« Cameron gaffe angers UKIP | Main | Dear Francis... »

Comments

This comment of DC's has really stirred things up! I don't believe that this was an "off the cuff", "early morning gaff" at all. It was intended to do just what it has done - get everyone excited and talking about UKIP and not Labour or the Libdems. The BBC tonight spent 10 minutes (Radio 4) on this topic instead of the Labour launch for the local elections. UKIP was given some airtime to denounce DC and it sounded frankly hysterical and quoted some of the more irrational comments from this blog. I genuinely believe that DC’s longer term strategy, which includes those comments made on UKIP by him, will prove to be successful in drawing the more moderate supporters of UKIP (myself included as I voted for them in the last Euro elections) back to the only opposition party capable of getting rid of Blair or Brown at the next election. Get real and support the leader.

The UKIP press release says After all, his role model, Mr Blair, seems to spend his entire life apologising
Funny that--I thought Blair didn't do apologies. UKIP must know a different Blair to the one I had in mind.

Yes I know Radio 4 were doing a piece on it as they phoned me up to record the comment - only to find it wasn't actually me who said that! Denied my 10 seconds of fame!

I think the apologies made were to the Irish for the famine and so on.

I wonder what DC is up to? Is this just a smokescreen to make us take our eyes off the ball?

He certainly doesn't want to say anything "nasty" about Blair, he wouldn't want to upset his role model would he?

Somehow I think the people who switched their votes away from us for being swivel eyed euro-obsessed nutcases...

Our vote collapsed in 1997, so are you now admitting that Major, Clarke and Heseltine were perceived as "swivel eyed euro-obsessed nutcases"? You're right of course, they were (and are), but I hardly think that's what you meant.

In a sense UKIP is a truly reactionary party - it came into being as a reaction to the europhiles' blind stupidity and arrogance. They created it, and there is now a delicious irony in the blustering outrage shown by these same europhiles to that party's continuing existence.

Is this UKIP's new press officer?

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

posted by Helen @ 5:52 PM Tuesday, April 04, 2006

That's a bit like a 65yr old pub team manager chiding Mourinho for being "inexperienced".

"Farage and the current crop of UKIP MEPs, many to be fair who did not expect to be elected are the closest thing that this country of ours has to a Libertarian party."

Actually I think you'll find that's the Libertarian Alliance. OK, so they're not a party but they would never advocate such statist measures as maintaining the NHS (which UKIP believe in).

Pedant session over!

"That's a bit like a 65yr old pub team manager chiding Mourinho for being "inexperienced"."

What has Cameron ever won??

Just to say that I live in North West England where racisim and thr BNP agitate a lot of people and I was associated with a religious campaign against the BNP.

Frankly the local UKIP came across as racist to me to the extent of suggesting the campaign include UKIP. Also, one can easily think that most UKIP members are "odd". Of course, the main effect of UKIP is to take Tory votes and let in pro Europe Labour and Lib/Dems, and don't tell me that was not in the mind of Kilroy Silk.

Having said that the UKIP letter is a classic example of a main reason why many Tories support UKIP - punchy stuff people will read and remember. The Tory party always has difficulty in looking gutsy.

"Yes I know Radio 4 were doing a piece on it as they phoned me up to record the comment - only to find it wasn't actually me who said that! Denied my 10 seconds of fame!"

One particularly astute observation earned eleven seconds of airtime :-)

"What has Cameron ever won??"

The leadership election! (Somebody had to say it.)

Roger Knapman always come across on the TV as ineffably dull

Well, this makes a change then, because here he comes across as raving.

People's response to this here has been absolutely astonishing. David Cameron attacked an opposition party. I can understand why people from PregCon/Imagine and other opposition parties might object, but it never ceases to amaze me that some Conservatives continue to defend the loonies running UKIP. I want to beat them, not make up with them!

You cannot beat UKIP by trying to somehow be more extreme then them on Europe, even if that were remotely desirable. Even if the Conservative Party were to try this and advocate EU withdrawal, UKIP would go one step further and probably offer a scorched earth policy against France!

If the question is who can be most unpleasant and extreme on Europe, UKIP will always have the winning answer. We need to ensure that the question is who has a credible range of positions on issues both domestic and international, and who can really improve the quality of life in Britain.

As for Mr Spink - ouch. While I would love to think that he was misquoted somehow, I hope he has a copy of the Yellow Pages to hand for his meeting with the Chief Whip! Aside from ego, what do these people get from supporting opposition parties over their own?

Richard Carey, the problem is that he made an accusation of racism - a very serious charge that many believe to be unfair as well as tactically unwise.

Richard Carey, the problem is that he made an accusation of racism - a very serious charge that many believe to be unfair as well as tactically unwise.

You don't think that the "swivel-eyed loons" in UKIP are perhaps a tad xenophobic? You don't think that attacking a political opponent is better than (bizarrely) attacking ourselves?

In any case, I'm sure that chinless wonder Farage will take it on the er, chin in time. If they're not big enough and ugly enough to take this from time to time, what are they doing in the game anyway?

"You don't think that attacking a political opponent is better than (bizarrely) attacking ourselves?"

The trouble is, when David Cameron eschews 'Punch and Judy politics' one day and indulges in bouts of childish name-calling the next day, it sends out a message that he is neither consistent nor credible.

If Cameron's real audience are his euro-masters and not the Conservative voters who quaintly believe they selected him (he was a media insert - orchestrated into place), then his comments make perfect sense.

First cut off private donations and make all parties state-funded as per agreement in Maastricht Treaty. Second refuse state funding to all parties that are 'un-european' in their attitudes - and terminate parties like UKIP.

Cameron seems to be singing from the same hymn sheet as Blair.... the tunes all written in Brussels. Britain is in danger. Farage can sense his moment has come.

"First cut off private donations and make all parties state-funded as per agreement in Maastricht Treaty. Second refuse state funding to all parties that are 'un-european' in their attitudes - and terminate parties like UKIP."

???

Richard,

You'll find that many of us of capable of independent and objective thought no matter which political party we belong to. For example, the "usual suspects" warmed to the open primaries, but opposed racist smears.

You might say that I'm a disagree-r, but I'm not the only one... ;-)

As a bizarre and slightly amusing aside though, assuming that David Cameron lasts to fight the next general election, that means the first initial of the past three Tory leaders to stand in a general election is W (William Hague - 2001) M (Michael Howard - 2005) and D (David Cameron - ?) as IDS didn't actually get to face the electorate.

WMD - you can almost see the poster campaign! ;-)

blair apologised for the irish famine and britains (partly cynical partly incompetent )handling of it, shouldnt windbag cameron be apologising for that arse heath handing away our fishing rights to the franco-german mafia,.......sorry,...europe.

I expect this whole thing will be forgotten about by the next election. What we have to worry about is the potential damage it will do in the local elections. It is in UKIP's interest to keep up the pressure so that people are constantly reminded of it by May. If Cameron apologies and brings this to an end now, most people will probably forget about it within a month. On the other hand, this might lead to him being portrayed as a weakling.

Is there any evidence of UKIP leaders making racist comments? I know both Farage and Knapman and would be astounded if there is any evidence of either of them making a racist statement or gesture. By the way, I fought West Ham, the most ethnically diverse constituency in Britain, for UKIP at the general election and never had a single problem from anyone while canvassing for our indepence from Brussels. Where's the evidence of our racism?

"Is there any evidence of UKIP leaders making racist comments?"

Merely the claim that Farage made comments about "nig-nogs" not voting UKIP, although he denies this. I think Sked claimed he said that. There is no written or recorded evidence to prove it.

Many of the cabal that runs UKIP came from New Britain - Titford, Nattrass, Farage and others. New Britain was openly racist and performed very badly at General Elections.

So they moved in and took over UKIP, blocking out a selection meeting with supporters, taking advantage of Sked' naivety/honesty. Since then they always have a token black to walk around with, but make no mistake as to their political origins.

That's why Helmer, Hannan and Heaton Harris must break away from the Conservative/EPP group and provide a conservative non-racist anti-EU voice. Otherwise we don't have one.

If you doubt, look for UKIP names standing for Parliament for New Britain in the 1990's. The same guys that run UKIP now...bar Knapman who is a token leader only - an ex-Conservative.

Thanks for these comments. I am afraid I haven't heard of New Britain. Sounds like you are an expert on seriously fringe politics! If they are keen on racist politics how come I have never heard a breath of it at party conferences, private meetings etc? Are they waiting to get into power before revealing their true colours? A long game that. Sounds like Mr Cameron is grasping at straws if this is the evidence for his serious allegation. What's the rest of his judgment like?

This is an admittedly biased sourceof collected information about possible racism in UKIP.

http://ukipwatch.org/

This is a really dangerous direction. By trying to prove UKIP's racism you will expose your own.

This link took me all of two minutes to find on Google.

It's from December 2005, soon after Cameron took charge.

Quote:
Black Tory driven out by racists
VOTERS GO to the polls tomorrow in a council byelection sparked by the resignation of a black Conservative councillor who says she was driven out by Tory racists.

Iain Dale asks some interesting questions of Farage today, with a link to more info.

I've seen these statements denied before but I have never read of any proposed legal action.

That was my point exactly, the same website exposing racism in both parties.

Surely the Conservative Party has the most to lose, and should have avoided engaging in this kind of dogfight over who is the most racist, tories or UKIP.

Finding out exactly which party is the most racist must surely be a pyrrhic victory for whichever side comes top, digging the most dirt on the other?

Perhaps Chad, but I don't think this is about ordinary members.

The info on UKIP is on some of their leaders, inc Farage, who is reported to have said:

""We will never win the nigger vote. The nig-nogs will never vote for us,"

Now, if he didn't say it, why hasn't he sued?

The question isn't about whether any Party is totally racist free, it is about leaders.

Why is it OK for saying that someone is a Conservative In Name Only (CINO) if they're pro EU and on the left of the party, but not if they're way, way, out on the right? How is getting hit from the left any worse than being hit from the right? Do people on this board think it plays any better with the electorate?

Why is it OK for saying that someone is a Conservative In Name Only (CINO) if they're pro EU and on the left of the party, but not if they're way, way, out on the right? How is getting hit from the left any worse than being hit from the right? Do people on this board think it plays any better with the electorate?

God, that acronym stinks! Being "hit" by supposed members and supporters from an angle is obviously unacceptable, not to mention unhelpful to campaigning.

On the other hand, I can well see the merit in distancing ourselves from the political nutters in UKIP. Someone said here that they are the extreme wing of the Conservative Party? I would deny that in the strongest terms - they are not, they are an opposition party, and I hope that we take every electoral opportunity to hammer this collection of "fruitcakes, loons and closet racists" into ignominy.

Hi Christina,

For me, the question is not how you suggest, but how Cameron's comments will be interpreted across the country in general.

I don't think UKIP will pursue legal action, but they may well get dirty and start publishing the many past issues of racism within the Tory Party itself. I can't see them letting go of this one as there is so much scope to throw mud back.

I'm not defending UKIP, I think both parties are as bad as each other, but clearly the dirtier this racism dogfight gets, the greater its potential to damage the Tory Party in the eyes of the public at large as instead of talking about the nice things they want to, Cameron will have to defend his party against racism charges etc.

With various Tory-leaning parties calling for Cameron to apologise, these kind of gutter insults have unnecessarily opened the wounds of the 'nasty party'.

Both the Tories and UKIP willingly admit ex-BNP members within their party. They're not very different.

As you know for me, if there is any prejudice or preference, then it is racist, no matter how it is presented, and with the a-list, there is a real potential that Cameron will be going one dangerous step further and introducing party-sanctioned racism, if he forces ethnic minority candidates on constituencies.

Open primaries are the way to allow diversity to grow naturally from within the communities themselves. A-list diversity is racist.

If Cameron apologises, then he can move on, and has probably scored some points against UKIP in a dirty way, but if he refuses, this could get very ugly.

It would be interesting to see which party leaders would be prepared to actually commit themselves beyond the rhetoric and sign up for a pledge to ensure all their policies are in accordance with "no preference, no prejudice".

Do you think Cameron would agree to show that he is prepared to eliminate any potential for racism in the Tory party policies and agree to a no pref, no prej approach?

Hi Chad,

I'm glad we are getting along well again, so don't take this as a dig, please, it's just a challenge.

When we at ProgCon decided to join the Conservatives, we did so to be an influence group within it. One thing we would be arguing for was "No Preference, No Prejudice".

We did not join the Conservatives believing that they already had a "NP, NP" approach, we joined to argue for that and other things.

So, with that in mind, I do not see how you can leave over A-lists 'because it is not NP, NP.' It seems to me that you have given up the cause by leaving, get my point?

We were to be working towards something, you seem to have left because they (we) are not there already.

It takes time for influence to make a difference, and you have left too early, IMO.

There are signs that the Open Primaries, which you argue for, are being tried out, with the Mayoral election in London.

I think you have been impatient Chad, but that is your choice and you are entitled to it.

I think No Pref, No Prej could catch on in the Conservative Party, Open Primaries could replace A-lists, but we cannot walk out because it isn't happening soon enough.

Bear in mind that ProgCon decided to join after Cameron's election, you could have given a year at least, IMO.

I believe that starting new parties is a dead end. We need to work within the mainstream.

Why is it OK for saying that someone is a Conservative In Name Only (CINO) if they're pro EU and on the left of the party, but not if they're way, way, out on the right? How is getting hit from the left any worse than being hit from the right? Do people on this board think it plays any better with the electorate?

I expect because both the EUsceptics and the Eurosceptics have the same agenda - restoring British sovereignty. however, the EUsceptics believe this can only be done by leaving the EU while the Eurosceptics believe we can achieve this within the EU. Both would prefer it if the EU were just a free trade area.

"if they're pro EU and on the left of the party, but not if they're way, way, out on the right?"

I think that depends on what you mean by way, way out on the right. I'm not sure what that actually involves.

It usually means anything to the right of the opinion of the person making the judgement.

Hi Christina,

As always, I welcome and respect your views even though we often differ.

I believe that starting new parties is a dead end
I'm enjoying it, so why not? The party will live or die in a simple democratic way without any state funding.

Thanks to Guido for giving me a great plug today. I'm trying to show how you can use humour and innovation rather than stealing from the taxpayer as a means to raise funds.

Hi Chad,

Well you seem to have gained 2 forum members from the plug of the plotting one.

If your aim is to enjoy yourself, then sure, start a party.

:-) Aah it is easy to mock! Fair game I suppose.

It's a bit like the "cancel my subscription" letters in Private Eye; if I hadn't resigned over npnp, then I most definitely would have over a conservative party not just supporting but actually proposing state funding of political parties.

I'm happy to be a the small 'd' david fighting the party goliaths over the issue of state funding of political parties, and will at least give the people the chance to put their cross in one place that will not be lifting a few quid out of their pockets at the same time.

I joined the conservative party because I logged onto their site, and there was a prominent link called 'beliefs' (you can still find it on the web archive site archive.org). I read those beliefs and realised that they were very close to my own.

That page of well-defined conservative beliefs no longer exists on the Tory site, but there is the much more opaque B2L page which would be hard for anyone to disagree with.

Nothing has changed with my core values since then, but the CamCon-Tory Party itself, for me, has not just removed the core beliefs from its website, but it has removed them from their hearts too.

I wasn't mocking Chad, you have gained 2 members today. I liked the party pun, so kept it.


What nonsense to say you have to worry about UKIP at the local elections. They will get a few hundred votes here and there and the likelyhood of them getting anyone elected is about less than zero.
The party needs to worry about Labour, the Lib/Dems and the nutters on this site who think there helping the party by continually slagging off David Cameron.

Jack Stone ought to get used to the fact that the Conservatives are a regional party; LibDems and Labour are national parties.

It seems highly unlikely that Conservatives will ever get into government without being in coalition. Conservatives are a southern party increasingly an oddity in the north of England and I doubt Cameron has much appeal outside the Home Counties.

"likelihood" is the traditional spelling we English use btw.

Jack, they're just in denial.

Final Ballot:

Cameron - 134, 446
Davis - 64, 398

They're just waiting to lose another election so the party can indulge in its favourite blood sport.

Jack:
they're not there.
Be careful lest your grammar becomes as sloppy as your political thinking.

No wonder tories are fuming over this. A very great number of us were aware from the start of Davis' role during the Maastricht debates and the MP's i spoke to were also very aware, and indicated that they wouldn't vote for him on that. Added onto this, Cameron ran a eurosceptic ticket, putting EPP withdrawal at the front and centre of his campaign when Fox, sadly, was eliminated. Now Cameron's attacking UKIP and letting Jackson et al play merry hell in the European parliament? It's hardly a surprise people are worried about Cameron's latest outburst.

Cameron's comments about UKIP are a disaster - not because they're wrong but because they've put UKIP back in the spotlight just when everyone was about to forget about their very existence.

The best thing now would be for Cameron to decide never to mention them again. That doesn't mean, of course, that we shouldn't continue to target people who have voted UKIP in the past.

"They're just waiting to lose another election so the party can indulge in its favourite blood sport. "

And Cameron's strategy looks like guaranteeing us another election loss.

Do we all agree the Conservatives are a regional party now?

A very great number of us were aware from the start of Davis' role during the Maastricht debates and the MP's i spoke to were also very aware, and indicated that they wouldn't vote for him on that.

I understand Davis was the Whip on Maastricht; but was not Francis Maude the Foreign Office Minister who signed the Treaty ?

"Do we all agree the Conservatives are a regional party now"? Yes. The party is practically non existent in Scotland and Wales and will remain so until the economy collapses. Only England can win the Tories the next election, but Cameron and co cannot see it and are now engaged in flip flopping, about turn politics that have more in common with the Liberal Democrats. Time is running out for the Conservatives. Major was a disaster, but when he said, "Back to basics" he was right for once in his life. Only the despised and sneered at "Little Englander" with his innate sense of conservatism and patriotism can help the Tories win. The Tories continue to ignore them at their peril, because they in turn will ignore the Tories. It is quoted (wrongly in my opinion), that the cry of patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel - perhaps it is time to substitute the knee jerk cry "racist" for patriotism in relation to use of the word scoundrel. The British Parliament must remain sovereign and regain that what has been lost. England now must have its own parliament to deal with matters pertaining to the English in solving what is known Mid-Lothian problem. It was not what we wanted, Blair set the ball rolling to benefit his party - it is time for the Conservatives to benefit theirs (don't hold your breath).

cant help thinking westminster has always been the english parliament (check out the no. of scot. eng. welsh mps) any further reduction of westminster into an "english" parliament can only benefit the uk splitting mandarins of brussls. theyre aim is the destruction of all european nations into nothing more than impotent rubber stamp regions/parliaments, blairs final solution come utterly true.

"The party is practically non existent in Scotland and Wales and will remain so until the economy collapses. Only England can win the Tories the next election, but Cameron and co cannot see it and are now engaged in flip flopping, about turn politics that have more in common with the Liberal Democrats."

With friends like these....

Seriously though. That is such a weak and pathetic attitude. You start by saying that you can't win Scotland and Wales. Then you write off whole swathes of the North East and West. Then the major urban centres, especially in the West Midlands. Before you know it you've already handed over the balance of power for the Lib Dems (who can still attack us in the shires) and Labour to fight it out between them. Your "regional party" is relegated to southern eastern suburbs and shires. Lots of blue on the map, but not so many seats in Parliament. Well, as we will no doubt hear today, the party has decided to be a national party again.


Those "in denial" are those who regard the Conservative Party as being little more than a cult of personality.

Our poll ratings are drifting steadily downwards. That implies that the strategy which the leadership is pursuing isn't working.

"Our poll ratings are drifting steadily downwards. That implies that the strategy which the leadership is pursuing isn't working."

Exactly, the bounce is over and Cameron has to seize the initiative again - but this time with Conservative policies, not bicycle rides and tie-less press interviews.

What nonsense to say you have to worry about UKIP at the local elections. They will get a few hundred votes here and there and the likelyhood of them getting anyone elected is about less than zero.

Bar the fact that UKIP has returned candidates to town and district councils, which renders your point moot Jack, they actually pose a greater threat to Conservatives. Many party supporters wouldn't vote UKIP in a general election, but will in local or Euro elections in order to voice disapproval about the other parties.

Personally I think all this nonsense about we should worry about the nutters in UKIP is because our own nutters want us to repeat the mistake we made in the last two elections and try to be UKIP lite again.
Its a nonsense, hasn`t worked in the past and certainly will not work in the future.
The way to defeat UKIP is to take them on head on and show them as the extremists they are.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker