Just happened to put Radio 5 on at midnight when I went to bed. Heard the Nadine Dorries interview lie. It was riveting stuff. The guys in the studio were gobsmacked that a sitting MP would savage their leadership so overtly and clearly. She came across well although I suspect the Tories will close ranks and she will become isolated. She did though speak sense and the few people who 'phoned in 100% agreed with her (although maybe a bit of bias as to who 'phoned in / got through)?

Will be interesting to see if there is any fall out. Could be full scale civil war in the Tory party if things don't improve for them in the next 18 months.

Hopefully there will be a civil war in the Tory party and they self destruct in a big way. What was the interview lie ?

Listen again [url=http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/05/06/nadine-dorries-astonishing-attack-on-cameron/here[/url

Surprised Dally missed [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2140153/Nadine-Dorries-warns-David-Cameron-Be-warned-Party-bosses-need-46-signatures-ditch-leader-Theyll-Christmas.htmlthis Wail link[/url

a woman scorned. Cameron's a misogynist, ageist, elitist, out of touch bullingdon but I bet he's regretting his put down of Dorres in PMQs. She has given him and gideon a label in 'arrogant posh boys' (APBs) which will follow them forever. I can see a challenge in the next 12 months to Cameron. If they had any sense they would go for Davies who at least has a decent common touch but they will swing to the right

But they won't because the people want that bumbling baffoon (or genius?) Boris to lead them. Heard yesterday he probably won't though as he's Mayor for another 4 years and won't be able to campaign in 2015.

I agree about Davies. I think he would make a much better prime minister than Dave the Kipper, but he is a bit more right wing, whether he could keep the Lib/Dems on side is open to question. I'm sure though that he wouldn't have cut the 50p tax rate - he'd have had more sense. I was reading this morning that nothing comes out of No. or No. 11 without Osbourne's say-so. God knows why. He's worse if that were possible than Cameron. I hated Thatcher like poison, but she at least knew what it was like to earn a living. These two are cluesless, living on the interest of trustfunds.

Boris believes it his 'destiny' to be Pm, so don't count on it. he's already stated he was re-elected despite Cameron!

Interesting to hear Theo Paphitis berate Chris Graying on QT about cutting the 50p tax rate. He looked him square on and said: "if you think that cutting my tax by 5p in the £ would encourage me to work harder or employ more people, then you're crazy. It was a daft idea that has blown up in your face"

The interview was about the Mail article. The Mail (like all right-wing Tories) have always hated Cameron. They have seen Thursday as their chance to start to undermine him. For all the spin Cameron will be shown as a weak leader - he's not purged the Tory party in the same way that New Labour cleaned up its party. The fact that he hasn't may well now come back to haunt him and cause a split, which should see them out of power for 15 years or so.

Labour though are not yet in a strong position. They have a weak leader and they are still behind in the opinion polls on the key issue of economic management. So, if there were a GE tomorrow I doubt anyone would get a majority.

Let's hope Nadine has opened up issues that will not go away and lead to mayhem in the Tory party. She wants a more right-wing government and to tells the LibDems where to go. Not sure that's what the populus want though!

Problem is, if he is ousted we are likely to see a leader who is more right wing, the grass roots of the Tory party want MORE not less in the way of batterings for the poor, in fact one nutter who phoned in to a radio debate said if the Tories win a majority at the next election the first thing they should do id REVERSE all the concessions they made to the Lib Dems and claw back everything paid out already.

if they swing further to the right (hard to believe!) they will be even more unelecteable and hopefully nowhere near office for another decade or two.

It'd be better if it was a millenia.

I'd have thought that the Tories would have learned from their defeats in 2001 and 2005 that the last thing the people of this country want is a more right wing Tory party. I don't think Boris won in London because he was more right wing, I think he won (only just) because he was up against a someone who in certain quarters was very unpopular e.g in Barnet - a largely Jewish community, the Labour candidate for the London Assembly won with a comforatable majority, Livingstone (same electorate) lost by roughly the same majority. Ken (like Galloway) is a well known anti Zionist and this stance is obviously unpopular.

I love the way the Tories are blaming everything on the LibDems.

Let me get this right... The majority party has to get the nod from the smaller one before it can proceed? Really?

Or is it more that the Tories have the ear of the press, whereas the LDs don't, and can get their lies across more easily?

Have the ear of the press?

In most case they ARE the press

Fair comment.

IMO the relationship is the other way round, which is what makes it more sinister.

It's not a case of the Conservative party making the running and using their puppets in the press as a propaganda mouthpiece. It's the right wing press making the running and holding a gun to the Conservative party's head, that if they want their continued support, they have to 'act tough' on a certain agenda. Hence the fact the right wing press has been quite barbed towards Cameron.

It's interesting how party activists are out of touch with the electorate.

After the Tories have had a setback this week, the calls from the party are that the electorate has 'punished them for not being Conservative enough' and that the solution should be moving to the right, focusing more on being against Europe and immigration. This is exactly what happened when they looked for lessons from the 1997 defeat when Blair hammered them, they went into a right wing posturing rump under Hague, Duncan Smith and then Howard, campaigning about Europe and immigration, remember all those "are you thinking what we're thinking?" posters they had which featured some stereotypical right wing message. They were smashed at three successive elections. Cameron then brought them more towards the centre and made them electable (up to the point of being a minority government) and now their activists are lobbying to try and go back to the right wing wasteland again!

I suppose there has been a similar effect in Labour in the past, when they go into times of struggle the call from the party is that it should rediscover socialism, stand for renationalisation, restoration of trade union powers etc. Again that sort of thing cheers the party members but just pushes Labour away from the electorate.

The smart leaders are the ones that bring their party as close as possible to where the British electorate is. Cameron for his faults has done that better than other Conservative leaders since the early days of Major. Blair was the best at that by far. David Miliband would I believe also have done that and if he was Labour leader now I think we would be looking at a no-contest march to victory between now and 2015 similar to Blair from 94-97.

Except of course that many of the policies were not true Labour policies. Some of them were, and under Brown as Chancellor quite a bit of discreet redistribution occurred, and the NHS became what it should have been under the Tories. But taking the country into wars is not the Labour way. TBH I'd like to see Labour offer a true alternative to the Tories' cuts that benefit the better off and leave the rest worse off, a government like the post war Attlee government that made a real difference to the people of this country. A government elected by a landslide and which never lost an election in terms of the popular vote. A government which re-wrote what governments could and should do for a generation.

Yes a government which took Britain into the Korean War and Hugh Gaitskell introduced an austerity budget to pay for it. It laid the precedent for Tony Blair that Labour were not afraid to make tough choices and sacrifice spending on health and pensions to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US allies.

Labour took Britain into the Korean war as part of a UN force, not as back-up solely to the Americans. And of course since the Americans were effectively bankrolling the UK what choice did they have?
There'd have been no NHS, or welfare state without the Attlee government. The Attlee government took over a country that really [iwas[/i bankrupt, after WWII and at the end of their term handed over a country in a position to return to the prosperity and progress that marked the fifties and enabled Macmillan to say "you've never had it so good!"

What? How the heck did us going into the Korean War set a precedent given Wilson kept us out of the Vietnam War?

You write some sense moist of the time but that is complete .

Quote ="major hound"Labour took Britain into the Korean war as part of a UN force, not as back-up solely to the Americans. And of course since the Americans were effectively bankrolling the UK what choice did they have? '" Perhaps they could have stood up for socialist values and financed social programmes through taxation of the wealthy and not frittered away money on nuclear weapons and arms. Anuerin Bevan's resignation speech is a good eye opener as to his concerns to the direction of the Attlee government Quote I have always said both in the House of Commons and in speeches in the country—and I think my ex-colleagues in the Government will at least give me credit for this—that the defence programme must always be consistent with the maintenance of the standard of life of the British people and the maintenance of the social services, and that as soon as it became clear we had engaged upon an arms programme inconsistent with those considerations, I could no longer remain a Member of the Government.'" hansard.millbanksystems.com/comm ... -statement Bevan's speech is a good read, a refreshing statement to the Commons outlining in simple language his point and without recourse to soundbites. Harold Wilson also resigned from Attlee's Cabinet over the same issue (he was President of the Board of Trade), user charges were being introduced into the NHS to pay for arms spending and to finance the war in Korea.

Quote ="major hound"Labour took Britain into the Korean war as part of a UN force, not as back-up solely to the Americans. And of course since the Americans were effectively bankrolling the UK what choice did they have? '" Perhaps they could have stood up for socialist values and financed social programmes through taxation of the wealthy and not frittered away money on nuclear weapons and arms. Anuerin Bevan's resignation speech is a good eye opener as to his concerns to the direction of the Attlee government Quote I have always said both in the House of Commons and in speeches in the country—and I think my ex-colleagues in the Government will at least give me credit for this—that the defence programme must always be consistent with the maintenance of the standard of life of the British people and the maintenance of the social services, and that as soon as it became clear we had engaged upon an arms programme inconsistent with those considerations, I could no longer remain a Member of the Government.'" hansard.millbanksystems.com/comm ... -statement Bevan's speech is a good read, a refreshing statement to the Commons outlining in simple language his point and without recourse to soundbites. Harold Wilson also resigned from Attlee's Cabinet over the same issue (he was President of the Board of Trade), user charges were being introduced into the NHS to pay for arms spending and to finance the war in Korea.

Quote ="sally cinnamon"Perhaps they could have stood up for socialist values and financed social programmes through taxation of the wealthy and not frittered away money on nuclear weapons and arms. Anuerin Bevan's resignation speech is a good eye opener as to his concerns to the direction of the Attlee government hansard.millbanksystems.com/comm ... -statement Bevan's speech is a good read, a refreshing statement to the Commons outlining in simple language his point and without recourse to soundbites. Harold Wilson also resigned from Attlee's Cabinet over the same issue (he was President of the Board of Trade), user charges were being introduced into the NHS to pay for arms spending and to finance the war in Korea.'" But the Attlee government changed this country (for the better) out of all recognition, despite virtulent opposition not just from the Tories but from more or less the entire media establishment. Attlee has been voted (by accademics admitedly) the greatest Prime Minister of the twentieth century. He was even praised by Margaret Thatcher. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5294024.stm

Quote ="sally cinnamon"Perhaps they could have stood up for socialist values and financed social programmes through taxation of the wealthy and not frittered away money on nuclear weapons and arms. Anuerin Bevan's resignation speech is a good eye opener as to his concerns to the direction of the Attlee government hansard.millbanksystems.com/comm ... -statement Bevan's speech is a good read, a refreshing statement to the Commons outlining in simple language his point and without recourse to soundbites. Harold Wilson also resigned from Attlee's Cabinet over the same issue (he was President of the Board of Trade), user charges were being introduced into the NHS to pay for arms spending and to finance the war in Korea.'" But the Attlee government changed this country (for the better) out of all recognition, despite virtulent opposition not just from the Tories but from more or less the entire media establishment. Attlee has been voted (by accademics admitedly) the greatest Prime Minister of the twentieth century. He was even praised by Margaret Thatcher. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5294024.stm