Reply to: David Davies made an average speech today

[The Lone Gunman]

So, who is going to whack JW?

Usual rates will aply. Send me details.

[voron]

But, I'm funny how? Funny like a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh? I'm here to fu*kin' amuse you?

So, who is going to whack JW?

[Jabberwocky]

I think you have to snort it.

But, I'm funny how? Funny like a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh? I'm here to fu*kin' amuse you?

[OwlHoot]

I'll have a pint of what Jabber's drinking please...

I think you have to snort it.

[wendigo100]

Denny, you make a good point about substance. A lot of these speeches are so high-level that they are all but meaningless, especially Cameroon. That's why I would compare him to Blair. As someone said earlier, what does Modernise or Change mean?

If I was a voter (oh, I am) I'd want to know:

1. What is wrong with Labour - they've done all right haven't they?

2. Why I should vote for a Tory - politicians are all the same aren't they?

I don't think the Tories will make much headway on (2) until something bad happens to hammer home (1) to the masses.

* Ken Clarke made a good stab at getting across that the economy is not as great health as we think, but it will have to hurt a lot of people before they are convinced.

* David Davies painted a picture of Labour making extraordinary policy, but so far it is relatively minor things that show them up, like the old geezer getting kicked out of their conference, the execution of that Brazilian, and the complaints about the rise of late-night drinking.

[Denny]

Tory Leader

The winner for the Conservative leadership will have to have the following to make themselves a viable electoral proposition for either the next or future elections.

Passion and energy to turn the party's fortunes around, preferably before the next election. If they don't win office again, then it must be clear that significant gains have been made.

Enough experience to take on Gorrrrdun Broown.

Good parliamentary and government track record.

Have clear policy agenda that occupies the centre ground but also offers a distinctive redirection away from Blair's agenda.

Have the support and backing of the rest of the Tory party that need to rally around him.

Be charasmatic enough to woo non-natural Conservative voters as well as the Tory faithful.

That rules out Rifkind (too old and not a front runner anway although better than Fox or Davis), Fox (too right wing) Davis (solid and reliable, but then so was IDS and MH - he's just not a winnable or charasmatic figure to head the party and his speech today let him down).

That just leaves Clarke and Cameron as serious contenders.

I think Clarke could and possibly should win but his stance over Europe could fail to essentially reunite the party which would be disasterous.

Cameron could also go through, but he is young, to some too posh (although that doesn't matter provided he can really understand ordinary peoples' concerns and act in their interests) and inexperienced.

Don't know whether anyone else agrees, but his delivery style is more Mandelson than Blair. He is a very competent speaker but needs to add more substance to really know what he's really about. Modernisation, autonomy and better ways of showing how services could be improved doesn't really say a great deal.

None of the contenders are a utopian ideal, but I think Clarke is the best for the job and will certainly be the most threatening to Brown. Europe is a major sticking point though. Cameron could then be his deputy and be groomed for a later date.

[Jabberwocky]

>existance

Capitalist scum sure talk the walk and walk the talk but when splayed out on the beach with their guts for garters, can they wake up and spell for toffee ?

[voron]

Granted the idiots, fools, halfwits and lazy chavs of the world wil live a miserable existance and die young, but thats natural selection.

Doesn't give me much of a chance then

[Mindomoo]

or.........

Cut the fanny magnet platter, and let's talk issues not van diesel.

If you want to die with dignity, get good health care, a good dentist, good public transport, a good education system and decent taxation. Vote for the socialist labor party.

.

Or if you want to be treated like an adult, allowed to choose how to live your life and spend your hard earned cash as you see fit, rather than how someone tells you you should spend it, do not vote for the socialist labour party.

Granted the idiots, fools, halfwits and lazy chavs of the world wil live a miserable existance and die young, but thats natural selection.

[Jabberwocky]

Cut the fanny magnet platter, and let's talk issues not van diesel.

If you want to die with dignity, get good health care, a good dentist, good public transport, a good education system and decent taxation. Vote for the socialist labor party.

Some men, faint-hearted, ever seek
Our programme to retouch,
And will insist, whene’er they speak
That we demand too much.
’Tis passing strange, yet I declare
Such statements give me mirth,
For our demands most moderate are,
We only want the earth.

[AtW]

There was an article in Sunday Times motoring section recently where they drove two versions of a small Citroen around the M25, a petrol one with official consumption of sixty-something mpg and a diesel with eighty-something. The petrol one actually got better mileage in this real-life test.

Load of bull IMO - in my ex work I worked with a guy who had petrol car while I had diesel, we both driven almost the same distance every day, but he refuelled twice a week where as I am only once.

Its proven beyond doubt that all things equal diesel engine will pull better and use less fuel. Some people don't like the way diesel smells, but I think they were just sniffing too much petrol.

[DodgyAgent]

Invers

Inverse, surely.

You are quite right, thanks

[IR35 Avoider]

huge inefficient engines that don't even use diesel

There was an article in Sunday Times motoring section recently where they drove two versions of a small Citroen around the M25, a petrol one with official consumption of sixty-something mpg and a diesel with eighty-something. The petrol one actually got better mileage in this real-life test.

Until recently I liked the ideal of hybrids, but recent articles in the Economist have highlighted that although lots of manufacturers have them in the pipeline now, they really hate being forced by the market to produce them, because they make no sense. The manufacturers say if people want economy they should just go for state-of-the-art diesel engines (which are easily more efficient than a Toyota Prius) and not force them to incur all the expense and complication of putting two engines in one car.

The way hybrids work is that the electric engine smoothes out demand on the petrol engine so that the petrol engine runs at reasonably constant revs, at a speed where it's burning fuel efficiently. On my five-speed diesel automatic when the car's moving I find the revs very seldom stray outside the 1500-2100 range anyway. This probably answers the question I had as to why there wasn't a diesel hybrid, which previously sounded like an ideal combination to me.

[The Late, Great JC]

A hint of reverse snobbery BB?

Inverse, surely.

[DodgyAgent]

Cameron....

No chance, looks like a stuck up snob.

A hint of reverse snobbery BB?