Article

2004-08-31 Britain

British Tory Party - a bunch of wankers?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-08-31 5:41:18 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I am sure the thing that got the "Bush people" was Howards flip on the WOT. Bush may not be able to help Blair in the U.K. but he will stand by him in his own Bush kind of way. Bush has tremendous respect for Tony Blair based on Blairs principled I am doing what right damm the consequences support in the WOT.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-08-31 6:24:28 AM|| 2004-08-31 6:24:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Looks like the Tories are doomed unless they get rid of Howard - too many people remember him for the wrong reasons (Poll Tax - 1980's / physical resemblance to a vampire). The quandry being can they survive the loss of credibility a further change in leader would impose?

Posted by Howard UK 2004-08-31 6:51:33 AM|| 2004-08-31 6:51:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I had high hopes for Howard. Still got some hope he call pull them back from the brink, if only he can get some advisors with more long-sightedness (and a few more old fashioned traditional Tory principles). But I'm almost coming to think the British right should undergo some form of meiosis - have the authoritarian old guard divided from the more libertarian newbies who actually have the new (and better) ideas. Of course, that process would probably see the left dominate electorally for another few Parliaments.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-08-31 7:04:51 AM|| 2004-08-31 7:04:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I think Howard is making a play for the Muslim vote. Will it work? Perhaps sufficiently to win a few seats.

I think Tories have this superiority complex vis-a-vis Americans they really need to resolve. Calling something a disaster (Iraq and Afghanistan) doesn't make it so. Remember the annihilation of 5,000 troops and camp followers on the open field in Afghanistan a century ago? Now that was a disaster. Isandlwana, where 1,300 troops died on a single day on the open field against spear-armed warriors? Now that was a disaster. Losing a thousand men, against guerrillas hiding among civilians, in the course of a year is not a disaster.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-31 10:39:16 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-31 10:39:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 ZF â agreedâ¦.but I suspect he is more interested in the Muslim money to help buy votes â regardless of where the votes come from.

Also, isnât the âthousandâ from the course of the entire WOT? Not just the last year?

Posted by B 2004-08-31 10:45:45 AM|| 2004-08-31 10:45:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Go Tony,go! If only I could vote for him :(

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-08-31 10:47:16 AM|| 2004-08-31 10:47:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Steyn is "spot on" as they would say in the UK. Over hill and dale, the Tories are a sorry excuse for their former selves under Maggie and even John ~~Minor~~ Major. Even Portillo would have handled the WoT and Iraq differently plus he had a better idea on domestic issues such as crime, transportation, etc. But, Howard, I would think that the Tories could rescue some advantage by taking on such domestic issues as University fees, rail transport, country side issues like hunting, etc. NOt?

Posted by Jack is Back 2004-08-31 10:51:15 AM|| 2004-08-31 10:51:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 I think Howard is making a play for the Muslim vote.

In a word: no. Howard hasn't a hope of winning in the Muslim-dominated seats - it's Labour or the Lib Dems for most Muslims, and no prizes for guessing who's been getting the lion's share of them since the Iraq war. Howard's Jewish to boot, so that pretty much rules out any chances he might have with Muslim voters. He's just been shamefully and misguidedly opportunist in attacking Blair over Iraq, where he's been going for the rival politician's jugular rather than pursuing votes.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-08-31 12:51:12 PM|| 2004-08-31 12:51:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Bulldog: In a word: no. Howard hasn't a hope of winning in the Muslim-dominated seats - it's Labour or the Lib Dems for most Muslims, and no prizes for guessing who's been getting the lion's share of them since the Iraq war.

What about the possibility that he's hoping to divide the Muslim vote, so the Tory candidate can win? Just as Nader is helping to divide the liberal vote?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-31 12:54:47 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-31 12:54:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 I really don't think his intention's to influence Muslim voters specifically, at all. They're an insignificant constituency (about three percent of the electorate), tend to block vote for other parties and usually are found in seats where the Conservatives trail both Labour and the Lib Dems.. The number of such voters he could hope to influence is way too small to base his foreign policy on. If he's being populist, it's a general appeal to anti-war types and the uncertain. I think he thinks he can take the habitual Tory voter for granted, so he believes he hasn't got anything to lose. He could be wrong about that.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-08-31 1:05:58 PM|| 2004-08-31 1:05:58 PM|| Front Page Top

01:42 True German Ally
01:42 True German Ally
01:40 True German Ally
01:40 True German Ally
01:42 True German Ally
01:42 True German Ally
01:40 True German Ally
01:40 True German Ally
00:37 newsking
02:46 GreatestJeneration
02:18 newsking
01:21 Anonymous6302
13:53 lex
07:21 Shipman
03:28 Super Hose
03:19 Super Hose
03:16 Super Hose
03:05 Sock Puppet of Doom
02:59 Super Hose
02:04 Sock Puppet of Doom
01:51 Super Hose
01:50 Lucky
01:47 True German Ally
01:47 Sock Puppet of Doom