Politics Should we be afraid of the Tories winning the elections in May ?

That's some shaky looking propaganda there, Mac!

To suggest that the EU can justify its existence in terms of law and social justice, and an international role, is somewhat undermined by the significant mainstream homophobia and racism which exists freely in parts of the Eastern European member states, and when in spite of having a comparable GDP the the USA the EU gives a negligible amount in overseas aid. So, all that remains is the smoothing-over over internal trade - the market.
I'm all in favour of such a thing, as it seems to be the only part agreed upon as beneficial, but I hardly think it is necessary to elect a president and a parliament in order to oversee the smoothing over of these trade agreements. It costs a lot, and could be adequately handled by a body designed merely to bring together the Trade and Industry Ministries of member states.
A flag, an anthem? Amusing, but very silly and utterly superfluous. As is joining a group of states with generally inferior regulations in order to improve our own. Quite simply absurd.

The great majority of what the EU is assuming responsibility for is quite unnecessary and generally undesirable.
 
To suggest that the EU can justify its existence in terms of law and social justice, and an international role, is somewhat undermined by the significant mainstream homophobia and racism which exists freely in parts of the Eastern European member states, and when in spite of having a comparable GDP the the USA the EU gives a negligible amount in overseas aid.

Are you kidding ? The EU is the biggest contributor of overseas aid in the world. Just three EU countries together, Germany, France and the UK, spend more on foreign aid than the USA. More than half the money spent to help poor countries comes from the European Union.
 
Are you kidding ? The EU is the biggest contributor of overseas aid in the world. Just three EU countries together, Germany, France and the UK, spend more on foreign aid than the USA. More than half the money spent to help poor countries comes from the European Union.

Interesting. Source?
 
conservatives_ive_never_voted_tory_before_600.jpg
 
Looks like the Tories will have to form a coalition to rule, probably with the Liberal Democrats. I would be ok with Cameron as PM if he made concessions on his anti-EU programme. For domestic matters there isn't that much difference between the three main parties.

They all pledge to reduce the deficit by cutting government spending except for health care, reduce greenhouse gases emissions, fight illegal immigration by reinforcing border patrols, scrap the default retirement age, increasing the importance of paternity leave. All of them want the House of Lords to be mainly (Tories) or fully elected Labour and Lib Dems), and to allow voters to recall MPs found guilty of serious wrongdoing. All support the London Crossrail project.

In matter of education, the three parties plan to increase the number of independently managed state-funded schools. The main difference is that the Conservatives and Labour want these Academies to be independent of local authority control, while Lib Dems don't.

The divergences are on small details. For example, regarding transports, Labour supports the construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport, while the two other parties oppose it. Labour and the Lib Dems want to introduce road pricing, while the Conservatives oppose it.

Concerning civil rights and crime, Labour wants to extend pre-charge detention limit to 42 days, while the Tories would keep it at 28 days, and the Liberal Democrats reduce it to 14 days. Labour wants compulsory ID cards for all citizens and DNA databases for criminals. The two other parties oppose ID cards. The Lib Dems are completely against public DNA databases, while the Conservatives are in favour except for innocent people.

Both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats want to increase police numbers, have directly-elected police commissioners, and reduce paperwork. Labour is against that.

The Tories and Lib Dems both want to cut the number of MP's by about 10%. Labour and the Lib Dems want to reduce the voting age to 16.

Even for foreign affairs (besides EU), the three parties have basically the same programme. They all support continued military action in Afghanistan and plan increase foreign aid to 0.7% of GDP.

So there is little difference between the three parties. It's just a matter of personal preference. Personally Labour appears to have the worst programme in my eyes, and the Lib Dems the best. The Conservatives' domestic programme isn't bad and often in line with the Lib Dems.

As far as I am concerned there is really just the EU which clearly distinguishes the parties, and only the Conservative Party is markedly anti-European. But as the EU and relations with other EU countries and people is what matters most in Britain's future, playing the anti-EU card may cause a lot of troubles to the UK, as I have explained above.
 
Last edited:
Interesting times ahead.
 
Nearly three years ago, I voiced my worries about David Cameron being elected as British Prime Minister, arguing in this thread that it would seriously undermine the UK's position within the EU and the British economy. In Anatomy of a Failure, The Economist confirms my apprehensions, explaining that the UK is already losing its influence inside the EU because of Mr Cameron. The recent downgrade of British sovereign debt by Moody’s, and the poor prospects for the British economy in the coming years are more reasons to believe that electing Mr Cameron as PM was a bad idea.
 
Last edited:
Nearly three years ago, I voiced my worries about David Cameron being elected as British Prime Minister, arguing in this thread that it would seriously undermine the UK's position within the EU and the British economy. In Anatomy of a Failure, The Economist confirms my apprehensions, explaining that the UK is already losing its influence inside the EU because of Mr Cameron. The recent downgrade of British sovereign debt by Moody’s, and the poor prospects for the British economy in the coming years are more reasons to believe that electing Mr Cameron as PM was a bad idea.

I'd agree for sure, but would add that none of the British party leaders are any better. What Britain - and Europe - needs are statesmen, not tribal-minded politicians. I'm pro-EU, but like any institution, feel there is much about it that needs significant improvement, which requires real talent and drive to improve things for everyone in the EU.
 
Im very concerned about the things Cameron is doing. I dont live in the UK but its amazing how British politics mirrors the politics over here in Canada. We had a leader much like Tony Blair as he was a right leaning liberal, and then shortly before Cameron was elected our Conservatives took power, and have been driving the country into a worse state. Now what the Conservatives in Canada have done more than anything else is tarnish Canadas reputation on the world stage by pulling back enviormental projects, speaking brashly against countries like Palestine, and creating less government intervention in our private sector, leading to tainted food products and many other problems in our economy. I think some Britons can relate to us at least to a small
extent, this is why I fear what Cameron might due to the UK.
 
There are those in the backbenches of both the Conservative and Labour Parties who want Britain to reconsider it`s membership within the E.U. Add to this the U.K.I.P. Party`s call to come out of E.U. and their recent rise in some observer polls [ which places them only 10% behind the Conservatives at the moment] and I think this may show why David Cameron was possibly nudged into making this weeks referendum speech.

I don`t think David Cameron really wishes Britain out of the E.U. and certainly would not like to be the man responsible for doing so. [ In fact some parts of his speech might indicate to more integration]. However the danger in my opinion is, he may have started a wheel that will roll in opposition to the benefit of the wagon. In other words, with the uncertainty of a referendum at some point hanging across Britain, this will allow the Euro-skeptics to spend the next few years shouting No and perhaps weakening Cameron in the next elections and some counties wary about dealing with Britain in it`s present "in-out" stand.

Also I wonder how high a price other members might regard paying in order to keep Britain in ? Germany`s foreign minister Guido Westerwelle has said Britain is an important member but has at the same time added "cherry-picking" is not an option, something I think other member states agree on.

I do not actually see Britain coming out from the E.U. regardless of any referendum. Whilst many may be unhappy regarding some aspects, I think at the end of the day people see remaining in the union a better place. However other countries may feel different if Britain is not careful.
 

This thread has been viewed 27413 times.

Back
Top