British Poltics: Is David Cameron a Conservative

[scotthooker]

This has been puzzling me greatly, a modern compasionte conservative - who is for the NHS and for ridding the world of poverty...not your average conservative quite your paternalist as it were. But do you british people think he is a conservative, be it with a big C or little c, if so what type of conservative, new right, thatcherite, blairite even!

[dreamer]

He is a "royal" so he is there for "their" bidding, what other reason would he be there for, it's not to help the general population of Brittan.the conservative party are there for the rich and the rich only. Me personally, not heard anything new from David Cameron the conservative royal, waste of time if you ask me. Dreamer

[G. Adams]

Quote by: scotthooker This has been puzzling me greatly, a modern compasionte conservative - who is for the NHS and for ridding the world of poverty...not your average conservative quite your paternalist as it were. But do you british people think he is a conservative, be it with a big C or little c, if so what type of conservative, new right, thatcherite, blairite even!

Paternalism is conservatism. That is, it is part of "One Nation Conservatism". It's roots most notably go back to Benjamin Disraeli. It argues that a nation must stay together, that the "betters" have a duty to relieve some of the hardships of their "lessers".

Conservatism is not a unified ideology, and it is certainly not one that crosses the Atlantic. You cannot compare the conservative views of the US to the conservative views of the UK.

Now, for Cameron himself...Cameron/Blair, Blair/Cameron, they are both the same. They both represent paternalistic conservatism, authoritarianism and protection of the top 5%. Their rhetoric may differ, certainly, but in their goals they are peas in a pod.

[Paramonkey]

Personally, I see it as a publicity exercise more than anything.

There are a lot of right-wingers in the party, whose ideology is contrast to David Cameron’s projection. The fact that these individuals, who make the power base of the party aren’t up in arms is either the result of a very good piece of luck or political manoeuvring, im inclined to believe the latter. As a result im interested to see how much of the actual promises he makes will actually ring true.

The irony is, (new) labour complain, but to my recollection this hasn’t been the first time a young, Eton educated individual has headed up a renewed party with a shift towards the centre in the face of incompetent and sleaze ridden leadership, just think of 1997.

It will be the same old routine, come in, make promises and it will go downhill from there...

[dreamer]

Conservative leader David Cameron has said he still believes going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do. In an interview for BBC's Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, he said the war had been "very unpopular" and some bad decisions had been made since it began. But Mr Cameron said "those of us who supported" the military action should "see it through". He praised Tony Blair's reform of the Labour party but said he wanted the Tories to be "the party of the future". On the issue of Iraq, he told Ross he supported Mr Blair's decision to go to war

. link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5108584.stm. well what i would like to see a difference but it just is not going to happen just the same old crap. Dreamer

[dreamer]

The Conservatives would consider getting rid of the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a British Bill of Rights, leader David Cameron has said.

link.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5114102.stm . If we let this happen in britten we then have no rights, jack staw done well to get us this. if we lose our "Human Rights Act" we have no human rights cameron nothing different there.

[Nono]

The ideologically unidentifiable Tony Blair is fast approaching his sell-by date. Cameron plans to replace him in post-Tory, post-Labour Britain.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: dreamer link.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5114102.stm . If we let this happen in britten we then have no rights, jack staw done well to get us this. if we lose our "Human Rights Act" we have no human rights cameron nothing different there.

This current desire to scrap the Human Rights Act is worrying, but predictable. If you read the Human Rights Act, and I would suggest every European does so, you will see that all but the most fundamental rights, free speech etc, have "get out" clauses for apparantly neccesary situations. That being the case, it suggests to me that those wanting to scrap the HRA want to undermine those fundamental rights, an intolerable situation indeed.

But as I have said, this is predictable. When governments began to expand beyond their central role as defender of rights and became a manager of day to day affairs in pursuit of misguided, if noble, goals, they created new means and institutions. The politicians have long since dropped the pretensions of such higher goals, but vociferously defend the new power the new means have given them. The Human Rights Act is a barrier to government power, which is why they are now trying to get it out of the way.

[Paramonkey]

The Human Rights Act is a barrier to government power, which is why they are now trying to get it out of the way.

To be fair its not government what is trying to get rid of it (which I find surprising to be honest), its the opposition party, but to be fair they are tories.....

Personally there is a question between believing whether its out of good faith (sometimes the HRA does get in the way unnecessarily and the "get out clauses" don’t help in this regard) or whether its a method to get a set of rights which is easily amendable so for it to not interfere with policy, the HRA, since in legal statue is hard to change, a "bill of rights" may be easier to amend and do the government pleases.

At the moment my cynical side is prevailing...

[dreamer]

Its hard to get hold off that little blue book waited 6 months for mine, has anybody else read the home office version, interesting read.
______________________________

[scotthooker]

To have a Bill of Rights would conflict many Tory ideas - a Bill of Rights would have to be entrenched above Government thus would involve some sort of written constitution somewhere..which is un-conservative in nature. Also it would be against the current British constitution as it would bind any successive parliaments.

I understand David is quite paternilist and realise this does date back to the days of Disrali and the whole One Nation tory idea, but still in terms of modern conservative - David is going back quite a way and doing a very Blarist thing by picking different policies from everywhere - the third way or whatever. Totally removing the relevance of a polictal spectrum and thus not making him conservative or if he is a new type of conservative we havent seen before. But also maybe we have seen this before wanting to remove the HRA is nothing new..

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Paramonkey To be fair its not government what is trying to get rid of it (which I find surprising to be honest), its the opposition party, but to be fair they are tories..... Personally there is a question between believing whether its out of good faith (sometimes the HRA does get in the way unnecessarily and the "get out clauses" don’t help in this regard) or whether its a method to get a set of rights which is easily amendable so for it to not interfere with policy, the HRA, since in legal statue is hard to change, a "bill of rights" may be easier to amend and do the government pleases. At the moment my cynical side is prevailing...

While it's the Tory's doing the pushing for it's repeal, the Labour Party is doing a piss poor job of defending it, and I believe intentionally so.

I have not seen an instance where the HRA has gotten in the way of anything other government trying to undermine individual liberty.

I find this Tory spin that they'll create a British Bill of Rights amusing. We have a British Bill of Rights , and it was passed in 1689! Of course, as our government is not bound by a constitution, and therefore not truely bound by the rule of law, it has seen fit to undermine numerous aspects of this bill.

Scott, you are correct that there has been a shift within the Tory leadership, but it is not taking it back all the way to Disraeli, but to early Heath style policy. Thatcher took liberal policy and made it part of Conservative Party doctrine, but it has never killed One Nation Conservatism. You can see it in Ken Clarke, Heseltine (ish...) and exists amongst many of the Tory party members.

The theme of Conservatives maintaining a Labour legacy is also nothing new. Note how no Tory government challenged nationalisation between 1945 and 1979, even though they were government during a majority of those years. Thatcher broke that mould, and now Labour is keeping Thatchers legacy alive, so it is no surprise that Cameron is following Blair, because Blair is essentially a Thatcherite.

[dreamer]

Australian bill of right of 1689 is part of british law, thats a good one to read

[G. Adams]

Vice-versa, British Bill of Rights is part of Aussie law. Much of our law is carried by former colonies, even the US took up our common law (not sure what's happened to it since).

[Paramonkey]

We have a British Bill of Rights , and it was passed in 1689!

Australian bill of right of 1689 is part of british law, thats a good one to read

While technically constitutional documents, they aren’t considered part of the English legal system, this has been tested in court and held (I believe it was against parking fines - though its been a while since I studied it so I may be wrong on the case content)The core point is since in UK law newer legislation takes precedence, therefore the use of the bill of rights is nil, since we have many new laws which deal with the situations cited in the bill of 1989, this includes the HRA 1998.

I have not seen an instance where the HRA has gotten in the way of anything other government trying to undermine individual liberty.

While it hasn’t got in the way of individual liberty, it is a common mechanism used by the defence where other means such as the mens rea or actus reus cannot be questioned. Though most of the time it is rejected, in some occasions technicalities under the HRA 1998 are successfully used as loopholes against otherwise watertight and legitimate convictions.

Personally I think ripping up the whole thing and drawing an almost identical "bill of rights" is a waste of time and using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

You have to remember the fact that this is David Cameron we are talking about, what he says and what he will do once in office are likely to be two entirely different things, I doubt the bill of rights will be continued into statute, its too much of a legal headache.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Paramonkey While technically constitutional documents, they aren’t considered part of the English legal system, this has been tested in court and held (I believe it was against parking fines - though its been a while since I studied it so I may be wrong on the case content)The core point is since in UK law newer legislation takes precedence, therefore the use of the bill of rights is nil, since we have many new laws which deal with the situations cited in the bill of 1989, this includes the HRA 1998.

This is the core reason we need a codified constitution. How can our government talk of "rights" when it is within their ability to take them away? They are not rights, but merely gifts from the almighty state. While we're at it, we can make the Lords fully elected (although the Law Lords and religious leaders can be apointed, as long as they are stripped of voting rights and act only in an advisory capacity), seperate the branches of government from each other, obliterate 75% of the laws passed since 1945 and put royal prerogative on a proper leash.

[Paramonkey]

How can our government talk of "rights" when it is within their ability to take them away?

Excuse me if im wrong, I have limited knowledge of the Political process. But from my observations government can change the constitution, and therefore the rights afforded to the public.

At least with the HRA 1998 has law grounded in an external source, making it harder to manipulate.

although the Law Lords and religious leaders can be apointed, as long as they are stripped of voting rights and act only in an advisory capacity

I personally think this would make the government more able to pass laws which may harm individual's rights. Perhaps you could explain what you mean?

obliterate 75% of the laws passed since 1945

Which ones? Most of the laws I know which are in common practice are viable. Can I have a list of the "75%" of laws to which you are referring to judge your statement? Im having trouble getting up to anything near that number.

[dreamer]

Quote by: Paramonkey .

Neil and Cristine Hamilton used the 1689 act in there libel case i might be wrong but don't think, ill check it out to see if its right.

[Paramonkey]

Neil and Cristine Hamilton used the 1689 act in there libel case i might be wrong but don't think, ill check it out to see if its right.

Which Libel case?

They lost against Mohamed al-Fayed.
They settled out of court with Max Clifford.

Thats all I could find.

As a result there has been no ruling on the merit of the 1689 act contray to the previous rulings and as a result the earlier divisional court ruling stands under British Law.

[dreamer]

was it the sex scandal, its on the mind for some reason let me think its something Ive read it will come to me soon, what it was.