Torys from your youth.

Fretwired

Phil_aka_Pip said:

http://aipetcher.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/harold-macmillan.jpg

I remember him on the TV ... had to stand down as PM as he was ill.

ICBM

johnnyurq said:

Major was OK but he had a very different background so maybe that is why he is a bit more normal in his ideas and attitudes.

His dad was in showbiz as an actor/music hall type so he had a fairly humble upbringing/background in context with his Tory buds.

Heseletine mostly OK except for the Westland Affair where IIRC he didn't cover himself with glory, But Thatcher hated him and briefed against him at the time so he may have been stitched up.

Michael Portillo has found some humility since his ignominious failure to get get elected in 1997, he was a true arrogant Tory in the lead up, made me smirk anyway.

But if he was more like he is now then he would have been a decent MP. His dad was a Labour socialist IIRC and Portillo said so on his Railway Journeys program.

Mind you Heseltine and Portillo were at least conviction and more consensus politicians than most Tories back then, even though I bitterly disagreed with their main ideals and policies.

I agree. I do have some respect for Portillo, Heseltine and Major, and a few others of their generation, even though I opposed almost everything they stood for as Tories. The current lot, less so.

Heseltine was trying to do the right thing with Westland - supporting British industry against the headline-price-only economics of Thatcherite purchasing decisions... something government economists still don't seem to have understood. He was definitely stitched up by Thatcher too.

johnnyurq

@ICBM

Yes that sparked off my memory and you are spot on Thatcher wanted to defer it to the US IIRC and went on to trash talk Heseltine and leak shit into the public domain. Then promptly denied it after having been caught bang to rights.

Current MP's for me are all suspect apart from a select few and the best I can say about Labour these days is that they are the lesser of the evils between Tory and Labour. The Lib Dems have very little credibility at all these days although some of their policies are good in principle.

So damned if we do damned if we don't voting wise for any party, it sucks big time.

ToneControl

ESBlonde said:

ToneControl said:

 but still not a great idea to have the richest people running the place

 

 

I have to ask why, and that's a serious question.

If they are doing it to line their pockets most could earn more by dedicating themselves to their business(s). So it's probable they have at least a modicum of public good about them (albeit possibly skewed by their education and upbringing).

We have so called socialists that once in power turn out to be little more than money grabbing thieves for their own benefit and that is at least no better in my view to starting rich and being 'a public servant'.  

The pretence that champagne socialists are not trying to better themselves in spite of their political allegiance leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

There are good and bad people from all walks of life, these days putting labels on one set or another says more about us than them. 

(Except folks from Norfolk obviously)  

)

I don't properly trust very many politicians, the ruling classes are very good at being just that. Working as prime minister makes you gold-plated, so it can't be considered altruistic really, and political power itself can help bring immense wealth (Heseltine made most of that cash after he became a politician)

However, when you start getting the really top wealthiest people running a country, it's a significant risk that the country will become an extension of their personal business empire. Political power and huge personal wealth in the same person brings us Berlusconi, etc. Just imagine someone in the Murdoch family running for prime minister, for example

Strangely, I quite liked Heseltine.

ESBlonde

@Tonecontrol

You make some valid and interesting points, however you should also consider that a socialist government (at least in the UK) is heavily in the pocket of the trade unions. There is more than enough evidence that their influence is driven by some megalomaniacs who are wealthy beyond what their members dreams. Like all thinks the principle of a TU is a wonderful thing but there are good and bad unions just as there are good and bad Tory tofts.

I have considered voting for a party who's views I dislike because the candidate was (imo) a good local MP and have actually voted that way in local/council elections. 

ToneControl

ESBlonde said:

@Tonecontrol

You make some valid and interesting points, however you should also consider that a socialist government (at least in the UK) is heavily in the pocket of the trade unions. There is more than enough evidence that their influence is driven by some megalomaniacs who are wealthy beyond what their members dreams. Like all thinks the principle of a TU is a wonderful thing but there are good and bad unions just as there are good and bad Tory tofts.

I have considered voting for a party who's views I dislike because the candidate was (imo) a good local MP and have actually voted that way in local/council elections. 

yes, we've seen plenty of immoral behaviour from unions over the years

I don't fully agree or disagree with any of the 3 major parties' track record or plans, and I don't have any magic answer to that dilemma.

I think we should have some sensible rules about being eligible for being prime minister, rather than stupidly not allowing Roman Catholics:

Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 c. 7 (Regnal. 10_Geo_4)Section 18:

It shall not be lawful for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion directly or indirectly to advise his Majesty, or any person or persons holding or exercising the office of guardians of the United Kingdom, or of regent of the United Kingdom, under whatever name, style, or title such office may be constituted, [F1or the lord lieutenant of Ireland], touching or concerning the appointment to or disposal of any office or preferment in the [F2Church of England], or in the Church of Scotland; and if any such person shall offend in the premises he shall, being thereof convicted by due course of law, be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and disabled for ever from holding any office, civil or military, under the Crown.

Phil_aka_Pip

@ToneControl in the days when that was written, the BogeyMan was a Roman Catholic, and had been since Queen Elizabeth I. Since then, he's been a Communist, and more recently a Moslem.

I think they should rewrite the act saying that "It shall not be lawful for any person who could be classed as a BogeyMan ..." and then have another document stipulating who the BogeyMan is. Natch, it could include a set of affiliations, not just one.

Cirrus

If I remember correctly, the reason for that law was that a Catholic's first allegiance was to god and the Pope in Rome. A Protestant's on the other hand was to the god you get to through the church of England. I guess in a world where convictions are important they didn't want the prime minister batting for anyone other than his own country.

Of course, we know politicians have no convictions, honour or scruples so it's a moot point, but you can see why they thought it was a good idea at the time.

Emp_Fab

ROOG said: The earliest Tory I remember was Ted Heath, mike yarwood used to take the piss out of him along with the other Wally Harold Wilson So many fun memories from our yoof! >:D<

It's funny how we all used to watch the Mike Yarwood show and though it was great... way back then.  I caught a clip of him on Youtube the other day and was confused by the fact that he was utter utter utter shite.  He was never any good - even back then.

What a silly billy.

randomhandclaps

Cirrus said:

If I remember correctly, the reason for that law was that a Catholic's first allegiance was to god and the Pope in Rome. A Protestant's on the other hand was to the god you get to through the church of England. I guess in a world where convictions are important they didn't want the prime minister batting for anyone other than his own country.

Of course, we know politicians have no convictions, honour or scruples so it's a moot point, but you can see why they thought it was a good idea at the time.

Both Catholics and Protestants first duty would be to God via their earthly portal - either the Pope or the Monarch respectively.  Therefore it is hardly surprising that any British monarch would want to ensure that they had religious influence over political issues, especially when historically and presently the two can become so entwined.