politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Iain Dale says a defection is imminent

DecrepitJohnL said:

The funny thing is the Tories actually did quite well at the ballot box under IDS. Backbenchers panicked because Blair twonked him at PMQs every week.

They were right to panic.

Put it this way: When IDS was Conservative leader, I was in the same the same position as many Labour supporters are now: I really couldn't see myself, in all honesty, able to vote Conservative in a general election where the choice was Blair vs IDS. It simply wasn't possible to argue that IDS would make the better PM or run the better government as a whole. I was wondering what I would do about this conundum (thinking that perhaps it would make sense to vote Conservative on condition that, as seemed likely, there was zero chance of them winning, on the grounds that it was better for them not to be totally wiped out), when fortunately the party came to its senses and installed Michael Howard. Howard wouldn't have been my top choice, but he was credible as a potential PM in a way in which IDS wasn't.

Socrates said:

@Luckyguy1983

You may have missed my post on the previous thread, but can you find any evidence of the OSCE "confirming" mass graves in Eastern Ukraine? I mean if they've confirmed it, that should be pretty big news and would be on their website.

Here is the relevant passage from the initial report by the OSCE:

'The ‘military police’ of ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ (‘DPR’) told the SMM that three unmarked graves allegedly containing multiple bodies had been found; two of them were located in a coal mine Komunar near the village Nyzhnia Krynka (35km north-east of Donetsk) and one inside the village. The SMM proceeded to the scene and saw in the coal mine two areas located fifty metres apart, each containing two human bodies. All four corpses were in the process of decomposition. The SMM also saw eight 9mm Makarov pistol cartridges approximately five meters away from the bodies.'
http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/124216

You may also be interested in Amnesty International's report on the war crimes of the neo-nazi Aidar battalion:

Members of the Aidar territorial defence battalion, operating in the north Luhansk region, have been involved in widespread abuses, including abductions, unlawful detention, ill-treatment, theft, extortion, and possible executions.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR50/040/2014/en

And here, even with his speech couched in highly favourable terms to the Kiev Government, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in his report summary in Vienna speaks of:

'disturbing reports of violations committed by battalions under Government control. These battalions have replaced the police in many of these newly-liberated towns and villages. I acknowledge efforts made by the Government to clarify the legal status of the battalions. However, reports of arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances and torture have been documented in the report. I have met with some of the victims and have made it clear to the authorities that perpetrators need to be held accountable and that the Government must exercise more control over all of its forces, including the volunteer battalions. I received assurances that this will be done.'
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/newyork/Stories/Pages/ASGSimonovicatOSCEonUkraine.aspx

Scrapheap_as_was said:

I've just worked out who Dale is referring to.... disillusioned with Cameron, fed up with the same old Westminster parties etc....

It's QE II going to UKIP!!!

Ah yes, regretting that famous call from the palace...

They were right to panic.

Ian Duncan Smith had the opportunity to destroy Tony Blair by turning his tories against Iraq in 2003.

If only he had taken it.

bigjohnowls said:

Surely as the Tories tack right towards UKIP they are in danger of losing one nation supporters like TSE

As UKIP tack left.

All very odd.

isam said:

Pong said:

isam said:

4/6 now that any further Tory MP to defect..

still big IMO

Is that any MP at all? Or any further MP that isn't listed?

Oh.. I am assuming any MP at all.. .

if its any MP not listed then its not so good, and its also the biggest over round in the history of bookmaking

I'd assumed it was any other than those listed and wasn't sure what you were on about as I'm too busy losing money backing Rev Oswald... just checked the Ladbrokes site/table, I'm not sure!!

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The funny thing is the Tories actually did quite well at the ballot box under IDS. Backbenchers panicked because Blair twonked him at PMQs every week.

They were right to panic.

Put it this way: When IDS was Conservative leader, I was in the same the same position as many Labour supporters are now: I really couldn't see myself, in all honesty, able to vote Conservative in a general election where the choice was Blair vs IDS. It simply wasn't possible to argue that IDS would make the better PM or run the better government as a whole. I was wondering what I would do about this conundum (thinking that perhaps it would make sense to vote Conservative on condition that, as seemed likely, there was zero chance of them winning, on the grounds that it was better for them not to be totally wiped out), when fortunately the party came to its senses and installed Michael Howard. Howard wouldn't have been my top choice, but he was credible as a potential PM in a way in which IDS wasn't.

And yet in retrospect Blair was quite possibly the worst PM of the postwar period. Not really the best example to give is it?

No need to use such a short time frame, is there?

Swiss_Bob said:

Tebbit?

Tebbit or Lawson perhaps?

bigjohnowls said:

Surely as the Tories tack right towards UKIP they are in danger of losing one nation supporters like TSE

Hey. I'm a far right extremist according to some.

Richard_Tyndall said:

And yet in retrospect Blair was quite possibly the worst PM of the postwar period. Not really the best example to give is it?

Blair was indeed one of the worst PMs of the post-war period, true (although that wasn't as obvious then as it is now). Nonetheless, I just didn't at that time see IDS as a credible PM.

Perhaps I was wrong, I don't know. We'll never know. But the point I'm making is about the politics of it at the time.

I actually didn't know Ian Dale was still going. Thought he'd dropped off the scene after 2010 (aside from that bizarre punch up he got into on telly last year)

Scrapheap_as_was said:

isam said:

Pong said:

isam said:

4/6 now that any further Tory MP to defect..

still big IMO

Is that any MP at all? Or any further MP that isn't listed?

Oh.. I am assuming any MP at all.. .

if its any MP not listed then its not so good, and its also the biggest over round in the history of bookmaking

I'd assumed it was any other than those listed and wasn't sure what you were on about as I'm too busy losing money backing Rev Oswald... just checked the Ladbrokes site/table, I'm not sure!!

It surely cant be

@Shadsy can you adjudicate please? What is this bet?!

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

And yet in retrospect Blair was quite possibly the worst PM of the postwar period. Not really the best example to give is it?

Blair was indeed one of the worst PMs of the post-war period, true (although that wasn't as obvious then as it is now). Nonetheless, I just didn't at that time see IDS as a credible PM.

Perhaps I was wrong, I don't know. We'll never know. But the point I'm making is about the politics of it at the time.

I do understand. Just wondering if you now regret that position given what you know now and whether it would influence current decisions?

By the way did you see my AJP Taylor quote at the end of the last thread?

Swiss_Bob said:

Tebbit?

If Tebbit were an MP today I could see him being a UKIP one rather than a Conservative one. Such has the party lost its way.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tyndall, really? There are some nutcases on the backbenches who think a PM who's permitted not one referendum but two that he didn't really want will suddenly renege upon a third he himself is putting in the manifesto.

Cameron could've, and should've, handled things better with both backbenchers and traditional grassroot supporters over the last few years, but the backbenchers aren't exactly blameless.

Carswell just wants to save himself, and Reckless seems to want five minutes of fame and the potential to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.

Carswell's Principle: I must defect out of loyalty to my career.

You just don't get it. He shouldn't have 'handled things better'; he shouldn't have 'listened'; he shouldn't have had more barbeques; he shouldn't have sneered less and developed an estuary accent -he should have simply realised that he is there to represent the party that people voted for, rather than the party being there to represent him. That's it. Not difficult.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tyndall, really? There are some nutcases on the backbenches who think a PM who's permitted not one referendum but two that he didn't really want will suddenly renege upon a third he himself is putting in the manifesto.

Cameron could've, and should've, handled things better with both backbenchers and traditional grassroot supporters over the last few years, but the backbenchers aren't exactly blameless.

Carswell just wants to save himself, and Reckless seems to want five minutes of fame and the potential to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.

Carswell's Principle: I must defect out of loyalty to my career.

to be fair - they'd seen the Tories in power for nearly a full term, both had failed to make it in to their Jags and collect any red boxes and they are no doubt disappointed given how great they both are, time to move on if their greatness wasn't being recognised enough for them within a 300 odd MP constituency and clearly the cream doesn't rise to the top in the modern tory party.... so they have jogged on. fair enough.

Mr. Isam, I prefer the certain proof of the AV and Scottish votes over the capacity of a backbench MP to prophesy the future.

Mr. Max, the Conservatives should be more rightwing. Defence, in particular, should've been ring-fenced. And the overseas aid expenditure is bloody stupid.

Surely people like Ken Clarke and (TSE) are now in the wrong party

"Update on UKIP defection. Sources tell me it's not an MP."

Not quite the same.

isam said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tyndall, really? There are some nutcases on the backbenches who think a PM who's permitted not one referendum but two that he didn't really want will suddenly renege upon a third he himself is putting in the manifesto.

Cameron could've, and should've, handled things better with both backbenchers and traditional grassroot supporters over the last few years, but the backbenchers aren't exactly blameless.

Carswell just wants to save himself, and Reckless seems to want five minutes of fame and the potential to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.

Carswell's Principle: I must defect out of loyalty to my career.

Which Conservative MP would it take to come out and say that Cameron isn't serious about doing what he says he will for you to think they are telling the truth?

In the hypothetical world of a Cameron majority and administration post 2015, do you really think there is any chance that his MPs would allow him to sail through 2017 without having the Euro referendum. There is nil chance of that happening. He would have a mass and majority loosing walkout. (Assuming it was a manifesto promise)

Mr. Tyndall, comparing Clacton to Rochester it's recently been remarked in various places that the former was the number 1 UKIP target, and the latter the 271st UKIP target.

As for sad smears and sour grapes: I'm not a Conservative. Or a UKIPper. I voted UKIP at the European elections. I want a vote, and I want us to leave the bureaucratic monstrosity that is the EU.

These defections, aside from being motivated by a combination of self-serving cowardice and a desperate grab at the limelight, make that prospect less likely. Perhaps you think 5 years of Miliband as PM will change nothing. I do not. And if the Conservatives implode/split (always a possibility, perhaps now more than ever) we could have decades of EU-phile idiotic governments signing away ever more power (don't forget in the post-election interregnum Darling signed us up to the euro bailout fund even though we don't use the single currency).

TGOHF said:

Have just had an email from Andy Burnham boasting about a great achievement from a Labour govt.

Unfortunately it was 79 years ago - have they not done anything decent since ?

It was great though, people who can remember life before the NHS are eternally grateful.

What is the greatest achievement of this Govt?

philiph said:

isam said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tyndall, really? There are some nutcases on the backbenches who think a PM who's permitted not one referendum but two that he didn't really want will suddenly renege upon a third he himself is putting in the manifesto.

Cameron could've, and should've, handled things better with both backbenchers and traditional grassroot supporters over the last few years, but the backbenchers aren't exactly blameless.

Carswell just wants to save himself, and Reckless seems to want five minutes of fame and the potential to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.

Carswell's Principle: I must defect out of loyalty to my career.

Which Conservative MP would it take to come out and say that Cameron isn't serious about doing what he says he will for you to think they are telling the truth?

In the hypothetical world of a Cameron majority and administration post 2015, do you really think there is any chance that his MPs would allow him to sail through 2017 without having the Euro referendum. There is nil chance of that happening. He would have a mass and majority loosing walkout. (Assuming it was a manifesto promise)

No one said he wouldn't have the referendum

Easterross said:

Afternoon all and I wish Iain Dale would defect to UKIP. Frankly since he got humped by the LibDems in Norfolk he has been a right pain in the Tory arse. He spends too much time with Jacqui Smith on the sofa at Sky News.

Humped? Gnarff.

JosiasJessop said:

MikeK said:

FPT.

@Smarmeron said:
Has anyone worked out yet that "piloted" aircraft are becoming a thing of the past?
One of the limitations of any fighter aircraft is the squishy bit that sits in the seats and is affected by G forces.
Manned aircraft will still have a place, but less so.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thats true. In another decade or so the "pilots" will be sitting in offices or tents and guiding the plane from there. Something what the army* does now for drones. Would be good jobs for @TGOHF or @TheWatcher the let out their frustrations.

* I said the army because there will not be any need for a separate air force once all planes are pilotless.

You sound like Duncan Sandys, and will be proved just as wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_Defence_White_Paper

1957:
Q. Why do we need aircraft, when missiles will do the job just as well?
A. They cannot perform all roles just as well.

2014:
Q. Why do we need manned aircraft, when drones can do the job perfectly well?
A. They cannot perform all roles just as well.

Indeed. Drones are pretty useful when you own the sky (i.e. have total air superiority), but are a great deal less useful when you do not. Drones are great fun for human pilots to shoot down though.

This may change in the future, but I'd say for the next 15 years the sky still belongs to the bald apes.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

isam said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tyndall, really? There are some nutcases on the backbenches who think a PM who's permitted not one referendum but two that he didn't really want will suddenly renege upon a third he himself is putting in the manifesto.

Cameron could've, and should've, handled things better with both backbenchers and traditional grassroot supporters over the last few years, but the backbenchers aren't exactly blameless.

Carswell just wants to save himself, and Reckless seems to want five minutes of fame and the potential to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.

Carswell's Principle: I must defect out of loyalty to my career.

Which Conservative MP would it take to come out and say that Cameron isn't serious about doing what he says he will for you to think they are telling the truth?

Hannan did at lunch time sort of - he said he will be on the opposite side to Cameron for any EU referendum but despite that he says he's staying a Tory - that to me is the respectable approach, the two of them are clearly out vs in but both remain a Tory. That's fine and whilst I disagree with Hannan on that, fair play if he doesn't throw his toys out and jump - this may surprise some but there's more to being a Tory than effing [moderated] Europe!!!

Would Hannan have a job if he defected?

bigjohnowls said:

TGOHF said:

Have just had an email from Andy Burnham boasting about a great achievement from a Labour govt.

Unfortunately it was 79 years ago - have they not done anything decent since ?

It was great though, people who can remember life before the NHS are eternally grateful.

What is the greatest achievement of this Govt?

Kicking Gordon Brown out of Downing Street

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Max, the Conservatives should be more rightwing. Defence, in particular, should've been ring-fenced. And the overseas aid expenditure is bloody stupid.

That's the problem with the modern Tory, they have bought into this idiotic idea that softly, softly works and that by trading with pariah nations and turning them into suppliers or customers we can ensure they modernise and democratise. That is purportedly why the aid budget was increased so vastly. In reality halving the aid budget spending half the saving on increasing the size of the military and the other half on reducing the deficit would make us safer as a nation. The UK Aid budget is £13.6bn this year, which seems insane given that we are running a ~£100bn deficit and we are slashing and burning at defence with a newly belligerent Russia, possible tension between China and regional powers, ISIL and the new threat from "lone wolf" terrorists on British soil. It is truly one of those policies from a Tory government that makes me wonder what the hell the leadership think voters want.

The defector is white Dee from benefits street.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2773553/Now-White-Dee-threatens-defect-UKIP-Benefits-Street-star-tells-Tory-conference-IDS-touch-real-world.html

Luckyguy1983 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tyndall, really? There are some nutcases on the backbenches who think a PM who's permitted not one referendum but two that he didn't really want will suddenly renege upon a third he himself is putting in the manifesto.

Cameron could've, and should've, handled things better with both backbenchers and traditional grassroot supporters over the last few years, but the backbenchers aren't exactly blameless.

Carswell just wants to save himself, and Reckless seems to want five minutes of fame and the potential to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.

Carswell's Principle: I must defect out of loyalty to my career.

You just don't get it. He shouldn't have 'handled things better'; he shouldn't have 'listened'; he shouldn't have had more barbeques; he shouldn't have sneered less and developed an estuary accent -he should have simply realised that he is there to represent the party that people voted for, rather than the party being there to represent him. That's it. Not difficult.

Just because he did not do the action you wanted, did not mean he did not 'listen' to that viewpoint, or indeed other viewpoints.

There can be many views, but often only one action. Assuming that your views were not listened to just because another decision was made is the height of childishness. Any leader has to weigh up differing opinions, the facts they have, and their own opinions and prejudices before making any decision.

Or are you claiming that the UKIP-favourable arm of the party is the only 'true' Conservative arm, and the only one Cameron should listen to?

bigjohnowls said:

Surely people like Ken Clarke and (TSE) are now in the wrong party

Nope.

We're all broadly fiscal conservatives. Enough of us are socially liberal.

I think a referendum is essential to sort out this country's future with the EU one way or the other.

There's a wing that would rather have no referendum and Ed Miliband as PM that are buggering off to UKIP.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Clacton was not the number 1 UKIP target and that is clear from the candidate they chose. If you are going to try and argue a case at least try to be vaguely realistic.

Morris_Dancer is referring to Matthew Goodwin's list of UKIP-friendly demographics:

Matthew Goodwin @GoodwinMJ · Sep 28

Rank in Ukip-friendly list: Clacton = 1 Rotherham = 66 Thanet N = 92 Thanet S = 142 Heywood & Midd = 148 Rochester & S = 271 Eastleigh = 324

Luckyguy1983 said:

What is it that terrifies you about UKIP?

Well I'm very pro-EU and I'm also very pro-immigration (I don't much like the Conservative policies on immigration either, to be honest). I also find UKIP very intolerant in general. So I guess you can see that the sort of society that UKIP wants to bring about is not one that I'd feel very happy in. Aside from not liking the UKIP message I like even less the hectoring and divisive way in which Farage and his chums go about delivering it.

TGOHF said:

isam said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tyndall, comparing Clacton to Rochester it's recently been remarked in various places that the former was the number 1 UKIP target, and the latter the 271st UKIP target.

As for sad smears and sour grapes: I'm not a Conservative. Or a UKIPper. I voted UKIP at the European elections. I want a vote, and I want us to leave the bureaucratic monstrosity that is the EU.

These defections, aside from being motivated by a combination of self-serving cowardice and a desperate grab at the limelight, make that prospect less likely. Perhaps you think 5 years of Miliband as PM will change nothing. I do not. And if the Conservatives implode/split (always a possibility, perhaps now more than ever) we could have decades of EU-phile idiotic governments signing away ever more power (don't forget in the post-election interregnum Darling signed us up to the euro bailout fund even though we don't use the single currency).

Clacton was not the number 1 UKIP target and that is clear from the candidate they chose. If you are going to try and argue a case at least try to be vaguely realistic.

So Carswell panicked as he was going to lose to a total non entity ? Blimey.

UKIP were 20/1 when Carswell was the Tory candidate

Makes his pusillanimity look worse frankly.

So you say he panicked when he realised he was going to lose

I point out he was massive odds on to win

You say that makes it worse

Are you stark raving mental or just unable to concede a point?

TheScreamingEagles said:

bigjohnowls said:

Surely people like Ken Clarke and (TSE) are now in the wrong party

Nope.

We're all broadly fiscal conservatives. Enough of us are socially liberal.

I think a referendum is essential to sort out this country's future with the EU one way or the other.

There's a wing that would rather have no referendum and Ed Miliband as PM that are buggering off to UKIP.

Well said Francis Pym - I associate myself with your words!

JosiasJessop said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tyndall, really? There are some nutcases on the backbenches who think a PM who's permitted not one referendum but two that he didn't really want will suddenly renege upon a third he himself is putting in the manifesto.

Cameron could've, and should've, handled things better with both backbenchers and traditional grassroot supporters over the last few years, but the backbenchers aren't exactly blameless.

Carswell just wants to save himself, and Reckless seems to want five minutes of fame and the potential to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.

Carswell's Principle: I must defect out of loyalty to my career.

You just don't get it. He shouldn't have 'handled things better'; he shouldn't have 'listened'; he shouldn't have had more barbeques; he shouldn't have sneered less and developed an estuary accent -he should have simply realised that he is there to represent the party that people voted for, rather than the party being there to represent him. That's it. Not difficult.

Just because he did not do the action you wanted, did not mean he did not 'listen' to that viewpoint, or indeed other viewpoints.

There can be many views, but often only one action. Assuming that your views were not listened to just because another decision was made is the height of childishness. Any leader has to weigh up differing opinions, the facts they have, and their own opinions and prejudices before making any decision.

Or are you claiming that the UKIP-favourable arm of the party is the only 'true' Conservative arm, and the only one Cameron should listen to?

I am sure there were many differing opinions -the ones that Cameron has listened to being the ones coming out of Ken Clarke, Brussels, Strasbourg, the Lib Dems, and skype calls with Joe Biden. He's consistently capitulated to nearly everyone in the world with the exception of the Tory Party.

Itajai said:

MaxPB said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Max, the Conservatives should be more rightwing. Defence, in particular, should've been ring-fenced. And the overseas aid expenditure is bloody stupid.

That's the problem with the modern Tory, they have bought into this idiotic idea that softly, softly works and that by trading with pariah nations and turning them into suppliers or customers we can ensure they modernise and democratise. That is purportedly why the aid budget was increased so vastly. In reality halving the aid budget spending half the saving on increasing the size of the military and the other half on reducing the deficit would make us safer as a nation. The UK Aid budget is £13.6bn this year, which seems insane given that we are running a ~£100bn deficit and we are slashing and burning at defence with a newly belligerent Russia, possible tension between China and regional powers, ISIL and the new threat from "lone wolf" terrorists on British soil. It is truly one of those policies from a Tory government that makes me wonder what the hell the leadership think voters want.

You don´t understand. The Tory leadership, like the Labour leadership, hate their own voters. Living in their own little cocoon they all believe in ever increasing aid budgets. Has anyone seen how the politicos all gang up together to defend the foreign aid budget whenever this is asked on QT.

But isn't the foreign aid budget comparable to our contribution to the EU?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Itajai said:

MaxPB said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Max, the Conservatives should be more rightwing. Defence, in particular, should've been ring-fenced. And the overseas aid expenditure is bloody stupid.

That's the problem with the modern Tory, they have bought into this idiotic idea that softly, softly works and that by trading with pariah nations and turning them into suppliers or customers we can ensure they modernise and democratise. That is purportedly why the aid budget was increased so vastly. In reality halving the aid budget spending half the saving on increasing the size of the military and the other half on reducing the deficit would make us safer as a nation. The UK Aid budget is £13.6bn this year, which seems insane given that we are running a ~£100bn deficit and we are slashing and burning at defence with a newly belligerent Russia, possible tension between China and regional powers, ISIL and the new threat from "lone wolf" terrorists on British soil. It is truly one of those policies from a Tory government that makes me wonder what the hell the leadership think voters want.

You don´t understand. The Tory leadership, like the Labour leadership, hate their own voters. Living in their own little cocoon they all believe in ever increasing aid budgets. Has anyone seen how the politicos all gang up together to defend the foreign aid budget whenever this is asked on QT.

But isn't the foreign aid budget less than our net contribution to EU?

Not this year, the EU net contribution will be around £9bn, the foreign aid budget is about £13bn including the money funnelled through EU aid programmes.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Itajai said:

MaxPB said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Max, the Conservatives should be more rightwing. Defence, in particular, should've been ring-fenced. And the overseas aid expenditure is bloody stupid.

That's the problem with the modern Tory, they have bought into this idiotic idea that softly, softly works and that by trading with pariah nations and turning them into suppliers or customers we can ensure they modernise and democratise. That is purportedly why the aid budget was increased so vastly. In reality halving the aid budget spending half the saving on increasing the size of the military and the other half on reducing the deficit would make us safer as a nation. The UK Aid budget is £13.6bn this year, which seems insane given that we are running a ~£100bn deficit and we are slashing and burning at defence with a newly belligerent Russia, possible tension between China and regional powers, ISIL and the new threat from "lone wolf" terrorists on British soil. It is truly one of those policies from a Tory government that makes me wonder what the hell the leadership think voters want.

You don´t understand. The Tory leadership, like the Labour leadership, hate their own voters. Living in their own little cocoon they all believe in ever increasing aid budgets. Has anyone seen how the politicos all gang up together to defend the foreign aid budget whenever this is asked on QT.

But isn't the foreign aid budget comparable to our contribution to the EU?

What an interesting point. Why has no-one made it before? You should make it every day to redress the balance.

MaxPB said:

TGOHF said:

isam said:

TGOHF said:

isam said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tyndall, comparing Clacton to Rochester it's recently been remarked in various places that the former was the number 1 UKIP target, and the latter the 271st UKIP target.

As for sad smears and sour grapes: I'm not a Conservative. Or a UKIPper. I voted UKIP at the European elections. I want a vote, and I want us to leave the bureaucratic monstrosity that is the EU.

These defections, aside from being motivated by a combination of self-serving cowardice and a desperate grab at the limelight, make that prospect less likely. Perhaps you think 5 years of Miliband as PM will change nothing. I do not. And if the Conservatives implode/split (always a possibility, perhaps now more than ever) we could have decades of EU-phile idiotic governments signing away ever more power (don't forget in the post-election interregnum Darling signed us up to the euro bailout fund even though we don't use the single currency).

Clacton was not the number 1 UKIP target and that is clear from the candidate they chose. If you are going to try and argue a case at least try to be vaguely realistic.

So Carswell panicked as he was going to lose to a total non entity ? Blimey.

UKIP were 20/1 when Carswell was the Tory candidate

Makes his pusillanimity look worse frankly.

So you say he panicked when he realised he was going to lose

I point out he was massive odds on to win

You say that makes it worse

Are you stark raving mental or just unable to concede a point?

So why did he defect then if he wasn't going to lose ?

Maybe, just maybe, he disagrees with the direction the Tory leadership are taking the party and country?

So he prefers the way Labour will take the country instead.

Got it.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

MaxPB said:

TGOHF said:

isam said:

TGOHF said:

isam said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tyndall, comparing Clacton to Rochester it's recently been remarked in various places that the former was the number 1 UKIP target, and the latter the 271st UKIP target.

As for sad smears and sour grapes: I'm not a Conservative. Or a UKIPper. I voted UKIP at the European elections. I want a vote, and I want us to leave the bureaucratic monstrosity that is the EU.

These defections, aside from being motivated by a combination of self-serving cowardice and a desperate grab at the limelight, make that prospect less likely. Perhaps you think 5 years of Miliband as PM will change nothing. I do not. And if the Conservatives implode/split (always a possibility, perhaps now more than ever) we could have decades of EU-phile idiotic governments signing away ever more power (don't forget in the post-election interregnum Darling signed us up to the euro bailout fund even though we don't use the single currency).

Clacton was not the number 1 UKIP target and that is clear from the candidate they chose. If you are going to try and argue a case at least try to be vaguely realistic.

So Carswell panicked as he was going to lose to a total non entity ? Blimey.

UKIP were 20/1 when Carswell was the Tory candidate

Makes his pusillanimity look worse frankly.

So you say he panicked when he realised he was going to lose

I point out he was massive odds on to win

You say that makes it worse

Are you stark raving mental or just unable to concede a point?

So why did he defect then if he wasn't going to lose ?

Maybe, just maybe, he disagrees with the direction the Tory leadership are taking the party and country?

So he prefers the way Labour will take the country instead.

Got it.

He defected to UKIP, not Labour!!

TGOHF said:

Have just had an email from Andy Burnham boasting about a great achievement from a Labour govt.

Unfortunately it was 79 years ago - have they not done anything decent since ?

The current welfare system, including the NHS, is based on the Beveridge report. Although William Beveridge, an economist and a Liberal MP, was defeated at the 1945 election, the successful Labour Party then implemented his proposals.

As Lord Beveridge he went on to lead the Liberals in the House of Lords.

So Liberals have as much claim to the NHS as Labour.

TGOHF said:

isam said:

TGOHF said:

isam said:

TGOHF said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Tyndall, comparing Clacton to Rochester it's recently been remarked in various places that the former was the number 1 UKIP target, and the latter the 271st UKIP target.

As for sad smears and sour grapes: I'm not a Conservative. Or a UKIPper. I voted UKIP at the European elections. I want a vote, and I want us to leave the bureaucratic monstrosity that is the EU.

These defections, aside from being motivated by a combination of self-serving cowardice and a desperate grab at the limelight, make that prospect less likely. Perhaps you think 5 years of Miliband as PM will change nothing. I do not. And if the Conservatives implode/split (always a possibility, perhaps now more than ever) we could have decades of EU-phile idiotic governments signing away ever more power (don't forget in the post-election interregnum Darling signed us up to the euro bailout fund even though we don't use the single currency).

Clacton was not the number 1 UKIP target and that is clear from the candidate they chose. If you are going to try and argue a case at least try to be vaguely realistic.

So Carswell panicked as he was going to lose to a total non entity ? Blimey.

UKIP were 20/1 when Carswell was the Tory candidate

Makes his pusillanimity look worse frankly.

So you say he panicked when he realised he was going to lose

I point out he was massive odds on to win

You say that makes it worse

Are you stark raving mental or just unable to concede a point?

So why did he defect then if he wasn't going to lose ?

Because he didn't believe in the Party he was representing any more

He would have won whoever he stood for

Why would you have a problem with that its just weird?