Canada and Australia are well on the to having a Chinese elite thanks to a point based system . A society dictated to by an at best indifferent, actually outright hostile, elite is not a desirable one, rapacious and exploitative come to mind. We have a big enough problem getting our current elite to realign its interests with society as whole.
Interesting to see that both ICM and Yougov project that UKIP have doubled their vote pretty much in the year so far.
ICM had UKIP on 7 points in February and in September they have them on 14 points Yougov had UKIP on 9 points in February and in September they have them on 17 points
There is no point in a shadow cabinet reshuffle unless it's a big promotion for Alan Johnson or Andy Burnham. The rest of them are all the same as EdM, i.e. unable to relate to normal people (which is by far their biggest problem, rather than "economic credibility" or whatever the Westminster bubble constantly goes on about).
On topic, it's interesting that UKIP break, if they do at all, heavily for the Conservatives, while the Lib Dems break evenly for the Conservatives and Labour.
We're finally seeing the fall of the left in this country. What's particularly great is that the more they ignore the people on matters like immigration and multiculturalism, the more this will happen. Labour is sowing the seeds of its own destruction, and they won't be able to import immigrants fast enough to make up for the loss of their WWC base. Though God knows they'll try.
It's the 2010 LDs who are key. Remember they made up 24% of the electorate. They split in this poll 46% to LAB 18% to CON which is appalling news for the Tories.
Back to my question: which categories would UKIP exclude. Students? Spouses? Ex UK military? Shortage areas such as Nurses and Doctors?
USA, Australia and Canada find lots of people who meet their points criteria and lots of immigration lawyers who find ways to get visas. I expect we would have the same.
Past waves of migrants from Europe have integrated well and added to British life, including the families of Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Michael Portillo, Michael Howard and even our very own NP. Largely this is because of common European heritage and values.
That is incorrect. Canada is far happier with their immigration system than we are. Australians are unhappy with immigration, but not due to the points system. It's due to the huge waves of asylum seekers they get that turn up a half mile off the coast and then scuttle their own boats.
The reason past waves of immigrants have integrated was because there weren't many of them. The previous groups realised they had come to a new society and this society was theirs now, and they had to fit in. Now, the huge scale of EU immigration, and the concept of free movement, means that many feel they are just Swedish, or French, or Polish but living in the UK long term. They have absolutely no mindset that they and their families should become British in time.
The 9/11 reference is frankly ludicrous. No one has claimed that a points system would stop terrorists coming into the country. That is a complete straw man argument. The basic fact of the matter is that to have an effective immigration policy which serves both the country and the migrants fairly and effectively you cannot have a gaping hole in it caused by EU free movement rules.
The current system is inherently racist for the very reasons I have explained and it is shameful that you are defending it for whatever strange Eurofanatical reasons you might have.
I think discriminating on the grounds of nationality alone is illogical and unfair, but it's not racist. And foxinsoxuk is right about integration. Just look at the following map of how non-white immigrant groups cluster themselves to particular areas while white immigrant groups are evenly spread:
The 9/11 reference is frankly ludicrous. No one has claimed that a points system would stop terrorists coming into the country. That is a complete straw man argument. The basic fact of the matter is that to have an effective immigration policy which serves both the country and the migrants fairly and effectively you cannot have a gaping hole in it caused by EU free movement rules.
The current system is inherently racist for the very reasons I have explained and it is shameful that you are defending it for whatever strange Eurofanatical reasons you might have.
I think discriminating on the grounds of nationality alone is illogical and unfair, but it's not racist. And foxinsoxuk is right about integration. Just look at the following map of how non-white immigrant groups cluster themselves to particular areas while white immigrant groups are evenly spread:
On topic, it's interesting that UKIP break, if they do at all, heavily for the Conservatives, while the Lib Dems break evenly for the Conservatives and Labour.
We're finally seeing the fall of the left in this country. What's particularly great is that the more they ignore the people on matters like immigration and multiculturalism, the more this will happen. Labour is sowing the seeds of its own destruction, and they won't be able to import immigrants fast enough to make up for the loss of their WWC base. Though God knows they'll try.
It's the 2010 LDs who are key. Remember they made up 24% of the electorate. They split in this poll 46% to LAB 18% to CON which is appalling news for the Tories.
Right, but they're pretty close to their ceiling. The Lib Dems that remain are ones that are equally split between Labour and the Tories. That means they will have to maintain their current centrist economics views.
"Even more damagingly for the Tories, there might be a vote of no confidence in Cameron. One Cabinet member warns, ‘If Reckless wins Rochester, there’ll be 46 names’."
Really? I find it unlikely that there'd be a vote of no confidence now for various reasons but the main one is that there are far too many uncertainties. It was all very well in 2003 when IDS was a dead loss, Labour was unpopular and there was no imminent election; things are rather different now.
The main inhibitor is the fact that those who might be thinking of voting to oust Cameron can't guarantee that there won't be an election that goes to members (i.e. a stich-up by the leading candidates), and once it goes to members, it falls out of their hands.
Why on earth would the Tories want to oust Cameron? Virtually every piece of polling evidence shows he's more popular than his party, even among UKIP supporters.
Canada and Australia are well on the to having a Chinese elite thanks to a point based system . A society dictated to by an at best indifferent, actually outright hostile, elite is not a desirable one, rapacious and exploitative come to mind. We have a big enough problem getting our current elite to realign its interests with society as whole.
Mr. Dave, who do you think would replace him who would do better?
No names come to mind, which is another mark against Mr Cameron. A good leader would have built a strong team.
Cameron has built a strong team, but they they have become more specialists than generalists, which perhaps was required at the time.
Also having to give posts to the LDs has stifled the natural growth of other potential leaders - another problem resulting from a coalition = more averages than superlatives. For example Cable and Davey have not lit up the lights - rather a drag on progress.
The 9/11 reference is frankly ludicrous. No one has claimed that a points system would stop terrorists coming into the country. That is a complete straw man argument. The basic fact of the matter is that to have an effective immigration policy which serves both the country and the migrants fairly and effectively you cannot have a gaping hole in it caused by EU free movement rules.
The current system is inherently racist for the very reasons I have explained and it is shameful that you are defending it for whatever strange Eurofanatical reasons you might have.
I think discriminating on the grounds of nationality alone is illogical and unfair, but it's not racist. And foxinsoxuk is right about integration. Just look at the following map of how non-white immigrant groups cluster themselves to particular areas while white immigrant groups are evenly spread:
I think you will find there is a correlation between socio-economic status and the way those migrants are distributed (e.g. lots of rich white migrants in Chelsea & Kensington for example). In which case that tells us there are lots more rich white migrants (fleeing France's tax regime for example) than there are non-white rich migrants in London but there are plenty of less well off white migrants just as there are plenty of less well off non white migrants. Could that actually be a reflection of the discrimination in our immigration system?
That said London is not really demonstrative of anything but London one of the greatest and most expensive cities in the world. Our only truly global city is certainly not representative of the rest of the country.
"Even more damagingly for the Tories, there might be a vote of no confidence in Cameron. One Cabinet member warns, ‘If Reckless wins Rochester, there’ll be 46 names’."
Really? I find it unlikely that there'd be a vote of no confidence now for various reasons but the main one is that there are far too many uncertainties. It was all very well in 2003 when IDS was a dead loss, Labour was unpopular and there was no imminent election; things are rather different now.
The main inhibitor is the fact that those who might be thinking of voting to oust Cameron can't guarantee that there won't be an election that goes to members (i.e. a stich-up by the leading candidates), and once it goes to members, it falls out of their hands.
Believing the 2015 election to be lost is a perfectly valid motive. Why should MPs accept an apparent defeat as inevitable when they have a card to play?
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
Canada and Australia are well on the to having a Chinese elite thanks to a point based system . A society dictated to by an at best indifferent, actually outright hostile, elite is not a desirable one, rapacious and exploitative come to mind. We have a big enough problem getting our current elite to realign its interests with society as whole.
Canada and Australia are well on the to having a Chinese elite thanks to a point based system . A society dictated to by an at best indifferent, actually outright hostile, elite is not a desirable one, rapacious and exploitative come to mind. We have a big enough problem getting our current elite to realign its interests with society as whole.
Back to my question: which categories would UKIP exclude. Students? Spouses? Ex UK military? Shortage areas such as Nurses and Doctors?
USA, Australia and Canada find lots of people who meet their points criteria and lots of immigration lawyers who find ways to get visas. I expect we would have the same.
Past waves of migrants from Europe have integrated well and added to British life, including the families of Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Michael Portillo, Michael Howard and even our very own NP. Largely this is because of common European heritage and values.
That is incorrect. Canada is far happier with their immigration system than we are. Australians are unhappy with immigration, but not due to the points system. It's due to the huge waves of asylum seekers they get that turn up a half mile off the coast and then scuttle their own boats.
The reason past waves of immigrants have integrated was because there weren't many of them. The previous groups realised they had come to a new society and this society was theirs now, and they had to fit in. Now, the huge scale of EU immigration, and the concept of free movement, means that many feel they are just Swedish, or French, or Polish but living in the UK long term. They have absolutely no mindset that they and their families should become British in time.
I don't think FiS is suggesting that the US, Australia, etc., are unhappy with their systems, merely that the well off will always find ways (through lawyers, etc.) to game systems. So, your rich and bone idle ruritanian (who's dad made billions out of oil) will have some appropriate paper degree if necessary.
Given that you can - in the UK currently - buy yourself residence in the UK through inward investment (as you can in the US, Portugal, Dominica and many other places), this doesn't seem like an excessively major concern.
The amusing unpredictability of the voter in polls is here as well: there's always 1-4% of each party's supporters who, when it's expressed as 'your party vs x' actually swap to the opposing party.
Seriously, how can 4% of Labour supporters go "Who will I vote for? Labour. If only my party or the Lib Dems could win? Easy, the Lib Dems. Ah. Err. "?
On a wider view, though: FPTP vs AV. One has artificial majorities caused by lower preferences. The other, by ill-informed and blindly cast lower preferences ...
There's an interesting (repeated) study on universal morality.
As a control question they ask a question along these lines
"You are walking through the park and see a small child drowning in pool of water you know is only 1 foot deep - Is rescuing the child morally obligatory, morally permissible or morally forbidden ". 3% of interviewees go with morally forbidden.
Consider 3% above zero as either psychotic or answering in error/misunderstood question.
"Dr. Daniel Varga, chief clinical officer of Texas Health Resources, which oversees Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, told reporters on Sunday that the worker was wearing protective gear when he or she came into contact with Mr. Duncan... "
So both the Spanish and the American transmission was with protected workers.
There is a constituency poll in Dover that I don't know if it was overlooked, it was done by the local newspaper with a sample of 438 and conducted over 4 days just after the Tory conference, and it's complete with a map of how the local wards vote too:
Not surprising numbers given that Dover is at the immigration forefront and it's also in Kent. Ladbrokes has probably seen the poll as they have cut UKIP yesterday from 10/1 to 6/1 to win Dover.
Voodoo poll. Charlie Elphicke is a pretty popular MP. I think it's going to very close between all three parties in Dover and Deal.
"Even more damagingly for the Tories, there might be a vote of no confidence in Cameron. One Cabinet member warns, ‘If Reckless wins Rochester, there’ll be 46 names’."
Really? I find it unlikely that there'd be a vote of no confidence now for various reasons but the main one is that there are far too many uncertainties. It was all very well in 2003 when IDS was a dead loss, Labour was unpopular and there was no imminent election; things are rather different now.
The main inhibitor is the fact that those who might be thinking of voting to oust Cameron can't guarantee that there won't be an election that goes to members (i.e. a stich-up by the leading candidates), and once it goes to members, it falls out of their hands.
Believing the 2015 election to be lost is a perfectly valid motive. Why should MPs accept an apparent defeat as inevitable when they have a card to play?
There are several problems with that though. The first is that it's far from obvious that the election is lost. There were two polls last week (?) that put the Conservatives ahead after all, Miliband is widely seen as not PM material unlike Cameron, and the tactical votes may well break for the Tories i.e. "vote Purple get Red" has mileage in it. MPs are by their nature usually a pretty optimistic bunch and I'd be surprised if any significant number thought 2015 a lost cause.
The second, and bigger, problem is that it's such an uncertain process. Why rock the boat if the possible outcomes are mostly worse than not doing so, and there's no real way to be sure of securing anything better? (FWIW, I don't think there is a better option but let's assume we're in the mind of an MP who does think so). Dumping Cameron is easy enough; replacing him with someone better and without splitting the party apart in the process rather harder.
Actually, dumping Cameron isn't necessarily that easy. It's not sufficient to gain 46 MPs to sign anonymous letters, you then have to win the vote of no confidence - or at least, get close enough to make Cameron's leadership untenable - which is a different prospect. Even if malcontents can raise 46 letters, there's a good chance that they'll fail at the second hurdle and replace a moderately strong Cameron leading a relatively united party with a weak Cameron leading a split one. They have to consider that prospect before embarking on the project. Messy coups are nearly always damaging for all involved, whether on not they achieve their primary objective.
CD13 - A long time a ago, when AIDS first broke on the scene, I was shown the effort to HIV proof the lab at the Middlesex. The Coulter Counters had been fitted with small pieces of perspex. As I looked at them I thought - they are going to kill everbody in the room, I will stay clear - and I moved back and cut my hand on a broken glass vial.
There is a constituency poll in Dover that I don't know if it was overlooked, it was done by the local newspaper with a sample of 438 and conducted over 4 days just after the Tory conference, and it's complete with a map of how the local wards vote too:
Not surprising numbers given that Dover is at the immigration forefront and it's also in Kent. Ladbrokes has probably seen the poll as they have cut UKIP yesterday from 10/1 to 6/1 to win Dover.
Voodoo poll. Charlie Elphicke is a pretty popular MP. I think it's going to very close between all three parties in Dover and Deal.
Couldn't be more voodoo if they had asked voting intentions in Haiti....
Richard Benyon @RichardBenyonMP Oct 11 Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"
"Even more damagingly for the Tories, there might be a vote of no confidence in Cameron. One Cabinet member warns, ‘If Reckless wins Rochester, there’ll be 46 names’."
Really? I find it unlikely that there'd be a vote of no confidence now for various reasons but the main one is that there are far too many uncertainties. It was all very well in 2003 when IDS was a dead loss, Labour was unpopular and there was no imminent election; things are rather different now.
The main inhibitor is the fact that those who might be thinking of voting to oust Cameron can't guarantee that there won't be an election that goes to members (i.e. a stich-up by the leading candidates), and once it goes to members, it falls out of their hands.
Believing the 2015 election to be lost is a perfectly valid motive. Why should MPs accept an apparent defeat as inevitable when they have a card to play?
There are several problems with that though. The first is that it's far from obvious that the election is lost. There were two polls last week (?) that put the Conservatives ahead after all, Miliband is widely seen as not PM material unlike Cameron, and the tactical votes may well break for the Tories i.e. "vote Purple get Red" has mileage in it. MPs are by their nature usually a pretty optimistic bunch and I'd be surprised if any significant number thought 2015 a lost cause.
The reporting is that Team Cameron have been telling Conservative MPs that UKIP would fizzle after the EU Parliament election. That assumption was built into their plan to win in 2015.
They might excuse losing the Clacton by-election by writing off poor voters as unimportant (this appears to the their position), but Rochester is not a poor town. If the Conservatives cannot win in Rochester and Strood, how can they win a majority in 2015?
Worse, if Mr Reckless increases his vote share under a UKIP banner, as Mr Carswell has done in Clacton, choosing Team Cameron looks like a strategic mistake.
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal?
Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
Putting aside Farage has made it clear he will likely only consider a supply and confidence arrangement and it is highly unlikely that with Cameron in place a deal could be done lets play along
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
It won't be that early. 2016 at earliest. They may or may not even concede a renegotiation ensuring they are heavily involved in the negotiations to keep the Tories honest
The referendum is won by "in".
Then it will have had to have addressed the immigration issue
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal?
Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
If its out of course UKIP remains in Coalition to ensure that Article 50 is invoked and withdrawal is negotiated successfully within the 2 year timescale. Beyond that it can start influencing the government to scrap unwelcome EU originated legislation. It would want to begin the process of rehabilitating our relationships with the commonwealth and building relationships with other parts of the globe that we are not allowed to by EU law. It would also want to further its other goals as a decentralist party
UKIP is a full blown political party with with it's own policy portfolio (as the policies for people link suggests) that it would want to advance. So of course it would carry on. How successfully would be down to the voters but it is distinct in currently being the only true decentralist party in Westminster.
Withdrawal is just the end of the beginning not the end
Many years ago, when working with monkey blood and tissues,we were concerned about virus transmission - particularly Marburg which had just been discovered. We used home made glove cabinets with extraction. Perfect in theory, but the human element was always the problem, no matter how good the theoretical protection.
Been out doing voter ID again here in sunny Stockton South. A ward that elected two LibDems in 2011 which surprisingly enough is a marginal now. Little sign of the LibDems but lots of talk of UKIP, mostly from Tory in 2010 voters. Spent some time talking to switchers to understand why - Immigration the main issue (none in the area! Also both Tory and Labour accused of never talking about immigration), but also from the ex Tories that Cameron couldn't be trusted on the referendum pledge.
So the main takeaway points? They don't care about policy, they have stopped listening to the established parties, they all cited economic and social mess. So UKIP as a protest against all of us that's gut based rather than head based. They will be hard to shift, which is why they aren't heading "home" to vote Tory. They claim not to have moved opinions, its the Tories who have abandoned them.
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
Not sure about the first instance. A yes to stay in would prove UKIP a failure if they had actually been in a position in government to influence the outcome and had still lost. I would envisage a rapid fracturing of the party. That said, given that the EU will continue its process of ever closer union whatever the UK does, I would suggest that under those circumstances there would still be an active and growing movement for withdrawal.
In the second instance I cannot see UKIP in its current form having any value or reason after a successful withdrawal. Unless it was willing to change and fill a gap in the market by becoming a properly Libertarian party (with the consequent initial drop in support I suspect that would entail) then it would just be like any other party - frankly pointless.
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
To authorise a referendum a majority vote in parliament is needed. No majority no vote.
Really? I find it unlikely that there'd be a vote of no confidence now for various reasons but the main one is that there are far too many uncertainties. It was all very well in 2003 when IDS was a dead loss, Labour was unpopular and there was no imminent election; things are rather different now.
The main inhibitor is the fact that those who might be thinking of voting to oust Cameron can't guarantee that there won't be an election that goes to members (i.e. a stich-up by the leading candidates), and once it goes to members, it falls out of their hands.
Believing the 2015 election to be lost is a perfectly valid motive. Why should MPs accept an apparent defeat as inevitable when they have a card to play?
There are several problems with that though. The first is that it's far from obvious that the election is lost. There were two polls last week (?) that put the Conservatives ahead after all, Miliband is widely seen as not PM material unlike Cameron, and the tactical votes may well break for the Tories i.e. "vote Purple get Red" has mileage in it. MPs are by their nature usually a pretty optimistic bunch and I'd be surprised if any significant number thought 2015 a lost cause.
The reporting is that Team Cameron have been telling Conservative MPs that UKIP would fizzle after the EU Parliament election. That assumption was built into their plan to win in 2015.
They might excuse losing the Clacton by-election by writing off poor voters as unimportant (this appears to the their position), but Rochester is not a poor town. If the Conservatives cannot win in Rochester and Strood, how can they win a majority in 2015?
Worse, if Mr Reckless increases his vote share under a UKIP banner, as Mr Carswell has done in Clacton, choosing Team Cameron looks like a strategic mistake.
Protests happen at by-elections when the government of the country isn't up for grabs. That's not to dismiss those protests - they are real and concerns need to be listened to - but people can and do vote differently when different things are at stake. Check out the Ribble Valley by-election in 1991, for example. Indeed, I expect the 1992 parallel may get more than the odd outing from Tory strategists in coming months.
That still doesn't answer the key questions though: even if you want to replace Cameron, who do you do it with and how do you ensure the outcome? Until you have decent answers to those, there's no point starting the game.
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
To authorise a referendum a majority vote in parliament is needed. No majority no vote.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
And if a referendum is part of the price for Coalition then it can be assumed that the Coalition will have a majority and will pass the referendum bill. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to Coalition?
Really? I find it unlikely that there'd be a vote of no confidence now for various reasons but the main one is that there are far too many uncertainties. It was all very well in 2003 when IDS was a dead loss, Labour was unpopular and there was no imminent election; things are rather different now.
The main inhibitor is the fact that those who might be thinking of voting to oust Cameron can't guarantee that there won't be an election that goes to members (i.e. a stich-up by the leading candidates), and once it goes to members, it falls out of their hands.
Believing the 2015 election to be lost is a perfectly valid motive. Why should MPs accept an apparent defeat as inevitable when they have a card to play?
There are several problems with that though. The first is that it's far from obvious that the election is lost. There were two polls last week (?) that put the Conservatives ahead after all, Miliband is widely seen as not PM material unlike Cameron, and the tactical votes may well break for the Tories i.e. "vote Purple get Red" has mileage in it. MPs are by their nature usually a pretty optimistic bunch and I'd be surprised if any significant number thought 2015 a lost cause.
The reporting is that Team Cameron have been telling Conservative MPs that UKIP would fizzle after the EU Parliament election. That assumption was built into their plan to win in 2015.
They might excuse losing the Clacton by-election by writing off poor voters as unimportant (this appears to the their position), but Rochester is not a poor town. If the Conservatives cannot win in Rochester and Strood, how can they win a majority in 2015?
Worse, if Mr Reckless increases his vote share under a UKIP banner, as Mr Carswell has done in Clacton, choosing Team Cameron looks like a strategic mistake.
That still doesn't answer the key questions though: even if you want to replace Cameron, who do you do it with and how do you ensure the outcome? Until you have decent answers to those, there's no point starting the game.
Not true. "When in a hole, stop digging" is reason enough.
If Conservative MPs think the strategy being pursued by Mr Cameron is loser, there is nothing to be lost in sacking him.
Richard Benyon @RichardBenyonMP Oct 11 Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"
Love it!
It's also a useful reminder that I'm afraid most voters are pretty dumb.
It's the 2010 LDs who are key. Remember they made up 24% of the electorate. They split in this poll 46% to LAB 18% to CON which is appalling news for the Tories.
Many of those voters are already factored in to the Labour headline voting intention, so you have to be careful not to double-count them.
Richard Benyon @RichardBenyonMP Oct 11 Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"
Love it!
It's also a useful reminder that I'm afraid most voters are pretty dumb.
Or they have lives to live, including earning a living?
Richard Benyon @RichardBenyonMP Oct 11 Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"
Love it!
It's also a useful reminder that I'm afraid most voters are pretty dumb.
Ah yes so because one voter has made a bit of a fool of themself most voters are pretty dumb?
CD13 - need the Army style training - put on the gear, get dabbed with a UV sensitive gel, remove gear, check for contamination. Of course the Army tests with tear gas...
They don't care about policy, they have stopped listening to the established parties, they all cited economic and social mess. So UKIP as a protest against all of us that's gut based rather than head based.
It's the IndyRef all over again.
The sort of people who are prepared to vote for the separatists (UKIP, SNP, UKIP in kilts) will not be swayed by logic or reason.
They were just outnumbered.
Like the voter quoted upthread who voted UKIP cos he didn't like the previous Tory MP, there is no policy any party could have put forward that would have stopped him voting for the guy he didn't like...
EDIT. That's also why ditching Cameron makes no sense. There is no policy the Tories can offer, whoever is leader, that would win back the nutters.
So, let's get this straight: Farage is now saying he's prepared to risk wrecking the UK with a Labour government simply because he wants a referendum in 2015 rather than 2017?
That was a truly dull GP but in a year of at best modest sporting success for the UK is Lewis Hamilton becoming a fairly good bet for SPOTY?
Presumably the Ryder Cup team will win the team trophy.
It should be McIlroy but if Hamilton wins the championship then 6/1 will probably seem like a bargain (does McIlroy have a kind of Andy Murray thing going on with some English sports fans?).
So, let's get this straight: Farage is now saying he's prepared to risk wrecking the UK with a Labour government simply because he wants a referendum in 2015 rather than 2017?
The guy is certifiably bonkers.
If he doesn't get a referendum in 2015, he will facilitate a government that will never offer one, instead of one that would.
So, let's get this straight: Farage is now saying he's prepared to risk wrecking the UK with a Labour government simply because he wants a referendum in 2015 rather than 2017?
The guy is certifiably bonkers.
Rather than the Tories risking wrecking the UK with a Labour a government simply because they hate UKIP so much they won't form an electoral agreement with them?
Richard Benyon @RichardBenyonMP Oct 11 Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"
Love it!
It's also a useful reminder that I'm afraid most voters are pretty dumb.
Richard Benyon @RichardBenyonMP Oct 11 Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"
Love it!
It's also a useful reminder that I'm afraid most voters are pretty dumb.
Without wishing to be rude, Audreyanne, but you are sounding more like Edwina Currie the more posts you make. Ps I'm thinking of changing my user name to John Major!
Rather than the Tories risking wrecking the UK with a Labour a government simply because they hate UKIP so much they won't form an electoral agreement with them?
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
If we lose the referendum, then we will have to regroup and build for the long term for the next referendum in a generation's time. In the meantime, we can still fight further transfers of power to the EU.
If we win the referendum, then we'll still be needed to keep the main parties honest on immigration, unless once of them gets its act in order.
So, let's get this straight: Farage is now saying he's prepared to risk wrecking the UK with a Labour government simply because he wants a referendum in 2015 rather than 2017?
The guy is certifiably bonkers.
I doubt there will be an EU referendum even if the Tories win.
Really? I find it unlikely that there'd be a vote of no confidence now for various reasons but the main one is that there are far too many unces to members (i.e. a stich-up by the leading candidates), and once it goes to members, it falls out of their hands.
Believing the 2015 election to be lost is a perfectly valid motive. Why should MPs accept an apparent defeat as inevitable when they have a card to play?
There are several problems with that though. The first is that it's far from obvious that the election is lost. There were two pole Conservatives ahead after all, Miliband is widely seen as not PM material unlike Cameron, and the tactical votes may well break for the Tories i.e. "vote Purple get Red" has mileage in it. MPs are by their nature usually a pretty optimistic bunch and I'd be surprised if any significant number thought 2015 a lost cause.
The reporting is that Team Cameron have been telling Conservative MPs that UKIP would fizzle after the EU Parliament election. That assumption was built into their plan to win in 2015.
They might excuse losing the Clacton by-election by writing off poor voters as unimportant (this appears to the their position), but Rochester is not a poor town. If the Conservatives cannot win in Rochester and Strood, how can they win a majority in 2015?
Worse, if Mr Reckless increases his vote share under a UKIP banner, as Mr Carswell has done in Clacton, choosing Team Cameron looks like a strategic mistake.
That still doesn't answer the key questions though: even if you want to replace Cameron, who do you do it with and how do you ensure the outcome? Until you have decent answers to those, there's no point starting the game.
Not true. "When in a hole, stop digging" is reason enough.
If Conservative MPs think the strategy being pursued by Mr Cameron is loser, there is nothing to be lost in sacking him.
I respectfully disagree.
I note several Cameroons saying they haven't detoxified/modernised enough. That's why they're failing. Morons like that are beyond reasoning with. See Labourites congratulating themselves over indyref and holding onto Heywood and Middleton for a Labour example.
Cameron mustn't be removed. He must be left in situ to be humiliated by Ed is Crap and/or Farage.
Then we can just laugh at the Cameroons as we did Major
So, let's get this straight: Farage is now saying he's prepared to risk wrecking the UK with a Labour government simply because he wants a referendum in 2015 rather than 2017?
The guy is certifiably bonkers.
I doubt there will be an EU referendum even if the Tories win.
My offer of any amount up to at least £1000 at evens to any credit-worthy PBer is still available to anyone idiotic enough to believe there won't be a referendum if there's a majority Conservative government.
Rather than the Tories risking wrecking the UK with a Labour a government simply because they hate UKIP so much they won't form an electoral agreement with them?
So, let's get this straight: Farage is now saying he's prepared to risk wrecking the UK with a Labour government simply because he wants a referendum in 2015 rather than 2017?
The guy is certifiably bonkers.
I doubt there will be an EU referendum even if the Tories win.
My offer of any amount up to at least £1000 at evens to any credit-worthy PBer is still available to anyone idiotic enough to believe there won't be a referendum if there's a majority Conservative government.
I've had no takers, unsurprisingly.
There's not a chance in hell of a Conservative-majority government.
So, let's get this straight: Farage is now saying he's prepared to risk wrecking the UK with a Labour government simply because he wants a referendum in 2015 rather than 2017?
The guy is certifiably bonkers.
I doubt there will be an EU referendum even if the Tories win.
My offer of any amount up to at least £1000 at evens to any credit-worthy PBer is still available to anyone idiotic enough to believe there won't be a referendum if there's a majority Conservative government.
Rather than the Tories risking wrecking the UK with a Labour a government simply because they hate UKIP so much they won't form an electoral agreement with them?
What electoral agreement is on offer?
Quite. The days of that being on the table, if it ever was, are over. That may sadden many Tories, but you cannot force a pact when one side does not want one, as some UKIPers found when they were the ones being rebuffed for floating such suggestions. Either fight UKIP, join them, or stay at home if you cannot stomach doing either.
It's not on offer with a Cameron-led Conservative party, but get rid of Cameron and it's possible.
So it's just a personal vendetta against David Cameron.
Well, that's obvious enough from many of those who post here.
Rather than the Tories personal vendetta against all of UKIP? Anyway, it's not a personal vendetta: it's a matter of whether we can trust the Tory leader.
But rather than try to divert the argument elsewhere, let's refocus on the point. You think a Labour government will be so disastrous, UKIP should be prepared to throw everything in as a political party to reduce the chance it will happen. Given that, you should surely be prepared to merely ditch your party leader to stop it happening. Why don't you support that?
There's not a chance in hell of a Conservative-majority government.
There is, actually, but that is irrelevant to the bet, because it would be void if there's not a majority.
My point is that the bet does not correspond with what Danny565 was describing: a Tory "win" over Labour. In all likelihood, if that happens, it will be a Coalition or Tory minority government.
They don't care about policy, they have stopped listening to the established parties, they all cited economic and social mess. So UKIP as a protest against all of us that's gut based rather than head based.
It's the IndyRef all over again.
The sort of people who are prepared to vote for the separatists (UKIP, SNP, UKIP in kilts) will not be swayed by logic or reason.
They were just outnumbered.
Like the voter quoted upthread who voted UKIP cos he didn't like the previous Tory MP, there is no policy any party could have put forward that would have stopped him voting for the guy he didn't like...
EDIT. That's also why ditching Cameron makes no sense. There is no policy the Tories can offer, whoever is leader, that would win back the nutters.
Are you claiming that there was no yes-to-no mind-changing over the referendum? All the polling, and countless vox pops before and after the referendum, suggest the contrary.
But rather than try to divert the argument elsewhere, let's refocus on the point. You think a Labour government will be so disastrous, UKIP should be prepared to throw everything in as a political party to reduce the chance it will happen. Given that, you should surely be prepared to merely ditch your party leader to stop it happening. Why don't you support that?
Of course I would, provided a deal with UKIP meant a better government than Labour (which is far from obvious). Cameron is a means to an end, not an end in himself.
However, it's a ridiculous scenario. It would be electoral suicide, and in any case it would effectively be a reverse-takeover by the fruitcakes and loons. It would simply lead to an increased likelihood of a Labour government.
Why on earth would the Tories want to oust Cameron? Virtually every piece of polling evidence shows he's more popular than his party, even among UKIP supporters.
A lot of people don't think he can win, even if they like him. In such a circumstance, even if it does not appear someone else would do better, many might be willing to try it as you can never be certain how well a new leader would do. That said, even if polling says Cameron is an asset, a large number of people within the Tories don't appear to want to win with his type of leader, and getting rid of him is more important than winning. Which I actually find encouraging in an odd way, that party members of any party would not just want to win at any cost.
Yes and no. Sure it makes little sense and will just irritate people, but on the other hand, I'm now hearing about it because of the form their protest took.
But rather than try to divert the argument elsewhere, let's refocus on the point. You think a Labour government will be so disastrous, UKIP should be prepared to throw everything in as a political party to reduce the chance it will happen. Given that, you should surely be prepared to merely ditch your party leader to stop it happening. Why don't you support that?
Of course I would, provided a deal with UKIP meant a better government than Labour (which is far from obvious). Cameron is a means to an end, not an end in himself.
However, it's a ridiculous scenario. It would be electoral suicide, and in any case it would effectively be a reverse-takeover by the fruitcakes and loons. It would simply lead to an increased likelihood of a Labour government.
For goodness sake. I'm not talking about a merger. I'm talking about an electoral pact. Outside the 20 seats or so UKIP get given a free run at, the Conservatives wouldn't be affected by UKIP at all, other than be given a chance with their voters. (Voters that you seem to think will go to the Tories if UKIP stood down, although I have my doubts.) The fact you claim things like "takeover" when the two parties would be separate just shows how you are making things up as you go along to sustain your ridiculous argument.
You also let the cat out the bag in your first paragraph. After going on for ages about how awful a Labour government is, you then reveal it might be better than a Conservative-dominated one with a small UKIP contingent, because you find UKIP's platform so far apart from the Tories. Why is it any surprise then, that UKIP wouldn't particularly prefer a wholly Conservative government over a Labour one?
But rather than try to divert the argument elsewhere, let's refocus on the point. You think a Labour government will be so disastrous, UKIP should be prepared to throw everything in as a political party to reduce the chance it will happen. Given that, you should surely be prepared to merely ditch your party leader to stop it happening. Why don't you support that?
Of course I would, provided a deal with UKIP meant a better government than Labour (which is far from obvious). Cameron is a means to an end, not an end in himself.
However, it's a ridiculous scenario. It would be electoral suicide, and in any case it would effectively be a reverse-takeover by the fruitcakes and loons. It would simply lead to an increased likelihood of a Labour government.
For goodness sake. I'm not talking about a merger. I'm talking about an electoral pact. Outside the 20 seats or so UKIP get given a free run at, the Conservatives wouldn't be affected by UKIP at all, other than be given a chance with their voters. (Voters that you seem to think will go to the Tories if UKIP stood down, although I have my doubts.) The fact you claim things like "takeover" when the two parties would be separate just shows how you are making things up as you go along to sustain your ridiculous argument.
And destroy any chance UKIP have of taking Labour votes.
A brilliant strategy to box UKIP into a right wing tiny corner. That'll finish them off in double quick time.
Mr. H, I concur. Given how things stand, UKIP's already in danger of looking (once again) like Tory-light (two defectors from them). What they could use is a Labour defector, some old Labour sort.
For goodness sake. I'm not talking about a merger. I'm talking about an electoral pact. Outside the 20 seats or so UKIP get given a free run at, the Conservatives wouldn't be affected by UKIP at all, other than be given a chance with their voters. (Voters that you seem to think will go to the Tories if UKIP stood down, although I have my doubts.) The fact you claim things like "takeover" when the two parties would be separate just shows how you are making things up as you go along to sustain your ridiculous argument.
No, if Farage gets to decide who is the leader of the Conservative Party, that is a takeover. He'd demand something else next.
The guy is a wrecker, on an ego trip, prepared to bring about the disaster of a Labour government simply to fuel his ego. He is making demands he knows can't possibly be granted. If he was serious about a deal with the Tories on a referendum, he'd do a deal. There's a perfectly reasonable deal available, in fact it's already there:
- Referendum in 2017, as proposed - Cameron free to try his renegotiation, but UKIP free to say it's a load of hogwash - Eurosceptic Conservatives such as Dan Hannan free to campaign with UKIP on the Out side
That would actually be the best possible, perhaps only, chance of getting the UK to leave the EU in the foreseeable future. If Farage were serious about it, he'd be preparing the Out campaign on that basis.
You also let the cat out the bag in your first paragraph. After going on for ages about how awful a Labour government is, you then reveal it might be better than a Conservative-dominated one with a small UKIP contingent, because you find UKIP's platform so far apart from the Tories.
What platform? It keeps changing. We know the 2010 manifesto was drivel - everyone agrees on that. Will the 2015 manifesto also be drivel? Who knows?
On topic, we should organize an unofficial jungle primary a week or two before the actual election. Everybody votes their first choice, the results are announced then come the actual election everybody has proper information about who the straight choice is between.
It would be like AV for countries too superstitious to actually enact AV.
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
To authorise a referendum a majority vote in parliament is needed. No majority no vote.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
And if a referendum is part of the price for Coalition then it can be assumed that the Coalition will have a majority and will pass the referendum bill. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to Coalition?
And the House of Lords, where Labour, the Lib Dems and crossbenchers comfortably outnumber Tories + UKIP?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to parliamentary procedure?
But rather than try to divert the argument elsewhere, let's refocus on the point. You think a Labour government will be so disastrous, UKIP should be prepared to throw everything in as a political party to reduce the chance it will happen. Given that, you should surely be prepared to merely ditch your party leader to stop it happening. Why don't you support that?
Of course I would, provided a deal with UKIP meant a better government than Labour (which is far from obvious). Cameron is a means to an end, not an end in himself.
However, it's a ridiculous scenario. It would be electoral suicide, and in any case it would effectively be a reverse-takeover by the fruitcakes and loons. It would simply lead to an increased likelihood of a Labour government.
For goodness sake. I'm not talking about a merger. I'm talking about an electoral pact. Outside the 20 seats or so UKIP get given a free run at, the Conservatives wouldn't be affected by UKIP at all, other than be given a chance with their voters. (Voters that you seem to think will go to the Tories if UKIP stood down, although I have my doubts.) The fact you claim things like "takeover" when the two parties would be separate just shows how you are making things up as you go along to sustain your ridiculous argument.
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. Any such centrally-organised electoral pact may well hurt the Conservatives in other constituencies as it will align the parties closer together.
As I've said passim, if the Conservatives move towards UKIP, then they may gain some UKIP voters, but they will lose some from the centre.
Better for them to fight UKIP and give the electorate a choice.
For goodness sake. I'm not talking about a merger. I'm talking about an electoral pact. Outside the 20 seats or so UKIP get given a free run at, the Conservatives wouldn't be affected by UKIP at all, other than be given a chance with their voters. (Voters that you seem to think will go to the Tories if UKIP stood down, although I have my doubts.) The fact you claim things like "takeover" when the two parties would be separate just shows how you are making things up as you go along to sustain your ridiculous argument.
No, if Farage gets to decide who is the leader of the Conservative Party, that is a takeover. He'd demand something else next.
The guy is a wrecker, on an ego trip, prepared to bring about the disaster of a Labour government simply to fuel his ego. He is making demands he knows can't possibly be granted. If he was serious about a deal with the Tories on a referendum, he'd do a deal. There's a perfectly reasonable deal available, in fact it's already there:
- Referendum in 2017, as proposed - Cameron free to try his renegotiation, but UKIP free to say it's a load of hogwash - Eurosceptic Conservatives such as Dan Hannan free to campaign with UKIP on the Out side
That would actually be the best possible, perhaps only, chance of getting the UK to leave the EU in the foreseeable future. If Farage were serious about it, he'd be preparing the Out campaign on that basis.
This would be the PM vs a party with no MPs?
The deal is that Ukip stand aside and let the Tories win isn't it?
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. Any such centrally-organised electoral pact may well hurt the Conservatives in other constituencies as it will align the parties closer together.
As I've said passim, if the Conservatives move towards UKIP, then they may gain some UKIP voters, but they will lose some from the centre.
Better for them to fight UKIP and give the electorate a choice.
The Conservatives have a toxicity problem of their very own, so there are similar sentiments on UKIP's side. UKIP might pick up Conservative votes from an electoral pact, but they would also lose some from former Labour voters and from the previously disillusioned.
You also let the cat out the bag in your first paragraph. After going on for ages about how awful a Labour government is, you then reveal it might be better than a Conservative-dominated one with a small UKIP contingent, because you find UKIP's platform so far apart from the Tories.
What platform? It keeps changing. We know the 2010 manifesto was drivel - everyone agrees on that. Will the 2015 manifesto also be drivel? Who knows?
You mean like "no top down reorganisation of the NHS"?
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. Any such centrally-organised electoral pact may well hurt the Conservatives in other constituencies as it will align the parties closer together.
As I've said passim, if the Conservatives move towards UKIP, then they may gain some UKIP voters, but they will lose some from the centre.
Better for them to fight UKIP and give the electorate a choice.
The Conservatives have a toxicity problem of their very own, so there are similar sentiments on UKIP's side. UKIP might pick up Conservative votes from an electoral pact, but they would also lose some from former Labour voters and from the previously disillusioned.
Not really. UKIP are seen as a split-party from the Conservatives, so I'm not sure anyone would be surprised at such a move (which I think UKIP did in a few seats at GE 2010? - someone can correct me).
You also let the cat out the bag in your first paragraph. After going on for ages about how awful a Labour government is, you then reveal it might be better than a Conservative-dominated one with a small UKIP contingent, because you find UKIP's platform so far apart from the Tories.
What platform? It keeps changing. We know the 2010 manifesto was drivel - everyone agrees on that. Will the 2015 manifesto also be drivel? Who knows?
Well, on the NHS, UKIP are now close to the policy position of Unite, Labour and the Lib Dems as set out by the UKIP Health spokesperson Louise Bourse. UKIP apparently want any threats of further use of private companies in the NHS removed.
"Ms Bours will call on David Cameron to support the trade union’s stance that the NHS should be exempted. There is real concern in the health service that the agreement will make it nigh-on impossible for any government to take back control of a service currently provided by the private sector, should they fail to perform adequately." ...... " the NHS was seen as ‘a victory for the working class’ at its creation in 1948."
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
To authorise a referendum a majority vote in parliament is needed. No majority no vote.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
And if a referendum is part of the price for Coalition then it can be assumed that the Coalition will have a majority and will pass the referendum bill. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to Coalition?
And the House of Lords, where Labour, the Lib Dems and crossbenchers comfortably outnumber Tories + UKIP?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to parliamentary procedure?
Ah ok then so Cameron's commitment to a referendum is not genuine then. Good to know...
The deal is that Ukip stand aside and let the Tories win isn't it?
Yes, in order to get what they claim to want, a referendum on leaving the EU.
Not hard to understand, surely?
If they want something other than a referendum, then what would any deal be about? Livery on trains?
Ooh hello touchy!
I was only seeing what the deal was no need to get thy knickers in a twist
Disband the party and hope Cameron gets re elected and hold a referendum.. What if Miliband wins though? Lots ( most ) Ukip voters won't vote conservative
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
To authorise a referendum a majority vote in parliament is needed. No majority no vote.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
And if a referendum is part of the price for Coalition then it can be assumed that the Coalition will have a majority and will pass the referendum bill. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to Coalition?
And the House of Lords, where Labour, the Lib Dems and crossbenchers comfortably outnumber Tories + UKIP?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to parliamentary procedure?
Ah ok then so Cameron's commitment to a referendum is not genuine then. Good to know...
You said it not me.....
Err no. The parliament act applies to the Tory manifesto so the 2017 is the one the House of Lords can't be blocked by the ermine clad.
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
To authorise a referendum a majority vote in parliament is needed. No majority no vote.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
And if a referendum is part of the price for Coalition then it can be assumed that the Coalition will have a majority and will pass the referendum bill. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to Coalition?
And the House of Lords, where Labour, the Lib Dems and crossbenchers comfortably outnumber Tories + UKIP?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to parliamentary procedure?
Ah ok then so Cameron's commitment to a referendum is not genuine then. Good to know...
You said it not me.....
The House of Lords will never block Bills that have been explicitly pledged in the manifesto (and the in-out referendum will be corner-stage in 2015 unlike 2010). Back to the Dummies guide to procedure for you.
"Ms Bours will call on David Cameron to support the trade union’s stance that the NHS should be exempted. There is real concern in the health service that the agreement will make it nigh-on impossible for any government to take back control of a service currently provided by the private sector, should they fail to perform adequately." ...... " the NHS was seen as ‘a victory for the working class’ at its creation in 1948."
Well, on the NHS, UKIP are now close to the policy position of Unite, Labour and the Lib Dems as set out by the UKIP Health spokesperson Louise Bourse. UKIP apparently want any threats of further use of private companies in the NHS removed.
"Ms Bours will call on David Cameron to support the trade union’s stance that the NHS should be exempted. There is real concern in the health service that the agreement will make it nigh-on impossible for any government to take back control of a service currently provided by the private sector, should they fail to perform adequately." ...... " the NHS was seen as ‘a victory for the working class’ at its creation in 1948."
For goodness sake. I'm not talking about a merger. I'm talking about an electoral pact. Outside the 20 seats or so UKIP get given a free run at, the Conservatives wouldn't be affected by UKIP at all, other than be given a chance with their voters. (Voters that you seem to think will go to the Tories if UKIP stood down, although I have my doubts.) The fact you claim things like "takeover" when the two parties would be separate just shows how you are making things up as you go along to sustain your ridiculous argument.
No, if Farage gets to decide who is the leader of the Conservative Party, that is a takeover. He'd demand something else next.
The guy is a wrecker, on an ego trip, prepared to bring about the disaster of a Labour government simply to fuel his ego. He is making demands he knows can't possibly be granted. If he was serious about a deal with the Tories on a referendum, he'd do a deal. There's a perfectly reasonable deal available, in fact it's already there:
- Referendum in 2017, as proposed - Cameron free to try his renegotiation, but UKIP free to say it's a load of hogwash - Eurosceptic Conservatives such as Dan Hannan free to campaign with UKIP on the Out side
That would actually be the best possible, perhaps only, chance of getting the UK to leave the EU in the foreseeable future. If Farage were serious about it, he'd be preparing the Out campaign on that basis.
No, the guy on an ego trip is David Cameron. The man is an old fashioned patriarch, who thinks the plebs should get in line. He actively campaigns to keep an outdated electoral system so that he can then argue it won't allow voters to benefit from their preferred choice and must back him instead. At any stage during his time as leader he could have reached out and listened to others. But instead he prefers to follow a fool's path, like hiring mates like Andy Coulson despite everyone's advice, and to mock fellow right-wingers as "fruitcakes and loons". He creates promises he knows that can't be granted, like taking action on EU immigration, and he is deliberately deceptive about things like vetoing EU treaties and capping the British expense to the EU. Many people are born into privilege and yet remain down-to-Earth and principled. Cameron instead has absorbed the worst of the arrogance and manipulativeness of his class. He will fail to win a majority whether or not UKIP stand against him, and it's his own damn fault. No matter how much his slavish sycophants want to rail at a scapegoat.
Comments
http://images.essentialbaby.com.au/2013/09/19/4761810/Tony_wide-620x349.jpg
http://archemdis.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/cab-fam-cp-5765975.jpg
It doesn't look like much of a Chinese elite to me.
http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/
Interesting to see that both ICM and Yougov project that UKIP have doubled their vote pretty much in the year so far.
ICM had UKIP on 7 points in February and in September they have them on 14 points
Yougov had UKIP on 9 points in February and in September they have them on 17 points
The reason past waves of immigrants have integrated was because there weren't many of them. The previous groups realised they had come to a new society and this society was theirs now, and they had to fit in. Now, the huge scale of EU immigration, and the concept of free movement, means that many feel they are just Swedish, or French, or Polish but living in the UK long term. They have absolutely no mindset that they and their families should become British in time.
The main inhibitor is the fact that those who might be thinking of voting to oust Cameron can't guarantee that there won't be an election that goes to members (i.e. a stich-up by the leading candidates), and once it goes to members, it falls out of their hands.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/is-skilled-immigration-making-canada-a-chinese-colony
Big concern in Australia too.
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/MEP-Roger-Helmer-insists-private-life-s-business/story-23103674-detail/story.html
If he feels people's private lives are not the business of others, then why does he have such an issue with homosexuality?
Also having to give posts to the LDs has stifled the natural growth of other potential leaders - another problem resulting from a coalition = more averages than superlatives. For example Cable and Davey have not lit up the lights - rather a drag on progress.
That said London is not really demonstrative of anything but London one of the greatest and most expensive cities in the world. Our only truly global city is certainly not representative of the rest of the country.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
Which seems unlikely.
Given that you can - in the UK currently - buy yourself residence in the UK through inward investment (as you can in the US, Portugal, Dominica and many other places), this doesn't seem like an excessively major concern.
As a control question they ask a question along these lines
"You are walking through the park and see a small child drowning in pool of water you know is only 1 foot deep - Is rescuing the child morally obligatory, morally permissible or morally forbidden ". 3% of interviewees go with morally forbidden.
Consider 3% above zero as either psychotic or answering in error/misunderstood question.
"Dr. Daniel Varga, chief clinical officer of Texas Health Resources, which oversees Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, told reporters on Sunday that the worker was wearing protective gear when he or she came into contact with Mr. Duncan... "
So both the Spanish and the American transmission was with protected workers.
London: CON 42 LAB 39
South: CON 43 LAB 37
Midlands: CON 42 LAB 40
North: LAB 49 CON 33
Scotland: LAB 37 CON 22
The second, and bigger, problem is that it's such an uncertain process. Why rock the boat if the possible outcomes are mostly worse than not doing so, and there's no real way to be sure of securing anything better? (FWIW, I don't think there is a better option but let's assume we're in the mind of an MP who does think so). Dumping Cameron is easy enough; replacing him with someone better and without splitting the party apart in the process rather harder.
Actually, dumping Cameron isn't necessarily that easy. It's not sufficient to gain 46 MPs to sign anonymous letters, you then have to win the vote of no confidence - or at least, get close enough to make Cameron's leadership untenable - which is a different prospect. Even if malcontents can raise 46 letters, there's a good chance that they'll fail at the second hurdle and replace a moderately strong Cameron leading a relatively united party with a weak Cameron leading a split one. They have to consider that prospect before embarking on the project. Messy coups are nearly always damaging for all involved, whether on not they achieve their primary objective.
"So both the Spanish and the American transmission was with protected workers."
The protection is only as good as the worker's technique. Problems nearly always arise from poor use or, more likely, donning and doffing techniques.
Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"
They might excuse losing the Clacton by-election by writing off poor voters as unimportant (this appears to the their position), but Rochester is not a poor town. If the Conservatives cannot win in Rochester and Strood, how can they win a majority in 2015?
Worse, if Mr Reckless increases his vote share under a UKIP banner, as Mr Carswell has done in Clacton, choosing Team Cameron looks like a strategic mistake.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
It won't be that early. 2016 at earliest. They may or may not even concede a renegotiation ensuring they are heavily involved in the negotiations to keep the Tories honest
The referendum is won by "in".
Then it will have had to have addressed the immigration issue
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Yes take your pick
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal?
Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
If its out of course UKIP remains in Coalition to ensure that Article 50 is invoked and withdrawal is negotiated successfully within the 2 year timescale. Beyond that it can start influencing the government to scrap unwelcome EU originated legislation. It would want to begin the process of rehabilitating our relationships with the commonwealth and building relationships with other parts of the globe that we are not allowed to by EU law. It would also want to further its other goals as a decentralist party
UKIP is a full blown political party with with it's own policy portfolio (as the policies for people link suggests) that it would want to advance. So of course it would carry on. How successfully would be down to the voters but it is distinct in currently being the only true decentralist party in Westminster.
Withdrawal is just the end of the beginning not the end
Many years ago, when working with monkey blood and tissues,we were concerned about virus transmission - particularly Marburg which had just been discovered. We used home made glove cabinets with extraction. Perfect in theory, but the human element was always the problem, no matter how good the theoretical protection.
So the main takeaway points? They don't care about policy, they have stopped listening to the established parties, they all cited economic and social mess. So UKIP as a protest against all of us that's gut based rather than head based. They will be hard to shift, which is why they aren't heading "home" to vote Tory. They claim not to have moved opinions, its the Tories who have abandoned them.
In the second instance I cannot see UKIP in its current form having any value or reason after a successful withdrawal. Unless it was willing to change and fill a gap in the market by becoming a properly Libertarian party (with the consequent initial drop in support I suspect that would entail) then it would just be like any other party - frankly pointless.
That still doesn't answer the key questions though: even if you want to replace Cameron, who do you do it with and how do you ensure the outcome? Until you have decent answers to those, there's no point starting the game.
And if a referendum is part of the price for Coalition then it can be assumed that the Coalition will have a majority and will pass the referendum bill. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to Coalition?
If Conservative MPs think the strategy being pursued by Mr Cameron is loser, there is nothing to be lost in sacking him.
It's also a useful reminder that I'm afraid most voters are pretty dumb.
A typical Cameroonian response from you, I note.
No one is going to agree to July 2015, but a compromise of May 2016 might be on offer.
The Scottish referendum went on for far too long, while it was possible to get AV done one year after the 2010 election.
Basically, Cameron - if he were to win - would have to get any renegotiation done much more quickly. If he tries to defer, UKIP strengthen further.
The sort of people who are prepared to vote for the separatists (UKIP, SNP, UKIP in kilts) will not be swayed by logic or reason.
They were just outnumbered.
Like the voter quoted upthread who voted UKIP cos he didn't like the previous Tory MP, there is no policy any party could have put forward that would have stopped him voting for the guy he didn't like...
EDIT. That's also why ditching Cameron makes no sense. There is no policy the Tories can offer, whoever is leader, that would win back the nutters.
The guy is certifiably bonkers.
Awesome
Ps I'm thinking of changing my user name to John Major!
Ah, don't worry, I know the answer:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/11/ukip-david-cameron-conservative-pact_n_5969538.html
If we win the referendum, then we'll still be needed to keep the main parties honest on immigration, unless once of them gets its act in order.
I note several Cameroons saying they haven't detoxified/modernised enough. That's why they're failing. Morons like that are beyond reasoning with. See Labourites congratulating themselves over indyref and holding onto Heywood and Middleton for a Labour example.
Cameron mustn't be removed. He must be left in situ to be humiliated by Ed is Crap and/or Farage.
Then we can just laugh at the Cameroons as we did Major
I've had no takers, unsurprisingly.
Surely it's reasonable to just get rid of your leader to stop a Labour government? After all, you expect UKIP to get rid of their entire party.
Well, that's obvious enough from many of those who post here.
But rather than try to divert the argument elsewhere, let's refocus on the point. You think a Labour government will be so disastrous, UKIP should be prepared to throw everything in as a political party to reduce the chance it will happen. Given that, you should surely be prepared to merely ditch your party leader to stop it happening. Why don't you support that?
Safer to stick to re-tweeting, perhaps.
However, it's a ridiculous scenario. It would be electoral suicide, and in any case it would effectively be a reverse-takeover by the fruitcakes and loons. It would simply lead to an increased likelihood of a Labour government.
BBC - Anti-IS protest stops M4 traffic on Second Severn Crossing
Gwent Police said a group of people in about 10 cars campaigning against the militant group stopped in the middle lane.
Does anyone else find this form of protest an utterly bizarre choice..?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-29589776
You also let the cat out the bag in your first paragraph. After going on for ages about how awful a Labour government is, you then reveal it might be better than a Conservative-dominated one with a small UKIP contingent, because you find UKIP's platform so far apart from the Tories. Why is it any surprise then, that UKIP wouldn't particularly prefer a wholly Conservative government over a Labour one?
Completely hypocritical.
A brilliant strategy to box UKIP into a right wing tiny corner. That'll finish them off in double quick time.
Homeland's on tonight, 9pm (Channel 4).
Mr. H, I concur. Given how things stand, UKIP's already in danger of looking (once again) like Tory-light (two defectors from them). What they could use is a Labour defector, some old Labour sort.
Well, not that they need much help with momentum.
The guy is a wrecker, on an ego trip, prepared to bring about the disaster of a Labour government simply to fuel his ego. He is making demands he knows can't possibly be granted. If he was serious about a deal with the Tories on a referendum, he'd do a deal. There's a perfectly reasonable deal available, in fact it's already there:
- Referendum in 2017, as proposed
- Cameron free to try his renegotiation, but UKIP free to say it's a load of hogwash
- Eurosceptic Conservatives such as Dan Hannan free to campaign with UKIP on the Out side
That would actually be the best possible, perhaps only, chance of getting the UK to leave the EU in the foreseeable future. If Farage were serious about it, he'd be preparing the Out campaign on that basis.
It would be like AV for countries too superstitious to actually enact AV.
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to parliamentary procedure?
As I've said passim, if the Conservatives move towards UKIP, then they may gain some UKIP voters, but they will lose some from the centre.
Better for them to fight UKIP and give the electorate a choice.
The deal is that Ukip stand aside and let the Tories win isn't it?
Not hard to understand, surely?
If they want something other than a referendum, then what would any deal be about? Livery on trains?
But you know that already.
Give the voters a choice.
that may be true but the conservatives have to work out how they have allowed him to get so strong
Blummin' voters eh?
Within two months after the election Farage expects legislation to be passed and the campaign to have been conducted on an in/out referendum.
'Cause you'd need the Electoral commission to approve the wording, Spending limits etc need to be decided.
Is that even feasible?
"Ms Bours will call on David Cameron to support the trade union’s stance that the NHS should be exempted. There is real concern in the health service that the agreement will make it nigh-on impossible for any government to take back control of a service currently provided by the private sector, should they fail to perform adequately." ...... " the NHS was seen as ‘a victory for the working class’ at its creation in 1948."
http://www.ukip.org/louise_bours_standing_up_for_the_nhs
You said it not me.....
I was only seeing what the deal was no need to get thy knickers in a twist
Disband the party and hope Cameron gets re elected and hold a referendum.. What if Miliband wins though? Lots ( most ) Ukip voters won't vote conservative
I think.
@BBCPeterH: Taxpayer must "get value for money" from NHS @Nigel_Farage tells #bbcsp - he wants "hard-nosed businessman" in charge http://t.co/UMg91uIYRH
And what did they propose in 2010?
- Key NHS services put out to tender, with charities and businesses taking franchises on key services with fixed budgets
- Introduce Health Credit Vouchers, allowing people to opt-out of the NHS if they want private insurance
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8617187.stm