« 'Des Two Jobs Browne' is not the main problem facing Britain's armed forces | Main | Adam Boulton: "One does begin to wonder if Gordon Brown is cut out for the top job. He does not have a great deal of natural charisma and at times seems a little, well, plodding." »

Comments

Traditional Tory - you're a pompous pain in the backside.
If you are such a good Tory, then stop talking up the Lib Dems who are an irrelevance to the national contest, and Clegg is completely vacuous.

You seem to wish the Conservative party harm - so go off and join the Yellow Peril.

Have you delivered any Tory leaflets this weekend?


Traditional Tory - you're a pompous pain in the backside.If you are such a good Tory, then stop talking up the Lib Dems who are an irrelevance to the national contest, and Clegg is completely vacuous.

He seems to be getting you rattled, doesn't he Joe? BTW, anybody who gives himself a double-barrelled Christian name is pretty well up the pomposity scale in my book.

Have you delivered any Tory leaflets this weekend?

No. These days my party activity is confined to writing out a cheque for the minimum subscription once a year, and likely to remain so for the forseeable future.

Yet Another Anon - I'm afraid your analogies don't stand up and your argument on this is very weak.

Bruce is quite right - no government would deliberately lose a vote of confidence, as that is the worst possible basis to start a general election campaign. It might galvanise your core vote - as happened to Labour in 1979 and 1929 - but would not look good to the crucial swing voters.

To answer Bruce's question by the way, no government in British history has ever lost a motion of confidence and then gone on to win the resulting election.

Of course the most likely circumstances in which a government would lose a confidence vote are when it is in a minority, as with Labour in 1924 and 1979, but in those circumstances the only people capable of "conspiring" to bring about a government defeat is the opposition - and why not? That's what they are there for, and by definition in a minority administration the combined opposition commands more public support than the government.

But as for the suggestion that opposition MPs might vote IN FAVOUR of the government in a confidence motion in order not to have an election they think they might lose - I've never heard anything so absurd. The Opposition would have to call the motion in the first place, so why vote against it? At the very least it would make the opposition look split. And if any opposition MPs did vote against it, how could they then campaign in the next election, whenever it was, having previously voted confidence in the government they oppose?

At least I use my real name, rather than hide behind an inappropriate description to launch spiteful attacks.

I think vacuous Clegg will be good news for the Tories.
but part of the LDs problems have been a lack of sympathetic coverage, so it follows that we mustn't give them good coverage. That is a blatant own goal.

I posted several times on this site arguing for Tory tax policy - and policy aims - to be sharpened up.

Bruce, Kinnock was still Old Labour and everybody accepted it.

Rubbish. The terms Old and New Labour hadn't even been coined in 1992.

Well exactly Bruce. You have stopped digging and are just arguing against yourself. Pl see Jack Straw.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker