Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Mantis]

Would the Tories and UKIP really be a 'coalition', wouldn't they just merge back into one?

They've never been "one" in the first place.

[villaajax]

In spirit they are

[bickster]

Would the Tories and UKIP really be a 'coalition', wouldn't they just merge back into one?

They've never been "one" in the first place.

So Nigel Farage was never a Tory activist, never even in the party that rejected him for a seat so he went off in a huff to UKIP, none of that ever happened. Bill Cash's son wasn't a Tory, Boris' right hand job man must have been in some other party, isn't there a by-election soon because someone left the Tory Party and another one not long after that. Farage apart thats just in the last week.

Seriously...

[bickster]

So why hasn't Cameron the balls to tell the world that Farage is an idiot? Instead he adopts the policies of the idiot, somethings not right there

It's not about balls it's just simple electoral strategy. Calling Farage out for what he is directly is just going to galvanise the UKIP vote and harm the Tories more in 2015.

Electoral strategy? Desperation? Clinging to power at all costs? No Conviction?

All synonyms in the political world these days

[Mantis]

 

 

So why hasn't Cameron the balls to tell the world that Farage is an idiot? Instead he adopts the policies of the idiot, somethings not right there

It's not about balls it's just simple electoral strategy. Calling Farage out for what he is directly is just going to galvanise the UKIP vote and harm the Tories more in 2015.

 

Electoral strategy? Desperation? Clinging to power at all costs? No Conviction?

All synonyms in the political world these days

 

These days? That's just politics full stop.

 

Cameron coming out with a scathing attack on Farage would still be a bad idea from a strategic point of view though. It would galvanise UKIP's supporters and play into their "Westminster is out to get us" message while most of the people the attack would resonate most with wouldn't vote Conservative anyway.

 

 

 

Would the Tories and UKIP really be a 'coalition', wouldn't they just merge back into one?

They've never been "one" in the first place.

 

So Nigel Farage was never a Tory activist, never even in the party that rejected him for a seat so he went off in a huff to UKIP, none of that ever happened. Bill Cash's son wasn't a Tory, Boris' right hand job man must have been in some other party, isn't there a by-election soon because someone left the Tory Party and another one not long after that. Farage apart thats just in the last week.

Seriously...

 

I must've missed the bit where I said there were no connections whatsoever.

 

Oh wait, I never actually said or implied that in the first place.

[GENTLEMAN]

Do you mean an electoral coalition or a government coalition?

I was thinking more in terms of government coalition. As things stand, I do not believe UKIP will accept an electoral coalition with the Tories as it gives them (UKIP) no political advantage.

 

If it's the latter then I don't support it. While it may save the loss of some Tory seats it would reinforce this myth that UKIP are just an offshoot of the Conservative Party and could potentially put off some swing voters. I don't think UKIP's current popularity will survive in the coming decades either - they're a protest vote and they'll get found out once they get a few MPs.

 

I have so many questions regarding this bizarre perspective that UKIP are not closely associated with the Conservative Party. If so, why would it harm the Tories if they stood up to Farage and UKIP as you have suggested? This refusal not to denounce UKIP infers there is an affinity between both the parties. Why is Cameron (and co) now adopting UKIP rhetoric and seemingly promoting similar beliefs? Why would Cameron be pandering to potential UKIP voters this aggressively? Why have two Tory MPs defected to UKIP? I am baffled.

 

No offense intended, but it is naïve to believe that both parties do not share common ideologies and values. Additionally, I am even more staggered that you regard this relationship as a “myth” with all the evidence available. Other posters have also mentioned Nigel’s relationship with the Tories. It is clear Cameron is following Farage right now, which must be very concerning to any Tory voter who actually dislikes UKIP. Who is to say Cameron’s pandering is not putting off swing voters too? All this suggests UKIP have grown from being a simple protest party to a genuine threat to the Tory share of the vote.

 

This is (politically) reminiscent of the disorganised Labour party of the 80s. It seems UKIP are splitting the Tory party from the inside. It will be very interesting to see how Cameron combats this movement, and then try to win a majority without relying on UKIP. In the end, I think UKIP and Conservatives will happily work together because they are fundamentally the same.

[Mantis]

I have so many questions regarding this bizarre perspective that UKIP are not closely associated with the Conservative Party. If so, why would it harm the Tories if they stood up to Farage and UKIP as you have suggested? This refusal not to denounce UKIP infers there is an affinity between both the parties. Why is Cameron (and co) now adopting UKIP rhetoric and seemingly promoting similar beliefs? Why would Cameron be pandering to potential UKIP voters this aggressively? Why have two Tory MPs defected to UKIP? I am baffled.

 

No offense intended, but it is naïve to believe that both parties do not share common ideologies and values. Additionally, I am even more staggered that you regard this relationship as a “myth” with all the evidence available. Other posters have also mentioned Nigel’s relationship with the Tories. It is clear Cameron is following Farage right now, which must be very concerning to any Tory voter who actually dislikes UKIP. Who is to say Cameron’s pandering is not putting off swing voters too? All this suggests UKIP have grown from being a simple protest party to a genuine threat to the Tory share of the vote.

 

This is (politically) reminiscent of the disorganised Labour party of the 80s. It seems UKIP are splitting the Tory party from the inside. It will be very interesting to see how Cameron combats this movement, and then try to win a majority without relying on UKIP. In the end, I think UKIP and Conservatives will happily work together because they are fundamentally the same.

 

I think you should read my posts on this a bit more carefully, because I've never once tried to claim that there's no connection at all, I just refute this notion put forward by some that the Conservatives and UKIP are basically the same. It seems you've simply misinterpreted my posts on this.

 

And I never said Cameron and the Tories shouldn't stand up to UKIP at all - on the contrary I think they should expose them for their complete lack of substance. However, given that there is an election coming up I think Cameron should be measured in his criticism and not appear to be too dismissive of them because as I said, this will play into their hands and just give them more ammunition and capitalise on the anti-Westminster feeling across the country.

 

They're not "fundamentally the same" and this is exactly my point. Yes they're clearly fairly close ideologically but that doesn't mean they could seamlessly form a coalition government. Not that it will ever happen but I think we'd see just as much bickering and infighting in a potential Conservative-UKIP coalition as we've seen with the current Lib Dem-Conservative coalition.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Mantis

[bickster]

Explain the differences between the two parties then as the Tories certainly became more swivel eyed loons as of yesterday

[Mantis]

Explain the differences between the two parties then as the Tories certainly became more swivel eyed loons as of yesterday

Go and read their websites. It's easier than me just copying and pasting the differences.

 

I think one of the reasons why many on here think that UKIP and the Tories are basically the same is because many on here (at least the ones that post in this thread) are quite left-wing and thus two right-wing parties are going to look pretty similar to them from their perspective. I still have no idea why VT is so left-wing compared to the general population but it's interesting how it affects perspectives.

 

Not that I'm claiming to be unbiased myself because I'm not - I just happen to have a bias that is rare on here.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Mantis

[villaajax]

Classic Tories are Blue, New Tories are yellow and purple.

 

One wants a flat rate of tax to help millionaires pay less while the other lot just believe in a good old fashioned tax cut.

[snowychap]

This refusal not to denounce UKIP infers there is an affinity between both the parties.

Implies not infers (it implies, you infer).

[bickster]

For the record, I'm a Conservative voter and I can't stand UKIP and would never consider voting for them.

Sorry Mantis this might seem like I'm picking on you, I'm not but whilst I was out working this morning the whole "I'm a *insert party here* voter" thing was wiring around my head. I just don't get it, this is politics not football. See like nearly all of us here I get the illogical tribalism associated with the game and after all it is only a game. I'm a Villa fan and I'll never like small heath but when it comes to politics, I don't get why so many people are like that. The whole idea of it suggests that people don't understand the policies, they don't look at the possible consequences of those policies on themselves and others, they just vote for the same party time and time again. (Not saying you're like this, Mantis but many are).

Lets just take this current debate on the Human Rights Act, do you think the Tories current new position is something you'd support? If not , why would you vote for a party that wanted to erode your rights so much? Would this or any issue make you change your mind over being a "Conservative Voter". I think the Tories next manifesto will represent a big shift to the right in comparison to the previous one for example, why would the people who voted for them last time still vote for them next time, given that the policies will be much different? Does the whole country change its opinion en masse? I don't think it does. I just don't get the political tribalism and the fact that people are like this and even describe themselves as such means that politicians a) have much less work to do to persuade us the people to vote for them and turns them all into the corrupt two faced f**kers we mostly know they are.

I guess what I'm saying is I wish people would actually think about who and why they vote for before they actually do it. Hold the buggers to account.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Small party appears.

Small party has Policy X.

Small party wins votes.

Large party wants those votes.

Large party takes Policy X.

Large Party wins votes.

[Mantis]

 

For the record, I'm a Conservative voter and I can't stand UKIP and would never consider voting for them.

Sorry Mantis this might seem like I'm picking on you, I'm not but whilst I was out working this morning the whole "I'm a *insert party here* voter" thing was wiring around my head. I just don't get it, this is politics not football. See like nearly all of us here I get the illogical tribalism associated with the game and after all it is only a game. I'm a Villa fan and I'll never like small heath but when it comes to politics, I don't get why so many people are like that. The whole idea of it suggests that people don't understand the policies, they don't look at the possible consequences of those policies on themselves and others, they just vote for the same party time and time again. (Not saying you're like this, Mantis but many are).

Lets just take this current debate on the Human Rights Act, do you think the Tories current new position is something you'd support? If not , why would you vote for a party that wanted to erode your rights so much? Would this or any issue make you change your mind over being a "Conservative Voter". I think the Tories next manifesto will represent a big shift to the right in comparison to the previous one for example, why would the people who voted for them last time still vote for them next time, given that the policies will be much different? Does the whole country change its opinion en masse? I don't think it does. I just don't get the political tribalism and the fact that people are like this and even describe themselves as such means that politicians a) have much less work to do to persuade us the people to vote for them and turns them all into the corrupt two faced f**kers we mostly know they are.

I guess what I'm saying is I wish people would actually think about who and why they vote for before they actually do it. Hold the buggers to account.

 

I said "I'm a Conservative voter" because they're the party that falls closest in line with my beliefs and as a result I tend to vote for them because of that. I'm also a pragmatic voter and live in an area where they always get a fairly large vote so I'd rather vote for their candidate in order to keep Labour out  rather than vote for a smaller party or independent that has no chance of winning. You're mistaken if you think I approach politics the same way I approach football - I don't support the party like I do Villa. Unless my political beliefs or the platform of the Conservative Party radically changes it's unlikely that they'll stop being the party closest to my views any time soon. I know exactly the type of people you're talking about when you mention tribalism but that simply isn't the case with me at all - I always look at what I'm voting for. You and most people on here probably don't agree with what I vote for but that doesn't mean I don't think hard about my vote - it's quit the opposite in fact. Each time I vote I weigh up the options.

 

I think you've simply misinterpreted my use of the phrase "I'm a Conservative voter", which admittedly I didn't really elaborate on. Let me just make it abundantly clear - I used that term because I'm right-wing on most issues and generally fall closest to the Conservatives than any other major party, hence why I vote for them. I'm certainly not a tribal voter and my vote is never set in stone.

 

I don't know enough about the Human Rights Act to say really, but I don't necessarily think it's simply about "eroding rights". I'd have to wait and see what a potential British bill of rights would contain. I don't think the next Conservative manifesto will be that much more right wing, rather I think it will contain more broad vote-winning policies, like the recently announced tax cut for example.

 

Once again, I agree with what you're saying on tribalism but don't for one second think I fall under that tribal voter bracket because I most definitely don't - I hate the tribal voter (from all parts of the political spectrum) and hate that many of them don't even have an interest in politics but just vote for one party out of habit.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Mantis

[bickster]

Why would you have wanted to keep Labour out in the last four elections then? They might as well have pictures of Thatcher tattooed on their butt cheeks, the differences between the two parties were absolutely minimal. The Libs (on paper at least) were more left wing than Labour. So why other than political tribalism would you want to keep them out, there were times when Labour's policies were more traditional right wing than the Tories, the whole financial services deregulation for starters, that one was right out of the Tories libertarian section's handbook. If you weigh up the issues, how come then you were prepared to vote for a left leaning Tory party over a much more right leaning Labour Party but this time in all likelihood will vote for a much further right leaning Tory party? I don't get that unless my analysis (which I seem to share with many others) of the respective parties policies is vastly different to yours

Next time I feel it will be different, Labour will sway slightly to the left, The Tories will lurch sharply to the right and the Libs will hold steady in the centre ensuring they keep their seats where the Tories are second, they've already resigned themselves to losing the seats where Labour is second. UKIP may take ten or so seats off the Tories, they won't take any from Labour despite what Farage hopes for.

The HRA nonsense isn't even about what the supposed Bill of Rights contains (or doesn't contain), the first major issue is where such a stance takes us. It forces us out of the Council of Europe, it forces us out of the EU (no referendum required they'll boot us! signing up to the HRA is a prerequisite of EU membership), it also seriously weakens our position on the world stage.

[Mantis]

Why would you have wanted to keep Labour out in the last four elections then? They might as well have pictures of Thatcher tattooed on their butt cheeks, the differences between the two parties were absolutely minimal. The Libs (on paper at least) were more left wing than Labour. So why other than political tribalism would you want to keep them out, there were times when Labour's policies were more traditional right wing than the Tories, the whole financial services deregulation for starters, that one was right out of the Tories libertarian section's handbook. If you weigh up the issues, how come then you were prepared to vote for a left leaning Tory party over a much more right leaning Labour Party but this time in all likelihood will vote for a much further right leaning Tory party? I don't get that unless my analysis (which I seem to share with many others) of the respective parties policies is vastly different to yours

Next time I feel it will be different, Labour will sway slightly to the left, The Tories will lurch sharply to the right and the Libs will hold steady in the centre ensuring they keep their seats where the Tories are second, they've already resigned themselves to losing the seats where Labour is second. UKIP may take ten or so seats off the Tories, they won't take any from Labour despite what Farage hopes for.

The HRA nonsense isn't even about what the supposed Bill of Rights contains (or doesn't contain), the first major issue is where such a stance takes us. It forces us out of the Council of Europe, it forces us out of the EU (no referendum required they'll boot us! signing up to the HRA is a prerequisite of EU membership), it also seriously weakens our position on the world stage.

I don't think Labour did a very good job of running the country and furthermore the Labour MP my seat used to have wasn't that good for the area either. New Labour may have been more right-wing than previously in certain areas but that doesn't mean I'm going to want them in power because a. their platform wasn't ideologically consistent and b. I'm not ideologically consistent - in some areas I'm stereotypically right-wing and in other areas I'm not. There's also more to parties than ideology and policy. I may agree with UKIP more than the Lib Dems policy-wise but due to how rabidly partisan UKIP are and their anti-establishment message (which doesn't resonate with me), not to mention the high proportion of fruitcakes they seem to have in their party, I'd vote for the Lib Dems over them. Tribalism has got **** all to do with it.

 

And yes, your analysis is probably quite a bit different to mine. As I said earlier VT is quite left-wing so the analysis of where the parties stand is often going to be quite different to someone like me who is looking at it from the right.

 

As I said, I don't know enough about the Human Rights Act and the legal side of all this to really have much of an opinion.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Mantis

[bickster]

VT is not left wing, it's full of Labour supporters FFS

[chrisp65]

I'm not convinced VT is left wing, I think there are the usual proportion of gobby lefties that love the sound of their own keyboard. There are slightly less outwardly tory types as they know the politics of greed and spite don't read well under analysis. But both sides are probably in single figures. Then there are the vast majority of VT posters that stay well clear of the politics bits.

[Mantis]

I'm not convinced VT is left wing, I think there are the usual proportion of gobby lefties that love the sound of their own keyboard. There are slightly less outwardly tory types as they know the politics of greed and spite don't read well under analysis. But both sides are probably in single figures. Then there are the vast majority of VT posters that stay well clear of the politics bits.

Yes, that's exactly the reason.

 

You're right in that most of VT probably steer clear of politics but of the ones that do engage with it on here there definitely seems to be a strong left-wing slant. I don't know if there'll be a poll for the general election but it'll be interesting to compare those results to the actual results.

[villaajax]

 

I'm not convinced VT is left wing, I think there are the usual proportion of gobby lefties that love the sound of their own keyboard. There are slightly less outwardly tory types as they know the politics of greed and spite don't read well under analysis. But both sides are probably in single figures. Then there are the vast majority of VT posters that stay well clear of the politics bits.

Yes, that's exactly the reason.

 

You're right in that most of VT probably steer clear of politics but of the ones that do engage with it on here there definitely seems to be a strong left-wing slant. I don't know if there'll be a poll for the general election but it'll be interesting to compare those results to the actual results.

 

 

A poll on the day or in the week of the election might be interesting. No need for discussion, just a simple VT exit poll.