If the Tories are so great in government, how come they lost the 1997 election and failed to win in 2010?

If we was to believe our Tories and there friends, as they keep telling us that they have to clear up the Labour parties mess? if this is SO... How come they lost the 1997 GE and Failed to win the last GE?... As they keep telling us all... that economy was do very good in 1997? So How come they did not sweep back into office? if this is right

also the Tory party and there Friends in the media keep saying Last Government was so very bad, How come the Tory Party and its friends could not win a majority at the last election?..... as this was after spending some £20 million pounds to get there message over too us all?

Do you happen too think that the UK people could see that they were totally bankrupt? but just need to blame something or someone for the world banking crisis?

Ever since there were Whigs in opposition, Tory policy has always been directed toward gaining power and retaining it. No time or thought is wasted upon what they might actually do once in office, beyond maintaining that desirable situation.

The idea seems to have been adopted, and adapted, from European Royalty.

They own the Noise Machine, and the Liberals are accustomed to say different things to everyone while they feather their own nests. Compare 1951 when the tories lost convincingly in votes but won more seats, which is seldom mentioned by the noisemakers. He who controls the past controls the future, until someone fights.

1951. Yeaahh.

I knew there was something very sinister about this government when, right from the beginning, David Laws, in his 18 days as a minister, tried to make capital out of Liam Byrne’s joke (ill-advised in the circumstances) that “there is no money left”. Yet despite that, this government has always managed to find money when it wants to do so.

The Tories found money to go into Libya. They've found millions more to spend on the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympics. Until it came to light, they found money to provide an official photographer for Cameron, no doubt to catch the useless prat in his 'best light'. They've found money for the so-called 'free schools', which aren't free at all and are designed to fragment the state education system.

The Tories are even considering giving people money for no better reason than they have a bit of paper saying they are married, regardless of the state of that marriage, and regardless of whether they have left children unsupported in a previous marriage. They’ve found billions to spend on their back door privatisation of the NHS, when they said categorically that they wouldn’t touch it.

Apparently, the Tories are proposing to bring ex-pats back from Spain if their banks go belly up, even though most banks are international. Why has spending not actually gone down when there is no money to spend? Why did they give us a day off for the bloody royal wedding when we are told (in the case of a strike) that it costs billions for the country to down tools for a day?

The Tories tell us again and again there is no money, but they just keep spending it anyway, and the borrowing requirement for this financial year is far higher than previously anticipated. Why? Because the Tories are bare-faced liars and hypocrites, always have been and always will be, since it’s the only way they can con enough people into voting for them.

The UK has announced £10 million to tackle deforestation in Brazil in a bid to protect wildlife and reduce carbon emissions which fuel climate change.Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said the money would help farmers in Cerrado, central Brazil, restore natural habitats, reduce forest fires and ease the pressure for more deforestation to provide land for agriculture.

Speaking at the International Forest Day conference in Durban, South Africa

http://latestnews.virginmedia.com/news/world/2011/12/04/10m_bid_to_tackle_deforestation,


It just goes on and on and on!

Hello V. Is this the same Brazil that is joining Argentina in banning any ship flying the Falkland Island flag from entering their ports. Why are we so concerned about Brazils forests. most if not all of our oxygen needs are created from algi, which is abundant in all of the Oceans.

If Labour are so great in Government, how come they lost the 1979 election and all the subsequent elections until 97 and then also failed to win in 2010?

blueturando wrote:If Labour are so great in Government, how come they lost the 1979 election and all the subsequent elections until 97 and then also failed to win in 2010?

As you cannot answer this thread I guess your only true hope was to ask a new question yourself. well if that is the case post a new topic. but then you failed very badly in 2010 and ended up in bed with the Lib/Dem's.

We get what we deserve!

sickchip wrote:We get what we deserve!

Come on - that is like the belief in Original Sin's being caused by snakes and apples, so off to Hell with the lot of you! [b]Nobody deserves this loathsome tory gang but those walking dead, the Liberals, and Labour lost because they were still thatcherite.

Stox 16....Your thread is irrelevent and that's why I answered it as I did. Labour and the Tories have been swapping power for decades. If I had started a thread with my question you would have come back with and answer similar to your thread question...wouldn't you?

'We get what we deserve'....No Penderyn and Sickchip, we get what we voted for, except for the present coalition where the Lierals decided they could not work with Brown and Labour

The Liberal Democrats are the party keeping the Conservatives in power, much to the annoyance of thousands of Lib Dem members who left the party and joined Labour instead, and to the secret annoyance of many Lib Dem MPs.

The natural ally of the Lib Dems is and always has been Labour, this is why I refer to this coalition as "the unholy alliance", it is an alliance forged mainly by one man - Nick Clegg.

When the time comes, as it will, the Lib Dems will be annhiliated at the next election, Nick Clegg will have to resign and the party will elect a traditional left of centre Liberal who will probably attempt to reforge links with their natural allies - the Labour party.

The point is this > if Lib Dem voters could have seen into the future in April 2010, they would not have voted for them, because an average Liberal may not like Labour, but they detest the Conservatives.

There seems to have been a particularly high number of murders lately. It reminds me of some chums we once had on the old MSN boards who bemoaned such crime when Brown ruled the roost.

We were regularly treated to the likes of brownboots , Raypro and the eminently forgettable pigsrule, who used to try to tell us that all we needed was Cameron in charge and murders would be no more throughout the land and crime in general would grind to a halt.

It never seemed to cross their minds for one moment that no government is ever going to have much of an impact on such matters. Their posting successors on the boards are nowadays frequently found making equally bold and fanciful assertions about Cameron & Co on all sorts of policy matters and we believe them just as much as we did the aforementioned loonies - ie not at all.

Truly, there is no wishful thinker like a True Blue wishful thinker...

Would things have been any better if Labour had had the balls to form a coalition with the Lib-Dems and carry on governing? They were totally unreceptive to the idea - why?

Surely, realising the state of the economy, Labour chickened out and decided it would be cosier and in their long term interests (not the country's) to sit in opposition pointing at the Tories.

Isn't that how our pathetic politicians and our so called democracy works?

The flaws of a Labour Government are no excuse for the complete bollocks to which we were treated by Tory supporters who told us that all problems would be solved by their Golden Boy Cameron. It is now all too obvious to the great British electorate that the sun does not go in whenever 'Dave' sits down...

You've got that completely wrong, sickchip. Try reading this excellent article by James Macintyre, written in May 2010:-

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/05/lib-dems-labour-clegg-tories

In May 2010, 307 Tories were elected to Parliament, one of whom is Speaker Bercow, who doesn’t vote unless there is a tie (then he votes with the government of the day). That leaves 343 non-Tory MPs. Cameron thought he was being clever by renewing the Tory link with the Ulster Unionists, but they didn’t win any seats at all. The Democratic Unionists cannot be guaranteed to support the Tories, they will vote for whoever is in the best interests of Northern Ireland, and Cameron promised the province extra big cuts in his pre-election Paxman interview. The SDLP is allied to Labour and the Alliance Party to the Lib Dems, and if electoral reform was to be on the agenda, from which they would all benefit, the smaller parties (SNP, Plaid, Green) would not bring down the government and may well have supported it. A ‘rainbow coalition’ would have reflected the natural centre-left majority which exists in this country.

The fact is that Clegg comes from a wealthy Tory background, Clegg mixed with Tories such as Leon Brittan when he was working in the EU, and Clegg wanted a coalition with the Tories. He never seriously explored the possibility of a deal with Labour. Under the intellectually indefensible ‘cover’ of allowing the minority party with the largest vote share ‘first go’, he insulted Labour by not conducting parallel negotiations from the Friday morning. That would have been a perfectly proper thing to do if he had had any openness to a deal with Labour – but he didn’t. It was not for him to tell another party who its leader should or should not be, yet Labour even accepted that and Brown resigned as Labour leader on the Monday in order to facilitate a deal.

That deal would have involved almost immediate AV on the statute books plus a referendum on real PR. The numbers were there to do a deal for those two huge gains and maybe just a coalition for one or two years in respect of other matters. However, clearly Clegg had other priorities than fair votes for the future, and in the process he betrayed the progressive people who have supported the Liberal Democrats and now have no alternative but to support Labour.

Technically, MPs are our elected Representatives.

Wonder when they'll begin to represent our interests, rather than theirs?

It makes you wonder if the Lib Dems might get scared, then cut and run before its too late, they must know that their time is running out.

My guess is that their hopes were pinned on the tory economic policy timetable, hoping to get rid of the defecit before the next general election, this target cannot now be met, and so we will go into the next election still facing cuts and economic gloom.

We are now in 2012, soon it will be two years since this unholy alliance took office, with the Lib Dems poll ratings less than half what they were in May 2010 it must be a touch worrying for many Lib Dem MPs.

blueturando wrote:Stox 16....Your thread is irrelevent and that's why I answered it as I did. Labour and the Tories have been swapping power for decades. If I had started a thread with my question you would have come back with and answer similar to your thread question...wouldn't you?

'We get what we deserve'....No Penderyn and Sickchip, we get what we voted for, except for the present coalition where the Lierals decided they could not work with Brown and Labour

However, The Tory party has been in power the most
n the last 100 years: 1912 to 2012.

Conservatives in power 54 years.
Labour in power 38 years.
Liberals in power 8 years.

But every time they lose they make out that economy is in great shape and that the voter have some how got it wrong. so it quite a fair question given that the Tories have had 54 years in office. as if they are right then how come they have lost?

What a strange thread to start, anybody would think it was a "divide and rule" topic. Surely that could be percieved as racism?

tlttf wrote:What a strange thread to start, anybody would think it was a "divide and rule" topic. Surely that could be percieved as racism?

I cannot think of any thread less like racism than this one. think you have your subject matter mixed up myself

[quote]But every time they lose they make out that economy is in great shape and that the voter have some how got it wrong. so it quite a fair question given that the Tories have had 54 years in office. as if they are right then how come they have lost? .

They lose mainly because of the same reasons Labour lose. When a party has been in government too long it seems to get complacent, power hungry, sleezy and in a few cases, corrupt......Eventually the elecorate say enough is enough and voter the 'other lot' in

Google "Buggins' Turn" if you are not already familiar with the expression.

Stox 16 wrote:If we was to believe our Tories and there friends, as they keep telling us that they have to clear up the Labour parties mess? if this is SO... How come they lost the 1997 GE and Failed to win the last GE?... As they keep telling us all... that economy was do very good in 1997? So How come they did not sweep back into office? if this is right

also the Tory party and there Friends in the media keep saying Last Government was so very bad, How come the Tory Party and its friends could not win a majority at the last election?..... as this was after spending some £20 million pounds to get there message over too us all?

Do you happen too think that the UK people could see that they were totally bankrupt? but just need to blame something or someone for the world banking crisis?

I think they would tell us anything hoping that half way through this term of office they will call a snap GE hoping that all the lies they have told will convince the public to give them an outright win at the polls and would not have to go into coalition with anybody and then and only then would we see the real Tory the one that we have all come to detest and what ever public sector was left would be sold to there friends in the private sector.

witchfinder wrote:The Liberal Democrats are the party keeping the Conservatives in power, much to the annoyance of thousands of Lib Dem members who left the party and joined Labour instead, and to the secret annoyance of many Lib Dem MPs.

The natural ally of the Lib Dems is and always has been Labour, this is why I refer to this coalition as "the unholy alliance", it is an alliance forged mainly by one man - Nick Clegg.

When the time comes, as it will, the Lib Dems will be annhiliated at the next election, Nick Clegg will have to resign and the party will elect a traditional left of centre Liberal who will probably attempt to reforge links with their natural allies - the Labour party.

The point is this > if Lib Dem voters could have seen into the future in April 2010, they would not have voted for them, because an average Liberal may not like Labour, but they detest the Conservatives.

Why will these Lib/Dems MPs not do anything about it because that is something I have worked out the MPs hate the Tories they are having to work with although there are a few that will become Tories after there time in Gov't is over they like the feeling of power too much, I reckon that if they stick it out until 2015 there be no such party as the Lib/Dems they will not exist they have done badly here in Scotland they lost a lot of seats in May 2011 we got a few but the SNP took the majority and it is our local elections in May and there luck will run out there as well because here in Scotland they know that the only reason the Tories are still in power is due to the Lib/Dems and they will be punished for that as Scotland hates the Tories with a vengeance.

Ivan wrote:I knew there was something very sinister about this government when, right from the beginning, David Laws, in his 18 days as a minister, tried to make capital out of Liam Byrne’s joke (ill-advised in the circumstances) that “there is no money left”. Yet despite that, this government has always managed to find money when it wants to do so.

The Tories found money to go into Libya. They've found millions more to spend on the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympics. Until it came to light, they found money to provide an official photographer for Cameron, no doubt to catch the useless prat in his 'best light'. They've found money for the so-called 'free schools', which aren't free at all and are designed to fragment the state education system.

The Tories are even considering giving people money for no better reason than they have a bit of paper saying they are married, regardless of the state of that marriage, and regardless of whether they have left children unsupported in a previous marriage. They’ve found billions to spend on their back door privatisation of the NHS, when they said categorically that they wouldn’t touch it.

Apparently, the Tories are proposing to bring ex-pats back from Spain if their banks go belly up, even though most banks are international. Why has spending not actually gone down when there is no money to spend? Why did they give us a day off for the bloody royal wedding when we are told (in the case of a strike) that it costs billions for the country to down tools for a day?

The Tories tell us again and again there is no money, but they just keep spending it anyway, and the borrowing requirement for this financial year is far higher than previously anticipated. Why? Because the Tories are bare-faced liars and hypocrites, always have been and always will be, since it’s the only way they can con enough people into voting for them.

If they have a pet project they will always find money for that I think your right about Liam Byrnes note and they took that and used it for there benefit the money they found is £3.5 billion but that is just so that they can privatize the NHS its payback time the hedge fund managers and the financial sector that pour loads of money into Tory party funds to help them tell all those lies at the election.

They always have been bare faced liars nothing different there then they actually do it daily If they told me that was the moon in the sky I would not believe them thats how much I trust them that was our MPS fault he gave them the perfect WAR CRY Labour left us in this mess I would not be supprised if that was a lie also.

Redflag wrote:

witchfinder wrote:The Liberal Democrats are the party keeping the Conservatives in power, much to the annoyance of thousands of Lib Dem members who left the party and joined Labour instead, and to the secret annoyance of many Lib Dem MPs.

The natural ally of the Lib Dems is and always has been Labour, this is why I refer to this coalition as "the unholy alliance", it is an alliance forged mainly by one man - Nick Clegg.

When the time comes, as it will, the Lib Dems will be annhiliated at the next election, Nick Clegg will have to resign and the party will elect a traditional left of centre Liberal who will probably attempt to reforge links with their natural allies - the Labour party.

The point is this > if Lib Dem voters could have seen into the future in April 2010, they would not have voted for them, because an average Liberal may not like Labour, but they detest the Conservatives.

Why will these Lib/Dems MPs not do anything about it because that is something I have worked out the MPs hate the Tories they are having to work with although there are a few that will become Tories after there time in Gov't is over they like the feeling of power too much, I reckon that if they stick it out until 2015 there be no such party as the Lib/Dems they will not exist they have done badly here in Scotland they lost a lot of seats in May 2011 we got a few but the SNP took the majority and it is our local elections in May and there luck will run out there as well because here in Scotland they know that the only reason the Tories are still in power is due to the Lib/Dems and they will be punished for that as Scotland hates the Tories with a vengeance.

Some fair points on the Lib Dems. as I am wondering myself what will be left of the Lib Dem party by the time of the GE Red. as they have lost a great deal of the core working membership over the last 12 months Red.

In this video of PMQT on 26/11/08, Cameron attacked Labour's alleged plans to increase VAT. He argued that VAT was a tax 'bombshell' that would hit every family in the country. In fact, Labour reduced VAT to 15% for thirteen months to get the economy growing again.

Prior to the election in May 2010, the Tories told us, just as Thatcher did in 1979, that they "had no plans to raise VAT". In fact, within 50 days of the formation of this evil government it was George Osborne who hiked VAT to 20%. This video exposes Cameron for the lying, cheating Tory that he is:-

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=3300243001

Ivan wrote

"This video exposes Cameron for the lying, cheating Tory that he is:-"

I was just about to say, I can think of worse things to call him, but what could there be worse than a Tory.

bobby wrote:Ivan wrote

"This video exposes Cameron for the lying, cheating Tory that he is:-"

I was just about to say, I can think of worse things to call him, but what could there be worse than a Tory.

A tory trying to imitate Bliar?

Stox 16 wrote:If we was to believe our Tories and there friends, as they keep telling us that they have to clear up the Labour parties mess? if this is SO... How come they lost the 1997 GE and Failed to win the last GE?... As they keep telling us all... that economy was do very good in 1997? So How come they did not sweep back into office? if this is right

also the Tory party and there Friends in the media keep saying Last Government was so very bad, How come the Tory Party and its friends could not win a majority at the last election?..... as this was after spending some £20 million pounds to get there message over too us all?

Do you happen too think that the UK people could see that they were totally bankrupt? but just need to blame something or someone for the world banking crisis?

Well surely the Labour party should be able to tell us how the economy was in 1997? I am going to ask the same question again and hope that some one can answer it for me why won't Ed Miliband cast up the Tories foul ups the way they do in the House of Commons something that will stop them from prattling on "the financial mess Labour left" can some body please answer this for me they must be plenty of mess left by the Tory Gov't of Thatcher.

If we where bankrupt the Tories would be out there screaming like girls for the whole world to hear, I don't think things are as bad as there making out after all they have just found about £3.5 billion for the new train service S2 so can anybody tell me where that money is coming from.

If we where bankrupt the Tories would be out there screaming like girls for the whole world to hear, I don't think things are as bad as there making out after all they have just found about £3.5 billion for the new train service S2 so can anybody tell me where that money is coming from..
Redflag

Good question, every country seems to be knee deep in debt, some deeper in debt than others, from who and where do they borrow these vast amounts of money. The present government is still going to borrow billions on top of what we are already suppose to be oweing. Is it Bill Gates, or John Paul Getty who have gone into money lending.

Redflag wrote:

Stox 16 wrote:If we was to believe our Tories and there friends, as they keep telling us that they have to clear up the Labour parties mess? if this is SO... How come they lost the 1997 GE and Failed to win the last GE?... As they keep telling us all... that economy was do very good in 1997? So How come they did not sweep back into office? if this is right

also the Tory party and there Friends in the media keep saying Last Government was so very bad, How come the Tory Party and its friends could not win a majority at the last election?..... as this was after spending some £20 million pounds to get there message over too us all?

Do you happen too think that the UK people could see that they were totally bankrupt? but just need to blame something or someone for the world banking crisis?

Well surely the Labour party should be able to tell us how the economy was in 1997? I am going to ask the same question again and hope that some one can answer it for me why won't Ed Miliband cast up the Tories foul ups the way they do in the House of Commons something that will stop them from prattling on "the financial mess Labour left" can some body please answer this for me they must be plenty of mess left by the Tory Gov't of Thatcher.

If we where bankrupt the Tories would be out there screaming like girls for the whole world to hear, I don't think things are as bad as there making out after all they have just found about £3.5 billion for the new train service S2 so can anybody tell me where that money is coming from.

'97 wasn't a Thatcher Government, and if you want to look at '97 you may also want to look at '79.

As you are asking for: "British posters only, please."

What has it got to do with you.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Q1: Dou you hate the Tories?
Q2: If so, why? I'd appreciate comprehensive, detailed eplanations.

British posters only, please.

Q1) I hate them with a vengeance for what they did to Scotland in the 1980s and what there trying to do now

Q2) I have already answered part of this question in Q1 but will add further reasons POLL TAX the most unfairest of all Tax it was given to us before anybody else and when we protested and marched against it we where not listened too, but when England got it and protested and marched and disrupting Council meetings she knew to pin back her ear holes and I never understood why after that they voted her back in. It was plain as the nose on her face the only people she was interested in the people with money and Tory voters and all that said you have not right to have your own political views

Why do dogs chase cats?

(Only those with nothing better to do need respond.)

Extracts from an article by Andy Slaughter, Labour MP for Hammersmith:-

A Tory-led government is quite happy to invite tax avoider Philip Green to advise on waste. It permits unrestrained development across town and countryside alike at the behest of property developers while greedily accepting their donations. Similarly, the Tories have sought donations from private healthcare companies while privatising the NHS and from the insurance industry (£4.9m under Cameron) who will earn billions from restrictions on access to justice in the current Legal Aid Bill. Yet the banks still refuse to lend to small businesses and bonuses in the City are still out of control.

This is a government that defends the 1% as it asks the public sector to pay for a crisis in the private sector. This is government by and for the 1%, a new political settlement which owes more to the nineteenth century than the twenty first. My constituents experience eviction, poverty, unemployment and degradation every day not despite but as a result of government policy. The rich are stealing from the rest of us.

Rick Santorum told Rush Limbaugh: "Lady Thatcher said after she left office and reflected on her career, that she was never able to accomplish in England what Ronald Reagan did in America, and she said that she blamed the British national health care system." A few years ago this would have been just a joke. But Cameron's Tories increasingly look like the Tea Party tendency in the US.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/01/miliband-government-interests#reader-comments