Because by 2005 we had decided that we wanted to win and opposition sucks.
Precisely. That was why I joined the Conservative Party. I wasn't interested in futile gestures, but in getting a decent government. It will be a crying shame if, having finally got one after all those years, we throw it away through disunity and poor discipline, and get the two Eds instead.
But those kippers that complain that they feel that they are being looked down on and abused for their choice by erstwhile comrades might care to reflect that their choice may have provoked genuine disdain.
I think it's common to feel very bitter towards people who've switched away from your side. The heretic is always far more disliked than the infidel.
I'm not a Conservative myself, so it's not my fight. But kippers are deluding themselves if they think that their choice is considered respectable by many:
Contradicting your theory, "The negativity was much more common among Labour (40 per cent) and lib Dem supporters (42 per cent) than among Conservative voters (13 per cent)."
Labour and Lib Dem voters think UKIP supporters are Plebs - says survey.
Conservative voters would never use such a word of course.
My frustration with the Con to UKIP defectors is that David Cameron is about to become the third consecutive Tory PM to be destroyed by Europe.
The Tory party fault line is really starting to piss me off.
The last time we handed the country to Labour for thirteen years.
The country can't afford us to be so self indulgent.
Labour had the same fault line and you got 18 years of Government from it so don't complain.
Seriously, all parties are self-indulgent just as all people are on occasions. Had UKIP been born as an SDP-like splintering of Conservatives (say led by Ken Clarke) in the 90s or 00s it would have made life easier.
Similarly, had David Davis won in 2005 instead of Cameron, it probably would have been easier but the Conservatives also have this strong and long tradition of being pro-European if not pro-EU. Go back to Thatcher, Heath and even WSC and there was a time when the Conservatives were the most pro-European of the three main parties (pre UKIP).
Pre UKIP, an anti-EU Tory had nowhere else to go - cue counterfactual on Powell forming his own breakaway Party in the mid 60s and indeed neither did an anti-EU Labour supporter.
You're deconstructing the text too carefully. If you think that argument would wash in a pub on a Friday night in Glasgow, you're a braver man than me. The SNP cannot afford to be seen to be the Conservatives' helpers, either actively or passively.
You might well be right, but then this is a party which has done spectacular handbrake turns on the currency, the monarchy, and other issues, apparently without ill-effect on its support.
We will soon see what being the Tories little helpers does to Labour in Scotland.
But those kippers that complain that they feel that they are being looked down on and abused for their choice by erstwhile comrades might care to reflect that their choice may have provoked genuine disdain.
I think it's common to feel very bitter towards people who've switched away from your side. The heretic is always far more disliked than the infidel.
I'm not a Conservative myself, so it's not my fight. But kippers are deluding themselves if they think that their choice is considered respectable by many:
Contradicting your theory, "The negativity was much more common among Labour (40 per cent) and lib Dem supporters (42 per cent) than among Conservative voters (13 per cent)."
That would say more about them than it would me. It would be their ignorance and misunderstanding of the reasonability of UKIPs key policy positions behind it, not to mention the personal disrespect to me and my intelligence.
I count many socialists and ardent europhiles amongst my friends. I'd never terminate a friendship over political views sincerely held, and would only consider doing so over very bad behaviour.
My frustration with the Con to UKIP defectors is that David Cameron is about to become the third consecutive Tory PM to be destroyed by Europe.
The Tory party fault line is really starting to piss me off.
The last time we handed the country to Labour for thirteen years.
The country can't afford us to be so self indulgent.
That's because there's a fundamental conflict at the heart of the Tory party: it professes to be the party of patriotism and national sovereignty but that's completely neutered by its dogmatic belief in continued EU membership. We've moved from favouring ERM, to 'wait and see' on the euro, to 'not in the next parliament', to 'no euro ever', to 'no more powers to Brussels' to 'renegotating our relationship'.
The direction of travel is a good one but it's not fast enough. Things are at a head in this country now. This conflict will only end when we finally leave the EU for good, which we will.
If outers such as Hollobone, Bone, Cash et al are happy with the speed of travel then I think Dave got it right on Friday.
Obviously this post will look ridiculous if one those defects to UKIP.
My frustration with the Con to UKIP defectors is that David Cameron is about to become the third consecutive Tory PM to be destroyed by Europe.
The Tory party fault line is really starting to piss me off.
The last time we handed the country to Labour for thirteen years.
The country can't afford us to be so self indulgent.
That's because there's a fundamental conflict at the heart of the Tory party: it professes to be the party of patriotism and national sovereignty but that's completely neutered by its dogmatic belief in continued EU membership. We've moved from favouring ERM, to 'wait and see' on the euro, to 'not in the next parliament', to 'no euro ever', to 'no more powers to Brussels' to 'renegotating our relationship'.
The direction of travel is a good one but it's not fast enough. Things are at a head in this country now. This conflict will only end when we finally leave the EU for good, which we will.
I dispute that most Tories have a "dogmatic" belief in continued membership of the EU. It's a pragmatic belief which will end if we don't get a good deal.
My frustration with the Con to UKIP defectors is that David Cameron is about to become the third consecutive Tory PM to be destroyed by Europe.
The Tory party fault line is really starting to piss me off.
The last time we handed the country to Labour for thirteen years.
The country can't afford us to be so self indulgent.
So why does a euro-sceptic party vote for a euro-enthusiast leader, and then create so much grief for him? Why didn't you lot elect a leader who was prepared to say "Up Yours" to the eurofederalists, and lead the UK to the sunlit uplands of freedom? Next year, you'll have the chance to get it right (by electing PP or similar), and either extinguish the Kippers entirely or force them to become FN-UK and become an irrelevance.
Because by 2005 we had decided that we wanted to win and opposition sucks.
If Dave gets back in and there is a referendum in 2017, I reckon win or lose UKIP will enjoy another surge in popularity, as has happened with the SNP/Labour in Scotland. And it will be at the cost of the Conservatives I think.
Personally I blame Sir Geoffrey Howe, if he had toppled Thatcher over the Poll Tax and not Europe then I think the fault line wouldn't be so pronounced.
29% saying the economy will get better if the Conservatives win the GE, versus 18% if Labour do so, is not enough of a margin. The Conservatives have more to do to get the message across.
My frustration with the Con to UKIP defectors is that David Cameron is about to become the third consecutive Tory PM to be destroyed by Europe.
The Tory party fault line is really starting to piss me off.
The last time we handed the country to Labour for thirteen years.
The country can't afford us to be so self indulgent.
That's because there's a fundamental conflict at the heart of the Tory party: it professes to be the party of patriotism and national sovereignty but that's completely neutered by its dogmatic belief in continued EU membership. We've moved from favouring ERM, to 'wait and see' on the euro, to 'not in the next parliament', to 'no euro ever', to 'no more powers to Brussels' to 'renegotating our relationship'.
The direction of travel is a good one but it's not fast enough. Things are at a head in this country now. This conflict will only end when we finally leave the EU for good, which we will.
I dispute that most Tories have a "dogmatic" belief in continued membership of the EU. It's a pragmatic belief which will end if we don't get a good deal.
Cameron has steadfastly refused to say he will campaign for an exit if he doesn't get his deal. And his deal has already been watered down from a points system to an emergency brake to some fiddling around with benefits.
My frustration with the Con to UKIP defectors is that David Cameron is about to become the third consecutive Tory PM to be destroyed by Europe.
The Tory party fault line is really starting to piss me off.
The last time we handed the country to Labour for thirteen years.
The country can't afford us to be so self indulgent.
That's because there's a fundamental conflict at the heart of the Tory party: it professes to be the party of patriotism and national sovereignty but that's completely neutered by its dogmatic belief in continued EU membership. We've moved from favouring ERM, to 'wait and see' on the euro, to 'not in the next parliament', to 'no euro ever', to 'no more powers to Brussels' to 'renegotating our relationship'.
The direction of travel is a good one but it's not fast enough. Things are at a head in this country now. This conflict will only end when we finally leave the EU for good, which we will.
If outers such as Hollobone, Bone, Cash et al are happy with the speed of travel then I think Dave got it right on Friday.
Obviously this post will look ridiculous if one those defects to UKIP.
I've looked ridiculous many times myself TSE. Perhaps i may do so again. No shame in that.
What Bone, Hollobone and Cash profess in public, and say in private, are - I suspect - two very different things.
I wanted to support the Conservatives in GE15 but their performance on Europe, immigration and defence has been so pathetic I just can't bring myself to do it. I can't cast a vote for them knowing I will be badly let down by them as soon as they return to office.
Because by 2005 we had decided that we wanted to win and opposition sucks.
Precisely. That was why I joined the Conservative Party. I wasn't interested in futile gestures, but in getting a decent government. It will be a crying shame if, having finally got one after all those years, we throw it away through disunity and poor discipline, and get the two Eds instead.
But that disunity has been entirely caused by the leadership. I find it stunning that you don't see that. There isn't a vertical split down the party, the split is between the voters/activists and those at the top.
Mr. Socrates, the benefit proposals had some merit.
But the Commission is apparently already drawing up papers to submit to the ECJ, arguing the proposals are illegal. The sooner we leave the EU, the better.
Because by 2005 we had decided that we wanted to win and opposition sucks.
Precisely. That was why I joined the Conservative Party. I wasn't interested in futile gestures, but in getting a decent government. It will be a crying shame if, having finally got one after all those years, we throw it away through disunity and poor discipline, and get the two Eds instead.
The alternative is to tear yourselves apart in Government and render yourselves unelectable for a generation which is, after all, what the Conservatives did from 1992-97.
I would surmise there are three bodies of opinion within Conservative ranks - the minority "in Whatever" and "Out Whatever" and the majority "let's win the election and see what David can achieve". History resonates with Conservative Prime Ministers coming back from Europe with pieces of paper signed by German leaders but the point is or will be when Cameron presents his renegotiated terms to the Conservative Party.
IF he doesn't or can't get a deal and recommends OUT, there will be Conservatives on the opposing side. IF he gets a deal and recommends in, there will be Conservatives on the opposing side. This is what happened to Labour in 1975.
My frustration with the Con to UKIP defectors is that David Cameron is about to become the third consecutive Tory PM to be destroyed by Europe.
The Tory party fault line is really starting to piss me off.
The last time we handed the country to Labour for thirteen years.
The country can't afford us to be so self indulgent.
So why does a euro-sceptic party vote for a euro-enthusiast leader, and then create so much grief for him? Why didn't you lot elect a leader who was prepared to say "Up Yours" to the eurofederalists, and lead the UK to the sunlit uplands of freedom? Next year, you'll have the chance to get it right (by electing PP or similar), and either extinguish the Kippers entirely or force them to become FN-UK and become an irrelevance.
Because by 2005 we had decided that we wanted to win and opposition sucks.
Remember, IDS NEVER lost a GE as Tory leader!
We would have finished third in 2005 if IDS was at the helm.
My frustration with the Con to UKIP defectors is that David Cameron is about to become the third consecutive Tory PM to be destroyed by Europe.
The Tory party fault line is really starting to piss me off.
The last time we handed the country to Labour for thirteen years.
The country can't afford us to be so self indulgent.
That's because there's a fundamental conflict at the heart of the Tory party: it professes to be the party of patriotism and national sovereignty but that's completely neutered by its dogmatic belief in continued EU membership. We've moved from favouring ERM, to 'wait and see' on the euro, to 'not in the next parliament', to 'no euro ever', to 'no more powers to Brussels' to 'renegotating our relationship'.
The direction of travel is a good one but it's not fast enough. Things are at a head in this country now. This conflict will only end when we finally leave the EU for good, which we will.
I dispute that most Tories have a "dogmatic" belief in continued membership of the EU. It's a pragmatic belief which will end if we don't get a good deal.
Cameron has steadfastly refused to say he will campaign for an exit if he doesn't get his deal. And his deal has already been watered down from a points system to an emergency brake to some fiddling around with benefits.
Then people will vote OUT if it isn't good enough.
Based on the IndyRef experience, the EU will start making concessions as we get closer to the vote.
@OliverCooper: Sweden's left-wing government will likely collapse, after just two months in office, as the nationalist SD say they'll oppose the budget.
If only the Lib Dems had done the same in 2010.........
.... and resulted in financial instability which would have led to the IMF having to bail us out because investors would no longer lend the UK the money to fill the gap between government spending and revenue raised from taxes etc. With riots just like Greece.
Although the discipline imposed by the IMF would mean the deficit would be much smaller by now whilst we would have record unemployment of ex public sector workers and record cuts in welfare, NHS and education.
But those kippers that complain that they feel that they are being looked down on and abused for their choice by erstwhile comrades might care to reflect that their choice may have provoked genuine disdain.
I think it's common to feel very bitter towards people who've switched away from your side. The heretic is always far more disliked than the infidel.
I'm not a Conservative myself, so it's not my fight. But kippers are deluding themselves if they think that their choice is considered respectable by many:
Contradicting your theory, "The negativity was much more common among Labour (40 per cent) and lib Dem supporters (42 per cent) than among Conservative voters (13 per cent)."
That would say more about them than it would me. It would be their ignorance and misunderstanding of the reasonability of UKIPs key policy positions behind it, not to mention the personal disrespect to me and my intelligence.
I count many socialists and ardent europhiles amongst my friends. I'd never terminate a friendship over political views sincerely held, and would only consider doing so over very bad behaviour.
There was an article on one of the USA left wing sites (Slate?) about media coverage of Mrs Palin a while ago. Articles about Mrs Palin are apparently more common from Democrat-leaning publications/websites than Republican leaning publications/websites.
The conclusion was that Democrat-leaning readers just enjoy reading/commenting on negative articles about Mrs Palin.
It's clear that the referendum (from a Conservative point of view) is a charade as almost all of them want to Stay In anyway, and will therefore recommend "Yes" to the electorate no matter what happens in the 'renegotiation'.
I'd certainly disagree that 'almost all' Conservatives want to Stay In
Its complete rubbish - today's YouGov
EU Vote today - net stay in: Con: -12 Lab: +36 LibD: +52 UKIP: -84
And (why UKIP supporters really detest Cameron)
Vote after Cameron renegotiation - net stay: Con: +45 Lab: +41 LibD: +67 UKIP: -53
But that disunity has been entirely caused by the leadership.
No it hasn't. It has been there since the 1990s. In 2005 they finally came to their senses, and realised that had to change. They elected a leader who personified that change, and who has been 100% consistent in it (just read his speeches from the time - all the themes are there, he hasn't changed at all). Now they are drifting back into the bad old habits of self-indulgent disunity. We have to hope that that won't scupper 2015, but we shall see.
My frustration with the Con to UKIP defectors is that David Cameron is about to become the third consecutive Tory PM to be destroyed by Europe.
The Tory party fault line is really starting to piss me off.
The last time we handed the country to Labour for thirteen years.
The country can't afford us to be so self indulgent.
That's because there's a fundamental conflict at the heart of the Tory party: it professes to be the party of patriotism and national sovereignty but that's completely neutered by its dogmatic belief in continued EU membership. We've moved from favouring ERM, to 'wait and see' on the euro, to 'not in the next parliament', to 'no euro ever', to 'no more powers to Brussels' to 'renegotating our relationship'.
The direction of travel is a good one but it's not fast enough. Things are at a head in this country now. This conflict will only end when we finally leave the EU for good, which we will.
I dispute that most Tories have a "dogmatic" belief in continued membership of the EU. It's a pragmatic belief which will end if we don't get a good deal.
Cameron has steadfastly refused to say he will campaign for an exit if he doesn't get his deal. And his deal has already been watered down from a points system to an emergency brake to some fiddling around with benefits.
Then people will vote OUT if it isn't good enough.
Based on the IndyRef experience, the EU will start making concessions as we get closer to the vote.
The debate was whether the Tories have a dogmatic belief in continued membership of the EU, or a pragmatic one. Given Cameron's position, it's clearly a dogmatic one.
The tactical choice to vote UKIP is another debate.
I've been saying ever since the idiot Lansley first proposed his lunatic reforms that they would hit the Tories hard at election time. Yes the economy is improving but the NHS is short of money. Not surprising given that Lansley and Hunt wasted billions on unnecessary organisation and ever more ppublic money is going via the NHS into share holders back pockets.
It's clear that the referendum (from a Conservative point of view) is a charade as almost all of them want to Stay In anyway, and will therefore recommend "Yes" to the electorate no matter what happens in the 'renegotiation'.
I'd certainly disagree that 'almost all' Conservatives want to Stay In
Its complete rubbish - today's YouGov
EU Vote today - net stay in: Con: -12 Lab: +36 LibD: +52 UKIP: -84
And (why UKIP supporters really detest Cameron)
Vote after Cameron renegotiation - net stay: Con: +45 Lab: +41 LibD: +67 UKIP: -53
My frustration with the Con to UKIP defectors is that David Cameron is about to become the third consecutive Tory PM to be destroyed by Europe.
The Tory party fault line is really starting to piss me off.
The last time we handed the country to Labour for thirteen years.
The country can't afford us to be so self indulgent.
So why does a euro-sceptic party vote for a euro-enthusiast leader, and then create so much grief for him? Why didn't you lot elect a leader who was prepared to say "Up Yours" to the eurofederalists, and lead the UK to the sunlit uplands of freedom? Next year, you'll have the chance to get it right (by electing PP or similar), and either extinguish the Kippers entirely or force them to become FN-UK and become an irrelevance.
Because by 2005 we had decided that we wanted to win and opposition sucks.
I voted for Cameron in 2005, and was even a member of 'Change to Win' before then. I thought he was a sincere reformer and eurosceptic.
It's clear that the referendum (from a Conservative point of view) is a charade as almost all of them want to Stay In anyway, and will therefore recommend "Yes" to the electorate no matter what happens in the 'renegotiation'.
I'd certainly disagree that 'almost all' Conservatives want to Stay In
Its complete rubbish - today's YouGov
EU Vote today - net stay in: Con: -12 Lab: +36 LibD: +52 UKIP: -84
And (why UKIP supporters really detest Cameron)
Vote after Cameron renegotiation - net stay: Con: +45 Lab: +41 LibD: +67 UKIP: -53
The UKIP challenge is to show that Cameron's renegotiation will be a crock of shit. Thankfully, Cameron's doing quite a good job at that himself.
I do think that Cameron will deliver on the referendum - his party would simply not allow him to renege - he would be out of office without delay. After that, neither Cameron nor his views will matter that much because in a referendum it will all be down to the people as a whole. He may be the best of a poor bunch but he is worth supporting for that reason if none other. We will get our referendum, and even pro-Europeans should welcome that because it is an opportunity for them too.
I will only vote (or would only vote, if you prefer, given I live where I live) for candidates who favour outright EU withdrawal.
My frustration with the Con to UKIP defectors is that David Cameron is about to become the third consecutive Tory PM to be destroyed by Europe.
The Tory party fault line is really starting to piss me off.
The last time we handed the country to Labour for thirteen years.
The country can't afford us to be so self indulgent.
So why does a euro-sceptic party vote for a euro-enthusiast leader, and then create so much grief for him? Why didn't you lot elect a leader who was prepared to say "Up Yours" to the eurofederalists, and lead the UK to the sunlit uplands of freedom? Next year, you'll have the chance to get it right (by electing PP or similar), and either extinguish the Kippers entirely or force them to become FN-UK and become an irrelevance.
Because by 2005 we had decided that we wanted to win and opposition sucks.
Except that euro-enthusiasm is a vote-loser (see Clegg's party of In) while euroscepticism is a vote-winner (see UKIP at the Euros, vetogasm, etc etc).
My frustration with the Con to UKIP defectors is that David Cameron is about to become the third consecutive Tory PM to be destroyed by Europe.
The Tory party fault line is really starting to piss me off.
The last time we handed the country to Labour for thirteen years.
The country can't afford us to be so self indulgent.
So why does a euro-sceptic party vote for a euro-enthusiast leader, and then create so much grief for him? Why didn't you lot elect a leader who was prepared to say "Up Yours" to the eurofederalists, and lead the UK to the sunlit uplands of freedom? Next year, you'll have the chance to get it right (by electing PP or similar), and either extinguish the Kippers entirely or force them to become FN-UK and become an irrelevance.
Because by 2005 we had decided that we wanted to win and opposition sucks.
Remember, IDS NEVER lost a GE as Tory leader!
We would have finished third in 2005 if IDS was at the helm.
It's beyond belief Socrates, isn't it? This is why the Conservative Party is heaping more brushwood upon its own funeral pyre.
For months I've read reasoned and balanced arguments from posters i respect - you and Sean Fear in particular, as well as Sunil - on your reasons for defecting to UKIP. I've read sympathetic comments on UKIP by SeanT, Andy JS and Morris Dancer, who understand the sentiments and appeal. And I've met UKIP candidates - David Kendrick and Isam - who are perfectly reasonable and thoughtful people.
What have I had from my former Tory colleagues to dissuade me? With one or two honourable exceptions (Richard Nabavi being one, and Peter from Putney another) a constant stream of abuse directed at kippers, most of which seem to involve permutations on 'racist' and 'nasty'.
It's not been that hard to recognise, actually, which is the more intellectually and morally bankrupt party. Perhaps those who recognise themselves in the description above should reflect on that.
And hate, Mr. Royale, don't forget the hate. Almost every day on here I am told that as a supporter of UKIP my motive is hate. Apparently I hate people of a different religion, people born abroad, this country, the modern world and goodness knows what else besides. Why someone I have never met feels they know my motives better than I do, is beyond me, especially when I hatred is an emotion I don't use and certainly never express.
Then there is ignorance. You will have noticed that, besides being motivated by hate, all UKIP supporters are ignorant, at least according to some on here. I consider myself pretty well educated (bachelor's degrees in mathematics and history and post graduate qualifications) and reasonably well informed about current affairs and politics, yet I am told I am ignorant mainly because I feel I can no longer support the Conservative Party.
Why some posters feel the need to throw around stereotypes and insult people they have never met and do not know in the slightest is a mystery. When some of those same people support a party that is trying to attract UKIP supporters back, well I do wonder.
I agree. To answer your question it makes the whole process of schism easier for them to deal with and means they don't have to do too much difficult thinking.
But that disunity has been entirely caused by the leadership.
No it hasn't. It has been there since the 1990s. In 2005 they finally came to their senses, and realised that had to change. They elected a leader who personified that change, and who has been 100% consistent in it (just read his speeches from the time - all the themes are there, he hasn't changed at all). Now they are drifting back into the bad old habits of self-indulgent disunity. We have to hope that that won't scupper 2015, but we shall see.
100% consistent? You mean in vetoing the Euro-treaty, and in not bailing out Eurozone countries, and in capping the EU budget, and in not handing significant powers to the EU, and in not paying the full EU shakedown? That consistency?
It's clear that the referendum (from a Conservative point of view) is a charade as almost all of them want to Stay In anyway, and will therefore recommend "Yes" to the electorate no matter what happens in the 'renegotiation'.
I'd certainly disagree that 'almost all' Conservatives want to Stay In
Its complete rubbish - today's YouGov
EU Vote today - net stay in: Con: -12 Lab: +36 LibD: +52 UKIP: -84
And (why UKIP supporters really detest Cameron)
Vote after Cameron renegotiation - net stay: Con: +45 Lab: +41 LibD: +67 UKIP: -53
I think Casino was referring to Conservative MPs.
Who probably are more enthusiastic about the EU, but less likely to be persuaded by a Cameron renegotiation!
It's clear that the referendum (from a Conservative point of view) is a charade as almost all of them want to Stay In anyway, and will therefore recommend "Yes" to the electorate no matter what happens in the 'renegotiation'.
I'd certainly disagree that 'almost all' Conservatives want to Stay In
Its complete rubbish - today's YouGov
EU Vote today - net stay in: Con: -12 Lab: +36 LibD: +52 UKIP: -84
And (why UKIP supporters really detest Cameron)
Vote after Cameron renegotiation - net stay: Con: +45 Lab: +41 LibD: +67 UKIP: -53
The UKIP challenge is to show that Cameron's renegotiation will be a crock of shit. Thankfully, Cameron's doing quite a good job at that himself.
Then we should expect the 'net stay' after renegotiation to decline, shouldn't we?
Can't be arsed to look it up, but IIRC its pretty consistent......but that may all have changed by the GE....or not.......
It's beyond belief Socrates, isn't it? This is why the Conservative Party is heaping more brushwood upon its own funeral pyre.
For months I've read reasoned and balanced arguments from posters i respect - you and Sean Fear in particular, as well as Sunil - on your reasons for defecting to UKIP. I've read sympathetic comments on UKIP by SeanT, Andy JS and Morris Dancer, who understand the sentiments and appeal. And I've met UKIP candidates - David Kendrick and Isam - who are perfectly reasonable and thoughtful people.
What have I had from my former Tory colleagues to dissuade me? With one or two honourable exceptions (Richard Nabavi being one, and Peter from Putney another) a constant stream of abuse directed at kippers, most of which seem to involve permutations on 'racist' and 'nasty'.
It's not been that hard to recognise, actually, which is the more intellectually and morally bankrupt party. Perhaps those who recognise themselves in the description above should reflect on that.
And hate, Mr. Royale, don't forget the hate. Almost every day on here I am told that as a supporter of UKIP my motive is hate. Apparently I hate people of a different religion, people born abroad, this country, the modern world and goodness knows what else besides. Why someone I have never met feels they know my motives better than I do, is beyond me, especially when I hatred is an emotion I don't use and certainly never express.
Then there is ignorance. You will have noticed that, besides being motivated by hate, all UKIP supporters are ignorant, at least according to some on here. I consider myself pretty well educated (bachelor's degrees in mathematics and history and post graduate qualifications) and reasonably well informed about current affairs and politics, yet I am told I am ignorant mainly because I feel I can no longer support the Conservative Party.
Why some posters feel the need to throw around stereotypes and insult people they have never met and do not know in the slightest is a mystery. When some of those same people support a party that is trying to attract UKIP supporters back, well I do wonder.
I agree. To answer your question it makes the whole process of schism easier for them to deal with and means they don't have to do too much difficult thinking.
Yet the polling shows that the Tories hate you much less than the other parties.
But that disunity has been entirely caused by the leadership.
No it hasn't. It has been there since the 1990s. In 2005 they finally came to their senses, and realised that had to change. They elected a leader who personified that change, and who has been 100% consistent in it (just read his speeches from the time - all the themes are there, he hasn't changed at all). Now they are drifting back into the bad old habits of self-indulgent disunity. We have to hope that that won't scupper 2015, but we shall see.
100% consistent? You mean in vetoing the Euro-treaty, and in not bailing out Eurozone countries, and in capping the EU budget, and in not handing significant powers to the EU, and in not paying the full EU shakedown? That consistency?
Yes, that consistency, based on the world as it is, not as fantasists would like it to be. We can tilt at windmills, and let Labour damage the country, or we can govern based on reality.
The more you criticise Cameron, the more irrational your position seems: if he's so useless, why are you so terrified that in 2017 he might be on the other side of the referendum question? That should help you, right?
Are we taking lessons in morality from Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State:
Seemingly arbitrarily deciding what is nice sex and what is not nice sex, the board has banned the following acts from being depicted by British pornography producers:
It's not been that hard to recognise, actually, which is the more intellectually and morally bankrupt party. Perhaps those who recognise themselves in the description above should reflect on that.
It's unfair to tar any political party by association with trolls on pbc who happen to support that party. Can you imagine anyone not voting for the Lib Dems because of the legendary rudeness of Colin W? It would be just as silly to abstain from voting Tory due to the constant trolling of the likes of Flightpath and that James Bond poster.
It's not just posters on here though, is it? The leader of the Conservative party engages in the same abuse.
Cameron has dragged political discourse into the gutter. It's genuinely upsetting. I saw PMQs for the first time for ages the other week -he was going on about how all the world leaders were saying how wrong Ed Milliband was about something. I thought -did PMs used to do that? Come back to the dispatch box and brag about 'private' conversations to make the opposition look small? It's politics for the Buzzfeed generation.
It's clear that the referendum (from a Conservative point of view) is a charade as almost all of them want to Stay In anyway, and will therefore recommend "Yes" to the electorate no matter what happens in the 'renegotiation'.
I'd certainly disagree that 'almost all' Conservatives want to Stay In
Its complete rubbish - today's YouGov
EU Vote today - net stay in: Con: -12 Lab: +36 LibD: +52 UKIP: -84
And (why UKIP supporters really detest Cameron)
Vote after Cameron renegotiation - net stay: Con: +45 Lab: +41 LibD: +67 UKIP: -53
I think Casino was referring to Conservative MPs.
Correct. I want the Conservative party (to retain my vote) to do one of two things: (1) attempt a strong and genuine fundamental renegotiation of our EU membership and, if actually successful get it written down in a legal agreement of intent, prior to putting it to the voters, an IN recommendation would be respectable. If not, and it doesn't get jack sh*t, which is what is currently shaping up (2) recommend an OUT vote with an alternative non-EU relationship with Europe proposed on the table instead, and focus on negotiations for that.
What is not acceptable is what we currently have (3) intend to recommend an IN vote no matter what, and half-heartedly approaching Angela for any concessions she's willing to throw our way.
The domestic policy of this country should not be dictated to our Prime Minister by Berlin.
It's not been that hard to recognise, actually, which is the more intellectually and morally bankrupt party. Perhaps those who recognise themselves in the description above should reflect on that.
It's unfair to tar any political party by association with trolls on pbc who happen to support that party. Can you imagine anyone not voting for the Lib Dems because of the legendary rudeness of Colin W? It would be just as silly to abstain from voting Tory due to the constant trolling of the likes of Flightpath and that James Bond poster.
It's not just posters on here though, is it? The leader of the Conservative party engages in the same abuse.
Cameron has dragged political discourse into the gutter. It's genuinely upsetting. I saw PMQs for the first time for ages the other week -he was going on about how all the world leaders were saying how wrong Ed Milliband was about something. I thought -did PMs used to do that? Come back to the dispatch box and brag about 'private' conversations to make the opposition look small? It's politics for the Buzzfeed generation.
He was trying to do that with his own head of state during indyref, so there seems to be a pattern developing. Maybe the Hello! generation though ...
It's beyond belief Socrates, isn't it? This is why the Conservative Party is heaping more brushwood upon its own funeral pyre.
For months I've read reasoned and balanced arguments from posters i respect - you and Sean Fear in particular, as well as Sunil - on your reasons for defecting to UKIP. I've read sympathetic comments on UKIP by SeanT, Andy JS and Morris Dancer, who understand the sentiments and appeal. And I've met UKIP candidates - David Kendrick and Isam - who are perfectly reasonable and thoughtful people.
What have I had from my former Tory colleagues to dissuade me? With one or two honourable exceptions (Richard Nabavi being one, and Peter from Putney another) a constant stream of abuse directed at kippers, most of which seem to involve permutations on 'racist' and 'nasty'.
It's not been that hard to recognise, actually, which is the more intellectually and morally bankrupt party. Perhaps those who recognise themselves in the description above should reflect on that.
And hate, Mr. Royale, don't forget the hate. Almost every day on here I am told that as a supporter of UKIP my motive is hate. Apparently I hate people of a different religion, people born abroad, this country, the modern world and goodness knows what else besides. Why someone I have never met feels they know my motives better than I do, is beyond me, especially when I hatred is an emotion I don't use and certainly never express.
Then there is ignorance. You will have noticed that, besides being motivated by hate, all UKIP supporters are ignorant, at least according to some on here. I consider myself pretty well educated (bachelor's degrees in mathematics and history and post graduate qualifications) and reasonably well informed about current affairs and politics, yet I am told I am ignorant mainly because I feel I can no longer support the Conservative Party.
Why some posters feel the need to throw around stereotypes and insult people they have never met and do not know in the slightest is a mystery. When some of those same people support a party that is trying to attract UKIP supporters back, well I do wonder.
I agree. To answer your question it makes the whole process of schism easier for them to deal with and means they don't have to do too much difficult thinking.
Yet the polling shows that the Tories hate you much less than the other parties.
It's beyond belief Socrates, isn't it? This is why the Conservative Party is heaping more brushwood upon its own funeral pyre.
For months I've read reasoned and balanced arguments from posters i respect - you and Sean Fear in particular, as well as Sunil - on your reasons for defecting to UKIP. I've read sympathetic comments on UKIP by SeanT, Andy JS and Morris Dancer, who understand the sentiments and appeal. And I've met UKIP candidates - David Kendrick and Isam - who are perfectly reasonable and thoughtful people.
What have I had from my former Tory colleagues to dissuade me? With one or two honourable exceptions (Richard Nabavi being one, and Peter from Putney another) a constant stream of abuse directed at kippers, most of which seem to involve permutations on 'racist' and 'nasty'.
It's not been that hard to recognise, actually, which is the more intellectually and morally bankrupt party. Perhaps those who recognise themselves in the description above should reflect on that.
And hate, Mr. Royale, don't forget the hate. Almost every day on here I am told that as a supporter of UKIP my motive is hate. Apparently I hate people of a different religion, people born abroad, this country, the modern world and goodness knows what else besides. Why someone I have never met feels they know my motives better than I do, is beyond me, especially when I hatred is an emotion I don't use and certainly never express.
Then there is ignorance. You will have noticed that, besides being motivated by hate, all UKIP supporters are ignorant, at least according to some on here. I consider myself pretty well educated (bachelor's degrees in mathematics and history and post graduate qualifications) and reasonably well informed about current affairs and politics, yet I am told I am ignorant mainly because I feel I can no longer support the Conservative Party.
Why some posters feel the need to throw around stereotypes and insult people they have never met and do not know in the slightest is a mystery. When some of those same people support a party that is trying to attract UKIP supporters back, well I do wonder.
I agree. To answer your question it makes the whole process of schism easier for them to deal with and means they don't have to do too much difficult thinking.
Yet the polling shows that the Tories hate you much less than the other parties.
The postings of Tories on here show the opposite.
Conservative posters are overrepresented here relative to the population norm by posting volume I think.
It's beyond belief Socrates, isn't it? This is why the Conservative Party is heaping more brushwood upon its own funeral pyre.
For months I've read reasoned and balanced arguments from posters i respect - you and Sean Fear in particular, as well as Sunil - on your reasons for defecting to UKIP. I've read sympathetic comments on UKIP by SeanT, Andy JS and Morris Dancer, who understand the sentiments and appeal. And I've met UKIP candidates - David Kendrick and Isam - who are perfectly reasonable and thoughtful people.
What have I had from my former Tory colleagues to dissuade me? With one or two honourable exceptions (Richard Nabavi being one, and Peter from Putney another) a constant stream of abuse directed at kippers, most of which seem to involve permutations on 'racist' and 'nasty'.
It's not been that hard to recognise, actually, which is the more intellectually and morally bankrupt party. Perhaps those who recognise themselves in the description above should reflect on that.
And hate, Mr. Royale, don't forget the hate. Almost every day on here I am told that as a supporter of UKIP my motive is hate. Apparently I hate people of a different religion, people born abroad, this country, the modern world and goodness knows what else besides. Why someone I have never met feels they know my motives better than I do, is beyond me, especially when I hatred is an emotion I don't use and certainly never express.
Then there is ignorance. You will have noticed that, besides being motivated by hate, all UKIP supporters are ignorant, at least according to some on here. I consider myself pretty well educated (bachelor's degrees in mathematics and history and post graduate qualifications) and reasonably well informed about current affairs and politics, yet I am told I am ignorant mainly because I feel I can no longer support the Conservative Party.
Why some posters feel the need to throw around stereotypes and insult people they have never met and do not know in the slightest is a mystery. When some of those same people support a party that is trying to attract UKIP supporters back, well I do wonder.
I agree. To answer your question it makes the whole process of schism easier for them to deal with and means they don't have to do too much difficult thinking.
Yet the polling shows that the Tories hate you much less than the other parties.
The postings of Tories on here show the opposite.
Conservative posters are overrepresented here relative to the population norm by posting volume I think.
I also don't think we are representative, given we are mostly political nerds/anoraks.
But that disunity has been entirely caused by the leadership.
No it hasn't. It has been there since the 1990s. In 2005 they finally came to their senses, and realised that had to change. They elected a leader who personified that change, and who has been 100% consistent in it (just read his speeches from the time - all the themes are there, he hasn't changed at all). Now they are drifting back into the bad old habits of self-indulgent disunity. We have to hope that that won't scupper 2015, but we shall see.
100% consistent? You mean in vetoing the Euro-treaty, and in not bailing out Eurozone countries, and in capping the EU budget, and in not handing significant powers to the EU, and in not paying the full EU shakedown? That consistency?
Yes, that consistency, based on the world as it is, not as fantasists would like it to be. We can tilt at windmills, and let Labour damage the country, or we can govern based on reality.
The more you criticise Cameron, the more irrational your position seems: if he's so useless, why are you so terrified that in 2017 he might be on the other side of the referendum question? That should help you, right?
I'm not terrified of a 2017 referendum held on an honest basis. i.e. an agreed new settlement versus leaving. But Cameron isn't going to do that. He'll stick to that commitment as much as he's stuck to capping the EU budget or not bailing out Eurozone nations. If we have it at all, it will be a referendum on leaving versus backing him to continue to renegotiate, or something like that. It's possible he has some weasel up his sleeve I haven't thought of, but his track record of weaselling means it's pretty clear he'll do it.
"Analysis of DNA from Richard III has thrown up a surprise: evidence of infidelity in his family tree.
Their analysis shows that DNA passed down on the maternal side matches that of living relatives, but genetic information passed down on the male side does not."
It's not been that hard to recognise, actually, which is the more intellectually and morally bankrupt party. Perhaps those who recognise themselves in the description above should reflect on that.
It's unfair to tar any political party by association with trolls on pbc who happen to support that party. Can you imagine anyone not voting for the Lib Dems because of the legendary rudeness of Colin W? It would be just as silly to abstain from voting Tory due to the constant trolling of the likes of Flightpath and that James Bond poster.
It's not just posters on here though, is it? The leader of the Conservative party engages in the same abuse.
Cameron has dragged political discourse into the gutter. It's genuinely upsetting. I saw PMQs for the first time for ages the other week -he was going on about how all the world leaders were saying how wrong Ed Milliband was about something. I thought -did PMs used to do that? Come back to the dispatch box and brag about 'private' conversations to make the opposition look small? It's politics for the Buzzfeed generation.
And this was the guy that pledged to get rid of "Punch and Judy politics"! The man's just not trustworthy. He doesn't believe a thing he says.
But that disunity has been entirely caused by the leadership.
No it hasn't. It has been there since the 1990s. In 2005 they finally came to their senses, and realised that had to change. They elected a leader who personified that change, and who has been 100% consistent in it (just read his speeches from the time - all the themes are there, he hasn't changed at all). Now they are drifting back into the bad old habits of self-indulgent disunity. We have to hope that that won't scupper 2015, but we shall see.
100% consistent? You mean in vetoing the Euro-treaty, and in not bailing out Eurozone countries, and in capping the EU budget, and in not handing significant powers to the EU, and in not paying the full EU shakedown? That consistency?
Yes, that consistency, based on the world as it is, not as fantasists would like it to be. We can tilt at windmills, and let Labour damage the country, or we can govern based on reality.
The more you criticise Cameron, the more irrational your position seems: if he's so useless, why are you so terrified that in 2017 he might be on the other side of the referendum question? That should help you, right?
I'm not terrified of a 2017 referendum held on an honest basis. i.e. an agreed new settlement versus leaving. But Cameron isn't going to do that. He'll stick to that commitment as much as he's stuck to capping the EU budget or not bailing out Eurozone nations. If we have it at all, it will be a referendum on leaving versus backing him to continue to renegotiate, or something like that. It's possible he has some weasel up his sleeve I haven't thought of, but his track record of weaselling means it's pretty clear he'll do it.
So you don't have faith in the British electorate to see through his 'weaselling'?
The problem... is how Cameron will keep the Party together...
It is possible that the EU referendum could become to the Conservatives as the Scottish Independence referendum has appeared to act on Scottish Labour, or it could be a whole lot worse.
Much depends on two things. Firstly, the package of reforms that emerges from Cameron's renegotiation. Secondly, whether Cameron decides such reforms are sufficiently far-reaching that he can recommended remaining within the UK.
This leads to two possible scenarios where I think Cameron will be able to keep his Party, and indeed the Country, largely united behind his position.
(A) If the package of reforms are major and represent a fundamental transformation of British membership of the EU and they satisfy Cameron that they are the same, then I think he can carry the majority of the Party and Country with him.
(B) If the concessions from Brussels (and Berlin, Paris, Rome...) are insufficient, and Cameron is prepared to admit that his attempted renegotiation has been a failure, then I think he can carry the majority of his Party and the Country with him to vote for Exit from the EU.
I think (A) is pretty unlikely. The timetable is short. The Eurozone members have a lot more to worry about than keeping the British happy. Cameron doesn't appear to even be aiming for the sort of major concessions that would satisfy many of those who currently want to leave.
I'm incredibly torn on the likelihood of (B). If we suppose that Cameron decided about nine years ago that he wanted his defining achievement in office to be taking Britain out of the EU, then I think his current path would not be far away from the best way of doing so, as there's a swing section in the middle of British public opinion that is a bit worried about leaving, isn't happy about the status quo and would leave if an attempt at reform was made that failed. If Cameron had simply come out as a decided BOOer in 2005 then it would have been more honest, but his conviction would probably have scared the electorate.
I just get the feeling that Cameron wishes the EU as a political issue would go away, so it seems more likely that he's ended up where he is by accident, rather than design. This means he would probably find it impossible to admit that his reform attempts had failed. Thus leading us to:
(C) Cameron emerges from the final all-night negotiating session, waving his package of reforms in the air and declaring them a triumph of his diplomacy. He recommends that we remain in the EU. But the Conservative Party and the Country are not convinced. The reforms are technocratic, dull, confusing and minor.
The perceived likelihood of this third scenario explains, in my view, some of the ire displayed towards Cameron by some Kippers. They see him as a faker, a genuine heir-to-Blair who would take them for fools with a compendium of tosh in 2017 about his reforms to the EU.
Israel News Feed @IsraelHatzolah 9m9 minutes ago BREAKING NEWS: PM Netanyahu has fired Finance minister Yair Lapid & Justice minister Tzipi Livni from the government.
But that disunity has been entirely caused by the leadership.
No it hasn't. It has been there since the 1990s. In 2005 they finally came to their senses, and realised that had to change. They elected a leader who personified that change, and who has been 100% consistent in it (just read his speeches from the time - all the themes are there, he hasn't changed at all). Now they are drifting back into the bad old habits of self-indulgent disunity. We have to hope that that won't scupper 2015, but we shall see.
100% consistent? You mean in vetoing the Euro-treaty, and in not bailing out Eurozone countries, and in capping the EU budget, and in not handing significant powers to the EU, and in not paying the full EU shakedown? That consistency?
Yes, that consistency, based on the world as it is, not as fantasists would like it to be. We can tilt at windmills, and let Labour damage the country, or we can govern based on reality.
The more you criticise Cameron, the more irrational your position seems: if he's so useless, why are you so terrified that in 2017 he might be on the other side of the referendum question? That should help you, right?
I'm not terrified of a 2017 referendum held on an honest basis. i.e. an agreed new settlement versus leaving. But Cameron isn't going to do that. He'll stick to that commitment as much as he's stuck to capping the EU budget or not bailing out Eurozone nations. If we have it at all, it will be a referendum on leaving versus backing him to continue to renegotiate, or something like that. It's possible he has some weasel up his sleeve I haven't thought of, but his track record of weaselling means it's pretty clear he'll do it.
So you don't have faith in the British electorate to see through his 'weaselling'?
No, because it won't be clear it's a weasel until after it's happened. Just look at the EAW debacle in parliament for how much this administration lies.
But that disunity has been entirely caused by the leadership.
No it hasn't. It has been there since the 1990s. In 2005 they finally came to their senses, and realised that had to change. They elected a leader who personified that change, and who has been 100% consistent in it (just read his speeches from the time - all the themes are there, he hasn't changed at all). Now they are drifting back into the bad old habits of self-indulgent disunity. We have to hope that that won't scupper 2015, but we shall see.
100% consistent? You mean in vetoing the Euro-treaty, and in not bailing out Eurozone countries, and in capping the EU budget, and in not handing significant powers to the EU, and in not paying the full EU shakedown? That consistency?
Yes, that consistency, based on the world as it is, not as fantasists would like it to be. We can tilt at windmills, and let Labour damage the country, or we can govern based on reality.
The more you criticise Cameron, the more irrational your position seems: if he's so useless, why are you so terrified that in 2017 he might be on the other side of the referendum question? That should help you, right?
I'm not terrified of a 2017 referendum held on an honest basis. i.e. an agreed new settlement versus leaving. But Cameron isn't going to do that. He'll stick to that commitment as much as he's stuck to capping the EU budget or not bailing out Eurozone nations. If we have it at all, it will be a referendum on leaving versus backing him to continue to renegotiate, or something like that. It's possible he has some weasel up his sleeve I haven't thought of, but his track record of weaselling means it's pretty clear he'll do it.
So you don't have faith in the British electorate to see through his 'weaselling'?
Yesterday when I pointed out the polling showed the voters didn't agree with his position, he accused the voters of being poorly educated and thick.
He doesn't have much faith in his countrymen and women.
"Analysis of DNA from Richard III has thrown up a surprise: evidence of infidelity in his family tree.
Their analysis shows that DNA passed down on the maternal side matches that of living relatives, but genetic information passed down on the male side does not."
I'm not a Conservative myself, so it's not my fight. But kippers are deluding themselves if they think that their choice is considered respectable by many:
Contradicting your theory, "The negativity was much more common among Labour (40 per cent) and lib Dem supporters (42 per cent) than among Conservative voters (13 per cent)."
It's beyond belief Socrates, isn't it? This is why the Conservative Party is heaping more brushwood upon its own funeral pyre.
For months I've read reasoned and balanced arguments from posters i respect - you and Sean Fear in particular, as well as Sunil - on your reasons for defecting to UKIP. I've read sympathetic comments on UKIP by SeanT, Andy JS and Morris Dancer, who understand the sentiments and appeal. And I've met UKIP candidates - David Kendrick and Isam - who are perfectly reasonable and thoughtful people.
What have I had from my former Tory colleagues to dissuade me? With one or two honourable exceptions (Richard Nabavi being one, and Peter from Putney another) a constant stream of abuse directed at kippers, most of which seem to involve permutations on 'racist' and 'nasty'.
It's not been that hard to recognise, actually, which is the more intellectually and morally bankrupt party. Perhaps those who recognise themselves in the description above should reflect on that.
And hate, Mr. Royale, don't forget the hate. Almost every day on here I am told that as a supporter of UKIP my motive is hate. Apparently I hate people of a different religion, people born abroad, this country, the modern world and goodness knows what else besides. Why someone I have never met feels they know my motives better than I do, is beyond me, especially when I hatred is an emotion I don't use and certainly never express.
Then there is ignorance. You will have noticed that, besides being motivated by hate, all UKIP supporters are ignorant, at least according to some on here. I consider myself pretty well educated (bachelor's degrees in mathematics and history and post graduate qualifications) and reasonably well informed about current affairs and politics, yet I am told I am ignorant mainly because I feel I can no longer support the Conservative Party.
Why some posters feel the need to throw around stereotypes and insult people they have never met and do not know in the slightest is a mystery. When some of those same people support a party that is trying to attract UKIP supporters back, well I do wonder.
I agree. To answer your question it makes the whole process of schism easier for them to deal with and means they don't have to do too much difficult thinking.
Yet the polling shows that the Tories hate you much less than the other parties.
The postings of Tories on here show the opposite.
Perhaps because the other parties are thinking of Napoleon's maxim. "Never disturb your enemy while he is making a mistake".
"Analysis of DNA from Richard III has thrown up a surprise: evidence of infidelity in his family tree.
Their analysis shows that DNA passed down on the maternal side matches that of living relatives, but genetic information passed down on the male side does not."
It's not been that hard to recognise, actually, which is the more intellectually and morally bankrupt party. Perhaps those who recognise themselves in the description above should reflect on that.
It's unfair to tar any political party by association with trolls on pbc who happen to support that party. Can you imagine anyone not voting for the Lib Dems because of the legendary rudeness of Colin W? It would be just as silly to abstain from voting Tory due to the constant trolling of the likes of Flightpath and that James Bond poster.
It's not just posters on here though, is it? The leader of the Conservative party engages in the same abuse.
Cameron has dragged political discourse into the gutter. It's genuinely upsetting. I saw PMQs for the first time for ages the other week -he was going on about how all the world leaders were saying how wrong Ed Milliband was about something. I thought -did PMs used to do that? Come back to the dispatch box and brag about 'private' conversations to make the opposition look small? It's politics for the Buzzfeed generation.
". A Labour question on how damaging the snow last week was to London, allows Brown to link the buses stopping with what Britain will look like if the Tories get in a cut local services."
I don't understand how that budget surplus rule would be a trap for Labour at all. Labour have their own timetable for the cuts and going back on their whole plan to avoid looking a bit fiscally irresponsible would be ridiculous.
It looks more like a trap for the Lib Dems, are they really prepared to (symbolically) sign the country up for imminent enforced deep cuts?
On the topic of Christmas cards, why in God's name would anyone want to put themselves on the front of their own Christmas card. How utterly egotistical!
The Kippers lining up to be offended when labelled thick will be queuing up to condemn Socrates for calling the voters poorly educated?
No, thought not.
Anyway my work here is done.
By "work" you mean, proving how thick you can be?
Keep digging old bean.
Next you'll be blaming Theresa May for the education system in this country like you did when you blamed her for prisoner escapes.
Now that was thick.
No, what was thick was thinking one poster on a message board accounts for 93% of the UKIP vote. I know ten year olds that could have spotted that logical flaw.
The problem... is how Cameron will keep the Party together...
It is possible that the EU referendum could become to the Conservatives as the Scottish Independence referendum has appeared to act on Scottish Labour, or it could be a whole lot worse. Much depends on two things. Firstly, the package of reforms that emerges from Cameron's renegotiation. Secondly, whether Cameron decides such reforms are sufficiently far-reaching that he can recommended remaining within the UK.
This leads to two possible scenarios where I think Cameron will be able to keep his Party, and indeed the Country, largely united behind his position.......
The point is the referendum. If the result of the negotiations satisfy the tory party then the life of the tory party is easier. Cameron hardly matters, its the party. Cameron as leader of the Tory party will negotiate for what is acceptable to it. But the point is the negotiations, actually having the event and the referendum. If it makes sense then the country can decide to accept if it wants. If the country vote NO then we have to disengage and reform our relationship with the EU.
Butn the EU will not go away and the notion that it will lie down and offer a better deal or even the same deal than was on offer if we were IN seems a bit fanciful. It will it seems to me take time and cleary runs the risk of being finalised and/or amended by a future Labour govt. It is naive to think that we will end up in any meaningfull way any better off in reality. If we accept the rules of the EEA we will I think be virtually the same, but notionally some how more 'independent'. I think most of the country could live with something like the EEA. We then have to accept that the future EU/Eurozone can do what it wants and we will still have to react to it - a block of over 400 million people. Some might think that is better some worse. But really will it be any dIfferent? Whatever the difference its not worth gifting an easy ride to Miliband who will certainly not distance us from the EU in any way at all.
But that disunity has been entirely caused by the leadership.
No it hasn't. It has been there since the 1990s. In 2005 they finally came to their senses, and realised that had to change. They elected a leader who personified that change, and who has been 100% consistent in it (just read his speeches from the time - all the themes are there, he hasn't changed at all). Now they are drifting back into the bad old habits of self-indulgent disunity. We have to hope that that won't scupper 2015, but we shall see.
100% consistent? You mean in vetoing the Euro-treaty, and in not bailing out Eurozone countries, and in capping the EU budget, and in not handing significant powers to the EU, and in not paying the full EU shakedown? That consistency?
Yes, that consistency, based on the world as it is, not as fantasists would like it to be. We can tilt at windmills, and let Labour damage the country, or we can govern based on reality.
The more you criticise Cameron, the more irrational your position seems: if he's so useless, why are you so terrified that in 2017 he might be on the other side of the referendum question? That should help you, right?
I'm not terrified of a 2017 referendum held on an honest basis. i.e. an agreed new settlement versus leaving. But Cameron isn't going to do that. He'll stick to that commitment as much as he's stuck to capping the EU budget or not bailing out Eurozone nations. If we have it at all, it will be a referendum on leaving versus backing him to continue to renegotiate, or something like that. It's possible he has some weasel up his sleeve I haven't thought of, but his track record of weaselling means it's pretty clear he'll do it.
So you don't have faith in the British electorate to see through his 'weaselling'?
This is just an invention to get round the implausibility of the stance by kippers.
That's a sure sign that there's a major stunt ahead. The Conservatives want to get one or more of their rival parties committed to a stance with minimal notice.
On the topic of Christmas cards, why in God's name would anyone want to put themselves on the front of their own Christmas card. How utterly egotistical!
Tony probably thinks it's an appropriate picture of the Messiah and his lovely wife.
It'll be interesting to see Cameron on this Young People's questions, they're actually given the opportunity to press the leader into answering the questions.
And hate, Mr. Royale, don't forget the hate. Almost every day on here I am told that as a supporter of UKIP my motive is hate. Apparently I hate people of a different religion, people born abroad, this country, the modern world and goodness knows what else besides. Why someone I have never met feels they know my motives better than I do, is beyond me, especially when I hatred is an emotion I don't use and certainly never express.
Then there is ignorance. You will have noticed that, besides being motivated by hate, all UKIP supporters are ignorant, at least according to some on here. I consider myself pretty well educated (bachelor's degrees in mathematics and history and post graduate qualifications) and reasonably well informed about current affairs and politics, yet I am told I am ignorant mainly because I feel I can no longer support the Conservative Party.
Why some posters feel the need to throw around stereotypes and insult people they have never met and do not know in the slightest is a mystery. When some of those same people support a party that is trying to attract UKIP supporters back, well I do wonder.
It's reminiscent of the people who say that all Labour supporters are motivated by class hatred, or all Tories are motivated by personal greed. Classifying everyone who disagrees with you as personally vile is lazy, anti-democratic and almost always wrong.
Most people think they're advocating good ideas, or at least "least bad" ideas in a difficult situation. Some are clearly wrong, but it doesn't make them into the vicious characters dreamed up by their opponents.
@NickPalmer - I take your point on salience, so the aim of the Conservatives will be to dampen down the issue, and also to push the line that to afford a good NHS, we need a strong economy. It's not a bad line.
And hate, Mr. Royale, don't forget the hate. Almost every day on here I am told that as a supporter of UKIP my motive is hate. Apparently I hate people of a different religion, people born abroad, this country, the modern world and goodness knows what else besides. Why someone I have never met feels they know my motives better than I do, is beyond me, especially when I hatred is an emotion I don't use and certainly never express.
Then there is ignorance. You will have noticed that, besides being motivated by hate, all UKIP supporters are ignorant, at least according to some on here. I consider myself pretty well educated (bachelor's degrees in mathematics and history and post graduate qualifications) and reasonably well informed about current affairs and politics, yet I am told I am ignorant mainly because I feel I can no longer support the Conservative Party.
Why some posters feel the need to throw around stereotypes and insult people they have never met and do not know in the slightest is a mystery. When some of those same people support a party that is trying to attract UKIP supporters back, well I do wonder.
It's reminiscent of the people who say that all Labour supporters are motivated by class hatred, or all Tories are motivated by personal greed. Classifying everyone who disagrees with you as personally vile is lazy, anti-democratic and almost always wrong.
Most people think they're advocating good ideas, or at least "least bad" ideas in a difficult situation. Some are clearly wrong, but it doesn't make them into the vicious characters dreamed up by their opponents.
Labour voters are not motivated by class hatred, labour voters are people who vote labour. I would be surprised if anyone said 'all labour voters' are motivated by class hatred. But we see endless examples of left wing socialist activitsts who espouse the concept. It drives labour policy, I can remember the anti 'toff' propaganda in the Crewe by election and endless Labour dog whistles on the subject. We see 'class' hatred and wealth envy policies from Labour. 13 labour years without 50p tax and suddently having it at 45p is not sane economics is pure selfish greed by the upper class. We see the clear contempt from UKIP - the ting tong remark was a clear example of the thinking. If you want to hold hands with kippers to say how badly treated you all are, then dedums good luck to you.
On the topic of Christmas cards, why in God's name would anyone want to put themselves on the front of their own Christmas card. How utterly egotistical!
Tony probably thinks it's an appropriate picture of the Messiah and his lovely wife.
On the topic of Christmas cards, why in God's name would anyone want to put themselves on the front of their own Christmas card. How utterly egotistical!
Tony probably thinks it's an appropriate picture of the Messiah and his lovely wife.
He's not the messiah he's just a very very naught boy.
@NickPalmer - I take your point on salience, so the aim of the Conservatives will be to dampen down the issue, and also to push the line that to afford a good NHS, we need a strong economy. It's not a bad line.
I thought you reckon Lansley reforms are working.
Surely they should push that line if it was true.
But even the Tories (except the most rabid ones) have realised that the reforms were a complete disaster. The NHS will come under severe strain this winter and the £2 billion will be soon gone.
One of the reasons is than even 2 years on it is still not clear who is running what. Also local government are unable to move people into care homes or discharge them home with care packages because as was reported yesterday that system is too in crisis. There are already too few beds, and certainly too few staff to man them and you can't admit more people if your beds are blocked by those who shouldn't be there.
Comments
Labour and Lib Dem voters think UKIP supporters are Plebs - says survey.
Conservative voters would never use such a word of course.
Seriously, all parties are self-indulgent just as all people are on occasions. Had UKIP been born as an SDP-like splintering of Conservatives (say led by Ken Clarke) in the 90s or 00s it would have made life easier.
Similarly, had David Davis won in 2005 instead of Cameron, it probably would have been easier but the Conservatives also have this strong and long tradition of being pro-European if not pro-EU. Go back to Thatcher, Heath and even WSC and there was a time when the Conservatives were the most pro-European of the three main parties (pre UKIP).
Pre UKIP, an anti-EU Tory had nowhere else to go - cue counterfactual on Powell forming his own breakaway Party in the mid 60s and indeed neither did an anti-EU Labour supporter.
I count many socialists and ardent europhiles amongst my friends. I'd never terminate a friendship over political views sincerely held, and would only consider doing so over very bad behaviour.
Obviously this post will look ridiculous if one those defects to UKIP.
If Dave gets back in and there is a referendum in 2017, I reckon win or lose UKIP will enjoy another surge in popularity, as has happened with the SNP/Labour in Scotland. And it will be at the cost of the Conservatives I think.
Net 'Better':
Con: -12
Lab: -31
What Bone, Hollobone and Cash profess in public, and say in private, are - I suspect - two very different things.
I wanted to support the Conservatives in GE15 but their performance on Europe, immigration and defence has been so pathetic I just can't bring myself to do it. I can't cast a vote for them knowing I will be badly let down by them as soon as they return to office.
But the Commission is apparently already drawing up papers to submit to the ECJ, arguing the proposals are illegal. The sooner we leave the EU, the better.
I would surmise there are three bodies of opinion within Conservative ranks - the minority "in Whatever" and "Out Whatever" and the majority "let's win the election and see what David can achieve". History resonates with Conservative Prime Ministers coming back from Europe with pieces of paper signed by German leaders but the point is or will be when Cameron presents his renegotiated terms to the Conservative Party.
IF he doesn't or can't get a deal and recommends OUT, there will be Conservatives on the opposing side. IF he gets a deal and recommends in, there will be Conservatives on the opposing side. This is what happened to Labour in 1975.
David Cameron = The Wrath of Khan
IDS = The Final Frontier
Then people will vote OUT if it isn't good enough.
Based on the IndyRef experience, the EU will start making concessions as we get closer to the vote.
Although the discipline imposed by the IMF would mean the deficit would be much smaller by now whilst we would have record unemployment of ex public sector workers and record cuts in welfare, NHS and education.
The conclusion was that Democrat-leaning readers just enjoy reading/commenting on negative articles about Mrs Palin.
EU Vote today - net stay in:
Con: -12
Lab: +36
LibD: +52
UKIP: -84
And (why UKIP supporters really detest Cameron)
Vote after Cameron renegotiation - net stay:
Con: +45
Lab: +41
LibD: +67
UKIP: -53
The tactical choice to vote UKIP is another debate.
That was then.
Can't be arsed to look it up, but IIRC its pretty consistent......but that may all have changed by the GE....or not.......
The more you criticise Cameron, the more irrational your position seems: if he's so useless, why are you so terrified that in 2017 he might be on the other side of the referendum question? That should help you, right?
Seemingly arbitrarily deciding what is nice sex and what is not nice sex, the board has banned the following acts from being depicted by British pornography producers:
"Female ejaculation"
?
What is not acceptable is what we currently have (3) intend to recommend an IN vote no matter what, and half-heartedly approaching Angela for any concessions she's willing to throw our way.
The domestic policy of this country should not be dictated to our Prime Minister by Berlin.
Which is it ?
"Analysis of DNA from Richard III has thrown up a surprise: evidence of infidelity in his family tree.
Their analysis shows that DNA passed down on the maternal side matches that of living relatives, but genetic information passed down on the male side does not."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30281333
Much depends on two things. Firstly, the package of reforms that emerges from Cameron's renegotiation. Secondly, whether Cameron decides such reforms are sufficiently far-reaching that he can recommended remaining within the UK.
This leads to two possible scenarios where I think Cameron will be able to keep his Party, and indeed the Country, largely united behind his position.
(A) If the package of reforms are major and represent a fundamental transformation of British membership of the EU and they satisfy Cameron that they are the same, then I think he can carry the majority of the Party and Country with him.
(B) If the concessions from Brussels (and Berlin, Paris, Rome...) are insufficient, and Cameron is prepared to admit that his attempted renegotiation has been a failure, then I think he can carry the majority of his Party and the Country with him to vote for Exit from the EU.
I think (A) is pretty unlikely. The timetable is short. The Eurozone members have a lot more to worry about than keeping the British happy. Cameron doesn't appear to even be aiming for the sort of major concessions that would satisfy many of those who currently want to leave.
I'm incredibly torn on the likelihood of (B). If we suppose that Cameron decided about nine years ago that he wanted his defining achievement in office to be taking Britain out of the EU, then I think his current path would not be far away from the best way of doing so, as there's a swing section in the middle of British public opinion that is a bit worried about leaving, isn't happy about the status quo and would leave if an attempt at reform was made that failed. If Cameron had simply come out as a decided BOOer in 2005 then it would have been more honest, but his conviction would probably have scared the electorate.
I just get the feeling that Cameron wishes the EU as a political issue would go away, so it seems more likely that he's ended up where he is by accident, rather than design. This means he would probably find it impossible to admit that his reform attempts had failed. Thus leading us to:
(C) Cameron emerges from the final all-night negotiating session, waving his package of reforms in the air and declaring them a triumph of his diplomacy. He recommends that we remain in the EU. But the Conservative Party and the Country are not convinced. The reforms are technocratic, dull, confusing and minor.
The perceived likelihood of this third scenario explains, in my view, some of the ire displayed towards Cameron by some Kippers. They see him as a faker, a genuine heir-to-Blair who would take them for fools with a compendium of tosh in 2017 about his reforms to the EU.
Looks like early elections in Israel:
Israel News Feed @IsraelHatzolah 9m9 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS: PM Netanyahu has fired Finance minister Yair Lapid & Justice minister Tzipi Livni from the government.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30296209
He doesn't have much faith in his countrymen and women.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/25/nearly-third-of-voters-prepared-to-support-ukip
No, thought not.
Anyway my work here is done.
Next you'll be blaming Theresa May for the education system in this country like you did when you blamed her for prisoner escapes.
Now that was thick.
"The strange thing about Tony Blair's Christmas card is how the teeth seem to follow you round the room." "Be afraid. Be very afraid,"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-30289820
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/12/tories-plan-mysterious-vote-after-autumn-statement/
Seems anti-democratic to tell people they have to vote on something without letting them know what it is they will be voting on, though. What a farce.
45% of Satanists vote Conservative (admittedly, a small sample size).
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2009/02/11/pmqs-as-it-happened
It looks more like a trap for the Lib Dems, are they really prepared to (symbolically) sign the country up for imminent enforced deep cuts?
If the result of the negotiations satisfy the tory party then the life of the tory party is easier. Cameron hardly matters, its the party. Cameron as leader of the Tory party will negotiate for what is acceptable to it.
But the point is the negotiations, actually having the event and the referendum. If it makes sense then the country can decide to accept if it wants. If the country vote NO then we have to disengage and reform our relationship with the EU.
Butn the EU will not go away and the notion that it will lie down and offer a better deal or even the same deal than was on offer if we were IN seems a bit fanciful. It will it seems to me take time and cleary runs the risk of being finalised and/or amended by a future Labour govt.
It is naive to think that we will end up in any meaningfull way any better off in reality. If we accept the rules of the EEA we will I think be virtually the same, but notionally some how more 'independent'. I think most of the country could live with something like the EEA.
We then have to accept that the future EU/Eurozone can do what it wants and we will still have to react to it - a block of over 400 million people. Some might think that is better some worse. But really will it be any dIfferent? Whatever the difference its not worth gifting an easy ride to Miliband who will certainly not distance us from the EU in any way at all.
@MichaelPDeacon: Not all Farage fans delighted by one of the Young People's questions RT @JhiaxusPrime: @MichaelPDeacon http://t.co/xDwnVHEOPR
Jesus they are insufferable
Most people think they're advocating good ideas, or at least "least bad" ideas in a difficult situation. Some are clearly wrong, but it doesn't make them into the vicious characters dreamed up by their opponents.
Surely they should push that line if it was true.
Labour voters are not motivated by class hatred, labour voters are people who vote labour. I would be surprised if anyone said 'all labour voters' are motivated by class hatred. But we see endless examples of left wing socialist activitsts who espouse the concept. It drives labour policy, I can remember the anti 'toff' propaganda in the Crewe by election and endless Labour dog whistles on the subject. We see 'class' hatred and wealth envy policies from Labour. 13 labour years without 50p tax and suddently having it at 45p is not sane economics is pure selfish greed by the upper class.
We see the clear contempt from UKIP - the ting tong remark was a clear example of the thinking. If you want to hold hands with kippers to say how badly treated you all are, then dedums good luck to you.
One of the reasons is than even 2 years on it is still not clear who is running what. Also local government are unable to move people into care homes or discharge them home with care packages because as was reported yesterday that system is too in crisis. There are already too few beds, and certainly too few staff to man them and you can't admit more people if your beds are blocked by those who shouldn't be there.