@Charles, re: 'I'd strongly recommend Robert Blake's 'The Conservative Party from Peel to Thatcher'. It'll give you a good basic understanding of that which yo
Thanks for the recommendation; I'll check it out. I studied 19th century political history at A level -so I'm not starting from ground zero on this, though I'll admit there are gaps in my knowledge.
UKIP has already gone past the survival stage. It will never be assimilated back into the Conservative party; which has been the party's key strength. It will be like the DUP and UUP. No point in having the diet version when you can have the real thing.
That's what the Ditchers or the anti-Catholics thought.
The party may not, but its members and supporters will
Wishful thinking I'm afraid. The Conservative Party (the leadership, not the rank and file) have abandoned the idea of assimilating UKIP or its views, preferring the brilliant weeze of isolating them and letting them 'detoxify' the Tory brand. Sensible in the short run but disastrously short sighted in the long run -it allows UKIP space to thrive and grow. The Whigs/Liberals had a similar proud story of hundreds of years of survival -it didn't stop them being outflanked and ignominiously destroyed by Labour in the 20th century. You will notice it's always on the outside -you can't 'in-flank' something. The SDP will tell you that.
You can only outflank if there is sufficient ground.
The Liberals were crushed because Labour their left and the Tories absorbed their right.
I suspect that, in GEs, the absolute maximum vote for a UKIP style manifesto is around 20-25%. The Tories approached that (I think they were c. 32%) in 2001 and 2005, but still had some loyalty support from the centre-right.
So the best that UKIP can do is hurt the cause of the right.
Even if they were to take all the current UKIP support (c. 12%), and let's say 2/3 of the current Tory support (+22%), they would still only be where the Tories are currently.
Sometimes you need to appreciate the strategic lie of the ground. The British people, as a whole, are moderate, tolerant and forward looking. UKIP appeals to a minority.
The overall right-wing vote has increased since UKIP became a substantial party. UKIP appeals to some voters who would never vote Conservative.
The world we're in now is very different from 2001-05. Easy prosperity, and easy credit has long gone.
Cameron, Osborne etc. view the Conservatives as Orange Book Liberals, reflecting the values, and pursuing the interests, of well-off voters in the Metropolis. The rest can go hang.
Investigation of accusations such as above is quite straightforward. The HM should ask the accuser for the names of the others, the details of the event, presence of witnesses etc. This should be done in the presence of parents or guardian. It is nothing like the situation in the Mirror article.
But in this case an investigation did not happen.
Perhaps I am not up to speed on developments - but where exactly does one start with an 'investigation' when no 'guilty' party, 'victim' or corroborating witness are named?
Investigation of accusations such as above is quite straightforward. The HM should ask the accuser for the names of the others, the details of the event, presence of witnesses etc. This should be done in the presence of parents or guardian. It is nothing like the situation in the Mirror article.
But in this case an investigation did not happen.
Perhaps I am not up to speed on developments - but where exactly does one start with an 'investigation' when no 'guilty' party, 'victim' or corroborating witness are named?
Investigation of accusations such as above is quite straightforward. The HM should ask the accuser for the names of the others, the details of the event, presence of witnesses etc. This should be done in the presence of parents or guardian. It is nothing like the situation in the Mirror article.
But in this case an investigation did not happen.
Perhaps I am not up to speed on developments - but where exactly does one start with an 'investigation' when no 'guilty' party, 'victim' or corroborating witness are named?
Its easy even for an amateur detective much less the police, first you get the names of the guilty party "check" (even us can read it from the press today), second you find other witnesses that corroborate the testament of the first witness usually there from the crime scenes, third you track down the victims, fourth you get testimony from the victims. If you have enough signed testimonies from credible witnesses and victims that corroborate the charge then you can start prosecuting.
Some curiosities from YouGov - Lab voters nearly twice as likely to be supporting Argentina (19) this evening as Con (10), tho levels of support for Germany (42 & 43) very similar.
UKIP supporters are three times as likely to have read/heard of named politicians involved in the child abuse allegations and believe them to be true (37) as Lib Dem (12), which is odd as the only politician publicly named so far was a Lib Dem, but at 78 Lib Dem voters are least likely to have heard any rumours (C: 61, L:60)........
Hence the phrase 'turning a blind eye'
In general, UKIP supporters are probably by far the most likely to follow anti-establishment stories, and to believe them to be true.
Maybe its just a factor of age. Most (all) of the politicians who have been named as nonces or alleged to be involved in a cover up are dead and were active in politics many years ago.
As a pro independence person it is a shame that a large % of the Nats that post on here stray into vitriol and trolling. If it is looking inevitable that BT will win, what the Nats should do is stop the invective and start to plan for the post-referendum period. The main reason that the Nats look like losing is because their main rival in Scotland, SLAB, has a large enough following to block independence. SLAB are the Nats problem, not a few wee posters on here who try and debate with them.
Since the Iron Curtain came down, we have seen the fracture of some states (e.g Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia) into separate and self-governing countries, as well as the re-found independence of the three Baltic states. So far all are surviving economically but within them the movement from a managed economy to a capitalist economy has enriched the bold and left the risk-averse poorer. However, all the countries have joined or are waiting to join the EU and even NATO - often because they feel more secure within those alliances whilst looking over their shoulder at the Russian bear.
We have yet to see a country or a part of a country declare Independence and so by so doing leave the EU and NATO. Whilst national independence is an ideal viewed by many, economic reality and security often change minds.
It is very difficult in the rapidly changing technological and global environment to project very far into the future, whilst decisions made now could have far-reaching and perhaps disastrous effects in he next 10-20 years. It would appear the Salmond has based his projections on a declining asset (N Sea energy) whilst not having other scenarios tested and in place. Yes independence is a nice feeling, but it could mean that some/many of your people will have to bIte a very hard bullet.
The idea that the EU would place 5 million of its citizens into a country beyond its laws, rights and protection simply beggars belief.
Comments
The world we're in now is very different from 2001-05. Easy prosperity, and easy credit has long gone.
Cameron, Osborne etc. view the Conservatives as Orange Book Liberals, reflecting the values, and pursuing the interests, of well-off voters in the Metropolis. The rest can go hang.
Except of course they already knew about them.