Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
That's why we need a stong Conservative Government in 2015, so we can have an in/out referendum. UKIP will never get enough seats to form a Government, so they will not be able to pull us out.
I agree with all the policies of UKIP, but want David Cameron to support them too.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Just to confuse things even more we have UKIP and the reds joining forces to bash Dave over benefits to migrants.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/29/david-cameron-illegal-immigrants-find-you-send-homeGuest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Roger in #21 summarises everything that's wrong with British politics. Roger gets very sensitive and thinks I get personal which is unfortunate, but that post sums up the disaffection with politicians. In my brief sojourn into politics the recurring message I hear is "conviction politicians" ie a desire from the public for politicians to say what they mean and mean what they say. Roger is saying:
I agree wholeheartedly with UKIP but I'm voting tory because I'm a tribalist.
What's worse, he is paid from the public purse, the electorate have every right to question his motives based on his post above. Is he simply doing it for the money? Because he's not acting out of principle.
Roger, my plea to you (and let's be honest there's millions like you, including your colleagues at DDC) is to examine your conscience and ask yourself what Cameron's Tories represent. He is as far from UKIP as is possible, you know that perfectly well.
You lay yourself open to criticism if you decide to sheepishly, slavishly, vote for a set of ideals you fundamentally disagree with.
I'm very happy to meet up and discuss if you wish.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
David - I wholeheartedly support the local Conservative ideals, especially Paul Watkins as Leader. I do have a problem with some of the things at Government level, but then I'm sure that every Conservative and Labour person is the same with their own party, to me it has nothing to do with "tribalism". We also have a coalition, so have been hampered introducing better policies.
I am not a Councillor for the money; for around £65.00 a week take home, you must be joking. We (Councillors) have had, I think, 3 pay-freezes , when the body that investigates Councillors pay, said we should have quite a pay-rise; we've also had a pay-cut and I have not claimed any travel or any other expenses for a number of years, so, doing it for the money, certainly not
Roger
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Fair enough, you're not in it for the money, I'll assume you agree with the rest.
Lets be straight here Roger, next year you'll be campaigning for a manifesto you fundamentally disagree with, which is why I asked you to examine your conscience. Look at Cameron's latest pathetic posturing on migrant benefits, only fools believe him.
Cuts in the border force, freedom of movement, no grammar schools, police cuts, armed forces cuts, foreign aid, everything you disagree with is what Cameron's tories stand for.
I'll be reminding the electorate of that until next May.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
We get all these stories going around about councillors coining it in but district councillors get less than jobseeker's allowance unless they have special responsibilities, whilst town councillors get about 9 quid a week.
County councillors get a basic £12,805 plus travel expenses yet are mostly unaccountable.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You don't know what will be in a manifesto David.
Political adults accept the need to have a compromise political programme if it wants to get into government. No Party will ever produce a manifesto everyone supporting it can agree with 100% - specially a serious party seeking to govern.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Thank you Barry.
Roger
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Yes but Barry I know what WON'T be in the manifesto based on 4 years evidence.
Gove had the chance to open a new Grammar School in Kent - didn't.
Cameron had the chance of a referendum - didn't.
Shall I mention govt spending at record levels, cuts to police, border force and armed forces, HS2, tuition fees, Andy Coulson, Juncker etc.etc
Let's face it Barry, Cameron couldn't win a majority from the worst PM in history (to use your expression) and he's behind Milliband in the polls. You two are nice blokes which makes your blind loyalty to a disastrous PM all the more puzzling. The hardest thing in life is to admit you were wrong, why you continue to place your faith in the PM is beyond me.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
couldn't win a 1 ticket raffle,
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
BarryW wrote:You don't know what will be in a manifesto David
Barry, one hurdle Cameron has to get over is his "cast-iron guarantee" that there would be a referendum after the last election. It's no good saying we had to ditch it because of the coalition, if it was that "cast-iron" it should have been non-negotiable in the coalition agreement.
Voters will now have problems believing anything he says about a referendum this time round, and it will be thrown back at him by the other parties in the run-up to the election.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Ray that is simple and UKIP are deliberately being disingeneous in saying he promised a referendum. That referendum 'cast iron' guarantee was whether we should ratify the Lisbon Treaty. The problem was that the Treaty ended up being ratified before Cameron was elected (during the campaign in fact) so quite obviously a vote on ratification was no longer relevant.
What was never promised, rightly, was an in/out referendum. We need to get out of the EU and that is too important to be left to a shallow in/out leap in the dark that if it went wrong would lock us into the EU forever more. What is needed is an alternative vision for us outside the EU to put to a vote not that leap in the dark.
David - you are sounding quite desperate and you know what I have said about each of those matters and why.... This is not a matter of faith in the PM this election, like every election is about getting the least bad option and above all blocking the worse outcome. Everyone who votes for you will be making it more likely that the worse option, a Labour led government, gets elected.
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
Barry, of course a vote on the ratification was relevant - given the shabby way the treaty was signed by Brown there should have been a vote on whether we wanted to withdraw from it and renegotiate from scratch, not having one left many (including myself) thinking of Cameron as a bit of a snake-oil salesman.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Barry, I am far from desperate, other than my desire to expose this govt.
The link I posted above shows quite clearly that your "Vote UKIP get labour" dogma is manifestly wrong, we are getting as many ex labour as ex tories.
But that, as you well know, hides the truth: this govt is so bad in so many ways that you have nothing positive to say about its record.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I have much to say positive - but remember, it is a coalition government not a Conservative one. If he was not in coalition Cameron could be better held to account as would be the case if he wins a majority in the next election. As it is we have a very muddied line of accountability and that is also the response to Ray.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Blaming the coalition is a poor response Barry, 5 to 1 says that the blues could have told Clegg many times to do as they are told or leave government.
Dave hid behind it because he is not a decision maker and is comfortable with having someone to blame.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Howard - there are many deal breakers that could have destropyed the coalition. Do not underestimate the Limpdem capacity fro self-destruction. It may have been better for the coalition to fall apart or if Cameron formed a minority government with an election he would have won in October 2010 but the situation is as we have now for better or worse they stuck with it and that meant giving too much away to Cleggs bunch.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Barry
I can remember you saying on here more than two years ago that it might be better to run as a minority government, the threat alone would have bought Clegg, Cable and the others to heel as they loved being part of the government - personal vanity etc.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I get a picture of a PM who is trying his best to reduce the adverse affect that migrant benefits is having on our economy.
He is going to have his work cut out with negotiating a better deal for Britain, but if he can't get a good enough deal, at least we'll have the referendum and be able to choose.
UKIP won't get enough seats to form a Government, no matter how optimistic they may be; Labour and LIbdems won't offer one, so the only sane and realistic choice is to vote Conservative.
I appreciate that you must try to rubbish the Tories in your efforts to be the MP for Dover and Deal next year David, but people will and probably do, see through it.
Don't forget that an MP is supposed to represent ALL the people in their constituency, not just those who voted for them and I get the distinct impression that you would not do that.
Roger
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Cameron is happily living in his own little dream world. Thinking he can save the planet from burning up, protecting us from hoardes of foreigners by negotiating with the EU (no laughing at the back please) and doing his level best to bring down major British companies by his reckless playing elder statesman on the world stage by way of sanctions over the Ukraine Russia crisis.
The man is a menace and I'd much rather give my vote, if I were to vote, to UKIP just to stick two fingers up at this man and his party of yes men.
As for electing labour by default through voting UKIP well that's the way the cookie crumbles folks.
How can anyone possibly live with themselves knowing that they've put a cross next to the word Conservative in the ballot box?
I know I couldn't.