England needs a real conservative party

samusaran253

The self-proclaimed "Conservative" Party of the United Kingdom is anything but conservative. They need a real political party that is actually conservative, not this whole "we call ourselves conservative, but are actually just British Democrats." In fact, they should have a right-wing Libertarian Party, like America has, since that would be even better. There needs to be a political party to restore Britain, by unbanning firearms, creating a better free market, put an end to school uniforms and strict dress codes, and stop conforming to the Muslims. If they're lucky, they might even be able to privatize healthcare and higher education.

LordSutch

samusaran253 wrote: »

England needs a real conservaive party.

What England needs is its own parliament. Admittedly Conservative support is England centric, or to be more precise South of England centric, with pockets of Conservatism dotted around the North of England & the rest of the United Kingdom of GB & NI. You also mention above "banning firearms in Britain", and putting an end to school uniforms and strict dress codes . . . :cool:

YES to an English Parliament > http://www.thecep.org.uk/

Zillah

samusaran253 wrote: »

The self-proclaimed "Conservative" Party of the United Kingdom is anything but conservative. They need a real political party that is actually conservative, not this whole "we call ourselves conservative, but are actually just British Democrats." In fact, they should have a right-wing Libertarian Party, like America has, since that would be even better. There needs to be a political party to restore Britain, by unbanning firearms, creating a better free market, put an end to school uniforms and strict dress codes, and stop conforming to the Muslims. If they're lucky, they might even be able to privatize healthcare and higher education.

I too hate civilisation and wish to see a return to self serving draconian ways.

Zillah

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And why is this is any of our business ?

Lapin wrote: »

Boards.uk >>>>>>>>>>

At what point did people decided it was obvious that people should have no interest in politics outside their own country?

DJCR

Is it not just a reflection on the difference between American and British Cultures?

American Conservatives are Ultraconservative while British Conservatives are less so due to their Social Responsibilities (that are now institutionalised and I don't think they will ever dissapear entirely - even if cut backs are required).

djpbarry

samusaran253 wrote: »

The self-proclaimed "Conservative" Party of the United Kingdom is anything but conservative. They need a real political party that is actually conservative...

Putting up with Dave, Boris and co. is plenty bad enough, thanks.

LondonIrish90

djpbarry wrote: »

Putting up with Dave, Boris and co. is plenty bad enough, thanks.

Meh, the left wing media portrayal of Cameron and is totally inaccurate.

He is not hell bent on destroying the working class. He is genuinely a man who wants to do what is best for the country. Very difficult times ahead and difficult decisions had to be made.

later12

samusaran253 wrote: »

put an end to school uniforms

Yes and there should be better dinner menus on Fridays. We say NO to mushy peas.

OP I think you are possibly thinking of UKIP; although as regards the Muslim population you might prefer the BNP.

By the way firearms are not banned in 'Britain', the country prides itself on its country sports and many homeowners have firearms, for better or for worse.

djpbarry

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

...the left wing media portrayal of Cameron and is totally inaccurate.

I don’t need a “left wing media portrayal” in order to form an opinion on the Tories, thanks.

mgmt

later10 wrote: »

By the way firearms are not banned in 'Britain', the country prides itself on its country sports and many homeowners have firearms, for better or for worse.

Tell that to the olympic shooters who cannot train in their own country

later12

mgmt wrote: »

Tell that to the olympic shooters who cannot train in their own country

Oh really?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-1374388/London-2012-Olympic-shooter-Georgina-Geikie-raring-go.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

‘I can shoot my Air Pistol at any range during the week, but the TT pistol is restricted to only two venues in the UK – in Surrey and Bedford, so I can only go three or four times a year.’

It may not sound a lot, but prior to January 2010 Geikie couldn’t even do that. The aftermath of the Dunblane massacre in 1996 brought in new gun legislation, leaving her no option but to travel to Switzerland, a nation with whom British Shooting have a good relationship, to practice.

‘It’s a massive help being able to train with the gun here, only the London 2012 athletes have been given disposition to do so.’

Het-Field

djpbarry wrote: »

Putting up with Dave, Boris and co. is plenty bad enough, thanks.

Damn sight better then a regressive like Livingstone, and the likes of Blair and Brown who contributed to virtual destruction of the British economy.

samusaran253

samusaran253 wrote: »

The self-proclaimed "Conservative" Party of the United Kingdom is anything but conservative. They need a real political party that is actually conservative, not this whole "we call ourselves conservative, but are actually just British Democrats." In fact, they should have a right-wing Libertarian Party, like America has, since that would be even better. There needs to be a political party to restore Britain, by unbanning firearms, creating a better free market, put an end to school uniforms and strict dress codes, and stop conforming to the Muslims. If they're lucky, they might even be able to privatize healthcare and higher education.

Can someone explain to me how putting an end to strict dress codes and uniforms (Which actually save parents a fortune) is conservative? If anything I would think it would be quite a "lefty" notion!

And unbanning firearms? I know knives are the weapon du jour, but I don't think adding guns to the mix will be in any way helpful!

mgmt

Papa Smut wrote: »

Can someone explain to me how putting an end to strict dress codes and uniforms (Which actually save parents a fortune) is conservative? If anything I would think it would be quite a "lefty" notion!

And unbanning firearms? I know knives are the weapon du jour, but I don't think adding guns to the mix will be in any way helpful!

I define conservative as being less government intrusion. So for instance I would define an "Educate Together" school as being conservative. On the other hand banning packed school lunches as some public school did in Chicago recently, would be government intrusion.

DJCR

mgmt wrote: »

I define conservative as being less government intrusion. So for instance I would define an "Educate Together" school as being conservative. On the other hand banning packed school lunches as some public school did in Chicago recently, would be government intrusion.

What about schools run by religious orders ?

jank

samusaran253 wrote: »

The self-proclaimed "Conservative" Party of the United Kingdom is anything but conservative. They need a real political party that is actually conservative, not this whole "we call ourselves conservative, but are actually just British Democrats." In fact, they should have a right-wing Libertarian Party, like America has, since that would be even better. There needs to be a political party to restore Britain, by unbanning firearms, creating a better free market, put an end to school uniforms and strict dress codes, and stop conforming to the Muslims. If they're lucky, they might even be able to privatize healthcare and higher education.

They have the UKIP and the BNP, no need really for another party. Also I doubt school uniforms is on the top of any of these manifesto.

Moomoo1

England needs a real Labour party. After Blair and Brown deserted to the centre-right the working classes no longer have a voice to represent them.

the Conservatives are quite real I am afraid - Cameron for instance has done things that the arch-Conservative Margaret Thatcher wouldn't have dreamed of.

Thatcher would never have dreamed of doing the sort of things Cameron has done to higher education or to healthcare.

Denerick

Why is it that idealogues are never content with their political party? Its like they can never be ideologically pure enough; a sign of a pyschotic unwillingness to compromise shared by left and right alike.

later12

Moomoo1 wrote: »

England needs a real Labour party. After Blair and Brown deserted to the centre-right the working classes no longer have a voice to represent them.

England had a 'real labour party', pre-Blair. They stood very few prospects of re-election. I have a theory that postwar Britain is, in its natural state, anti-Conservative, or at best disinterested, and that a Conservative victory is not symptomatic of their popularity, but inevitably a disillusion with the opposition (Labour) in the first instance.

Moomoo1

later10 wrote: »

England had a 'real labour party', pre-Blair. They stood very few prospects of re-election. I have a theory that postwar Britain is, in its natural state, anti-Conservative, or at best disinterested, and that a Conservative victory is not symptomatic of their popularity, but inevitably a disillusion with the opposition (Labour) in the first instance.

ahem... they actually got the majority of vote in 1991.The Tories only just squeezed in.

had John Smith stayed alive he and Old Labour would still have won in '97.

Moomoo1

Denerick wrote: »

Why is it that idealogues are never content with their political party? Its like they can never be ideologically pure enough; a sign of a pyschotic unwillingness to compromise shared by left and right alike.

If you are talking about me, then Blair and Brown aren't just ideologically impure: they are almost diametrically opposed to what, for instance, Clem Attlee or Harold Wilson stood for.

I am not actually an idealogue of any system: I believe that the ideal system should have the 'right' mix of free market/insentive and socialism. And so far the old Labour governments were the closest to finding that right mix in the UK. Same can be said for the Scandinavian states: they also came the closest to finding the right mix.

Het-Field

If the Labour Party of Brown and Blair had bought Labour to the "center-right", then they would not have engaged in the wanton spending binges which has heavily contributed to Britain's current woes.

It is a fudge by the UK Labour Party supports to state that the party turned Tory under Blair. It is a bottom-of-barrel scraping exercise in an attempt to justify their continued support for the party.

later12

Moomoo1 wrote: »

ahem... they actually got the majority of vote in 1991.The Tories only just squeezed in.

Ahem... I said very few prospects, not zero prospects. And the point is that they didn't squeeze in, did they? They were in the wilderness since 1979.

had John Smith stayed alive he and Old Labour would still have won in '97.

And how, exactly, do you know that?

What we do know is that when the party shifted to the centre, and abolished clause 4, they became *hugely* popular and gave Labour its biggest victory ever with a majority of about 180 MPs.

Old Labour died in 1997; anybody interested in a viable, forward-driven version of social justice in Britain should rejoice in that passing.

Denerick

Moomoo1 wrote: »

If you are talking about me, then Blair and Brown aren't just ideologically impure: they are almost diametrically opposed to what, for instance, Clem Attlee or Harold Wilson stood for.

I am not actually an idealogue of any system: I believe that the ideal system should have the 'right' mix of free market/insentive and socialism. And so far the old Labour governments were the closest to finding that right mix in the UK. Same can be said for the Scandinavian states: they also came the closest to finding the right mix.

Basically you want Scandanavian social democracy. But your fellow countrymen don't want to pay excessive taxes. Blair and New Labour decided to go down the Bill Clinton/New Democratic third way line, a rough combination of liberal economics and extra spending for social programmes (Just look at the explosion in the NHS budget over the 000s)

LordSutch

Is this thread about England, or is about the UK ?

djpbarry

Denerick wrote: »

Basically you want Scandanavian social democracy. But your fellow countrymen don't want to pay excessive taxes.

UK residents already pay “excessive taxes”, relative to Ireland at least.

Gregor Samsa

mgmt wrote: »

I define conservative as being less government intrusion.

By that definition, Anarcho-Syndicalism would be a conservative ideology.

Usually, when engaging in a debate, people don't just make up their own definitions of words. The normally accepted definition of "conservatism" involves maintaining or returning to "traditional values", no or slow social change and and emphasis on the importance of the establishment. You seem to be confusing conservatism with some forms of liberalism.

Hayte

All of the major UK political parties are socially conservative, including Lib Dem with the likes of the BNP veering so far off to the right that it borders on insanity.

Hell, what we need is a real progressive party. The US could do with one too. The US Democratic party currently pushes domestic and foreign policy that is far to the right of Nixon, which says it all. The GOP/Tea Party is positively wingnut at this point.