Posted on 05/02/2010 6:11:23 AM PDT by UKrepublican
BARONESS THATCHER'S VERDICT ON DAVID CAMERON'S CAMPAIGN
Katie Hind
Baroness Thatcher has delivered a damning verdict on "boring" David Cameron's campaign to take the Tories to power.
The former Conservative PM confided that she has serious doubts about the party leader's ability to deliver victory on Thursday.
In frank conversations with her close confidant and former Tory grandee Lord Tim Bell, Lady Thatcher dubbed Cameron "boring" and "still out of touch with the British public".
Does she want him to win?
Bring in the FABULOUS guy from the EU Parliament...can't remeber his name but he's FABULOUS!!
When a very old lady calls you boring, it’s time to part your hair on the other side.
You mean David Hannan.
She probably prefers him to any of the alternatives, but she is right. The conservatives have not had a particularly great campaign. There are rumours of dissention on strategy at the top.
I have no idea as to what the means with regard to how the U.K. will be governed.
It sounds like people over there are just as unhappy as the people here with the powers that be.
Of course, as I understand it the Lib Dems are nowhere near as conservative as the tea party movement.
The Lib Dems make Labour look like conservatives. They think Stalin and Lenin are not true socialists.
It basically means the Tories can run the socialized health care of the UK better than the Labour party. This pretty much says it all for the rest of the policies in the UK.
This is what we in the USA have to fight against.
.
And you know who's even better?...William Hague of the British Parliament.Search him on youtube and you'll find great stuff."There's so little English in that response that I think President Chirac would approve"...great stuff!
Here's my understanding.I follow British politics a bit so I know something...but not that much...about it.As of this moment the polls show the Conservatives a few points ahead of the pack.But they're saying that the most likely outcome is for them to get the most seats but not enough to form a government without support from others.The Lib Dems and Labour are both leftist parties and,together,they *could* form a government.So it's *very* possible they could join forces and freeze the Conservatives out which would mean (could mean,at least) five more years of leftist BS there.
This had to be BEFORE Brown called the little old lady a bigot.
My guess is that the media there was saving this interview for the last days of the campaign in order to help Brown.
Hah, Brown ended his own chances.
If Labour loses the popular vote to the Conservatives, which they almost certainly will, Clegg has said he will try to form a coalition with the Conservatives, not Labour. I don’t know what that would entail, but I would have thought the line in the sand would be electoral reform to get rid of the FPTP system and introduce a more Proportionally representative system, which would be of enormous benefit to the Lib Dems in future elections.
In any case, a hung parliament will likely result in at best a highly unstable coalition government which will collapse within months and lead to another general election, which will probably result in an overall Tory majority....
Daniel Hannan!! Thanks!!
Somebody Farrage. The guy who questioned von Rompuy - is that the one you mean?
Also,I've heard about the likelihood of an unstable government and the possibility of early elections.But if Clegg strikes a deal with the Tories and that deal falls through couldn't he then turn around and make a deal with Labour and,thus,cause a change in governments that wouldn't necessitate another election?
A Tory In Name Only
.
Yes, Clegg will be a potential kingmaker, but I think he will be putting his primary effort into trying to form a coalition with the Conservatives. He will lose a lot of credibility if he goes back on his word and tries to coalesce with Labour, although it wouldn’t be the first time a politician will have done this.
The line in the sand will be introducing PR. The reason the Lib Dems would benefit from this and Conservative/Labour lose is that the way the current FPTP system works, the winner takes all in each individual constituency election. Meaning that any vote which has not been cast for the winner is a useless vote. It also means that a party could take a majority of seats in Parliament despite receiving as little as 35% of the popular vote. It doesn’t matter how many people vote for a particular party, but WERE those votes are cast (i.e. in marginal constituencies, rather than ‘safe’ seats).
Because of this, there is a lot of ‘tactical’ voting at election time, when people who might otherwise vote Lib-Dem/UKIP or some other non Labcon party end up voting Labour/Conservative just to ensure the Conservatives/Labour respectively don’t get in. Under proportional representation, Labour/Conservatives would lose votes from people who would then be free to vote more purely for the party they have most in common with ideologically, rather than the least worst alternative as is usually the case today.
As for the Lib Dems going into coalition with the Cons and then defecting to Lab, they would not be able to do this without forcing another election, because Cameron’s last act as PM before resigning would almost certainly be to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament and call an election, rather than just let the Lib-Dems/Lab form a coalition government in the very same Parliament....
She is exactly right.
Back in the day, they used to call people like Cameron the “wets”. It's hard for me to work up any enthusiasm for the leader of a “so-called “Conservative Party’ that turns round and invites 0bozo’s top aide as his top campaign adviser in his election campaign.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.