Swivel-Eyed Loons

[Stavros]

Since the local elections at the beginning of May, the Conservative Party has plunged itself into another internal bout of accusation and incrimination, largely because the so-called United Kingdom Independence Party [UKIP] stole votes from the Tories and the rank and file are not just wondering if their seats are safe, they have identified as toxic issues the UK's membership of the European Union (which UKIP wants to leave); immigration (UKIP wants an immediate halt now); and Gay Marriage -enough grass roots activists are opposed to it as being part of a sell-out of all that the Party believes in to have encouraged their MP's to vote against in the Commons this evening.

The debate worsened over the weekend when one former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Geoffrey Howe (who lives in England) ridiculed the argument of the other former Tory Chancellor, Lord Lawson (who lives in France) that Britain should leave the EU. Then, an as-yet unidentified Tory spokesperson (apparently another Lord, and co-Chairman of the Party, known as Lord Feldman-posh school and Oxford but no relation to Marty) expressed the frustration of David Cameron (posh school and Oxford) that Tory grass roots activists are 'swivel-eyed loons', which of course has been 'vigorously' denied. Lord Feldman is considering legal action.

As Peter Tatchell pointed out in today's Guardian, the 1949 Marriage Act having considered same-sex marriage unconscionable never referred to men and women, so that in the letter of that law it was legal; whereas a new Act in the 1970s specified it, precisely, according to Tatchell, because of the growth of 'gay activism' and the need to put a stop to 'this sort of thing' as outraged Colonels say in Cheltenham Spa.

At a deeper level, the discontent in the rank and file of the Party makes one wonder if the Party is actually imploding over the belief that Cameron has sold out to the 'youth vote', so that now both the grass roots and the leadership claim each other is 'out of touch'.

UKIP might be able to elect some MP's in an election; the so-called 'debate' on Europe is a distraction from the real debate- economic growth and the lack of it; but if this were to continue, and given that neither Labour nor the Liberal-Democrats have any concrete policies for growth, the UK could be heading for years of political instability characterised by weak coalition governments.

Or is this just another spat?

[Prospero]

A Labour/Lib-Dem coalition (groan) seems one likely outcome of the next election.

[sukumvit boy]

Hey Stavros ,thanks for that insightful look at British politics.

'Swivel-Eyed Loons' , indeed. An affront to these magnificent animals.
"Loons Rise Up".

[Stavros]

Flattered by your praise, Sukumvitboy. The Tories have faced oblivion before, notably following the Liberal Party victory in 1906 which decimated the parliamentary representation of the Conservative Party. They clawed their way back into government when a Coalition was formed in 1915, at a time when the War was going badly and Herbert Asquith taking much of the blame for poor leadership. David Lloyd-George did a deal with the Tories that saw him become leader of the Liberals backed by the Tories in Coalition, which lasted until the General Election of 1922 when it was the Liberals who were all but destroyed, a) because the party had split with one wing opposed to Lloyd-George's aggressive foreign policy and conservative domestic policy -a split which weakened the Liberals so badly they never fully regained a significant Parliamentary representation - inrecent years the party had to merge with the Social Democrats to survive; and b) because Lloyd-George lost what popularity he had in the War by selling peerages, and other mistakes. The rise of the Labour Party also meant that the unions and the working class vote which had previously benefited the Liberals, went to Labour so that in that tumultuous period before 1931, it was the Liberals not the Conservatives who all but destroyed themselves.

This time, the difference is that whereas in 1997 the Tories were decimated after being in power for 18 years and being both divided on policy (Europe, as usual) and mired in corruption scandals, there was no alternative party to take their place, whereas now the claims of UKIP on grass roots members may cause more serious to the party's national organisation. What is still not clear is whether or not voters will also make the switch to UKIP. If there is an improvement to the economy the voters, afraid of the unknown with UKIP might still vote Tory even if the party is unable to win an overall majority; if the situation doesn't get better and the Party cannot control its own rank and file and cannot deal with toxic policies like immigration and Europe, the party could be heading for its most difficult period. But as Prospero suggests, with no party claiming real popularity, we will probably be stuck with coalitions for some time.

[Stavros]

The Daily Telegraph today is reporting that a scandal is about to break which David Cameron cannot control; it doesn't name the two people alleged to have had an affair, but the gossip on the web is that some years ago his wife Samantha had an affair with London Mayor Boris Johnson and that Nancy Cameron is their 'love-child' there might even be another one. Given that the Tory party rank and file and desperately trying to save the 'institution of marriage' from the iniquities of gaydom, their reaction to the story -IF TRUE- could well be another nail in the coffin they prepared for him some time ago. I won't post links but it is in the Telegraph and a google will take you to the allegations on YouTube although the recording wouldn't load when I tried it, the text below has the details. One could add that if Cameron didn't know that would be a blow to him personally (the Telegraph says he was 'stunned' when he found out) but I would have though he might have known for years -? Who knows.

[robertlouis]

The Daily Telegraph today is reporting that a scandal is about to break which David Cameron cannot control; it doesn't name the two people alleged to have had an affair, but the gossip on the web is that some years ago his wife Samantha had an affair with London Mayor Boris Johnson and that Nancy Cameron is their 'love-child' there might even be another one. Given that the Tory party rank and file and desperately trying to save the 'institution of marriage' from the iniquities of gaydom, their reaction to the story -IF TRUE- could well be another nail in the coffin they prepared for him some time ago. I won't post links but it is in the Telegraph and a google will take you to the allegations on YouTube although the recording wouldn't load when I tried it, the text below has the details. One could add that if Cameron didn't know that would be a blow to him personally (the Telegraph says he was 'stunned' when he found out) but I would have though he might have known for years -? Who knows.

I am utterly gobsmacked.

If true, bye bye Dave and bye bye Boris.

[robertlouis]

Just watched BBC Breakfast News. Not a mention. I suspect everyone is waiting to see what the Daily Mail does next. Plenty of speculation on the net, not exclusively about Boris and Sam Cam - I rather like the one that suggests it's a love affair between Michael Gove and himself.

However, am I right in thinking that the fact that the Mail has already published without names eliminates any possibility of a super-injunction?

Watch this space, I reckon.

[Amy Gray]

If you all promise not to tell anyone I'll admit to being a total poly sci geek. Cspan is my jam! That's right, you want to get this tranny hard, talk about aggregated polling data and legislative process with me.

Anyhew, I've been following shifting electorate base of the republican and democrat party for a while and it's quite fascinating. I think the big problem is that the republican's have been using gerrymandering (so do Democrats to be fair) to force democrats into a few urban/ethnic districts while taking the larger number of white dominated districts for themselves.

Take Virginia's districts (http://www.logarchism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Va_congressional.jpg). Virginia has a long history of heavy Republican Gerymandering. District 3,8, and 11 are Democrat districts that were specifically shaped around certain urban environments (Richmond, Newport News, Fairfax, etc) with 2 and 10 being the swing districts. This is in an effort to garner house seats and control of state legislative bodies but the problem is that those urban areas are SUPER populated and ethnic voters are starting to outnumber caucasian voters. Essentially Republicans have Gerymandered themselves to win the battle but lose the war.

The other major issue is that Republicans are starting to lose the youth vote in a big way. Even their own studies (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/college-republicans-report_n_3378568.html?utm_hp_ref=politics) recognize that they've got a messaging problem. College age voters might want to cut the size of the government but they want to start with the military; a huge percent of young voters are completely at odd with Republicans on the social issues; and if you look at cpac photos you'll see how the GOP has become the "old whiteguy" party.

The two things the Republican party needs is they need DOMA to get overturned and they need to win over the hispanic vote. You might not get why Republicans would want DOMA overturned but as long as it's in the news cycle it'll highlight their unpopular social stances and they can't change their official stance on it. I mean, look how it dominated the 2012 race. If they can get the conversation off of gay marriage and stop making stupid comments about women then they can be halfway palatable to moderates. You better believe that the GOP wants DOMA to die a quick and quiet death so they can stop talking about gay marriage. The second issue is especially interesting. Hispanics are largely conservative voters and religious. They're a perfect voting block for the GOP... if the GOP could stop taking REALLLLLLLY stupid positions on hispanic issues. I mean, when the GOP tried to fight the affordable care act they framed the healthcare problem in the US as "all those hispanics getting free healthcare and making us pay for it" You better believe that pissed off latinos. Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

[Prospero]

Stavros - I just read the love child of Boris posting. Stunned is not the word. Good grief.

[Amy Gray]

Blah blah blah...

Er, ignore that, it's 4 am and I totally went off topic. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

[Stavros]

If you all promise not to tell anyone I'll admit to being a total poly sci geek. Cspan is my jam! That's right, you want to get this tranny hard, talk about aggregated polling data and legislative process with me.

Anyhew, I've been following shifting electorate base of the republican and democrat party for a while and it's quite fascinating. I think the big problem is that the republican's have been using gerrymandering (so do Democrats to be fair) to force democrats into a few urban/ethnic districts while taking the larger number of white dominated districts for themselves.

Take Virginia's districts (http://www.logarchism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Va_congressional.jpg). Virginia has a long history of heavy Republican Gerymandering. District 3,8, and 11 are Democrat districts that were specifically shaped around certain urban environments (Richmond, Newport News, Fairfax, etc) with 2 and 10 being the swing districts. This is in an effort to garner house seats and control of state legislative bodies but the problem is that those urban areas are SUPER populated and ethnic voters are starting to outnumber caucasian voters. Essentially Republicans have Gerymandered themselves to win the battle but lose the war.

The other major issue is that Republicans are starting to lose the youth vote in a big way. Even their own studies (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/college-republicans-report_n_3378568.html?utm_hp_ref=politics) recognize that they've got a messaging problem. College age voters might want to cut the size of the government but they want to start with the military; a huge percent of young voters are completely at odd with Republicans on the social issues; and if you look at cpac photos you'll see how the GOP has become the "old whiteguy" party.

The two things the Republican party needs is they need DOMA to get overturned and they need to win over the hispanic vote. You might not get why Republicans would want DOMA overturned but as long as it's in the news cycle it'll highlight their unpopular social stances and they can't change their official stance on it. I mean, look how it dominated the 2012 race. If they can get the conversation off of gay marriage and stop making stupid comments about women then they can be halfway palatable to moderates. You better believe that the GOP wants DOMA to die a quick and quiet death so they can stop talking about gay marriage. The second issue is especially interesting. Hispanics are largely conservative voters and religious. They're a perfect voting block for the GOP... if the GOP could stop taking REALLLLLLLY stupid positions on hispanic issues. I mean, when the GOP tried to fight the affordable care act they framed the healthcare problem in the US as "all those hispanics getting free healthcare and making us pay for it" You better believe that pissed off latinos. Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

Amy, some interesting insights, but maybe in one of the other threads on the Republican Party you will generate more debate. The drawing of district boundaries in the House seems to me to be one of those bread and butter political issues that legislators know about but won't deal with because both parties are doing it -it also makes it difficult, if not impossible for a third party candidate to get elected -I would have thought in some districts in San Francisco or on the West Coast an environmental/Green party type candidate could well upset someone who has parked their ass in that seat for the last 30 years.

[Stavros]

Stavros - I just read the love child of Boris posting. Stunned is not the word. Good grief.

If true, it also scuppers any chance of Boris replacing David; Benedict Brogan in the Telegraph has been talking up Michael Gove, while some months back there was a sudden splurge of chatter/'interest' for Theresa May. As Cameron is not likely to win any more seats at the next election, 2015 will probably be the end of his leadership, if he doesn't get forced out before then. The sad fact is that as Cameron loses his own party, and Clegg loses what popular support in the country he might have had, Miliband continues to look like a schoolboy struggling to do a man's job. Even Tony Blair will find it hard to make a comeback if the Chilcot Report ever gets published and finally nails the lie that took Britain into Iraq -even Iraq might not exist by then! Anniversaries of the First World War are looking foreboding already.

[robertlouis]

If true, it also scuppers any chance of Boris replacing David; Benedict Brogan in the Telegraph has been talking up Michael Gove, while some months back there was a sudden splurge of chatter/'interest' for Theresa May. As Cameron is not likely to win any more seats at the next election, 2015 will probably be the end of his leadership, if he doesn't get forced out before then. The sad fact is that as Cameron loses his own party, and Clegg loses what popular support in the country he might have had, Miliband continues to look like a schoolboy struggling to do a man's job. Even Tony Blair will find it hard to make a comeback if the Chilcot Report ever gets published and finally nails the lie that took Britain into Iraq -even Iraq might not exist by then! Anniversaries of the First World War are looking foreboding already.

Meanwhile, in more positive news, the House of Lords has voted in favour of equal marriage, with, surprisingly, a majority of Conservative peers voting in favour. Good for them.

[robertlouis]

If true, it also scuppers any chance of Boris replacing David; Benedict Brogan in the Telegraph has been talking up Michael Gove, while some months back there was a sudden splurge of chatter/'interest' for Theresa May. As Cameron is not likely to win any more seats at the next election, 2015 will probably be the end of his leadership, if he doesn't get forced out before then. The sad fact is that as Cameron loses his own party, and Clegg loses what popular support in the country he might have had, Miliband continues to look like a schoolboy struggling to do a man's job. Even Tony Blair will find it hard to make a comeback if the Chilcot Report ever gets published and finally nails the lie that took Britain into Iraq -even Iraq might not exist by then! Anniversaries of the First World War are looking foreboding already.

Never mind, there's always Little Nigel.

[Stavros]

Another Tory MP is being accused of sexual impropriety by his (Lesbian) housekeeper. She was newly appointed and not used to the explicit sexual demands made by both him (identified only as 'Mr P') and his wife, or seeing 'grey-haired MP' walking around in the nude. He denies the claims.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10099350/Tory-MP-and-wife-tried-to-get-me-into-bed-says-lesbian-housekeeper.html

Nigel Farage -less persuasive than a used-car salesman.

[Stavros]

The Conservative paper The Daily Telegraph has taken a sly remark by Michael Fallon to suggest Theresa May is interested in leading the Conservative Party. She has been touted as a leader by this paper before, and it is no secret that some of the editorial staff of the paper are fed up with Cameron and Osborne. Small beer really. But you can read about it here if it interests you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10117976/Theresa-May-wants-to-lead-the-Conservatives-minister-admits.html