View Full Version : The next Prime Minister?
Having watched Michael Howard wiping the floor with Blair in Prime Minister's Question Time (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/events03/ukpol/pmq/12nov/smil.ram) yesterday, I can't help thinking Labour is facing a serious challenge for the first time in six years.
What do y'all think? Is British politics about to get more interesting, and could the Tories now possibly even win an election?
We can only hope :)
I thought he was very dynamic and got in a few good shots.
His TB dossier shows he was prepared for TB bringing up the past, which seemed to make TB rather uncomfortable.
Michael Howard will never be PM. Why?
You show me the last time a bald(ing) PM was voted in.
I'm serious! There was a study a few years ago which said slapheads will never get in to Downing Street: apparently the public distrusts baldies in positions of power, thus Kinnock never really had a chance, William Hague....well, one of the reasons he didn't get in would have been down to his hair-loss and more recently IBS...
nighthawk
13-11-2003, 12:35
Missed an option in the poll.
4. Always Voted Tory & will again
Michael Howard will never be PM. Why?
You show me the last time a bald(ing) PM was voted in.
I'm serious! There was a study a few years ago which said slapheads will never get in to Downing Street: apparently the public distrusts baldies in positions of power, thus Kinnock never really had a chance, William Hague....well, one of the reasons he didn't get in would have been down to his hair-loss and more recently IBS...
thats an interesting theory russ, i'd like to see the study/findings
i have actually found since i studied philosophy it is more interesting watching the politicans conferences, it means i can see the hiden premises and rip about their arguments..sad arent i :p
edit: i clicked the wrong damn button in the poll :mad:
i dont like labour because i dont like the fact they got rid of the student grants and now means im a couple of thousand pounds in debt :eeek:
Was Churchill not bald?
and Callaghan was balding was he not as was Douglas-Home. Attlee was bald as well.
Missed an option in the poll.
4. Always Voted Tory & will againdamn right!
Was Churchill not bald?
and Callaghan was balding was he not as was Douglas-Home. Attlee was bald as well.In the days before mass media
In the days before mass media
call me a :dunce: but why does that make a difference??
i wish someone would explain to me why baldness= non-trust worthiness?
to be fair, who can trust a politician anyway? bald or otherwise :p
thats an interesting theory russ, i'd like to see the study/findings
i have actually found since i studied philosophy it is more interesting watching the politicans conferences, it means i can see the hiden premises and rip about their arguments..sad arent i :p
edit: i clicked the wrong damn button in the poll :mad:
i dont like labour because i dont like the fact they got rid of the student grants and now means im a couple of thousand pounds in debt :eeek:
when you sit and watch 2 or more politicians discuss anything it easy to see
why not much ever get archived :argue:
I have never forgiven the conseratives for the poll tax which turned into the council tax. that little brain wave they had cost me over £250 a month more than I was paying. it is now £450 more than the current ratable value of my house, so if I was still paying rates I'd be £450 a month better off, dam those conserative ***tards. :2up:
call me a :dunce: but why does that make a difference??
i wish someone would explain to me why baldness= non-trust worthiness?
to be fair, who can trust a politician anyway? bald or otherwise :p
Cynical view .... or what.
In a recent poll, it was stated that the British Public were unlikely to vote in a balding leader ... however, there were balding leaders in the past, Churchill, Macmillan. The point then, when they were in charge, the Media was very different to now. Most communication was via radio, word of mouth, newspapers etc. I wouldn't be suprised if people didn't know what these people looked like.
There was a tendancy to believe the words spoken, and the text printed, and trust that, rather than make the decision on a leader based on his head of hair.
We have become a fickle lot ...
Cynical view .... or what.
In a recent poll, it was stated that the British Public were unlikely to vote in a balding leader ... however, there were balding leaders in the past, Churchill, Macmillan. The point then, when they were in charge, the Media was very different to now. Most communication was via radio, word of mouth, newspapers etc. I wouldn't be suprised if people didn't know what these people looked like.
There was a tendancy to believe the words spoken, and the text printed, and trust that, rather than make the decision on a leader based on his head of hair.
We have become a fickle lot ...
ok was the poll specifically questions such as "would you vote a bald man into parliment" or was it "would u vote mr bald man x"??? this makes a huge difference....also the wording of it would have been important as to how it was answered..it could be possible that the question was a leading question, ie was worded in such a way that people sub consciously picked up the negativeness being ascribed to bald men......
personally, i wouldnt have a problem voting in a bald guy, as long as he wasnt smarmy and could actually look people in the eye when he spoke
Bexy you may like to read this taken from
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960517/debtext/60517-15.htm
17 May 1996 : Column 1231
schools, what did the Labour party do? It opposed it. When the Government introduced the Education Act 1980, which brought in parental choice and provided information through testing, the Labour party voted against it. When the Government introduced the Education Reform Act 1988 and the national curriculum, the Labour party opposed those measures.
When the Government introduced the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 and top-up loans for students, what did the Labour party do? It opposed those measures. When the Government introduced the Education (Schools) Act 1992--which made it easier for schools to become grant-maintained and brought in the Funding Agency for Schools for England--the Labour party opposed it. When the Government brought in the Education Act 1994, which reformed initial teacher training--the very issue that I was talking about, and about which Labour Members agreed with me--the Labour party opposed it
Was Churchill not bald?
and Callaghan was balding was he not as was Douglas-Home. Attlee was bald as well.
In recent times.....
<snippty snip>When the Government introduced the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 and top-up loans for students, what did the Labour party do? It opposed those measures.
ok i know this is off topic, but if they opposed it why was it bought in? :dunce:
and russ if u are now talking about in recent times, you should have stipulated that in your post to begin with :p
In recent times.....
No there haven't been in recent times .. agreed.
But is that down to media alone ... or the parties that these 'baldies' represent ?
Bexy you may like to read this taken from
http://www.parliament.the-stationer...xt/60517-15.htm (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960517/debtext/60517-15.htm)
17 May 1996 : Column 1231
schools, what did the Labour party do? It opposed it. When the Government introduced the Education Act 1980, which brought in parental choice and provided information through testing, the Labour party voted against it. When the Government introduced the Education Reform Act 1988 and the national curriculum, the Labour party opposed those measures.
When the Government introduced the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 and top-up loans for students, what did the Labour party do? It opposed those measures. When the Government introduced the Education (Schools) Act 1992--which made it easier for schools to become grant-maintained and brought in the Funding Agency for Schools for England--the Labour party opposed it. When the Government brought in the Education Act 1994, which reformed initial teacher training--the very issue that I was talking about, and about which Labour Members agreed with me--the Labour party opposed it
Hang on, Labour could have repealed the Conservatives' Student Grant legislation had they wished; they didn't. They could have abandoned school league tables; they didn't. They could have fully returned the Grant Maintained schools to Local Authority control and funding; they didn't, choosing instead a fudge to keep middle-class voters on-side. The Conservatives have never proposed going as far as Labour has with university tuition fees.
When you are in opposition, talk is cheap. All that matters is what you do when you get the chance. By that measure, Labour hypocrisy is astonishing. If you've watched the video clip I linked to, you will have seen Michael Howard listing off one or two of the things Blair pledged in the past but has shrunk back from now. As Howard said, we could debate the past for hours, the present and the future is more important.
But while we're talking about the past, to call the Council Tax 'son of the Poll Tax' (as Labour did when in opposition, and which you have implied) is completely bogus. The Council Tax is based on the value of your house and is therefore much more closely related to the rates. And as for the rateable value of your house ... the rateable value is now essentially meaningless, except for determining water bills if you don't have a meter. You pay £450 more because the council wants more of your money in order to function. Do you really think that if you were still billed on rateable value, the council would not have upped the %age of RV that you would have to pay them? Or do you think your council's budget for this year would be £x million lower as a result of some inability to get as much money out of you through rates as compared to council tax?
And if Council Tax is so bad, why has Labour done nothing about it in the last six years, and why does it not plan to do anything about it for the forseeable future?
ok i know this is off topic, but if they opposed it why was it bought in? :dunce:
and russ if u are now talking about in recent times, you should have stipulated that in your post to begin with :p
now I may be wrong on this, it was a long time ago, but the idea of having to pay for your further education was a conservative one.
and from what I have seen of the conservatives in recent years, not much has changed, they are still full of mad ideas that are not much use to anyone, but I feel sure if they got the chance they would implement them all and to hell with the people of this country. for eg, it was the conservatives who privatised everything and look where that has got us. it is for that and many other reasons
that I do not trust them enough to vote for them. If i ever do I expect I will be wearing a straight jacket in a rubber room, which no doubt I will have to have paid for myself. ;)
But is that down to media alone ... or the parties that these 'baldies' represent ?
IDS and the boy hague were Tory....Kinnock was Labour.....
And bexy, I'd have thought the fact I used leaders from recent times would have suggested I was talking about 'recent times'... :D
IDS and the boy hague were Tory....Kinnock was Labour.....
And bexy, I'd have thought the fact I used leaders from recent times would have suggested I was talking about 'recent times'... :D
But have we become such a fickle society that we base the control of a country on how much hair the potential leader has ??
I find it far more likely that there is a great deal of apathy within the public. There are many who don't back any party particularly, at the end of the day it's much the same whoever get's in. Its a popularity contest.
for eg, it was the conservatives who privatised everything and look where that has got us.
It got you lower gas bills, lower electricity bills, lower water bills, lower telephone bills and, apart from water, a choice of service providers in each case (I assume you're an ntl customer?). Furthermore it reduced the likelihood of the whole country grinding to a halt at the whim of the workforce of nationalised behemoths like British Coal or British Rail.
I grant you it hasn't been 100% successful - the privatisation of British Rail was far from smooth. Even in this case, though, privatisation directly led to a massive increase in rail passenger numbers and a good deal of the network's problems can be blamed on endemic lack of investment in rail by both Tories and Labour over 50 years.
Thatcher's public service reforms in the 1980s were a turbulent and, for many people, a painful experience, but they are the basis of the economy we enjoy today and I don't see any of Blair's cabinet planning to change it. Funny that, as they voted against each piece of legislation at the time.
Hang on, Labour could have repealed the Conservatives' Student Grant legislation had they wished; they didn't. They could have abandoned school league tables; they didn't. They could have fully returned the Grant Maintained schools to Local Authority control and funding; they didn't, choosing instead a fudge to keep middle-class voters on-side. The Conservatives have never proposed going as far as Labour has with university tuition fees.
When you are in opposition, talk is cheap. All that matters is what you do when you get the chance. By that measure, Labour hypocrisy is astonishing. If you've watched the video clip I linked to, you will have seen Michael Howard listing off one or two of the things Blair pledged in the past but has shrunk back from now. As Howard said, we could debate the past for hours, the present and the future is more important.
But while we're talking about the past, to call the Council Tax 'son of the Poll Tax' (as Labour did when in opposition, and which you have implied) is completely bogus. The Council Tax is based on the value of your house and is therefore much more closely related to the rates. And as for the rateable value of your house ... the rateable value is now essentially meaningless, except for determining water bills if you don't have a meter. You pay £450 more because the council wants more of your money in order to function. Do you really think that if you were still billed on rateable value, the council would not have upped the %age of RV that you would have to pay them? Or do you think your council's budget for this year would be £x million lower as a result of some inability to get as much money out of you through rates as compared to council tax?
And if Council Tax is so bad, why has Labour done nothing about it in the last six years, and why does it not plan to do anything about it for the forseeable future?
my my thats a big quote
most politicians achieve nothing because they spend far to long arguing about it instead of doing it. you are right they could have repealed everything the the conservatives ever did, but then that would have had to be the sole objective for that term in office. it is easier to live with and adapt the last governments policies than to repeal them, the conservatives do that as well you know.
I call the council tax the poll tax because the bill never changed it was the same amount, only the name changed. and it's cost has risen at well over the rate of inflation which leaves me feeling mugged every time I pay it. it's name is irrelevant, it's cost is excessive, it is not nor has it ever been value for money.
what do the conservatives plan to do about the council tax? come on cheer me up
my my thats a big quote
most politicians achieve nothing because they spend far to long arguing about it instead of doing it. you are right they could have repealed everything the the conservatives ever did, but then that would have had to be the sole objective for that term in office. it is easier to live with and adapt the last governments policies than to repeal them, the conservatives do that as well you know.
I call the council tax the poll tax because the bill never changed it was the same amount, only the name changed. and it's cost has risen at well over the rate of inflation which leaves me feeling mugged every time I pay it. it's name is irrelevant, it's cost is excessive, it is not nor has it ever been value for money.
what do the conservatives plan to do about the council tax? come on cheer me upAgreed that you can't just spend your term repealing eveything the other lot did, but I don't think that's a universally valid defence for Labour's lack of action here. A lot of what we're talking about were fundamental ideological differences between Labour and the Conservatives. These things, surely, Labour should have reversed. Why didn't they? Because, they valued power more highly than principles and 'stole' moderate Tory clothes in order to make themselves electable.
As for the council tax, I'm not aware that the Tories want to change it, and I still think you are mistaken in blaimg the council tax per se for the size of the bill you pay for local services. Council budgets have soared in recent years, partially due to the central Labour Government fiddling about with the amount of cash it gives to councils, and partly because some councils are much, much worse at running things efficiently than others. Who holds the balance of power in your local district and county?
EDIT: It's worth noting, by the way, that the last Tory administration was quite prepared to use Government powers to cap rises in Council Tax to prevent the worst excesses of town hall incompetence. Labour has chosen not to do this. Again, I think you are mistaken to blame the Tories for your woes.
IDS and the boy hague were Tory....Kinnock was Labour.....
And bexy, I'd have thought the fact I used leaders from recent times would have suggested I was talking about 'recent times'... :D
umm no you may have just used them as examples off the top of your head.. :p
you should know by now how pedantic i can be so :p
as for the person who was talking about students loans etc.........up untill about 4/5years ago people received grants from the governemnt....which meant they did not have to pay it back, now we have to pay everything back, on top of paying for tuition fees, and on top of the interest they charge us, methinks they are trying to discourage people from going to universtiy, hence soon you will only see the middle/upper clases going, which is terrible
I don't know, thats sad. but I have only lived here for 6 months. 2 quick points before i have to go.
my bills are universally higher. and all governments are useless it's just some do less harm than others.
I don't know, thats sad. but I have only lived here for 6 months. 2 quick points before i have to go.
my bills are universally higher. and all governments are useless it's just some do less harm than others.
You're not taking 15 years' worth of inflation into account. Honestly, in real terms the charges and tariffs that make up your utility bills are lower now than they were under nationalisation.
<snip>and all governments are useless it's just some do less harm than others.
i agree :tu:
In recent times.....
Well there has only been 3 PMs since Callaghan, one of who was a woman.
You could say that Tony Blair was balding, judging from this pic
Download Failed (1)
Well there has only been 3 PMs since Callaghan, one of who was a woman.
You could say that Tony Blair was balding, judging from this pic
Download Failed (1)
:bigcry: i'm going to have nightmares now :cry:
Well there has only been 3 PMs since Callaghan, one of who was a woman.
You could say that Tony Blair was balding, judging from this pic
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/images/TB.jpg
Maybe that's why he's losing popularity :D
I voted wrong, can I change it :cry: should have been the third option, sorry :(
I voted wrong, can I change it :cry: should have been the third option, sorry :o :(
And u posted that twice :p
You're not taking 15 years' worth of inflation into account. Honestly, in real terms the charges and tariffs that make up your utility bills are lower now than they were under nationalisation.
you can call them as low as you want to, but I pay more now than ever before
and the price rises are not in line with inflation they are way above it.
in the real world ( back to my old cherry) the council tax this year rose by 12 %
the gas bill has gone up by 33% :eeek: water rates by 50% :eeek: :eeek:
the electricity has stayed the same thank god, so just tell me again if you dare that I am paying less now than ever before. bring back nationalisation there was a lot less gready company executives then.
And u posted that twice :p
Not having a good day am I? Must be out of practise!
I voted wrong, can I change it :cry: should have been the third option, sorry :(
Amended your vote and added it to the 3rd option. (Also removed one of your double postings) :)
i just want to be able to teach without some politician that's never stood in front of a class telling me how to teach.i'd like to see some of these knowalls made to take some of the students i've taught and make them interested in anything.:(
incog
Amended your vote and added it to the 3rd option. (Also removed one of your double postings) :)
Cheers Dr. P
i just want to be able to teach without some politician that's never stood in front of a class telling me how to teach.i'd like to see some of these knowalls made to take some of the students i've taught and make them interested in anything.:(
incog
Wasn't one of the previous labour education ministers an ex teacher? and didn't she make a complete balls up of things?
The tories may be onto something by giving more powers back to schools (although I know a few heads that don't have a clue when it comes to running schools either) and not ring fencing funding
The best way to take politics out of schools is to take them out of local authority control. The Tories should have enforced this instead of allowing them to 'opt out' and become grant maintained. Going GM inevitably became seen as a political statement, so many schools refused to consider it on principle, because it was associated with the Conservative Government.
Xaccers, it was Estelle Morris who was Labour's previous education secretary, and yes, she was a teacher. She also presided over England's A-Level marking fiasco. Mind you, the trouble in England pales into insignificance next to the monumental cock-up in Higher results in Scotland 2 years ago, and the blame for this sits firmly with the Lib/Lab executive in Edinburgh.
the A-level cock up wasn't Estelle Morriss's,it should be laid squarely at the examining board who's responsibility it was to oversee the whole examination paper setting,marking and results issuing.they screwed up and morris paid the price.At least she had the decency to resign over a matter of honour-unlike a lot of mp's that have had to be pushed in recent years.
incog. :)
Lord Nikon
20-11-2003, 01:16
There should be another option...
Can't be bothered to vote as no matter who is elected I have ZERO faith in their ability to run this country
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.