Baron von Lotsov

What is any logical person to make of that?

__________________
"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."

Britannist

It is what they used to say about the Labour Party in the first couple of decades of its existence and it is what they used to say about Dr. Paisley's DUP which now holds half the constituencies in Northern Ireland and which is in 'the driving seat' in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

pentameter

Edwina Currie's views on Major are naturally suspect, however, something she said on the radio which did ring true was that he wanted desperately to be PM, but he had absolutely no idea what he wanted to do when he became PM. In other words he was a creature of hollow ambition.

So, he went with the flow and we had Maastricht, which was a decision based not on principle, but what would cause the least waves in the short term and maybe for him personally.

In many ways, Major was the the progenitor of Blair and the culture of managerialism, which is to say the country is to be managed rather than lead. No principles, just soundbites and the manipulation of public opinion by burying the bad news etc. Managers can only manage within a clearly defined structure, otherwise they end up forming committees, which are good ways of avoiding responsibility, taking no risks and creating a beaureucratic morrasse.

Pretty much what we have in the UK and what the EU offers.

The fundamental problem I see with Mr. Dale's article was that it wasn't based on principle, it was based on myopic electoral advantage, and that illusory. 'Moderately Eurosceptic' doesn't amount to anything apart from acknowledging that there are noises to be made to appease a certain section of the audience whose support is important but whose wishes are not.

Britannist

Yes - one is either in favour of this country running its own affairs and deciding its own destiny, or one is not.

Britannist

There are certainly some people in the Conservative Party who want the votes of those who are pro-sovereignty but these types in the ranks of the Conservative Party do not want to defend the nation's powers from being snatched by the EU.

Yet these europhile impostors in the Conservative Party who want eurosceptic and anti-EU votes do not seem to have realised that the Conservative Party has not actually won a General Election since the formation of UKIP (hundreds of thousands of former Conservatives are among the 600, 000+ who voted UKIP at the last General Election).

As I wrote earlier today on the forum, the Conservatives have won the anti-EU vote many times but since Major forced the EU Maastricht Treaty through in the early 1990's part of that vote has moved to UKIP. In other words Heath and Major are responsible for making it more difficult for their own party getting the votes needed to win a majority of the seats in the House of Commons at a General Election.

Britannist

A very interesting point Pentameter - one shared by Peter Hitchens the Mail on Sunday columnist who claims that 'New' Labour was actually first elected to Government at the 1992 General Election (won by pro-EU 'Conservative' Major) and not (as many think) at the 1997 General Election when Blair got in.

Britannist

A structure and system of Government set up by Heath and the EU.

The EU set the rules and Major obeyed them - just as Blair did and just as Brown does now.

kernow

Well said!

Britannist

I agree with your interpretation, Pentameter - Major (backed by europhile Foreign Office staff swarming all around him, no doubt) was too weak to take on the EU bullies. I always thought he was a wimp.

The result of Major's capitulation to the EU is: UKIP.

Major's actions in caving in to EU demands was to cause the formation of UKIP and to drive out members of his own party to UKIP. I cannot see the ex-Conservatives who have joined UKIP returning to the Conservative Party. Consequently, thanks to Heath/Major, the Conservatives have lost vital votes and some very hard-working volunteers.

Mikeuk

It's always had gay members. As long as they kept a low profile nobody asked questions.

It's sick and immoral because the party now not only permits them to flaunt their inversion but actual persecutes anybody who dares to criticise this rampantly disgusting conduct.

It is a total reverse of the traditional standards which were maintained during my activity with that party. It is also the negation of Christian teaching.