There is 'somewhere else' for discontented Tories to go

It is said that the now 32% of Tories who are dissatisfied with David Cameron have nowhere else to go.  The number who stayed-at-home for the Bromley by-election showed that the dissatisfied did have another option.  Joining UKIP is a second option and today's Times highlights the case of three Tory officers who have chosen this option.  The three Tories are Toby Horton, former Chairman of William Hague's local party, Mark Hudson, on the official candidates' list, and Kevin Davidson Hall, former Tory candidate for Peterborough.  Anthony Browne, who wrote The Times' story, obviously does not pay enough attention to ConservativeHome as he makes no mention of our hugely relevant Monday finding that UKIP was the favourite choice of party activists when it came to mentioning the other political party closest to their views.  If David Cameron does not adopt a more Eurosceptic outlook - and certainly if he fails to deliver on his revised EPP pledge - he will only risk more leakage of supporters to Nigel Farage's party. 

For most Tories, however, UKIP candidates are the Europhiles' useful idiots.  Again and again they deprive more Eurosceptic Conservative candidates of a majority over LibDem and Labour candidates.  1997 taught the Conservative Party that a fringe party like the Referendum Party does not need to do spectacularly in order to deny us victory in crucial marginal seats.

Comments

[Cassilis]

When the good people at ConservativeHome start accusing you of a lack of 'inclusivity' (esbonio @14.03) it's time to move on - some things are beyond parody.

Jon G's made perfect sense.

[Colin]

"The best way of defeating UKIP and the LibDems is to keep reminding waverers that a Tory vote is the only way of ridding Britain of this Labour government.

Posted by: Editor | December 08, 2006 at 09:48"

Maybe, but it will also ensure that the UK remains in the EU.

There is less and less difference between Lab & Cons and as the majority of UK law and regulations come from the EU does it matter?

[Jorgen]

I always appreciate Michael McGowan's comments.

Yes! I wouldn't have any problems with him in charge of policy.

[Jorgen]

Ups, this just to eliminate the italics

[Jon Gale]

Michael McGowan,

"He and Brown merely switched from (i) ownership and high taxation to (ii) politicised regulatory control and high taxation as the medium for achieving state control of society."

I agree with what you say Tony Blair has done, but that difference IS the difference between socialism and social democracy . Public ownership of the means of production is the definition of socialism.

His opposition to vouchers and social insurance-based healthcare is worse than "socialist"
....it is a steadfast refusal to give ordinary people value for their taxes and genuine autnomy over their own lives: the kind of autonomy that a wealthy patrician like him already enjoys.
But by that definition Margaret Thatcher was "worse than socialist". David Cameron might not be suggesting anything new, but equally he's not getting "worse". How can keeping the old policies, in a Conservative Party of all things, be a backwards step?

[Michael McGowan]

Cassilis, since when has a broad Church required its members to subscribe to a very narrowly-defined list of ethical propositions? The Labour Party certianly does not. I happen to agree with a lot of the things you advocate but that is not the point. I would like to vote for a broad-based political party, not a Portillista version of the Shining Path.

[Londoner]

Well, we seem to have smoked Cassilis out (14:06). He obviously can't think of anyone wanting to make homosexuality illegal etc (see mine of 13:50). Instead, according to him, he DID mean to include those with doubts about civil partnerships or gay adoption as amongst those to be shown the door because they put one beyond "the parameters of legitimate opinion" (which) "have shifted in a progressive direction" and the leader should ensure that anyone with such doubts should be driven to the fringes or treated as an idiot.

With friends like that, Cameron does not need enemies! Fortunately I share enough of Cameron's sunny optimism to believe that there is no chance that he will take Cassili's advice.

Whilst I thought Cassili's initial historical sweep was a good antidote to some on here, I fear he has got a bit to learn about how conservatives think, and conduct themselves. It is not conservative to assume that everything labelled "progressive" is necessarily good (any more than it is necessarily bad of course). Conservatives are also reluctant to paint others' views as "beyond the pale", least of all if they were the received wisdom a few short years ago, because we respect the rights of individuals to hold different views. None of this condones racism, homophobia or the like, but you seem to be going way beyond that.

Perhaps it is because you don't yet seem to have "got" the conservative disposition (as another poster refers to in Charles Moore's writing) that you stimulate longer standing conservatives to argue with you so much. Were you a member, or long-term supporter, of any other party before you joined ours?

But, back on the original subject, with all these tensions on social matters etc, Cameron would be mad to do anything else other than to stand very firm on the Hague/IDS/Howard settlement on Europe. It would be as big a mistake as dear Mrs T's fighting on the two fronts of Europe and the Poll Tax in her time. Leaders can and have fallen over Europe: Mrs T (wrongly in my view), Major (destroyed by it in terms of his political authority), even to some extent Heath.

[Londoner]

Editor, we seem to have gone italic.

[Michael McGowan]

Jon, thanks for replying. On the first point, you may be right but isn't this the difference between a flea and a louse - alternative but equally heavy-handed routes to the same statist authoritarian end?

On the second point, one of the biggest blots on Mrs Thatcher's record was her failure in relation to health and education. The philosophy which underlay council house sales was never extended to either and she helped Crosland and Heath destroy social mobility by shutting grammar schools.

[Sean Fear]

That is very well expressed, Londoner.

I suppose you could find a few Party members who *do* want to make homosexuality illegal, but it's hardly a live issue, and hardly representative of any significant body of opinion within the Party.

[wasp]

whisper it softly

Cameron is a conservative

Thatcher was not

[Cassilis]

As mentioned before Michael it's a balance issue and I think that's what Cameron has finally grasped and is trying to address.

Plurality of opinion is fine and we'll always have our fringe elements on the loony-right as Labour does on it's left. The important thing is that the public recognise them as just that - fringe elements, well beyond any serious position of power or influence and not remotely representative of the party in general or the MP's.

If you take a fundamentalist line about parity of opinion and say every voice matters, all voices should be heard etc. you'll never convince the public that the party is fit govern. Nobody seriously believes New Labour might start nationalising industries, scrapping our deterrent etc. but they did in the late 80's and they lost election after election because of that belief. If the Tories are ever to gain power again we need to make it clear that, broad church & plurality aside, it has no time for homophobia, racism etc.

[Sean Fear]

Casillis,

There is no equivalent group in the Conservative Party today to the Hard Left of the Labour Party in the eighties.

Hence, if Cameron were misguided enough to take your advice, he'd be picking a fight with an entity that doesn't exist.

[Michael McGowan]

Cassilis, I think I rather agree with Londoner on this one. Every voice does matter: that is the essence of a broad church although you obviously need to agree on a broad direction of travel. If that is being a "fundamentalist", then I plead guilty to fundamentalism....of the liberal kind as opposed to your brand.

[Caroline Hope]

Lord Pearson put it well when explaining why he had declined the Con whip recently: "Is my loyalty to my party or to my country?"

Cameron has proved that he is happy for 80% of our legislation to be dictated by Brussels, and for the third world to starve behind the wall of protectionism, while the Emissions Trading Scheme makes NHS hospitals buy credits from foreign energy companies. It will not do. We must get out and hope for the world's sake that others follow. This is above party politics. I have voted Tory in four GEs and every other election and now will not do so until the party commits to EU withdrawal or a referendum on doing so. The Referendum Party - while you may have hated it - at least got the two main parties to agree to hold a referendum on entry to the euro. That achievement was worth however many Tory seats were lost. Take warnings from recent history.

[Cassilis]

Londoner,

Still here despite my best efforts. My comment @ 15.39 perhaps goes some way towards an answer to your questions. I've never been a member of any other party and I'm a long-standing supporter - I just happen to be on the liberal / left of the party. I want us to remain broad & inclusive but I passionately believe there are limits to this and they have shifted in recet years and too many people at the grassroots level have recognised this.

[Jonathan Mackie]

Mark Fulford @ 12.05

Are you suggesting that the under Cameron voluntary groups would have a blank cheque and the state would guarantee their financial position.

If you are is that not simple state action in a different guise and hardly amounts to rolling back the state.

[Sean Fear]

I think that few Conservatives (whether or not they are social liberals ) would consider that politics has shifted in a welcome direction over the past 20 years.

Broadly speaking, the State claims rights over the individual, and to suppress dissent, which it did not claim 20 years ago. That is something which I imagine most Conservatives would wish to reverse.

[Terry]

I was one of the Young Conservatives at the well-known "Maggie rally" with Kenny Everett back in 1983. I am concluding that the party no longer shares my outlook on the gay rights issue - this is not an academic debate, but very practically the proposed Sexual Orientation laws which are set to go through will have the indirect effect of promoting homosexuality across a wide range of contexts, even making it potentially illegal for a school to refuse to allow pro-homosexual books in. Is the party opposed to these proposed laws or not? If not, it is presumably not looking for the support of people like me any more.

[Tory T]

Cassilis,

Cameron will not say that it is wrong for Conservatives to oppose gay adoption or civil partnerships - not merely have doubts, but actively to oppose them - because he does not believe that.

He himself may support both but he is happy for Conservatives to oppose them on conscience grounds.

He has not only not rebuked, but promoted, Sayeeda Warsi to take just one example to Vice Chairman of the party and the A list. Her Muslim faith means she disagrees with you on gay rights. There are plenty more examples across the faith and Conservatism spectrum whom Cameron has happily given leadership positions to.

The Tory party is a broader church than you suppose.

[TomTom]

Casillis,

There is no equivalent group in the Conservative Party today to the Hard Left of the Labour Party in the eighties.

and there would not have been a Hard Left in Labour without left-wing Union bosses underwriting them.............the Unions spent £200 million supporting Labour in its wilderness years........it had men like Moss Evans, David Basnett, Clive Jenkins able to fund it..........

Stop looking for analogies.......that is the curse of politics it always looks for something the other party has done or is doing...........why cannot we have policies tailored to our problems without reference to Americans, or anyone else.

British Solutions to BRitish Problems

[Esbonio]

Cassilis

I am glad you got the point.

[Londoner]

I think this thread may be nearing its end in something closer to harmony. Everyone has disagreed with some of what Cassilis said, but he has retreated somewhat to just making it clear that the party has no time for racism or homophobia.

In the meantime, more has emerged of Cameron's remarks in Brussels and it seems he is not retreating from Euroscepticism, but just giving it a new edge (although of course is not a "better off out" but then no party leader since Eden has been).

And everyone has acknowlegded that, within some limits, the party is and should remain a broad church.

What a warm way to end a Friday afternoon.

[Cassilis]

Sounds sensible Londoner - in my defence I think everyone (including your good self) also AGREED with at least some of what I said.

'New boy' suitabliy broken in then?

All the best...

[Mark Fulford]

Are you suggesting that the under Cameron voluntary groups would have a blank cheque and the state would guarantee their financial position.

No. However, taking C-Far as an example:

C-Far produced measurably better results measurably cheaper than the Probation Service. Gordon Brown’s Socialist ideology prevents him from trusting a third party with tax payers’ money: solutions have to be directly provided by the state. By contrast, David Cameron has said that he would trust organisations such as C-Far with long-term funding that allows them to flourish – without killing-off their innovation by the dead hand of state regulation.

At the Nation of the Second Chance speech, David Cameron was quite clear that yes, in retrospect, some of this type funding will be seen to be badly spent, but spending overall will be far more effective.

This is an example of the fundamental difference between a Conservative and Labour government – a difference that Labour and many in the media are quite happy to smudge.

[Odessa Calling]

If the BNP win a seat at the next election it is most likely to be Barking. However, while I expect to make a strong showing there, I don't think they will succeed.

[malcolm]

Agreed Londoner.A good debate today.Have a good weekend everyone.

[Scotty]

Welcome to the conservative party Cassilis, I hope in years to come that you will become one of the "old guard".
I enjoyed reading your thoughtful and articulate posts and the subsequent debate it caused in this thread.

"Since its birth the conservative party has been an extraordinarily broad church, swinging between paternalism or individualism, socially liberal or socially conservative, laissez-faire or protectionism etc. It's one of the world's most successful political parties and no honest or balanced analysis of that historical success can tie it to one or other of those political positions - on the contrary it's a direct product of our willingness to adapt."

I think that summary neatly sums up why I feel as in tune and comfortable with the direction that David Cameron is taking the conservative party as I did when Mrs Thatcher became leader.
My biggest complaint about the whole argument about direction or what "real" conservatism means has been the way in which we continue to look inwards by concentrating on stopping a few drifting away, rather than trying to make the tent bigger and broader.

I knew that David Cameron was the right leader when he started to appeal to the wider electorate at conference. He was speaking to the audience outside the conference hall just like Mrs Thatcher used to do.

[Londoner]

Yes, Cassilis I did agree with some of what you said. I started by saying that.

[John Coles]

""......speaking to the audience outside the conference hall just like Mrs Thatcher used to do.""
She did not. Mrs Thatcher said what she considered to be right and necessary and her convictions drew those "outside the conference hall " to her. By contrast Mr Cameron's statements, relentlessly and cynically calculated to appeal to sectional interests that he finds attractive, result in many being repelled.
Supporters used not dismissed as "rebel idiots" and "loony right" nor was progressivisim lauded, Cassilis: are you really in the right political grouping?

[Patsy Sergeant]

Mark Fulford @ 16.39 - I should think it is NOT so much Mr. Brown's Socialist ideology that is preventing his trusting a 3rd party with Taxpayers money, more that he absolutely let any money 'go', unless it enhances his image! Look at his record on more prisons, or funding adequate provisions for the armed forces.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Apologies - 'Absolutely WILL NOT let any money 'go'....

[John Coles]

Absolutely right.

[Devon observer]

Am I the only one who is fed up with the pontificating of Old Hack? He or she sounds like an outmoded/outlived Tory with their prime well behind them.

Move over and let in the younger blood Old Hack.

[Devil's Kitchen]

Vote UKIP, get NuLab - simple as that.

That sounds familiar... What was that from...? Oh, no, wait; I've got it! Vote LibDem, get Tories, wasn't it?

DK

[Rudyard.]

Devils Kitchen has it right,but facts are facts,if we showed we would withdraw from the EU we would be in like a flash and the others would be kicking themselves for evermore.Changing our policy on the EU is only one change and not a complete betrayal of the Conservative Party as some seem to indicate.UKIP would be gone in a second,neutered,and so would NewLabour and the Lib-Dems.Giving back a little ground is a well known tactic to guarantee a victory.

[Devil's Kitchen]

Giving back a little ground is a well known tactic to guarantee a victory.

Call me a silly, old idealist if you will, but shouldn't the Tories also be considering what is right, not simply what is going to guarantee victory?

If Cameron and his lot got in and were exactly the same as NuLabour, would you guys all vote for them again anyway?

Withdrawal from the EU is the correct thing to do; how can the political parties in this country ever even consider the more radical policies that are needed if so much of our law comes from the EU?

Let us take, for instance, Cameron's much-vaunted "green" policies; the Environment is a wholly EU competence. Cameron talks about "green taxes" because that is actually the only thing that he can do to set an environmental agenda.

DK

[TomTom]

Vote UKIP, get NuLab - simple as that.

Quite possibly but at what point before the next General Election will the Tories get the required 10% lead in the polls ?

[Al South]

UKIP are like the monster under the bed. If we believe they are a threat - they are a threat.

My own experience of UKIP are that they are a shambolic joke. They appear more interestyed in attacking each other and the Conservative party than attacking the EU.

If the figures being quoted by UKIP members is correct then their membership has plummeted from 29,000 to 16,000 in just one year. Some members are saying that the real membership figure is closer to 10,000.

In recent months a third of their National Executive Committee has resigned - and Gerald Batton MEP has just resigned from the NEC becasue of the direction their new leader Nigel Farage is taking UKIP.

At the recent Bromley by-election people donating money found it was being paid onto an MEPs private credit card?

People donating via UKIPs Ashford call centre will be surprised to learn 85p of every £1 donated is taken by the call centre in 'expenses' - so UKIP only get 15p.

UKIP are devoid of policies with different UKIP branches, candidates and MEPs making completely opposite announcements on UKIP policies - they remind me so much of the oppurtunistic Liberal Democrats.

Talking of the Liberal Democrats UKIP have just lost one of their activists to the Liberal Democrats - he realised to stay within UKIP would mean he could not influence any local decisions - to campaign within a mainstream political party means he can influence what goes on.

Everybody does seem to be getting their knickers in a twist over a handful of ex-conservatives, who have decided to wande off into the political wilderness, and join UKIP.

There have not been hundreds or thousands of Conservatives joining UKIP - just a handful - used very effictively by UKIP for propaganda purposes. Farage and co must be rubbing their hands with glee at this thread!

Later today I am off out delivering leaflets with fellow Conservative branch members and this afternoon we plan to canvas 400 houses.

UKIP does not even appear on the radar locally - they will not influence the vote locally. People are more concerned about their council tax, anti-social behaviour, litter and the local park.

Am I bothered about UKIP? Not the slightest.

[ukfirst]

NuLab or BluLab - what real difference would that make at the next election?

75% of the laws governing our lives comes from the European Commission (and rising).

[ukfirst]

"People are more concerned about their council tax, anti-social behaviour, litter and the local park."

At least you are honest about the scope of Conservative Party policy currently.

[Al South]

Dear ukfirst - a quick lesson in political realities. Most Conservative party members are actively campaigning for next Mays local council elections.

In LOCAL elections you campaign on LOCAL issues mainly. LOCAL council taxpayers are concerned about the LOCAL issues that affect them and their families.

When knocking on doors the EU, Common Fisheries Policy, Common Agricultural Policy, Maastricht Treaty, the Euro, latest EU regulations are just not an issue people talk about!

While you and your friend in UKIP might get incredibaly excited about these issues - they just don't crop up as a major issue on the doorstep when campaigning to get local councillors elected.

People are worried about their Council Tax, anti-social behaviour, litter, the state of their local park...

If I banged on about the EU they would think I was some sort of deranged nutter and I would get the door slammed in my face.

I see UKIP campaigned on EU issues in the Horsham by election 3 days ago and came last with a mere 40 votes - 2% of the vote.

At least you are honest about the scope of UKIP policies currently.

[Graeme Archer]

Londoner wrote:
Perhaps it is because you don't yet seem to have "got" the conservative disposition (as another poster refers to in Charles Moore's writing) that you stimulate longer standing conservatives to argue with you so much. Were you a member, or long-term supporter, of any other party before you joined ours?

That was me! I mentioned disposition. The funny thing is, I agree with lots of what Cassilis had to say but also with those who like the broad church approach too. I wouldn't have anyone close to me in any sense who got sniffy about civil partnerships - too too silly - but that doesn't mean that they're not Conservatives. Or that I'm not either. Incidentally it's not just newcomers who share Cassilis' disposition, I've been hacking away delivering leaflets for 21 years now, does that make me old guard? It makes me feel very old. And very sad for tapping away at a website on a sunny cold winter's Saturday!!

[Richard Lee]

I bear no anomosity towards people who want to join UKIP.

People can and do change their political beliefs and outlook.

People who join UKIP obviously have something missing from their lives and I hope that membership of UKIP will help plug that gaping hole for them.

I really do hop they find the peace and happiness they so deserve. Good luck.

[Esbonio]

Richard Lee at 1503

Your comments about joining UKIP apply pretty much to all political parties.

Despite my sound right wing views I eschewed joining the Tory party at Oxford (when Hague was there) partly because I did not want be associated with hacks. Indeed party hacks in those days were quite widely distrusted and or disliked (to put it mildly). I doubt if students are any the less sceptical today than they were then.

[Opinicus]

Fashions in politics change. CCHQ people and ultra Loyalists who believe that the current two party system is embedded in stone have paid no attention to the fate of the Liberal Party. They went from government in 1916 to total collapse by 1928 and have never recovered. Labour were a new Party then, like UKIP today.

The Cameroons arguments are correct, IF you believe politics is a zero sum game. The politics of focus groups, of niche marketing arguments, of retaining the support of the bien pensants works in America, where there is no ideological debate, where clever marketing and facile argument attract swings between voters, sated with economic prosperity and free of external threat, who have not had an "original" thought since deciding to end segregation in the Sixties.

Britain is a country under threat from Muslim fundamentalism and family breakdown within and from EU sublimation and globalisation without. Britain is not a happy country just now. Because all three main parties essentially agree and agree to ignore the problems that voters sense on the horizon, support for the political process is ebbing away. That is why we are seeing falling turnout and fourth and fifth parties.

The Right is the only part of the political spectrum enunciating the problems and coming up with new ideas to deal with them. DC has set the Conservatives against these new ideas. He has shut down debate and has created a media Party in his own image, cheerful and facile. It might be enough for the next election and he and his friends will enjoy Office they were born to deserve.

But the problems of Britain remain - rising inflation and unemployment (unreflected in the official figures), an over valued pound, collapsing manufactures, social anarchy from family breakdown and rising crime, decimated pension provision, uncontrolled immigration, the formation of ghettos breeding terrorists within and finally sublimation into the EU. Nu Labour have nothing new to say on these issues only the failed policies of 1997. Cameron has nothing to say that Nu Labour wouldn't.

There is a vacuum in politics and if the Conservatives won't fill it, someone else will. If the economy gets worse, it could happen very quickly. Let us hope it is UKIP rather than the BNP that reaps the benefit.

[Esbonio]

Well said, Jonathan.

The parallel you draw with the Liberals seems almost spookily apt. Of course if you are right, you can be sure it will not elevated Tory "modernisers" who pay the price.

[Cllr Graham Smith]

IMHO the main reason that Labour held onto their seat in last week's Skegness Town Council by-election was because of disaffected Tories backing UKIP.

There were only three candidates (Conservative, Labour and UKIP) and Conservatives would have likely won if UKIP had not contested the seat.

So, once again, we see that a vote for UKIP is a vote to support Mr Blair. :-(

[Tory Loyalist]

"New Party member" Cassilis = new CCHQ sock puppet.

Maybe he's like to give us a date for that previous golden age when Tories were not "homophobic"?

In my youth what is no called "homophobia" was taken for granted by membera of all parties and none, so his extremely silly idea that the Conservative Party was at some stage hi-jacked by homophobes is well wide of the mark.

A few years ago a chairman of the TRG- no less (a very nice guy as it happens) said to me "I'm a bit of a homophobe" so Cassilis had better give the TRG a wide berth.

Dear ukfirst - a quick lesson in political realities. Most Conservative party members are actively campaigning for next Mays local council elections.

Another idiotic comment, this time from from "Al South"

The involvement of "most party members" remains, as ever, limited to payiung a subscription once a year, and I daresay that's the same for all other parties.

It's only a minority that do the hard work and since Cameron got in that minority has been reduced by at least one.

[Jorgen]

So, once again, we see that a vote for UKIP is a vote to support Mr Blair.

Or it could be a vote supporting ones Conservative principles or indeed an early protest vote to warn the management.

Not everyone can have as flexible principles as DC, who without apparent problems managed to work for several real Conservatives.

[Richard Carey]

Maybe he's like to give us a date for that previous golden age when Tories were not "homophobic"?

Perhaps you're correct, and it has ever been thus - I'd still like to think it applies/applied to a minority. And just because it has been so in the past does not mean that it is right, it is not, nor that it should not change - it should. Right, which part of that do you disagree with?

"New Party member" Cassilis = new CCHQ sock puppet.

I think it's about time that the "CCHQ paranoia" was given a rest. On another thread this week, another poster decided I worked for CCHQ. I don't know what was funnier, that or his branding me "deeply suspect"!

Another idiotic comment, this time from from "Al South"

It's not idiotic - if you read the full post you'll see he was talking about the issues that activists are likely to be campaigning on ahead of the May 07 poll, and the seeming irrelevance of UKIP's agenda there.

I agree, it would be great to get more members active - Casilis sounds keen, so don't run him down, encourage him.

And I'm sorry you're not an active campaigner any more - we could have shared the day I've just had in the lovely December sunshine delivering InTouch! At least if we get Casilis involved, your loss of one is not a net loss!

[matt wright]

Casilis, glad you've joined the party and it is good to see your sensible posts. Don't let the very loud minority on here put you off.

[towcestarian]

Richard Lee said

"People who join UKIP obviously have something missing from their lives and I hope that membership of UKIP will help plug that gaping hole for them."

I think what is suddenly missing from their lives is a centre-right political party. Sadly I don't think UKIP will help fill the gap. I for one am resigned to becoming politically disenfranchised and next time will stay at home or maybe go and spoil my ballot paper.

In fact I will vote for whoever promises to introduce a "None of the above" option on ballot papers.

[Gospel of Enoch]

There are those who have suggested that UKIP are experts in backstabbing. Hmm. What about the downfall of the Blessed Margaret, and IDS? And didn't John Major resign on a "back me or else" issue?

There are also those, here, who seem to think wanting to leave the EU is "right wing". Where does that leave Arthur Scargill, Austin Mitchell, the late Peter Shore, his widow (a UKIP member), and son-in-law - a UKIP candidate? And where does that leave the many ex Lib-dems in UKIP?

Face it folks, you guys are losing votes in key marginals, because to quote the Blessed Margaret's "Statecraft": UKIP are seen to have a clearer and more principled position on the EU.

Deal with it.

[John Irvine]

If this clown Cassilis doesn't like the idea of mixing with ordinary Tories who don't share his priggish LibDem-style left-wing views he'd better get used to having a pretty lonely time, as the loud minority of leftists on this forum generally aren't replicated among the grassroots.

He could end up like the man with the problem even his best friend won't tell him about.

Personally I couldn't give a damn about "orientations" as long as they keep their private lives to themselves, but this guy knows nothing whatsoever about political history.

Until the likes of Portillo and Cameron appeared on the scene it was always the Tories who opposed "orientation" and the Labour and Liberal parties who were keen to push it.

It's not a question of whether it's right or wrong. It's a historical fact.

[John Ashworth]

The problem for Cameron is he is doing exactly what previous Conservative leaders have done, state eurorealist statements without any evidence it will happen. For over 30 years the Conservative Party has deceived the electorate over the EU, and with dumping the Party's excellent fishing policy, Cameron has proved he is following the tradition, but now the public are wise to what is happening.

[Rudyard.]

Pulling us out of the EPP springs to mind as another throwaway promise from our newly elected Leader,Dave. His credibility is falling fast, and taking the rest of us with him.At the moment,there isn't much to show him or us in a positive light to the Country.

[Walter Bagehot]

CCHQ people and ultra Loyalists who believe that the current two party system is embedded in stone have paid no attention to the fate of the Liberal Party. They went from government in 1916 to total collapse by 1928 and have never recovered. Labour were a new Party then, like UKIP today.

Blue Labour, No danger... to anyone except Conservative party members.

Given Cameron's clear vision (if that is the word) of a Blue Labour, the UKIP has a renewed chance now. The Conservatives are going in such the wrong direction that there is little hope of redeeming them before the next general election (if at all).

Why? Well the UKIP is developing some strong, coherent policies that a majority of English and Welsh people (and these are the votes that matter) strongly agree with. Cameron's Blue Labour vision is in almost the opposite direction.

The public at large don't trust Cameron because he is showing minimal conviction on any matter, and so they will not risk voting for Blue Labour over New Labour or the Liberal Democrats or the Greens when the time comes. Instead they will vote for what they can clearly identify and understand. And if you are a natural conservative or lean in that direction that will mean the UKIP.

Clearly the UKIP will gain the support of an increasing number of disillusioned party members before then. It's inevitable. Why Cameron and Co think that dumping those who promote your party at the grass roots for the mirage that the minority of people who currently vote in general elections will change to Blue Labour is suicide for the party.

All the UKIP need is a policy website exposing Blue Labour and its waxing and waning policies such as at: bluelabour.com and time and natural attrition will do the rest.

[UKIP MAN]

what a laugh Ive had reading all these comments.

best fun Ive had in minutes.

a vote for the lib/lab/con is a wasted vote.

dont sit there slaging UKIP off, get a spine and join us while there still is a Country to save cos soon it wont matter who gets into Parliament..

[matt wright]

Is this site being hijacked by a minority and becoming UkipHome? Ukip are a hotch potch who if they ever did get into power would be a disaster. In the meantime they are tending to make life easier for Labour. As someone else said, they wrote to 17,000 councillors and claim they have 20 defectors! Doesn't look like they offer much hope to Britain. As to the direction the Conservative staking being wrong, hang on a minute in case you haven't notuiced we are ahead in the polls and have been consistently and we are winning council by-elections against all comers. All this loud minority of detrators are doing is distorting the position and giving the press an unfair picture which is used to hit us with,

Matt

[Terry]

Labour had their loony left - Conservatives have their raving right.

It is bizarre that UKIP spend so much time and energy attacking the Conservatives and trying to paint themselves as the new Thatcherite Tories - the perfect home for Conservatives who hate Cameron.

Having failed in the last local elections in getting any extra councillors elected - they are now trying to boost their membership by asking for sitting ocunillors to jump ship into the political wilderness

Bugger the EU and all this euro stuff lets attack the tories!

We should all have a reality check here chaps. Lets get wise to UKIPs game.

Nigel Farage has realised that the only way the media will take notice of his failing political pressure group is to attack the Conservatives - at their conferences and the year anniversary of Cameron being elected leader.

UKIP can't gain any publicity on the back of their policies. They can only get publicity by paining themselves as the 'new' Conservative Party.

UKIP do not worry me. Locally they consist of one rabid letter writer to the local press.

Ignore them and starve them of the oxygen of publicity.

Do Labour get their knickers in a twist over Respect?

[Rudyard.]

Terry,you are either very naive or unaware of the damage that UKIP has inflicted on the Conservative Party.UKIP do their damage to us through the ballot boxes.We must wake up and realise they have very similar political goals to us and that is why some of our people abscond to them.

[Walter Bagehot]

Terry, I'm sorry but you're ignoring the fact that under Cameron the Conservatives have become Blue Labour.

As said Toby Horton said leaving for the UKIP after 40 years of loyalty, "I didn't leave the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party left me."

He's not the first and he won't be the last. You should have voted for David Davis; party members have bought this situation on themselves.

UKIP just need to develop further traditional Conservative policies, get the word out (as they are doing pretty effectively), and wait. The attrition of conservatives from Blue Labour is just a factor of time now.

[abctory]

Whilst this thread and it's debate maybe of immense interest to the political hacks who read this site...on the doorstep and in the streets which I was stood on a couple of weeks ago, collecting signatures for the Party's NHS day of action, NOT a single person mentioned the EU to me. Nor did they slag off David Cameron or any of his policies, in fact everyone I asked willingly signed the petition, many with positive comments about what DC is doing. There was a whole team of people out doing some real campaiging, talking to real voters.

I wonder how many people on here actually do that?

[Tory Loyalist]

Another Europhile surfaces.

I wasn't aware the party was running an "NHS Day of Action" which shows how well organised and high-profile that campaign has been.

However when a few years ago I was gathering anti-Maastricht signatures I had little difficulty gaining enthusiastic co-operation, and was the recipient of some very colourful comments regarding the appalling Major, still our apology for a Prime Minister at that time.

Personally I don't hear many kind words about Cameron. A lot of people are suspicious about him, and rightly so.

[Dennis South]

A few years ago you gathered anti-Maastricht signatures - as the Maastricht Treaty was signed in February 1992 this wouldn't have been a few years ago - it was nearly 15 years ago.

This is 2006 not 1992.

[abctory]

Tory Loyalist- Don't think I said I was a Europhile did I, which as it happens I'm not, quite the opposite in fact!

Your claim that you had no awareness of the party's second day of NHS action doesnot surprise me given the blind assumption you made about my post earlier.

[UKIP MAN]

quote abctory

Tory Loyalist- Don't think I said I was a Europhile did I, which as it happens I'm not, quite the opposite in fact!

WHICH IS WHAT IS THE PROBLEM, NO SPINE..

quote:
NOT a single person mentioned the EU to me

the tories brought this country to its knees, gave away powers to the EU.

you cant be listening properly, maybe the battery is going flat..

[John]

UKIP Man - when you are campaigning to get a local councillor elected people don't mention Europe at all. Theu talk about the issues that affect them.

If we pranced around, like you, in a silly supehero outfit and drove a van covered in anti-european slogans then of course people would only talk about Europe!

Check out the UKIPMAN & UKIPMAN section of this site:-

http://www.ukipman.co.uk/

Enough said!

[Rudyard.]

Can I just say that I really wish that we in the Conservative Party had several among us who were as dedicated to the Party as UKIPMAN is to UKIP.We are melting away,daily,I am teetering on the brink myself.Mr Farage has left the ladder for anyone to climb aboard his ship,there is some struggling to climb it before others do but another ladder has been sent for I'm told.

[Tory Loyalist]

Tory Loyalist- Don't think I said I was a Europhile did I
_________________________________________________________________

You didn't need to.

I also have been working all day with a bunch of different people and not one person has mentioned the EU - which is hardly surprising considering the nature of my work.

If I were to state that last para in the form of a a "political point" - as you did -I would in effect be saying "Nobody's bothered about the EU. Let's not talk about it."

If you are not a Europhile then you are certainly behaving like a "useful idiot".

[Richard Carey]

-I would in effect be saying "Nobody's bothered about the EU. Let's not talk about it."

Here's an interesting piece of polling for you to comment on, then, although the data's a little old now. After the 2005 GE, voters were polled on the issues that were "most important or mattered alot" in determining their VI, the NHS came out top with 58 points. The EU was the bottom issue of those on offer on only 15 points. It was the most important factor for only 7% of Conservatives (7% of 33% = 2.3% of the electorate).

Source: YouGov for Ashcroft, 10-14/5/05, 4592 voters in 130 Lab-Con marginals.

Food for thought anyway, isn't it? As I say, the data's 18 months old, but it does mirror our current focus in terms of the kind of issues we're talking about.

[Esbonio]

If people were not rating the EU, perhaps that
is because it is an issue which no matter how bad it is they feel they cannot influence one iota (a bit like all the hot button issues).

IMO I do not see how anyone can be indifferent (to put it mildly) to the EU if they care about democracy.

[Richard Carey]

they feel they cannot influence one iota (a bit like all the hot button issues).

The NHS isn't a hot-button issue? People weren't disenfranchised on that one, if it was a significant factor in VI to 58% of all voters.

I'm just using the leading issue in the poll as a reference point for the others (issue relativism, maybe?), to question whether people felt as passionately about it as you obviously do.

[UKIP MAN]

quote:

Having failed in the last local elections in getting any extra councillors elected

yes we did fail.

quote:

UKIP Man - when you are campaigning to get a local councillor elected people don't mention Europe at all.

I was that local councillor.

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=11028

tory vote down 100-150
labour vote down 500-550

UKIP vote up 568

YES

five hundred and sixty eight, from a standing start.

so Ide better not mention the European Union eh..

and Ide better park my van in another country maybe.

nah I think I will have another go next time, maybe I wont mention the EU

could get more votes he he he...

[Tory Loyalist]

We know the codes in play here. The pro-EU TRG left of the party has been using the same weasel-words for decades. They are part of the problem.

If the public are truly unaware of the threat posed by the EU to our laws, constitution, fishing, agriculture and hundreds of other aspects of British life, then they need to be educated as to the danger.

And if you are unaware of that threat, Richard Carey, you should not be involved in politics at all.

All parties agree that the NHS should be more effective and efficient. Nice to have consensus. Now let's turn to Europe, where we need to fight for British independence, before it is lost forever.

Because once there is a European Health Service the British people and their parties will have zero future influence.

[Esbonio]

Richard

Whenever I hear someone use the over-used word "passionate" I really want to switch off; a bit like the way the words "modern" and "compassionate" also have the same effect. They are cynically over-used to the extent they have become meaningless.

I note you neatly ignore my point about democracy, I wonder why.

Of course health is a very important issue, although it is not one which I hear people complaining about at the moment.

[Richard Carey]

And if you are unaware of that threat, Richard Carey, you should not be involved in politics at all.

I'm not unaware at all, TL, of the frequent attempts by officials in the European Commission to extend its "competences" - a slightly ironic term given the self-evident need for reform in so many areas.

But my post wasn't about European reform, necessary though it is - it was about domestic psephology. As for whether I should be in politics or not, I'm pleased to say you don't get to make that call!

[Richard Carey]

Whenever I hear someone use the over-used word "passionate"

That's fine, I'm happy to substitute the word "strongly" for "passionately" in my post of 21:34 - it doesn't change the point I was suggesting.

The seems to be a bit of a difference between:

Esbonio: Of course health is a very important issue, although it is not one which I hear people complaining about at the moment.

as well

abctory: collecting signatures for the Party's NHS day of action...in fact everyone I asked willingly signed the petition

and also recent experience with my own family of difficulty in obtaining NHS treatment for a very distressing condition, partly due to rationalisation of services. Yes, it might have coloured my view and so not make a good contribution to an objective policy debate, but it did make me angry about the issue.

I didn't neglect your point about democracy, and I don't doubt the need for better democratic accoutability in the EU institutions - as currently constituted, they're not very hot on that! But democracy is concerned with the will of the people, and I presented the YouGov/Ashcroft poll simply as an interesting sample of public opinion at the time.

[UKIP MAN]

another one

http://www.ilkestontoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=795&ArticleID=1930079

Tory majority down to one after resignation
A LEADING councillor has quit the ruling Erewash group - leaving tories with a majority of one.
Gerry Hartopp, 63, said he would remain as an independent until the borough elections in the spring.

He is considering fighting the next election as a candidate for the UK Independence Party, which recently contacted 17,000 councillors with its ideas on local government.

how many more to go...