Conservative party/opposition watch

Post by **clv101** » 20 Mar 2016, 18:50

johnhemming2 wrote:He came to the conclusion that hitting people of working age on a non targeted basis to fund additional tax cuts for the top 15% was wrong.

I'm surprised that anyone thinks this is right? Does Osborne actually, honestly think that the country will be a better place to live in with policies benefiting the rich at the expense of the poor? Maybe he's not interested in what's good for the country. I can well imagine selfish individuals holding such a view, in private, wanting the maximise their (and their friends) wealth at the expense of anyone else. But I don't understand how someone could promote such views in such a public and effective way possible - as Chancellor.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 20 Mar 2016, 19:07

UndercoverElephant wrote:But that is the entire reason for the existence of the Conservative Party. It's what they do.

The main reason for the existence of the Conservative Party is the Labour Party.

The secondary reason is the desire of its members to be in power. Neither of these reasons is particularly ideological.

I am not a supporter of either the Conservatives or the Labour Party. However, it does not help to misrepresent the way things are. You need to look at the motivations of the individual members of parties to understand even in a limited way their collective objectives.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 20 Mar 2016, 19:46

johnhemming2 wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:But that is the entire reason for the existence of the Conservative Party. It's what they do.
The main reason for the existence of the Conservative Party is the Labour Party.

The Tories existed long before the Labour Party.

Their motives are crystal clear: they govern in the interests of the richest 15%. Always have done and always will do.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 20 Mar 2016, 20:16

UndercoverElephant wrote:The Tories existed long before the Labour Party.

True and were then substantially defined by the Whigs. (opposition to).

Salary of Cabinet Minister: 141,505
Salary of Back Bench MP: 74,000

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 20 Mar 2016, 21:01

He doesn't need the money. He, like you, could easily survive for the rest of his life earning no money at all.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 21 Mar 2016, 12:23

The more I watch this story unfolding, the less I believe it is about the EU. The tories are in a genuine mess about this. Their problem is that the proposed cuts really do expose their total lack of concern about anybody but the rich. They could not give a sh*t about the poor, the disabled, anybody who depends on the NHS, the mentally ill.

They are truly nasty. A really unpleasant bunch of people with no consciences and no ethics worth having. Selfish, greedy and nasty. And the argument they are currently having is about whether or not it matters that they are perceived as self, greedy and nasty, because the victims of their policies "don't vote for them" anyway.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 21 Mar 2016, 12:46

The issue is that in the general election the tories proposed more cuts to welfare than the lib dems. In a sense they expected to have to compromise, but are now wedded to more cuts. IDS rightly is concerned that in some way they are planning cuts to working age benefits beyond which is justifiable.

I don't know if IDS is in my position financially or not. It is true that I did not need the money from politics.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 21 Mar 2016, 12:52

He doesn't need money:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Smith.html

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 21 Mar 2016, 13:20

I read it as indicating that it (money from politics) does make a difference. However, he is clearly not in the lower financial end of society.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 29 Jun 2016, 20:37

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... re-murdoch

Michael Gove’s wife has accidentally emailed a member of the public with worries about Boris Johnson’s popularity with the Tory membership and with media bosses Rupert Murdoch and Paul Dacre.

The email from Sarah Vine, a Daily Mail columnist, also contained advice to Gove not to guarantee his support for Johnson’s leadership bid without a specific job offer.

One must keep Dacre and Murdoch happy, mustn't one?

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 29 Jun 2016, 21:53

3rdRock wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... re-murdoch

You couldn't make it up.

And as for the picture...Gove looks like a Harry Enfield character.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 29 Jun 2016, 22:05

UndercoverElephant wrote:You couldn't make it up.

And as for the picture...Gove looks like a Harry Enfield character.

Priceless!

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 30 Jun 2016, 18:30

Heseltine's scathing condemnation of BoJo. He certainly didn't hang back.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36677623

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 01 Jul 2016, 01:19

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36677028

Michael Gove: Utter c**t

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 01 Jul 2016, 16:12

3rdRock wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... re-murdoch

Michael Gove’s wife has accidentally emailed a member of the public with worries about Boris Johnson’s popularity with the Tory membership and with media bosses Rupert Murdoch and Paul Dacre.

The email from Sarah Vine, a Daily Mail columnist, also contained advice to Gove not to guarantee his support for Johnson’s leadership bid without a specific job offer.
One must keep Dacre and Murdoch happy, mustn't one?

"Accidentally" was it? Trouble with these politically connected wannabees is they just can't keep their gobs shut because they probably think someone gives a damn about their views. As for her anti-justice minister lying husband who is now trying to emulate Teresa May and tell us he has no chrisma and no glamour, well, tell us something we don't know.