Arnold wins

[Dilly_D]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/945950.asp?0cv=CA01

[ChubbyChecker]

Don't you just love it when people create a thread, post a link and then make no comment whatsoever on the thing they just linked to.

There should be more threads like that.

[Nofutcha]

yay

[Proteus]

Hurrah!

[Jammers]

I loved Iain Duncan Smiths opinion on whether Schwarzenegger winning was a good thing. Essentially he said, "Well I can tell you this. Winning is something Tony Blair won't be doing at the next election."
He has just gained one extra vote. :yup:

[pablissimo]

IDS is a tool.

[Marilyn Manson]

I see a few future problems, one being Arnie's inexprience at managing anything larger than, say, a toilet. He's going to have to do all the tough work, or at least, try. Whether this will ultimately give him electoral rewards in the long-term is arguable. Californians also now have a general impatience to get things fixed practically immediately, when in fact California is relatively deep in nothing short of a complete disaster, and this is hardly helped by an inexperienced newcomer taking over in mid-stream. Arnie himself might be facing a recall campaign in a year's time if nothing materialises; this is hardly going to help long-term planning.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Jammers

Essentially he said, "Well I can tell you this. Winning is something Tony Blair won't be doing at the next election."

I was going to say that IDS shouldn't give up his day job and should not venture into fortune telling, but I can hardly see him doing any worse than he is presently doing in politics.

[Radical Edward]

IDS is probably Labour's biggest vote winner. personally I want to see the libs take over as opposition, that would be teh win.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

IDS is probably Labour's biggest vote winner.

I'd say that was Tony Blair and his amazing penis™, but there you go.

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

personally I want to see the libs take over as opposition, that would be teh win.

Seriously unlikely. We can but dream.

[ChubbyChecker]

IDS may not be that great, but he's 10 times better than Hague ever was.

I was refraining from mentioning this, but I refrain no more seeing as this thread is well & truly derailed.

[Deepflow]

I think hague was a far better leader than IDS actually... he actually DID something useful for the party (i.e unified them over europe). Also, although he was lacking in charisma he certainly had a lot more than IDS does. Im not saying he is going to come back, but you never know. Who else is there? Oliver Letwin looked alright on newsnight last night actually, but hes probably a bit too "posh". Then again, who knows what damn tory voters want. cuh.

[G_frog]

We're sliding towards "Tony! Tony! Tony! Out! Out! Out!" atm, which presumably means Brown is the next PM unless the Tories have been hiding another half-dozen Oliver Letwins away.

(I just scared myself badly with the idea of hordes of chubby Tory intellectuals, and i've been to the Cambridge Union)

[ChubbyChecker]

[quote=Deepflow] I think hague was a far better leader than IDS actually... he actually DID something useful for the party (i.e unified them over europe). [quote]

Hague's Europe policy was probably the worst thing about him. He kept banging on about how evil it was, which is not what the people want to hear. Most people here are euro-sceptic but not to Hague's proportions.

Also at the last election he kept banging on about how we are not going to join the euro. What he didn't realise was that nobody gave a toss. They wanted to hear about things like public services, the kind of stuff that Labour was going on about.

PS: Why's the quote not working???

[G_frog]

because you missed out the "/"

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

IDS may not be that great, but he's 10 times better than Hague ever was.

Hague seemed to have some idea of what he was doing at least some of the time. IDS has all the nouse of an A-Level politics student.

But it really doesn't matter who leads them because, if the policies outlined at the conference are anything to go by, they're so far out of touch with the people that the Green party is more electable.

Lib Dems don't actually have any policies of their own, they just see what everyone else is doing and do the opposite. And Kennedy is a joke.

[Proteus]

The Lib Dems want a 50% tax rate, so I hope they never get in (well at least not until they have rethought their tax policy).

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

50% for millionaires dumbass, what do you care, I doubt your 5 bucks an hour for serving fries will be affected.

They want 50% of anything over £100,000, which would affect my family, if not me personally.

[Marilyn Manson]

The problem in comparing Hague and IDS is that there is that the comparison is so spurious.

Almost everybody within the Tory party after 1997 thought that if they kept on banging on about the things that got Tory activists turned on - namely, Immigration and Europe - then they would get in. Hague thought this. Presumably, IDS thought this also. Of course, the sensible people didn't - but they were marginal, and still are to a great extent. Nobody really realised the electoral uselessness of this as a strategy until after the election.

So comparing Hague's 1997-2001 leadership and IDS' post-2001 leadership is not really valid.

If Hague was leader now in a post-2001 context, then I am sure that he would have the party in much greater shape than IDS. I also suspect, although this is fairly unsubtantiated, that a lot of the policy of the party would be more relevant. Hague's focus would still be on domestic bread and butter, but it would be much more sophisticated than IDS. Also, say what you like about Hague, he had more leadership ability and charisma than IDS - although this is, admitedly, saying very little.

The Tories are still very much in the state that Labour was in around the time of the early 80's. They are making some inroads into the reform and re-evaluation that was around in the Kinnock era, but it is only slight. They certainly need to deprive some of the more insane rank and file from a conference platform, like we did. People shouting about congratulating Tony Martin and boisterous appeals for the re-introduction of hanging have no place in the modern political media age.

The Tories best hope now is Letwin post-2005/2006. Provided he has the sense and intelligence to review his strict economic ideological Thatcerism, which I'm sure he has, he should be quite good. He is possibly the most socially reformist person on the Tory front bench with sufficent stature. He is the best hope for leading the party back to a real sense of one-nation.

If they elect some idiot like Howard again, i.e, a patently unable person whose only qualification is that they are stupidly right-wing - then the party is possibly doomed and will likely split.

[JammyJim]

look at it like this


Bush has kept america running now for 2years (?) and it hasnt imploded or started a nuclear exchange.

If bush can keep the american steamship floating without grounding it or drivng it into a rock then im sure arnie can look after its engine room without too much trouble.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Boo hoo, if a member of your family is earning over £100k they can afford to pay a bit more income tax, it's not like their starving. I don't support the Lib Dems in any way but I support their "the rich can probably afford to pay some tax since you know they have more money than everyone else" policy.

It's a cheap tactic to raise taxes without making it affect most of the population.

Government shouldn't be about exploiting minorities just because it gets you more votes - if they think taxes should be higher then they should raise them for everyone.

[pablissimo]

Not even crazy men would vote Howard to lead the party. Thank Christ. The Tories have made themselves look far, far too opportunist over the past two years, if Letwin can sort that and keep a coherent party line then it'll benefit politics in this country greatly.

Otherwise we'll have Kennedy thinking he's going to be the opposition and blabbering when he wins anything.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

Not even crazy men would vote Howard to lead the party. Thank Christ.[

I think you over-estimate the capabilities of the Tory party membership.

Any leadership contest is going to come down to two people after the MP stage. Likely, one from the left of the party, and one from the right.

Whether the party membership then has the intelligence to vote for the most credible candidate is, so far, merely an assumption. And an generally unfounded one, at that. IDS did get elected by the membership instead of Clarke, remember.

[pablissimo]

I'd have thought that the party would recognise that Letwin is a far more electable figure than Howard though, and that is after all the idea.

Though stupidity, as you say, has never been a stranger to Tory in-party politics.

[Marilyn Manson]

Provided Letwin presses the all the right-wing buttons during the campaign stage, then he should get in. Then he can ride rough-shod over the membership and they'll probably love him for it anyway.

God knows why Portillo didn't use this strategy. WIth Clarke et al it wouldn't have been credible, of course, but Portillo was a darling of the right practically up to a few years back. Him going on about his conversion to one-nation and the like whilst the leadership campaign was still on, and he had to presumably still face the judgement of the party faithful if he intended to follow through is possibly one of the most stupid and inane political mistakes I had seen in a long time.

If he had any sense he would have stood as the right-wing candidate, and he would have had to face Clarke in the membership stage. IDS wouldn't have stood a chance.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

What's wrong with raising taxes for people who can afford it?

We have a progressive tax system which means that peopel pay according to their ability to pay, thatthos who havea lot in society give back to those who are disadvantaged and under privelaged.

This is not just becasue of charity but becasue it is helpful to bothRich and poor that certain servicesa are communally controlled, furthermore it is recogniseing that whilst we reward some peoepl more than other's for certain jobs, those who have alot are by and large lucky to be in that position.

The taxes are raised for everyone. If ANYONE earns over a certain amount of money they will pay more taxes. Don't talk about the rich as if they were some cultural minority.

Finnally the reason to have progressive tax is becasue there are many regressive epenses in society. For example I have to pay 100 per month for a train ticket, that represents 10% of my post tax income. A millionaire making the same journey pays the same amount. Now you may think that is fair but it does mean that I have a smaller oppurtunity in society than the millionaire does.

But they aren't doing it for those reasons.

The Lib Dems are continually saying they will pay for better services, and the only way to do this is by a tax rise. So instead of saying "we will put taxes up, but you'll have more services" (thus giving the people a choice: are we willing to pay for better services or not?), they are saying "you'll have more services, but you won't have to pay any more because we'll take more money off the rich", which is cheating, in my opinion, because they know perfectly well that the number of people affected by this will be so small it won't affect their popularity in any noticable way.

[pablissimo]

He'd better get a new speech writer then.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

He'd better get a new speech writer then.

Most of what he's saying at the moment is still fairly appealing to the right-wing, in fact, it's appealing to lots of different people within the party, which is probably what he intends.

(I assume you're talking about Letwin)

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by idimmu

i heard letwin's speach thingy yesterday

i like what he had to say about the police

when can i vote for him or however it works?

I believe you'd have to join the Conservative Party first.

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Most of what he's saying at the moment is still fairly appealing to the right-wing, in fact, it's appealing to lots of different people within the party, which is probably what he intends.

(I assume you're talking about Letwin)

Far too much of it has been substanceless rhetoric for my liking. He seems to be saying what the party wants to hear without believing it himself. And if he does end up leader he's either going to have to stick with a viewpoint right of where he truely lies, or change his tune to the dismay of the 'old-boys' leading to fragmentation again.

IDS staying in the driving seat seems to be an increasingly likely possibility.

Edit:
Actually, scrap a lot of that. I just reread Letwin's conference speech. Though the entire first-half of it was time-filling nonsense, I can see all sides of the party liking his policing promises. Though his assylum policy seemed deliberately vague, perhaps to avoid committing himself to appearing overly old-school too early on

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

Far too much of it has been substanceless rhetoric for my liking.

That's usually quite a good strategy if you're expecting a long siege, and you don't want your real views to be known as of yet.

He doesn't want to lay his cards out yet.

Originally Posted by pablissimo

He seems to be saying what the party wants to hear without believing it himself.

And?

Originally Posted by pablissimo

And if he does end up leader he's either going to have to stick with a viewpoint right of where he truely lies,

Why? You can do whatever you damn well like when you're leader, provided it's politically sustainable.

Originally Posted by pablissimo

or change his tune to the dismay of the 'old-boys' leading to fragmentation again.

Whoever said making a party electable again was easy or particularly pleasant? He's going to have to be as inclusive as possible, but really take on the crap. That's the challenge.

Originally Posted by pablissimo

IDS staying in the driving seat seems to be an increasingly likely possibility.

He'll go after the next election, for certain. Whether he will go before is arguable, but fairly unlikely in my mind.

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Why? You can do whatever you damn well like when you're leader, provided it's politically sustainable.

I was drifting into his electability a little by accident. Yes, he can do whatever he wants when he's leader, but he's still going to require the backing of the party to do it. That's why I mentioned him not necessarily believing what he's saying. If he doesn't believe it, he's going to have to be a convincing liar to keep the voters amused.

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

He'll go after the next election, for certain. Whether he will go before is arguable, but fairly unlikely in my mind.

You never know, the Tories might win!

[G_frog]

If you tax the top income bracket too heavily they will all leave. That's the problem.

[Knight Theamion]

He's back!

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

Yes, he can do whatever he wants when he's leader, but he's still going to require the backing of the party to do it.

Not really. They can't do anything much except moan. He's going to have to take the parliamentary party with him, and his colleagues to some extent, but that's a different thing. The Tory faithful are naturally deferntial to whoever is leader anyway. IDS could probably start wearing women's hats and most of them would still be cooing.

Originally Posted by pablissimo

That's why I mentioned him not necessarily believing what he's saying. If he doesn't believe it, he's going to have to be a convincing liar to keep the voters amused.

Him making vacuous right-wing noises during the campaign is not really going to impinge on his electability when he starts to really lay out his true shop.

In any case, there have been plenty of people that were far more ideologically hardened he is, and that did volte-faces, and went on to be quite successful.

Originally Posted by pablissimo

You never know, the Tories might win!

I heard Graham Hill were taking odds of 10,000,000,000 - 1.

[Dilly_D]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

Don't you just love it when people create a thread, post a link and then make no comment whatsoever on the thing they just linked to.

There should be more threads like that.

the thread title said all that needed to be said to get the point across.

thank you

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I heard Graham Hill were taking odds of 10,000,000,000 - 1.

I'll have some of that action.

If there were such a shop as Graham Hill.

[pablissimo]

3/1 Tory victory says William Hill.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

I'll have some of that action.

If there were such a shop as Graham Hill.

heh, my mind is addled. I've just had a lecture on logic by a Proffessor Snape lookalike.

Asking where Graham came from is a pertinent question, but one that is, I fear, unanswerable.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

3/1 Tory victory says William Hill.

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehhehehehehehehehhehehehehehehehe.


Who have they consulted on this? Fat Jim the tramp, that lives behind the bus depot or something?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

The rich do very well out of the Government. Low air fairs, low inheritance tax, low corporation tax, low capital gains tax, these are subsides to all the benefits the rich get out of the infrastructure in society. I don't know how your family made it's money but if they have any empoyees, the Government has cheerfully kep their wages low and made sure there wa transport to get them to work and a health service to keep them from being off sick. this all benefits the wealthy. There are police to portect the property of the rich and a million other perks which make being wealthy a good thing in this country. So stop whining. Furthermore all these services are extended to the rich, so they hardly suffer from free helathcare, free education, free policing and a social safety net, mostly paid for by those who earn under 100k

The rich tend to use public services a lot less then the poor, especially in education and health, even if they are available to them, and don't take any money from social services.

And I find it interesting that you feel the police "protect the property of the rich". My village isn't exactly small, yet it hasn't seen a policeman on the beat for decades. The only reasons they ever come here are that someone has been burgled (they never catch the burglars, by the way) and to give out parking tickets.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by Dilly_D

the thread title said all that needed to be said to get the point across.

thank you

What are you, a journalist?
We want ill informed opinions, not facts! \o/

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally Posted by G_frog

If you tax the top income bracket too heavily they will all leave. That's the problem.

The problem currently is that we essentially have two tax brackets, the 33% tax bracket (22% income tax and 11% national insurance) and the 40% tax bracket (all income tax). Two is not enough in my opinion and a third bracket of 50% at 100k a year sounds perfect to me.
The extra income wouldn't even have to be spent, taxes could just be reduced elsewhere. For example lowering the lowest bracket to 30%. It just seems fairer to me, the rich get more perks therefore they should give more back as already stated in other posts.

Bear in mind that this is hardly persecuting the rich if you look at a European context. Most countries in the EU have a 60% tax bracket.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

As for the health service I'm sure there are plenty of rich peopl who are ill, if people who are poor are more liekly to get ill then that sounds like a good reson to get more money to them. As for education I'll think you'll find that since rich kids are more likely to go on to A-levels and university they have more education than the poor.

The rich generally have private health insurance and send their children to private schools.

And urban house prices are high because more people want to live in cities than in villages, not because of the Green Belt.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

As for education I'll think you'll find that since rich kids are more likely to go on to A-levels and university they have more education than the poor.

Overgeneralisations are bad mmk

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

As for the Green belt, it is clear that rich people are beniftting from it more than the poor, so it is a gift from the poor to the rich, if there was no green belt there would be more houses and thus house prices would be cheaper.

So on the one hand, poor people benefit more from public services, and yet this shouldn't excuse the rich from paying for them, and on the other hand, the rich benefit from the green belt, so they should pay for it?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

This idea that all the rich will migrate if you tax them is self serving nonsense. For the most part they have jobs here so there is no question of them leaving. Furthermore who cares if they leave or not.

I thought you did because they paid all the tax

[MrL_JaKiri]

Everyone benefits from the green belt.

[MrL_JaKiri]

The ratio of working class : other is increasing steadily though.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

That's their choice, it doesn't mean they should get tax breaks, I didn't claim the dole when I was unemployed, perhaps I shouldn't pay tax. Furthermore Private healthcare usually uses public resources, it also has doctors who were trained in public universities at great expense. Why do they send their children to private schools? If they can afford to waste money on that shite they can damn well afford a bit more income tax.

Damn straight! People don't have a right to their own money! What a completely laughable idea!

As for the Green belt, it is clear that rich people are beniftting from it more than the poor, so it is a gift from the poor to the rich, if there was no green belt there would be more houses and thus house prices would be cheaper.

Building more houses doesn't necessarily mean that house prices will go down you know. Perhaps in a pure market economy but in socialist russia houses price you!


Also rich people would pay less for their big houses so what the **** are you talking about?