A leopard cannot change its spots.


The day before I was elected leader, Mr Cameron suggested we join them. He talked about a “progressive alliance”. This talk of alliances comes up a lot, doesn’t it? Everyone wants to be in our gang. So I want to make something very clear today.
Will I ever join a Conservative government?
No.

Nick Clegg’s speech to the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference 2008.

This pains me to say, but I fully support the new Government’s immediate scrapping of the third runway at Heathrow, and the I.D Card Scheme. Both were huge mistakes by Labour. To claim to be committed to carbon reduction, whilst planning a third runway at Heathrow, was political bullshit of its most nonsensical kind.

Now that’s out of the way, there are a few initial problems I have with this new coalition Government.

Firstly, as mentioned previously, the three main Lib Dem negotiating team that worked tirelessly to strike a deal with the Tories after the General Election caused a hung Parliament; Chris Huhne, Danny Alexander, and David Laws, are the only three members of the Lib Dems (other than the leader, and his No.2, obviously) to be given a place in cabinet. Which stinks. Chris Huhne is at Climate and Energy, David Laws is Treasury Secretary, and Danny Alexander is Scottish Secretary. What a lovely little negotiation that must have been.

Secondly, David Cameron, the New Prime Minister (I shuddered, writing that) said this would be a “new kind of politics” with “new people, and new ideas”. Interesting. Let’s look at the cabinet shall we?

  • Work and Pensions Secretary: Iain Duncan Smith. Ex-leader of the Tory Party. Very anti-European. Had a post in William Hague’s shadow cabinet. William Hague said he only promoted people to his shadow cabinet, if they had a full commitment to financial deregulation. You know, the issue that caused the problems we face now economically. Oh how wonderful. Voted for the Iraq war. Voted strongly against all gay rights legislation and against the ban on fox hunting.
  • Secretary of State for Justice: Kenneth Clarke. Has been alive since the beginning of time. Served in Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet. Voted against gay rights legislation. Voted against a more transparent Parliament. Voted against the ban on fox hunting. Voted against foundation hospitals.
  • Communities Secretary: Eric Pickles. Been in Parliament for 18 years. Ex-Chairman of the Tory Party. Voted against all gay rights legislation. Voted against removing hereditary peers from the Lords. But then voted for an all elected chamber. But then voted again for a partially elected chamber. Voted against foundation hospitals. Voted for the Iraq war. Voted against the ban on fox hunting.
    Voted against IVF treatment for lesbian couples arguing the need for “a father and a mother”.

  • Foreign Secretary: William Hague. Been in Parliament for over 20 years. Keen Thatcherite. Ex-leader of the Tory Party. Lost the 2001 general election to Blair’s Labour Party. Voted strongly against removing hereditary peers from the Lords. Voted against foundation hospitals. Voted against gay rights legislation. Voted against the smoking ban. Voted against the ban on fox hunting. Voted for the Iraq war.
  • Home Secretary and Equalities Minister: Theresa May. This is my favourite of the lot. Being Minister for Equality, she has to deal with raising the standard of equality across the board. This includes gay rights. Theresa May has voted against every piece of gay rights legislation, and said of the repeal of that nasty little piece of Tory legislation “Section 28” which forbade anything positive being said about homosexuality in schools; “There is a real danger that the abolition of section 28 will lead to the promotion of a homosexual lifestyle as morally equivalent to marriage.“. She then voted against the right of Gay people to adopt. This is our new equalities minister. A bigot, is our new equalities minister. It’s like the Republican Party of America just won the election.

    The list goes on…and on….and on. New people, with new ideas. Which, happen to be the same old people, with the same old ideas. Interesting.

    The final thing that has annoyed me already about these utter bastards, is the way in which they have locked themselves into a fixed term. Of course it was ridiculous to allow the PM to dissolve Parliament and call an election. It meant any time within a five year period, he could go to the polls.Cameron has waivered that right, and good on him for doing so. But, he then found a new novel way of getting around that issue. For a vote of no confidence to bring down a Government, a majority of 50% plus one, of the members of Parliament must back a vote of no confidence. It is the mechanism that brought down the Labour Callaghan minority government in the ’70s. Cameron currently has 47% of MPs in the House, and so there was enough at any time during the next five years, to enact a vote of no confidence, because the other parties hold exactly 53% of the MPs. The new government has increased that threshold to 55%, which means there now is absolutely no chance of a vote of no confidence. He has locked in his government. Which means if the coalition were to fail, and Cameron run a minority government, there is no way for the Conservatives to dissolve Parliament on their own, nor is there any way for Labour, the Liberals and the other parties to dissolve the Parliament. It is now institutionally impossible to muster up the 55% needed. Dangerous politics. And they had the fucking nerve to suggest that Gordon Brown was “clinging to power”.

    It’ll be interesting to see what comes next….

    Advertisements
  • 13 Responses to A leopard cannot change its spots.

    1. Peter Reynolds says:

      IDS has done some sterling work at his Centre For Social Justice which has been applauded from all sides. He was a ludicrous choice for leader and doesn’t have any of the right skills but he is a decent, honest, compassionate man.

      Ken Clarke is a great Tory and a wonderful Briton. I don’t always agree with him but he is an asset

      Eric Pickles is… uhh…

      William Hague is a highly intelligent, energetic man of great principle

      I accept that Theresa May is fortunate to be in the right place at the right time. Having said that I agree entirely with the quotation on the repeal of Section 28. I am a liberal and I accept homosexuality as a right but I do not believe it should be encouraged.

      Anyone who voted against the ban on fox hunting demonstrates good common sense. Thank God we’ll soon be rid of this ridiculous law and then all the townie vegetarians can get back to their multicultural hellholes and leave the countryside alone!

      I’d be very interested to see what happens to the Lib Dem drugs policy though. They were very close to the Transform Drug Policy Foundation which advocates legalisation, regulation and taxation of all drugs. This is really right wing radicalism and I’d love to see it getting into the Tory party.

    2. Thank God for you Tories. Otherwise we’d be over run by Foxes and the homos.

      I also think you’re missing the point on the cabinet figures I named. You may love them. You may wish to masturbate furiously over a picture of Kenneth Clarke every evening before you spit on a tramp and call a gay immoral. That’s your choice. But my point was, this isn’t “new politics”, it’s the same. People who are pretty committed thatcherites, does not constitute “new”.

      No, voting against the fox hunting ban, was not demonstrating common sense. It was not simply done as a method of control, it was done because a few toffs quite enjoy seeing an animal being chased to exhaustion and ripped to shreds, and then defend their barbaric nature by saying “It’s tradition” (so was slavery), and “it’s perfectly humane”, oh and “they’re vermin”. I consider fox hunters to be vermin. I trust you’ll support my humane proposal to chase the fox hunters themselves, in their pathetic outfits, with their putrid smug faces to near exhaustion, and then rip them to shreds whilst they try to protect their young.

      I quite like my “multicultural hellhole”. I’m far happier surrounded by muslims, and sikhs, and Jamaicans, than I would ever be surrounded by Tories. But then, you Tories find it difficult to hide your disdain for anyone who isn’t wearing a tweed jacket, with patches on the elbow.

    3. Peter Reynolds says:

      Thank God my choice doesn’t plumb the depths of your imagination. All I’d add to your little porno flick is the tangerine soaked in amyl and sucked on hard – that’s a really futile drugs policy.

      You walked straight, slam, bang, wham into your rant against toffs and turned into a cliche before my eyes. Surely you’re better informed than that? Hunting is massively, overwhelmingly a working class sport for chaps with flat caps and whippets. Fox hunting makes you start describing your fellow human beings as vermin and advocating violence against them? Tut, tut.

      My best friend is a Jamaican. He’s a Tory too but he doesn’t wear tweed or have patches on his elbows. What about you?

      Seriously though, on the “multicultural hellhole”:

      http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/the-state-of-our-nation/

    4. Now I am not sure if I am missing something on the issue of getting rid of section 28. Peter you say, that you don’t mind homosexuality but you don’t think it should be promoted. The section is about actively promoting homosexuality this is true. But it also states that maintained schools should not teach the acceptability of homosexual relationships. They are not acceptable? It is not acceptable to chose the form of relationship you want to live in? That’s like saying it is not acceptable which faith you want to belong to our even what country you want to live in. Whereas the last two are your actual choices. Contrary to the Tory belief that homosexualaty is an active choice someone makes I am asking you: Why would anyone WANT to complicate their life facing a world that is still influenced heavily by ignorant Tories that are trying to tell you that your way of life is worth less than another one? Now I might turn into a cliche in front of your eyes, but: any ideal that discriminates homosexuality is a racist one.

    5. Yes, I repeat, Fox Hunters are vermin. Putrid scabs on the fabric of a decent society, who, whenever their outdated and belligerent traditions are challenged, start to spew their putrid puss of excuses all over the place. “IT’S TRADITION!!!” …. “IF WE DON’T DO IT, FOXES WILL EAT YOUR WIFE’S FACE!!!” …. When actually, there is no excuse for being vicious, cruel little verminous shits.

    6. Peter Reynolds says:

      On homosexuality I say do as you please but keep it in private. Then it’s perfectly acceptable. I have preferences in my sexual practice (not quite as bizarre as Futile’s imagination I have to say) but I don’t prance down the street bragging about them, nor do I try and equate what are mere choices with the fundamental biological relationship between a man and a woman. Don’t try and teach my children that gay sex has the same validity or importance as that that can create new life.

      Sorry, I really do not understand what homesexuality has to do with racism

      For the record, my masturbation fantasy would have to involve Mrs Cameron AND Mrs Clegg and I don’t mean pictures.

      Futile, it’s clear what gets you really excited! This site has suddenly become sticky all over.

    7. Why should you keep it in private?! It is something that was created by nature, god or whatever you believe creates our genetics and is therefore not abnormal. We should be civilised enough to bear the thought of two people being in love and showing it no matter what belief, race or sex they are! It is racism because you are discriminating a minority. I guess you have never met a gay couple and talked to them about what they think of section 28. Maybe you would understand better.

    8. Peter Reynolds says:

      I don’t want to understand better! It disgusts me – but I’ll defend with my life the right of any consenting adult to get up to whatever they want to in private without persecution.

      Is it racism or even discrimination to be against paedophilia? Racism has nothing to do with it at all.

    9. Did you just compare disliking paedophilia to disliking homosexuality? Seriously? Is that what you just did?

      And you nasty little fuckers are now the ruling party.
      Oh joy =/

    10. Peter Reynolds says:

      No I didn’t and you’re not “a nasty little fucker” enough to think that either! Seems our lady friend has a problem with the meaning of the word “racism”. We all discriminate against some minorities, quite rightly in the case of paedophilia.

    11. Gays Immoral, are they…?

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: