Would you like to see Michael Howard as Prime Minister ?

Would the fact that he is Jewish cause problems with our Muslim brothers ?

Do you think he is like a slimey eel ?

Why did he change his surname ?

Would I like to see the man who put Clause 28 and the 1994 CJB on the books? Not particularly, and I'm not convinced by his "I have a dream" speech either.

I have a dream of being able to make him somehow shut up and go away and take the baying-for-blood brigrade with him.

Ian McKellern was once asked for his autograph on a photo, by Michael Howard who said it was for his son.

McKellern dutifully signed the Photograph:"xxxx off, I'm gay".

I really do think that Tony Blair is very intelligent.


I don't think Labour would have won without him.


I hate to see the likes of Clair Short and Robin Cook have turned on him in public.


George Bush is a bumbling idiot.

Michael Howard is something of the night.

I remember when Howard was Home Secretary, Jeremy Paxman asked him the same simple question a total of 14 times...

Paxman: Did you threaten to sack Derek Lewis?

Howard: I did not sack Derek Lewis

Paxman: No, Did you THRETEN to sack Derek Lewis?

Howard: I did not sack Derek Lewis

Paxman: That's not what I asked. Did you THRETEN to sack Derek Lewis?

Howard: I did not sack Derek Lewis. (And a few paragraphs of political time filling)

Paxman: I'll try again. Did you THRETEN to sack Derek Lewis?

.... repeat until it's been asked 14 times .....

Paxman: Since you're obviously not going to answer that question, here's another.


It was pure class. But the thought of that slimey person who won't even answer a basic question becoming PM... makes me shiver.

Bush is a complete muppet, and seems to have infected Blair with his muppet-ness unfortunately due to Blair being Bush's "Yes man" on issues surrounding Iraq.

A bit controversial the above statement I know, but it's my opinion of what's gone off recently in Politics.

I'm sure Michael Howard is goodness personified and that the loony lefties are fabricating stories that simply aren't true.
I think it's only fair that all good conservatives should support this impeccable genius of a politician. It's well know he never answered Jermy Paxman because his earpiece wasn't working and he couldn't hear the question, as for the cjb thing what would he be doing with a digger anyway.

The reason Paxman asked the question 14 times was because the VTR machine had broken down and the Producer told Paxman to fill until they had fixed it.

Wonderful piece of TV though!!

I'd like to see him as PM because I'd like to see the Conservatives back in power and to get rid of Labour. Having said that, I would prefer it if William Hague had never stepped down.

The bit of Michael Howard's speech at Thatcher's anniversary dinner he didn't tell the press about:

Michael Howard declared in a private homage to Margaret Thatcher that '...you remain our inspiration and your political will beams out like a beacon to guide our future.'

Looks like another 5 years of Thatcherism if the tories get in.

Originally posted by max
Looks like another 5 years of Thatcherism if the tories get in.

So what? What did she do that was so bad? She squashed the over powerful unions down to size and stopped them holding the country to ransom. Why should tax payers have to fund unprofitable coal mines? Should the government be a charity for unskilled workers? Thanks to Thatcher, we have lower taxes, and todays strong economy is largely due to Thatcher/Major before Labour came into power, hence why Gordon Brown kept Tory spending policy for the first 3 - 4 years in power. Short term unemployment for long term gain. Thatcher came to power when the UK was in a bad state left by Labour, and she left power leaving the UK in a strong state that has allowed a platform for New Labour (read Conservatism with a few socialist polices thrown in to keep ignorant Labourites happy) to run the economy with relative success.

Originally posted by max
The bit of Michael Howard's speech at Thatcher's anniversary dinner he didn't tell the press about:



Looks like another 5 years of Thatcherism if the tories get in.

We've just had 7 years of it anyway (PFI anyone?)

Its not the thatcherism that bothers me as much as the sleaze.

Economically, Labout have been good for this country. They are far from being perfect, but I can see Blair taking the next election, as people simply wont believe that the tories proposed spending plans (lower taxes, more spending) will work.

I don't like Michael Howard, I think William hague was a better leader.

Please ignore my previous statement as I'm not a rabid tory but a normal person!
Brought up within a good hard working socialist household I was shown the light at an early age,and even though still at school when Thatcher ascended to her throne I do remember Inflation rising to 27% from 9% after a bit of tory dabbling.
So there economic record's not all good is it? all though they did bring us boom and bust economics, poll tax and through blatent cost cutting in the services helped create the falklands war.

Hmmm do we want a lying, selfish, devious, knee jerk slavering ideologicaly blinded yes man as PM - would we notice any difference?

Originally posted by Indigogo
I really do think that Tony Blair is very intelligent.


I don't think Labour would have won without him.


I hate to see the likes of Clair Short and Robin Cook have turned on him in public.


George Bush is a bumbling idiot.

Michael Howard is something of the night.

You are right, I salute you sir, Blair has had a lot to put up with and he has confounded his critics every time. His government and him have pulled this country out of the mess that the Tories left it in and they will do it again if they get the chance.:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Originally posted by t020
What did she do that was so bad? Thanks to Thatcher, we have lower taxes, and todays strong economy is largely due to Thatcher/Major before Labour came into power, hence why Gordon Brown kept Tory spending policy for the first 3 - 4 years in power. But look at high she had interest rates. Under Thatcher I was paying £300 per month on a £30000 mortgage over 25 years. Because of divorce I now pay £500 per month on a £87000 mortgage over 22 years.

Originally posted by halevan
You are right, I salute you sir, Blair has had a lot to put up with and he has confounded his critics every time. His government and him have pulled this country out of the mess that the Tories left it in and they will do it again if they get the chance.:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I'll second that :)

Originally posted by Indigogo

Michael Howard is something of the night.

Sorry to correct you, but Anne Widdecombe's actual words were that Michael Howard "HAS something of the night about him", not "he IS something of the night".

A small point, but it changes the meaning somewhat - ie one quote makes sense and the other doesn't :)

which coming from Ann 'Doris Karloff' Widdecombe was always a bit rich!

They should have made Anne Widdecombe the new leader... at least then we would be safe from the risk of them returning to power... or at least if they did return under her leadership then we could at last get rid of certain cruel and outdated (IMO) pastimes!

Originally posted by Indigogo
Would you like to see Michael Howard as Prime Minister ?

Would the fact that he is Jewish cause problems with our Muslim brothers ?

Do you think he is like a slimey eel ?

Why did he change his surname ?

In order:

Yes
Sod them this is not a muslim country
No (well not a lot)
I didn't know he had

Originally posted by kevah
But look at high she had interest rates. Under Thatcher I was paying £300 per month on a £30000 mortgage over 25 years. Because of divorce I now pay £500 per month on a £87000 mortgage over 22 years.

With interest rates you need to look at both sides. High rateds may be bad for borrowers but they are good for savers.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
With interest rates you need to look at both sides. High rateds may be bad for borrowers but they are good for savers. But considering most people borrow more money than they save, lower interest rates are better for the majority of people.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
With interest rates you need to look at both sides. High rateds may be bad for borrowers but they are good for savers.

How long does it take for lenders to increase their lending rates after an interest rate increase? about two nanoseconds.

And how long does it take them to adjust their savings rates? Well, you're very lucky if they bother at all

Originally posted by bulldog D
Please ignore my previous statement as I'm not a rabid tory but a normal person!

That's something that p*sses me off, and I speak as someone who's voted Labour, Conservative and LibDem at various times in the last 9 years. No one ever dares criticise you for voting Labour or LibDem, but if you vote for the Conservatives you're treated as evil. No wonder people are afraid to take part in politics in this country if they know that their considered views could see them treated with so little respect.

Unfortunately, most people don't see beyond a label. The blue rosette is now classified as evil, even though the policies behind the blue rosette have been adopted lock, stock and barrel by those wearing the red rosette. The main problem is with the media, which is run by Tony Bliar's luvvies, but that's what happens when comedians play politician.

I think it's time that people started having a little more respect for the opinions of others. The great triumph of Tony Bliar has been to neuter democracy in this country, and that's why I won't vote for him next time round!

Hear, hear, hounsfieldjr. The problem with most Northerners/Sheffielders is that they remember the miners strikes and blame Thatcher for not running a charity by keeping unprofitable mines open just to keep them employed. They often overlook the fact that Tony Blair has actually said he'd have done the same and that a lot of his ideas stem from Thatcherism.

What Conservatism stands for for me is the opportunity that capitalism provides for people to make something of their life and be successful, and for that success to be rewarded and not taxed until rendered almost as worthless as having not bothered at all. Capitalism allows opportunity, free enterprise, competition, choice, wealth, etc. Pure socialism on the other hand (though New Labour are far from that) rewards laziness and ineptitude, at the expense of hard working people. I don't see why this should be treated as so evil just because some coal mines had to be closed down a couple of decades ago.

Originally posted by t020
What Conservatism stands for for me is the opportunity that capitalism provides for people to make something of their life and be successful, and for that success to be rewarded and not taxed until rendered almost as worthless as having not bothered at all. Capitalism allows opportunity, free enterprise, competition, choice, wealth, etc. Pure socialism on the other hand (though New Labour are far from that) rewards laziness and ineptitude, at the expense of hard working people.

I agree, people should have the opportunity to make something of their life, there's nothing wrong with that at all. The only trouble is, not everybody is capable of becoming an entrepreneur, and not every poor person is lazy and/or inept. Some "poorer" people work very hard, but would get punished financially in your "ideal" conservative world.

In your ideal world then, we have everybody who's in employment, whether that be self-employed or working for somebody else, not paying much tax. So what does that mean? It means not much money for schools, public services, NHS etc.etc. because that's where a lot of the tax goes. OK? Also, it appears that you think that anybody who doesn't work, because they're lazy and/or inept shouldn't get anything? Yeah?

Right, we can deduce from this then, that we would all be more reliant on private health care, private education, etc.etc. Yeah? Mainly because the services the government supplied would either be non-existent or very poor. Yeah? That's fine for those of us who can afford it, but what about those who can't? Should we just dismiss these people with a wave of our collective, smug, hand? Well, I mean, we're OK, aren't we? We can afford it. S*d them idle so and so's who sit on their a**e all day, watching the tele... Oh, hang on, I'm sorry, they can't afford a tele, because we don't give 'em any benefits. They must have stolen it.....

The morale of this little tyrade is that, we HAVE to subsidise the less well off, to a degree,and be socially responsible because if we don't, we could make the less well off, worse. They'll become less intelligent, run down areas will expand, crime will rise.... Yes the mid to top end of society would be better off, but at a price...

Balance is what is called for, Entrepreneurs and high end earners should pay their way, just like everybody else, not to excess, but a fair amount. We should ALL be socially responsible, because WE create society and we all have to live in it.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
In order:
Sod them this is not a muslim country


Not yet perhaps, but give it time :)

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Sod them this is not a muslim country


Well put, slimsid, that gets my vote for post of the week :loopy:

On the one hand, Foxxx is telling us we should integrate more.
On the other hand, slimsid tells us to sod off.

So despite being born in Sheffield, living all my life in England, paying taxes and raising a family here, I'm not British enough for you?

What more can I do? Anglicise my name and paint myself white?

Originally posted by Abdul
Well put, slimsid, that gets my vote for post of the week :loopy:

On the one hand, Foxxx is telling us we should integrate more.
On the other hand, slimsid tells us to sod off.

So despite being born in Sheffield, living all my life in England, paying taxes and raising a family here, I'm not British enough for you?

What more can I do? Anglicise my name and paint myself white?


The point is that Muslims should have no problems with us having a Jewish PM. Plenty of Jews live here too that have paid taxes all their life and lived here/ were born here. Slimsids comment was in response to whether or not we should be worried that having a Jewish PM would offend our Muslim "brothers" (though personally I don't have a brother who is Muslim). Of course we shouldn't mind, because Muslims wouldn't be so "racist" as to object to a PM on grounds of their religion now, would they?

Originally posted by t020
The point is that Muslims should have no problems with us having a Jewish PM. Plenty of Jews live here too that have paid taxes all their life and lived here/ were born here. Slimsids comment was in response to whether or not we should be worried that having a Jewish PM would offend our Muslim "brothers" (though personally I don't have a brother who is Muslim). Of course we shouldn't mind, because Muslims wouldn't be so "racist" as to object to a PM on grounds of their religion now, would they?

Objecting to someone on the grounds of their religion is not racism it's religious intolerance.

I would have a problem with an orthodox jewish prime minister just as much as I have a problem with a catholic christian one; i.e none at all until their religious dogma or moral certitude started to impinge on their behaviour as PM, rather than as an individual.

Without getting into a deep discussion of what constitutes a race, and whether the term has any meaning at all, let's not fall into the trap of thinking that Jews or Muslims (or any other religion for that matter) constitute races.

Michael Howard may have semitic ancestry but AFAIK he is not a practicing Jew. I don't for one minute believe he keeps the sabbath for example, so to call him Jewish would be a misnomer.

Originally posted by garrence
I remember when Howard was Home Secretary, Jeremy Paxman asked him the same simple question a total of 14 times...

Paxman: Did you threaten to sack Derek Lewis?

Howard: I did not sack Derek Lewis

Paxman: No, Did you THRETEN to sack Derek Lewis?

Howard: I did not sack Derek Lewis

Paxman: That's not what I asked. Did you THRETEN to sack Derek Lewis?

Howard: I did not sack Derek Lewis. (And a few paragraphs of political time filling)

Paxman: I'll try again. Did you THRETEN to sack Derek Lewis?

.... repeat until it's been asked 14 times .....

Paxman: Since you're obviously not going to answer that question, here's another.


It was pure class. But the thought of that slimey person who won't even answer a basic question becoming PM... makes me shiver. Better not mention WMD's to Blair! ;)

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
We've just had 7 years of it anyway (PFI anyone?)

Its not the thatcherism that bothers me as much as the sleaze. Well I suppose that Thatcher sacked her ministers when they cocked up. TB seems to prefer cover up and diversion.

Originally posted by Abdul
Well put, slimsid, that gets my vote for post of the week :loopy:

On the one hand, Foxxx is telling us we should integrate more.
On the other hand, slimsid tells us to sod off.

So despite being born in Sheffield, living all my life in England, paying taxes and raising a family here, I'm not British enough for you?

What more can I do? Anglicise my name and paint myself white?

You should have read my post more carfully, I didn't tell anybody to sod off. I mearly pointed out that the UK is not a Muslim country, and that it would be wrong to disqualify a Jew from being PM just because some extreme Muslims would not like it.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
You should have read my post more carfully, I didn't tell anybody to sod off. I mearly pointed out that the UK is not a Muslim country, and that it would be wrong to disqualify a Jew from being PM just because some extreme Muslims would not like it.

Hear, hear.

Originally posted by t020
Hear, hear.
er...

Q.Would the fact that he is Jewish cause problems with our Muslim brothers ?
A.Sod them this is not a muslim country

and

You should have read my post more carfully, I didn't tell anybody to sod off. I mearly pointed out that the UK is not a Muslim country, and that it would be wrong to disqualify a Jew from being PM just because some extreme Muslims would not like it.

doesn't that qualify as telling some people to sod off?

I can't help but wonder how many people would be up in outcry if this were discussing the possibility of a Muslim PM.

Far more than the possibility a jewish PM, i suspect.

I think that some of the people who say that a politician should not disregarded based upon religion would also be saying things along the lines of "A person of this religion would not understand how our country works, our foreign policy would be a shambles".

Pure speculation of course :thumbsup:

Wilf

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
er...

and

doesn't that qualify as telling some people to sod off?

"Sod them" does not necessarily mean "sod off". Besides, I was agreeing with the "and that it would be wrong to disqualify a Jew from being PM just because some extreme Muslims would not like it." part of his post. Maybe I should've only quoted that part to make it nice and clear for you. ;)

Originally posted by Indigogo
Would you like to see Michael Howard as Prime Minister ?

Would the fact that he is Jewish cause problems with our Muslim brothers ?

Do you think he is like a slimey eel ?

Why did he change his surname ?

NO!!! nor the rest of his Tory cronies, keep them out I say!!!

Thanks for that reminder, Halevan


Originally posted by Indigogo
Would you like to see Michael Howard as Prime Minister ?

No, because I don't agree with Tory policies.

Originally posted by Indigogo
Would the fact that he is Jewish cause problems with our Muslim brothers ?

Nothing at all to do with him being Jewish, but because he's a Tory. Have a look at my previous post (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=101594#post101594)

Originally posted by Indigogo
Do you think he is like a slimey eel ?
As an animal lover, I demand you apologise to eels this instant ;)


Originally posted by Indigogo
Why did he change his surname ?
This is actually quite common. A number of people anglicise their names in order to detract attention in times of racial unrest. For instance, Stein becomes Stern, Schmidt becomes Smith, Hapsburg becomes Windsor ;)

I think the problem I have with Muslims is that they seem to take their religion so seriously. Perhaps this is generalising, but with so many of them their religion is not just a part of their life but seems to rule it. This seems to be much more the case than with most Christians.

England today is quite a secular society where religion is a private matter and does not greatly influence the governing of the country. I fear that if Islam in this country grows too strong this could start to change. I would also say the same of any religion by the way.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I think the problem I have with Muslims is that they seem to take their religion so seriously. Perhaps this is generalising, but with so many of them their religion is not just a part of their life but seems to rule it. This seems to be much more the case than with most Christians.

England today is quite a secular society where religion is a private matter and does not greatly influence the governing of the country. I fear that if Islam in this country grows too strong this could start to change. I would also say the same of any religion by the way.

Yes it is generalising. Some Muslims take their faith more seriously than others, just like some Christians take their faith more seriously than others. But if you believe in something, ie Islam or Christianity or any other religion then surely you should take it seriously?

Originally posted by Abdul

This is actually quite common. A number of people anglicise their names in order to detract attention in times of racial unrest. For instance, Stein becomes Stern, Schmidt becomes Smith, Hapsburg becomes Windsor ;)

Most famously perhaps ? Battenburg becomes Mountbatten.

No phan - that title goes to Shabtai Zisel ben Avraham v'Rachel Riva (or Bob Dylan, to you and me)

I thought Bob Dylans former name was Robert Zimmerman?
Howard didn't change his name, his parents did soon after immigrating here from Romania. Used to be Hecht.

No way I'd vote for him though.

And anyway, we've already had a Jewish PM, Benjamin Disraeli. That was in far more intolerant times, and very few people seemed to have minded a great deal. He was even re-elected.

Its really bizarre that the conservative party has been competing with itself to produce more extreme policy about asylum and immigration when Howards' parents were economic migrants and Portillos' were refugees. Its like they're happy with their lot, and want to pull the ladder up behingd them.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I think the problem I have with Muslims is that they seem to take their religion so seriously. Perhaps this is generalising, but with so many of them their religion is not just a part of their life but seems to rule it. This seems to be much more the case than with most Christians.

England today is quite a secular society where religion is a private matter and does not greatly influence the governing of the country. I fear that if Islam in this country grows too strong this could start to change. I would also say the same of any religion by the way.


I think you've hit the nail on the head nicely there. I know it isn't PC to "generalise", but what is a "generalisation"? It's just a description based on what the MAJORITY are like, and nobody on here can *honestly* say that a lot of Muslims don't let religion run their life, because Muslims do let their religion take over. They are much stricter about their religion than the MAJORITY of Christians. I just hope that this is watered down through generations of Muslims living in England.

Are you trying to say that eventually they'll be so many Muslims that it will affect the democracy of this country?

Originally posted by Agent Smith
In your ideal world then, we have everybody who's in employment, whether that be self-employed or working for somebody else, not paying much tax. So what does that mean? It means not much money for schools, public services, NHS etc.etc. because that's where a lot of the tax goes. OK? Also, it appears that you think that anybody who doesn't work, because they're lazy and/or inept shouldn't get anything? Yeah?

Right, we can deduce from this then, that we would all be more reliant on private health care, private education, etc.etc. Yeah? Mainly because the services the government supplied would either be non-existent or very poor. Yeah? That's fine for those of us who can afford it, but what about those who can't? Should we just dismiss these people with a wave of our collective, smug, hand? Well, I mean, we're OK, aren't we? We can afford it. S*d them idle so and so's who sit on their a**e all day, watching the tele... Oh, hang on, I'm sorry, they can't afford a tele, because we don't give 'em any benefits. They must have stolen it.....

Ahh yes I remember it well! wasn't it called Thatcherism?

Originally posted by Abdul
No phan - that title goes to Shabtai Zisel ben Avraham v'Rachel Riva (or Bob Dylan, to you and me)

Very good Abdul, you've been doing your homework. Shabtai Zisel ben Avraham v'Rachel Riva is of course Bob Dylan's full Hebrew Name.

see here for more reading: http://www.radiohazak.com/Tangled.html

However, this is the name given to him in later life during one of his many dalliances with the Jewish faith and is not his given name.

So there is a difference between those who change their names for political or social reasons and rock stars who adopt (or are given) names following egotistical flirtations with religion (eg Carlos Santana)

Originally posted by Sidla
Are you trying to say that eventually they'll be so many Muslims that it will affect the democracy of this country? There wouldnt be a democracy if such a thing were allowed to happen.

Originally posted by dragonsoup
There wouldnt be a democracy if such a thing were allowed to happen.
Of course there would. Democracy by its very definition is what the majority of people vote for.

What Im trying to get across is that there wouldnt be any voting, you would have to do what you were told.

I agree with Dragonsoup.

Can anybody name a truely democratic Islamic Fundamentalist country?

I think most Muslims would prefer to live in a democracy if they could. Most of the regimes in the Middle East have been seriously messed about by foreign governments. In many, though not all countries, the people that want the imposition of sharia law are in the minority. And they don't exactly allow freedom of speech.

Western based Arabic media like al-Quds in London are always drawing attention to the lack of peace, freedom of speech and democracy in the Muslim world. Thats why most Arabs get their information from the BBC, CNN and the independent channels of al-Arabiya and al-Jazeera, based in the relatively liberal Qatar.

MOD - Can we bring this back on topic, please? If people would like to continue the discussion on Arab democracy then perhaps another thread would be in order. If that happens, then we can split this one and attach the relevant posts to the new thread.

A conversation starts in a pub or elswhere, why does it have to stay exactly on the same topic the whole way through? No it doesnt so why should you suggest moving a thread because it has evolved? Perhaps because it doesnt fit in with your politics or beliefs maybe.

Originally posted by dragonsoup
A conversation starts in a pub or elswhere, why does it have to stay exactly on the same topic the whole way through? No it doesnt so why should you suggest moving a thread because it has evolved? Perhaps because it doesnt fit in with your politics or beliefs maybe.

If a thread moves away from the title then it becomes confusing for people searching for threads about a particular topic, so I think it is a good idea for it to be split if it evolves onto something else.

Oooops i've just evolved it onto another topic now! :blush:

Originally posted by dragonsoup
A conversation starts in a pub or elswhere, why does it have to stay exactly on the same topic the whole way through? No it doesnt so why should you suggest moving a thread because it has evolved? Perhaps because it doesnt fit in with your politics or beliefs maybe.

Or perhaps because this is a thread about Howard for PM (as if) and not a pub - which if you look really closely you'll see the difference.

Originally posted by dragonsoup
A conversation starts in a pub or elswhere, why does it have to stay exactly on the same topic the whole way through? No it doesnt so why should you suggest moving a thread because it has evolved? Perhaps because it doesnt fit in with your politics or beliefs maybe.
You are quite welcome to start a thread with another subject, and it would be far better for the whole Forum to know what it's about instead of guessing that a thread about Howard for PM was now a discussion on muslim democracy.

Go on dragonsoup, start a new thread for once... make a difference ;)

OK, back to the subject.

Wasn't Micheal Howard quite a good Home Secretary in the 1990s? Wasn't he the first Home Secretary for a while to have falling crime figures. He also had a good record on getting more criminals in Jail (no doubt the two are related).

There is more to being PM than just law and order of course but his record in thatb department is better than most.