IDS faces confidence vote

[Marilyn Manson]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3221105.stm

I doubt he's going to survive this. Things are just flowing against him. It'll likely be Letwin, David or Howard leading the party this time next week. I think most MP's were willing to let him dither on and not kick up a fuss until after the election, should he not be the subject of a confidence vote, but I assume most will now leap

On a more wider level, this just highlights the absurdity of a leadership system whereby a man may not gain the majority of the support of his Parliamentary colleagues, but then may go on to become leader. If the membership had had any sense, they would have gone with the mood in Parliament and gone with Clarke, but, of course, for them, the only qualification the leader needed was to be pathetically right-wing.

Is anyong going to publicly abandon this sinking ship now and declare against him?

The whole thing really is just symptomatic of the decline of the party as a whole.

[NEWSBOT3]

soon the charisma lacking twat is gone, the better.

[Proteus]

I want Michael Portillo to win.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Proteus

I want Michael Portillo to win.

He won't stand, as far as I'm aware. I was talking to one of his quasi-supporters in The Commons a while back, and he said that Portillo was really less than luke-warm about standing for leader in the forseeable future, althoguh he implied that he would be possibly willing to serve in a shadow cabinet headed by someone fairly competent.

[ChubbyChecker]

I have no idea what the result is going to be but I think if he does lose it will only be a bad thing for the party. The British people want their political parties to be united above all else and this is just going to leave a very bad impression on your average Brit.

At this rate I doubt whether the Tories will even win as many seats in the next election as they did in the last one. heh.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

We are laughing hysterically about this in the office at the moment. My only fear is that Michael Howard will win, he is a psychotic freak.

Howard may be dangerously right-wing, like IDS, but give the man his due - he is still more competant and more experienced, relative to IDS.

The fact that we are even talking about IDS and Howard as leader and potential leader just shows how far the Tory party has declined. Thirty years ago, both of these men would never have stood a chance of becoming leader, and IDS would have never even attained cabinet or shadow cabinet level.

Oh how the mighty have fallen.

[Ninja_spammer]

Bets on arnold shwazzzzzengerrrieie replacing him??

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

I have no idea what the result is going to be but I think if he does lose it will only be a bad thing for the party. The British people want their political parties to be united above all else and this is just going to leave a very bad impression on your average Brit.

Unity means nothing if you are unified under a donkey.

[Vaio]

The Labour party here is getting flak left right and centre over Iraq. Blair's popularity is at its lowest level and the only political party with a remote chance of winning (clamp it Kennedy you're a scotch ginger alcoholic) are playing like 5 year olds. Another 12 years of Blair Ahoy !

Vaio

Bring back Thatcher

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Bring back Thatcher

And give the IRA a second chance at her?

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

And give the IRA a second chance at her?

THE LADY IS NOT FOR TURNING

You realise, if the falklands were invaded next week Tony Bliar would give them up even if it was osama bin-bag laden who invaded them.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I don't think there was ever any danger of the Conservative party winning the next election.

Even less now

Vaio

[Ninja_spammer]

Thank god for that.

Falklands btw.

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

Thank god for that.

Falklands btw.

Can't you read?

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Can't you read?

Faster than you can edit, so it seems.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

THE LADY IS NOT FOR TURNING

You realise, if the falklands were invaded next week Tony Bliar would give them up even if it was osama bin-bag laden who invaded them.

Are you genuinely mad, or have you merely decided to give such an impression?

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

He won't stand, as far as I'm aware.

That's why I'm sad.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Proteus

That's why I'm sad.

Nowadays you have to be scrupulously right-wing to be voted in as leader. In fact, that is about the only qualification that you need, really; look at IDS. Needless to say, this is not conducive to good leadership.

So now, anybody of a progresive bent will have to pander to things they don't believe in, to people they disagree with to become leader. Whether many such people have the will to do that is open to question.

Hague's reforms of the leadership process were possibly the most monstrously stupid thing he did as leader.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Although it seems like a pretty poor day to be a Tory it says a lot for the bizaare right-wing stance of the Government that they can't get a foothold.

I would hardly call the stance of the government exceptionally right-wing; all that has happened is that Labour has adopted one-nation and The Tories, almost without exception, have adopted militant Neo-LIberalism as the ideology.


It's just a turnaround of the situation that existed before Thatcher. The Tory Party was never destined for success and flexibility forever; somebody was bound to throw the spanner of ideology into the works before long.

In fact it's a lot worse, because most of the time Labour at least could be steered away from the more insane left-wing ideological nonsense by a sensible leader, and The Party leadership had people from all sides in it; This is not currently the case with The Tories.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Ultra pro-business stance.

Ultra pro American stance.

Agressive war mongering and arms dealing.

Anti-immigrant/asylum seeker.

Anti-youth.

Pro-privatisation.

Anti-poor.

Anti-environment.

Anti-Trades Union.

Anti-freedom.

Pro free trade, pro-3rd world debt

So liek I said incredibly right wing for a so-called Social-democratic government. These freaks aren't even Liberal.

Most of those are ridiculously arguable as actual traits of New labour, or not defining charecteristics of being left-wing.

[G_frog]

"Ultra pro-business" is not how the CBI et al see this administration. The infamous NI increase could hardly be seen as such.

the hawkish tendencies of our prime minister on foreign policy are dominating the news. wait until the next budget and see how right wing that is (and, by extension, how right wing the next prime minister will be).

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Left wing equals pro social justice and assisting those in need, the complete opposite agenda of this current administration which has given vast copoerate tax breaks whilst increasing working class taxes.

I don't see how this government hasn't been concerned with social justice. Lowest employment in decades, the social chapter, working families tax credit, the new deal, etc, etc ad nauseum?

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Being left wing implies a somewhat pacifist stance,

How?!?

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

this Government has been in more conflicts than Thatcher, and will sell arms to anyone with a chequebook. Being left-wing involves concern for ther environment,

Again, not neccesarily, although to say that The Government isn't concerned, and hasn't been about the environment, is, frankly, laughable.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

On international issues the Goevrnment has stood side by side with the Orwelian Bush administration and failed to make any headway into issues such as 3rd world debt, fair trade or international develoment, quite the opposite.

Pffftt.

One of the biggest increases in foreign aid money? Elevating International Development to cabinet level? Moving towards writing off third world debt, freezing interest? Pushing for an end to CAP, etc?

Don't make me laugh.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

The shocking attacks on asylum seekers/immigrants, groups of people even the Economist admits is necessary for the health of our economy,

Illegal, invisible immigrants coming here to work for a pitance is not good either for those people themselves or the wider society.

I find it perfectly sensible that people should be screened to see if they have a legitimate case for asylum.

[pablissimo]

Howard's going to be 'the guy' should IDS not survive.

Though I'm now going to find a bookies that'll take political bets and put a tenner on IDS leading the Tories into the next election.
Edit:

Tory Confidence Vote
IDS to lose vote 1/16 BET
IDS to win vote 7/1 BET


The bookies really don't like IDS's chances =/

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

MM = evil mouthpiece for the Labour party


Listen mate you don't have any arguments I haven't heard before, I get paid to be an evil mouth piece for the Labour Government and frankly I'm better at it that you are, and you are just repeating the same hackneyed apologist nonsens I would expect from an A-level student or an MP.

Nice that you can't actually respond to the facts when they're presented at you. Tbh, this sort of drivel is what I expect from 15 year old's that think Marxism is 'cool'.


Bring back Dante. He's sensible.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

Howard's going to be 'the guy' should IDS not survive.

Though I'm now going to find a bookies that'll take political bets and put a tenner on IDS leading the Tories into the next election.
Edit:

Tory Confidence Vote
IDS to lose vote 1/16 BET
IDS to win vote 7/1 BET


The bookies really don't like IDS's chances =/

Where should I go to place my money on Howard?

[pablissimo]

He's 6/4, it's probably not worth it. But this is what BlueSq has to say. I've got a fiver on IDS to win tomorrow at 11/2, you never know. Letwin might be worth a punt but I'm fairly sure that if IDS goes, Howard comes.

So to speak.

[Nusselt]

i say that all his opponents knock themselves out and he ends up as leader again.


oh laugh, but now you just wait you'll be marvelling at my skills as a political pundit.


ps MM what are you doing for goth week? i never knew all you 'wanna be different and individualistic with our life style choices "oooo lets dress in black"' doods were so main stream that you got your own week. I forsee a 'he was a goth boy' single by Ms Lavigne coming up.

[Mushroom]

IDS going is a bad thing.
The tories might have a chance in the next election now

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

ps MM what are you doing for goth week? i never knew all you 'wanna be different and individualistic with our life style choices "oooo lets dress in black"' doods were so main stream that you got your own week. I forsee a 'he was a goth boy' single by Ms Lavigne coming up.

You are more stupid than a paremecium.


I am going on Friday, if you must know. Anyone wearing baggy trousers will be shot.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Mushroom

The tories might have a chance in the next election now

lol

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

He's 6/4, it's probably not worth it. But this is what BlueSq has to say. I've got a fiver on IDS to win tomorrow at 11/2, you never know. Letwin might be worth a punt but I'm fairly sure that if IDS goes, Howard comes.

So to speak.

ONLINE AND FELLING FINE.

[pablissimo]

I put a fiver on Letwin too =(( If only because I wouldn't have been able to withdraw the fiver I hadn't yet used since it's below the limit =(

I feel I have just lost ten pounds.

[Bloomers III]

i hope Howard doesn't win. any man who thinks that he can lower taxes and increase pension payments does not even deserve to live

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Bloomers III

i hope Howard doesn't win. any man who thinks that he can lower taxes and increase pension payments does not even deserve to live

"Prison works."

It certainly didn't with you in charge, Michael.

I suppose you're all too young to remember the fact that he was the worst Home Secretary in the two-hundred or so years that the post has been in existance.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

I put a fiver on Letwin too =(( If only because I wouldn't have been able to withdraw the fiver I hadn't yet used since it's below the limit =(

I feel I have just lost ten pounds.

When do they stop the betting on the leader, anyway? I mean usually. I'm not very good at this gambling business.

[Bloomers III]

he wears funny glasses though, not as funny as that weirdo woman i saw on Mastermind recently

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

not defining charecteristics of being left-wing.

What is a defining characteristic of being left-wing, btw?

In this context, I'd say it was being pro-worker (in an industrial country of course) and being pro-social justice.

Ignoring everything else (and there are numerous other issues) the fact income/wealth inequality has continued to grow at a shameful rate would seem to me as one of the key points at the government either not being left-wing at all, or just not being very good.

Alternately, we could define leftism as some kind of pro-freedom stance which Mr Blunkett appears to be trying to undermine at a rapid rate (e.g. American style sentencing, discussions re : compulsary IDs, etc)

On the old scales (e.g. on nationalisation vs privatisation) the government have actually sought additional privatisations during their stint in office. Not that I care you understand - state capitalist the whole rotten enterprise!

Oh god, look what I've been reduced to. I'm discussing the actual grubby business of adminsitrational politics. I don't even do that on my social-policy degree course I hate you all...

[Marilyn Manson]

£20.00 on Howard. \0/

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

What is a defining characteristic of being left-wing, btw?

In this context, I'd say it was being pro-worker (in an industrial country of course) and being pro-social justice.

You make a fairly astute point there may be something lacking in terms of redistribution to combat inequality. But this is not, technically a formal feature of Social Democracy. Even so, I fail to see how Labour can be totally dismissed as having no intention of tackling this, though many of the actions I've outlined above, and to say that it ignores it totally is fairly obtuse, if not actually being a denial of the reality of the situation. There is money given to those needy groups, but this is not simply a blinkered emotional approach or an ideological one. It is a method of targetting money clinically. Money should be avalible to those in need, but it should not be a given to everybody of X group, simply thrown at them on the basis of an ideological imperative.

The methods of actually administering cash and sending it directly to one group as a means to enrich one group, these methods that were dominant of old, are gone under the current approach, I would say, if indeed they ever existed. But this does not equate with Conservatism. Far from it, since we are focused on giving everyone the ability to achieve regardless of status, to the best of their ability. Social position should not be an issue. Everyone must have access to the various options in society, as far as their skills can take them. Engineering this situation whereby people are given by society every avaliable option in so far as the community can provide it is at the heart of Social Democracy. This in itself will involve providing through cash for the various services, and may, somewhat perversly, this be interepreted as being something close to 'freedom', if you want to look at it that way. But I digress.

I don't know where you an Mr Fugue keep getting these mildly encentric notions about leftism being having freedom and economics being somewhat intertwined, since this has never really been the case; the argument in favour of the one accompanying the other is absolute, in my mind, but this has not historically been the case.

Certainly, if we're talking about British Labourism, then that has never really given a damn, historically speaking, about anything other than economic and social policy, and much the same can be said for other left parties elsewhere.

[Vaio]

Whats wrong with Anti-Youth ?

Vaio

[Deepflow]

MM... whats wrong with asylum seekers coming into the country and working cash in hand? its clearly good for the economy, and their form of living is probably at least an improvement on what they had in their home country. And at the very least better than sitting around doing nothing REALLY living off the state. At least giving cheap labour is good for us. The only people who lose out are the guys who want to get paid more. btw... ive heard from numerous sources that we actually need an influx of population into this country to actually fill the jobs, or will do soon with aging populations and all that. I cant reference it though, just heard it from people whose views are generally reliable.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Even so, I fail to see how Labour can be totally dismissed as having no intention of tackling this, though many of the actions I've outlined above, and to say that it ignores it totally is fairly obtuse, if not actually being a denial of the reality of the situation. There is money given to those needy groups, but this is not simply a blinkered emotional approach or an ideological one. It is a method of targetting money clinically. Money should be avalible to those in need, but it should not be a given to everybody of X group, simply thrown at them on the basis of an ideological imperative.

My question was not intended to be rhetorical - I really did mean to ask what you thought the undeniable characteristics of leftism were. Thanks for your answer. I'm well aware the British labourism (or even British communism for that matter) has always neglected freedom as a key goal, but I'd still include it as one of the key priorities for the left. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity after all. But I digress.

You misunderstand if you think I'm advocating a specific policy one way or another to combat inequality (or social injustice). I'm not particularly bothered. I'm painfully aware of how awful the benefits system is in general (in it's concept) and it's execution. In fact, a good 50% of my working life is spent dealing with the horrible mess it generally creates. Plus I had the first 18 years of my life with "benefits" (the term you've rightfully ridiculed) being the major component to family income. I don't even advocate taxation, either. I don't care one jot whether the higher rate of income tax is up or down.

What concerns me is the results. Even if we disregard freedom (which the British left generally has) for a moment and concentrate purely on economics (as I mention, economic equality, statism vs privatisation and trade unionism that kind of thing), the results are still woeful. I don't want money "thrown at problems" , or any such "ideological imperatives" . But looking at results, on any of the main (economic) criteria the results are either static from '97, or worse.

We have more inequality, less of a state sector, the benefits sector is even more complicated, the unions are still hampered by draconian legislation, no student grants (with prospects of this field being worse)....I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. As I've said - they might have intention (in which case they are incompetent or unlucky) or they might have no intention (in which case they are the enemy).

p.s. Oh and then there's the whole criminal war issue, but I'm sure that's not a major concern of leftists either.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

MM... whats wrong with asylum seekers coming into the country and working cash in hand? its clearly good for the economy, and their form of living is probably at least an improvement on what they had in their home country.

What? Are you crazy?

These people can be exploited, have no legal right to anything, are not even officially there. They do not, technically, exist, at least in this country.

They have less rights than an animal. And god knows what the wider effects are on society as a result of this sort of situation.

If you're talking about legal immigrants, coming in for either valid political reasons, or coming for economic ones, and then going through the due process, then yes, these people should be given every oppurtunity.

But people with no actual official status being allowed to remain in such a limbo? No.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

These people can be exploited, have no legal right to anything, are not even officially there.They do not, technically, exist, at least in this country.

To be fair to most people who recommend this (people like Friedman), they would generally recommend you give people work-permits, or at least develop some kind of quasi-legal state for people to work in. Regardless whether someone is an illegal refugee or not, they still have some kind of rights : the right to police protection, some healthcare provision, etc. If you enter this country as a visitor (i.e. with no work permits, etc) you can still (generally) be seen at a hospital, or doctors.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

What? Are you crazy?

These people can be exploited, have no legal right to anything, are not even officially there.They do not, technically, exist, at least in this country.

They have less rights than an animal. And god knows what the wider effects are on society as a result of this sort of situation.

If you're talking about legal immigrants, coming in for either valid political reasons, or coming for economic ones, and then going through the due process, then yes, these people should be given every oppurtunity.

But people with no actual official status being allowed to remain in such a limbo? No.

of course they can be exploited, 100% of the people in the world are being exploited. But of course thats not an answer

I was more referring to those bogged down in the process of being here, between arriving and their claim either being accepted or rejected. You aren't legally allowed to work until it has been. This fact does make the whole "they're living off the state" thing seem a bit silly. As it stands, any able bodied person in this country can get a job if they want to, except those legally not allowed to. Why should those people not be permitted to work cash in hand? ethically speaking.

i could make a case for those who are not here at all working, but im not really up for it tonight, seeing as its er, a lot more difficult.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

To be fair to most people who recommend this (people like Friedman), they would generally recommend you give people work-permits, or at least develop some kind of quasi-legal state for people to work in. Regardless whether someone is an illegal refugee or not, they still have some kind of rights : the right to police protection, some healthcare provision, etc. If you enter this country as a visitor (i.e. with no work permits, etc) you can still (generally) be seen at a hospital, or doctors.

True, but in the matter that most concerns us, i.e, employment rights, these people have nothing.

I wasn't actually totally rejecting any proposition along the lines of work permits or some sort of quasi-citizenship measure, (altough I probably would.) out of hand, merely the idea that these people are, at the moment in a 'good' situation.

[Deepflow]

there is a subtle difference between "good" and "better"

[Mushroom]

Incidentally has anyone seen the Michael Howard Newsnight footage from when he was home secretary?
"Did you threaten to overrule him?"

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

My question was not intended to be rhetorical - I really did mean to ask what you thought the undeniable characteristics of leftism were. Thanks for your answer. I'm well aware the British labourism (or even British communism for that matter) has always neglected freedom as a key goal, but I'd still include it as one of the key priorities for the left. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity after all. But I digress.

Sorry, I thought you wanted a discourse on Social Democracy atm in The UK.

With regards to the policy part, I don't particularly agree with most of the policies devised by the government either. They are too concerned with electoral expediency and caution. I suspect they would work better if this was taken out of the equation.

Originally Posted by Deepflow

I was more referring to those bogged down in the process of being here, between arriving and their claim either being accepted or rejected. You aren't legally allowed to work until it has been. This fact does make the whole "they're living off the state" thing seem a bit silly. As it stands, any able bodied person in this country can get a job if they want to, except those legally not allowed to. Why should those people not be permitted to work cash in hand? ethically speaking.

Well, sure, as long as they're given this option in law, and it isn't a illegal method od obtaining a wage, whereby the 'employee' can be exploited. You're general point, I would iamgine is about resolving the complication surrounding most of the systems we have in The UK, and particularly in this field.





P.S, Three hours 'til blast off. \0/