Bolitics The New Condem Government

[villaajax]

 

Nice to see Pob getting jeered by the Head Teacher's union.

[peterms]

Rats in a sack:

 

Tory party out of control over Europe, says Lord Howe

Former chancellor launches scathing attack on David Cameron and says Euroscepticism is 'infecting party soul'

 

Lord Howe, the former Conservative chancellor who triggered the downfall of Margaret Thatcher, has launched a scathing attack on the prime minister, accusing him of running scared of his backbenchers and endangering Britain's future in Europe.

 

The Tory grandee says David Cameron has opened a Pandora's box by opposing the current terms of the UK's membership of the European Union and now appears to be losing control of his party. The prime minister's actions, Howe writes in the Observer, have turned an internal Tory problem into a national one.

 

In a highly significant intervention over Britain's future, Howe laments the "new, almost farcical" level of debate over Europe in the Tory party, and says that Labour and the Liberal Democrats may need to bear the burden of retrieving the situation. Howe, Thatcher's longest-serving cabinet minister, whose resignation speech in 1990 is widely considered to have precipitated the then prime minister's downfall, writes: "Sadly, by making it clear in January that he opposes the current terms of UK membership of the EU, the prime minister has opened a Pandora's box politically and seems to be losing control of his party in the process.

 

"The ratchet-effect of Euroscepticism has now gone so far that the Conservative leadership is in effect running scared of its own backbenchers, let alone Ukip, having allowed deep anti-Europeanism to infect the very soul of the party."

 

Howe, who was also a former foreign secretary and deputy prime minister under the late Baroness Thatcher, adds that the events of recent days, in which the prime minister has been forced to offer more and more to satisfy his Eurosceptic MPs, were "more like the politics of the French Fourth Republic than the serious practice of government".

 

Citing the intervention of President Obama, who last week championed reform of the EU over Britain's exit, Howe laments: "The Conservative party now needs a US president to tell it what it once had the confidence to proclaim as common sense itself."

 

Howe's savage attack on the prime minister's leadership and the actions of his party follows the successful attempt by Eurosceptic backbenchers to bounce the prime minister into the publication last week of a draft referendum bill on EU membership.

 

Cameron had already been forced in January, against his stated will, to promise an in-out referendum before 2017, but the prime minister's backbenchers have since been demanding further assurances in the form of legislation. Eurosceptic Tory backbenchers have been energised by Ukip's success in the recent local elections, and a huge rise in national polls.

 

A new Opinium/Observer poll has Ukip attracting 20% of the vote, with Labour on 37%, the Conservatives on 27% and the Liberal Democrats down to 7%.

 

Howe states that the risk for the Conservative party, as Europe rises ever further up its internal agenda, is that it loses the next general election and moves to a position of "simply opposing Britain's continued membership, with or without a referendum".

 

In stark contrast to the view of his friend and former cabinet colleague Lord Lawson, who wrote recently that Britain should leave the EU, Howe believes that the UK is unlikely to hold anything like the position of power to which it aspires without the vehicle of the EU, unless the country was to join the United States. "Leaving the union would, by contrast in my view, be a tragic expression of our shrinking influence and role in the world – and the humbling of our ambitions, already sorely tested by the current crisis, to remain a serious political or economic player on the global stage."

 

Describing a withdrawal from the European Union as a "very dangerous choice indeed", the peer says Britons have hugely benefited from greater competition, lower prices and wider choice, due to membership of the EU.

 

Howe adds that much of the UK's inward investment depends on easy access to the £11 trillion EU economy. He writes: "Does anyone think that the UK's revival as a motor car manufacturing nation is based on the appeal of the British market alone to foreign investors?"

 

In a withering assessment of his party's long-standing preoccupation with Brussels, he adds: "This week has shown that the Conservative party's long nervous breakdown over Europe continues, and what is essentially a Tory problem is now, once again, becoming a national problem, too."

 

He continues: "A number of serious mistakes have been made but the situation is not irretrievable. What is needed is a mixture of clear thinking, strong leadership and an overriding concern for the national interest – not party management or advantage.

 

"If the Conservative party is losing its head, a heavy responsibility now rests with Labour and the Liberal Democrats."

 

 

 

[peterms]

The swivel-eyed loons have been roused from their slumbers!

 

From Tunbridge Wells to Chester, from Barnstaple to Harrogate, an army is rising.  Like zombies climbing from the earth, they are slowly lumbering into action, wrapping lengths of wood in pitch-soaked rags and gathering up their horsewhips and shotguns, readying themselves for an assault on the Cameroonies.

 

The party faithful are angry.

 

[peterms]

I was looking for a photo of the Feldman guy who denies being the one who made the "swivel-eyed loons" remark.

 

I think this is him.

 

[villaajax]

It warms your heart doesn't it?

[peterms]

I see the Telegraph website has adopted a new sub-heading for grouping together reports on goings-on in the Conservative Party.

 

It's accurate, but possibly a little more frank than you might expect.

 

 

 

[The_Rev]

 

I'm one of those awful people who gets a lot of their news from comedy shows.  Leave this video running in an open tab though, you don't need to watch it because it is taken from an audio only source but yeah, this is ridiculous stuff. 

[peterms]

Wish I'd thought of this:

 

Tom Delargy @derekrootboy

How many swivel eyed loons does it take to change a lightbulb? None. They're too busy kicking shit out of each other in the dark

[Jon]

Seems the Tories have another chance to show how 'broad minded' they are again today in another vote on gay marriage ....

[peterms]

Seems the Tories have another chance to show how 'broad minded' they are again today in another vote on gay marriage ....

 

Interesting line they're taking on this:

 

A government source said the Loughton amendment would:

• Come with a price tag of £4bn. Steve Webb, the pensions minister, told parliament's joint committee on human rights last week that the state would be liable for new "survivors'" pension rights.

 

 

The other way of looking at it would be that people across the country, already living in stable and long-term relationships, are collectively offered a bribe of £4bn if they undergo a particular form of religious ceremony, while if they don't do so but instead continue living in that relationship, they are excluded from those benefits.

 

It makes it pretty clear that the aim of this policy is not to promote stable households, but to shore up a declining custom (while doing nothing about the underlying decline in religious faith which I suppose is the root of their concern).

 

A policy genuinely aimed at supporting long-term relationships would be neutral about the specific ceremony people chose to mark their commitment.

[thetrees]

Seems the Tories have another chance to show how 'broad minded' they are again today in another vote on gay marriage ....

 

If I were an MP and it was a straightforward vote on gay marriage, then I would vote for it.

 

If, however, the vote would mean that people who strongly object on religious grounds are forced to carry out marriage ceremonies or risk their livelihoods, or even prosecution, then I would vote against it.

 

We need to get away from this modern society where people are not allowed to disagree, and are unfairly labelled by the chattering academic classes if they do so.

[snowychap]

We need to get away from this modern society where people are not allowed to disagree, and are unfairly labelled by the chattering academic classes if they do so.

As it's you, I'll give you the benefit of doubt as to whether the humour was intended.

[Chindie]

I might actually follow the gay marriage discussion, it's always hilarious watching morons (cross party) tie themselves in knots and spout offensive codswallop on this subject, because they never can come up with a decent argument against it.

[bickster]

Seems the Tories have another chance to show how 'broad minded' they are again today in another vote on gay marriage ....

 

Interesting line they're taking on this:

 

A government source said the Loughton amendment would:

• Come with a price tag of £4bn. Steve Webb, the pensions minister, told parliament's joint committee on human rights last week that the state would be liable for new "survivors'" pension rights.

 

The other way of looking at it would be that people across the country, already living in stable and long-term relationships, are collectively offered a bribe of £4bn if they undergo a particular form of religious ceremony, while if they don't do so but instead continue living in that relationship, they are excluded from those benefits.

 

It makes it pretty clear that the aim of this policy is not to promote stable households, but to shore up a declining custom (while doing nothing about the underlying decline in religious faith which I suppose is the root of their concern).

 

A policy genuinely aimed at supporting long-term relationships would be neutral about the specific ceremony people chose to mark their commitment.

Totally agree Peter, the crap Steve Webb comes out with makes me wish I hadn't stepped in to stop him getting bullied at school. I spent decades describing Steve as the most intelligent person I'd ever met, now he's just a politician

[mjmooney]

 

The other way of looking at it would be that people across the country, already living in stable and long-term relationships, are collectively offered a bribe of £4bn if they undergo a particular form of religious ceremony, while if they don't do so but instead continue living in that relationship, they are excluded from those benefits.

 

It makes it pretty clear that the aim of this policy is not to promote stable households, but to shore up a declining custom (while doing nothing about the underlying decline in religious faith which I suppose is the root of their concern).

 

 

Hang about. Devil's Advocaat time: Whatever you think about it, surely this is simply about marriages (civil, registry office, all that), not specifically religious ones?

[thetrees]

 

We need to get away from this modern society where people are not allowed to disagree, and are unfairly labelled by the chattering academic classes if they do so.

As it's you, I'll give you the benefit of doubt as to whether the humour was intended.

 

thanks. I did think about but thought what the hell!

[peterms]

Swivel-eyed loons defect to swivel-eyed loony party.

 

[peterms]

 

 

The other way of looking at it would be that people across the country, already living in stable and long-term relationships, are collectively offered a bribe of £4bn if they undergo a particular form of religious ceremony, while if they don't do so but instead continue living in that relationship, they are excluded from those benefits.

 

It makes it pretty clear that the aim of this policy is not to promote stable households, but to shore up a declining custom (while doing nothing about the underlying decline in religious faith which I suppose is the root of their concern).

 

 

Hang about. Devil's Advocaat time: Whatever you think about it, surely this is simply about marriages (civil, registry office, all that), not specifically religious ones?

 

 

Yes, you're right.  Civil marriage would entail pension rights for the partner whether in a church or not.  It's the marriage ceremony as opposed to any other form of showing a commitment that they are keen to promote.  I suppose I think of them rolling up all forms of marriage together as one, but  what I said is not actually right.

[mjmooney]

On a related note, can somebody tell me the difference - if any - between a (secular) marriage and a civil partnership?

 

I don't understand all the fuss. Surely the only issue with gay couples is that some churches/religious institutions won't marry them? As an atheist, I couldn't give a toss, but I suppose I can see why they are aggrieved. But that is all the business of the godbotherers, nothing to do with the state.

 

AFAICS, "civil partnership" = "secular marriage". Already legal and equal, so what's the problem?

 

Is it just arguing over semantics?

[drat01]

......

 

Is it just arguing over semantics?

 

Are they those Jews with the funny hair and hats?