Tuesday, January 09, 2007
One Month On... More Defections
The Times reports on more Conservative defections to UKIP. From the two Lords concerned it's perhaps in one way not surprising as both in 2004 "...urged voters to support UKIP".
Only a month since the last defections, this is more bad news for Cameron, it is my view that Conservative supporters tend to be conservative. We don't like change and messing about especially for no good reason. That being said, we're usually creatures of principle and if we find things unacceptable then there will be a conflict between loyalty and principle and everyone will have their personal tipping point where they can take no more.
The Times tells us that Lord Pearson "...has been a major party fundraiser..."; so potentially his defection might really hit where it hurts. Certainly he seems to think so: “If you are a big funder of the Conservative Party, you are likely to be frustrated with the current leadership, and I know quite a few who are. I don’t see why people who have been funding the Conservative Party for a long time shouldn’t put their country before the current leadership.”. That being said it appears the Conservatives will probably support state funding of political parties so it might not matter to them.
Notice that the less out of touch a party is the more likely it is to support state funding. Anyone who believes in their views, and believes in democracy will always be against state funding of parties. If the party is any good and represents people, then people will join it and give it money. Otherwise if it just panders to "policymakers and academics" - well its demise is imminent.
Of course there are the (particularly bad) platitudes that I shan't bother repeating, the only question is how much can Cameron stand? Is he going to start placating the party? Or is he going to do nothing and watch it haemorrhage to UKIP?
Where are Cameron's gains from Labour and Lib Dem MPs and Lords? Where are the increases in party membership?
The defections last month are starting to look like the warning shot they were described as. Cameron risks becoming the leader of an empty party.
Only a month since the last defections, this is more bad news for Cameron, it is my view that Conservative supporters tend to be conservative. We don't like change and messing about especially for no good reason. That being said, we're usually creatures of principle and if we find things unacceptable then there will be a conflict between loyalty and principle and everyone will have their personal tipping point where they can take no more.
The Times tells us that Lord Pearson "...has been a major party fundraiser..."; so potentially his defection might really hit where it hurts. Certainly he seems to think so: “If you are a big funder of the Conservative Party, you are likely to be frustrated with the current leadership, and I know quite a few who are. I don’t see why people who have been funding the Conservative Party for a long time shouldn’t put their country before the current leadership.”. That being said it appears the Conservatives will probably support state funding of political parties so it might not matter to them.
Notice that the less out of touch a party is the more likely it is to support state funding. Anyone who believes in their views, and believes in democracy will always be against state funding of parties. If the party is any good and represents people, then people will join it and give it money. Otherwise if it just panders to "policymakers and academics" - well its demise is imminent.
Of course there are the (particularly bad) platitudes that I shan't bother repeating, the only question is how much can Cameron stand? Is he going to start placating the party? Or is he going to do nothing and watch it haemorrhage to UKIP?
Where are Cameron's gains from Labour and Lib Dem MPs and Lords? Where are the increases in party membership?
The defections last month are starting to look like the warning shot they were described as. Cameron risks becoming the leader of an empty party.
Labels: Conservative Party
Friday, December 08, 2006
Oh Dear...
The Times reports here on some top Conservative defections to the UKIP. This is interesting because only yesterday I read a report supposedly from UKIP that some were indeed planned. It's always hard to know the truth in such cases, but this does at least show UKIP weren't simply "flying a kite".
The article concentrates on Tony Horton, who is a former constituency chairman to William Hague. Some of his quotes resonate with me, and no doubt to with many of my readers: "I didn’t leave the Conservative Party, the Conservative Party has left me...", and "It will become increasingly common. Most Conservatives are instinctively loyal, but there’s always a tipping point."
One conservative MP (unsurprisingly unnamed) is quoted: "This is undoubtedly a warning shot. Many people tempted to join UKIP are cast-iron Conservatives, but they must feel they have something to vote for. It is essential we keep on board traditional Tories." Well unnamed, your views are at odds with those of others, see The England Project here quoting from Iain Dale: "Cameron knows what the right knows. If the price of getting the extra two million votes needed to win an election is to lose a few thousand “scorched earthers” on the right, it’s a price he’s only too happy to pay. So far, he’s managed to keep the right on board despite trying its patience with his failure to deliver on withdrawing from the European People’s Party…", but it looks like it's slipping...
Another defector is quoted: "The way Cameron has led the party means I can’t be part of it, and there’s lots of people like me, ... He’s turned it into something indistinguishable from new Labour, so what’s the point?" Well indeed, and it's quite stupid too, the people who vote and like Labour as it is are never ever going to vote for the Conservatives, no matter what they do. These votes aren't available, which is why your strategy, Cameron is flawed.
Another defector says: "UKIP are now the only voice of opposition in this country, speaking up for all those who feel betrayed by the other parties." Returning to Mr Horton for a similar quote we have: "There is a real need in this country for a party of the Centre Right, and if the Conservative Party doesn’t want to fill it, there is inevitably a vacuum that UKIP will fill. If you want to vote green, there is a thriving Green Party. If you want to vote Liberal Democrat, there is a thriving Liberal Democrat Party." Both these quotes are ignoring any likely threat the BNP might pose, which is probably a mistake, I think it likely that many previous Labour voters will be tempted by a less racially orientated BNP, as they are very socialist after all.
The last quote in the article comes from Conservative headquarters: "UKIP is a party of the few dedicated to a single issue. The Conservative Party is the only political party that can replace this failing Labour Government." Well it won't be a party of the few dedicated to a single issue if disgruntled Conservatives get hold of it will it? It won't take too long to produce some sensible policies on crime, taxes, public spending, immigration and other important issues that the Conservative Party shies away from, and in any event at least they've got an issue, what issue have you got?
We're like Labour, but we're not Blair? You can't seriously expect to win an election with that.
The article concentrates on Tony Horton, who is a former constituency chairman to William Hague. Some of his quotes resonate with me, and no doubt to with many of my readers: "I didn’t leave the Conservative Party, the Conservative Party has left me...", and "It will become increasingly common. Most Conservatives are instinctively loyal, but there’s always a tipping point."
One conservative MP (unsurprisingly unnamed) is quoted: "This is undoubtedly a warning shot. Many people tempted to join UKIP are cast-iron Conservatives, but they must feel they have something to vote for. It is essential we keep on board traditional Tories." Well unnamed, your views are at odds with those of others, see The England Project here quoting from Iain Dale: "Cameron knows what the right knows. If the price of getting the extra two million votes needed to win an election is to lose a few thousand “scorched earthers” on the right, it’s a price he’s only too happy to pay. So far, he’s managed to keep the right on board despite trying its patience with his failure to deliver on withdrawing from the European People’s Party…", but it looks like it's slipping...
Another defector is quoted: "The way Cameron has led the party means I can’t be part of it, and there’s lots of people like me, ... He’s turned it into something indistinguishable from new Labour, so what’s the point?" Well indeed, and it's quite stupid too, the people who vote and like Labour as it is are never ever going to vote for the Conservatives, no matter what they do. These votes aren't available, which is why your strategy, Cameron is flawed.
Another defector says: "UKIP are now the only voice of opposition in this country, speaking up for all those who feel betrayed by the other parties." Returning to Mr Horton for a similar quote we have: "There is a real need in this country for a party of the Centre Right, and if the Conservative Party doesn’t want to fill it, there is inevitably a vacuum that UKIP will fill. If you want to vote green, there is a thriving Green Party. If you want to vote Liberal Democrat, there is a thriving Liberal Democrat Party." Both these quotes are ignoring any likely threat the BNP might pose, which is probably a mistake, I think it likely that many previous Labour voters will be tempted by a less racially orientated BNP, as they are very socialist after all.
The last quote in the article comes from Conservative headquarters: "UKIP is a party of the few dedicated to a single issue. The Conservative Party is the only political party that can replace this failing Labour Government." Well it won't be a party of the few dedicated to a single issue if disgruntled Conservatives get hold of it will it? It won't take too long to produce some sensible policies on crime, taxes, public spending, immigration and other important issues that the Conservative Party shies away from, and in any event at least they've got an issue, what issue have you got?
We're like Labour, but we're not Blair? You can't seriously expect to win an election with that.
Labels: Conservative Party
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
You Can't Fatten The Pig On Market Day
A personal tale - Dear readers, I have a sister, who whilst not being a rabid leftie, doesn't exactly see eye to eye with me politically. I could go further but shall merely point out that she "believes" in man made global warming, and likes the theatre and the world of luvvies that represents.
Last night my sister was enraged, no not by George Bush, but by the governments obesity plan. According to my sister, obese people will get free dance classes, fitness membership and other such things in order I suppose to help them conquer obesity. Of course the fact is that people are fat because they eat and drink too much in proportion to the physical exercise/work they do, but free work classes (perhaps mining (by hand) or breaking rocks) seem out of the question. I'd be the first to admit that even I could do to lose some inches around the waistline, but it's up to me and the fact it's there is my fault.
Despite gently pointing out that surely it was a case of: "from each according to their means to each according to their needs", and clearly obese people would benefit from these "free" activities. I was told that these people had brought their obesity on themseleves and it wasn't right the government should pay for their dance classes, when my sister (who isn't obese by the way) has to pay both for her own classes and now with her taxes for those of the obese as well.
I mention this by way of analogy, the votes of people like my sister, those who supposedly care for the environment, people who are a bit leftie, young people. This is the demographic that David Cameron is supposed to be aiming for, but these people aren't stupid and they're waking up to the reality of state sponsored profligacy - that the state is taking their money and dishing out to anyone and anything no matter how unworthy; and in many cases the more unworthy the better. By the time of the next election, these people will be crying out for a party that has sensible, workable policies that involve a far smaller state, with far less government spending and most importantly much less taxes. The Conservative Party should be in that position, with a history of making the case for tax cuts, every week the party should be identifying unnecessary and expensive government spending (quite an easy task) and committing to do away with it. So come the election, when asked where will the tax cuts come from you've got a great long list. In fact Labour won't even dare to ask the question.
As it is Cameron looks like sticking to the Blair formula, and even if he actually starts to realise what people want; it'll be too late for him. He won't have the policies, he won't have the history of the policies and he won't be able to make the case for any policy; not least because he's never done it.
If you put the spadework in now, then come election day, people will trust you, you'll have a history of supporting the policies they'll then want and you'll get the votes. Without the work, it'll be a scrawny Conservative pig at the market.
Last night my sister was enraged, no not by George Bush, but by the governments obesity plan. According to my sister, obese people will get free dance classes, fitness membership and other such things in order I suppose to help them conquer obesity. Of course the fact is that people are fat because they eat and drink too much in proportion to the physical exercise/work they do, but free work classes (perhaps mining (by hand) or breaking rocks) seem out of the question. I'd be the first to admit that even I could do to lose some inches around the waistline, but it's up to me and the fact it's there is my fault.
Despite gently pointing out that surely it was a case of: "from each according to their means to each according to their needs", and clearly obese people would benefit from these "free" activities. I was told that these people had brought their obesity on themseleves and it wasn't right the government should pay for their dance classes, when my sister (who isn't obese by the way) has to pay both for her own classes and now with her taxes for those of the obese as well.
I mention this by way of analogy, the votes of people like my sister, those who supposedly care for the environment, people who are a bit leftie, young people. This is the demographic that David Cameron is supposed to be aiming for, but these people aren't stupid and they're waking up to the reality of state sponsored profligacy - that the state is taking their money and dishing out to anyone and anything no matter how unworthy; and in many cases the more unworthy the better. By the time of the next election, these people will be crying out for a party that has sensible, workable policies that involve a far smaller state, with far less government spending and most importantly much less taxes. The Conservative Party should be in that position, with a history of making the case for tax cuts, every week the party should be identifying unnecessary and expensive government spending (quite an easy task) and committing to do away with it. So come the election, when asked where will the tax cuts come from you've got a great long list. In fact Labour won't even dare to ask the question.
As it is Cameron looks like sticking to the Blair formula, and even if he actually starts to realise what people want; it'll be too late for him. He won't have the policies, he won't have the history of the policies and he won't be able to make the case for any policy; not least because he's never done it.
If you put the spadework in now, then come election day, people will trust you, you'll have a history of supporting the policies they'll then want and you'll get the votes. Without the work, it'll be a scrawny Conservative pig at the market.
Tags: taxes, Conservatives, rights, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: Conservative Party, tax
Thursday, November 23, 2006
The World Turned Upside Down
The Telegraph reports here, from none other than Boris Johnson on Polly Toynbee.
For those of you readers unfamiliar with her may I suggest you repair to the Devil's Kitchen, Mr Eugenides, or UK Commentators, and search for the same. You will soon find she is a darling of the left and generally advocates some pretty (IMHO) stupid ideas. So even though it might be in the manner of kicking a cripple, in any mention of Toynbee we'd expect to see some kind of attack on her ideas especially from the Conservative Party.
Once upon a time indeed it would have been so, but in today's world turned upside down Boris Johnson sets about welcoming her into the Tory fold. Naturally he comments on her hypocrisy: "... the usual Labour snarling against fee-paying education, and selective education of all kinds. In reality, of course, she is the beneficiary of a highly selective education and also sent her own offspring to one of the most expensive and competitive public schools in the country, an establishment way beyond the means of most people."
"...her lovely second home in Italy, to which she doubtless repairs on so many cheapo flights that she has personally quilted the earth in a tea-cosy of CO2; to which I say, yes, it probably is wrong of Polly to keep calling for higher taxes when that would put such opportunities – for air travel to second homes – beyond the reach of millions slightly less fortunate than her ..."
Boris tells us no we must look to her fundamental behaviour: "At least she's renting the villa out at pretty keen rates" and "...maximised the opportunities of her own children."
Boris then goes on to praise her concern for those less fortunate (although he conveniently omits that some of these might be lazy, or playing the system), which is of itself a sop to socialism; they've just been unlucky after all, you know denied opportunity. Boris continues: "... And if you believe that there must always be winners and losers – as I do – then you must understand that a healthy society will do its best to look after the losers."
Well Boris that's all well and good, but this is the difference between you and I; maybe society should look after the "losers", but it shouldn't be compulsory. It shouldn't be done by the state, if you want to give 25%, or 50% or 100% of your money to look after the "losers", I won't stop you, but you have no right to say that I or anyone else should give up even a penny for them. I may chose to give privately and that is my choice, it is a personal thing; the state has no right to take what I or anyone else has earned and give it to some so called deserving or undeserving person who has fulfilled the state's criteria. Additionally you seem to think that all the hypocrisy is all right, well it isn't.
For reading your piece, I wonder who is in the wrong party, Toynbee or you?
For those of you readers unfamiliar with her may I suggest you repair to the Devil's Kitchen, Mr Eugenides, or UK Commentators, and search for the same. You will soon find she is a darling of the left and generally advocates some pretty (IMHO) stupid ideas. So even though it might be in the manner of kicking a cripple, in any mention of Toynbee we'd expect to see some kind of attack on her ideas especially from the Conservative Party.
Once upon a time indeed it would have been so, but in today's world turned upside down Boris Johnson sets about welcoming her into the Tory fold. Naturally he comments on her hypocrisy: "... the usual Labour snarling against fee-paying education, and selective education of all kinds. In reality, of course, she is the beneficiary of a highly selective education and also sent her own offspring to one of the most expensive and competitive public schools in the country, an establishment way beyond the means of most people."
"...her lovely second home in Italy, to which she doubtless repairs on so many cheapo flights that she has personally quilted the earth in a tea-cosy of CO2; to which I say, yes, it probably is wrong of Polly to keep calling for higher taxes when that would put such opportunities – for air travel to second homes – beyond the reach of millions slightly less fortunate than her ..."
Boris tells us no we must look to her fundamental behaviour: "At least she's renting the villa out at pretty keen rates" and "...maximised the opportunities of her own children."
Boris then goes on to praise her concern for those less fortunate (although he conveniently omits that some of these might be lazy, or playing the system), which is of itself a sop to socialism; they've just been unlucky after all, you know denied opportunity. Boris continues: "... And if you believe that there must always be winners and losers – as I do – then you must understand that a healthy society will do its best to look after the losers."
Well Boris that's all well and good, but this is the difference between you and I; maybe society should look after the "losers", but it shouldn't be compulsory. It shouldn't be done by the state, if you want to give 25%, or 50% or 100% of your money to look after the "losers", I won't stop you, but you have no right to say that I or anyone else should give up even a penny for them. I may chose to give privately and that is my choice, it is a personal thing; the state has no right to take what I or anyone else has earned and give it to some so called deserving or undeserving person who has fulfilled the state's criteria. Additionally you seem to think that all the hypocrisy is all right, well it isn't.
For reading your piece, I wonder who is in the wrong party, Toynbee or you?
Tags: Boris Johnson, Conservative Party, Socialists in disguise
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: Conservative Party
