What are they scared of? Not conservative enough? That narrows it down a bit! Wonder if they'd admit Attila the Hun!

Labour MPs banned from Republican Convention
By Andrew Clennell
29 July 2004


Labour MPs are to be barred from the floor of the Republican Convention for the first time because the US governing party has ruled they are not conservative enough to attend.

A cross-parliamentary delegation of one Labour and one Conservative MP traditionally visits the convention, but only Tory MPs will be given access to the floor in New York next month. Alan Williams, a Labour MP and the chairman of the British-American parliamentary group, said he and his colleagues were "far from pleased" at the development.

"I find it strange that Labour MPs can be welcomed on the floor of Congress but not at the Republican Convention," Mr Williams said to The Times.

Mr Williams said President George Bush's party had been close to barring Labour at the 2000 Convention but the parliamentary group was able to get them to change their minds.

Barring sounds so cold, couldn't we just say they didn't make the guest list? :D

I have to say I don't know the difference between Labour, Conservative, and a Tory. Now of course I know what conservative means here politically, but since crossing the ocean mixes up such basic things as left and right in both politics and road usage, I'm afraid to be presumptive. ;)

Does this mean Blair can't come, too? :D

[ 07-29-2004, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Does the DNC usually invite MPs, too?

Well, go to selfgov.org... They have an excellent graph.

Also, Attila the Hun was a multi-wife taking mass murderer. Most Conservative types are more than a little choosy about their company, and he most certainly wouldn't pass the discriminates.

British Prime Minister's would not attend - just in case Bush doesn't win. He'd have to attend both.

MP's from all three British main parties have always attend both conventions as observers. This is the first time they have been "unwelcome".

What it does show is how far Blair has moved from the rest of the party. S defeat for Bush would leave Blair and Britain sidelined in world politics.

So what? It's their party/house/convention they can have whom ever they want. If any libs/socialist/Lefties/whatevers don't like it to bad, send me the evil rightwing conservative Republican, warmongering gobalwarmer an invite to your house and I'll consider it and not conplain about you wanting somebody else to do something you're not willing to do yourself. Until then boo hoo boo hoo boo hoo. ;)

It's your party you can cry if you want to.

The Tories can still come but Labour can't. That's not very thankful of the support Blair went out on a limb to give the states during Iraq at all.

I thought Blair was kicked out of the Labour party?

The Tories can still come but Labour can't. That's not very thankful of the support Blair went out on a limb to give the states during Iraq at all. </font>[/QUOTE]He still represents a socialist or quasi-socialist party. In that respect, he represents some stretch of Liberal thinking. That is to say, he is philosophically at the opposite end of Conservative thinking, and he's at odds on some level or another among Compassionate Conservatives (Centrists who like the Conservative name)

Oh come on.

Firstly you're applying party doctrine on a party because of it's name and history, not the current policies of the currently more centrist Labour Party. Hardly socialist at all.

Secondly you've gone and used an American use of the word "liberal" to apply to a non-American political sphere. The Liberal Democrats in England and the Liberals in Australian politics are not the same thing as liberals in America. Liberalism in Australia actually refers to economic principles, not social policy.

It's all relative anyway. Conservatism in Communist China is "left wing" anywhere else, as it's communist. Yet because it's the status quo, it's "conservative".

The whole "right/left" delineation is based on where certain politicians used to sit in parliament. Pointless considering the relativity of it all.

http://www.wordiq.com/

He could not be Prime Minister if that were the case. Parliament choose the Prime Minister, not the populace, so if a leader looses the backing of his (majority) party he's out in a flash. Unlike the American president, the Prime Minister has zero job security and can be turfed out in a day.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. I wish compassionate conservatives were centrists who like the conservative name. If this were the case, the self-proclaimed compassionate conservative currently in the White house would certainly have had a much different course of policy the last 3.5 years.

I think the term "compassionate conservative" can be used by the far-right to snare centrists and moderates into voting for them. Once elected, some conservatives like this typically have no qualms stabbing these centrists in the back with heavily right leaning policies. GW Bush being an excellent example of this.


edit- To be clear I do not wish to generalize all conservatives as not being compassionate or being incapable of compassion. My point is that sometimes this label is used as a political ploy rather than a term to describe centrist leaning conservatives.

[ 08-01-2004, 04:04 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]