UK General Election 2015
Discussion
Zod said:
ou Kippers contradict yourselves constantly: either the rest of the EU won't negotiate with us or it will and he hasn't bothered to try seem to be your twin contradictory themes. The reality is that negotiations will begin post-election if the Conservatives are in charge. The LibDems haven't allowed it for the last five years and mos of the EU has been busy kicking the can down the road to try to avoid countries falling out of the Euro.
If the Conservatives win, Germany will pull out all the stops to keep the UK in Europe. Merkel knows major concessions are needed for the referendum to deliver a stay in verdict, but she's hardly going to telegraph them upfront.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9427141/europe...
If the Conservatives win, Germany will pull out all the stops to keep the UK in Europe. Merkel knows major concessions are needed for the referendum to deliver a stay in verdict, but she's hardly going to telegraph them upfront.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9427141/europe...
No cameron hasn't tried as 1 he knows it is a waste of time and 2 he doesn't want to negotiate anyway
As to the lib dems holding them back i can't see how the mighty and wonderful all knowing man god that is david cameron could be held back by mere mortals like the lib dems
Greg66 said:
(Veering OT) FWIW, I see on here particular contempt for Cameron's "green" agenda, which I'm no fan of, but I have begun to wonder about. I don't really subscribe to the tinfoil hat brigade who propound the view that the Cons introduced green policies to reward their rich landowner friends and relatives with subsidies. Appealing to the conspiracist, but no. So why? My personal (longshot) view it is a recognition that the green movement has become an umbrella for all sorts, including a lot of fairly extreme left wingers (see, eg, the Greens manifesto. If you ignore it, you risk some of your supporters drifting green-wards, and thence into the arms of some really quite nutty ideas. So, you end up having to have a "green section" on your market stall in order to try to keep some peripheral support on board. Anyway, it's a just a theory, and at least it doesn't involve a conspiracy.
Why would anyone have any time for the Coalition's 'green' policies? To a significant degree they are not green at all, merely the appearance of green; some actually cause greater environmental damage, most increase costs to the consumer without actually protecting the environment. At best it can be said they've just continued with the s
t policies inherited from Labour, but the ongoing economic sabotage has held the UK back. Some of this can be palmed off and blamed on the EU, but most of it is homegrown. Subsidising windmills and solar panels outside urban areas is economic madness of the first water, ruinous to the country's energy security and a lousy way of reducing carbon emissions. The persistent refusal to address the need for more runways creates more pollution through forcing aircraft to stack. Burning woodchips in powerstations having shipped them 6000 miles is insane, as is expecting the consumer to pay for it.Paterson, Davis and a few others acknowledged the farcical nature of these policies and suggested some pragmatic alternatives, but were marginalised for doing so.
turbobloke said:
Esseesse said:
FiF said:
A question Did Cameron at some point when questioned about a referendum inthe vcontext of another coalition government not say that he would not be leader of another government which failed to deliver a referendum? I think he did you know.
Perhaps...http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/29/david-c...
Article said:
David Cameron has said he will quit as prime minister if he cannot deliver an in-or-out referendum on the EU after the next general election.
Cameron made the commitment in a conference call to party supporters on Monday evening, saying if he remained prime minister after the next election but could not deliver the referendum by 2017, he would leave office....
....Cameron said he would not “barter away” the referendum in any new coalition negotiations that might follow the election if there is still a hung parliament.
“This is not something I would ever barter away or give away. I would not be prime minister of a government unless we could carry out our pledge of an in-out referendum,” Cameron said.
“I’ve already pre-empted that question, what happens if somehow you don’t win the election outright. I’ve been very clear: I would not continue as prime minister unless I be absolutely guaranteed this referendum will go ahead on an in-out basis. I can’t make it any clearer than that.”
Oh good. Feet might be able to be held to flames.Cameron made the commitment in a conference call to party supporters on Monday evening, saying if he remained prime minister after the next election but could not deliver the referendum by 2017, he would leave office....
....Cameron said he would not “barter away” the referendum in any new coalition negotiations that might follow the election if there is still a hung parliament.
“This is not something I would ever barter away or give away. I would not be prime minister of a government unless we could carry out our pledge of an in-out referendum,” Cameron said.
“I’ve already pre-empted that question, what happens if somehow you don’t win the election outright. I’ve been very clear: I would not continue as prime minister unless I be absolutely guaranteed this referendum will go ahead on an in-out basis. I can’t make it any clearer than that.”
McWigglebum4th said:
Zod said:
ou Kippers contradict yourselves constantly: either the rest of the EU won't negotiate with us or it will and he hasn't bothered to try seem to be your twin contradictory themes. The reality is that negotiations will begin post-election if the Conservatives are in charge. The LibDems haven't allowed it for the last five years and mos of the EU has been busy kicking the can down the road to try to avoid countries falling out of the Euro.
If the Conservatives win, Germany will pull out all the stops to keep the UK in Europe. Merkel knows major concessions are needed for the referendum to deliver a stay in verdict, but she's hardly going to telegraph them upfront.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9427141/europe...
If the Conservatives win, Germany will pull out all the stops to keep the UK in Europe. Merkel knows major concessions are needed for the referendum to deliver a stay in verdict, but she's hardly going to telegraph them upfront.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9427141/europe...
No cameron hasn't tried as 1 he knows it is a waste of time and 2 he doesn't want to negotiate anyway
Kipper-ish rhetoric with zero foundation.
Wombat3 said:
QED - there's that stupid definitive statement about what he does & doesn't want to do, again.
Kipper-ish rhetoric with zero foundation.
I voting tory don't you knowKipper-ish rhetoric with zero foundation.
I am now completely sane and an upstanding member of society
Isn't what that happens when you vote tory?
You are suddenly a sensible person who believes in exactly what david cameron believes in
I might even invest in a wind turbine
One of the interesting things about this election is how unpredictable it is and how many opposing viewpoints are absolutely convinced that they represent the only thing stopping total catastrophe..
One of the behaviours I find hard to understand is the conservative parties approach to UKIP. Substantial elements of UKIP and their voters are composed of former conservatives and it seems quite possible that the Labour 'defectors' are from the ideological side of Labour that's most agreeable to traditional conservative values. However Cameron's approach from the start has been to mock and belittle the intelligence in a manner that would make a return less likely...
It's common for the more patronising conservatives here and at ConHQ to try and scare people to return to the conservatives by arguing that UKIP voters will cause a Labour win. In Reckless' by-election Cameron even encouraged Labour voters to tactically vote con to keep out UKIP. However, this behaviour in itself could result in a Labour win. Firstly it's uninspiring to say vote for us or you get someone even worse, but potentially the conservative attack dogs might encourage people in the Midlands and North who will never vote for Cameron, to vote Labour. If the conservatives genuinely succeed in convincing undecided Labour/UKIP voters that UKIP are toxic loons, they might play an influential role in defending the traditional labour seats from UKIP, whilst the patronising insults stop UKIP voters from returning to the conservative fold down South.
My local con PPC and UKIP PPC have (other than green issues..) got massively more in common than the Labour MP. Fortunately locally the con candidate is smart enough to not insult people who might 'bottle' out of UKIP on Election Day and it's been relatively grown up so far. Nationally Cameron's patronising approach to voters concerns will stop people like me giving him any endorsement and in a seat like mine, it is possible his behaviour and lack of respect for UKIP voters/policies will help cement Labour support.
I think the insults and smears about UKIP might stop UKIP doing better, but might also prevent a conservative win. Just a thought before the next shriek of 'kiptard idiots!'
One of the behaviours I find hard to understand is the conservative parties approach to UKIP. Substantial elements of UKIP and their voters are composed of former conservatives and it seems quite possible that the Labour 'defectors' are from the ideological side of Labour that's most agreeable to traditional conservative values. However Cameron's approach from the start has been to mock and belittle the intelligence in a manner that would make a return less likely...
It's common for the more patronising conservatives here and at ConHQ to try and scare people to return to the conservatives by arguing that UKIP voters will cause a Labour win. In Reckless' by-election Cameron even encouraged Labour voters to tactically vote con to keep out UKIP. However, this behaviour in itself could result in a Labour win. Firstly it's uninspiring to say vote for us or you get someone even worse, but potentially the conservative attack dogs might encourage people in the Midlands and North who will never vote for Cameron, to vote Labour. If the conservatives genuinely succeed in convincing undecided Labour/UKIP voters that UKIP are toxic loons, they might play an influential role in defending the traditional labour seats from UKIP, whilst the patronising insults stop UKIP voters from returning to the conservative fold down South.
My local con PPC and UKIP PPC have (other than green issues..) got massively more in common than the Labour MP. Fortunately locally the con candidate is smart enough to not insult people who might 'bottle' out of UKIP on Election Day and it's been relatively grown up so far. Nationally Cameron's patronising approach to voters concerns will stop people like me giving him any endorsement and in a seat like mine, it is possible his behaviour and lack of respect for UKIP voters/policies will help cement Labour support.
I think the insults and smears about UKIP might stop UKIP doing better, but might also prevent a conservative win. Just a thought before the next shriek of 'kiptard idiots!'
Edited by brenflys777 on Wednesday 4th February 19:51
McWigglebum4th said:
Wombat3 said:
QED - there's that stupid definitive statement about what he does & doesn't want to do, again.
Kipper-ish rhetoric with zero foundation.
I voting tory don't you knowKipper-ish rhetoric with zero foundation.
I am now completely sane and an upstanding member of society
Isn't what that happens when you vote tory?
You are suddenly a sensible person who believes in exactly what david cameron believes in
I might even invest in a wind turbine
confused_buyer said:
brenflys777 said:
I hope you are correct that Cameron would be held to his promises after the election. I would be even happier if he is held to this 'contract'.
If he'd won maybe he would have. We'll never know.A vote for the conservatives might stop Labour getting the next PM, but it doesn't offer a guarantee that a conservative PM will deliver conservative policies.
brenflys777 said:
One of the interesting things about this election is how unpredictable it is and how many opposing viewpoints are absolutely convinced that they represent the only thing stopping total catastrophe..
One of the behaviours I find hard to understand is the conservative parties approach to UKIP. Substantial elements of UKIP and their voters are composed of former conservatives and it seems quite possible that the Labour 'defectors' are from the ideological side of Labour that's most agreeable to traditional conservative values. However Cameron's approach from the start has been to mock and belittle the intelligence in a manner that would make a return less likely...
It's common for the more patronising conservatives here and at ConHQ to try and scare people to return to the conservatives by arguing that UKIP voters will cause a Labour win. In Reckless' by-election Cameron even encouraged Labour voters to tactically vote con to keep out UKIP. However, this behaviour in itself could result in a Labour win. Firstly it's uninspiring to say vote for us or you get someone even worse, but potentially the conservative attack dogs might encourage people in the Midlands and North who will never vote for Cameron, to vote Labour. If the conservatives genuinely succeed in convincing undecided Labour/UKIP voters that UKIP are toxic loons, they might play an influential role in defending the traditional labour seats from UKIP, whilst the patronising insults stop UKIP voters from returning to the conservative fold down South.
My local con PPC and UKIP PPC have (other than green issues..) got massively more in common than the Labour MP. Fortunately locally the con candidate is smart enough to not insult people who might 'bottle' out of UKIP on Election Day and it's been relatively grown up so far. Nationally Cameron's patronising approach to voters concerns will stop people like me giving him any endorsement and in a seat like mine, where it is possible his behaviour and lack of respect for UKIP voters/policies will help cement Labour support.
I think the insults and smears about UKIP might stop UKIP doing better, but might also prevent a conservative win. Just a thought before the next shriek of 'kiptard idiots!'
Die hard kippers will do what they do & seem to think its all great fun & a grand wheeze. Idiots IMO - instability is nobody's friend and increasingly that is what the alternative to a Conservative win in 2015 is looking like it will deliver. One of the behaviours I find hard to understand is the conservative parties approach to UKIP. Substantial elements of UKIP and their voters are composed of former conservatives and it seems quite possible that the Labour 'defectors' are from the ideological side of Labour that's most agreeable to traditional conservative values. However Cameron's approach from the start has been to mock and belittle the intelligence in a manner that would make a return less likely...
It's common for the more patronising conservatives here and at ConHQ to try and scare people to return to the conservatives by arguing that UKIP voters will cause a Labour win. In Reckless' by-election Cameron even encouraged Labour voters to tactically vote con to keep out UKIP. However, this behaviour in itself could result in a Labour win. Firstly it's uninspiring to say vote for us or you get someone even worse, but potentially the conservative attack dogs might encourage people in the Midlands and North who will never vote for Cameron, to vote Labour. If the conservatives genuinely succeed in convincing undecided Labour/UKIP voters that UKIP are toxic loons, they might play an influential role in defending the traditional labour seats from UKIP, whilst the patronising insults stop UKIP voters from returning to the conservative fold down South.
My local con PPC and UKIP PPC have (other than green issues..) got massively more in common than the Labour MP. Fortunately locally the con candidate is smart enough to not insult people who might 'bottle' out of UKIP on Election Day and it's been relatively grown up so far. Nationally Cameron's patronising approach to voters concerns will stop people like me giving him any endorsement and in a seat like mine, where it is possible his behaviour and lack of respect for UKIP voters/policies will help cement Labour support.
I think the insults and smears about UKIP might stop UKIP doing better, but might also prevent a conservative win. Just a thought before the next shriek of 'kiptard idiots!'
Your other options are :
Clueless labour
Labour held to ransom by the SNP
Labour + leftie coalition of the SNP, the Greens & maybe Lib Dems - and then held to ransom
Any of those could last 5 years or could stumble through a couple of wasted years before forced into another election. Depends on the maths of the number of seats involved
Alternatively we could get Tories + Lib Dems again if it turns out that the LD meltdown is not as bad as has been predicted.
The UKIP "onslaught" is (fairly predictably) topping out at around 15-17% but the polls also indicate it will deliver very few seats. UKIP may well be a factor in May but it is unlikely to be a player AFTER the count and there in lies a key issue and a key difference between UKIP and the SNP or the Lib Dems.
One of the key components of any democratic process (and especially of the way we run ours) is that its likely that a very high number (usually a majority) of voters will not actually get what they vote for. Therefore it is entirely appropriate for people to consider the "least worst option".
There appears to be only one of those.
brenflys777 said:
confused_buyer said:
brenflys777 said:
I hope you are correct that Cameron would be held to his promises after the election. I would be even happier if he is held to this 'contract'.
If he'd won maybe he would have. We'll never know.A vote for the conservatives might stop Labour getting the next PM, but it doesn't offer a guarantee that a conservative PM will deliver conservative policies.
Even so, as things stand these issues are still nowhere near the top of the pile of things to be concerned about IMO.
Many people take those issues very seriously though, and feel let down as was metioned in the post you quoted - seems to me like you want to sweep those issues under the carpet and hope people focus on the economy, where the Conservstives have clearly done very well, they are three months from an election and only eighty billion quid short of reducing the deficit they said they'd eliminate.
But but Europe, but but Lib Dems, but but Labour..... Always excuses from the Tory party, I'd expect the same next time around.
But but Europe, but but Lib Dems, but but Labour..... Always excuses from the Tory party, I'd expect the same next time around.
confused_buyer said:
brenflys777 said:
I hope you are correct that Cameron would be held to his promises after the election. I would be even happier if he is held to this 'contract'.
If he'd won maybe he would have. We'll never know.Dave in 2011 said:
Levels of immigration can return to where they were in the 1980s and 90s. Net migration to this country will be in the order of tens of thousands each year. No ifs. No buts. That's a promise we made to the British people
Axionknight said:
With our membership of the European Union in its current form such targets could never be reached.
Did Dave lie, or doesn't he know what he's doing?
Yes weird. Seems a strange thing just to come out and lie about without pressure, but quite unbelieveable that he was naive about the EU.Did Dave lie, or doesn't he know what he's doing?
Wombat I think you've highlighted the point I was trying to make quite well. You call UKIP voters 'diehard kippers' and idiots. (I'm almost surprised you don't go for broke and refer to current conservatives as loyal and enlightened!)
You seem to suggest that only the options you present are the only ones available and that only the conservative win is desireable. This explains why you fit so well with Cameron's conservatives, but, there are people who like myself will not vote for Cameron again and the conservatives dismissing things like foreign aid over police budgets, or attempts to go to war in Syria etc just make it less likely we will ever return conservative votes in the future.
I have an option of not voting for anyone, but if I was to follow your tactical voting for the least bad option I would vote Labour here even though I have more in common with the conservative candidate. I won't vote tactically though and if my local UKIP candidate dropped out I'd either not vote for the first time or maybe vote for the next best personal candidate who happens to be conservative. In large areas of the North and some of the Midlands I think the blinkered insulting tone the conservatives have attacked ukip with might actually shore up labour support. It would show some genuine balls if the conservatives could become a positive party again and give us reasons to vote for them (evidenced with action!) not just diss everyone else.
You seem to suggest that only the options you present are the only ones available and that only the conservative win is desireable. This explains why you fit so well with Cameron's conservatives, but, there are people who like myself will not vote for Cameron again and the conservatives dismissing things like foreign aid over police budgets, or attempts to go to war in Syria etc just make it less likely we will ever return conservative votes in the future.
I have an option of not voting for anyone, but if I was to follow your tactical voting for the least bad option I would vote Labour here even though I have more in common with the conservative candidate. I won't vote tactically though and if my local UKIP candidate dropped out I'd either not vote for the first time or maybe vote for the next best personal candidate who happens to be conservative. In large areas of the North and some of the Midlands I think the blinkered insulting tone the conservatives have attacked ukip with might actually shore up labour support. It would show some genuine balls if the conservatives could become a positive party again and give us reasons to vote for them (evidenced with action!) not just diss everyone else.
turbobloke said:
Bluebarge said:
turbobloke said:
el stovey said:
I agree but what you will hear in the media is (some) big companies saying they might move overseas if GB leaves the EU. There will be lots of scare stories about what might happen. That's what will stop people voting for it, the fear of the unknown. Like the Scottish referendum all the older people and pensioners will be the most influential group and will likely vote no as they want things to stay the same.
But this is the UK not a splinter off it. The prospect of what's ahead if we remain in is also weighing heavily on voters.Axionknight said:
Who can blame them, with the lies the Yes campaign peddled.
Indeed, and we've heard it all before already.Ask Mr A Salmond
If Scotland and Wales wanted out of the UK and back into the EU it couldn't possibly happen quick enough, there should be no delay in which they could change their minds.
brenflys777 said:
Wombat I think you've highlighted the point I was trying to make quite well. You call UKIP voters 'diehard kippers' and idiots. (I'm almost surprised you don't go for broke and refer to current conservatives as loyal and enlightened!)
You seem to suggest that only the options you present are the only ones available and that only the conservative win is desireable. This explains why you fit so well with Cameron's conservatives, but, there are people who like myself will not vote for Cameron again and the conservatives dismissing things like foreign aid over police budgets, or attempts to go to war in Syria etc just make it less likely we will ever return conservative votes in the future.
I have an option of not voting for anyone, but if I was to follow your tactical voting for the least bad option I would vote Labour here even though I have more in common with the conservative candidate. I won't vote tactically though and if my local UKIP candidate dropped out I'd either not vote for the first time or maybe vote for the next best personal candidate who happens to be conservative. In large areas of the North and some of the Midlands I think the blinkered insulting tone the conservatives have attacked ukip with might actually shore up labour support. It would show some genuine balls if the conservatives could become a positive party again and give us reasons to vote for them (evidenced with action!) not just diss everyone else.
What other outcomes/options do you think are realistically possible at this juncture?You seem to suggest that only the options you present are the only ones available and that only the conservative win is desireable. This explains why you fit so well with Cameron's conservatives, but, there are people who like myself will not vote for Cameron again and the conservatives dismissing things like foreign aid over police budgets, or attempts to go to war in Syria etc just make it less likely we will ever return conservative votes in the future.
I have an option of not voting for anyone, but if I was to follow your tactical voting for the least bad option I would vote Labour here even though I have more in common with the conservative candidate. I won't vote tactically though and if my local UKIP candidate dropped out I'd either not vote for the first time or maybe vote for the next best personal candidate who happens to be conservative. In large areas of the North and some of the Midlands I think the blinkered insulting tone the conservatives have attacked ukip with might actually shore up labour support. It would show some genuine balls if the conservatives could become a positive party again and give us reasons to vote for them (evidenced with action!) not just diss everyone else.
As I said, if foreign aid and some of the other stuff you mention is what determines your vote then good luck to you. In the grand scheme of things its utterly irrelevant IMO. Its very easy to criticise foreign aid and I am not 100% convinced by everything we do with it. Equally I am of the view that it is a tool that we need to let the government use. In the wider context we are an extremely wealthy country with very high living standards.
For me economic stability that creates an environment in which I can achieve something is far more important than these kind of minutae. Putting that at risk will make a far bigger difference to me than whether we spend £5Bn on foreign aid or £15Bn. OTOH its clear what you do for a living & so you probably enjoy a level of employment, income and pension certainty not enjoyed by many (and good luck to you for it). Perhaps if you ran a small business where those things are far less certain your priorities might be different.
Many conservatives are also frankly tired of being kicked and criticised for trying to sort the s
t out & make some progress. Its no wonder tempers get frayed. This government is given so little credit for what it has achieved it beggars belief IMO. Doesn't get everything right by a long shot but overall, in consideration of the circumstances, its been a very good government for this country. It could have been SO much worse - and yet they get the st kicked out of them at all levels week in, week out.Its also plain that basically every single Labour government we have had in the last 40 years has been a disaster (with a couple of near misses in Kinnoch & Foot thrown in). Every one has caused long term economic damage. Not every Tory Gov't has been brilliant but none has f
ked things up as badly as the other lot. The current opposition is also so weak and incompetent that the idea that its worth risking Mili-balls having their hands on the credit card is beyond stupidity to me.As to the policing issue - you keep harping on about that one - and yet I am not aware of there being any major crime wave that is not being addressed. It looks like criticism for the sake of criticism when there are so many more pressing issues. If your issue is that something was said about protecting the police budgets and it wasn't done well, "There's no money left" .... remember that one? All roads lead to that one and there is still a structural deficit & we are still spending £90Bn more than we earn per year.
Meanwhile, over in the Kipper thread someone (of a deeply purple persuasion) was pontificating only the other day as to how it was a good thing that (UKIP) politicians should change their ideas and policies to suit circumstances. But what's good for the UKIP goose, is apparently not good for the Tory Gander it seems
As to Syria, there is also never a foreign "intervention" that is free from its critics. Whatever the situation was around the Syria thing I am pretty certain of two things:
a) Those at the centre of government have more information to base their decisions on than I do (and that's what I pay/elect them to do)
and
b) I'm pretty sure (whichever party they are from) they don't sit around the cabinet table going "whoop, whoop, tally-ho chaps. Anyone fancy a punch-up? Who can we go to war with this week??"
Edited by Wombat3 on Wednesday 4th February 23:08
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff