John Redwood has always seemed to me to be a reasonable sort of chap, for a politician. Okay, there's rather a lot of the 'Live long and prosper' about him but that's only fair since Labour have Captain Kirk on their side. All we need now is 'It's worse than that, he's dead, Jim' from a Lib Dem and 'She cannae tak' much more o' this' from an SNP guy and we have the set. Unfortunately the one we are most likely to hear is Chekov stating 'Course set and locked, Captain'. Again.
This, though, is just stupid. Even for a politician from another world.
Could UKIP supporters explain why it helped to prevent Eurosceptic Conservatives winning in 21 seats, so giving us a a more pro EU Parliament?
Spock complains that you terrible UKIP voters insisted on voting for the party you wanted to win rather than the one he wanted to win. What happened to logic? What happened to democracy? Is this, or is it not, a case of ordering people to vote as instructed and then berating them for not doing so?
One of his commenters thinks it is time for UKIP to disband because they are taking Tory votes. They are not taking Tory votes.
Tories are losing them.
Tories are losing votes because of that cast-iron guarantee on Lisbon. Tories are losing votes because they talk of civil liberties while talking about controls on eating and drinking. Tories are losing votes because of that Ban that Dare Not Speak Its Name. There are many reasons the Tories don't have a majority and UKIP is not one of them.
Yes, Tories, you have made it clear that you hate smokers, drinkers, fat people, climate heretics, people who don't want to give more money to the EU and many more.
Then you whine when we don't vote for you. You whine even more when we vote for a party that doesn't hate us.
It can all be summed up in one short word, really.
LISTEN.
Can you? Will you even try?
Or are you waiting for the flaming brands and pitchforks?
12 comments:
Mmm. Perhaps this lot are so up themselves a mob carrying flaming torches and pitchforks would be greeted with; "Goodness! Folk dancing. How quaint."
I think they are struggling with the fact that whilst many of the grass roots in the party are EUsceptic, the leadership plainly isn't. It's the leadership that caused many to vote UKIP despite the fact they wanted rid of Jonah, they clearly didn't want iDave instead.
In America they call them RINOs, Republicans In Name Only - because they don't stand up for American constitutional or conservative values anymore, namely liberty, freedom, justice, truth, sovereignty, the constitution, etc. They run across the aisle to play footsie with the lefties. So we call them RINOs. Maybe yours are TINOS, Tory In Name Only, otherwise just the same as the ones they claim to be different than then sore when people of their party jump ship and won't support them at the polls. I do like the idea of The Ban That Dare Not Speak Its Name. It sounds a lot like masturbation used to be thought of, only today it's smoking instead - the Big Taboo - everyone hide your eyes - run in fear.
And to think - about a year back in the Sun the Torys posted a trial balloon called The Freedom Charter - and amongst it were several items, one of which was an amendment to the smoking ban. Hopes sprang high. Then the trial balloon was forgotten - and now this. They could have won an election just by making a last minute announcement reviving that trial balloon of theirs from about a year back. Nobody courted the smoky-drinky vote and as a result, the parties threw votes away that could have resulted in a majority.
Bill Sticker - reminds me of something from a few years back.
QM - good point. The Cameroid is ruling from a central clique, in much the same way the Blur did, and it's still not a good way to do things. One day he might see it but by then he won;t be leader.
Anon 1 - TINOs, that's a good one.
Anon 2 - yes, they threw away a lot of votes by telling us that we are despised.
Then they bleated about us not voting for them.
They just won't see it.
Thanks for the link, most interesting.
I always thought spock lived in the real world - what an eye-opener that article was!
Okay spock where do I put my cross? 'cos I just know that you know what's best for me.
In the comments I see someone saying Hague was going to be tougher on Europe, until us pesky kids messed it up - WTF!
So Hague's so politically incompetent that:
a) he sat on a major reason his party might have got more votes
b) is lying
c) completely misjudges the importance of the issue
d) is in the wrong party
Do they not see that WE DON'T BELIEVE THEM. I only voted against the worst option by voting contory out of deperation.
Spock doesn't understand that a large part of the electorate isn't too stupid to vote for his party, WE DON'T LIKE THE POLICIES AND DON'T TRUST THE SPOKES WEASELS.
I know he's somewhat odd, but Farage seems to be the only guy facing up to the issues.
Spock, Hannen et al seem to want to do the right thing, but to get anywhere they're forced into the tory party, which means that they're not going to get anywhere.
I construed John Redwood's piece to be based on the presumption that UKIP's votes come almost entirely from those for whom the single most important issue is withdrawal from the EU.
Obviously UKIP offers a range of policies far outside mere EU membership, but that is not necessarily why they get votes. I have no way of knowing this but my suspicion is that their votes come almost entirely from the "we must get out of the EU regardless of other policy" camp.
If I am correct, then John Redwood's central argument must also be correct. The UKIP vote would either stay at home or would be cast for the most anti-EU candidate on offer.
To put-up a UKIP candidate against an avowed withdrawalist would be perverse because it is fair to presume UKIPers would vote for the withdrawalist and increase his chance of getting in.
To put one up against an EU sceptic would have the same effect, but probably to a lesser degree because some UKIPers would stay at home rather than vote for a sceptic if there is no withdrawalist on offer.
None of this deals with those who voted Conservative but would not have done so had they advocated a withdrawalist agenda. No one can tell how many of them exist, but if you find a Tory vegetarian you might be on the right track.
FB,
'his' party made it's offer and shat on UKIP's offer to stand down.
the public took a look and voted according to available options.
I didn't and don't believe that the tories alone, or in coalition, will take a tough enough stand on europe - they were note worth voting _for_.
As a matter of fact to try and get rid of my local laba media lovey, I used the tories. Will not happen again.
Spock doesn't get to piss and moan, his party should have had some credible policies on europe, broadcast them and been believed - FAIL, FAIL, FAIL
I encourage Spock and the tories to find / make / move a party worth voting for. Getting rid of iDave would be a great start - cast iron prat that he is.
It was the broken cast iron guarantee that did it for me.
Up until then I had believed he was a man of principle and for the people.
Then he just went and showed he was just like the rest of the bunch - in it for the power and prestige.
We don't call ours TINO's or anything like that. Ours are Completely Unconservative Non Tories.
As for blaming me for voting UKIP, if they hadn't called me a nutter and flat-earther for failing to believe in the Climate Catastrophe fairy tale, I might have considered voting for them.
Post a Comment