Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Trojan

Former minister says the UK is becoming a 'one-party state'

Recommended Posts

Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks Cameron is trying to manipulate the system so the Tories stay in forever.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/norman-baker-former-minister-says-the-uk-is-becoming-a-oneparty-state-10449133.html


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks Cameron is trying to manipulate the system so the Tories stay in forever.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/norman-baker-former-minister-says-the-uk-is-becoming-a-oneparty-state-10449133.html

That article made me laugh.  He was obviously quite happy when in government as transport minister but now he's lost his seat he is suddenly warning of this dire situation in which the Tories will rule forever! 

 

The LibDems blocked the boundary changes because the Tories wouldn't give them what they wanted on voting reforms.  That piece of political game playing might bite the LibDems on the backside now that they have no input into how the boundaries are to change.

 

As for the comment about more Tory peers going into the Lords, well that is just to counter the vast number of Labour peers already there thanks to the previous Labour administration.  The Tories are simply doing what Labour did previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously I'm not the only one who thinks Cameron is trying to manipulate the system so the Tories stay in forever.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/norman-baker-former-minister-says-the-uk-is-becoming-a-oneparty-state-10449133.html

It's not the Tories trying to bring about a one party state so much as none of the opposition parties trying hard enough to beat them (except the SNP)

Edited by bowes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LibDems blocked the boundary changes because the Tories wouldn't give them what they wanted on voting reforms.  That piece of political game playing might bite the LibDems on the backside now that they have no input into how the boundaries are to change.

.

 

Nope tories scuppered the house of lords reforms (voting against a 3 line whip), so the Lib dems backed out of supporting boundary changes.

 

Some of the Tories who voted against lords reforms would of lost their seats in the changes.  Yet its the Lib Dems who were playing games...


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the comment about more Tory peers going into the Lords, well that is just to counter the vast number of Labour peers already there thanks to the previous Labour administration.  The Tories are simply doing what Labour did previously.

 

The Tories are not "simply doing what Labour did previously". 

 

The Tories were still the single largest party grouping in the Lords for the majority of Tony Blair's premiership. It wasn't until after Blair had won his third outright general election victory that the number of Labour peers (finally) marginally outnumbered Tory peers.  

 

Cameron re-established the Tories as the single largest party grouping only three years after a single general election (at which he didn't achieve an outright Commons majority, unlike Blair). 

 

The Tories have throughout history - and all Labour governments - always been the single largest party in the Lords, due to the hereditary vote. It took Blair eight years and three outright election victories before Labour were finally the single largest party in the Lords.  Why Labour peers should be described as being in 'vast numbers' - when they barely numbered more then the Tories - seems a bit Daily Mail-ish (unless you would also claim that there are presently 'vast numbers' of Tory peers - given they are the single largest party?) The Tories were already the largest single party at the 2010 election - Cameron is now simply increasing his existing majority over Labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope tories scuppered the house of lords reforms (voting against a 3 line whip), so the Lib dems backed out of supporting boundary changes.

 

Some of the Tories who voted against lords reforms would of lost their seats in the changes.  Yet its the Lib Dems who were playing games...

Oh, my  bad.  I thought it was the AV vote thingy which miffed them off.  I thought it was that the LibDems wanted proportional representation but the Tories wouldn't agree to it but only to AV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tories are not "simply doing what Labour did previously". 

 

The Tories were still the single largest party grouping in the Lords for the majority of Tony Blair's premiership. It wasn't until after Blair had won his third outright general election victory that the number of Labour peers (finally) marginally outnumbered Tory peers.  

 

Cameron re-established the Tories as the single largest party grouping only three years after a single general election (at which he didn't achieve an outright Commons majority, unlike Blair). 

 

The Tories have throughout history - and all Labour governments - always been the single largest party in the Lords, due to the hereditary vote. It took Blair eight years and three outright election victories before Labour were finally the single largest party in the Lords.  Why Labour peers should be described as being in 'vast numbers' - when they barely numbered more then the Tories - seems a bit Daily Mail-ish (unless you would also claim that there are presently 'vast numbers' of Tory peers - given they are the single largest party?) The Tories were already the largest single party at the 2010 election - Cameron is now simply increasing his existing majority over Labour.

Like I said, the Tories are just doing what the previous Labour government did.

 

I'm very happy that Cameron is taking the opportunity to bolster the number of Tory peers while he can.  I don't think reform of the Lords is top priority other than to cut the number of peers overall since paying them is costing the taxpayer a fair whack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, the Tories are just doing what the previous Labour government did.

 

I'm very happy that Cameron is taking the opportunity to bolster the number of Tory peers while he can.  I don't think reform of the Lords is top priority other than to cut the number of peers overall since paying them is costing the taxpayer a fair whack.

But the last Labour government didn't interfere with the Tory party's funding, despite its being so corrupt/  This government are dong precisely that to Labour's funding.  They are also going to make it virtually impossible for a union to call a strike, the only real weapon a union has.   Having so alienated the police, if there is real trouble over this legislation, they may find themselves in something of a hole.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, the Tories are just doing what the previous Labour government did.

 

I'm very happy that Cameron is taking the opportunity to bolster the number of Tory peers while he can.

No, it's not like Blair did, as you claimed. Cameron's won his very first Commons majority, and his party is already the single largest party in the Lords - this was not the situation Under Blair. And Cameron's barely a few months into his first majority premiership, and he's already increasing the size of his majority over Labour in the Lords, in order to head off any problems given that he has such a slender Commons majority. Blair won a stonking majority in '97, but Labour still didn't become the largest party in the Lords - let alone increase it's size - until he'd won a further two general elections. So it's not the same at all - the majority of Blair's premiership operated with the Tories the biggest party in the Lords, whereas Cameron has never faced this situation as a majority premier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, the Tories are just doing what the previous Labour government did.

 

I'm very happy that Cameron is taking the opportunity to bolster the number of Tory peers while he can.  I don't think reform of the Lords is top priority other than to cut the number of peers overall since paying them is costing the taxpayer a fair whack.

Oh... and I see you've edited your previous post to change your claim about 'Tony Blair' to one about 'Labour' in general. So it's not 'like I said' - because you've gone back and edited your comment, because you were incorrect. That's naughty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the power of the House of Lords is what exactly? Does anyone actually know?

 

It's messy!  Can send laws back to the commons, but ultimately the commons can force legislation through.  Hence the need for reform (rather than the 800+ member there is now!!).  Needs overhaul, partly so it acts as a proper revising chamber.


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the power of the House of Lords is what exactly? Does anyone actually know?

In the days of hereditary peers it stymied Labour on many occasions.  It stymied Maggie too on the Poll Tax till she called up all the hereditaries to force it through. Much good it did her!  Cameron knows he has to get controversial legislation through early. Most governments lose bye-elections mid-term.  Cameron can't afford to lose many.  Between 1989 and 1997 the Tories didn't win one bye-election.  He'll have to hope his MP's stay healthy.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that Cameron is modelling his career on that of Putin.  He stands for election secure in the knowledge that he'll win.  When Clegg did the deal with the Tories in 2010 I thought he was shortsighted.  Not just because it would turn out to be virtual electoral suicide for his party, which it has turned out to be, but because once they're in they take some getting out. Firstly they always have a large warchest for elections. And secondly they manipulate the economy, the electoral system, and any other levers to stay in as long as possible.  Clegg has a lot to answer for.

Edited by Trojan

“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that Cameron is modelling his career on that of Putin. He stands for election secure in the knowledge that he'll win. .

One of the most ridiculous things I have seen written on here. You might need to go away and Google - Putin.

Once again the boundary review is independent , you saying it isn't doesn't make it any more true.


Homer: How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?

[

i]Mr. Burns: Woah, slow down there maestro. There's a *New* Mexico?[/i]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most ridiculous things I have seen written on here. You might need to go away and Google - Putin.

Once again the boundary review is independent , you saying it isn't doesn't make it any more true.

And is interfering with Labour's  funding independent too?


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most ridiculous things I have seen written on here. You might need to go away and Google - Putin.

 

It is amazing how politics on either side of the spectrum makes people do and say some rather strange things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And is interfering with Labour's funding independent too?

No but trying to link this to the other 2 wild and inaccurate statements is a further nonsense.

Homer: How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?

[

i]Mr. Burns: Woah, slow down there maestro. There's a *New* Mexico?[/i]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is amazing how politics on either side of the spectrum makes people do and say some rather strange things.

The internet is fairly anonymous so can lead to people saying things they wouldn't normally at work or to friends. I do wonder how much stuff people write that they actually believe in or if it's just to be controversial or be a counter point.

Homer: How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?

[

i]Mr. Burns: Woah, slow down there maestro. There's a *New* Mexico?[/i]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should union members who dont vote Labour (and there are loads)have their subs paid to them?

They don't they can opt out.  Why should shareholders of companies who may not vote Tory, or customers who don't vote Tory see their money given to the Tories?  They have much less choice in the matter than do trades union members.

Edited by Trojan

“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The internet is fairly anonymous so can lead to people saying things they wouldn't normally at work or to friends. I do wonder how much stuff people write that they actually believe in or if it's just to be controversial or be a counter point.

I reckon I hit the nail squarely on the head. You only have to look at how much difficulty the Tories had in getting rid of Thatcher.  They were all fed up of her years before she went, but none of them was man enough to stand up to her until Geoffrey Howe, who'd nothing to lose anyway.  Same goes for Blair, if Gordon hadn't pushed him he'd never have jumped.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most ridiculous things I have seen written on here. You might need to go away and Google - Putin.

Once again the boundary review is independent , you saying it isn't doesn't make it any more true.

As far as boundary changes I'm only repeating what Norman Baker said, Cameron wouldn't be so keen on them if the didn't favour the Tories. As for manipulating the economy, look at the last two sets of employment figures. Look at the promises of trans Pennine electrification.  The comparisons with Putin whilst not exact are near enough. Both tell lies without compunction.  Both like the trappings of power.  Both (IMO) are terrific egomaniacs.  Both are extremely vain, Cameron even dyes his hair!


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you still need a bit more reading on Putin. There are some similarity's for example they both have a head that is true.

Edited by Ramite

Homer: How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?

[

i]Mr. Burns: Woah, slow down there maestro. There's a *New* Mexico?[/i]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you still need a bit more reading on Putin. There are some similarity's for example they both have a head that is true.

I know Putin was a former KGB agent. I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to their desire to gain and remain in power, at any cost.  I reckon there is no back Cameron wouldn't stab to remain in no 10.  He certainly did a number on Clegg.  Promised him the earth and delivered sweet FA, except the bums rush at the end.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...