Barking mad I would say Mr Wilde. Why bother to have an NEC?Originally Posted by Tom Wilde
Barking mad I would say Mr Wilde. Why bother to have an NEC?
Trying or not trying the effect of what he is doing is to improve the Tory chances. Once a Tory always a Tory.
That's sensible. Cameron is beyond help. We want to speak to the real Tories and help them to develop anti-EU credentials.
Capitalist Class Hero
Richard Allen: Do you seriously believe that UKIP will be any part of a 'hung parliament? Should the Conservatives win; that could be made possible be Northern Ireland MPs' in some form of coalition (formal/informal). Perhaps Lib-Dems, in exchange for electoral reform: which they will get, could ensure office for either Conservatives or Labour. UKIP can only affect voting patterns in a few constituencies; that will be their only contribution. That will be done in two ways; by not splitting the votes in certain constituencies by UKIP withdrawing completely from the electoral process. In others it will be sheer 'theatre'; UKIP candidates will not harm Labour; while they could assist the Conservatives in some constituencies. I have been preaching for years that the Conservatives are now a south of the M4 party. That is the same geographical area were UKIP is strong. UKIP should have shunned all arrangements with the Conservatives. This is gerrymandering at its most obscene. Should a hung parliament result in Labour constructing some kind of coalition, UKIP will have no moral authority or credibilty as future custodians of the cause. I can see how we can lose, but how can we possibly win?
Richard, three or four seats could make the difference between a Tory outright majority or not, so I completely fail to see how giving up seats for the Tories forces a hung parliament. IF Pearson is serious about forcing a hung parliament then quite clearly UKIP should be fighting for EVERY seat REGARDLESS of the supposed EU credentials of the opposing Tory candidate.
As I said I disagree with the strategy.
The point is that as well as securing a hung parliament it is also important to have as many anti-EU MP's as possible in order to take advantage of the situation.
Yes, I've been wondering that.
The strategy is NOT necessarily to have a hung parliament, the latter is a by-product of the likely political situation as it happens to be presently with the polls.
The strategy is to have as many committed anti-EU elements in parliament in the House of Commons as is possible. If you accept this premise, the rest follows logically.
Hence there is no point in removing the handful of already committed anti-EU MPs who are already there; or removing with competition any fully committed anti-EU candidates of any party.
Your comments are directed to the Conservatives: we are interested in Labour candidates too.
I don't expect any Lib Dims to be involved as they are all fully committed to giving Britain away fully and completely over to the EU. In fact they have a bloody cheek standing at all - anywhere - as they are total hypocrites wanting to be in parliament as MPs when they want to give away all the powers of parliament to the EU.
DED.
The NEC is to manage the best interests of the party: and to support the Leader; which is a part of that where they agree with the Leader.
I should have thought that was blindingly obvious.
DED
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks