Heseltine
Ian G Batten
Well, Radio Four's ``World at One'' is almost totally dedicated to the
challenge having being confirmed. Long interview with the man himself,
Hurd, Clarke. Switched on at 13:00:45, not a word on anything else yet.
Hurd spoke of the main enemy being Kinnock, Thatcher right person for
the job, etc., just like Gummer on BBC1 and Baker on Radio 4 this
morning. Heseltine actually stated that he felt the Conservative voters
were drifting away but would return under his leadership. His main
planks seemed to be Europe and the Poll Tax. He made the point that a
lot of the opposition to Europe is from people old enough to remember
the Empire, and that the younger regard themselves as Europeans anyway.
Clarke has just admitted that the Government is currently unpopular, but
denies that Heseltine would help.
Heseltine's supporters are claiming he will reform Poll Tax, return
Cabinet system to correct funtioning. They claim over 100 votes. 10
Downing Street is saying that she would regard even a one vote majority
as being a mandate.
It's said that Howe's speech yesterday may be worth 25 to 30 votes.
Coverage of Heseltine finished at 13:28. It's big news.
ian
Jon Livesey
>
>Well, Radio Four's ``World at One'' is almost totally dedicated to the
>challenge having being confirmed. Long interview with the man himself,
>Hurd, Clarke. Switched on at 13:00:45, not a word on anything else yet.
>
Interestingly, Heseltine did too, something about running only because
he thought he was the best person to lead the party into the next
election and avoid the possible catastrophe of Labour slithering in.
He has the right priorities, at least. If I had a choice between
Maggie and getting Labour back, I would choose my country over my
leader every time. :-) Fortunately, before we have to worry about
Labour winning elections, we get to laugh at them explaining why they
get bumped into third place so often.
Odd thing, but this party contest shows just how marginalised Labour
has become in the past decade. Noone gives a bugger about Kinnock - a
man with a great deal not to give a bugger about - but as soon as the
Tories have an internal fracas, everyone is interested. "Shush, will
you? This is important stuff going on here!" It looks very much as
though both the Government and the Opposition are now contained in one
Party, at least on the important issues. The significant debates are
between two wings of the Tory party.
If the Tories are smart, they will run as two separate parties next
time, Tory-UK and Tory-Eu. They might get all the seats. They
might get Kinnock, too.
jon.
Peter Brooks
I have always found pom party politics rather a bore, but it would be
nice to see the brassy common BMT out on her arse. Tarzan is unlikely
to be much better, the problem is that he may get the Tories back again
for four more years - we really need a change. On the other hand if
Goldilocks were to come in and do a hatchet job on the remaining sinecures,
actuaries, accountants, lawyers and civil servants I would be fairly
happy.
I hope that, if Flack Jacket, does get in and reviews poll tax, he
makes dogs pay the poll tax or get put down. A good green healthy measure
if ever there was one.
Peter Brooks
Jonathan Harley
>In article <***^LP^@uzi-9mm.fulcrum.bt.co.uk> i...@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) writes:
>>Hurd spoke of the main enemy being Kinnock,...
>
>Interestingly, Heseltine did too, something about running only because
>he thought he was the best person to lead the party into the next
>election and avoid the possible catastrophe of Labour slithering in.
Yes, on "Today" this morning he said he had "been persuaded" that he
should stand for this reason. I'm sure it had never occurred to him
before! :-)
After all, this time last year he was explaining that he would never
stand against Mrs. Thatcher, but wait until she stepped down.
>[...] Fortunately, before we have to worry about
>Labour winning elections, we get to laugh at them explaining why they
>get bumped into third place so often.
Oh dear, you're desperately out of date here. As a service to all expats
who are this far out of touch, I feel I must correct this. It is now the
Tories who get bumped into third place, as happened last week. It hasn't
been "often" since the early 80s.
>Odd thing, but this party contest shows just how marginalised Labour
>has become in the past decade. Noone gives a bugger about Kinnock - a
>man with a great deal not to give a bugger about -
How can a party 16% ahead in the polls be "marginalised"? And the second
statement is clearly untrue. When I was last in the UK, in September, the
polls on party leaders had been showing, since about April, that more
people wanted Mr. Kinnock to be Prime Minister than Paddy Ashdown and
TBW put together, and that Mrs. Thatcher was the most *un*popular PM
since the polls began after WW2.
> but as soon as the
>Tories have an internal fracas, everyone is interested. "Shush, will
>you? This is important stuff going on here!"
Well, of course. A united opposition party is not news, after the initial
shock, but a government which is as deeply split as the Conservatives now
are is certainly important, in fact it's a very serious and worrying matter.
Hence half an hour of coverage on "The World at One", as much as only a
major disaster would get. (Hmmm....)
>If the Tories are smart, they will run as two separate parties next
>time, Tory-UK and Tory-Eu. They might get all the seats. They
>might get Kinnock, too.
Or they might "get" a surprise, if once-safe Tory seats like Ian Gow's
continue to be lost at the present rate.
Jon.
--
__________________________________
/ --Jonathan Harley :-) / "Le plaisir // // //
/ *temporarily working in France* / de comprendre"... // // //////
/_______E-MAIL: harley @ irisa.fr /_________________________//////////// //
Rob Turner
It is very tempting for Tory voters to transfer their allegiances to
Michael Heseltine, especially with the press and television going into
raptures at the moment over this issue. I have no doubt that if he
does become leader then more young people will vote Conservative.
However, less older people will vote Conservative.
But, as we all know now the way of the world is to pander and bow down
to all the youngsters who are "the future" (some future we'll
have if half of the kids get their way).
The fact is, that due to a quirk of nature, adult people have more
experience of the world than younger people, and collectively (yes, I
know that there are a lot of *stupid* adults around) they know better,
and have to curb the excesses of the kids. Simple fact of life.
I don't particularly care who wins the leadership contest, although I
have a slight preference for Mrs Thatcher. Countrywide, I think the
boredom factor is bound to set in sooner or later (and is quite
advanced at the moment), which may be responsible for Labour winning
the next election. But I certainly know who will win the next-but-one
general election when the novelty has worn off.
BTW, I'm not as old as you think.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Turner | r...@cs.hull.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science |
University of Hull | "In every real man a child is
Hull HU6 7RX | hidden that wants to play"
England | - Nietzsche
Tim Oldham
>A united opposition party is not news, after the initial
>shock, but a government which is as deeply split as the Conservatives now
>are is certainly important, in fact it's a very serious and worrying matter.
I think it's marvellous. All of a sudden, 11 years' of dirty laundry
is being washed in public, and failing the window test miserably.
Question time yesterday was preoccupied with Thazza dodging the question
of whether resignation threats had been made and Tory MPs asking questions
soley designed to slag off the Heseltine camp...Interestingly, Kinnock
actually produced a good performance.
[Aside: Kinnock is widely seen as a ``poor leader'' because of his
comparitively weak Parliamentarianism. His strength actually lies in
his leadership of the Labour Party. You only have to look at the way
he has produced a relevant, coherent set of policies that 95%+ of
Labour supports; the way he has and is reducing the union block vote,
which was widely used by the Tories as a put-down; the way he appointed a
strong, united and effective Shadow cabinet, again with vast support (in
particular, John Smith and Gordon Brown are good parliamentarians,
excellent policy-makers and very effective lobbyists in financial circles);
the way he has appointed superb media advisors; and so on and so forth.
Let's just hope Red Wedge doesn't start up again. Oh, and please, *no more*
of those awful ``popular'' songs that are so embarrassing. You're big boys
and girls now.]
Whereas Labour historically were the party of factions
(Socialist Worker, Militant, Fabians etc.) those factions have now been
marginalised to produce a united party; on the other side of the House
you now have the Bruges group, The No-Turning-Back group, the Heselteenies,
and so on.
The golden scenario is for Thazza to lose the first ballot, but not
by much, then continue to fight and win by the slimmest of majorities.
This would marginalises her in the country, and there really isn't
too much harm she can do between now and the general election, given
the proposed legislation for the year. It would also significantly
decrease her ability to rule by decree, again decreasing the damage
potential. If she is leader at the next General Election, it's
extremely unlikely the Tories could win. Not only is the party divided
over very important issues, history shows that the UK electorate like
a change and the Tories have *nothing* to put Labour down on. The Tories
have used powerful and significant cards in the past: Unilateralism,
Union power, weak economic policy, weak foreign policy, divided party,
extremist [Militant] party and law and order. None of these cards
can be played this time round, and many of them can be thrown back
in their faces.
Of course, there's the Lib-Dems, with Paddy ``Nice guy with a hard
military background'' Ashdown, but I'd say they're more likely to
steal votes from Tory than Labour supporters. Quite what that means
in terms of the seats in the house after the GE I can't say, because
I don't know. Federal Europeanism is their biggest problem. Nobody
wants it, and it doesn't matter how loud they shout it, people still
don't want it.
The most worrying aspect of this Europe debate [No, I don't think
they should ever have been number one with ``The Final Countdown'',
for all you NME readers :-] is that it's certain that very few people
actually understand what European integration actually means.
Tim.
--
Tim Oldham, BT Applied Systems. t...@its.bt.co.uk or ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo
Well, you'd have a corporate siege mentality, too.
Alan Jeffrey
>Odd thing, but this party contest shows just how marginalised Labour
>has become in the past decade. Noone gives a bugger about Kinnock - a
>man with a great deal not to give a bugger about - but as soon as the
>Tories have an internal fracas, everyone is interested. "Shush, will
>you? This is important stuff going on here!"
That's because of the difference between the two parties---Labour is
continually pulling itself apart (viz. the very public falling out
between Kinnochio and Hattersly) whereas the Tories do absolutely
everything in code. So when an ex-Minister stands up and says that he
might have some slight differences of opinion with his honourable
friend the Prime Minister, what this means is `That cow should resign
immediately.' If Labour were a) in power at the moment and b) in as
much a state of civil war as the Tories are at the moment, it'd be all
over the papers.
I wonder if there's been any behind-the-scenes deals between the
Hurd/Major axis and Heseltine's merry crew viz. who gets what jobs if
the other should win the election. Heseltine back in the cabinet
under Hurd... Hmmm...
>jon.
Cheers,
Alan
PS: This belongs in uk.politics, but I can't get that here. Oh well.
--
Alan Jeffrey 031 721098 jef...@cs.chalmers.se
Computer Science Department, Chalmers University, Gothenburg, Sweden
Richard Caley
It is very tempting for Tory voters to transfer their allegiances to
Michael Heseltine, especially with the press and television going into
raptures at the moment over this issue. I have no doubt that if he
does become leader then more young people will vote Conservative.
However, less older people will vote Conservative.
This seems precisely backwards to me. Most of the extreme Thatcherite
loonies are at the younger end of the Tory support, just as most of
the (anti-social)ist non-workers are late teens early twenties.
The divide is easier to see in Scotland where the Torys have
splintered nicely into pro-Rifkind and pro-Forsyth wings. The latter
are the young conservatives.
Personally I want the Tebbit Monster to be leader beacuse (a) it would
totally scupper the Torys at the next election (b) he has an ability
to make a reasoned argument, unlike most of the rest of the Tory party
and (c) Spitting Image would have a field day.
--
r...@uk.ac.ed.cstr _O_
|<
Richard Caley
Oldham) writes:
[Kinnock's] strength actually lies in
his leadership of the Labour Party. You only have to look at the way
he has produced a relevant, coherent set of policies that 95%+ of
Labour supports;
Sorry, did someone just use the words `Kinnock' and `policies' in the
same sentence[*]? Why does the phrase ``too much Mozart'' float
through my mind...
OK, they might have some but they are keeping very quiet about them.
I've seen them on the box, I've read bits in the Gurniad, I even
caught part of the conference, but I still can't name a single solid
proposal except that they want to return to the rates with possibly
some cosmetic changes (unclear again). They've been making noises
about education and training, but only in the form of complaining that
the Torys have it all wrong ( I suppose that at least cuts down the space of
possible Labour policies by one... maybe).
Even though everyone (including me) jokes about the LDs being
policyless, I certainly have a more solid idea of what they propose
(PR, local income tax, actually getting involved with the decision
making in Europe rather than carping on the sidelines...).
Now if Labour really have no policies except undoing things Thatcher
has inflicted on us then I have no problem, I think a govt. which kept
its hands off would be a good idea after 11 years of attempted
micro-management, but I doubt they have the willpower. I suspect they
will just thrash around at random for most of their term then shred
themselves towards the end.
the way he has and is reducing the union block vote,
which was widely used by the Tories as a put-down
Ah, that explains it, `policies' means doing what Auntie Maggie tells
you to...
Whereas Labour historically were the party of factions
(Socialist Worker, Militant, Fabians etc.) those factions have now been
marginalised to produce a united party;
and expelling anyone with enough of a mind to have opinions so you
can't be accused of splitting.
I don't know. Federal Europeanism is their [the SaLaDs] biggest
problem. Nobody
wants it, and it doesn't matter how loud they shout it, people still
don't want it.
That's a silly comment isn't it. Obviously someone want's it --
members of the LibDems for instance. Also I'll stick my mit up,
anything which removes power from Westminster is all to the good IMHO.
So long as it goes to the European Parliament, not to the council of
ministers or the comission.
Move most power to local government, some of the rest to Europe and
let Maggie/Neil/Paddy/Screaming Lord Sutch[**] in #10 stick to
scheduling road works on the M25 or something equally harmless.
The most worrying aspect of this Europe debate is that it's
certain that very few people
actually understand what European integration actually means.
I always it had a lot to do with `europe' and `integration' personally.
[*] Well, ok, it was a pronoun when he wrote it, pedant.
[**] Actually I think he'd be a much better PM than any of the
major parties' offerings.
--
r...@uk.ac.ed.cstr When the thunder clouds sound
Ants all scatter to high ground.
- 10,000 Maniacs `Daktai'
David John Schuetz
>military background'' Ashdown, but I'd say they're more likely to
>steal votes from Tory than Labour supporters.
I was watching the British parliamentary debate on C-Span, and I recall
a blondish fellow reminscing about being deployed to Iraq back in 61,
when Kuwait was threatened with invasion in the wake of independence.
Was that the same guy? The name seems familiar.
Laura Burchard
Trevor Kirby
>(c) Spitting Image would have a field day.
They really slipped up last week. The start was "we will now cover all
of Geoffery Howe's achievements. ...... Right now on with the rest of
the show." That was just before a tory backbencher described him as a
rottweiller in sheeps clothing.
A further comment on "Have I got News for you" from the editor of
private eye
"No lets be fair to Heseltine, god knows why. What he
actually said was I will not challenge the prime minister unless some
thing completely unforseen occurs. Well at the time the thought of
Geoffery Howe making an interesting speech was completely unforseen."
Actually he must be worried. If maggie, goes what happens to the dear
bill column unless tarzans wife turns out to be a complete alky.
All spelling mistkes and lack of grammer in this article are due to
a severe caffeine deficiency plus a 2 year old who sees mice under his
bed at 2 AM. If he starts doing a calvin on them I shall scream.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz\
Trev
Matthew Huntbach
>(Socialist Worker, Militant, Fabians etc.) those factions have now been
>marginalised to produce a united party; on the other side of the House
>you now have the Bruges group, The No-Turning-Back group, the Heselteenies,
>and so on.
>
Thatcher are both right-wingers, but have different approaches.
A lot has changed in the Conservative Party, and the world
since 1975 when Thatcher became leader. What is so terribly
wrong about the Conservative Party making a serious decision
about which way it wished to proceed in the 1990s?
Why is it thought such a good thing that the Labour Party is
united? What this means in practice is that it is so desperate
to get elected that it has stopped thinking and agreed to
whatver its leaders might have wrote down one day on the back
of an envelope. Wouldn't it have been far for everyone if the
Conservative Party had been a little less united, and a little
more democratic and had actually thought through how it would
raise local government taxes than uniting around a silly idea
someone dreamed up and sold to Thatcher? What similar silly
ideas are hidden in Labour Party policy documents, which no-one
dare argue against on the grounds that this would amount to
that terrible thing, "factionalism"?
This country has ended up with a curious consitution in which
ministers for things such as health, education, industry are
changed almost annually, while the PM goes on and on. It would
be far more stable if the PM were changed annually but the
other ministers stayed in their posts long enough to get to
know them and do something useful.
Matthew Huntbach
Jon Livesey
>>
>Why is this country so afraid of democracy? Heseltine and
>Thatcher are both right-wingers, but have different approaches.
>A lot has changed in the Conservative Party, and the world
>since 1975 when Thatcher became leader. What is so terribly
>wrong about the Conservative Party making a serious decision
>about which way it wished to proceed in the 1990s?
Pardon me? How could anyone interpret what's is going on as
indicating that the British are afraid of democracy? The Tories have
their little voting system, there is real doubt about the wisdom of
SWMBO's Euro-policies, the Press wants a vote, Tory MP's want a vote,
the voters, who are getting just a wee bit bored with all the shouting
and screaming, want a vote, and so, guess what? A vote. Isn't that
nice? A serious decision about the 1990's is exactly what is going
on.
I do recall that not too long ago you were creaking on about how the
Tory Party is a one-man band, and undemocratic, and all that stuff.
Now that they are proving you wrong, you're not pleased about that
either. What's up? Sour grapes?
jon.
Rod Williams
> ...there is real doubt about the wisdom of
>SWMBO's Euro-policies, the Press wants a vote, Tory MP's want a vote...
^^^^^
ummm...Straight White Males with Body Odor? South West Marylebone
Bentley Owners? Superintendant of Well-Maintained Box Offices?
Do tell...(:-))
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Rod Williams * Enlarge! Enliven! Enlighten! *
* Pacific Bell - San Ramon CA * - "L. Douffet" *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
queen of infinite space
of being a "closet leftist". Heavens, truly now.
Rainbow
--
"whichever way your pleasure tends,
if you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind"
Rainbow --- Sun Microsystems --- rai...@sun.com
Matthew Huntbach
>
>Pardon me? How could anyone interpret what's is going on as
>indicating that the British are afraid of democracy? The Tories have
>their little voting system, there is real doubt about the wisdom of
>SWMBO's Euro-policies, the Press wants a vote, Tory MP's want a vote,
>the voters, who are getting just a wee bit bored with all the shouting
>and screaming, want a vote, and so, guess what? A vote. Isn't that
>nice? A serious decision about the 1990's is exactly what is going
>on.
>
>I do recall that not too long ago you were creaking on about how the
>Tory Party is a one-man band, and undemocratic, and all that stuff.
>Now that they are proving you wrong, you're not pleased about that
>either. What's up? Sour grapes?
>
>jon.
No, I am pleased to see the election. Even it results in a
change of Tory leader, and hence gives them a better chance in
the next election, I am pleased to see it for the sake of
democracy.
What I was referring to was the widespread argument before the
leadership election was called that it was all terribly
damaging, and should never have been allowed to happen etc. I
also believe the opposition parties are wrong to condemn the
Tories as split just because they have had this election. In
doing so, they are attacking democracy.
Matthew Huntbach
Trevor Kirby
like its a three way between dibdun Hezeltine , hurd and "I failed a
job interview for bus conductor in 1961 because I couldn't add up
major" with a possible spanner in the works from the chingford
skinhead. The entire labour ranks will be in mourning today.
All this and my drive shaft knackered today, what a bummer.
Trev
Rod Williams
Party Leader require up to three ballots to produce a satisfactory,
democratic result, while in parliamentary elections the winner is
simply the person with the most votes, no matter how small a
percentage of the electorate that may represent?
Matthew Huntbach
>Can someone please explain why the voting rules for Conservative
>Party Leader require up to three ballots to produce a satisfactory,
>democratic result, while in parliamentary elections the winner is
>simply the person with the most votes, no matter how small a
>percentage of the electorate that may represent?
The Conservative Party is a private organisation and is
entitled to decide whatever voting rules it likes to select its
leader. The voting rules for the Labour leadership are even
more bizarre.
The voting rules for Parliamentary elections are, of course,
kept precisely because they are not very democratic.
Matthew Huntbach
P E Smee
>Party Leader require up to three ballots to produce a satisfactory,
>democratic result, while in parliamentary elections the winner is
>simply the person with the most votes, no matter how small a
>percentage of the electorate that may represent?
The quick and easy answer to the literal question is that the
Conservative Party gets to pick its own rules for selecting its
leader. (Their previous set of rules said that 'a bunch of the boys
will get together in a smoke-filled room, and pick the leader'. In
essence, anyway. The rules for selecting the leader of the Labouor
Party are different, but also pretty baroque.) The rules for
parliamentary elections, on the other hand, are the subject of
applicable laws, which say a plurality wins.
The deeper answer to the underlying question is that the Tories have
decided that the party works better if the leader has the support of
the majority of the party. So, that's how their internal elections
work.
On the other hand, they've also worked out that a simple plurality rule
means that they can hold their 60-70% of the seats in Government (and
so, all the power) with only 40% of the vote. And, of course, they
believe the country works better when THEY are in charge of it. So,
they've got no desire to change the voting laws.
To be fair to the Tories (something I'm not usually concerned about,
and I mention this primarily as a slam at the other parties) all the
other parties also seem to realize that plurality voting is 'best',
once they've got into power. For precisely the same sorts of reasons,
which are also the reasons that it is 'bad' when they are out.
The 'opposition' parties are the ones who go for reforming the system,
and (by definition) they are not then in any position to do anything to
accomplish it. (The strongest interest in, and promises of, change
seem to come from the parties least likely to get in -- a simple linear
inverse function.)
To me it feels like the most likely scenario for change would be if the
vote in an election split such that neither the Tories nor Labour got a
majority of Parliament. In that case, the Liberals would probably
agree to cooperate in a coalition government (with either side), in
return for a promise of electoral reform. The Liberals actually
suggest that they would do this -- but then, 'they would say that,
wouldn't they?', since they are not in a position to do anything about
it right now. (See above.) I'll believe it when and if it happens.
--
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
P.S...@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!ukc!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132