Cornerstone and UKIP attempt to offer 'real conservatism' to voters "abandoned by David Cameron"

Two stories next to each other in today's Telegraph both point to Mr Cameron's exposed right flank.

Story one is the news that UKIP is rebranding as 'The Independence Party' for May's local elections (ConservativeHome predicted this last February).  UKIP leader Nigel Farage has told The Telegraph that the party wants to broaden its agenda from EU exit and immigration to also include local independence, lower taxation and deregulation.  Mr Farage said that these arguments had been "abandoned by David Cameron."  Yesterday Liam Fox warned that "the person who would be happiest if people went out and voted Ukip would be the leader of the Labour Party."

The Telegraph also reports that the forty-strong group of socially-conservative and Eurosceptic Tory MPs - Cornerstone - are planning to publish their own "mini-manifesto".  Cornerstone will make twelve submissions of 2,000 words each to the policy review process.  The Cornerstone group's Chairman, Edward Leigh, warned Mr Cameron that he could not take the party's 'core supporters' for granted:

"We can see merit in David Cameron's leadership style but it is important to understand and reflect the views of our natural supporters.  The core Conservative vote cannot be overlooked in the necessary re-making of the Conservative Party."

The Telegraph notes that Conservative MPs believe that the Tory lead in the opinion polls is too modest given the extent of Labour's troubles.  In an article for today's Platform, Mike Smithson of PoliticalBetting.com forecasts a hung parliament at the next General Election.  Read his article here.

Comments

[TomTom]

Conservative MPs believe that the Tory lead in the opinion polls is too modest given the extent of Labour's troubles

a somewhat understated assessment

[HF]

In this next May elections Respect and the BNP are going to win more councillors than UKIP.

Respect and BNP have 1 thing in common, a left wing economic policy of state ownership. They are picking up votes whereas UKIP is not.

The only folk that UKIP or IP are attracting are grumpy old men. Then we have Cornerstone who are led by grumpy old men.

Are half the voters grumpy old men? No, probably less than 1/6th.

[Martin Bristow]

I am extremely pleased to see cornerstone coming out fighting.The socially conservative analysis need to be put stridently and articulately.

We are only around 4% ahead in the polls of a government which is completely shambolic and useless.The major complaint against us from the electorate is that they do not know what we stand for.

When our leadership does speak out it seems to me that it is only to support the new labour's consensus.Over the past 12 months Cameron has urged us to emphasise how productive the health service is,how we ought to move away from grammar schools and how we should hug hoodies!!

To cap all this DC decided to deny the right of consciense to the Romana Catholics in the gay adoption debate.Whether the leadership likes it or not there is a strong feeling amongst our core support that we stand for nothing.This will,if not addressed,lead to a fatal haemorraghe of support away from the Conservative Party which will not be covered off by the influx of "liberal voters" targeted by Cameron.The best the DC project will deliver is a hung parliament and an alliance with social democrats of the Toynbee school of the thought.This is not a prospect I look forward to.

Instead of this route we ought to hold fast to a social conservatism which I contend is in tune with the natural instincts of our people.We ought to challenge prevailing ideas.Public services must be reformed, selective education should be returned,Taxes must be cut,Quangos must go,ID cards scrapped and prisons built.What about these for a start.

[Graeme Archer]

Those Tombstone mini-manifestos in full:

No. 1. Wems alf
[Ed: that's too mini Edward, try again]

No. 2. All males over 10 to wear pinstriped, scratchy suits at all times. Cotton bedlinen to be banned in effort to increase frequency of puffy red faces.

No. 3. Vegetarianism in general and organic produce in particular to be outlawed, and all soya products to be held offshore in a new breed of Tofu Ships.

No. 4. Simon Heffer to be appointed Attorney General and carried through the streets on a chair by willing flunkies to general rejoicing. School children to line routes sobbing with joy that some much-needed common sense has been brought back to the Conservative Party. New Attorney General to launch campaign to reclaim decent English words for their correct, early 1920s, usage, leading to a somewhat stunned cabinet meeting at which he announces that the early February sunshine is making him feel very gay.

No. 5. Reconfiguration of the National Lottery. Participation now compulsory [Ed: isn't that more New Labour than Cornerstone?] with random number generator being replaced by a fiendishly complicated numerical puzzle gleaned from the quiz page of the Spectator [Ed: ahh]. Bottom 5% of participants to attend compulsory 3Rs classes unless they can prove that the rigidity of their pinstriped suits prevented them from completing the form correctly.

No. 6 [Ed: that's enough mini manifestos].

[Editor]

Brilliant Graeme. If there was a comment of the week you'd have just won it!

[bee]

Brilliant? From your introduction to this piece it comes across that you prefer Mr Farage's brand of politics to that of the Conservative party.

[Mark McCartney]

But of course it is Cornerstone, not the likes of Graeme Archer, that represents majority opinion and sentiment in our party.

Grumpy old men (and women)? Maybe, but the population is ageing fast and recent pols show that the majority of our people are very unhappy with "Modern Britain"

[Deborah]

It's also worth noting that grumpy old men and women are much more likely to vote than anyone else.

[Graeme Archer]

I hope it's obvious I was teasing. Am no spring chicken myself Mr McCartney :-0) though I doubt your analysis is correct since our leadership was elected by a very huge majority and was quite clearly not standing for the Cornerstone vote.

I'm glad they are there, we are a broad church and big tent or we're a pointless, UKIP-type irrelevancy.

[Margaret on the Gullotine]

Cornerstone does not represent mainstream opinion in the Party, and certainly not in the country. That said, like any group they hae the right to put forward their viewpoints, just as long as they don't do so in a hostile manner to the leadership.

The Tory Party fell from grace in the 90s and early 00s because its right wing didn't know how to constructively criticise those it disagreed with, preferring a Heffer-like sneer, "shout loud enough and maybe we'll get our way", and hopefully Tombstone are moving away from that.

[Scotty]

""We can see merit in David Cameron's leadership style but it is important to understand and reflect the views of our natural supporters. The core Conservative vote cannot be overlooked in the necessary re-making of the Conservative Party."
Excuse me??
We can see the merit in David Cameron's leadership style! That's very patronising and magnanimous of Tombstone in light of the leadership challenge we had just over a year ago where David Cameron won a mandate to change and modernise the party.
"Natural supporters" & "core vote" I fall into both those categories because I have voted conservative all my voting life, and have been an active member of the party for years. I love the way that groups within the party seem to think that they have the patent on these titles.
Talk up UKIP for a few weeks and then suddenly we have a "mini manifesto" from the cornerstone which aims to pressure the policy groups with their agenda while using the threat of losing members to a party which can't even muster 1% of the vote and is being used as a tory pressure group!
Come on Tim, I see a bit of manipulation going on here, that and the focus on raising Liam Fox's profile.

[Mark McCartney]

>>our leadership was elected by a very huge majority and was quite clearly not standing for the Cornerstone vote.<<

Barring the possibly not inconsiderable number who had dropped off their perch since the accession of IDS wouldn't you say the "electorate" were basically the same old and aging bunch.

They had a choice of two. Davis fluffed it and Cameron sounded upbeat. Don't delude yourself into supposing that the party voted because they liked the idea of an A List or any of the other Camerloon trumpery trappings.

[Og]

If Graeme Archer's post of 0921 is what qualifies for "Brilliant" round here, I'm off to Guido's.

[CCHQ Spy]

Bye then Og.

[Mark McCartney]

I can think of a number of far more hilarious ripostes to Graeme's spoof based upon the <> "lifestyles" associated with our identikit Cameroon friends.

But as they would qualify for instant deletion and a ban I won't waste my time.

[jorgen]

Better being a grumpy old man than being an opportunistic youngster that want the CP to win at any cost.

[AlexW]

The simple truth is that UKIP is an implausible party with a reputation for red-faced buffoonery. Its poll ratings are no better than when we were lead by Howard (or perhaps we weren't right-wing enough even then for the Heffer brigade?).

There is a danger with stay-at-homes and activists who are less likely to knock on doors for a manifesto about which they feel is lukewarm. However, we must remember that a general election could be two years away - better to reveal our stronger policies in the build-up to the vote than announce them now with great fanfare for them to be old hat by the time of the election.

[Mark McCartney]

>>Its poll ratings are no better than when we were lead by Howard<<

I presume you mean "led"

It was when we were led by Howard that UKIP inflicted great damage on us in both the Euro-elections and at the General Election. Around 27 Tory would-be MPs were stymied by UKIP.

Don't ask me or UKIP. A number of the candidates went on record on the matter.

This time they are going to make all the difference between winning and losing

>>activists who are less likely to knock on doors<<

Don't make me laugh. I used to supply an army of YCs to knock doors for our MP. Nowadays the pitiful successors to the YCs are all but extinct and the remaining old dears prefer to phone unsuspecting victims from the safety of a warm association.

[Mark Williams]

PPERA s.28(4):
Where a party sends an application to the Commission in accordance with subsection (1), the Commission shall grant the application unless in their opinion the party proposes a registered name which-
(a) would either-
(i) be the same as that of a party which is already registered in the register in which that party is applying to be registered, or
(ii) be likely to result in electors confusing that party with a party which is already registered in respect of the relevant part of the United Kingdom,

Although "The Independent Party" does not cause confusion with the name of any rgistered party, is it not likely to cause confusion with Independent candidates?

Shouldn't the Secretary of State make an order about the word "independent" under s.28(f)?

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Is this the same UKIP that didn't manage to attract a single supporter in the latest MORI poll? What a waste of space the ToryDiary on this site has become...

[Valedictoryan]

"...recent pols show that the majority ..."

I presume you mean polls, Mark McCartney.

[Chevalier de la Foi]

This site is in danger of becoming a laughing stock thanks to its obsession with UKIP.

[Umbrella man]

The Daily Telegraph gives most of page six to this story today. It's not this site that is obsessed with UKIP but some visitors who want to bury their heads in the political sand.

[Gospel of Enoch]

"Our ledaership was elected on a huge majority..." yes, BUT on tbe specific pledge of EPP withdrawal. Camerloon welshed on that, and is now a busted flush.

The only question of interest, now, is whether David Davis replaces Camerloon before Brown replaces Bliar!

[Editor]

I do not think this site is obsessed with UKIP. The Daily Telegraph chose to give this story significant prominence today. I think it was the right decision to do the same. The alternative manifesto ideas of up to 40 Tory MPs is also worthy of discussion.

[MH]

I think the Telegraph poll is the most insightful. Basically, an increasing part of the Great British public turned off by all 3 major parties. A hung parliament becomes a much greater possibility with non-Big 3 parties increasing at the margins.

[Sean Fear]

Well, I must say that Graeme Archer's comment made an amusing start to the week.

That said, Cameron's personal poll ratings are not that hot, and I think that the alienation of some long-standing Conservatives is a factor in this.

[Denis Cooper]

"The Tory Party fell from grace in the 90s and early 00s because its right wing didn't know how to constructively criticise those it disagreed with ..."

Internal dissent is unattractive, but it doesn't wreck the lives of millions of voters and it wasn't the main reason why the Tory Party fell from grace. Entering the ERM for political reasons, thereby creating the longest and deepest recession since the war, and then being ignominiously ejected from the ERM showing the futility and folly of the whole exercise, was the main reason why the Tory Party fell from grace, and still has not fully recovered. But the economy did recover, once we were out of the ERM, which is the main reason why people have voted Labour back into office twice despite increasingly disliking them.

[Rudyard.]

The Independence Party is already a UKIP Registered posession I believe.

I may be wrong though.

[HF]

This site is living up to its label as CONtinuityIDS.

[Peter Hatchet]

Editor:

I do disagree - slightly!

Please don't be offended (!) but I do think this site gives greater prominence to UKIP stories than it should. There is a story about them almost daily.

Many journalists view this site as the voice of the Conservative grassroots. When there are 100+ posts a day on UKIP, and much, much fewer posts on everything else, this gives a strong impression of us being obsessed with Europe and damages the image of the party.

We all know that most are UKIP trolls and this is EXACTLY the effect they wish. It merely fans the fire and detracts from more important issues.

I see no reason why we should do this. There support is only 1-2% in the polls. We should be posting about them much less frequently and creating fewer discussion threads.

I know you will say you raise many issues which can all be discussed each day (and you do most excellently!), but I still think far too much headline attention is given to UKIP.

Sorry Ed!

[Scotty]

CONtinuityIDS "liberally" mixed with NEOCONtinuityFOXED.

[Londoner]

Is UKIP really aligning itself with the social conservatism of Cornerstone, or is that just the Editor putting together two different stories?

If UKIP is really adding to its "Better Off Out" message by going down the social conservatism route (rather than the free market and social freedom one), then instead of being regarded by relatively free market/low tax/Eurosceptic Tories like me as merely impractical, starry eyed and on a pragmatic basis likely to be counterproductive, they will rapidly become something that we would positively oppose.

Their problem - and Cameron's strength - is that if they try to adopt a vague "we are the home for all Tories who might be a bit fed up with Cameron" stance, then the contradictions between the various strands of internal oppositon to Cameron will become apparent. You can't really attack simultaneously from a libertarian and a social conservative angle. I suspect the UKIP leadership might be more on the libertarian tack, but if they now start attracting "turn the clock back" conservatives, there will be a fairly rapid falling out.

Incidentally, isn't the leading light of Cornerstone that MP who, wearing his Public Accounts Committee hat, was sufficiently negligent to allow the committee he chairs to attack the Prince of Wales's finances on spurious and no doubt crypto-republican grounds? Shouldn't he pay more attention to safeguarding our traditional institutions such as the Monarchy and the Duchy of Cornwall (his day job) before writing mini-manifestos all over the place no doubt telling others to do so?

[Valedictoryan]

"I do not think this site is obsessed with UKIP."

Still at the denial stage ;-)

[Jerome]

Is there any serious political party with a manifesto like this in any neighbouring European monarchy with literacy and living standards higher than Britain, and doesn't it make you wonder whether we're not more backward than we often think?

[Londoner]

Actually I agree with Peter Hatchet - too much UKIP. I slightly regret adding to it with my previous post.

[Father Brian]

I don't object to David Cameron leading a neo-socio-liberal party in the mould of the SDP of the early '80s. I do object to his hijacking an established party with immutable cornerstone (no pun intended) values of personal and economic freedom, the supremacy of the individual over the state and no more taxation than is strictly necessary.

When George Galloway broke away from Labour, he had the integrity to form a new party. We might take issue with its policies but it contrasts favourably with Labour's takeover by the Blairites, ditching one principle after another in their blind pursuit of power.

It's all very well for Cameron to say that gaining office is what matters but what would he do with it? Undergo a road-to-Damascus conversion to Conservatism? Don't make me laugh.

[Sean Fear]

I'm not entirely sure which manifesto you're referring to, James, UKIP's or Cornerstone's.

There are however, European monarchies with well-supported, very nationalistic parties, such as Norway, Denmark, Holland, and Belgium. And France, Austria, and Switzerland are Republics with such parties.

[jorgen]

Father Brian is absolutely right!

[simon]

Underestimate Farage at your peril. He is politically astute and knows precisely which audience he will be catering to- ie) disaffected conservative voters. Liam Fox is quite right when he says that the only people happy about a high UKIP (or independence party vote will be Labour supporters. Btw- did conservativehome do a poll to find out how many conservative voters, if not members, actually voted for UKIP at the last Euro poll?

[Tapestry]

UKIP, IP, The RP (Referendum Party) are powerful in that they can threaten to pull votes from major parties, and accordingly influence policy.

Cameron's Conservatives are however are another regime of compromise arranged between the europhiles, lead by hague, and the eurosceptics lead by multiple and various.

Cameron can only maintain his leadership by dividing and ruling the two wings. If he became too strongly eurosceptic or phile, the arrangement would destruct.

If IP, UKIP can start eroding Cameron enough, he will start to look vulnerable. He will either have to abandon the 'arrangement' and become eurosceptic which might be very convincing - or be turfed out in favour of Liam Fox.

Fox might have added to his recent cooments that as well as the Labour Party being delighted by growing UKIP support, his own leadership chances too are thereby boosted.

The media would of course consign the Conservative Party to the dustbin if eurosceptics won power and evicted the europhiles from influence - which is why many will hang on longer with Cameron.

Cameron might yet prove to be a strong eurosceptic playing the media for all he's worth.

[Andrew]

If Farage is so politically astute, how come the last polls had UKIP at <1%?

Just thought I'd mention that, yet again. For all their UKIP postings, it just shows how far away from reality they really are.

[Richard]

"Vegetarianism in general and organic produce in particular to be outlawed, and all soya products to be held offshore in a new breed of Tofu Ships."

Actually I'd have thought organic produce, insofar as it tends to be made by local family farms (or at least I assume it is), would escape the Cornerstone axe.

[Ted]

In 2005 we had all our core supporters happy, an unpopular and discredited Government, a hugely expensive campaign and we managed to achieve 4% behind. So to try to get votes back from the less than 1% of (UK)IP voters lets ignore the other 60% or so. 2009 we might get to less than 3% behind.

[michael mcgough]

If Cameron is so politically astute, how come the last polls had the Conservatives heading for a hung parliament Andrew?

[HF]

Correct Ted, the articles that this site favours are too obsessed with attracting the grumpy old men vote (LD Mike Smithson an exception).

Also I overestimated the 1/6th above.

A better guessestimate is 1 in 54 based on
1 in 6 voters are old men
1/3rd of those are grumpy and only
1/3 are right wing.

So that works out at about 1.7% right wing grumpy old men.

Why the obsession with 1.7%?

When we fought elections on their priorities we lost badly. Under DC he has turned a -3% gap to + 5% which is an 8% swing.

[Tory T]

Ed, FWIW, you know me and how much I value the site but earlier this morning I wrote a long screed lamenting ConHome's promotion of UKIP and saying I would not post here again as it was pointless.

Luckily perhaps I was bumped off-line before I could post it.

There is far, far too much ukip on this site. ConHome continually ignores the evidence of the polls (cf: PoliticalBetting's recent article showing falling ukip support from all three main pollsters) and actual votes (Horsham, Bromley). Their support is bleeding to the BNP or evaporating altogether as natural Tories realise that this time their votes for us rather than ukip will mean a Tory government.

ConHome also ignores the whole branches that quit and defect from ukip, instead running pieces on whipless, expelled ex-Tory peers who "defect" (no - they'd already gone in the prior election and had the whip removed).

The polls and the results show that ukip is a busted flush. Similarly, ICM showed that a vast majority of Tory voters put the LibDems, not ukip, in second place.

But of course, if you - if ConHome - continues to run ukip stories weekly, often daily, then the media get the idea that ukip matter and matter to us.

Effectively, by the incessant PR you give them, you are campaigning for ukip. Also there is no attempt at all to stop ukippers from taking over most threads.

I urge you to look at what all kinds of regular, truly Conservative posters are saying and stop putting up ukip stories unless they are genuinely newsworthy. Who cares about their name? Plus, in this post you conflate Cornerstone Conservative MPs, who at least deserve respect and recognition as fellow Tories working to get Labour out, and the egomaniacs of UKIP whose declared aim has been to get Labour in.

Mark Fulford, after the last-but-one ukip story on Tory Diary, said he wasn't posting here any more as he couldn't stand the constant ukip commercials.

I think the place is the poorer for his absence and just think you should know how wearing, how truly wearing it is for Conservatives working their socks off to fight Labour to watch ConHome putting up ukip ukip ukip all day long. Cllr. Lindley, Grame, Peter, HF, others have a point.

The Telegraph covered this story but they have a Hefferish agenda. The Times had a far bigger story on Cash for Honours, charges and Blair to be re-interviewed under caution but it wasn't mentioned.

OK. Said my piece. No more commenting on the failed ukip, I have campaigning for the locals to do.

[Gospel of Enoch]

Wasn't it polls that predicted a Labour landslide under Neil Kinnock? Hmm...

As for all you "Not obsessed with UKIP = Denial stage" believers out there, denial is believeing the bilge Camerloon wrote in the ST yesterday, about EU reform being possible without leaving it (or at least credibly threatening to).

I acually visitited hie europeanreform.eu site yesterday - I'm still cackling...

[Tory T]

Enoch I am happy to discuss Cameron's EU policy, that will make a nice change. Has it not occurred to you that we can use our veto to disrupt utterly EU business, without leaving, if they do not reform? (That is of course if persuasion fails).

And if that seems far-fetched, it was reported last week that Labour were threatening to do just that if the Constitution were revived as they are of course terrified of a referendum, which they will lose spectacularly on that issue.

It was reported that Labour were prepared to wield the veto to block routine EU business to prevent this. So it's easy to do and does not require us to withdraw and lose the free trade advantages Europe brings.

Cameron has the political will to deal with Europe. All his statements on the topc recently have been robust and practical.

[Gospel of Enoch]

"Free trade advantages the EU brings"? Oh dear. It was Neil Kinnock, whilst commissioner, who confirmed that they would still trade with us if we left, and we wouldn't lose any jobs. Meanwhile we're locked into shoe, bra and sweater wars... Last time I looked, it was Federation of Small Business policy to leave the EU, as it was bad for business, and I don't believe that has changed...

Our politicians have a history of talking tough, then doing deals - for practical reasons at the last minute, or so they claim. And the EU has a history of using the back door - look at how many parts of the constitution are being implemented already, as Lord Pearson wrote last week.

David's new playgroup, sorry, thinktank, says NOTHING about what will happen if he is ignored. Until the Tories cross that line, then their pronouncements will fail to be taken seriously.

[Gospel of Enoch]

Oh - and what has he got against Tories signing BOO, ToryT? Wasn't freedom to be eurorealistic an election pledge of his?

[powellite]

Despite speaking as somenoe who is thoroughly socially conservative and in sympathy with much of Cornerstone's principles, they are utterly implausible and have now real idea how politics works. They seem to be operating like the Labour left in the 1980s - preferring principled opposition to constructive government.

Their quote about the Tory party's "core support" speaks volumes. From the last two general elections, it is obvious that the "core" Tory support will not win us power. The question is - how do we reach out to the floating & ex-Tory voters? The answer is most defintely NOT banging the Cornerstone drum.

Whatever you think of Cameron, he is reaching out beyond the core vote, and must be applauded for doing so.

[Tory T]

BOO is a ukip front organisation and he rightly does not want Tories telling ukip how to divert their limited resources against Tory colleagues.

The party has a position on Europe; in it, demanding reform, no Euro ever, no Constitution. Tories are free to dissent without having the whip removed and a few do, a few, I may add, whom I like and admire.

But of course Europe can be reformed with judicious use of our veto if necessary. Before Thatcher got the money back, nobody said she could do it either. Cameron has the political will.

Besides which, something "get out" colleagues need to understand is that the public wants us to stay in. They hate EU regulation and interference and attempts to govern by stealth but they do not want total withdrawal. That was never Thatcher's policy. I am a committed Thatcherite. As was quoted earlier from her book Statecraft, sorry I can't recall by whom, you try EU reform before you even think of withdrawal. I stand with Lady T on this.

[Gospel of Enoch]

Thatcher - whom I also admire - had a Bill ready to back up her will. She also said that UKIP are seen to have a clearer and more principled position on the EU - do you stand with her on that, too? As for BOO being a UKIP front organisation - it's a Freedom Association initiative. Are you saying the Freedom Association is a UKIP front organisation, too, and if so, what do you make of Tories who write for its magazine?

[Sivil Sepent]

I want to know when will we here Changetowin's neo liberal, pro EU, Pro Gay rights views on all this.

[Tory T]

No; I hate to disagree with the Great Lady on anything, ever, but Cameron has stated our position very clearly, see the Time article linked to last week. Perhaps Lady T had not seen this at that time. I know she would approve of his determination to pull the EU back from regulation and socialism, to lose the Social Chapter, and to leave the Federalist EPP and everywhere oppose bringing in the Constitution by stealth.

Those are solid sound policies of the sort she pursued when in power.

It is a fact that whoever started BOO, ukip is using it as a front now. UKIP wrote to Tory MPs asking them if they supported it, in order that UKIP can stand aside and concentrate on fellow Conservatives. Even if I were an MP thinking of signing up to BOO, I would not be in the business of helping enemy pro-Labour parties defeat my Tory colleagues.

This does not apply to those principled Tories who signed BOO before ukip hijacked it as they do so much they touch. I disagree with them on the way forward but share their abhorrence of the EU in its present, creaky, anti-democratic state.

[Chevalier de la Foi]

Editor - what a lame response, which if I may paraphrase runs something like 'because one set of people who want to talk up UKIP are indeed talking them up, I should too'. I feel I should alter my original post - this site is not in danger of becoming a laughing stock, it has already become one.

[Denis Cooper]

Tory T @ 13:07 - "Has it not occurred to you that we can use our veto to disrupt utterly EU business, without leaving, if they do not reform?"

That would certainly be a possible strategy, where we still have a veto. But unfortunately there are now few areas where EU decisions require unanimity.

[Gospel of Enoch]

"Leave the federalist EPP"? Whatever happened to "The lady's not for turning? Dave promised, and then turned. Let's see how the land lies in 3 years time doesn't count as fulfilling his election pledge. Sorry, Tory T, but it doesn't.

[Denis Cooper]

http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/releases.live?article=173

"Tony Blair makes his century: The Prime Minister has handed over to Brussels 100 ways to say ‘No’"

"I count 38 more vetos lost. Add to the 19 from Amsterdam and 43 from Nice. That's a running total of around 100 vetos lost since Labour came to power."

That's on top of all the vetos relinquished under previous treaties, of which the Single European Act was I believe the worst of the lot in that respect.

[Tory T]

Didn't ukip just demand Thatcher call for withdrawal from the EU...some pressure group did... and she has done no such thing

[Londoner]

Tapestry claims that William Hague leads the europhiles!! I don't think the europhiles thought he was one of them when he was leader - indeed his great achievement as leader was healing and settling the EU (as an internal Conservative Party issue) in a thoroughly eurosceptic (but not BOO) way. It's precisely because those internal arguments are over that some of the people on this site sound so obsessive - and it's also the reason UKIP (perhaps a little desparately) are trying to branch out to other issues.

I voted "no" in the 1975 referendum, voted UKIP in the 1994 Euro-elections (when there was a point because all our MEPs were europhiles - many, even if not all, are not now), so if I, with that pedigree, would not consider them now - no wonder they have under 1% in the polls and no wonder people are getting a little bit negative about the Editor running stories on them the whole time.

[Ali T]

Well done Graeme Archer for a sensible and entertaining contribution to this debate.

You are right to point out the vacuous argue argument of the Cornerstone group that they represent the majority dare I even suggest the soul of our party. David Cameron was elected by an overwhelming majority of our members and since then has worked (with their consent) to extend the appeal of our party to those that many of the Cornerstone Group seem to have forgotten.

As a proud member of the Conservative Party and perhaps even with a little bit of grumpy old man in me, I will take a contrary view to those who are opposed to our Leader’s changes. I am delighted with the direction of our party, a view echoed on many doorsteps in my ward that I visit each week.

Like Mrs Thatcher did in the 1970s Cameron is re-engaging with young people and woman, two groups whose support we need to win an election. He is making our party appeal to people who live in our towns and cities for the first time in a decade and that is great news.

Not since the 1980s have so many people I meet been proud to call themselves Conservatives and for that I want to thank him and the whole of his shadow team for their efforts.

And for those who blame all of our Party’s woes on ERM, I hope I don’t upset anyone when I say that I have never heard so much piffle. Let me make myself clear I thought ERM was a crazy scheme doomed to fail but it was just one of many reasons why our economy hit the buffers.

Whilst on my soap box perhaps I should remind these whingers, who would have our party regress in to some quaint anarchistic party of ‘little England’ that our party has always evolved and changed its views as the needs of the Country require. We abandoned the Corn Laws, adopted the principles free trade and moved away from ‘One Nation Conservativism’ to ‘Thatcherism’. These were massive changes at the time and indeed very controversial, but they were absolutely necessary so our party took them.

Those who seek to move our party back to the right and off the centre ground will only achieve one thing and that is to damage the very thing that they say is so dear to them. If they succeed in their aim our party will again be unelectable allowing Blair and Brown to continue with their reign of terror categorised by soaring taxes, a Home Office in utter chaos and a political structure that is seen as morally bankrupt and ridden with sleaze.

Is this what these so-called loyalists want?

Like so many members of the party I would appeal to them to get on board with a policy review that has yet to conclude instead of trying to snipe from the sidelines.

[michael mcgough]

"I voted "no" in the 1975 referendum, voted UKIP in the 1994 Euro-elections (when there was a point because all our MEPs were europhiles - many, even if not all, are not now),"

If you believe most of your MEPs are not now Europhile you are out of the loop;in fact Tory John Bowis ,Vice President of the federalist EPP party only a fortnight ago said that he'd bet the Tories would still be in the EPP in 2010.

[malcolm]

Some of the comments on this thread are not up to the usual standard of the posters INVOLVED. This is Tims site and he can do what he bloody well wants with it.
I do agree with those who don't over estimate the prospective electoral success of UKIP who I fully expect to perform very badly in local or general elections. Equally even Nigel Farage is open about the lunatic fringe who inhabit his party several of whom post on CH.I would suggest that these people should be ignored if you can't be bothered to argue with them or encouraged to go to Chads site, he needs the comments.
Having said that there are numerous Conservative activists who I guess make up a large percentage of this sites readers who see the EU issue as of very great importance indeed which is why Europe related threads always attract so many posts.
I normally agree with your posts Tory T but I fear that if you really believe that the policies regarding our relationship with the EU is settled you are a bit deluded. This issue will always be prominent within the Conservative party whether our leader is a Europhile (boo) or a Eurosceptic (hooray).

[malcolm]

Sorry don't know why the word'involved' was in Caps. I really should preview posts, my typing is bloody terrible!

[Gospel of Enoch]

A BOO Europhile? That's an oxymoron isn't it :-)

[Peter Hatchet]

Tory T: 12:56

Well said.

I agree entirely.

[Martin Bristow]

Cameron is not reaching beyond our core vote.We are up in the poll not because of him but because of Blair.The fact is we should be out of sight.

There is a real appetite for lower taxation a controlled and intelligible immigration policy zero tolerance law and order and higher standards in public service particularly eductation and health.We should bring a conservative philosophy to all of these.It does not help to be seduced by the pseudo environmental rubbish we have heard for the past year.This will not win an election.

[Oliver McCarthy]

Not all voters may be grumpy old men, but a sixth of voters is still a very considerable minority, and old people are not only the country's fastest growing demographic but also the one most likely to vote.

Yes, in all probability Gordon Brown will win back a very healthy poll-lead over the Tories as soon as he becomes PM. TB will be the scapegoat. The commentariat will note how much things have changed. And so on! Cameron may well look like yesterday's man.

I'm not sure who Graeme Archer is, but one can only assume he has no interest in conservatism according to any known definition of that (already recondite) word. The original Cornerstoners were overwhelmingly drawn from the ranks of IDS's original supporters in 2001, and they wouldn't have endorsed David Davis if he'd been the last Tory on the planet -- though of course having said that if they'd wanted actually to destroy David Cameron (who was more Euro-sceptic and pro-family than Davis) they could have done so easily. Whatever their merits or de-merits, they are indeed (pace Margaret on the Guillotine) the largest, best organised and most articulate group within the Parliamentary Party, and certainly there is no real alternative Tory agenda to what they are suggesting. (Not yet, at any rate!)

AlexW is superb. (Check out a mirror, buddy!) Londoner is wrong, I fancy, about the newly re-titled IP's going down (or even up!) a socially conservative path: Farage's comments to BBC News 24 rather suggest that the new theme of "independence" will imply instead a rather dotty sort of hardline libertarianism. (You know the sort of thing: Cannabis for kids! Privatise the NHS! Sell the Army to the Japanese! Ayn Rand was right!) The Tories, I fear, are not the only party trying to alienate their own supporters.

I have no idea what Jerome is talking about. It sounds quite interesting, but what on earth does he mean?

F Brian, George Galloway didn't break away from the Labour Party. He was chucked out for being a Nazi.

Liam Fox is of course wrong about Tony Blair being happiest about people's voting UKIP. Farage himself told me in person once (though I doubt he remembers) that he's 'just doing this to get back at the Tories'. So long as the Conservative Party gets a bloody nose, the UKIP leadership will be more than happy.

All this stuff about core votes is deeply disturbing. The Tory core voters are the AB social classes, who were alienated by William Hague in 2001 and then again by Michael Howard in 2005, due to the fact that both were pursuing explicitly racist policy agendas. Under two Australian spin-doctors at the last two elections the Tories did not pursue a core vote strategy but a "votes transfusion" strategy, trying to win over working-class voters and hence building up lots and lots of votes... in Labour safe seats. (What saved the Tories at the last election was that the Liberal Demcrats' strategy was even more politically illiterate.)

Actually, Sivil Sepent, I'm not!

I seem to remember Mrs T's calling for what would have amounted to withdrawal from the EU in her last book. (I think it was Statecraft.) I'm surprised Tory T hasn't read it.

William Hague was never a Euro-sceptic. His "Save the Pound" slogan was intellectually insulting, and since the Socialists were already committed to having a referendum on the issue it completely failed to garner a single vote. The fake Euro-scepticism was always a cover for the sort of anti-immigration rhetoric that would have made Oswald Mosley blush.

[realcon]

Unless you believe in the EU superstate taking over completely and for ever, how can the issue of "Europe" ever go away?

[Oliver McCarthy]

Well done, Ali T! I'm not too fond of the real world either, and I rather admire people who absolutely refuse to live in it.

The Party's poll-ratings were wiped out by Black Wednesday just as surely as were Basildon Man's life-savings. And if you re-play the news footage you'll see David Cameron standing just behind Norman Lamont's shoulder. I somehow doubt he thinks calling the ERM the greatest disaster in modern Tory history is "piffle".

One Nation Conservatism was invented by Enoch Powell (and others). It was then abandoned by the Major Government in favour of No Nation non-Conservatism, in order 'to f**king crucify the Right' (Major's expression). No one wanted it and no one voted for it.

As for Little Englanders, the only people in the Party I've noticed snubbing the United States of America, smirking at the prospect of the break-up of the Union, and doing these things to try to curry favour with an already inconsolable Daily Mail, are the Cameroons.

Thank you Martin Bristow for a ray of actual sanity.

[Oliver McCarthy]

I think our thoughts and prayers will all be with the family of Malcolm Dunne, who seems to have died recently. For a while towards the end of his life he could find few reasons to go on living other than to lie in wait for me here and assault my character whenever I posted anything.

He will not be missed (by me at any rate).

[Oliver McCarthy]

LOL! Having visited Graeme Archer's blog, it's fairly easy to see why he dislikes the Cornerstone Group.

[Torygirl]

I believe IDS was about 4% ahead of Nu Lab when he was thrown out of the Leadership. Dave doesn't seem to be doing any better, in fact, he is losing his core vote which is something even IDS did not do. If he cannot do better than this, after 10 years of Labour and the country fed up of Blair, what hope is there when GB takes over the reins.

[jorgen]

See it from whichever angle you like: A vote for the present Conservative Party is a vote for left-leaning policies for the future and a vote for further EU integration: there aren't many laws that can be veto'ed - the new EU laws have to be accepted as they are or the UK will have to leave the relevant charter; Cameron is not going to leave any charters.

[GU (Given Up)]

Now that 75 % plus of all legislation comes from Brussels, how can one ignore the EU question.

Either we wish to be a free people and decide our own destiny, or we stay as a small part of the EU and accept that Westminster is just a useless and very expensive talking shop.

[malcolm]

Thank you for your enquiry into my welfare Oliver, what a truly delightful fellow you seem to be! Your political analysis isn't up to much 'though. Enoch Powell the founder of One Nation Conservatism? Perhaps Disreali,Baldwin or even Macmillan might have something to say about that.
Not quite sure how Basildon mans life savings were wiped out by the ERM debacle. The stockmarket performed admirably throughout Majors' tenure.

[Gareth]

'Torygirl wrote: "I believe IDS was about 4% ahead of Nu Lab when he was thrown out of the Leadership. Dave doesn't seem to be doing any better, in fact, he is losing his core vote which is something even IDS did not do."

You're mistaken 'torygirl'. IDS was behind Labour when his colleagues voted him out, just as he had been throughout his leadership.

[Richard]

"IDS was behind Labour when his colleagues voted him out, just as he had been throughout his leadership."

I think Yougov showed that he had a lead of about 4% for a while.

Anyhow, while I don't think UKIP can be ignored I do get the feeling that they pop up on here rather too often and we end up with a lot of posters repeating themselves over and over again. I'm sympathetic to EU withdrawal but UKIP will never be elected to deliver it.

[Sam Tarran]

It's important not to blow this out of proportion, of course. After all, it's only designed to put pressure on Cameron, right?

Sometimes, I don't see the point in all this right-wing fury at Cameron. None of the ideas or the policies he's put forward so far are leftist in tone (aside from that on gay adoption and 'civil partnerships', perhaps).

What's more, we've tried the right-wing ticket before and it failed. Hence why Cameron's leader anyway.

[Gareth]

"LOL! Having visited Graeme Archer's blog, it's fairly easy to see why he dislikes the Cornerstone Group."

What do you mean Oliver?

[Scotty]

"Some of the comments on this thread are not up to the usual standard of the posters INVOLVED. This is Tims site and he can do what he bloody well wants with it."
Malcolm, I thought that we were allowed to question and debate the content on this site which surely must include the editorial line taken by Tim.
Yes it is his site and yes he can "do what he bloody well wants", but I also retain the right to criticise the editorial line while the site is promoted as an unofficial home of the tory grassroots.
And as for other poster's comments not being up to standard, maybe they see through a rather blatant strategy and have posted accordingly!

[Yet Another Anon]

UKIP, IP, The RP (Referendum Party) are powerful in that they can threaten to pull votes from major parties, and accordingly influence policy.
Referendum Party was disbanded after the 1997 General Election, UKIP have a coherent set of policies whereas the Referendum Party had the problem that it was not clear what they would do if they had actually come to form a government.

[David Sergeant]

Oh gawd UKIP again. OK grit teeth and type.

I started supporting the Conservative party when McMillon was PM. I work for the party and, therefore, meet other activists. Let me tell you I am a real (old and grumpy)core voter and I go along with what Cameron is saying as what the party has stood for all along.

Hague and Howard both started well but allowed themselves to be dragged to the right by Heffer types with well known results. We must all hope Cameron has stronger nerves. That UKIPers bitch on about Cameron's lack of policies when numbers of working parties are beavering away leads one to suspect that "the right" is desparate to make its mark before Cameron gets going.

The idea that UKIP has "party policies" is rediculous. The nicest thing you can say about them is that the are childishly simplistic.

BUT the main purpose of UKIP has been told us many times; it is to wreck the Conservative Party's election chances. The two peers (who didn't defect) were really cheered by their estimate that UKIP had cost the Tories 27 seats at the last election. That is Blairs majority!! And, boy, were they proud of that. These people are sick, we should not take them seriously.

Since they want a new name, I suggest a real honest name (I know honesty and UKIP don't go together) that really reflects their core objective. Change U.K.I.P. to C.E.G.B. I don't mean Central Electricity Generating Board. I mean Committee to Elect Gordon Brown.

[jorgen]

I am a real (old and grumpy)core voter

Yep.

[Graeme Archer]

Oliver McCarthy @1604:
LOL! Having visited Graeme Archer's blog, it's fairly easy to see why he dislikes the Cornerstone Group.

Gareth @ 1721:
What do you mean Oliver?

I can't guess what Oliver means, Gareth, but maybe it's my love of Hackney that he's on about :-0). I'm just amazed anyone's visited my website! Thank you Oliver!

[Mark McCartney]

>>Mark Fulford, after the last-but-one ukip story on Tory Diary, said he wasn't posting here any more as he couldn't stand the constant ukip commercials.<<

Another Cameroon troll bites the dust.

After having the washing machine burn out and the cat puke all over a valuable book I knew some good news must be in the offing.

Who next? Justin Hinchcliffe? Jack Stone?

The Almighty must have heard my prayers yesterday morning.

[Peter Hatchet]

Mark 19:32

Don't be such a prat.

[Londoner]

Picking up on a few points here. I said that there are quite a few Tory Eurosceptic MEPs compared with 1994 and someone has cited John Bowis, one of the London MEPs, to refute that. Of course I know of his longstanding tendencies and have also noted his recent rather cynical comments about staying in the EPP but I have also listened to Theresa Villiers and her excellent successor, and most of the other London MEPs (and many from elsewhere), and the overall tone is far from EUphile. Also, we, the members in London who turned up to the hustings, voted for the present MEPs as our candidates, so they naturally reflect a balance of views. I have never put John Bowis very high on my personal list but I am not going to start campaigning for his following (partly political and partly personal because he was a popular MP for Battersea and does good work on a number of specialist areas such as mental health) to be chucked out of the party. Nor am I going to attend a hustings, get 3 or 4 out of the top 5 on the list that I want and then go off and vote for another party. Pathetic.

Of course Europe is an important issue for people who think and know a lot about politics like most of the people on this site. I never implied that it wasn't and there is still lots of scope for debate on detailed policies and tactics towards the EU. But I DO stand by my contention that the overall balance of emphasis within our Party on Europe is now settled bar fringes on either side. Therefore, unless you are part of one of those small fringes (the one on the "right" being the people who start from saying we are B.O.O. rather than most of us who don't rule that out but would seek to change our relationship in radical ways first (as is Cameron's policy in terms of radical change; don't tell me that withdrawing from the social chapter, the Euro Convention on Human Rights and, even if delayed, the EPP are not radical)), it is no longer a point of great internal contention and we are not going to leave the party over it, and nor are any material numbers of core voters going to stop voting for us because of it. Hence UKIP's time is either passed or is yet to come (it could strenthen if a Eurosceptic Tory Govt fails and/or caves in)- but on the Europe issue it certainly is not now.

As for the attitude of the less engaged electorate who whatever we may think are always going to put other issues higher - again even when it was as vivid an issue as the currency it could not win us an election (of course I know Blair had promised a referendum which neutralised it but the Labour Party is not going to be sufficiently stupid to get the wrong side of the public on an issue like that).

So - by all means let's debate on here, and in other Party forums, the right policies towards the EU but let's not kid ourselves either (a) that the party is about to split over it or (b) that it's going to make a huge difference to the outcome of the next GE. The thing which would be damaging (to the genuine Eurosceptic interest as much as to the Tory Party) is if UKIP succeeds in convincing people that they are the only Eurosceptics, because the Tory Party needs both its wings on European matters to keep flying straight. If UKIP has any success in getting our core voters and members to leave our Party, the only result will be to make it less likely that a future Tory Govt will stick to its guns when the real European tests will come, which will be in Govt, not now.

Coming back to the gripe about the editor - that is why there is no problem with lots of debate about Europe in a place such as this (even if Cameron is right not to emphasise it much because he correctly judges that it does not engage the electorate much at present), BUT PLEASE, PLEASE CAN WE HAVE IT ON OUR OWN AGENDA AND NOT JUST DICTATED BY THE LATEST TWITTERINGS OF UKIP?

And maybe first have a 3 month moritorium so the UKIP trolls get bored and go elsewhere first.

Finally (phew, I hear the few of you who have got this far sigh), don't knock Hague on this because he had the most concrete achievement of any of our 4 Leaders of the Opposition so far - by first promising a Referendum on the pound, he forced Labour into the same, and kept up the pressure so that Labour never dared try proposing it. The old Tory Party (with a little help for G Brown) should stand up and take a bow for that in my book. And he did it with only the 146 MPs bequeathed by Major.

[UKIP(IP)@HOME]

No sooner does Nigel Farage Leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party start to rebrand UKIP(IP) as "Independence - the Independent New-Conservative Party" then he starts to 'Flip-Flop' and does a u-turn after being besieged by angry members and issues a further statement on re-branding

Many members are already asking how a patriotic party is ditching the 'UK' and why, after spending the last decade establishing the 'UKIP' brand, is UKIP(IP) Leader Nigel Farage preparing to change its name as part of a re-branding exercise designed to woo large numbers of Conservatives disaffected with David Cameron.

Members continue to leave in disgust as Nigel Farage continues to lurch UKIP(IP) further to the right and recruit Conservatives who want to use UKIP(IP) as a platform to attack David Cameron and influence the direction of the Conservative party.

If UKIP(IP) members had wanted to join a Conservative Party they would have gone here:-

https://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=involved.join.page

[Ivan The Yid From Bradford]

Having the usual suspects go off on their UKIP advertising doesn't really interest me or tell me how Camerloon is going to win back seats in the North of England an area he has no understanding of !! UKIP isn't active or effective in the North - I am speaking from experience as an ex UKIP officer in the North who's membership has now lapsed. UKIP even got rid of their centrally based HQ in Birmingham to relocate to Newton Abbot back in their original base in the SW. Before UKIP I was a Tory Party activist for 20 years in Bradford. Pissed off UKIP supportters plus many Tories and Old Labour supporters in the Islamic heartlands that Camerloon is coming out with idiocy about (state funding to train imans!) are turning to BNP. Things are so bad in these areas that incredibly BNP are coming through as the only sane party ! These are Labours heartlands where the Tories won seats when Thatcher was the last Tory leader. In these seats supporters of all the main parties and UKIP are turning to BNP. What is Camerloon saying about this - even IDS who was a candidate in Bradford West in 1987 talked more sense that DC.

[Ivan The Yid From Bradford]

Having the usual suspects go off on their UKIP advertising doesn't really interest me or tell me how Camerloon is going to win back seats in the North of England an area he has no understanding of !! UKIP isn't active or effective in the North - I am speaking from experience as an ex UKIP officer in the North who's membership has now lapsed. UKIP even got rid of their centrally based HQ in Birmingham to relocate to Newton Abbot back in their original base in the SW. Before UKIP I was a Tory Party activist for 20 years in Bradford. Pissed off UKIP supportters plus many Tories and Old Labour supporters in the Islamic heartlands that Camerloon is coming out with idiocy about (state funding to train imans!) are turning to BNP. Things are so bad in these areas that incredibly BNP are coming through as the only sane party ! These are Labours heartlands where the Tories won seats when Thatcher was the last Tory leader. In these seats supporters of all the main parties and UKIP are turning to BNP. What is Camerloon saying about this - even IDS who was a candidate in Bradford West in 1987 talked more sense that DC.

[Seth Gillette]

I'm not a politics twitcher like most on here, but I have enough interest in the state of the country, and the Conservative party, to add my penny's worth; forgive me if this all seems obvious.

The Conservative party is a broad church and it's good to have such healthy debate on all issues, but these debates must NOT become divisive. I would think the biggest single reason for not voting for a party (after disagreeing with its ideology) would be if it appeared divided.

The Conservative party has for too long been introverted and appeared, from the outside, (and want for better words) 'stuck-up'; not only in the social sense, but stuck up its own arse. Cameron describes himself as a Liberal Conservative, and a huge swathe of the electorate fit that bill exactly: We don't want a nanny state, but we do want a good NHS for all. We are live-and-let-live, but we recognise that the institution of the family is the cornerstone of a healthy society. Just two examples - and Cameron has spoken quite candidly about both of them.

From my viewpoint outside, I simply don't understand why everyone in or around the Conservative party can't stop bickering for five minutes, follow their new, energetic leader and provide the opposition to the New Labour disaster this country is so desperate for.

As a young (in my 20s), socially liberal voter, I'm the kid of demographic Cameron is aiming for with his 'modernisation'. From what I can gather from my own social spheres, it seems to be having some effect with my contempories - many of whom would have been Labour supporters, say, three years ago. I'm sure most people on here would spit out their false teeth to think it a good thing the Conservative party is attracting potential Labour votes, but it's a brave new world. Labour voters are not the devil incarnate. Nor are Lib Dems. They want what is best for the country too, and Cameron has basically said no one has a monopoly on good ideas, the best plans are made by combining the best ideas from all those available. But it seems some Tories are so blinded by their blue-tinted 1970s spectacles that they cannot see this, that they must oppose the government even when it is right, expound the rhetoric of the party as a clique, and believe all those voters who disagree (of which there are many) cannot be won over, and so must be disregarded, ignored – or plain wrong. And thus, the cycle perpetuates – Tories talking to themselves and themselves only.

For too long voters who have supported the Tory party have been too shy about it, as if voting Tory is something to be ashamed of. Meanwhile, Labour won over the media and said, “Conservative means bad on health, bad on schools, bad on crime, bad on equality. And they’re going to tax you to give to the rich, because they’re rich and we hate the working class”. And instead of the Tories saying, “Well, excuse me, you totalitarian, stealth-taxing, money-wasting, nannying, gimmick-loving, flip-flopping, pension-raiding, sofa government” they cowered in the corner, talking among themselves, and going grey.

Now, the party has an attractive leader and a lead in the polls - all be it a low one, but a promising one nonetheless. There is potential there, as Cameron’s policy groups report in the summer, and the Labour regim begins to slide irretrievably down the plug hole of history. But all this good work can be frittered away in an instant by open infighting, by yet more leadership challenges, by yet more time-wasting. The media only has to get a whiff. So leave DC be, he’s good for you – it just seems you have to be outside the Conservative party to see the wood for the trees.

…..(and I didn’t mention UKIP once!)

[Londoner]

Seth Gillette - good post. We'll make a political twitcher of you yet though. Anyone writing long posts at 23:52 is already far gone. And so sensible that you probably haven't even been in the pub.

But please, look past the obsessives and keep posting such sense on here.

[Anthony Scholefield]

The political betting article is the most appalling inaccurate drivel.He states that the combined Labour and Tory vote will go up from 67% in 2005 to a putative 72% of the total while others will fall from 10% to 6%. Do the math. Northern Ireland and the Scots Welsh Nats amount to nearly 5% then there are the Greens Respect UKIP BNP. My own guess is that others will be about 12%,the Lib Dems will take 20% leaving the 2 old parties to take the same as 2005 about 67%

[Mark McCartney]

Would somebody "in the know" tell me why Mr Smithson is supposed to be such an expert on political betting? How much money has he made out of it.

No enthusiastic CF newbie would be capable of constructing a cliche-laden CCHQ-approved screed such as "Seth Gillette" (Ha!Ha!) posts above.

Do these Camerloon manipulators think we're totally stupid?

[Andrew]

"Many members are already asking how a patriotic party is ditching the 'UK' and why, after spending the last decade establishing the 'UKIP' brand......"

He's just being logical. Having UK in the title of said party is just daft - you could count the number of UKIP voters outside southern England on the fingers of one hand.

[Alan]

"Grumpy old men"? Tripe!

Are Amess, Swayne, Howarth, Philip Davies (to name no other Cornerstoners) either old or grumpy?

I really do not like this smearing by posters.

Cornerstone should be listened to.

[Ed Wilson]

"you could count the number of UKIP voters outside southern England on the fingers of one hand"

Is that right?

So it seems you really can't put a wafer between UKIP and the Tory Party.

Possibly the only difference is that UKIP's average age is about 10 years younger.