you give us some examples of things that they hold in common?"
There are so many that it would take me several days to compile even a partial list of things where there is broad agreement amongst MPs. There are 24 ministerial departments covering things like business, trade, education, environment, food, rural affairs, science, technology, treasury, policing, defence, housing, transport, work, pensions, health, social care, foreign affairs, justice etc.
Then there are 20 non-ministerial departments. Then there are 422 agencies.
My point wasn't particularly controversial. When you stop and think about it most people agree about most things. It's just that in politics we have grown used to arguing about the small number of things that we disagree on.
If you look at just one random area, say education then I'm sure you would conclude that virtually everyone agrees on a lot of things such as that every child should have access to reasonable quality of education and that the taxpayer should cover the basic cost, that certain standards of care should apply and that the curriculum should include things such as English, maths, science, history, geography and so on.
Of course there are real differences of opinon on details but there is so much common ground that we just take it for granted.
I could write a longer response but I don't think it's warranted and people would just go TLDR.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
There’s Labour MPs who think the entire 3rd world and much of the developing world should come to the UK and get a free house and benefits for life, and every business should be nationalised regardless of size.
Are there?
Name one, with a source?"
I would have thought it was obvious that I was over-egging the pudding, which I did for both sides by the way, to demonstrate a point.
But Angela Raynor has publicly stated that we should welcome as many migrants as want to come here with open arms. I believe she went as far as to say “it was our moral obligation to do so”. With zero plan as to how we house them or fund their benefits.
We currently have a million overseas nationals claiming benefits and close to a million go into the grinder every year.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
There’s Labour MPs who think the entire 3rd world and much of the developing world should come to the UK and get a free house and benefits for life, and every business should be nationalised regardless of size.
Are there?
Name one, with a source?
I would have thought it was obvious that I was over-egging the pudding, which I did for both sides by the way, to demonstrate a point.
But Angela Raynor has publicly stated that we should welcome as many migrants as want to come here with open arms. I believe she went as far as to say “it was our moral obligation to do so”. With zero plan as to how we house them or fund their benefits.
We currently have a million overseas nationals claiming benefits and close to a million go into the grinder every year.
"
We also take in far fewer asylum seekers than many nations with equivalent (or worse) economies. The argument that we don’t do enough is sound.
We could accept asylum seekers more effectively with a proper system in place |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But Angela Raynor has publicly stated that we should welcome as many migrants as want to come here with open arms. I believe she went as far as to say “it was our moral obligation to do so”. With zero plan as to how we house them or fund their benefits."
The only thing google comes up with connecting Angela Raynor to the phrase moral obligation is her telling council chiefs "I know that, like every member of Government, you will feel not just a professional responsibility but a moral obligation to see more homes built". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Somehow I very much doubt 90% of the commentators on this thread are or ever have been Labour supporters, therefore will never be happy 😊 "
Certainly as far as I am concerned. I detest the Labour party. Always have and always will.
Started in the days of Wilson/Callaghan. One a wily old fox but lousy PM. The other also a lousy PM but without the cunning.
Then in opposition we had Michael (donkey jacket) Foot then the Welsh windbag himself, Kinnock followed by (after a brief hiatus of common sense with John Smith) the Blair creature.
More up to date we had the net zero nutter himself failing (thankfully) to get the top job, then they tried to foist bloody Corbyn on the country.
Now we've got a Max Headroom lookalike who missed his true vocation as a slalom skier. He can twist and turn better than Franz Klammer, and he can tell more lies than Billy's weekly. But trust me, he'll crash at the last gate.
I've had a lot of experience of the Labour party. None of it good.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Somehow I very much doubt 90% of the commentators on this thread are or ever have been Labour supporters, therefore will never be happy 😊
Certainly as far as I am concerned. I detest the Labour party. Always have and always will.
Started in the days of Wilson/Callaghan. One a wily old fox but lousy PM. The other also a lousy PM but without the cunning.
Then in opposition we had Michael (donkey jacket) Foot then the Welsh windbag himself, Kinnock followed by (after a brief hiatus of common sense with John Smith) the Blair creature.
More up to date we had the net zero nutter himself failing (thankfully) to get the top job, then they tried to foist bloody Corbyn on the country.
Now we've got a Max Headroom lookalike who missed his true vocation as a slalom skier. He can twist and turn better than Franz Klammer, and he can tell more lies than Billy's weekly. But trust me, he'll crash at the last gate.
I've had a lot of experience of the Labour party. None of it good.
"
Blair was the best prime minister of the last 45 years (all I can judge), followed by Brown.
The Iraq was was a disaster, and can not be argued otherwise - but it was supported by both main parties, and would still have happened under a Tory PM.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Somehow I very much doubt 90% of the commentators on this thread are or ever have been Labour supporters, therefore will never be happy 😊
Certainly as far as I am concerned. I detest the Labour party. Always have and always will.
Started in the days of Wilson/Callaghan. One a wily old fox but lousy PM. The other also a lousy PM but without the cunning.
Then in opposition we had Michael (donkey jacket) Foot then the Welsh windbag himself, Kinnock followed by (after a brief hiatus of common sense with John Smith) the Blair creature.
More up to date we had the net zero nutter himself failing (thankfully) to get the top job, then they tried to foist bloody Corbyn on the country.
Now we've got a Max Headroom lookalike who missed his true vocation as a slalom skier. He can twist and turn better than Franz Klammer, and he can tell more lies than Billy's weekly. But trust me, he'll crash at the last gate.
I've had a lot of experience of the Labour party. None of it good.
Blair was the best prime minister of the last 45 years (all I can judge), followed by Brown.
The Iraq was was a disaster, and can not be argued otherwise - but it was supported by both main parties, and would still have happened under a Tory PM.
"
You are probably right on the Iraq debacle. But Blair/Brown may have looked user friendly but they were anything but.
Not satisfied with flogging off half the nations gold at fire sale prices (what would that be worth today?) then blowing the money on vote winning frivolity's. Then they hamstrung every government since with their zeal for PFI.
The original idea may have been dreamed up by the Tories but Blair/Brown rolled it out with gusto. The NHS and schools are still picking up the tab for that today. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Somehow I very much doubt 90% of the commentators on this thread are or ever have been Labour supporters, therefore will never be happy 😊
Certainly as far as I am concerned. I detest the Labour party. Always have and always will.
Started in the days of Wilson/Callaghan. One a wily old fox but lousy PM. The other also a lousy PM but without the cunning.
Then in opposition we had Michael (donkey jacket) Foot then the Welsh windbag himself, Kinnock followed by (after a brief hiatus of common sense with John Smith) the Blair creature.
More up to date we had the net zero nutter himself failing (thankfully) to get the top job, then they tried to foist bloody Corbyn on the country.
Now we've got a Max Headroom lookalike who missed his true vocation as a slalom skier. He can twist and turn better than Franz Klammer, and he can tell more lies than Billy's weekly. But trust me, he'll crash at the last gate.
I've had a lot of experience of the Labour party. None of it good.
Blair was the best prime minister of the last 45 years (all I can judge), followed by Brown.
The Iraq was was a disaster, and can not be argued otherwise - but it was supported by both main parties, and would still have happened under a Tory PM.
You are probably right on the Iraq debacle. But Blair/Brown may have looked user friendly but they were anything but.
Not satisfied with flogging off half the nations gold at fire sale prices (what would that be worth today?) then blowing the money on vote winning frivolity's. Then they hamstrung every government since with their zeal for PFI.
The original idea may have been dreamed up by the Tories but Blair/Brown rolled it out with gusto. The NHS and schools are still picking up the tab for that today."
New Labour doubled the national debt, add PFI and it would have trebled. (Tories now trebled it again)
Blair flooded the country with immigrants and rolled out mass university growth, the student loans pot is £260bn, about half may get repaid.
I do give Blair credit for the Good Friday agreement, but dwarfed by the 200,000+ deaths of Iraqis on his watch. Terror attacks in the west have growth exponentially since the Iraq war. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Somehow I very much doubt 90% of the commentators on this thread are or ever have been Labour supporters, therefore will never be happy 😊
Certainly as far as I am concerned. I detest the Labour party. Always have and always will.
Started in the days of Wilson/Callaghan. One a wily old fox but lousy PM. The other also a lousy PM but without the cunning.
Then in opposition we had Michael (donkey jacket) Foot then the Welsh windbag himself, Kinnock followed by (after a brief hiatus of common sense with John Smith) the Blair creature.
More up to date we had the net zero nutter himself failing (thankfully) to get the top job, then they tried to foist bloody Corbyn on the country.
Now we've got a Max Headroom lookalike who missed his true vocation as a slalom skier. He can twist and turn better than Franz Klammer, and he can tell more lies than Billy's weekly. But trust me, he'll crash at the last gate.
I've had a lot of experience of the Labour party. None of it good.
Blair was the best prime minister of the last 45 years (all I can judge), followed by Brown.
The Iraq was was a disaster, and can not be argued otherwise - but it was supported by both main parties, and would still have happened under a Tory PM.
You are probably right on the Iraq debacle. But Blair/Brown may have looked user friendly but they were anything but.
Not satisfied with flogging off half the nations gold at fire sale prices (what would that be worth today?) then blowing the money on vote winning frivolity's. Then they hamstrung every government since with their zeal for PFI.
The original idea may have been dreamed up by the Tories but Blair/Brown rolled it out with gusto. The NHS and schools are still picking up the tab for that today.
New Labour doubled the national debt, add PFI and it would have trebled. (Tories now trebled it again)
Blair flooded the country with immigrants and rolled out mass university growth, the student loans pot is £260bn, about half may get repaid.
I do give Blair credit for the Good Friday agreement, but dwarfed by the 200,000+ deaths of Iraqis on his watch. Terror attacks in the west have growth exponentially since the Iraq war. "
All civilised nations operate in deficit - it’s the way of the world
The early 21st century was peak-U.K. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
