Tory Britain

[snoozequeen1]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> in the US there is ... a prevalent culture of

> philanthropy.

>

> Here, the left (even the New Labour centre-left)

> are instinctively disapproving of profitable

> companies and wealthy individuals - see, on

> another thread here, a description of

> international corporations as "vicious thugs".

>

[quote=Multinationals make billions in profit out of growing global food crisis

Speculators blamed for driving up price of basic foods as 100 million face severe hunger]

from article by Geoffrey Lean, The Independent, currently to read on their website.

If vastly wealthy corporations and financiers set out to force 100 million to severe hunger, sweetie, what do we call them? "Vicious thugs" is perhaps too charitable. We are seeing the world at this moment as the lowest it can go. Tell me, what is the difference between Stalin causing mass starvation by enforcing collective farms, and your shiny city chums? You know, our neighbours, the people who sit next to us on the tube and dine next to us in our favourite places and sit next to us in the theatre tonight, and who go to work tomorrow in their respectable offices setting out to buy up agricultural land across the globe to make themselves vast profit from others' starvation?

I am neither of the left nor right, but I know wicked and evil when I see it.

[DaveR]

The only relevant article I could find was this one where he says:

"The chief reason for the escalating demand is the mushrooming middle class in developing countries, especially China and India, now growing by 50 million people a year. As people get better off they demand more meat, which mops up grain supplies, since it takes some 8lbs (3.5kg) of cereals to produce 1lb (450g) of beef.

Now cars, as well as cows, are out-competing hungry people, through the increasing use of corn for biofuels. By next year, predicts Lester Brown, president of the Washington-based Earth Policy Institute, almost a third of the US corn crop ? which has traditionally helped to feed 100 nations ? will go for fuel. Mr Brown points out that, in an increasingly fuel-scarce world, the price of corn will henceforth be tied to the mounting price of oil."

It may well be true that multinationals have made bigger profits because of rising prices, but that's not the same as causing price rises. And the fact that speculators are 'blamed' is hardly surprising, but that don't make it true either.

[James]

If more people went vegetarian it would help. But that's another thread.

[????]

Sean - I despair that people really take any 'phone in' seriously...(also see letters pages)...actually, as often happens, people who see themselves as the most 'liberal' and 'democratic' people are exposed as prejudiced as, dare I say it the BNP when things dopn't go their way, the sanctomonius 'liberal left' can't think out of their early 80s student politics at all....full of prejudice

[SeanMacGabhann]

Quid s. . Im with you on that point. I dont take phone ins seriously. But the people who ring in sure do. Boy do they. . . And they have the vote ! ;-)

welcome back btw

[Bleep]

Still staggered that people trot out the notion that the Conservative party under Thatcher would be the same as the one voted in at the next election. By the time the election comes around, she would have been gone nearly 2 decades. It's like a Conservative in 1997 trying to convince the electorate that New Labour would be like the Callaghan administration - i.e p***ing in the wind.

The trouble is that nearly 30 years of entrenched government with at least 3 terms in power has produced generations of voters with no real, working clue of what life was like under various administrations. As such, we now have many people of my age (34) who have no real experience of practical Conservative government (1990 - 1997 under Major was always fighting to restore some of the balance caused by Thatcher's radicalism). Thus you get people saying "oh but I couldn't possibly vote Tory!"... er why? And then it comes down to some ridiculous notion like "oh they're all toffs" or something.

The core issues of what people vote for - their wallet and security in employment - are ultimately very different now to what they were when Thatcher came to power, which is the last time when our country was in real difficulty. What topics that surround elections now are ones that both parties scrabble to claim for themselves and ultimately show that it's much less about ideologies and now just policies and their ability to deliver and administrate them. Conviction and passion will be diluted by this, which is why less and less people are truly motivated to vote, or more importantly believe and trust those that make the leap to become politicians.

The reality I feel is that Britain is by default a Conservative country. We're an island - resistant to change, and when it does happen, it's synthesized slowly. It required Labour to become conservative to get successive terms in office, which I think is all you need to know.

[????]

Hear, hear....the last Labour leader lied to the whole country about a war that has killed 1000s of innocents and has just bought a ?4 million property is a sleazy, self seeking shallow twat with blood on his hands and the current one is just not up to it on sooo many dimensions yet...any contemplation of the 'tories' and we come up with rhetoric and dogma like its the miners strike and Brixton riots.....Labour has had its chance

[Brendan]

And so did the tories. So why not find an alternative?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Alas, David Sutch died in 1999.

[Marmora Man]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And so did the tories. So why not find an

> alternative?

Democracy gives everyone the opportunity to provide an alternative.

I'm a (very) small scale political activist - I'd prefer a libertarian government but am prepared to support a conservative government as the closest to my desires and, by being involved, I can try to persuade them to move toward my ideal set of policies.

There are many smaller political parties to choose from, most cannot attract sufficient number of voters and welcome new comers. However, if you personally have a coherent set of policies - and can persuade sufficient people of the validity of your ideas, then off you go and form your own party.

Criticism is easy - action is harder

[*Bob*]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

'tories' and we

> come up with rhetoric and dogma like its the

> miners strike and Brixton riots.....Labour has had

> its chance

I agree is serves no purpose to bring these things up (other than that it's still a useful stick to beat them (the Tories) with. There are still many voters who will never forget or forgive for one reason or another and vote that way.

The problem I have is that (speaking for myself, and excluding for a moment what we know now) in 1997, there was a genuine feeling that not only were the Conservatives politically and morally bankrupt, but that the alternative was genuinely bright and promising, and the electorate voted for it in droves.

I have no such feeling with 'New Conservatism'.. the election will be a close call. It's all about whether Labour have blown it as opposed to The Conservatives winning it. It's a bit depressing.