Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 27, 2019, 04:34:53 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: Gustaf, أندرو, Hash, Blind Jaunting)
  Major British Conservative tells Americans that they have to vote Democrat.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Major British Conservative tells Americans that they have to vote Democrat.  (Read 3476 times)
World Order
Spinning Crackpots
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 82


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 10, 2004, 05:41:15 am »

Comment: Michael Portillo (Ran for leadership): There’s only one way forward for America – vote Democrat
 
"A one-armed man who lives in my constituency claims that American troops pepper-sprayed him in the face causing him to vomit, flushed his head in a toilet pan and then, having tied him up, knelt on him and punched and kicked him. He says that he endured many brutalities during nearly two years at Guantanamo Bay.

When I first read his allegations I considered them absurd and I thought the newspaper that printed them gullible. A US military spokesman called them “simply false”. Following the scandal of prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad, of course I now believe him. His testimony is very consistent with what we have seen in photographs and videos.

His reliability as a witness is damaged because he has a mild criminal record and he was arrested in Afghanistan during the war against the Taliban. That I now accept his word rather than the statement of an American official is a symptom of how much credibility the United States has lost, even among ardent admirers like me.

I do not repent of having supported the war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s defiance of international law posed a danger to the region and as his scientists worked on weapons of mass destruction the risks could soon have spread wider. American weakness in confronting both him and, separately, Al-Qaeda between 1991 and 2001 increased the West’s vulnerability. Particularly after withdrawing from Somalia, following the loss of a few men in 1993, the United States looked timid. Its responses to terrorist outrages and Saddam’s provocations were half-baked. The younger Bush’s robust foreign policy was a welcome change from Clinton’s.

If Bush had other motives, too, so much the better. People who like conspiracy theories say the war in Iraq was really about oil. Well, if America is anxious to secure the energy supplies that make life possible in the modern world, that is not an unworthy aim. In fact, America was not especially interested in Iraq’s oil because we can just about do without it.

It was concerned to have troops in the Middle East who could move to protect oilfields and pipelines elsewhere. But keeping forces in Saudi Arabia, the land of the holy places, was proving offensive to Muslim sensitivities. We Europeans, who showed little gratitude to America for decades of protection against the Soviet Union, have also shown Olympian disdain for what is in effect an American investment in keeping our schools and hospitals heated and lit.

The neo-conservatives who came to office with George W Bush are experienced advisers who form a sophisticated cabinet. Some are my friends. I have a lot of sympathy with their views. For example: their lack of enthusiasm for a United Nations bedevilled by corruption. Bush, though inarticulate, may be a second Ronald Reagan, able to set clear and simple policy objectives. But it is astonishing that such a formidable executive has made so many disastrous mistakes.

After September 11 the script for the war on terror wrote itself. Not since the days of Adolf Hitler had allies been so certain of being in the right, battling against an unspeakable evil. Brutal terrorists born and bred in the darkness of repressive regimes threatened our freedom and plotted to smash the value system that brought the world justice and prosperity.

It beggars belief that the US government did not see from the outset that its conduct in the wars against the Taliban and Saddam had to be beyond reproach and that if it were not, the whole moral basis of the West’s campaign would collapse.

I do not often agree with our archbishops, but their letter to Tony Blair (it came to light last week) is spot on. Referring to the prison atrocities it said “the appearance of double standards inevitably diminishes the credibility of western governments with the people of Iraq and of the Islamic world”.

Winning the support of Muslims was bound to be hard. An Arab street which thinks that the CIA and Mossad flew the airliners into the twin towers would believe anything, but the photographs from Abu Ghraib have humiliated the democracies. We have been left speechless in the face of atrocities committed by other regimes.

The British government’s indignation at the humiliation of our servicemen by Iran rings hollow. During his visit to Britain the Chinese prime minister could hardly contain his mirth when the subject of human rights abuses was raised at a joint press conference with Blair.

In part my indignation against the American administration arises from sympathy for our prime minister. No leader of this country would by a nod or a wink condone the mistreatment of detainees. I empathised with Blair during the war as he strode forward in a glow of idealism. Proudly Britain stood shoulder to shoulder with the land of the free against the tyrant. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have mocked us all. Nonetheless Blair has failed to answer satisfactorily about when he first knew of the atrocities and when, if ever, he protested to Bush about them. When this issue was hot a few weeks ago I believe I saw a look of terror in the prime minister’s eyes. Those who want to bring him down should probe further.

At least, I told myself, September 11 would end America’s wretched flirtation with Irish terrorism. Now it emerges that to this day not one suspect has been extradited from the United States on terrorist charges on the basis that American courts cannot have confidence in British justice. That is pretty rich! It is good news, at least, that the US Supreme Court has just opened the way for Guantanamo prisoners to challenge their incarceration and for American detainees to sue their government.

On the other hand the British government should not have made it so easy to extradite to America people against whom no case can be mounted in this country. That fits into what the archbishops call “a wider risk to our integrity”.

American policy in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad has been incompetent. Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, used too few troops to secure the borders or to capture the stockpiles of weaponry. Disbanding Iraq’s security forces was a foreseeable error. Backing Ahmed Chalabi for president flew in the face of wise counsel. The blitz on Falluja was a military and diplomatic catastrophe. The rather good interim government of Iraq that took power last week emerged in spite of, not because of, the United States.

America has undermined its own war aims. It will now be at least as difficult to leave behind a US base in Iraq as it has been to sustain forces in Saudi Arabia. America’s tactical blunders have damaged its strategic objectives.

Bush has made no effort to win Muslim hearts and minds (except by courting the Turks last week). While I am a stronger supporter of Israeli tactics than most, America has been foolishly indifferent to the Palestinian problem. Indeed, Ariel Sharon is implementing a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza partly because Bush has offered such weak commitment to the “road map” for peace.

I begin to think the West can purge itself of American misdemeanours only by some symbolic sacrifice. Rumsfeld would have done nicely had the president dismissed him over the Abu Ghraib horrors. He signally failed to do it. Now only the defeat of the Republican administration will suffice.

Senator John Kerry does impress. Whereas the president has difficulty in stringing two words together, the Democratic candidate can speak clearly and precisely. The main charge against Kerry — a telling one — is that he is inconsistent. But is Bush less so? Was not this president elected on a platform of disengagement and did he not go on to fight two foreign wars? Did he set out for battle despising the UN and America’s former allies in “old Europe”, and does he not now grub about for their moral and practical support?

My one-armed constituent has been charged with no offence. Perhaps the Supreme Court will sweep Guantanamo Bay into history. For America to brush away its recent disgraces, the electorate will have to bin this administration. The only think that can save Bush is what information Rupert Murdochs (an avid Bush supporter) FOX news puts on the air. The key lies with what Americans believe. If they believe in FOX Bush will win but when I was asked last week I never expected to say this to my American friends: vote Democrat



 
 
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,244


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2004, 08:49:56 am »

Um problem: there are no "conservatives" in Britain. Even the BNP is leftist on economic issues...
Logged
JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,460


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2004, 10:35:10 am »

Um problem: there are no "conservatives" in Britain. Even the BNP is leftist on economic issues...

British Conservative, notice the capital C, there is a British party called the Conservative Party. They are in fact conservative though as well.

I haven't yet read the article but it seems it was said by Michael Portillo, a man who has moved a lot towards the left politically over the past few years so I can understand him saying such things.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,244


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2004, 11:14:50 am »

The Tories are not "conservative" by any rational definition of the term... not even by European standards...
Logged
Platypus
hughento
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,482
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2004, 07:14:37 pm »

They are conservative. it's just that the USA as a whole, not just Republicans, is very, very conservative.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,244


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2004, 07:52:09 pm »

Supporting universal health care is not 'conservative,' I don't care where you live. It flies in the face of free markets and limited government.

There are other European 'conservative' parties that are basically socialist as well, but the Tories don't even make much of an effort to look at conservative...
Logged
Gustaf
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,315


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2004, 06:03:35 am »

Oh, nonsense...they're conservative, though perhaps not as conservative as the Republicans. You don't have to be extremely conservative to be conservative.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,244


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 11, 2004, 09:59:24 am »

So, if you are against gun control, against abortion, for mandatory school prayer, can you still be a liberal?

If you violate all the tenets of an ideology, you do not hold it... calling yourself one is meaningless.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,460


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 11, 2004, 11:06:46 am »

So, if you are against gun control, against abortion, for mandatory school prayer, can you still be a liberal?

If you violate all the tenets of an ideology, you do not hold it... calling yourself one is meaningless.

You are holding them to your American Conservative standards.
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,291
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 11, 2004, 11:16:21 am »
« Edited: July 11, 2004, 11:21:17 am by Michael Z »

Goldwater,

The British definition of "conservative" differs from the American one. Different cultures use different political terminology, and you are simply applying yours to ours.

But perhaps you are trying to cause a fuss over something as trivial as semantics to divert attention from the main subject of this thread?
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,286
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 11, 2004, 11:19:38 am »

Goldwater,

The British definition of "conservative" differs from the American one. You are applying your own cultural interpretation of political terminology onto another country.

But maybe you are simply trying to cause a fuss over something as pedantic as semantics to divert attention from the main subject of this thread....? Wink
What should be the point of that - who cares what El Portillo says?
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,291
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2004, 11:28:58 am »
« Edited: July 11, 2004, 11:30:49 am by Michael Z »

Goldwater,

The British definition of "conservative" differs from the American one. You are applying your own cultural interpretation of political terminology onto another country.

But maybe you are simply trying to cause a fuss over something as pedantic as semantics to divert attention from the main subject of this thread....? Wink
What should be the point of that - who cares what El Portillo says?

Yes, that's a good point, actually.....

Still, apparently some Tories will be secretly supporting the Kerry campaign to undermine Blair. You know things are looking strange when you have a Labour PM rooting for a Republican President and the Tory opposition hoping for the Democrats to put a spanner into Tony Blair's works... But of course this would be to completely ignore the fact that Blair could work very well with either Bush or Kerry (as would Gordon Brown, no doubt).

If anything this thread demonstrates Portillo's one shortcoming (and possibly the main reason he never managed to rise to become party leader): He always says what he thinks, a big no-no amongst front bench politicians. Successful politicians know when to keep their mouths shut; Portillo never could, which ultimately led to him alienating a vast bulk of the Party faithful.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,286
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 11, 2004, 11:31:43 am »

That's a rather endearing trait.
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,291
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2004, 11:37:38 am »

That's a rather endearing trait.

Of course it is... but not in the gloomy and Machiavellian world of politics.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,244


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2004, 11:47:13 am »

Here is an example: I don't know all the details, but recently in Britain there was controversy over charging students tuition (I assume for college). Blair wanted to, as I understand it, and so the Tories were against it.

Well, let's operate under the assumption that "conservative" is a purely relative term. This still makes no sense for the Tories, because they are supposed to be more 'conservative,' thus they should appreciate reductions in the size of government and its involvement in higher education.

So, it's not that I'm holding Tories to GOP standards; rather, they operate as a generic 'opposition' party without any ideological cohesion AT ALL.
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,291
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2004, 12:08:15 pm »

Here is an example: I don't know all the details, but recently in Britain there was controversy over charging students tuition (I assume for college). Blair wanted to, as I understand it, and so the Tories were against it.

Well, let's operate under the assumption that "conservative" is a purely relative term. This still makes no sense for the Tories, because they are supposed to be more 'conservative,' thus they should appreciate reductions in the size of government and its involvement in higher education.

So, it's not that I'm holding Tories to GOP standards; rather, they operate as a generic 'opposition' party without any ideological cohesion AT ALL.

At the moment, yes. But then it's unfortunately the case in British politics that the opposition often oppose for the sake of, well, opposing. But the Tories are still to the right of Labour on many key issues such as privatisation of public services (including the health service, but even there they only support latent privatisation because the majority of the British public would not support it), the rate of general taxation, Britain's relationship with the EU, etc.

As for tuition fees, both parties agree that they should be implemented on principle (even though Tony Blair faced a HUGE revolt from within his own party on this issue, as he did over Iraq) but it's only the manner of implementation they argue over. The only mainstream parties in Britain which fundamentally oppose college fees are the Lib Dems and the Greens.

British politics is no longer as clear-cut as it was in the 1980s, when the Tories occupied the centre-right and Labour the centre-left. Labour have moved marginally to the right under Tony Blair and therefore firmly occupy the centre, sorry center Wink ground, which has resulted in the Conservative Party currently going through something of an identity crisis; they cannot move further to the right lest they wish to become unelectable (which is basically what happened at the last election under William Hague, in which key Tory policy proposals included lowering taxes, joining Nafta, tightening immigration quotas, etc, and the Tories lost by a landslide), but neither can they move too far towards the centre because by doing so they risk losing the support of the party base.
Logged
أندرو
afleitch
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,826


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 11, 2004, 12:08:57 pm »

Funny, the Republicans seem to be bleating on about intrusion into peoples personal lives as being 'okay' as is running an economy with a self created deficit...and THAT is supposed to be 'true' conservatism at work? The Conservative Party in Britain was the worlds first and actually created the political philosophy itself. And yes even Thatcher didnt mind state healthcare. Its been supported in different ways by succesive Conservative leaders and governments. Thatcher wanted to limit in and expand private healthcare, not abolish it all together.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,460


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2004, 12:38:10 pm »

If anything this thread demonstrates Portillo's one shortcoming (and possibly the main reason he never managed to rise to become party leader).

That isn't why he never managed to become party leader. It is because of his gay experience as a youth.

We had the Tory Chief Whip Derek Conway speak to us at my school and he didn't say it straight out but it was an obvious implication of why he didn't become the leader. Some of the older Tories like himself are homophobic.....
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,407
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 11, 2004, 04:28:12 pm »

If anything this thread demonstrates Portillo's one shortcoming (and possibly the main reason he never managed to rise to become party leader).

That isn't why he never managed to become party leader. It is because of his gay experience as a youth.

We had the Tory Chief Whip Derek Conway speak to us at my school and he didn't say it straight out but it was an obvious implication of why he didn't become the leader. Some of the older Tories like himself are homophobic.....

Conway lost his seat (Shrewsbury) in 1997 Smiley
Before finding a nice safe seat in 2001 Sad
Logged
JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,460


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 11, 2004, 04:30:06 pm »

If anything this thread demonstrates Portillo's one shortcoming (and possibly the main reason he never managed to rise to become party leader).

That isn't why he never managed to become party leader. It is because of his gay experience as a youth.

We had the Tory Chief Whip Derek Conway speak to us at my school and he didn't say it straight out but it was an obvious implication of why he didn't become the leader. Some of the older Tories like himself are homophobic.....

Conway lost his seat (Shrewsbury) in 1997 Smiley
Before finding a nice safe seat in 2001 Sad

I know, I did consider asking him if he had been back to Shrewsbury any time lately......
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,407
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 11, 2004, 04:36:46 pm »

If anything this thread demonstrates Portillo's one shortcoming (and possibly the main reason he never managed to rise to become party leader).

That isn't why he never managed to become party leader. It is because of his gay experience as a youth.

We had the Tory Chief Whip Derek Conway speak to us at my school and he didn't say it straight out but it was an obvious implication of why he didn't become the leader. Some of the older Tories like himself are homophobic.....

Conway lost his seat (Shrewsbury) in 1997 Smiley
Before finding a nice safe seat in 2001 Sad

I know, I did consider asking him if he had been back to Shrewsbury any time lately......

Cheesy

He thinks that everyone in the seat are "traitors" Grin
Logged
English
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,187


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 12, 2004, 04:58:59 am »

The Tories are not "conservative" by any rational definition of the term... not even by European standards...

Of course the Tories are conservative. They're a tax cutting, free market, traditionalist, pro-law and order party. They differ with Republicans on many policies, but that's because the UK is not the US. Religion and social morality for example are not important in the UK.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC