Is this the death of Tory modernisation?

[claig]

"Shadow Cabinet Office minister Jon Ashworth said: 'Tim Yeo's de-selection is another sign that under David Cameron the Conservative Party is reverting to type, with no place for those who thought he meant it when he said "Vote blue, go green".

'Just this week one Tory with modernising credentials has been de-selected and another has quit, and David Cameron is trying to water down a green levy he introduced and even boasted about.

'It's more evidence of the death of Tory modernisation. David Cameron's party is becoming narrower and less open and moving further from the centre ground.'"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2515976/MP-caught-lobbying-scandal-fighting-political-career-ditched-local-party.html

Labour must be bricking it. If Cameron holds his nerve, if he has the courage to really "cut the green crap" then this is plain sailing to victory at the election. But can he hold his nerve or does he believe in the "green crap"?

I think that One Nation Labour hopes he will stay with them and stick to the "green crap" and the windmills and all the rest of the eco biosphere planetary palaver

But I'm still smarter than you

I do hope he keeps his nerve and cuts the green crap.

Totally agree with your second post Claig and I think I am too

This 'Green crap' is not responsible for fuel poverty in the UK. Per unit cost, fuel is below EU average.

The problem in the UK is that houses take more fuel to heat because they are so shoddy and because some many people live in poverty that they can't afford to heat their homes.

Meanwhile the energy companies are making record profits - in the hundreds of millions.

So Green Taxes are not responsible for people dying from the cold. In fact, some of the Green Taxes go towards better insulating homes to prevent people from freezing and to save them money.

This anti-Green crap is just reactionary bile funded and promoted by oil barrons, and reactionary press.

'I think I am too'

SilverOldie you most definitely are!

It is evident when I compare your reasoned post to the ranting post that appears directly above this one!

I may ask MNHQ to remove ttosca's post on the grounds that it is complete and utter nonsense and violates not only MN Guidelines but all standards of decency and decorum and insults the intelligence of everyone apart from Trotsky.

I'm all in favour of free speech, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Everybody is in favour of "cutting the green crap" except for Tim Yeo (recently deselected), ttosca, Comrade Bala, the Tooting Popular Front and Trotsky.

Oh I forgot to add that also in favour of keepng the "green crap" are the entire

Workers Institute of Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought and the entire front bench of New Labour.

Ha ha good one.

yay, yah boo politics without any reference to science, economics, or sustainability.

green crap is crap because labour!!! hurr durr!

boy it sure is lucky that nothing important hinges on energy availabilty, or fuel scarcity, and that this is just another bit of fluff for partisans to wank over.

This 'Green crap' is not responsible for fuel poverty in the UK. Per unit cost, fuel is below EU average.

The problem in the UK is that houses take more fuel to heat because they are so shoddy and because some many people live in poverty that they can't afford to heat their homes.

Spot on. I know somebody who lives in Norway in a large rambling house. Their heating is provided by one small electric heater in their futility room. The house is that well insulated it doesn't need anything more elaborate.

Cutting the 'green crap' won't help. What will help is developing renewable resources, because oil and gas are only going to get more expensive. Another thing that will help is to take the profit out of it.

"yah boo politics without any reference to science, economics, or sustainability.

green crap is crap because labour"

According to a source, our own Prime Minister, a man who is briefed and informed by some top advisers and civil servants, some of them from Eton and Oxbridge, used the term "green crap".

Why would he use the term "crap" in conjunction with "green"? It seems it may be because he does not believe that it has anything to do with "science, economics or sustainability".

If that is the case and if as the Labour MP said, this is "the death of Tory modernisation" then it is not a moment too soon.

If he shows that level of courage, then there will be clear blue water between the Tories and Labour. Let the people decide whether they want to "cut the green crap" or not.

I think that then we may see Labour change its position and start to admit they were wrong on the "green crap" just as they have admitted they were wrong on bank regulation, wrong on not building enough houses and wrong on immigration.

It's about democracy. Let the people decide.

i wonder how many of his highly educated advisors have a science background? never mind, i am sure a degree in PPE would do in a pinch.

again, i sure am glad nothing important is riding on our energy policies, and it is a mere tidbit to be haggled over and toyed with by partisan no-nothings like the trivial bauble it is.

"Our energy policies" mean shooting ourself in the foot paying ridiculous green taxes while China laughs.

I suggest that the Tories go ahead and cut the green crap, especially all taxes imposed by Mr Ed Miliband whilst he was Energy secretary - but they do it only for just over 1 year. Then, in April 2015, in the last debate before the General Election, hold a confirmation vote to make the cuts permanent. Make Labour march through the lobbies for the Miliband tax.

But the whole thing about the "green crap" is that the windmills can't supply the energy we need. Cameron seems to have finally understood that some of the claims of the renewables and windmills and wave energy were "crap" and he seems to have said "cut it", and if the source is to be believed, he is going round to everyone and saying "cut the green crap".

It's almost as he has seen the light.

We have shale gas now and we will need more nuclear power and if he has real courage, and he probably won't have that, then he may even follow Germany and create more coal fired power stations.

I'm not sure Cameron really will "cut the green crap", because Cameron is one of the Tory "modernisers", it was he who hugged a hoodie and danced on ice with a husky. But as the Labour MP implied, there is now a battle in the Tory party between traditional Tories and the "modernisers" about who is really in touch with the people. I think it is the traditional Tories who are in touch because I think the public is in favour of "cutting the green crap".

I may be wrong and the public may want the "green crap", but if Cameron listens to the BBC and the renewable energy advisers and ignores the traditional Tories, then I think he will turn out to be on the wrong side of history, just as the Workers Institute of Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought was too.

It will be fascinating to watch what happens and to see if Cameron can turn away from some of the "modernisers" and the BBC and join the traditionalists and the public. I don't know what Boris thinks about the "green crap" but if he joins the traditionalists then it may be game over and "green crap" over.

Either way, I think this is the end of Tory "modernisation", otherwise it is the end of Tory election victory.

However, I read some of "Conservative Home" yesterday and it seemed to be full of crap supporting the "modernisers". If they follow the "modernisers" then it is game over because I think traditional Tories will then desert them and vote UKIP.

This may allow Labour to win, but traditional Tories have principles and they won't vote for "green crap" come what may.

Have any polling organisations done any polls on whether the public, and probably more importantly for Cameron, Tory voters, are in favour of "cutting the green crap"?

whether windmills, or nuclear energy, or shale gas are the solution to our energy needs is wholly independent of whoever is backing it.

if shale gas is our answer, then it doesn't matter who is championing it. likewise, if windmills are inadequate, it isn't because a labour mp proposed it.

it doesn't really matter though, each party will do whatever they think will ensure they hold power, and people will vote for whichever deal sounds sweetest (or which inflicts the most pain on people they hate).

science be damned.

you never know- maybe the conversion rate of biomass to fossil fuels is a hell of a lot faster than the 65 million year + timespan most scientists suggest.

i sure hope so.

chibi Sun 01-Dec-13 16:57:22

i wonder how many of his highly educated advisors have a science background? never mind, i am sure a degree in PPE would do in a pinch

The best thing about Mr Camerwrong is his uncanny resemblance to a massive boiled ham.

"if windmills are inadequate, it isn't because a labour mp proposed it."

No, it isn't wrong because Labour proposed it, but if windmills are inadequate, then it is wrong* for Labour to propose it.

This is not about partisan politics. It is about whether something is right or wrong and about principles in not supporting something that traditional Tories believe is wrong.

What matters is right and wrong, not right and left.

The Workers Institute of Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought believed that Chairman Mao would defeat what they called the 'British fascist state', but they were wrong.

New Labour believe that the 'green crap' can meet our energy needs, but traditional Tories think they are wrong.

And now it seems that Cameron may have seen the light and started to shout "cut the green crap".

what are these tory principles you refer to, claig?

what sort of evidence base have tories used to reject green policies?

'what are these tory principles you refer to, claig?'

Being true to one's beliefs even if it means your preferred party losing an election.

I don't live in Tim Yeo's constituency, but if I did, I would never have voted Tory there, because of him, because he does not represent my views. Now that he has been de-selected by the local Conservative organisation, I would no longer rule out voting Tory there, if I lived there.

I won't be the only Tory voter like that, my guess is there will be a lot of them, and they would rather not vote Tory than vote for something they do not believe in.

Being true to one's beliefs even if it means your preferred party losing an election.

That's empty. What are the content of these Tory beliefs?

'what sort of evidence base have tories used to reject green policies?'

I don't know about all Tories, but when I heard that Cameron was reported to have used the term "crap" then I assumed he had it on good authority, from his advisers, that it really was "crap".

I wasn't shocked by Cameron's use of the word "crap", I was delighted, because I have held that view for years.