Trouble in the Tory ranks - Page 6

Royboy39 · 13-06-2008, 18:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

I don't think anyone has mentioned it, and I don't suppose it's much concern to defenders of civil liberties, but the estimated cost from the public purse for this charade is estimated at £75,000-£80,000.

I have just read that Milliband urges that the government press on with the ratification of the EU Treaty despite the Irish rejection.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7453084.stm

Is this one of the points that David Davis is trying to bring to public attention?

The government stance appears to be:

'We dont care what you say, You will do as we say'

blazey · 13-06-2008, 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benipete

That is a little bit rich coming from someone who would lock people up on first impressions

In actual fact, I said I generally don't agree with the Act itself at all and believe it is the wrong way to go about 'fighting terrorism', but I can find justifications for an extension if needs be.

Mainly it was to annoy Andrew, I don't have a solid stance on the extension but I do have opinions on the Act in general, but that isn't the issue.

cmonstanley · 13-06-2008, 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by steeljack

Surely this is illegal , if not it should be , Rupert Murdoch is an American citizen ( he had to change his 'nationality' to enable him to have ownership of US media companies)

and obamas in his pocket..

garinda · 13-06-2008, 19:23

I doubt Ann Widdicombe will be going up to Haltemprice and Howden to campaign, being the only Tory rebel who voted with the government in favour of the 14 day increase.

Strange how it's always the Tory women who have the biggest....oops, better not say that.

g jones · 14-06-2008, 18:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

I thought this would be appearing here.

First I think its important people listen to David Davis' speech. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450627.stm At a time when all eyes will be on Haltemprice and Howden, I think it is deeply important that he raises the issues of the state prying into peoples lives. I personally believe the speech is very good. It really questions the direction this country is going.

As people have already said, it is good to see such a principled politician. Someone willing to put his job on the line for something he deeply believes in.

As he is a former member of the SAS I don't think there is any doubt David Davis knows how to be tough on terror, not only this, smart, on terror. He is greatly respected among all sides of the House for his knowledge on security.

Have no fear Jaysay, I will be doing my bit in Haltemprice and Howden, for I believe passionately in what David is doing.

Double D David once again going out on a limb. I personally don't think it's principle. His difficulty has been demonstrated by his double take on it. Taunting/goading Labour into standing to make it political but yet asserting it is a referendum on the issue of 42 days.

I don't think anyone political should stand against Double D. It should be a referendum against Kelvin McKenzie who said he may well stand and who is pro 42 days. Let's have Pro 42 days and anti 42 days.

Double D is opposed to the explosion of CCTV cameras, the central policy of our Local Conservative Council. Double D reckons may cameras serve no purpose. He said somewhere they solve less than 1% of crime. Does he mean the CCTV on Southwood Drive?

g jones · 14-06-2008, 18:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by blazey

Winston Churchill - "Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Winston could never make up his mind. Tory, then Liberal, then back to Tory. Despite playing a heroic role in WW2, he was cast aside at the next election.

jaysay · 14-06-2008, 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by g jones

Double D David once again going out on a limb. I personally don't think it's principle. His difficulty has been demonstrated by his double take on it. Taunting/goading Labour into standing to make it political but yet asserting it is a referendum on the issue of 42 days.

I don't think anyone political should stand against Double D. It should be a referendum against Kelvin McKenzie who said he may well stand and who is pro 42 days. Let's have Pro 42 days and anti 42 days.

Double D is opposed to the explosion of CCTV cameras, the central policy of our Local Conservative Council. Double D reckons may cameras serve no purpose. He said somewhere they solve less than 1% of crime. Does he mean the CCTV on Southwood Drive?

Well thats novel a post that doesn't slag Britcliffe off, I'd send you karma but its to precious

blazey · 15-06-2008, 07:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by g jones

Winston could never make up his mind. Tory, then Liberal, then back to Tory. Despite playing a heroic role in WW2, he was cast aside at the next election.

Are you suggesting I shouldn't embrace the words of a great politician for varying his opinion every now and again?

Why do those interested in politics do this? I find it quite peculiar that people play party support against each other, and think that it is a good reason to be rude to someone. If YOU were any good at being a politician you'd be being a bit more polite to those who have turned against you, seen as it's those like me that you need to vote for you. It isn't wise to be treating me as your rival, but then it isn't wise of me to suggest there is any logic to the Labour Party either... hence why I'd rather vote for ambiguous policies that are at least backed by intellectual men and women rather than the rabble of bumbling fools that are inaptly named Labour, the party that is increasingly letting down it's main portion of its voters by not actually doing anything good for them at all.

And are you choosing to forget that he may have been 'cast aside' in 1945, but he was back in office in 1951 and resigned in '55 with dignity, and nothing Labour did in the time between Churchill's times as PM will ever overshadow what he did. Sorry Graham, but I think you have made a ridiculous attempt to shun such a naturally talented Prime Minister which Labour can only, and will only ever dream of.

jaysay · 15-06-2008, 08:49

For once blazey I agree 100% with every word, I think you have summed up g.jones exactly

steeljack · 15-06-2008, 16:31

Blazey , I think you need to 'read-up' on Churchill , about his use of the British army on Welsh miners , and his use of the RAF to drop poison gas and other chemicals on the Iraqis and Kurds

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRchurchill.htm

[Churchill also served under David Lloyd George as Minister of War and Air (1919-20) and Colonial Secretary (1921-22). Churchill created great controversy over his policies in Iraq. It was estimated that around 25,000 British and 80,000 Indian troops would be needed to control the country. However, he argued that if Britain relied on air power, you could cut these numbers to 4,000 (British) and 10,000 (Indian). The government was convinced by this argument and it was decided to send the recently formed Royal Air Force to Iraq.

An uprising of more than 100,000 armed tribesmen took place in 1920. Over the next few months the RAF dropped 97 tons of bombs killing 9,000 Iraqis. This failed to end the resistance and Arab and Kurdish uprisings continued to pose a threat to British rule. Churchill suggested that chemical weapons should be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment." He added "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes to spread a lively terror" in Iraq. ]

history repeats itself ....methinks

blazey · 15-06-2008, 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by steeljack

Blazey , I think you need to 'read-up' on Churchill , about his use of the British army on Welsh miners , and his use of the RAF to drop poison gas and other chemicals on the Iraqis and Kurds

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRchurchill.htm

[Churchill also served under David Lloyd George as Minister of War and Air (1919-20) and Colonial Secretary (1921-22). Churchill created great controversy over his policies in Iraq. It was estimated that around 25,000 British and 80,000 Indian troops would be needed to control the country. However, he argued that if Britain relied on air power, you could cut these numbers to 4,000 (British) and 10,000 (Indian). The government was convinced by this argument and it was decided to send the recently formed Royal Air Force to Iraq.

An uprising of more than 100,000 armed tribesmen took place in 1920. Over the next few months the RAF dropped 97 tons of bombs killing 9,000 Iraqis. This failed to end the resistance and Arab and Kurdish uprisings continued to pose a threat to British rule. Churchill suggested that chemical weapons should be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment." He added "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes to spread a lively terror" in Iraq. ]

history repeats itself ....methinks

I'm aware of this, but I am unsure what kind of reaction you are trying to get from me?