I don't think the great British public are taking their politics very seriously at the moment. Maybe as about as seriously as our "top" politicians deserve though.
A lot of this is Miliband's fault of course. He has lost half the SLAB vote to the SNP and now he seems to have lost a significant chunk of the dafty left vote (sorry Neil, no offence) to the Greens. Who can he lose next?
The tories are frankly pretty unappealing at the moment. They have developed a range of distinctive non coalition policies that do absolutely nothing for centre right tories like me but still manage to hack off the Kippers at the same time. So we have yet more bribes for rich pensioners with savings to invest, we have promises of tax cuts with no credibility, we have a seriously incoherent internet security policy that I really can't make head nor tail of and we have a party promising to tear itself in 2 within 18 months of the election to argue about the EU (again).
The fact that they are so obviously the most competent option despite all this nonsense really shows why the public have despaired and lent their votes all over the shop.
Or Lord Ashcroft's polling is the greatest waste of money since Gordon Brown decided to increase public "investment". Hard to tell really.
I worked out that Lord Ashcroft has spent £1.8million on marginal polls this parliament and close to £400,000 on National polling so far in this parliament.
It's good to see the British services sector supported in this way.
He's not finished yet.
If he meets expectation he'll have spent close to £5million on polling this parliament.
But would TSE really leave if the Tories said they were demanding an emergency brake on EU immigration? Would he leave if they brought back the primary purpose rule? I don't think the Tories need to go out and campaign on an across the board socially conservative model. But they need to strike a balance, and they've failed to do that.
You have said in the past that you believe the UK should stick by its treaty commitments. We are committed to maintaining free movement of labour across the EU by our treaties.
We can - of course - renegotiate or leave (or make the UK a less attractive place to EU immigrants), but to deliberately breach a treaty commitment that was sanctified by referendum would be an astonishing act.
What Socrates suggests makes no sense. What on earth would be the point of promising to demand "an emergency brake on EU immigration"? Sensible people would just think it daft, and Kippers would (for once rightly) think it was a silly gimmick which couldn't be delivered.
The tories are frankly pretty unappealing at the moment. They have developed a range of distinctive non coalition policies that do absolutely nothing for centre right tories like me but still manage to hack off the Kippers at the same time. So we have yet more bribes for rich pensioners with savings to invest, we have promises of tax cuts with no credibility, we have a seriously incoherent internet security policy that I really can't make head nor tail of and we have a party promising to tear itself in 2 within 18 months of the election to argue about the EU (again).
It really shouldn't be hard to forge a policy platform that can attract TSE and Sean Fear. But the Tories can't seem to do it. How's that for "competency"? Also see May's bungling at the Home Office.
Or me. But every time I start to seriously reconsider voting Conservative the party and its supporters do everything possible to put me off.
You should feel flattered by their attention though.
It's not really about me. There's an election coming up in under 4 months time. If the Conservatives want to win, they should be fighting for every vote.
They seem more interested in emoting their hatred for UKIP and 'punishing' those who had the temerity to abandon their party in the first place out of despair.
You want the Tories to change for you. How many voters do you think they'd lose, for that gain?
That's not an unreasonable point, but it feels like it could be turned around as well - how many votes have their gained from their current course to make up for the one's they have lost from it? Nowhere near enough it seems. If they had, there would not still be this debate in the Tories about their current path being correct, and why they still appear riven with infighting and indecision, and hence why half the party still seem to be holding out hope they can become UKIP even as UKIP tack left and despise them.
In an ideal world UKIP would keep their policies, rename themselves 'The Conservatives' and voters such as CR wouldn't feel so 'dirty' voting for them.
Maybe that's half the problem - voters who can't accept that they're not Tories anymore, but Kippers?
The tories are frankly pretty unappealing at the moment. They have developed a range of distinctive non coalition policies that do absolutely nothing for centre right tories like me but still manage to hack off the Kippers at the same time. So we have yet more bribes for rich pensioners with savings to invest, we have promises of tax cuts with no credibility, we have a seriously incoherent internet security policy that I really can't make head nor tail of and we have a party promising to tear itself in 2 within 18 months of the election to argue about the EU (again).
It really shouldn't be hard to forge a policy platform that can attract TSE and Sean Fear. But the Tories can't seem to do it. How's that for "competency"? Also see May's bungling at the Home Office.
Or me. But every time I start to seriously reconsider voting Conservative the party and its supporters do everything possible to put me off.
You should feel flattered by their attention though.
It's not really about me. There's an election coming up in under 4 months time. If the Conservatives want to win, they should be fighting for every vote.
They seem more interested in emoting their hatred for UKIP and 'punishing' those who had the temerity to abandon their party in the first place out of despair.
You want the Tories to change for you. How many voters do you think they'd lose, for that gain?
Um. No, I want David Cameron to deliver on his promises. He's stood on them before. I was happy with the Conservative party policy platform in GE2010 which we all voted for. That includes you, me, Socrates, TSE, Sean Fear etc. So the net gain in votes would be clear and substantial.
You really must do better than this. Every time I point out why I left posters like you point out how it's somehow my problem. You don't even begin to understand that Cameron and the Conservatives just might not have delivered what they promised for their supporters.
Furthermore, not delivering what you promised is one thing. Not delivering what you promised and sticking two fingers up at people who previously supported you fervently for decades, quite another.
By the way I predicted that the Ashcroft poll would have the major parties (I know, out of date terminology but historical references make it clear who I mean) would be within 1 per cent of each other. I am so rarely right that I thought I should draw attention to this.
Can you guess the next party that is going to slump/jump 5% in the next Ashcroft poll?
So you think it was a fluke, right? So do I tbh.
I note others are up 3 to 9. Given that most of the traditional others are now mainstream parties this seems fairly remarkable. I suspect the Scottish sub samples for this one are going to make the previous thread look a bit off.
The weighted base is just 43 people, but for the sake of amusement, the Scottish sub-sample in today's Ashcroft is:
SNP 58% Lab 24% Con 8% Lib 4% Grn 4% UKIP 1%
Also, "Another party" are on 3% in England. Are the English Democrats poised to make a substantial advance?
These numbers partly explain the "slump" in Tory support and if actually replicated at the GE would surely result in the SNP with their massive 34% lead winning all 59 Scottish seats, bar none, with Labour trailing in with approximately 260 seats, oh well ..... we can but dream!
"Certainly if Labour have made any progress in recent weeks it would appear to have been small relative to the size of the task before it. If today’s poll results were to be reflected in the ballot boxes, the party might be left with just half a dozen Scottish seats, while the SNP could win as many as 52 of the country’s 59 seats."
"no less than 59% of Labour supporters want a majority Labour government while just 17% back an arrangement with the SNP. Mind you, that still leaves Mr Murphy with the problem that only 20% of all Scots want to see his party back in unfettered power, hardly a powerful springboard from which to try and save his fellow MPs’ seats."
Am I the only one who always gets confused between JackW and Richard Nabavi? Their avatars look the same to my uncultured eyes.
You can expect a late night visit from some bewigged chaps speaking Italian, drinking French claret and brandishing a fine pair of pistols!! Jack will not thank you for that slur
Bugger. I wrote a long reply to Casino_Royale and chrome has eaten it :-(
Off to dinner now. Have a good night pb'ers.
Of course, you were going to violently agree with me ;-)
I lose replies all the time from Vanilla crashing on my iPhone. Of course, that almost always tends to happen when I've spent the time writing a long response.
By the way I predicted that the Ashcroft poll would have the major parties (I know, out of date terminology but historical references make it clear who I mean) would be within 1 per cent of each other. I am so rarely right that I thought I should draw attention to this.
Can you guess the next party that is going to slump/jump 5% in the next Ashcroft poll?
So you think it was a fluke, right? So do I tbh.
I note others are up 3 to 9. Given that most of the traditional others are now mainstream parties this seems fairly remarkable. I suspect the Scottish sub samples for this one are going to make the previous thread look a bit off.
The weighted base is just 43 people, but for the sake of amusement, the Scottish sub-sample in today's Ashcroft is:
SNP 58% Lab 24% Con 8% Lib 4% Grn 4% UKIP 1%
Also, "Another party" are on 3% in England. Are the English Democrats poised to make a substantial advance?
These numbers partly explain the "slump" in Tory support and if actually replicated at the GE would surely result in the SNP with their massive 34% lead winning all 59 Scottish seats, bar none, with Labour trailing in with approximately 260 seats, oh well ..... we can but dream!
The SNP will only do Confidence and Supply with Labour though I think. Tories most seats, and Cameron screwed if the SNP 50 seats.
Labour will hold Kirkcaldy and the Liberals Orkney/Shetland too.
Another common misinderstanding of MOE on here is the claim that a poll predicting 60-40 with a 3% MOE means at 57-43 or 63-37 result is just as likely. It isn't - the poll figure quoted is the value with the highest probability (the MOE represents the 95% confidence interval). All other values are less likely, with values at the edge of the MOE being particularly unlikely.
Bugger. I wrote a long reply to Casino_Royale and chrome has eaten it :-(
Off to dinner now. Have a good night pb'ers.
Of course, you were going to violently agree with me ;-)
I lose replies all the time from Vanilla crashing on my iPhone. Of course, that almost always tends to happen when I've spent the time writing a long response.
"We all have to speak out now. The time for qualification is over. We must rage against the fear. Scream ferociously “this will not stand”. That in 2015 we will not sit by whilst out neighbours feel scared to go to their shops, or take their children to school, or go to their place of worship. We need to say: “They came for the Jews. And I spoke out. Because I am not a Jew”. "
Yes - very good. What took him so long to realise this, though? There have been guards outside synagogues for the last decade. He need only have asked his mother - I'm talking about her constituency.
The terrorists in Toulouse targeted a Jewish school; the ones in Mumbai targeted the only tiny synagogue there; the terrorists in Belgium last year also targeted Jews; some people here a few years ago were charged (and, I believe, convicted) of preparing attacks on Jewish targets in Manchester. There's been plenty of evidence - for those with eyes to see.
Israel just murdered several Lebanese Hezbollah fighters.
And the link with the shooting of children in a school in France is what, exactly?
Or were you just drawing my attention to the fact that there is a war in Syria where a lot of people are fighting, in case I wasn't aware?
Perhaps more pertinently their security services put to death a Palestinian cartoonist who kept drawing things they didn't like. It doesn't excuse any attacks on individuals, but we must recognise that the State of Israel is often resented with some justification.
Um. No, I want David Cameron to deliver on his promises. He's stood on them before. I was happy with the Conservative party policy platform in GE2010 which we all voted for. That includes you, me, Socrates, TSE, Sean Fear etc. So the net gain in votes would be clear and substantial.
I find this attitude absolutely baffling. To my mind the most remarkable thing about this government has been the fact that it has delivered such a high proportion of the Conservative promises, despite the very difficult international economic conditions and the constraints of coalition.
"Certainly if Labour have made any progress in recent weeks it would appear to have been small relative to the size of the task before it. If today’s poll results were to be reflected in the ballot boxes, the party might be left with just half a dozen Scottish seats, while the SNP could win as many as 52 of the country’s 59 seats."
"no less than 59% of Labour supporters want a majority Labour government while just 17% back an arrangement with the SNP. Mind you, that still leaves Mr Murphy with the problem that only 20% of all Scots want to see his party back in unfettered power, hardly a powerful springboard from which to try and save his fellow MPs’ seats."
I've added cash to Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine and Livingston from your swing required vs odds chart today.
The tories are frankly pretty unappealing at the moment. They have developed a range of distinctive non coalition policies that do absolutely nothing for centre right tories like me but still manage to hack off the Kippers at the same time. So we have yet more bribes for rich pensioners with savings to invest, we have promises of tax cuts with no credibility, we have a seriously incoherent internet security policy that I really can't make head nor tail of and we have a party promising to tear itself in 2 within 18 months of the election to argue about the EU (again).
It really shouldn't be hard to forge a policy platform that can attract TSE and Sean Fear. But the Tories can't seem to do it. How's that for "competency"? Also see May's bungling at the Home Office.
Or me. But every time I start to seriously reconsider voting Conservative the party and its supporters do everything possible to put me off.
You should feel flattered by their attention though.
It's not really about me. There's an election coming up in under 4 months time. If the Conservatives want to win, they should be fighting for every vote.
They seem more interested in emoting their hatred for UKIP and 'punishing' those who had the temerity to abandon their party in the first place out of despair.
You want the Tories to change for you. How many voters do you think they'd lose, for that gain?
Um. No, I want David Cameron to deliver on his promises. He's stood on them before. I was happy with the Conservative party policy platform in GE2010 which we all voted for. That includes you, me, Socrates, TSE, Sean Fear etc. So the net gain in votes would be clear and substantial.
You really must do better than this. Every time I point out why I left posters like you point out how it's somehow my problem. You don't even begin to understand that Cameron and the Conservatives just might not have delivered what they promised for their supporters.
Furthermore, not delivering what you promised is one thing. Not delivering what you promised and sticking two fingers up at people who previously supported you fervently for decades, quite another.
Time to move on then. If Farage is offering what you want, and you're certain he'll deliver on his promises, what's the problem?
The tories are frankly pretty unappealing at the moment. They have developed a range of distinctive non coalition policies that do absolutely nothing for centre right tories like me but still manage to hack off the Kippers at the same time. So we have yet more bribes for rich pensioners with savings to invest, we have promises of tax cuts with no credibility, we have a seriously incoherent internet security policy that I really can't make head nor tail of and we have a party promising to tear itself in 2 within 18 months of the election to argue about the EU (again).
It really shouldn't be hard to forge a policy platform that can attract TSE and Sean Fear. But the Tories can't seem to do it. How's that for "competency"? Also see May's bungling at the Home Office.
Or me. But every time I start to seriously reconsider voting Conservative the party and its supporters do everything possible to put me off.
You should feel flattered by their attention though.
It's not really about me. There's an election coming up in under 4 months time. If the Conservatives want to win, they should be fighting for every vote.
They seem more interested in emoting their hatred for UKIP and 'punishing' those who had the temerity to abandon their party in the first place out of despair.
You want the Tories to change for you. How many voters do you think they'd lose, for that gain?
Um. No, I want David Cameron to deliver on his promises. He's stood on them before. I was happy with the Conservative party policy platform in GE2010 which we all voted for. That includes you, me, Socrates, TSE, Sean Fear etc. So the net gain in votes would be clear and substantial.
You really must do better than this. Every time I point out why I left posters like you point out how it's somehow my problem. You don't even begin to understand that Cameron and the Conservatives just might not have delivered what they promised for their supporters.
Furthermore, not delivering what you promised is one thing. Not delivering what you promised and sticking two fingers up at people who previously supported you fervently for decades, quite another.
Sounds like you want a British moon on a British stick. Vote FUKP
Labour 15 seats short according to Baxter on this and would have a majority of 24 with Libdems (in reality 29 due to SF and squeaker not voting)
However, I'm guessing that Baxter does not fully account for the greens 11 which are surely coming from votes that would otherwise go to Labour.
At this rate we will have a stalemate with both parties on about 280 and not able to form any sort of workable coalition or supply and confidence other than a grand coalition with each other. Anyone offering odds on a grand coalition?
By the way I predicted that the Ashcroft poll would have the major parties (I know, out of date terminology but historical references make it clear who I mean) would be within 1 per cent of each other. I am so rarely right that I thought I should draw attention to this.
Can you guess the next party that is going to slump/jump 5% in the next Ashcroft poll?
So you think it was a fluke, right? So do I tbh.
I note others are up 3 to 9. Given that most of the traditional others are now mainstream parties this seems fairly remarkable. I suspect the Scottish sub samples for this one are going to make the previous thread look a bit off.
The weighted base is just 43 people, but for the sake of amusement, the Scottish sub-sample in today's Ashcroft is:
SNP 58% Lab 24% Con 8% Lib 4% Grn 4% UKIP 1%
Also, "Another party" are on 3% in England. Are the English Democrats poised to make a substantial advance?
These numbers partly explain the "slump" in Tory support and if actually replicated at the GE would surely result in the SNP with their massive 34% lead winning all 59 Scottish seats, bar none, with Labour trailing in with approximately 260 seats, oh well ..... we can but dream!
The numbers do not partly explain anything whatsoever , they simply show that you get daft results if you try and analyse what over 1 million people will do by asking just 43 of them .
Labour 15 seats short according to Baxter on this and would have a majority of 24 with Libdems (in reality 29 due to SF and squeaker not voting)
However, I'm guessing that Baxter does not fully account for the greens 11 which are surely coming from votes that would otherwise go to Labour.
At this rate we will have a stalemate with both parties on about 280 and not able to form any sort of workable coalition or supply and confidence other than a grand coalition with each other. Anyone offering odds on a grand coalition?
I've taken a fiver at 50-1 on that but I won't be holding my breath.
The SNP at 5% - at the sub-sample level 58% SNP v 24% SLAB. As with the Survation poll, male and female SNP support now level pegging. I think this reflects in part that the SNP surge is being led by women, they now account for 44% (pre-surge 33%). I think Jim Murphy will continue to drive women into the hands of the SNP, the fact that he is targeting the lost 190,000 older male voters, says it all.
Um. No, I want David Cameron to deliver on his promises. He's stood on them before. I was happy with the Conservative party policy platform in GE2010 which we all voted for. That includes you, me, Socrates, TSE, Sean Fear etc. So the net gain in votes would be clear and substantial.
I find this attitude absolutely baffling. To my mind the most remarkable thing about this government has been the fact that it has delivered such a high proportion of the Conservative promises, despite the very difficult international economic conditions and the constraints of coalition.
I was a firm Conservative supporter up until 2010 SDSR. I resigned my membership due to the defence cuts (which I felt went much too far). I defended (and liked) the Ominshambles budget. I continued voting Conservative until 2013 when I moved to 'not sure' because of procrastination on the EU renegotiation strategy, and the Andrew Feldman comments. I voted UKIP just for the Euros in May last year. I started to seriously consider UKIP after Cameron's pathetic handling and spinning of the EU budget ultimatum. I finally switched to UKIP after his annoucement on immigration in late November 2014, when it became clear he wouldn't 'get what Britain needs' and wasn't serious about delivering his pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands.
I'm afraid defence, immigration and europe are red lines for me and the Conservatives have disappointed on all of them.
I remain pleased with Conservative progress on business, tax, jobs, transport, science, pensions and education.
I do have concerns about UKIP, but this is about imperfect choices. Right now, that choice is tilted in favour of UKIP. Not least of which because posters like TGOHF and The Watcher have made it perfectly clear they're not the slightest bit interested in my vote, and prefer to insult me.
The tories are frankly pretty unappealing at the moment. They have developed a range of distinctive non coalition policies that do absolutely nothing for centre right tories like me but still manage to hack off the Kippers at the same time. So we have yet more bribes for rich pensioners with savings to invest, we have promises of tax cuts with no credibility, we have a seriously incoherent internet security policy that I really can't make head nor tail of and we have a party promising to tear itself in 2 within 18 months of the election to argue about the EU (again).
It really shouldn't be hard to forge a policy platform that can attract TSE and Sean Fear. But the Tories can't seem to do it. How's that for "competency"? Also see May's bungling at the Home Office.
Or me. But every time I start to seriously reconsider voting Conservative the party and its supporters do everything possible to put me off.
You should feel flattered by their attention though.
It's not really about me. There's an election coming up in under 4 months time. If the Conservatives want to win, they should be fighting for every vote.
They seem more interested in emoting their hatred for UKIP and 'punishing' those who had the temerity to abandon their party in the first place out of despair.
You want the Tories to change for you. How many voters do you think they'd lose, for that gain?
Um. No, I want David Cameron to deliver on his promises. He's stood on them before. I was happy with the Conservative party policy platform in GE2010 which we all voted for. That includes you, me, Socrates, TSE, Sean Fear etc. So the net gain in votes would be clear and substantial.
You really must do better than this. Every time I point out why I left posters like you point out how it's somehow my problem. You don't even begin to understand that Cameron and the Conservatives just might not have delivered what they promised for their supporters.
Furthermore, not delivering what you promised is one thing. Not delivering what you promised and sticking two fingers up at people who previously supported you fervently for decades, quite another.
In today's Ashcroft the Conservatives have lost twice as many voters to UKIP as to Labour, Lib Dems and Greens combined.
Does anyone independently verify party membership numbers? As a party could make up any sorts of numbers. They could inflate them to create publicity and give the impression that they are a major political party.
Does anyone independently verify party membership numbers? As a party could make up any sorts of numbers. They could inflate them to create publicity and give the impression that they are a major political party.
Numbers of members is one thing - how motivated they are is much more important.
Um. No, I want David Cameron to deliver on his promises. He's stood on them before. I was happy with the Conservative party policy platform in GE2010 which we all voted for. That includes you, me, Socrates, TSE, Sean Fear etc. So the net gain in votes would be clear and substantial.
I find this attitude absolutely baffling. To my mind the most remarkable thing about this government has been the fact that it has delivered such a high proportion of the Conservative promises, despite the very difficult international economic conditions and the constraints of coalition.
Not least of which because posters like TGOHF and The Watcher have made it perfectly clear they're not the slightest bit interested in my vote, and prefer to insult me.
I'm not a member of the Tory party nor an employee. So please, stop blaming me, another anonymous voice on the internet, for what is ultimately your decision. Who gets my vote, will be influenced by local factors in the constituency, and it's quite possible that I'll abstain. However, I certainly won't be blaming Cameron.
Strikes me, you're a natural Kipper, but haven't got your head round the decision. If UKIP didn't exist who would you vote for?
Um. No, I want David Cameron to deliver on his promises. He's stood on them before. I was happy with the Conservative party policy platform in GE2010 which we all voted for. That includes you, me, Socrates, TSE, Sean Fear etc. So the net gain in votes would be clear and substantial.
I find this attitude absolutely baffling. To my mind the most remarkable thing about this government has been the fact that it has delivered such a high proportion of the Conservative promises, despite the very difficult international economic conditions and the constraints of coalition.
I was a firm Conservative supporter up until 2010 SDSR. I resigned my membership due to the defence cuts (which I felt went much too far). I defended (and liked) the Ominshambles budget. I continued voting Conservative until 2013 when I moved to 'not sure' because of procrastination on the EU renegotiation strategy, and the Andrew Feldman comments. I voted UKIP just for the Euros in May last year. I started to seriously consider UKIP after Cameron's pathetic handling and spinning of the EU budget ultimatum. I finally switched to UKIP after his annoucement on immigration in late November 2014, when it became clear he wouldn't 'get what Britain needs' and wasn't serious about delivering his pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands.
I'm afraid defence, immigration and europe are red lines for me and the Conservatives have disappointed on all of them.
I remain pleased with Conservative progress on business, tax, jobs, transport, science, pensions and education.
I do have concerns about UKIP, but this is about imperfect choices. Right now, that choice is tilted in favour of UKIP. Not least of which because posters like TGOHF and The Watcher have made it perfectly clear they're not the slightest bit interested in my vote, and prefer to insult me.
We must distinguish between tories, and faeces-hurlers wearing tory hats. As a tory I am getting very, very bored of the latter.
The most startling thing about how well the Greens are doing is that they're doing this with a leader who makes Ed Miliband look sparkling with charisma. Just imagine how well they'd be doing if Caroline Lucas was still in charge.
I think that Bennett is both more charismatic and more substantial than Lucas. This is not to say that Lucas doesn't have these qualities too to an extent but I find Bennett far more impressive and persuasive.
As for the poll... I don't believe that the Greens are in double figures - I'd love to believe it but I think Ashcroft probably hopped into a TARDIS and travelled forward in time to 2016 to conduct this poll.
Does anyone independently verify party membership numbers? As a party could make up any sorts of numbers. They could inflate them to create publicity and give the impression that they are a major political party.
That's a possibility, and is the sort of thing that a free Press is good for. To catch a political party in a lie such as that would make a decent story.
So one hopes that the threat of a free Press keeps the parties basically honest. The two largest parties in the UK are somewhat vague about their membership numbers, though, presumably because they aren't much to shout about.
I was a firm Conservative supporter up until 2010 SDSR. I resigned my membership due to the defence cuts (which I felt went much too far). I defended (and liked) the Ominshambles budget. I continued voting Conservative until 2013 when I moved to 'not sure' because of procrastination on the EU renegotiation strategy, and the Andrew Feldman comments. I voted UKIP just for the Euros in May last year. I started to seriously consider UKIP after Cameron's pathetic handling and spinning of the EU budget ultimatum. I finally switched to UKIP after his annoucement on immigration in late November 2014, when it became clear he wouldn't 'get what Britain needs' and wasn't serious about delivering his pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands.
I'm afraid defence, immigration and europe are red lines for me and the Conservatives have disappointed on all of them.
I remain pleased with Conservative progress on business, tax, jobs, transport, science, pensions and education.
I do have concerns about UKIP, but this is about imperfect choices. Right now, that choice is tilted in favour of UKIP. Not least of which because posters like TGOHF and The Watcher have made it perfectly clear they're not the slightest bit interested in my vote, and prefer to insult me.
Well I want your vote, as do I want Sean Fear's vote.
Leaving out the insults, because I could point out the various insults thrown from UKIP supporters aimed at the remaining Tories and Dave in particular.
I've always worked on the principle, if a government did only things that I approved of, then they'd probably only receive my vote at the next election.
So I work on the principle that the party that gets my support is the one that does a majority of things that I approve of.
For example on the Strategic Defence Review, I'm more forgiving than you, because of the legacy the government inherited, from a party that delayed holding a review, and the economic inheritance they received. Put it this way, do you think Liam Fox, who is from the wing of the party that puts Defence as a priority, would have done what he did, if it wasn't the only viable option (I could also point we're in coalition with the Lib Dems as mitigation)
On social conservatism, it is a real fault line in and out of the Tory party.
There's people in the Tory party who think Cameron/May haven't gone far enough, and say Cameron/May are more obsessed with the rights of Terrorists.
Robert put it elegantly a few weeks ago, when it comes to matters of Civil Liberties, social policy etc, I'm more in agreement with Richard Tyndall than I am with a lot of Tories.
I think the best thing is to reunite the right, a referendum in 2017, whatever the result.
Um. No, I want David Cameron to deliver on his promises. He's stood on them before. I was happy with the Conservative party policy platform in GE2010 which we all voted for. That includes you, me, Socrates, TSE, Sean Fear etc. So the net gain in votes would be clear and substantial.
I find this attitude absolutely baffling. To my mind the most remarkable thing about this government has been the fact that it has delivered such a high proportion of the Conservative promises, despite the very difficult international economic conditions and the constraints of coalition.
I wish to associate myself with Mr. Richard's words. How supposed Tory's judge the party on its performance in a coaliton to be so bad that it's worth supporting a protest party which exists to help Labour in to power is just one of the contradictions for those of us who stay in the blue corner. And that's despite me being in the not obsessed with europe or gays wing of it.
@Casino - I tend to agree with you that the Strategic Defence Review was disappointing, not so much because of budget cuts (which were inevitable) but because it wasn't sufficiently strategic, and was hurried. Basically I think Liam Fox hadn't done his homework before coming into office. Even so, you have to recognise that it was never going to be easy to square that particular circle: the combination of budget constraints, years of neglect and mismanagement (and not just under Labour, defence procurement was a mess even before 1997) meant that there were no good options. My personal view is that a complete new strategic review, starting with some fundamental questions about what exactly we are trying to achieve, is necessary.
On the EU, I disagree completely. Cameron promised two main things: the referendum lock, and 'not to let things rest'. He has delivered on the first, and the second is continuing. This, of all areas, is one where the facts of coalition with a very pro-EU party have to be taken into account; you can't simply ignore that, and in any case it is unreasonable to think that Cameron could already have fixed this issue (which has haunted UK politics for a third of a century), especially given the idiotic concessions Blair and Brown had already made. In other words, I think you are not being realistic about timescales and what is realistically achievable.
On immigration, yes it is disappointing that the progress has been less rapid than expected (although there is progress, albeit partially reversed in the most recent figures). Again the LibDems are hardly a help here, but the main problem has been the fact that the UK economy has been so successful compared with our EU neighbours.
Against all that, the positives, which you list, also have to be taken into account. Maybe I'm just a most positive sort of person than you, but to me this is a glass more than half-full, not one half-empty. My expectations in May 2010 as the GE results came in were nothing like as good as what has actually transpired.
Or me. But every time I start to seriously reconsider voting Conservative the party and its supporters do everything possible to put me off.
You should feel flattered by their attention though.
It's not really about me. There's an election coming up in under 4 months time. If the Conservatives want to win, they should be fighting for every vote.
They seem more interested in emoting their hatred for UKIP and 'punishing' those who had the temerity to abandon their party in the first place out of despair.
You want the Tories to change for you. How many voters do you think they'd lose, for that gain?
Furthermore, not delivering what you promised is one thing. Not delivering what you promised and sticking two fingers up at people who previously supported you fervently for decades, quite another.
Time to move on then. If Farage is offering what you want, and you're certain he'll deliver on his promises, what's the problem?
The problem is on your side: you won't win this election, and nor will you ever win again under FPTP. I'm surprised you don't care a jot about UKIP defectors, but that's up to you.
Perhaps you're so arrogant as to think this is all just "noise", that UKIP defectors are all big fearties and will come flocking back to Cameron when there's a serious choice to make. That's why you laugh at them and mock them: you think they're disloyal, self-centred, petulant, impragmatic, but are engaging in a high stakes game of poker to try and force Cameron to 'move to the Right'. A game of bluff. That you want to win, and you think you will. Therefore, you don't respect them, and enjoy calling them out on it. Perhaps you even think you're 'putting off' others.
All I can say is: good luck with that.
I'm pretty honest on here about my beliefs, views and what I'm thinking. I often play it out in real time. I'm not the slightest bit interested in tribal partisanism and posturing. I say it as it is. I've left the Tories, and intend to vote UKIP in my seat, but have my doubts about them so I haven't joined them either.
I could be convinced either way. But why you think ultimatums and insults are effective in doing that for your party baffles me.
Does anyone independently verify party membership numbers? As a party could make up any sorts of numbers. They could inflate them to create publicity and give the impression that they are a major political party.
Indirectly they are verified.
When the parties submit their returns to the electoral commission, you have to report how much you've earned from party membership/subs.
I'm surprised you pay so much attention to the bile of a couple of anonymous posters on here. They don't represent the Conservative Party. Nor do I, but I would like your vote for the party in May.
Could I ask you a serious question, without any agenda?
As you 'remain pleased' in so many areas, if you thought the choice of the next government depended on your vote, would you vote Conservative to continue that success rate, or would those red lines mean a spoiled vote or a vote for UKIP come what may?
Yours, Baskerville.
I was a firm Conservative supporter up until 2010 SDSR. I resigned my membership due to the defence cuts (which I felt went much too far). I defended (and liked) the Ominshambles budget. I continued voting Conservative until 2013 when I moved to 'not sure' because of procrastination on the EU renegotiation strategy, and the Andrew Feldman comments. I voted UKIP just for the Euros in May last year. I started to seriously consider UKIP after Cameron's pathetic handling and spinning of the EU budget ultimatum. I finally switched to UKIP after his annoucement on immigration in late November 2014, when it became clear he wouldn't 'get what Britain needs' and wasn't serious about delivering his pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands.
I'm afraid defence, immigration and europe are red lines for me and the Conservatives have disappointed on all of them.
I remain pleased with Conservative progress on business, tax, jobs, transport, science, pensions and education.
I do have concerns about UKIP, but this is about imperfect choices. Right now, that choice is tilted in favour of UKIP. Not least of which because posters like TGOHF and The Watcher have made it perfectly clear they're not the slightest bit interested in my vote, and prefer to insult me.
I think your defection to UKIP is a familiar story among many that moved across. In most cases it was several failures of the Tory party, one after another, that caused it. And this "tough international conditions" excuse is a nonsense. Is it tough international conditions that forced the government to hand over powers to the EU with the EAW? Is it tough international conditions that caused the Tories to sign up to a budget that increased our contribution, while claiming they had had achieved some sort of saving? Was it tough international conditions that caused the Tories to propose the snoopers charter and the mad encryption ban? Was it tough international conditions that meant Cameron decided abandon excluding non-working EU citizens from free movement? Was it tough international conditions that led to non-EU immigration still being 50% higher than the net migration target?
Its title? "Conservatives can bore their way to general election victory"
His commentary on David Cameron is worth a read:
"No prime minister since Harold Macmillan has been so temperamentally geared to campaigning as the “safe” option. When critics say he does not believe in much, they are right. But the burden is on them to explain why this is a bad thing. For a certain kind of swing voter, groping nervously for his wallet as he looks at an unquiet world, Mr Cameron’s beliefs are reassuringly milquetoast. He does not seem like a man who would noticeably improve the country — or trash it.
Whatever his colleagues say, Mr Cameron is a proper Tory. A Tory does not care for ideas or even politics itself. They claim no singular moral insight, unlike Labour, and espouse no mission, unlike the free-marketeers who now pepper the Conservative benches. They often cannot even stand their own party. They are quiet, bland patriots who get involved in public life on the hunch that more excitable types would mess it up. A Tory is a funny compound of civic entitlement and intellectual humility."
Um. No, I want David Cameron to deliver on his promises. He's stood on them before. I was happy with the Conservative party policy platform in GE2010 which we all voted for. That includes you, me, Socrates, TSE, Sean Fear etc. So the net gain in votes would be clear and substantial.
I find this attitude absolutely baffling. To my mind the most remarkable thing about this government has been the fact that it has delivered such a high proportion of the Conservative promises, despite the very difficult international economic conditions and the constraints of coalition.
Not least of which because posters like TGOHF and The Watcher have made it perfectly clear they're not the slightest bit interested in my vote, and prefer to insult me.
I'm not a member of the Tory party nor an employee. So please, stop blaming me, for what is ultimately your decision.
Strikes me, you're a natural Kipper, but haven't got your head round the decision. If UKIP didn't exist who would you vote for?
Me neither nor ever donated .
What tires me is the pomposity of absolutists prepared to cut off their nose to spite their faces. Then they whine when those that mock them for their unrealistic stance don't give them a cuddle and plead with them to vote blue.
As Richard Navbi points out much more eloquently than me Cam has done a decent job in the circumstances given the landscape. If you can't vote for him and aren't bothered about letting Ed in as PM then I can't help you and either way I'm not bothered how you vote,
Labour 15 seats short according to Baxter on this and would have a majority of 24 with Libdems (in reality 29 due to SF and squeaker not voting)
However, I'm guessing that Baxter does not fully account for the greens 11 which are surely coming from votes that would otherwise go to Labour.
At this rate we will have a stalemate with both parties on about 280 and not able to form any sort of workable coalition or supply and confidence other than a grand coalition with each other. Anyone offering odds on a grand coalition?
You'd probably need to knock another 20 off the Labour total, to take account of Scotland, and another 10-15 for Conservative incumbency and losses to UKIP (a real prospect if Labour actually go backwards).
In truth, an election that saw Con drop by 8%, Lab by 2%, Lib Dem by 16%, with the Greens up by 10%, UKIP up by 12%, and the SNP up by 30% would be the strangest and most unpredictable sin the early 1920's.
Or me. But every time I start to seriously reconsider voting Conservative the party and its supporters do everything possible to put me off.
You should feel flattered by their attention though.
It's not really about me. There's an election coming up in under 4 months time. If the Conservatives want to win, they should be fighting for every vote.
They seem more interested in emoting their hatred for UKIP and 'punishing' those who had the temerity to abandon their party in the first place out of despair.
You want the Tories to change for you. How many voters do you think they'd lose, for that gain?
Furthermore, not delivering what you promised is one thing. Not delivering what you promised and sticking two fingers up at people who previously supported you fervently for decades, quite another.
Time to move on then. If Farage is offering what you want, and you're certain he'll deliver on his promises, what's the problem?
The problem is on your side: you won't win this election, and nor will you ever win again under FPTP. I'm surprised you don't care a jot about UKIP defectors, but that's up to you.
Perhaps you're so arrogant as to think this is all just "noise", that UKIP defectors are all big fearties and will come flocking back to Cameron when there's a serious choice to make. That's why you laugh at them and mock them: you think they're disloyal, self-centred, petulant, impragmatic, but are engaging in a high stakes game of poker to try and force Cameron to 'move to the Right'. A game of bluff. That you want to win, and you think you will. Therefore, you don't respect them, and enjoy calling them out on it. Perhaps you even think you're 'putting off' others.
All I can say is: good luck with that.
I'm pretty honest on here about my beliefs, views and what I'm thinking. I often play it out in real time. I'm not the slightest bit interested in tribal partisanism and posturing. I say it as it is. I've left the Tories, and intend to vote UKIP in my seat, but have my doubts about them so I haven't joined them either.
I could be convinced either way. But why you think ultimatums and insults are effective in doing that for your party baffles me.
Read my post below. And stop blaming me, for what is your decision.
Its title? "Conservatives can bore their way to general election victory"
His commentary on David Cameron is worth a read:
"No prime minister since Harold Macmillan has been so temperamentally geared to campaigning as the “safe” option. When critics say he does not believe in much, they are right. But the burden is on them to explain why this is a bad thing. For a certain kind of swing voter, groping nervously for his wallet as he looks at an unquiet world, Mr Cameron’s beliefs are reassuringly milquetoast. He does not seem like a man who would noticeably improve the country — or trash it.
Whatever his colleagues say, Mr Cameron is a proper Tory. A Tory does not care for ideas or even politics itself. They claim no singular moral insight, unlike Labour, and espouse no mission, unlike the free-marketeers who now pepper the Conservative benches. They often cannot even stand their own party. They are quiet, bland patriots who get involved in public life on the hunch that more excitable types would mess it up. A Tory is a funny compound of civic entitlement and intellectual humility."
It's TSE and my blinking party he's talking about there!!!
I'm surprised you pay so much attention to the bile of a couple of anonymous posters on here. They don't represent the Conservative Party. Nor do I, but I would like your vote for the party in May.
Could I ask you a serious question, without any agenda?
As you 'remain pleased' in so many areas, if you thought the choice of the next government depended on your vote, would you vote Conservative to continue that success rate, or would those red lines mean a spoiled vote or a vote for UKIP come what may?
Yours, Baskerville.
Thank you, Baskerville. Posts like yours make me think so much more; I find it much harder to argue against them. Particularly given my life-long history with the party. You're probably right: I should ignore those other posters.
As things stand, my answer (if I was living in a marginal seat) would depend on the candidate. If it were a Tory BOO'er, I would vote Tory. If it were a Tory wet/EUphile, I would vote UKIP.
But if Cameron outlined a strong list of EU concessions he'd achieved before May, including EU benefit restrictions, and further non-EU immigration reform, and gave me reassurances on protecting the armed forces in the 2015 SDSR (possibly by freezing the aid budget in real terms and diverting the cash, rather than maintaining the 0.7% GDP commitment for another 5 years) I could see myself voting Tory in a marginal come what may.
The problem I have is trusting him, as he's promised so much in the past on it and delivered so little, that I'd really like to see something in writing signed in blood now.
Oh, and a bit of a charm offensive for some of us old pavement-stomping ex-Tories who spend years campaigning for the party, but who've felt maligned and mistreating the last 4-5 years, wouldn't go amiss either. As it is, I just get surveys and requests for money.
Does anyone independently verify party membership numbers? As a party could make up any sorts of numbers. They could inflate them to create publicity and give the impression that they are a major political party.
Membership numbers are reported in the audited accounts.
Or me. But every time I start to seriously reconsider voting Conservative the party and its supporters do everything possible to put me off.
You should feel flattered by their attention though.
It's not really about me. There's an election coming up in under 4 months time. If the Conservatives want to win, they should be fighting for every vote.
They seem more interested in emoting their hatred for UKIP and 'punishing' those who had the temerity to abandon their party in the first place out of despair.
You want the Tories to change for you. How many voters do you think they'd lose, for that gain?
Furthermore, not delivering what you promised is one thing. Not delivering what you promised and sticking two fingers up at people who previously supported you fervently for decades, quite another.
Time to move on then. If Farage is offering what you want, and you're certain he'll deliver on his promises, what's the problem?
The problem is on your side: you won't win this election, and nor will you ever win again under FPTP. I'm surprised you don't care a jot about UKIP defectors, but that's up to you.
Perhaps you're so arrogant as to think this is all just "noise", that UKIP defectors are all big fearties and will come flocking back to Cameron when there's a serious choice to make. That's why you laugh at them and mock them: you think they're disloyal, self-centred, petulant, impragmatic, but are engaging in a high stakes game of poker to try and force Cameron to 'move to the Right'. A game of bluff. That you want to win, and you think you will. Therefore, you don't respect them, and enjoy calling them out on it. Perhaps you even think you're 'putting off' others.
All I can say is: good luck with that.
I'm pretty honest on here about my beliefs, views and what I'm thinking. I often play it out in real time. I'm not the slightest bit interested in tribal partisanism and posturing. I say it as it is. I've left the Tories, and intend to vote UKIP in my seat, but have my doubts about them so I haven't joined them either.
I could be convinced either way. But why you think ultimatums and insults are effective in doing that for your party baffles me.
Read my post below. And stop blaming me, for what is your decision.
He wants a cuddle Watcher - I blame Cameron for you not giving him one.
When Cameron put together the coalition with the Lib Dems, with a huge amount of support (unanimous on the Lib Dem side) from both parliamentary parties, the Tories agreed to compromise over the EU.
There were more important things to address at the time (solid government, the economy) and therefore it was sensible to do so.
But even then, the Tory leadership has never advocated leaving the EU, so I doubt they'd ever please the UKIP supporters even if they'd had a majority.
I'm reflexively apprehensive about the EU, but I see no point in a party pulling itself apart over it.
Incidentally, I've been reading Anthony Beevor's Berlin. It puts the peaceful, working partnership between EU countries into stark perspective. Harrowing, brutal, hardly believable stuff. And only 70 years ago.
The most startling thing about how well the Greens are doing is that they're doing this with a leader who makes Ed Miliband look sparkling with charisma. Just imagine how well they'd be doing if Caroline Lucas was still in charge.
I think that Bennett is both more charismatic and more substantial than Lucas. This is not to say that Lucas doesn't have these qualities too to an extent but I find Bennett far more impressive and persuasive.
That's in my top 5 most surprising posts of 2015 (to date) list
Labour 15 seats short according to Baxter on this and would have a majority of 24 with Libdems (in reality 29 due to SF and squeaker not voting)
However, I'm guessing that Baxter does not fully account for the greens 11 which are surely coming from votes that would otherwise go to Labour.
At this rate we will have a stalemate with both parties on about 280 and not able to form any sort of workable coalition or supply and confidence other than a grand coalition with each other. Anyone offering odds on a grand coalition?
You'd probably need to knock another 20 off the Labour total, to take account of Scotland, and another 10-15 for Conservative incumbency and losses to UKIP (a real prospect if Labour actually go backwards).
In truth, an election that saw Con drop by 8%, Lab by 2%, Lib Dem by 16%, with the Greens up by 10%, UKIP up by 12%, and the SNP up by 30% would be the strangest and most unpredictable sin the early 1920's.
I'd like to see the BBC Graphics department come up with a four-dimensional swingometer.
Its title? "Conservatives can bore their way to general election victory"
His commentary on David Cameron is worth a read:
"No prime minister since Harold Macmillan has been so temperamentally geared to campaigning as the “safe” option. When critics say he does not believe in much, they are right. But the burden is on them to explain why this is a bad thing. For a certain kind of swing voter, groping nervously for his wallet as he looks at an unquiet world, Mr Cameron’s beliefs are reassuringly milquetoast. He does not seem like a man who would noticeably improve the country — or trash it.
Whatever his colleagues say, Mr Cameron is a proper Tory. A Tory does not care for ideas or even politics itself. They claim no singular moral insight, unlike Labour, and espouse no mission, unlike the free-marketeers who now pepper the Conservative benches. They often cannot even stand their own party. They are quiet, bland patriots who get involved in public life on the hunch that more excitable types would mess it up. A Tory is a funny compound of civic entitlement and intellectual humility."
Does anyone independently verify party membership numbers? As a party could make up any sorts of numbers. They could inflate them to create publicity and give the impression that they are a major political party.
Russell Brand now has 8.97 Million followers, I'm sure if he could be bothered to set up a party, he would easily become a major party. That would certainly liven up the debates.
I remain pleased with Conservative progress on business, tax, jobs, transport, science, pensions and education.
I do have concerns about UKIP, but this is about imperfect choices. Right now, that choice is tilted in favour of UKIP. Not least of which because posters like TGOHF and The Watcher have made it perfectly clear they're not the slightest bit interested in my vote, and prefer to insult me.
Well I want your vote, as do I want Sean Fear's vote.
Leaving out the insults, because I could point out the various insults thrown from UKIP supporters aimed at the remaining Tories and Dave in particular.
I've always worked on the principle, if a government did only things that I approved of, then they'd probably only receive my vote at the next election.
So I work on the principle that the party that gets my support is the one that does a majority of things that I approve of.
For example on the Strategic Defence Review, I'm more forgiving than you, because of the legacy the government inherited, from a party that delayed holding a review, and the economic inheritance they received. Put it this way, do you think Liam Fox, who is from the wing of the party that puts Defence as a priority, would have done what he did, if it wasn't the only viable option (I could also point we're in coalition with the Lib Dems as mitigation)
On social conservatism, it is a real fault line in and out of the Tory party.
There's people in the Tory party who think Cameron/May haven't gone far enough, and say Cameron/May are more obsessed with the rights of Terrorists.
Robert put it elegantly a few weeks ago, when it comes to matters of Civil Liberties, social policy etc, I'm more in agreement with Richard Tyndall than I am with a lot of Tories.
I think the best thing is to reunite the right, a referendum in 2017, whatever the result.
Thanks TSE. I recollect Liam Fox's angle was to freeze the defence budget in real terms. I.e. a 0% increase, rather than an 8% cut. Presumably frozen for 3-4 years.
I could have (and would have) supported that. It would have allowed us to maintain maritime survelliance, several additional army batallions, and a naval air capability until the new carriers came into service.
What I am all round in favour of is radical reform (and cuts) of the MoD civil service, which is a bugger's muddle and oozes the most byzantium bureacracy you can possible imagine.
IMHO, how Conservative/UKIP floating voters should vote is thus:-
1. Where a sitting Conservative is BOO, vote Conservative. What's the point of not voting for people like Phillip Holloborne, or Philip Davies?
2. In marginal seats where UKIP doesn't feature, vote Conservative unless the Conservative MP is egregious (eg Anna Soubry).
3. In marginal seats where UKIP has a viable chance of winning, vote UKIP. Thanks to Ashcroft and Survation, we have a good idea which seats those are.
4. In safe seats, vote UKIP, unless point 1 applies.
As a Conservative and former news journalist, I object strongly to 'journalists' like Ganesh making statements about what other people believe.
Just because he is a politician doesn't mean we can put 'beliefs' into Cameron's head or Miliband's or Farage's; that's just lazy.
I will happily quote what Mr Ganesh says he believes in, but I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to state his beliefs without knowing him.
e.g." Janan Ganesh believes he is cleverer than his readers." I could quote some evidence from this article, but it wouldn't confirm his beliefs, though it might give you an idea of mine.
Its title? "Conservatives can bore their way to general election victory"
His commentary on David Cameron is worth a read:
"No prime minister since Harold Macmillan has been so temperamentally geared to campaigning as the “safe” option. When critics say he does not believe in much, they are right. But the burden is on them to explain why this is a bad thing. For a certain kind of swing voter, groping nervously for his wallet as he looks at an unquiet world, Mr Cameron’s beliefs are reassuringly milquetoast. He does not seem like a man who would noticeably improve the country — or trash it.
Whatever his colleagues say, Mr Cameron is a proper Tory. A Tory does not care for ideas or even politics itself. They claim no singular moral insight, unlike Labour, and espouse no mission, unlike the free-marketeers who now pepper the Conservative benches. They often cannot even stand their own party. They are quiet, bland patriots who get involved in public life on the hunch that more excitable types would mess it up. A Tory is a funny compound of civic entitlement and intellectual humility."
It's TSE and my blinking party he's talking about there!!!
Does anyone independently verify party membership numbers? As a party could make up any sorts of numbers. They could inflate them to create publicity and give the impression that they are a major political party.
Indirectly they are verified.
When the parties submit their returns to the electoral commission, you have to report how much you've earned from party membership/subs.
Thanks. I will have a look at the Conservatives accounts when they are published next and see how easy it is to work out how many members they have. I think they received a boost just before the last conference otherwise it looked like it was on course for 100k.
I think your defection to UKIP is a familiar story among many that moved across. In most cases it was several failures of the Tory party, one after another, that caused it. And this "tough international conditions" excuse is a nonsense. Is it tough international conditions that forced the government to hand over powers to the EU with the EAW? Is it tough international conditions that caused the Tories to sign up to a budget that increased our contribution, while claiming they had had achieved some sort of saving? Was it tough international conditions that caused the Tories to propose the snoopers charter and the mad encryption ban? Was it tough international conditions that meant Cameron decided abandon excluding non-working EU citizens from free movement? Was it tough international conditions that led to non-EU immigration still being 50% higher than the net migration target?
Thanks. Apparantly none of that matters. It's our fault, not the Conservatives.
Its title? "Conservatives can bore their way to general election victory"
His commentary on David Cameron is worth a read:
"No prime minister since Harold Macmillan has been so temperamentally geared to campaigning as the “safe” option. When critics say he does not believe in much, they are right. But the burden is on them to explain why this is a bad thing. For a certain kind of swing voter, groping nervously for his wallet as he looks at an unquiet world, Mr Cameron’s beliefs are reassuringly milquetoast. He does not seem like a man who would noticeably improve the country — or trash it.
Whatever his colleagues say, Mr Cameron is a proper Tory. A Tory does not care for ideas or even politics itself. They claim no singular moral insight, unlike Labour, and espouse no mission, unlike the free-marketeers who now pepper the Conservative benches. They often cannot even stand their own party. They are quiet, bland patriots who get involved in public life on the hunch that more excitable types would mess it up. A Tory is a funny compound of civic entitlement and intellectual humility."
It's so amusing how the likes of Janan Ganesh and the other members of the smug commentariat do not have a bloody clue how the public thinks. Again repeating that people are "scared" about the prospect of an "ideological" Labour government, when the Ashcroft focus-group research shows the exact opposite: there are no strong feelings (either positive or negative) about Miliband/Labour whatsoever, which in many ways is even worse than a polarising platform which might make some people "scared" but would atleast probably have some enthusiastic people to offset it.
Its title? "Conservatives can bore their way to general election victory"
His commentary on David Cameron is worth a read:
"No prime minister since Harold Macmillan has been so temperamentally geared to campaigning as the “safe” option. When critics say he does not believe in much, they are right. But the burden is on them to explain why this is a bad thing. For a certain kind of swing voter, groping nervously for his wallet as he looks at an unquiet world, Mr Cameron’s beliefs are reassuringly milquetoast. He does not seem like a man who would noticeably improve the country — or trash it.
Whatever his colleagues say, Mr Cameron is a proper Tory. A Tory does not care for ideas or even politics itself. They claim no singular moral insight, unlike Labour, and espouse no mission, unlike the free-marketeers who now pepper the Conservative benches. They often cannot even stand their own party. They are quiet, bland patriots who get involved in public life on the hunch that more excitable types would mess it up. A Tory is a funny compound of civic entitlement and intellectual humility."
Funnily enough, it sums up all the things I like about David Cameron. I'm fed up with politicians with bright ideas that they want to inflict on the rest of us. A politician who gave us a bit of a rest would be a refreshing change.
I'm afraid defence, immigration and europe are red lines for me and the Conservatives have disappointed on all of them.
I remain pleased with Conservative progress on business, tax, jobs, transport, science, pensions and education.
I do have concerns about UKIP, but this is about imperfect choices. Right now, that choice is tilted in favour of UKIP. Not least of which because posters like TGOHF and The Watcher have made it perfectly clear they're not the slightest bit interested in my vote, and prefer to insult me.
TGHOF and The Watcher are irrelevant in the scheme of things. I'm a Tory (of no consequence - not even a member) but I'd be delighted if you'd cast your vote for them. Even if it probably won't make any difference where you live.
On defence, I think the problem is that people hadn't realised how much Labour had over-committed the budget. Arguably the Tories should have increased the funds available once they did realise, but given the tight constraints I can see why they didn't. I'd personally be in favour of shifting resources from DfID to MoD given the worsening international climate.
On Europe the strategy is clear. It may or may not be deliverable, but at least we'll have a go, see what is deliverable and then get to vote on the outcome. Immigration has to be a part of that - they've done a lot of the possible tightening on non-EU immigration, but - if they want to address it seriously - need to look at it at a European level. Even then - unless we exit - it's most likely to be welfare reform rather than direct restrictions.
But there are definitely strong-defence/Atlanticist/BOOers in the Tory Party (Fox and Patterson, for example) so you should feel completely at home there. And ignore the Trolls.
Its title? "Conservatives can bore their way to general election victory"
His commentary on David Cameron is worth a read:
"No prime minister since Harold Macmillan has been so temperamentally geared to campaigning as the “safe” option. When critics say he does not believe in much, they are right. But the burden is on them to explain why this is a bad thing. For a certain kind of swing voter, groping nervously for his wallet as he looks at an unquiet world, Mr Cameron’s beliefs are reassuringly milquetoast. He does not seem like a man who would noticeably improve the country — or trash it.
Whatever his colleagues say, Mr Cameron is a proper Tory. A Tory does not care for ideas or even politics itself. They claim no singular moral insight, unlike Labour, and espouse no mission, unlike the free-marketeers who now pepper the Conservative benches. They often cannot even stand their own party. They are quiet, bland patriots who get involved in public life on the hunch that more excitable types would mess it up. A Tory is a funny compound of civic entitlement and intellectual humility."
The error there, IMO, is that he has succeeded a government that changed a lot of things in a radical and unpatriotic way, and has decided not to change much back.
Richard Nabavi has said that this has been a radical government though, so I guess he will disagree with Ganesh's view
Just finished The Perfect King, (bio of Edward III). Apparently, there's a 95%+ chance of being descended from Edward III if you have English ancestry.
I hope you will find what you want in the manifesto, and I'd be surprised if the CCHQ team does not have a 'charm offensive' planned. I suspect, however, the key word in all this is 'trust'.
Personally, I do trust Cameron. He's not infallible, nor is he is always consistent, but he has got us from the mess of 2010 to a far better position today, all the while shackled to an unprecedented coalition.
Thank you, Baskerville. Posts like yours make me think so much more; I find it much harder to argue against them. Particularly given my life-long history with the party. You're probably right: I should ignore those other posters.
As things stand, my answer (if I was living in a marginal seat) would depend on the candidate. If it were a Tory BOO'er, I would vote Tory. If it were a Tory wet/EUphile, I would vote UKIP.
But if Cameron outlined a strong list of EU concessions he'd achieved before May, including EU benefit restrictions, and further non-EU immigration reform, and gave me reassurances on protecting the armed forces in the 2015 SDSR (possibly by freezing the aid budget in real terms and diverting the cash, rather than maintaining the 0.7% GDP commitment for another 5 years) I could see myself voting Tory in a marginal come what may.
The problem I have is trusting him, as he's promised so much in the past on it and delivered so little, that I'd really like to see something in writing signed in blood now.
Oh, and a bit of a charm offensive for some of us old pavement-stomping ex-Tories who spend years campaigning for the party, but who've felt maligned and mistreating the last 4-5 years, wouldn't go amiss either. As it is, I just get surveys and requests for money.
By the way I predicted that the Ashcroft poll would have the major parties (I know, out of date terminology but historical references make it clear who I mean) would be within 1 per cent of each other. I am so rarely right that I thought I should draw attention to this.
Can you guess the next party that is going to slump/jump 5% in the next Ashcroft poll?
So you think it was a fluke, right? So do I tbh.
I note others are up 3 to 9. Given that most of the traditional others are now mainstream parties this seems fairly remarkable. I suspect the Scottish sub samples for this one are going to make the previous thread look a bit off.
The weighted base is just 43 people, but for the sake of amusement, the Scottish sub-sample in today's Ashcroft is:
SNP 58% Lab 24% Con 8% Lib 4% Grn 4% UKIP 1%
Also, "Another party" are on 3% in England. Are the English Democrats poised to make a substantial advance?
These numbers partly explain the "slump" in Tory support and if actually replicated at the GE would surely result in the SNP with their massive 34% lead winning all 59 Scottish seats, bar none, with Labour trailing in with approximately 260 seats, oh well ..... we can but dream!
The SNP will only do Confidence and Supply with Labour though I think. Tories most seats, and Cameron screwed if the SNP 50 seats.
Labour will hold Kirkcaldy and the Liberals Orkney/Shetland too.
Not necessarily:
Lab 265 (say) + SNP 50 = 315 Tories 285 (say) + LibDems 30 = 315 This would leave 20 seats to fight over, or say 14 net of non-voting N.I. MPs and the Speaker. Of course, the Tories would be stuffed were the LibDems to side with Labour, but this would almost certainly be the case irrespective of how the final numbers work out.
On the EU, I disagree completely. Cameron promised two main things: the referendum lock, and 'not to let things rest'. He has delivered on the first, and the second is continuing. This, of all areas, is one where the facts of coalition with a very pro-EU party have to be taken into account; you can't simply ignore that, and in any case it is unreasonable to think that Cameron could already have fixed this issue (which has haunted UK politics for a third of a century), especially given the idiotic concessions Blair and Brown had already made. In other words, I think you are not being realistic about timescales and what is realistically achievable.
On immigration, yes it is disappointing that the progress has been less rapid than expected (although there is progress, albeit partially reversed in the most recent figures). Again the LibDems are hardly a help here, but the main problem has been the fact that the UK economy has been so successful compared with our EU neighbours.
Against all that, the positives, which you list, also have to be taken into account. Maybe I'm just a most positive sort of person than you, but to me this is a glass more than half-full, not one half-empty. My expectations in May 2010 as the GE results came in were nothing like as good as what has actually transpired.
Thanks Richard. It seems we both were disappointed on the SDSR in 2010. I think that could have been managed differently. But there we go.
Cameron did actually promise to work to seek major repatriations in the Conservative manifesto. Yes, I know he didn't win an outright majority. But the Conservatives have held both the Premiership and Foreign Secretary, so I'd expect them to have made progress on this. Particularly given the balance of competencies review, and the noises over the last 5 years. I judge Cameron on the promises he's given - I just don't think he's been firm or clear enough about his renegotiation strategy, and could get so much more. But it might be too late now.
I'm pleased you acknowledge the disappointment on immigration. I think any EU renegotiation has to recognise that as the only major non-eurozone country we act as a "pressure value" for the eurozone, and its both reasonable and practical for any future EU reform has to take that into consideration.
I'm a very positive person, actually. As you'd know if you met me! But I'd need to see a bit more progress on these core issues (and a belief they'd be followed through) before I could rejoin.
The error there, IMO, is that he has succeeded a government that changed a lot of things in a radical and unpatriotic way, and has decided not to change much back.
Richard Nabavi has said that this has been a radical government though, so I guess he will disagree with Ganesh's view
I half-agree with him. I think he is right that Cameron is part of the mainstream Macmillan-style Conservative tradition of pragmatism (and indeed a certain patrician style of pragmatism), rather than ideological fervour. Basically it's about governing well in the real world, not trying to implement some political theory. However, in this case the net results have been quite radical, mainly because they had to be given the mess the country had got into.
By the way I predicted that the Ashcroft poll would have the major parties (I know, out of date terminology but historical references make it clear who I mean) would be within 1 per cent of each other. I am so rarely right that I thought I should draw attention to this.
Can you guess the next party that is going to slump/jump 5% in the next Ashcroft poll?
So you think it was a fluke, right? So do I tbh.
I note others are up 3 to 9. Given that most of the traditional others are now mainstream parties this seems fairly remarkable. I suspect the Scottish sub samples for this one are going to make the previous thread look a bit off.
The weighted base is just 43 people, but for the sake of amusement, the Scottish sub-sample in today's Ashcroft is:
SNP 58% Lab 24% Con 8% Lib 4% Grn 4% UKIP 1%
Also, "Another party" are on 3% in England. Are the English Democrats poised to make a substantial advance?
These numbers partly explain the "slump" in Tory support and if actually replicated at the GE would surely result in the SNP with their massive 34% lead winning all 59 Scottish seats, bar none, with Labour trailing in with approximately 260 seats, oh well ..... we can but dream!
The SNP will only do Confidence and Supply with Labour though I think. Tories most seats, and Cameron screwed if the SNP 50 seats.
Labour will hold Kirkcaldy and the Liberals Orkney/Shetland too.
Not necessarily:
Lab 265 (say) + SNP 50 = 315 Tories 285 (say) + LibDems 30 = 315 This would leave 20 seats to fight over, or say 14 net of non-voting N.I. MPs and the Speaker. Of course, the Tories would be stuffed were the LibDems to side with Labour, but this would almost certainly be the case irrespective of how the final numbers work out.
On those numbers the Lib Dems might well back Labour on the basis that Lab+LD+SNP created a stablish majority while no combination with the Conservatives would do so.
Lab 265 (say) + SNP 50 = 315 Tories 285 (say) + LibDems 30 = 315 This would leave 20 seats to fight over, or say 14 net of non-voting N.I. MPs and the Speaker. Of course, the Tories would be stuffed were the LibDems to side with Labour, but this would almost certainly be the case irrespective of how the final numbers work out.
On those numbers the Lib Dems might well back Labour on the basis that Lab+LD+SNP created a stablish majority while no combination with the Conservatives would do so.
In such a scenario, I would expect that all parties would be looking to position themselves for the inevitable early collapse of whatever government was formed. They might well conclude that the best course was to try to avoid being left holding the parcel when the music stops.
Just finished The Perfect King, (bio of Edward III). Apparently, there's a 95%+ chance of being descended from Edward III if you have English ancestry.
He lived about 24 generations ago. You are descended from as many as 16,777,216 people from that generation, though you might be able to trace your descent from the same person more than once. The population of England after the Black Death, during the lifetime of Edward III, was roughly 3 million.
So if you have any English ancestry you are probably descended from about 95% of the population of England that survived the Black Death and whose family line did not subsequently die out.
Or me. But every time I start to seriously reconsider voting Conservative the party and its supporters do everything possible to put me off.
You should feel flattered by their attention though.
They seem more interested in emoting their hatred for UKIP and 'punishing' those who had the temerity to abandon their party in the first place out of despair.
You want the Tories to change for you. How many voters do you think they'd lose, for that gain?
Time to move on then. If Farage is offering what you want, and you're certain he'll deliver on his promises, what's the problem?
All I can say is: good luck with that.
I'm pretty honest on here about my beliefs, views and what I'm thinking. I often play it out in real time. I'm not the slightest bit interested in tribal partisanism and posturing. I say it as it is. I've left the Tories, and intend to vote UKIP in my seat, but have my doubts about them so I haven't joined them either.
I could be convinced either way. But why you think ultimatums and insults are effective in doing that for your party baffles me.
Read my post below. And stop blaming me, for what is your decision.
He wants a cuddle Watcher - I blame Cameron for you not giving him one.
TGOHF/The Watcher:
Sorry, I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts on this. You don't seem to be able to engage with any of my points. Either you can't - or don't want to - understand them, so this is just becoming very repetitive (and boring) now.
Please feel free to carry on enjoying yourselves. But I'll be skipping over your posts from now on.
Mr. Antifrank, if the Lib Dems were halved (or fewer) in terms of MPs and collaborated with the SNP to prop up a Labour party with substantially fewer seats than the Conservatives (and perhaps far fewer votes in England) that would not go well.
One fears they'd deliberately **** up English devolution.
Just finished The Perfect King, (bio of Edward III). Apparently, there's a 95%+ chance of being descended from Edward III if you have English ancestry.
He lived about 24 generations ago. You are descended from as many as 16,777,216 people from that generation, though you might be able to trace your descent from the same person more than once. The population of England after the Black Death, during the lifetime of Edward III, was roughly 3 million.
So if you have any English ancestry you are probably descended from about 95% of the population of England that survived the Black Death and whose family line did not subsequently die out.
I'm not sure that logic really works as there were quite distinct bloodlines at the time - the legal descendants of peasants might have unacknowledged noble blood in them, but the other way round was less common.
We're a classic example of a yeoman family made good - and only picked up our descent from Edward III (John of Gaunt) in the mid 19th century (through marriage).
I'm afraid defence, immigration and europe are red lines for me and the Conservatives have disappointed on all of them.
I remain pleased with Conservative progress on business, tax, jobs, transport, science, pensions and education.
I do have concerns about UKIP, but this is about imperfect choices. Right now, that choice is tilted in favour of UKIP. Not least of which because posters like TGOHF and The Watcher have made it perfectly clear they're not the slightest bit interested in my vote, and prefer to insult me.
TGHOF and The Watcher are irrelevant in the scheme of things. I'm a Tory (of no consequence - not even a member) but I'd be delighted if you'd cast your vote for them. Even if it probably won't make any difference where you live.
On defence, I think the problem is that people hadn't realised how much Labour had over-committed the budget. Arguably the Tories should have increased the funds available once they did realise, but given the tight constraints I can see why they didn't. I'd personally be in favour of shifting resources from DfID to MoD given the worsening international climate.
On Europe the strategy is clear. It may or may not be deliverable, but at least we'll have a go, see what is deliverable and then get to vote on the outcome. Immigration has to be a part of that - they've done a lot of the possible tightening on non-EU immigration, but - if they want to address it seriously - need to look at it at a European level. Even then - unless we exit - it's most likely to be welfare reform rather than direct restrictions.
But there are definitely strong-defence/Atlanticist/BOOers in the Tory Party (Fox and Patterson, for example) so you should feel completely at home there. And ignore the Trolls.
Thanks for your response, Charles. Don't have time to respond right this second (train to catch) but let's pick this up another time.
Just finished The Perfect King, (bio of Edward III). Apparently, there's a 95%+ chance of being descended from Edward III if you have English ancestry.
He lived about 24 generations ago. You are descended from as many as 16,777,216 people from that generation, though you might be able to trace your descent from the same person more than once. The population of England after the Black Death, during the lifetime of Edward III, was roughly 3 million.
So if you have any English ancestry you are probably descended from about 95% of the population of England that survived the Black Death and whose family line did not subsequently die out.
As an aside, anyone legitimately descended from John of Gaunt (Edward III's son) is also descendent from Mohammed (via the last Amir of Barcelona) and St. Louis of France.
Or me. But every time I start to seriously reconsider voting Conservative the party and its supporters do everything possible to put me off.
You should feel flattered by their attention though.
They seem more interested in emoting their hatred for UKIP and 'punishing' those who had the temerity to abandon their party in the first place out of despair.
You want the Tories to change for you. How many voters do you think they'd lose, for that gain?
Time to move on then. If Farage is offering what you want, and you're certain he'll deliver on his promises, what's the problem?
All I can say is: good luck with that.
I'm pretty honest on here about my beliefs, views and what I'm thinking. I often play it out in real time. I'm not the slightest bit interested in tribal partisanism and posturing. I say it as it is. I've left the Tories, and intend to vote UKIP in my seat, but have my doubts about them so I haven't joined them either.
I could be convinced either way. But why you think ultimatums and insults are effective in doing that for your party baffles me.
Read my post below. And stop blaming me, for what is your decision.
He wants a cuddle Watcher - I blame Cameron for you not giving him one.
TGOHF/The Watcher:
Sorry, I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts on this. You don't seem to be able to engage with any of my points. Either you can't - or don't want to - understand them, so this is just becoming very repetitive (and boring) now.
Please feel free to carry on enjoying yourselves. But I'll be skipping over your posts from now on.
You mentioned my name in a post. Get over yourself dear.
Everyone who posts on here, whatever Party you support, should read Lord Ashcroft's commentary today - in particular all the stuff towards the bottom of his article re focus groups. Includes, eg:
"None of our participants had seen the rival posters launched by Labour and the Conservatives last week"
It's hard for people on here to digest just how little notice most people take of all the political goings on discussed on here.
Take a moment and fully digest that statement - NOBODY, not one single person in either focus group, had seen any of the posters (even on TV).
Just finished The Perfect King, (bio of Edward III). Apparently, there's a 95%+ chance of being descended from Edward III if you have English ancestry.
He lived about 24 generations ago. You are descended from as many as 16,777,216 people from that generation, though you might be able to trace your descent from the same person more than once. The population of England after the Black Death, during the lifetime of Edward III, was roughly 3 million.
So if you have any English ancestry you are probably descended from about 95% of the population of England that survived the Black Death and whose family line did not subsequently die out.
As an aside, anyone legitimately descended from John of Gaunt (Edward III's son) is also descendent from Mohammed (via the last Amir of Barcelona) and St. Louis of France.
Interesting, thanks.
Your other post makes a very fair point, but it probably only applies to a very small group of people - and old blood often had to marry new money, so it might be that it has little effect.
As an aside, anyone legitimately descended from John of Gaunt (Edward III's son) is also descendent from Mohammed (via the last Amir of Barcelona) and St. Louis of France.
Tories didn't slump they were overstated last time. Top marks of the day to James Blunt for calling out the odious Chris Bryant. Runner up for Sky news resulting in the arrogant "I want to "chuck up" every time I see Umana on the tele) flouncing out of the studio.
Comments
Off to dinner now. Have a good night pb'ers.
Who will the Lib Dems lose the most seats to
Labour
Conservative
SNP
And how would people price it up
SNP 4-1
Conservative 13-8
Labour 6-4
Something like that ?
Maybe that's half the problem - voters who can't accept that they're not Tories anymore, but Kippers?
You really must do better than this. Every time I point out why I left posters like you point out how it's somehow my problem. You don't even begin to understand that Cameron and the Conservatives just might not have delivered what they promised for their supporters.
Furthermore, not delivering what you promised is one thing. Not delivering what you promised and sticking two fingers up at people who previously supported you fervently for decades, quite another.
Also, is it net losses or absolute losses?
Labour should be the favourites, they should take 8 or 9 from the LibDems without breaking sweat, but SNP looks the value.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/01/labour-still-mountain-climb-new-survation-poll/
"Certainly if Labour have made any progress in recent weeks it would appear to have been small relative to the size of the task before it. If today’s poll results were to be reflected in the ballot boxes, the party might be left with just half a dozen Scottish seats, while the SNP could win as many as 52 of the country’s 59 seats."
"no less than 59% of Labour supporters want a majority Labour government while just 17% back an arrangement with the SNP. Mind you, that still leaves Mr Murphy with the problem that only 20% of all Scots want to see his party back in unfettered power, hardly a powerful springboard from which to try and save his fellow MPs’ seats."
I lose replies all the time from Vanilla crashing on my iPhone. Of course, that almost always tends to happen when I've spent the time writing a long response.
Enjoy your evening!
Labour will hold Kirkcaldy and the Liberals Orkney/Shetland too.
Have you seen a preview of Marf's cartoon?
However, I'm guessing that Baxter does not fully account for the greens 11 which are surely coming from votes that would otherwise go to Labour.
At this rate we will have a stalemate with both parties on about 280 and not able to form any sort of workable coalition or supply and confidence other than a grand coalition with each other. Anyone offering odds on a grand coalition?
Swingback.
I've taken a fiver at 50-1 on that but I won't be holding my breath.
I'm afraid defence, immigration and europe are red lines for me and the Conservatives have disappointed on all of them.
I remain pleased with Conservative progress on business, tax, jobs, transport, science, pensions and education.
I do have concerns about UKIP, but this is about imperfect choices. Right now, that choice is tilted in favour of UKIP. Not least of which because posters like TGOHF and The Watcher have made it perfectly clear they're not the slightest bit interested in my vote, and prefer to insult me.
Strikes me, you're a natural Kipper, but haven't got your head round the decision. If UKIP didn't exist who would you vote for?
As for the poll... I don't believe that the Greens are in double figures - I'd love to believe it but I think Ashcroft probably hopped into a TARDIS and travelled forward in time to 2016 to conduct this poll.
So one hopes that the threat of a free Press keeps the parties basically honest. The two largest parties in the UK are somewhat vague about their membership numbers, though, presumably because they aren't much to shout about.
Leaving out the insults, because I could point out the various insults thrown from UKIP supporters aimed at the remaining Tories and Dave in particular.
I've always worked on the principle, if a government did only things that I approved of, then they'd probably only receive my vote at the next election.
So I work on the principle that the party that gets my support is the one that does a majority of things that I approve of.
For example on the Strategic Defence Review, I'm more forgiving than you, because of the legacy the government inherited, from a party that delayed holding a review, and the economic inheritance they received. Put it this way, do you think Liam Fox, who is from the wing of the party that puts Defence as a priority, would have done what he did, if it wasn't the only viable option (I could also point we're in coalition with the Lib Dems as mitigation)
On social conservatism, it is a real fault line in and out of the Tory party.
There's people in the Tory party who think Cameron/May haven't gone far enough, and say Cameron/May are more obsessed with the rights of Terrorists.
Robert put it elegantly a few weeks ago, when it comes to matters of Civil Liberties, social policy etc, I'm more in agreement with Richard Tyndall than I am with a lot of Tories.
I think the best thing is to reunite the right, a referendum in 2017, whatever the result.
On the EU, I disagree completely. Cameron promised two main things: the referendum lock, and 'not to let things rest'. He has delivered on the first, and the second is continuing. This, of all areas, is one where the facts of coalition with a very pro-EU party have to be taken into account; you can't simply ignore that, and in any case it is unreasonable to think that Cameron could already have fixed this issue (which has haunted UK politics for a third of a century), especially given the idiotic concessions Blair and Brown had already made. In other words, I think you are not being realistic about timescales and what is realistically achievable.
On immigration, yes it is disappointing that the progress has been less rapid than expected (although there is progress, albeit partially reversed in the most recent figures). Again the LibDems are hardly a help here, but the main problem has been the fact that the UK economy has been so successful compared with our EU neighbours.
Against all that, the positives, which you list, also have to be taken into account. Maybe I'm just a most positive sort of person than you, but to me this is a glass more than half-full, not one half-empty. My expectations in May 2010 as the GE results came in were nothing like as good as what has actually transpired.
Perhaps you're so arrogant as to think this is all just "noise", that UKIP defectors are all big fearties and will come flocking back to Cameron when there's a serious choice to make. That's why you laugh at them and mock them: you think they're disloyal, self-centred, petulant, impragmatic, but are engaging in a high stakes game of poker to try and force Cameron to 'move to the Right'. A game of bluff. That you want to win, and you think you will. Therefore, you don't respect them, and enjoy calling them out on it. Perhaps you even think you're 'putting off' others.
All I can say is: good luck with that.
I'm pretty honest on here about my beliefs, views and what I'm thinking. I often play it out in real time. I'm not the slightest bit interested in tribal partisanism and posturing. I say it as it is. I've left the Tories, and intend to vote UKIP in my seat, but have my doubts about them so I haven't joined them either.
I could be convinced either way. But why you think ultimatums and insults are effective in doing that for your party baffles me.
When the parties submit their returns to the electoral commission, you have to report how much you've earned from party membership/subs.
I'm surprised you pay so much attention to the bile of a couple of anonymous posters on here. They don't represent the Conservative Party. Nor do I, but I would like your vote for the party in May.
Could I ask you a serious question, without any agenda?
As you 'remain pleased' in so many areas, if you thought the choice of the next government depended on your vote, would you vote Conservative to continue that success rate, or would those red lines mean a spoiled vote or a vote for UKIP come what may?
Yours, Baskerville.
I was a firm Conservative supporter up until 2010 SDSR. I resigned my membership due to the defence cuts (which I felt went much too far). I defended (and liked) the Ominshambles budget. I continued voting Conservative until 2013 when I moved to 'not sure' because of procrastination on the EU renegotiation strategy, and the Andrew Feldman comments. I voted UKIP just for the Euros in May last year. I started to seriously consider UKIP after Cameron's pathetic handling and spinning of the EU budget ultimatum. I finally switched to UKIP after his annoucement on immigration in late November 2014, when it became clear he wouldn't 'get what Britain needs' and wasn't serious about delivering his pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands.
I'm afraid defence, immigration and europe are red lines for me and the Conservatives have disappointed on all of them.
I remain pleased with Conservative progress on business, tax, jobs, transport, science, pensions and education.
I do have concerns about UKIP, but this is about imperfect choices. Right now, that choice is tilted in favour of UKIP. Not least of which because posters like TGOHF and The Watcher have made it perfectly clear they're not the slightest bit interested in my vote, and prefer to insult me.
I think your defection to UKIP is a familiar story among many that moved across. In most cases it was several failures of the Tory party, one after another, that caused it. And this "tough international conditions" excuse is a nonsense. Is it tough international conditions that forced the government to hand over powers to the EU with the EAW? Is it tough international conditions that caused the Tories to sign up to a budget that increased our contribution, while claiming they had had achieved some sort of saving? Was it tough international conditions that caused the Tories to propose the snoopers charter and the mad encryption ban? Was it tough international conditions that meant Cameron decided abandon excluding non-working EU citizens from free movement? Was it tough international conditions that led to non-EU immigration still being 50% higher than the net migration target?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a8948660-9fd3-11e4-aa89-00144feab7de.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/world_uk_politics/feed//product&siteedition=uk#axzz3PGCMKAGe
Its title? "Conservatives can bore their way to general election victory"
His commentary on David Cameron is worth a read:
"No prime minister since Harold Macmillan has been so temperamentally geared to campaigning as the “safe” option. When critics say he does not believe in much, they are right. But the burden is on them to explain why this is a bad thing. For a certain kind of swing voter, groping nervously for his wallet as he looks at an unquiet world, Mr Cameron’s beliefs are reassuringly milquetoast. He does not seem like a man who would noticeably improve the country — or trash it.
Whatever his colleagues say, Mr Cameron is a proper Tory. A Tory does not care for ideas or even politics itself. They claim no singular moral insight, unlike Labour, and espouse no mission, unlike the free-marketeers who now pepper the Conservative benches. They often cannot even stand their own party. They are quiet, bland patriots who get involved in public life on the hunch that more excitable types would mess it up. A Tory is a funny compound of civic entitlement and intellectual humility."
We've got a Marf cartoon for this evening.
What tires me is the pomposity of absolutists prepared to cut off their nose to spite their faces. Then they whine when those that mock them for their unrealistic stance don't give them a cuddle and plead with them to vote blue.
As Richard Navbi points out much more eloquently than me Cam has done a decent job in the circumstances given the landscape. If you can't vote for him and aren't bothered about letting Ed in as PM then I can't help you and either way I'm not bothered how you vote,
Not ones like Chucky had with Murnaghan or Bryant with Blunt I bet!
In truth, an election that saw Con drop by 8%, Lab by 2%, Lib Dem by 16%, with the Greens up by 10%, UKIP up by 12%, and the SNP up by 30% would be the strangest and most unpredictable sin the early 1920's.
Thank you, Baskerville. Posts like yours make me think so much more; I find it much harder to argue against them. Particularly given my life-long history with the party. You're probably right: I should ignore those other posters.
As things stand, my answer (if I was living in a marginal seat) would depend on the candidate. If it were a Tory BOO'er, I would vote Tory. If it were a Tory wet/EUphile, I would vote UKIP.
But if Cameron outlined a strong list of EU concessions he'd achieved before May, including EU benefit restrictions, and further non-EU immigration reform, and gave me reassurances on protecting the armed forces in the 2015 SDSR (possibly by freezing the aid budget in real terms and diverting the cash, rather than maintaining the 0.7% GDP commitment for another 5 years) I could see myself voting Tory in a marginal come what may.
The problem I have is trusting him, as he's promised so much in the past on it and delivered so little, that I'd really like to see something in writing signed in blood now.
Oh, and a bit of a charm offensive for some of us old pavement-stomping ex-Tories who spend years campaigning for the party, but who've felt maligned and mistreating the last 4-5 years, wouldn't go amiss either. As it is, I just get surveys and requests for money.
When Cameron put together the coalition with the Lib Dems, with a huge amount of support (unanimous on the Lib Dem side) from both parliamentary parties, the Tories agreed to compromise over the EU.
There were more important things to address at the time (solid government, the economy) and therefore it was sensible to do so.
But even then, the Tory leadership has never advocated leaving the EU, so I doubt they'd ever please the UKIP supporters even if they'd had a majority.
I'm reflexively apprehensive about the EU, but I see no point in a party pulling itself apart over it.
Incidentally, I've been reading Anthony Beevor's Berlin. It puts the peaceful, working partnership between EU countries into stark perspective. Harrowing, brutal, hardly believable stuff. And only 70 years ago.
https://twitter.com/rustyrockets
I could have (and would have) supported that. It would have allowed us to maintain maritime survelliance, several additional army batallions, and a naval air capability until the new carriers came into service.
What I am all round in favour of is radical reform (and cuts) of the MoD civil service, which is a bugger's muddle and oozes the most byzantium bureacracy you can possible imagine.
1. Where a sitting Conservative is BOO, vote Conservative. What's the point of not voting for people like Phillip Holloborne, or Philip Davies?
2. In marginal seats where UKIP doesn't feature, vote Conservative unless the Conservative MP is egregious (eg Anna Soubry).
3. In marginal seats where UKIP has a viable chance of winning, vote UKIP. Thanks to Ashcroft and Survation, we have a good idea which seats those are.
4. In safe seats, vote UKIP, unless point 1 applies.
Just because he is a politician doesn't mean we can put 'beliefs' into Cameron's head or Miliband's or Farage's; that's just lazy.
I will happily quote what Mr Ganesh says he believes in, but I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to state his beliefs without knowing him.
e.g." Janan Ganesh believes he is cleverer than his readers." I could quote some evidence from this article, but it wouldn't confirm his beliefs, though it might give you an idea of mine.
On defence, I think the problem is that people hadn't realised how much Labour had over-committed the budget. Arguably the Tories should have increased the funds available once they did realise, but given the tight constraints I can see why they didn't. I'd personally be in favour of shifting resources from DfID to MoD given the worsening international climate.
On Europe the strategy is clear. It may or may not be deliverable, but at least we'll have a go, see what is deliverable and then get to vote on the outcome. Immigration has to be a part of that - they've done a lot of the possible tightening on non-EU immigration, but - if they want to address it seriously - need to look at it at a European level. Even then - unless we exit - it's most likely to be welfare reform rather than direct restrictions.
But there are definitely strong-defence/Atlanticist/BOOers in the Tory Party (Fox and Patterson, for example) so you should feel completely at home there. And ignore the Trolls.
Richard Nabavi has said that this has been a radical government though, so I guess he will disagree with Ganesh's view
I hope you will find what you want in the manifesto, and I'd be surprised if the CCHQ team does not have a 'charm offensive' planned. I suspect, however, the key word in all this is 'trust'.
Personally, I do trust Cameron. He's not infallible, nor is he is always consistent, but he has got us from the mess of 2010 to a far better position today, all the while shackled to an unprecedented coalition.
Thank you, Baskerville. Posts like yours make me think so much more; I find it much harder to argue against them. Particularly given my life-long history with the party. You're probably right: I should ignore those other posters.
As things stand, my answer (if I was living in a marginal seat) would depend on the candidate. If it were a Tory BOO'er, I would vote Tory. If it were a Tory wet/EUphile, I would vote UKIP.
But if Cameron outlined a strong list of EU concessions he'd achieved before May, including EU benefit restrictions, and further non-EU immigration reform, and gave me reassurances on protecting the armed forces in the 2015 SDSR (possibly by freezing the aid budget in real terms and diverting the cash, rather than maintaining the 0.7% GDP commitment for another 5 years) I could see myself voting Tory in a marginal come what may.
The problem I have is trusting him, as he's promised so much in the past on it and delivered so little, that I'd really like to see something in writing signed in blood now.
Oh, and a bit of a charm offensive for some of us old pavement-stomping ex-Tories who spend years campaigning for the party, but who've felt maligned and mistreating the last 4-5 years, wouldn't go amiss either. As it is, I just get surveys and requests for money.
Lab 265 (say) + SNP 50 = 315
Tories 285 (say) + LibDems 30 = 315
This would leave 20 seats to fight over, or say 14 net of non-voting N.I. MPs and the Speaker.
Of course, the Tories would be stuffed were the LibDems to side with Labour, but this would almost certainly be the case irrespective of how the final numbers work out.
Cameron did actually promise to work to seek major repatriations in the Conservative manifesto. Yes, I know he didn't win an outright majority. But the Conservatives have held both the Premiership and Foreign Secretary, so I'd expect them to have made progress on this. Particularly given the balance of competencies review, and the noises over the last 5 years. I judge Cameron on the promises he's given - I just don't think he's been firm or clear enough about his renegotiation strategy, and could get so much more. But it might be too late now.
I'm pleased you acknowledge the disappointment on immigration. I think any EU renegotiation has to recognise that as the only major non-eurozone country we act as a "pressure value" for the eurozone, and its both reasonable and practical for any future EU reform has to take that into consideration.
I'm a very positive person, actually. As you'd know if you met me! But I'd need to see a bit more progress on these core issues (and a belief they'd be followed through) before I could rejoin.
Con 300 .. Lab 269 .. LibDem 36 .. SNP 19 .. PC 2 .. NI 18 .. Ukip 3 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Speaker 1
JackW Dozen - Only change - Cornwall North moves from TCTC to Likely LibDem Hold
Ed M so does not want debates if this is the Green poll after a couple of mentions from Cameron at PMQs.
So if you have any English ancestry you are probably descended from about 95% of the population of England that survived the Black Death and whose family line did not subsequently die out.
Sorry, I'm not going to respond to any more of your posts on this. You don't seem to be able to engage with any of my points. Either you can't - or don't want to - understand them, so this is just becoming very repetitive (and boring) now.
Please feel free to carry on enjoying yourselves. But I'll be skipping over your posts from now on.
One fears they'd deliberately **** up English devolution.
Morris Dancer - scion of kings!
We're a classic example of a yeoman family made good - and only picked up our descent from Edward III (John of Gaunt) in the mid 19th century (through marriage).
Lord Ashcroft@LordAshcroft·27m27 minutes ago
In today's Ashcroft National Poll there was no prompting for the Greens at 11%.
Most of those descended from Edward III will be via John of Gaunt (he had most offspring and grandchildren of all Edward's sons).
Anyway, I must away.
"None of our participants had seen the rival posters launched by Labour and the Conservatives last week"
It's hard for people on here to digest just how little notice most people take of all the political goings on discussed on here.
Take a moment and fully digest that statement - NOBODY, not one single person in either focus group, had seen any of the posters (even on TV).
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/ashcroft-national-poll-con-29-lab-28-lib-dem-9-ukip-15-green-11/
Your other post makes a very fair point, but it probably only applies to a very small group of people - and old blood often had to marry new money, so it might be that it has little effect.
Top marks of the day to James Blunt for calling out the odious Chris Bryant.
Runner up for Sky news resulting in the arrogant "I want to "chuck up" every time I see Umana on the tele) flouncing out of the studio.