UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[Esseesse]

To the die-hard Tory voters, this analysis of the Conservatives pre-2010 is still as true today. This is why conservative minded voters cannot or find it difficult to get worked up into voting Tory to save us from a Labour government.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2010/01/p...

[Esseesse]

Esseesse said:

don4l said:

Zod said:

I raised the turnover tax (amongst other issues with UKIP's "Policies for People") as an issue weeks ago. Nobody picked up on it.

I probably didn't believe you.

I must say that O'Flynn seems to be economically illiterate. He will have to be replaced asap.

What has occurred?

I have read the email now. Hopefully they can come to a sensible policy that people can agree on asap. What is O'Flynn's position? I thought his main value was his connections with and knowledge of the media?

[Scuffers]

Guam said:

Scuffers said:

and the detail comes out...

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/53434916977...

That man is bang on the money, turnover tax is insanity writ large imho, I for one wont vote for anyone proposing such a piece of stupidity come the GE

problem is having watched the newsnight interview, it made no mention of most of this, and certainly not about turnover TAX, he was basically saying something needs to be done about multi-national tax evaders that does not then impact on SME's.

Interviewer then went off on one about Nissan, which was a bit odd...

[anonymous-user]

Esseesse said:

To the die-hard Tory voters, this analysis of the Conservatives pre-2010 is still as true today. This is why conservative minded voters cannot or find it difficult to get worked up into voting Tory to save us from a Labour government.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2010/01/p...

There was a bit too much bile and anger in that for me to take it seriously.

The point you make about conservative minded voters not getting sufficiently worked up to save us from a Labour Govt is an interesting one though.

Some news tidbit last week speculated that Labour would be wiped out in Scotland in 2015 by the SNP, possibly leaving the SNP as the Westminster parliamentary party with the third most seats, and in a position to elevate a minority Lab or Con party into Govt.

Assume for the time being that, as seems likely, the SNP would not support the Cons in those circumstances. The country might end up with a Lab/SNP coalition, conceivably with one A Salmond as deputy PM (oh, the irony, after his grating use of the phrase "Westminster elite"...).

Now, might not that be sufficient threat or inducement, if perceived to be a sufficiently genuine risk, to mobilise conservative minded voters into attempting to deliver an outright Con majority?

The idea of Miliband and Salmond together at the helm frankly terrifies me; much more so that Miliband alone.

[Scuffers]

Greg66 said:

The idea of Miliband and Salmond together at the helm frankly terrifies me; much more so that Miliband alone.

you never know...

put that image in the heads of the electorate, and it's job-done!

[Zod]

Scuffers said:

problem is having watched the newsnight interview, it made no mention of most of this, and certainly not about turnover TAX, he was basically saying something needs to be done about multi-national tax evaders that does not then impact on SME's.

Interviewer then went off on one about Nissan, which was a bit odd...

UKIP said:

– UKIP will set up a Treasury Commission to design a turnover tax to ensure big businesses pay a minimum floor rate of tax as a proportion of their UK turnover.

[Esseesse]

Greg66 said:

Assume for the time being that, as seems likely, the SNP would not support the Cons in those circumstances. The country might end up with a Lab/SNP coalition, conceivably with one A Salmond as deputy PM (oh, the irony, after his grating use of the phrase "Westminster elite"...).

Now, might not that be sufficient threat or inducement, if perceived to be a sufficiently genuine risk, to mobilise conservative minded voters into attempting to deliver an outright Con majority?

The idea of Miliband and Salmond together at the helm frankly terrifies me; much more so that Miliband alone.

I agree with your opinion of Miliband + Salmond vs Miliband alone. However I agree with Hitchens that the Conservative party as it is needs to fail until it falls to bits. Too many unthinking voters (probably at least half of their support) blindly think they vote for a conservative Conservative party. Cameron even had the audacity to have an all-woman primary for the Rochester by-election FFS.

[Esseesse]

Zod said:

Scuffers said:

problem is having watched the newsnight interview, it made no mention of most of this, and certainly not about turnover TAX, he was basically saying something needs to be done about multi-national tax evaders that does not then impact on SME's.

Interviewer then went off on one about Nissan, which was a bit odd...

UKIP said:

– UKIP will set up a Treasury Commission to design a turnover tax to ensure big businesses pay a minimum floor rate of tax as a proportion of their UK turnover.

Ooo-err. They do need to resolve that, as it stands it's open ended and most of the ends are undesireable in my mind.

ETA: Apparently it costs something like 20% for a big company to do business in the UK, 18% in Switzerland. I don't know if it's the answer because other places may be much lower, but getting down to Switzerland levels of competitiveness could surely be good? Would go down like a lead balloon to a large chunk of the population though I suspect.

[anonymous-user]

Esseesse said:

I agree with your opinion of Miliband + Salmond vs Miliband alone. However I agree with Hitchens that the Conservative party as it is needs to fail until it falls to bits. Too many unthinking voters (probably at least half of their support) blindly think they vote for a conservative Conservative party. Cameron even had the audacity to have an all-woman primary for the Rochester by-election FFS.

It doesn't though - the Republicans in the US went through a period of commentators wondering whether they had a future as a single party; then came the Tea Party. Now look at them. Control of both houses, and a good run at the White House in 2016.

In the six months between now and the next GE, the Cons won't self destruct and UKIP or an evolution thereof won't step into their place. What the Miliband/Salmond/Balls hydra might do though is peel some voters from UKIP and push them back to the Cons, as well as mobilising some of the lost Con core support.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that.

[Esseesse]

Greg66 said:

Esseesse said:

I agree with your opinion of Miliband + Salmond vs Miliband alone. However I agree with Hitchens that the Conservative party as it is needs to fail until it falls to bits. Too many unthinking voters (probably at least half of their support) blindly think they vote for a conservative Conservative party. Cameron even had the audacity to have an all-woman primary for the Rochester by-election FFS.

It doesn't though - the Republicans in the US went through a period of commentators wondering whether they had a future as a single party; then came the Tea Party. Now look at them. Control of both houses, and a good run at the White House in 2016.

In the six months between now and the next GE, the Cons won't self destruct and UKIP or an evolution thereof won't step into their place. What the Miliband/Salmond/Balls hydra might do though is peel some voters from UKIP and push them back to the Cons, as well as mobilising some of the lost Con core support.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that.

I agree with what you suggest may happen come GE. Also, I was not suggesting the bolded section would or could occur any time soon. Whilst the Tory party possibly could be steered the right way, I feel that it would take significant time for the Conservatives to become conservative, as it seems to me that those at the top are fiercely liberally minded.

I'm not very familiar with the details of the goings on in the US. Would a Republican president truly roll back the state and make the USA significantly more competitive? Or have the Republicans just changed their language in the same way Cameron talks tough on the EU?

[handpaper]

Greg66 said:

Esseesse said:

I agree with your opinion of Miliband + Salmond vs Miliband alone. However I agree with Hitchens that the Conservative party as it is needs to fail until it falls to bits. Too many unthinking voters (probably at least half of their support) blindly think they vote for a conservative Conservative party. Cameron even had the audacity to have an all-woman primary for the Rochester by-election FFS.

It doesn't though - the Republicans in the US went through a period of commentators wondering whether they had a future as a single party; then came the Tea Party. Now look at them. Control of both houses, and a good run at the White House in 2016.

In the six months between now and the next GE, the Cons won't self destruct and UKIP or an evolution thereof won't step into their place. What the Miliband/Salmond/Balls hydra might do though is peel some voters from UKIP and push them back to the Cons, as well as mobilising some of the lost Con core support.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that.

Or there could be a Conservative revolution on the Canadian model, where an insurgent Right-wing movement destroyed the incumbent before absorbing its remnants and winning office.
Well, we can dream, can't we

[jogon]

handpaper said:

Or there could be a Conservative revolution on the Canadian model, where an insurgent Right-wing movement destroyed the incumbent before absorbing its remnants and winning office.
Well, we can dream, can't we

Express reporting a potential 6 Tory MPs will defect if Reckless wins on Thursday. One can only hope!

[The Hypno-Toad]

jogon said:

handpaper said:

Or there could be a Conservative revolution on the Canadian model, where an insurgent Right-wing movement destroyed the incumbent before absorbing its remnants and winning office.
Well, we can dream, can't we

Express reporting a potential 6 Tory MPs will defect if Reckless wins on Thursday. One can only hope!

Well as he appears to be almost a dead cert, the end of the week will be interesting. With that many going at the same time (and who knows maybe the odd Labour one as well.) surely there will be calls to call an election early?

[jogon]

The Hypno-Toad said:

Well as he appears to be almost a dead cert, the end of the week will be interesting. With that many going at the same time (and who knows maybe the odd Labour one as well.) surely there will be calls to call an election early?

I don't think they will all come at once but will be drawn out one by one to create mass hysteria amongst the Tory ranks. Will be joyous to watch.

Although the icing on the top will be the first Lab defection. Then the fun really begins!

[Mr_B]

Looks like there's going to be a house price crash in Rochester soon if you believe the Tory party spin. If that's not loon enough, they are also playing Labour's usual card of ' don't vote for the old Oxford educated boy ' - the Tory party trying that line !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/1123...

[Esseesse]

Mr_B said:

Looks like there's going to be a house price crash in Rochester soon if you believe the Tory party spin. If that's not loon enough, they are also playing Labour's usual card of ' don't vote for the old Oxford educated boy ' - the Tory party trying that line !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/1123...

Amazing, from the largest party in the UK at the last GE.

The Conservatives and Labour need a reason for being. They've either succeeded in or conceded all of their traditional ambitions long ago. If they had some ambition you might hear them campaign positively for something tangible for once, as it stands their only ambition is to get bums on seats.

[FiF]

Esseesse said:

Greg66 said:

Assume for the time being that, as seems likely, the SNP would not support the Cons in those circumstances. The country might end up with a Lab/SNP coalition, conceivably with one A Salmond as deputy PM (oh, the irony, after his grating use of the phrase "Westminster elite"...).

Now, might not that be sufficient threat or inducement, if perceived to be a sufficiently genuine risk, to mobilise conservative minded voters into attempting to deliver an outright Con majority?

The idea of Miliband and Salmond together at the helm frankly terrifies me; much more so that Miliband alone.

I agree with your opinion of Miliband + Salmond vs Miliband alone. However I agree with Hitchens that the Conservative party as it is needs to fail until it falls to bits. Too many unthinking voters (probably at least half of their support) blindly think they vote for a conservative Conservative party. Cameron even had the audacity to have an all-woman primary for the Rochester by-election FFS.

Agreed with the view of a Lab-SNP full coalition or even a confidence and supply agreement, although the latter tend to lead, in my view , towards a ineffective and powerless administration battered from pillar to post, which is the last thing we need.

Mike Smithson points out that whilst the latest poll snapshots suggest Labour virtual annihilation down to 1-5 seats dependent upon pollster it's not as simple as that.

Firstly there aren't that many Lab-SNP marginals.

Secondly just as in England you need to drill down to constituency level to get a true picture. Ashcroft has a constituency level poll in the pipeline but either way it doesn't look good for the Cons.

Unfortunately I also agree with the view that what's needed is the Conservative to discover itself again and that may welI involve a period of failing until it falls apart. When it does reestablish something worth voting for it will be nothing like Cameron has produced. Good riddance.

[BGARK]

http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people

Surely the only people that disagree with these policies are those employed or involved in areas that would be affected?

[PRTVR]

FiF said:

Agreed with the view of a Lab-SNP full coalition or even a confidence and supply agreement, although the latter tend to lead, in my view , towards a ineffective and powerless administration battered from pillar to post, which is the last thing we need.

Mike Smithson points out that whilst the latest poll snapshots suggest Labour virtual annihilation down to 1-5 seats dependent upon pollster it's not as simple as that.

Firstly there aren't that many Lab-SNP marginals.

Secondly just as in England you need to drill down to constituency level to get a true picture. Ashcroft has a constituency level poll in the pipeline but either way it doesn't look good for the Cons.

Unfortunately I also agree with the view that what's needed is the Conservative to discover itself again and that may welI involve a period of failing until it falls apart. When it does reestablish something worth voting for it will be nothing like Cameron has produced. Good riddance.

But things are different now, what is a labour marginal, Haywood would not have been considered a marginal, but ended up close run race, this time round I do not think we can look to the past to predict the future.

[Esseesse]

FiF said:

Unfortunately I also agree with the view that what's needed is the Conservative to discover itself again and that may welI involve a period of failing until it falls apart. When it does reestablish something worth voting for it will be nothing like Cameron has produced. Good riddance.

Cameron's popularity is a dead cat bounce.