Michael Howard

[Admin]

He get's his own thread now that he's the new Tory leader. Even if somebody else throws there name into the contest, judging by the amount of senior Tories backing him he'll still win. And I think nobody else will enter the contest because they know they'll lose and then get ignored when it comes to handing out the best jobs.

His ten minutes this afternoon were, I have to say, great. Confident and he has a good speaking voice. And I honestly think he can give Blair a good run for his money in the Commons.

On the negative side, this could all end up being an excercise in style over substance. But as a floating voter, I like to get a good look at all the options on the table.

[spike]

I dunno. There's something a tad suspicious about the fact that within about 2 hours of IDS being booted nearly all the people mentioned in connection with the job announced their support for Howard. The whole thing smack of the pariamentary party deciding THEY didn't want IDS and THEY don't trust the grass roots membership not to elect someone THEY see as being suitable.

I'd like to see someone else throw their hat into the ring (unfortunatly Portillo, who was another possibility, revealed last night that he is backing Howard) or a way for the grass roots membership to make their feelings heard if Howard is the only candidate. Otherwise this'll lead to more division within the party and, ultimately, the possible death of the Conservatives.

[Mr President]

There's no doubting that the party wants Howard as their leader. I'm sure all of this was pre-planned, from the vote of confidence in IDS to the (currently) one-man race for new leader.

I do think that with him in place the party is taking a step back, and I quote what somebody else said in relation to the end of the last century, "Britain has moved on, the Tories have not". Have the MPs who have forgotten that he was as unpopular Home Secretary as you can get?

Also, I don't think the party wants a long drawn out leadership election because the Hutton Inquiry verdict is due soon, and it's an ideal time for them to score points over Blair.

On television, the Tories say something along the lines of, with Michael as the only candidate it shows that the party is united. Another soundbite of their self importance because to me it all looks like back stabbing and well organised in advance.

The only thing I accept about all this is that they need a strong leader, be it style-wise or substance-wise, in order to give Blair a tough time. And Tony needs a good grilling. And despite this leadership contest being very suspicious indeed, the Tories are still the opposition party and need to act like it. That said, Howard has history and I expect that Blair will mention it at every opportunity.

I'm doubtful that anybody else with submit their names now, given that all the front runners are endorsing Howard.



Talking Portillo, I was watching that post-Question Time programme on BBC ONE and former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie offered him three 'election winning' strategies - lower taxes all round, crime and something else. And Portillo rubbished all of them except crime by stating that at the last election they Tories campaigned on lower taxes and still lost. Again, self importance issues here, it's not their policies it's their people. Does he think that we don't care for lower taxes? Is he stupid? The low income earners in this country, say those getting £12'000 a year, as much as £25% of what they earn each month is taken away as Central Gov. tax, Local Gov. tax and Nat. Insurance. There are people working long hours five/six days a week living on £8,000 - £9,000 a year after tax. And what does the government do with our money? Well, Wife Swap gave us one example of that with those absolutely appalling bastards scrounging £37,000 a year in benefits. Yeah, that couple with eight kids. He can't work because he's too distressed, she's too busy smoking her way through £75 worth of fags each week whilst her husband does the same. A few of their kids have chronic asthma, and living in a house with chain smokers really helps with their illness, but don't fret, they get £7,000 a year from the taxpayer to help comfort them. Then when those people living on a low income find themselves out of job, they go see what benefit they can claim and get told 'here's a couple of magic beans, go plant them and see if they grow'. The benefit system is an absolute shambles. I myself would stop their £37,000 a year benefit because they are clearly not entitled - Jesus Christ, who is, they should be middle class citizen's with that 'income' - and force one of them to get a job. And if I felt like it, charge them extra taxes. Good people need lower taxes, criminals need punishing. Neither is happening.

Wife Swap gave us an extreme example of how some people really do just take the piss, and for Portillo to say we wouldn't vote for lower taxes makes him look like an expletive deleted idiot.

People say Michael Howard is too right-wing, and there are times, like now, when I think that that would be the perfect tonic. But the party needs to focus on us rather than themselves and this is why they stumble all the time.

Again I say, this country is too soft on the bad people and too harsh on the good people.

[DarkHoarse]

Personally I am equally sickened by the tendency for directors of failing companies to award themselves bonuses (usually) well in excess of £37,000. And I know our taxes don't pay directly for that, but then again we pay in other ways, certainly in the case of the former runner of our railways. And the same companies and the same directors are highly skilled in avoiding their fair share of taxes, so that's money the Treasury could be spending on the country which they can't. So all of this costs the taxpayer, just as benefit fraud does. But you won't get the populist right wing bleating about that because their core constituency would be simply horrified.

Not to say I am condoning benefit fraud, I just see it as an easy target for politicians who don't like to face up to the mess certain policies have made. As if ALL of the responsibility lies with the individual and not the state. As if a series of policies which systematically screwed the working class of this country isn't at least partly responsible for the disenfranchised members of said class deciding to take the piss out of the state. "Get on your bike and look for work", "there's no such thing as society", relentless march towards private ownership of absolutely everything, widen the gap between haves and have nots, then introduce the poll tax (Mr Howard was involved here)! And after all of that divisiveness, to then blame socialism - out of power for 13 years at the time - for a rise in crime since, er, 1979 (when Thatcher came to power)! And while we're at it, blame the permissive legislation of the 1960s for a rise in yobbish behaviour, "falling standards", and lots of other lovely right-wing buzzwords (Norman "on yer bike" Tebbit, only this week!).

I am NOT excusing lazy b*stards like these people on Wife Swap. I really have nothing but contempt for them. I don't believe in an unlimited welfare state. But I do object to the state of mind which regards this as any less moral than avaricious capitalists taking the piss out of workers and taxpayers. And that state of mind is one which I feel Michael Howard and his ilk will cynically exploit, because they helped create it and they know there's lots of easy votes in it.

Oh, and no calling me a communist/Guardianista/loony leftie, thank you kindly. There's another indication of how much this country has changed: you espouse a view somewhat to the left of the centre-right consensus and you end up dealing with insults like that. Boring.

Still, I bet a certain Sun columnist and sometime Sky TV presenter is creaming his pants at the prospect of Howard and his ilk returning to power...

[sig007]

OH MY GOD.....

You see this is why this forum is soooo much better than the others, intelligent discussion and ranting (hooray for Spike and mr president)
I for once agree with everything said previously. I watched Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore for the second time at the weekend and was astounded at the simalarity in the US government look at law and the UK. If a black kid mugs a white woman then it's news, yet the multi million pound white collar crime barley makes it into the paper never mind on to the television. Nick Leeson was really the last big case that i remember to hit the screens and that was only because he managed to bring down the whole bank....

As for benefit fraud and the previous stated family, it shocks me to be honest that we can have this going on in our society and that nothing is done, I am not against welfare state and in fact have in times had to fall back on it myself when out of work but i only ever saw it as a temporary thing not a career!!!!!!!! mind you if i was getting 37k a year i might think differently, that is more than double my salary per year yet i manage to work 44 hours a week buy my house and pay maintainance for my 4 year old son ( never missed a payment either) and its not that that i think that i'm better but can't help but wonder about the fruitlesness of that kind of life.
and our beloved Conservatives eh, what a load of fools they really are, are they thinking that because Mr Howard scared the sh*t out of Tony Blair when he was shadow home sec that this will still be the case, as much as i dislike the smarmy, lying, two faced SoB i think he has grown politically enough to cope with that old political dinosaur.....

But what do i know.

[spike]

sig007 said:

You see this is why this forum is soooo much better than the others, intelligent discussion and ranting (hooray for Spike and mr president)

Why, thank you.

*Blushes*

[DarkHoarse]

"I support Michael Howard for the leadership. He's highly articulous."

(Tory voter quoted in 'Private Eye' last week)