Does Cameron Have A Chance...

[Tommy-K]

Think about it. Why was Blair elected?

Before 1997, Labour were unelectable. The Tories ruled supreme. So young, charismatic Mr Blair comes along, completely revamps his party so they are just like the Conservatives but slightly better, and gets elected.

This turned the tables completely, and now the Tories are unelectable. But now young, charismatic David Cameron has come along and is changing his party to make it just like New Labour. Deja vu, anyone?

I think Gordon Brown has got his work cut out if he wants to stay in power come the next election. John Major couldn't stand up to a young, charismatic public school tosser with his shiny happy policies so how Gordon Brown is going to survive is anyone's guess.

Either way we're fucked anyway. We now pretty much have a system like America, in which we have two major parties who are basically the same thing. The Labour Party and the Conservative Party are the British equivalent of the Democrats and the Republicans. Talk about American cultural imperialism, you know it's bad when it starts to affect the government.

[Taevus]

Of course, he has a great chance. The normal tory voters will still vote that way, and they'll gain more from the disillusionment of Labour and add any on top who are on-the-fence voters who voted for Blair in 97 for similar reasons. Like you said, not like it matters too much anyway, it's a lot like the democrat/republican contest now.

[cubist]

He has a huge chance

since he stepped up to the plate of battliing over this invisible middle ground,

Everyone is sick of labour and there torie policy i remember saying labour should be out on the last election and getting told the only way to change it is to change it from teh inside Well th elabour party did a great job of not supporting blair but the failed to get rid of him and his tory BS


Camerons words about Housing schemes are a dangerous ground which will get the young persons votes

Labour have lost the junior doctors,

but really does it matter they have made this grey area inbetween liberal labour conservative policies they are no all endanger of being worse than the other.

It will eventually destroy our pathetic excuse for dmeocracy not having a difference between the party's.

Yes Cameron stands a favourable chance of winning over brown. but the question is will it get better or worse? thats a laughable matter i dont know if it wil be worse than brown's labour

[luxemburg89]

Yes Cameron stands a favourable chance of winning over brown. but the question is will it get better or worse? thats a laughable matter i dont know if it wil be worse than brown's labour

It will be worse. No matter how bad New Labour is, it is still nothing compared to the conservatives. At the time of the election we must do all we can to stop Cameron, for all his social 'niceties' he is a VICIOUS reactionary and the freedom of youth will diminish, more hospitals will go private and the education system will fuck up. Only Nick Griffin is worse than 'Dave'.

[welshred]

Yes of course he will win. I dont think there is any chance of labour being re-elected and lets face it, the lib dems aint got a hope in hell.

[cubist]

it will be worse no matte rlabour stancE?

hello cameron is playing ball with blairs tory politics there is no difference to quote tony Benn reviewing the last 10 years of labour

"the rich won"

Sad to say but all the same Democracy is a joke in the UK,

[RedArmyFaction]

I think Cameron has a great chance of winning the general elections if the local council elections of May 4th are anything to go by. The tories made massive gains.

[Angry Young Man]

There are a few possible scenarios.

1. Tories win landslide victory. Unlikely, I think, because outside England, they're hated. There are areas where they'd sooner vote a monkey with a 300% tax policy than a tory.

2. Parliament hangs at next general election and Labour and Tories compete for coalitions. Whether or not the next govt is Labour or Tory will probably depend on the lib dems, who don't know what the fuck there doing and will make the cogs of bureaucracy grind even slower. Probs the most likely

3. Huge increase in votes for far-right parties. I fucking hope not.

Quick question: Is it worth trying to bring about change via parliament? I wouldn't have thought so, but when there's no socialist party of any description, the working classes seem split or apathetic.

[Tommy-K]

New development. It appears Labour'e popularity has gone up since Brown was elected as the new leader, whereas tory and lib dem popularity has fallen. So maybe the next general election won't be such a close call after all.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 25, 2007 11:24 am
New development. It appears Labour'e popularity has gone up since Brown was elected as the new leader, whereas tory and lib dem popularity has fallen. So maybe the next general election won't be such a close call after all.
They're calling that the "Brown Bounce". I think it happens to all new leaders where they enjoy huge popularity for a while but that popularity eventually dissapates and the other guy pulls ahead. The reason why Labour have lead in the popularity stakes for much of the last ten years is that successive Tory leaders have been either (a) ineffectual, (b) too right-wing and therefore out of touch or © both.

This "bounce" won't last but I also think that unless Cameron comes up with substantial policies soon he'll have to charter the first flight out of wherever his honeymoon is - and fast.

It's interesting that Brown has told the Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander to be on standby for a snap election. If there is an election soon it'll be so that Brown can exploit the bounce.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Ooh. Now this is interesting:

Conservative MP defects to Labour (http://)


Conservative MP Quentin Davies has defected to the Labour Party.

The MP for Grantham and Stamford made his decision public in a letter to Tory leader David Cameron, with whom he has long been at odds.

He wrote that under Mr Cameron the party "appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything".

Shadow chancellor George Osborne said in 2005 that he disagreed with "almost everything" Mr Davies "has ever said".

The defection comes the day before Gordon Brown takes over as prime minister from Tony Blair.

'No bedrock'

Mr Davies, a pro-European, voted for former chancellor Ken Clarke in the Tory leadership contest which Mr Cameron won in 2005.

In his letter, he wrote: "Under your leadership the Conservative Party appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything.

"It has no bedrock. It exists on shifting sands. A sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda."

Mr Davies added: "Believe it or not I have no personal animus against you.

"You have always been perfectly courteous in our dealings. You are intelligent and charming.

"As you know, however, I never supported you for the leadership of the party - even when, after my preferred candidate Ken Clarke had been defeated in the first round, it was blindingly obvious that you were going to win."

'Towering record'

He also wrote: "Although you have many positive qualities you have three, superficiality, unreliability and an apparent lack of any clear convictions, which in my view ought to exclude you from the position of national leadership to which you aspire and which it is the presumed purpose of the Conservative Party to achieve.

"Believing that as I do, I clearly cannot honestly remain in the party. I do not intend to leave public life."

Mr Davies said he had "found increasingly I am naturally in agreement" with the Labour Party and praised Mr Brown as "a leader I have always greatly admired, who I believe is entirely straightforward, and who has a towering record, and a clear vision for the future of our country which I fully share".

Last year, Mr Davies called Mr Cameron's decision to vote for an immediate inquiry into the Iraq war "absolutely crazy".

The 63-year-old is a former diplomat and has been shadow Northern Ireland secretary and shadow defence secretary. He became an MP in 1987.

Labour minister Hazel Blears said: "I welcome Mr Davies to the Labour benches."

Well, not really. But it just shows you that Cameron isn't the golden boy everyone thinks he is. Then again, it also shows you that New Labour could probably be classed more accurately as a right of centre party.

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by Romantic [email protected] 24, 2007 08:30 pm
Quick question: Is it worth trying to bring about change via parliament? I wouldn't have thought so, but when there's no socialist party of any description, the working classes seem split or apathetic.
It's a question we've debated about a few times. The discussion boils down to 2 arguments.

1. Elections are ineffectual at change, and only legitimize the system we seek to destroy.

2. Elections can be used as one of many tools for struggle against capitalism. You can't depend on the bourgeois parties, but it can elevate the conditions of the working class.

Reformism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54279&hl=reformism)
Revolution vs. Reform (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6983&hl=reform)
Reform (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6428&hl=reform)
Non-violent transition to socialism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=13173&hl=reform)

Edit: added another good discussion (first one)
Edit: made myself sound clearer

[luxemburg89]

He has a huge chance. I hate Cameron even more than I hate that traitor Blair (well all Labour politicians are traitors really). I think he's going to be the next Prime Minister. However his rhetoric and oratory is poor compared to Blair, he may be a **** but he was a trained orator (even though his rhetoric wasn't brilliant). That way I think the country will lose faith in him pretty soon and he will step down as troy leader, where another tory will take his place. I reckon we're heading into a Tory supremacy again. Goodbye NHS and school system.

[Tommy-K]

Here is Quentin Davies' full letter to David Cameron:


“I have been a member of the Conservative Party for over 30 years, and have served for 20 years in the Parliamentary Party, in a variety of backbench and front bench roles.

“This has usually been a great pleasure, and always a great privilege. It is therefore with much sadness that I write you this letter. But you are entitled to know the truth.

“Under your leadership the Conservative Party appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything.

“It has no bedrock. It exists on shifting sands. A sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda.

“For the first 19 years of my time in the House, in common I imagine with the great majority of my colleagues, it never occurred to me to leave the party, whatever its current vicissitudes.

“Ties of familiarity, of friendship, and above all of commitment to constituency supporters are for all of us very strong and incredibly difficult to break.

“But they cannot be the basis for living a lie - for continuing in an organisation when one no longer has respect for its leadership or understanding of its aims.

“I have come to that appreciation slowly and painfully and as a result of many things, some of which are set out below.

“The first horrible realisation that I might not be able to continue came last year. My initial reaction was to suppress it.

“You had come to office as leader of the party committed to break a solemn agreement we had with the European People’s Party to sit with them in the EPP-ED Group during the currency of this European Parliament.

“For seven months you vacillated, and during that time we had several conversations.

“It was quite clear to me that you had no qualms in principle about tearing up this agreement, and that it was only the balance of prevailing political pressures which led you ultimately to stop short of doing so (though since then you have hardly acted in good faith in continuing with the agreement, for example you never attend the EPP-ED Summits claiming that you are “too busy” - even though half a dozen or more Prime Ministers are always present.)

“Of course I knew that you had put yourself in a position such that if you did not leave the EPP-ED Group you would be breaking other promises you had given to colleagues, and on which many of them had counted in voting for you at the leadership election.

“But that I fear only made the position worse. The trouble with trying to face both ways is that you are likely to lose everybody’s confidence.

“Aside from the rather significant issues of principle involved, you have of course paid a practical price for your easy promises.

“You are the first leader of the Conservative Party who (for different reasons) will not be received either by the President of the United States, or by the Chancellor of Germany (up to, and very much including, Iain Duncan Smith every one of your predecessors was most welcome both in the White House and in all the chancelleries of Europe).

“It is fair to say that you have so far made a shambles of your foreign policy, and that would be a great handicap to you - and, more seriously, to the country - if you ever came to power.

“I have never done business with people who deliberately break contracts, and I knew last year that if you left the EPP-ED Group I could no longer remain in a party under your leadership.

“In fact you held back and I tried to put this ugly incident out of my mind and carry on.

“But the last year has been a series of shocks and disappointments. You have displayed to the full both the vacuity and the cynicism of your favourite slogan ‘change to win’.

“One day in January, I think a Wednesday or Thursday, you and George Osborne discovered that Gordon Brown was to make a speech on the environment the following Monday.

“You wished to pre-empt him. So without any consultation with anyone - experts, think tanks, the industry, even the Shadow Cabinet - you announced an airline or flight tax which as you have subsequently heard from me in a long paper (which has never been refuted) and I am sure from many others, is certainly defective and contradictory - and in my view complete nonsense.

“The PR pressures had overridden any considerations of economic rationality or national interest, or even what would have been to others normal businesslike prudence.

“Equally it seems that your hasty rejection of nuclear energy as a ‘last resort’ was also driven by your PR imperatives rather than by other considerations. Many colleagues hope that that will be the subject of your next u-turn.

“You regularly (I think on a pre-arranged PR grid or timetable) make apparent policy statements which are then revealed to have no intended content at all. They appear to be made merely to strike a pose, to contribute to an image.

“You thus sometimes treat important subjects with the utmost frivolity. Examples are ‘inequality’ (the ‘Polly Toynbee’ moment - again you had a paper from me!), marriage and the tax system (even your own Party Chairman was unable to explain on the BBC what you really meant) and, most recently, mass consultation of the public on policy decisions. (In view of your complete failure to consult with anyone, within the Party or outside it, on many of the matters I have touched on, or on many others, the latter was perhaps intended as a joke).

“Of course I could go on - up to three weeks ago when you were prepared to stoop to putting forward a resolution on Iraq (demanding an inquiry while our military involvement continues) which it was admitted at a Party meeting the following Monday (by George Osborne in your presence) was motivated by party political considerations. That was a particularly bad moment.”

“Believe it or not I have no personal animus against you. You have always been perfectly courteous in our dealings. You are intelligent and charming.

“As you know, however, I never supported you for the leadership of the Party - even when, after my preferred candidate Ken Clarke had been defeated in the first round, it was blindingly obvious that you were going to win.

“Nor, for the same reasons, have I ever sought office in your shadow administration.

“Although you have many positive qualities you have three, superficiality, unreliability and an apparent lack of any clear convictions, which in my view ought to exclude you from the position of national leadership to which you aspire and which it is the presumed purpose of the Conservative Party to achieve.

“Believing that as I do, I clearly cannot honestly remain in the Party. I do not intend to leave public life. On the contrary I am looking forward to joining another party with which I have found increasingly I am naturally in agreement and which has just acquired a leader I have always greatly admired, who I believe is entirely straightforward, and who has a towering record, and a clear vision for the future of our country which I fully share.

“Because my constituents, to whose interests of course I remain devoted, are entitled to know the full background, I am releasing this letter to the press.”

And here is David Cameron's response:


Dear Quentin Thank you for your letter. Your decision does not come as a surprise to me.
The Conservative party has changed, as you say. We need to do more to protect the environment and tackle climate change.

That will mean taking tough measures on carbon emissions. And it does mean looking at ways to encourage greater use of alternative sources of energy.

Of course, I will also continue to stand up for Britain's interests in Europe, and work to give the British people the referendum they were promised.

People see that we are now focusing on what matters to them. That is why so many people are supporting us once again - as shown in May, when we won over 900 council seats.
I am sorry that you feel unable to be part of today's Conservative party, and join us in campaigning on what matters to people - for example, against the NHS cuts or for a better deal for pensioners.

The big dividing line in British politics is between Labour's approach of top-down state control and the Conservative vision of pushing power outwards and downwards from central government, trusting people and sharing responsibility with them.

You have made your choice and the British people will make theirs.

Thank you for your support in the past. We will watch your future career with interest.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Romantic revolutionary
1. Tories win landslide victory. Unlikely, I think, because outside England, they're hated. There are areas where they'd sooner vote a monkey with a 300% tax policy than a tory

Correction- Theyre hated anywhere outside Southern England. People of the northern industrial towns still harbour their hatred of Maggie.

Just a point though- If Cameron gets elected and he fucks up the standards of working class life in the same way Maggie did- Maybe this is the spark to the fuse we need to start the revolution. We all know things will have to get worse before they get better- perhaps this is the start of the end of British capitalism.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Yeah i've got a horrible feeling that he's going to win. I agree that a lot of people are sick of labour. However, i dont think a lot of people really understand why theyre sick of labour, other than they know that labour have been "in" for the last 13 years and to many of the general public have latched on to Obamas buzzword "change". I saw an interview with a butcher in Dudley on the news the other week:

"Who will you vote for?"
"Conservative"
"why?"
"Just.... change, we gotta 'av change...."
"what do you think needs to change?"
"i just fink, yknow, its time we 'ad change"
"anythink specifically you would like to see change?"
"just.... the country needs to change."

^ That is almost verbatim ^

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I wouldn't vote for Labour, or the Lib Dems, but undoubtably the election of Cameron and his band of Etonians is the worst possible thing that could realistically befall this country, politically.

It doesn't matter too much, in a positive way, if the tories don't get in. New Labour are quite awful, but there is something foul about the Tories.

'Conservatives for change'.

I mean, do these people deliberately take the piss?

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Theyve got the buzzword on their side and that is the single most important element of this election. That is what it all comes down to. England would never vote the Lib Dems in, and Labour cant claim to be the party of change. The Tories win by default and thats it. We just have to grit our teeth and bare it.

[Mindtoaster]

Do people even bother voting in the UK anymore? Isn't yalls voter turn out really low?

[Mendax]

Do people even bother voting in the UK anymore? Isn't yalls voter turn out really low?
It gets lower with every election and it also gets more "two parties that are basically the same"-ish

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The State Capitalism/Social Democracy of 1945-1979 was the pinnacle of bourgeois democracy in this country. Not that i'm a fan of either, but people did perceive this, at the time, to be a leftward shift - people viewed Labour in Socialistic terms.

Before the war, we didn't have an election for a decade, and before that there had only been the 18+ universal franchise for 7 years (from 1928, I believe), previous to which 'democracy' did not exist.

So yes, whilst i'm not a huge fan of the likes of Attlee, Wilson and now Brown, I stop myself from despising them with the venom of the Tories, for it has been proven since the 17th and 18th centuries that, however bad any of our darling bourgeois leaders are, the Tories are always the worst for working people.

I'll be away for this sham of an election anyway. I was planning on a bit of DIRECT DEMORACY ballot spoiling, never mind:laugh: Doubt it'd make a difference.