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

by Stox 16 Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:48 am

First topic message reminder :

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?

by **Phil Hornby** Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:38 pm

More Bollocks from Maude

If the Tories are so great in government, how come they lost the 1997 election and failed to win in 2010? - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLgTHz5U9Zj_fboJnoLHOlaEPP6fEbPelfoheCxapw8IoO2HkNBg

If the Tories are so great in government, how come they lost the 1997 election and failed to win in 2010? - Page 3 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLgTHz5U9Zj_fboJnoLHOlaEPP6fEbPelfoheCxapw8IoO2HkNBg

(civilsociety.co.uk)

"...and for those of you who live in Scotland I recommend you fill up a Gerry McCann ...."

by LWS Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:42 pm

Phil Hornby wrote:More Bollocks from Maude

(civilsociety.co.uk)

"...and for those of you who live in Scotland I recommend you fill up a Gerry McCann ...."

Yes coupled with advice for storage of fuel that is quite frankly unsafe. You would normally expect government ministers to be more responsible, but there again Maude is a tory, so we have to make allowances I surmise!

by **Ivan** Tue May 08, 2012 12:01 am

If the Tories are so great in government, would we be seeing comments like these at 'Conservative Home'?

CharlesKJP:-
This is all well done but David Cameron has a bigger problem (it’s not his poshness) and it is: no one believes a word he says any more. Every week on PMQs he is caught lying by some paper or another. This is not good, he has to stop because it is doing long term damage to the Conservative Party. Finally, I think we Conservatives and Cameron & Co should stop saying the last govt created the biggest deficit and debt - they left a financial mess. I must admit even I believed it for a while but it became apparent that the IMF, OECD, HM Treasury data show clearly that the last government did not create the deficit by overspending - Cameron & Osborne have misrepresented the data. The worst thing is this fact is coming clear on the social media but worst still there is a video going around the world which shows George Osborne admitting the UK never had the biggest deficit or debt in the world or history and the last govt did not over spend.

This video and the report which shows the IMF, OECD & even George Osborne admitting the UK never created the biggest deficit and the last government didn't overspend - will eventually destroy the Conservative Party. We will be judged as the biggest liars and traitors this country has ever seen because we have helped to destroy the economy from 2008 onwards by talking it down via telling all these lies. I think Cameron should come clean now because he is destroying our party and we will not be elected for another 50 years - no one will ever trust a party of traitors and liars. Margaret Thatcher must be dying of shame of all these lies and talking down the economy by telling blatant lies. We live in a new world of social media so it will all come to light and none of us will be able to say yes “I'm a Conservative”.

Rachel Walton:-
The Conservative Party pro-poor is this a joke? You mean the party that has just cut welfare to disabled children is pro-poor? You mean the party cutting aid to the disabled generally is pro-poor? You mean the party whose policies are socially cleansing the poor from Inner London boroughs is pro poor? You mean the party that is getting our young to work for multinationals for nothing is pro-poor? We have heard of hypocrisy. But this is hypocrisy of a new order. Tim you should be ashamed of yourself. It is Tories who create the poor. Open your eyes to reality.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2012/05/the-alternativequeensspeech-offers-popular-pro-poor-and-broadly-based-legislation.html#IDComment355979476

by oftenwrong Tue May 08, 2012 12:10 am

"No lurch to right or left"
and no idea how to recover the situation, unfortunately.

by Redflag Tue May 08, 2012 8:08 am

oftenwrong wrote:Excellent advice from Francis Maude: Fill cans with petrol and then pour it over him.

Or did I misunderstand what he said?

Actually OW I think you got it just about right, the only problem with that is S***E does not burn it just stinks.

by **Ivan** Thu May 10, 2012 11:14 am

An MSN Poll is asking how Britain has changed in the last two years. As I write, 6,328 people have responded so far:-
- Considerably better (3%)
- Slightly better (9%)
- Much the same (16%)
- Slightly worse (14%)
- Considerably worse (58%)

Only 58%, you might ask? Shocked

Somebody has posted on 'Twitter' this morning that "the coalition has put the economy on life support while it harvests its organs".

by Mel Thu May 10, 2012 11:57 am

Well Ivan, that's MSN for you. I have noticed time and time again they are either pro Tory or anti Labour. IMO they doctor these polls to suit their political leanings.

by blueturando Thu May 10, 2012 3:10 pm

I have noticed time and time again they are either pro Tory or anti Labour

.

Some of you people are deluded and obsessed......I think you need therepy. Is life one big conspirisy for you?

by **Ivan** Thu May 10, 2012 3:20 pm

blue. Which party would you expect large corporations such as MSN to support?

In this instance, however, the poll I quoted is a mere reflection of the views of MSN users, not a scientific analysis.

by blueturando Thu May 10, 2012 3:40 pm

Wow if everyone is a Tory, they MUST be the best party.
Maybe Ivan, you should follow all these captains of industry and the media and convert to Tory

by bobby Thu May 10, 2012 3:49 pm

blueturando said: Maybe Ivan, you should follow all these captains of industry and the media and convert to Tory.

If they are no longer good enough for you, what make you think they are good enough for anyone, let alone Ivan.

by blueturando Thu May 10, 2012 3:52 pm

Maybe the chip on my shoulder is not big enough to join Labour???

by bobby Thu May 10, 2012 4:07 pm

Blue, What makes you think that we want someone as fickle as you, chip or no chip. Its just that you make a damning statement re your beloved Tories, then resort to type and slate everything non Tory.

So please do me a favour and keep to the party that wants you.

by Mel Thu May 10, 2012 5:01 pm

blue wrote "I think you need therepy. Is life one big conspirisy for you?

Firstly I wont suggest what you need blue as I will not lower myself to your
rudeness.

Life insn't one big conspiricy, it's the Tories who conspire constantly that make me wary. That goes mainly for the members of their government and the wealthy followers who are only in it for their own ends. Then we have the Tory supporting Mr average who has been brainwashed and still is deluded.
When Camer-con can have the BBC in his pocket with fear tactics, who knows what other large organisations are bowing to his demands for one reason or another. Tories are renown for affording favours to powerful people in return for anything anti Labour or pro Tory. Surely you are not one of those brainwashed deluded Tory supporters who are not aware of these conspiracies?

by oftenwrong Thu May 10, 2012 5:43 pm

No alien power successfully invaded Britain after 1066, then they thought-up the Coalition Government.

by Adele Carlyon Thu May 10, 2012 6:05 pm

by jackthelad Thu May 10, 2012 6:12 pm

oftenwrong wrote:No alien power successfully invaded Britain after 1066, then they thought-up the Coalition Government.

We had invasions in the fifties from the Caribbean invited by the government in power at the time, then further invasions from the Indian continent. Some of our major cities are like Calcutta and Jahalabad, you can't tell the difference when you walk down the streets, plus invasions from Turks and Kurd's and the middle east. Now we are being invaded by Eastern Europeans, certainly bloodless invasions, but they all are causing pain for the natives of the United Kingdom.

by tlttf Thu May 10, 2012 6:26 pm

Very true jackthelad, just look how it's affected the country "British Paki Muslims" raping kids and have been for in excess of 13 years, police scared of intervening because they'd be called racist, everyone terrified upsetting the "muslim minority". At the same time the police are being charged with making racist remarks. Why is it offensive to make remarks about certain races and not racist for the minority races to abuse the natives?

by **astradt1** Thu May 10, 2012 6:35 pm

Land, would you care to reword part of your post, i.e. the derogatory description of those convicted........

by tlttf Thu May 10, 2012 6:45 pm

Hope your taking the piss astradt. Should I put Pakistani muslim rapists?

by Mel Thu May 10, 2012 7:02 pm

tlttf. astrad1 has asked you in a decent manner to "reword" the racist
remark. You are in breach of the forum rules and I should warn you that
if you refuse to adhere to the rules then further action will be taken.

I apreciate that you and I have severe differences on political matters, however my warning has nothing whatsoever to do with our differences.
You know full well the forum has certain rules which we must all abide by. Otherwise the forum which we ALL enjoy could be in danger of being shut down. Please remove the offending remark as astrad1 has requested.

by jackthelad Thu May 10, 2012 7:19 pm

Would, of middle eastern and oriental persuasion do, i for one do not know from where they originaly came from. When a Latvian was sent to prison for rape, nobody objected to him being called a Latvian. But the whole incident,(if i can call it an incident) does not reflect well on the muslim community, when it was only none muslims they abused. Personnally i would call a spade a spade, a shovel is a different type of tool, you could never call that a spade.

by Mel Thu May 10, 2012 7:25 pm

"Would, of middle eastern and oriental persuasion do"

Perfectly my honourable friend.

by oftenwrong Thu May 10, 2012 7:29 pm

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

Foiled Yemen bomb plot

Spy who helped thwart al-Qaida bomb plot is British national of Middle Eastern origin, US, international intelligence services tell @NBCNews

Closet admirers of the BNP and EDL will find friends at the following link:

http://englishdefenceleague.org/

by Adele Carlyon Thu May 10, 2012 7:44 pm

I take great exception to the words he used too! I've never heard anyone say the shortened version of pakistani without feeling that it's being spat out with bile. I'm so glad that I've taught my kids that words like that are totally unacceptable.

by **Phil Hornby** Thu May 10, 2012 7:57 pm

I fully recognise that the truncated version of the offending word is deemed unacceptable by polite society but ,for the life of me, I cannot understand how this has come about when we can quite freely use the term 'Aussie'.

Can somebody enlighten me? Is this to do with symbolism or somesuch...?

by Mel Thu May 10, 2012 8:15 pm

The fault lies with those who used the word offensively, therefore it is now deemed and taken as a racist remark.

by jackthelad Thu May 10, 2012 8:17 pm

Brit, Aussie, Kiwi, are names said with pride, Paki, Frog, Jerry, are derogatory names said to offend. I can understand the French objecting to being called a frog, even though they eat lots of them. I fail to see why anyone from Pakistan should be upset at being called a Paki.

by **astradt1** Thu May 10, 2012 9:18 pm

Noun

Paki (plural Pakis)

1. (UK, Canada, Australian, offensive, racial slur) A Pakistani, or, more generally and incorrectly used, a person who is perceived to be from South Asian or the Indian Subcontinent origin which is still considered offensive. See usage notes.

Usage notes

The abbreviation Paki acquired offensive connotations in the 1960s when used by British tabloids to refer to subjects of former colony states in a derogatory and racist manner. In modern British usage "Paki" is typically used in a derogatory way as a label for all South Asians, including Indians, Afghans and Bangladeshis. To a lesser extent, the term has been applied as a racial slur towards Arabs and other Middle Eastern-looking groups who may resemble South Asians. During the 60's many emigrants were also dubbed as "black" to further segregrate them from the white community. Some would say such a division still exists in parts of England.

In recent times there has been a trend by second and third-generation British Pakistanis to reclaim the word, such that it can be used within the young British Pakistani community but not by outsiders, including Indians and Bangladeshis.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Paki

by oftenwrong Thu May 10, 2012 10:39 pm

Aye, whole world's mad 'cept thee and me.

by sickchip Fri May 11, 2012 12:03 am

tlttf wrote:Very true jackthelad, just look how it's affected the country "British citizens" raping kids and have been for in excess of 13 years, police scared of intervening because they'd be called racist, everyone terrified upsetting the "muslim minority". At the same time the police are being charged with making racist remarks. Why is it offensive to make remarks about certain races and not racist for the minority races to abuse the natives?

land - I've altered your offending labelling as it makes a racist generalisation about a whole race of people

Can you provide stats, other courtcases, etc to back up your assertion; and can you also provide evidence that white honky christians are not involved in similar criminal activity?

by **Ivan** Fri May 11, 2012 1:01 am

Brit, Aussie, Kiwi, are names said with pride, Paki, Frog, Jerry, are derogatory names said to offend. I can understand the French objecting to being called a frog, even though they eat lots of them. I fail to see why anyone from Pakistan should be upset at being called a Paki.

jackthelad. It’s something I’ve often thought about – why is it more offensive to use a derogatory term about a black person, or a Pakistani, than it is about a Frenchman? In an ideal world, we would all be polite to each other, but as I’m not always polite to Tories, I’d better start again…..

I think the answer lies mainly in history. Black people were made slaves by white people. Pakistanis were subjected to colonial rule by the British. The French haven’t been subjugated by anyone for hundreds of years, apart from a four-year occupation by the Germans during the Second World War, and neither have the Aussies. However, if you referred to the indigenous people of Australia as ‘abos’, that would be offensive, since many would argue that they haven’t always been treated properly.

Then there’s the intention behind the way in which abbreviations are used. Calling an Australian an Aussie has been no more offensive than Australians calling us Poms. However, when some people started referring to Pakistanis as Pakis, it wasn’t just as an abbreviation but was used as a term of abuse. In my humble opinion, history and intention provide the key to what is and isn’t acceptable.

Then we come to this appalling child sex gang, where eight of the men were of Pakistani origin and one was from Afghanistan. What a perfect opportunity for BNP thugs, after their drubbing in the polls last week, to stir up trouble! The police have said there was not a racial element to these dreadful crimes, and would anyone like to claim that white British people have never abused children in the UK? And I wonder how many Indian and Pakistani girls were abused by white British men in the glorious days of our empire? That’s not in any way to condone or excuse these vile men, who I think should have been jailed for the rest of their natural, it’s just to put things in context.

Britain has a sizeable element of non-white people, at least 5%. Within that minority, there will be good people, lots of ordinary people and some bad people, just as in the majority. The idea that the sick behaviour of nine men should be used to try and tarnish the reputations of several million others, who haven’t harmed anyone, is utterly despicable.

by **Phil Hornby** Fri May 11, 2012 10:10 am

Another puzzle to me is the use of the term 'coloured people'. I can see why it is seen as potentially offensive , but I recall hearing Archbishop Desmond Tutu use the words to describe the non-white folk of The Cape - and he , of course, being black himself.

I have never really understood it all since the time, as a young man, when I had somebody say to me :"I know some black people, but they are really quite nice". It did cross my mind as to whether those to whom he referred would have described him as '...but quite nice' or , as I did, as a ' tiresome bigot'.

Hearing of a 'Black Workers' Group ' in an organisation I once worked with, I did ask one of their members why they had established a group which was defined simply by their race and 'colour' . The answer was not convincing . It struck me that as soon as we start to talk about - or otherwise highlight -anyone's 'difference' from another group or person, we are in danger of opening a door which cannot be closed thereafter.

Now I must just pop out to meet my chum 'Ginger' for a coffee and a catch-up...

by Redflag Fri May 11, 2012 10:21 am

Phil Hornby wrote:Another puzzle to me is the use of the term 'coloured people'. I can see why it is seen as potentially offensive , but I recall hearing Archbishop Desmond Tutu use the words to describe the non-white folk of The Cape - and he , of course, being black himself.

I have never really understood it all since the time, as a young man, when I had somebody say to me :"I know some black people, but they are really quite nice". It did cross my mind as to whether those to whom he referred would have described him as '...but quite nice' or , as I did, as a ' tiresome bigot'.

Hearing of a 'Black Workers' Group ' in an organisation I once worked with, I did ask one of their members why they had established a group which was defined simply by their race and 'colour' . The answer was not convincing . It struck me that as soon as we start to talk about - or otherwise highlight -anyone's 'difference' from another group or person, we are in danger of opening a door which cannot be closed thereafter.

Now I must just pop out to meet my chum 'Ginger' for a coffee and a catch-up...

Your not going for coffee with the ginger low life ( Danny Alexander) PH, I must tell you your mixing with the wrong kind of person.

by bobby Fri May 11, 2012 1:02 pm

Firstly let me start by saying I am not a Racist, I like Black people and think every white person should own one. (Just a joke)

What I dont understand though is as Phil has already pointed out, Black people can have their own groups headed by the title Black, we have a Black Barristers association, The Black Police association etc, etc, Why then is it that when White people want to form a Group and call it "White whatever" we are being Racist. Its totaly wrong. Blacks have constantly moved the goalposts as to what is and isn't acceptable to them.

As a youngster it was quite normal to call them “African-American”, then they decided that was a derogatory term, so they changed it to Coloured and that lasted some time, them someone decided that the title Coloured was unacceptable and it got changed to Black then Afro Caribbean, that lasted ages before someone decided the term Afro meant a hair style, and it got changed yet again to African Caribbean. I guess its only a matter of time before some Black Racist wants us to jump through another hoop.

No matter what people call us, it seems we are big enough to take it on the chin without moaning and running to the Race Relations Board every five minutes. PC has gone mad especially if you are White and British.

As I said at the beginning, I am not Racist, but would rather have not had the pleasure of meeting and working with some really nice Blacks, if it means having to put up with much of what comes with mass immigration.

I am a tad Homophobic, which leads me on to another anomaly, Queers call us strait yet scream their little heads of if we call them Bent. If they don’t want to be called bent, then why should they refer to us as strait, bent is the opposite to strait. And they have stolen a lovely word, Gay and taken it for themselves. The word Gay means something like happy and carefree, and I have had the displeasure of meeting some right miserable homosexuals, not at all Gay.

by blueturando Fri May 11, 2012 1:15 pm

Excellent post Bobby!!!!

Maybe it's time we had a 'grown up' discussion on Race? One where we can have an honest an open discussion without being labelled a racist by the PC brigade.

In my humble opinion and experience very few people are racist, but are labelled as such for their use of language or words that 'may' not be the correct term decided by people who like to find racism where there isnt any and would like to brand all whites as racist...forever!!

by sickchip Fri May 11, 2012 1:18 pm

bobby wrote:Firstly let me start by saying I am not a Racist, I like Black people and think every white person should own one. (Just a joke)

What I dont understand though is as Phil has already pointed out, Black people can have their own groups headed by the title Black, we have a Black Barristers association, The Black Police association etc, etc, Why then is it that when White people want to form a Group and call it "White whatever" we are being Racist. Its totaly wrong. Blacks have constantly moved the goalposts as to what is and isn't acceptable to them.

As a youngster it was quite normal to call them “African-American”, then they decided that was a derogatory term, so they changed it to Coloured and that lasted some time, them someone decided that the title Coloured was unacceptable and it got changed to Black then Afro Caribbean, that lasted ages before someone decided the term Afro meant a hair style, and it got changed yet again to African Caribbean. I guess its only a matter of time before some Black Racist wants us to jump through another hoop.

No matter what people call us, it seems we are big enough to take it on the chin without moaning and running to the Race Relations Board every five minutes. PC has gone mad especially if you are White and British.

As I said at the beginning, I am not Racist, but would rather have not had the pleasure of meeting and working with some really nice Blacks, if it means having to put up with much of what comes with mass immigration.

I am a tad Homophobic, which leads me on to another anomaly, Queers call us strait yet scream their little heads of if we call them Bent. If they don’t want to be called bent, then why should they refer to us as strait, bent is the opposite to strait. And they have stolen a lovely word, Gay and taken it for themselves. The word Gay means something like happy and carefree, and I have had the displeasure of meeting some right miserable homosexuals, not at all Gay.

So let's get this straight Bobby......you're a racist, homophobic labour party supporter!!!!??

I think you're going wrong somewhere there. You seem a little confused.....maybe you should start supporting the BNP and leave the Labour party alone....they don't need people with your opinions.

by astra Fri May 11, 2012 1:31 pm

Chip!

In that ONE post you have aired your dirty linen!

I agree with EVERY word Bobby has said, and neither of us need to be judged by some supercilious, sanctimonious, overpaid twerp!

You getting paid for sticking up for the pc brigade?? Twisted Evil

by bobby Fri May 11, 2012 1:32 pm

Hello blue, does this mean we are friends again?

Even in my previous post moderator altered the word African-American and put in African American. I did not use the term African-American as a derogatory term just a historical fact, so feel my post should have been left alone.

Incidentally whoever moderated the term I used and changed it to African American, perhaps you might like to tell me when Black immigrants in the UK were ever refered to as that.

by bobby Fri May 11, 2012 1:38 pm

sickchip, you are a dickhead, before you pass judgement on me read my post properly. If I say I am not a racist I am not a racist, or do you normaly go round calling a person you don't know a liar.

What a load of bollocks you write sickchip, written by a total pratt.

by blueturando Fri May 11, 2012 1:42 pm

I think you're going wrong somewhere there. You seem a little confused.....maybe you should start supporting the BNP and leave the Labour party alone....they don't need people with your opinions..

Chip.......I feel you are being a bit harsh here. Some very valid points were made in Bobby's post and you have just proved what I said earlier....We cannot seem to have a grown up discussion on this issue without being labelled a racist, unless you tow the PC line

by Sponsored content