Daily Mail Questions I Should Answer

Are the 'swivel-eyed cranks and fruitcakes' about to take revenge?

Oh, I do hope so.

Not for the "swivel-eyed cranks and fruitcakes" line. It's always good to see petty insults as it shows an opponent has run out of coherent arguments.

I want to see the Conservatives lose office by UKIP splitting their vote because of the lies and disinformation they spread about AV. To see them defeated by a system of their own choosing (when AV would have given them an election win) will be absolutely fucking glorious.

And there's not really much Cameron can do until close to election time. He needs to keep the Lib Dems on side and making pro-referendum noises just isn't going to work.

John Redwood Needs to Get His Facts Straight

From John Redwood's Diary (10th Dec 2011)

The government can often ignore rebellions as it has a large inbuilt majority. So far it has not mattered if  30,40 or even 81 Conservative MPs defy the whips on the EU, because Labour has always been there to swell the government’s vote, or has abstained, leaving the government with enough votes to do the business.

Back in May 2010, John Redwood wrote the following:-

Could UKIP supporters explain why it helped to prevent Eurosceptic Conservatives winning in 21 seats, so giving us a a more pro EU Parliament?

So, back in 2010 he suggested that these 21 would have been Eurosceptics, but is now saying that had they achieved a majority that Cameron would have had enough people to get this legislation through parliament? Doesn't that mean that those 21 wouldn't have actually been eurosceptics, then?


Redwood has exposed the great lie about the Conservatives which is that they not fundamentally a Eurosceptic party. He is saying that Cameron wanted the treaty and would have got it through parliament, except for a few backbenchers. 


So, let us be clear: on Europe there is little difference between Labour and the Conservatives, when it comes to action. If you want a referendum, best to vote UKIP (who it seems you can now thank for serendipitously blocking our entry into this treaty).

Barnsley Central, UKIP, AV and Duverger

I've been giving some thought to the result in Barnsley Central, and what it all means.

One important fact is that turnout was way down on the election. This perhaps reflects the fact that by-elections are often protests against the sitting government and that it wasn't going to affect the math in parliament.

The reason I think that UKIP came 2nd was partly that they worked so hard, but also that people knew that they didn't have to vote tactically because it wouldn't change the status of the government. Win or lose, the LD/Con coalition was going to remain in place. So they could vote freely. UKIP doubled their vote and nearly tripled their share of the vote.

And if you look at EU elections, UKIP also score highly because with the PR system, people can vote freely.

This is, of course, why the 2 main parties are so against it. If they ever dramatically screw up (and the expenses scandal was such a screw up), people won't just think "he's a scumbag, but I'll vote for him because I don't want the opposite guy's party in", they'll find another party that they find nearly as agreeable and vote for them.

UKIP Power

Conservatives like Daniel Hannan and Conservative Home are suggesting that UKIP "lost" seats for the Conservatives. And enough seats that they don't get a majority.

Mathematically, if you add UKIP votes and Conservative votes then this is probably true. However, that's very simplistic. UKIP voters aren't necessarily inclined to vote Conservative. Personally, if there wasn't a UKIP candidate I'd probably have been more inclined to vote Lib Dem. There's very little in it between the 3 main parties but at least things like electoral reform are more likely to happen.

Seriously, there's huge gaps in policy between UKIP and the Conservatives. Yes, the Conservatives might be slightly smaller government than the Conservatives, but not by much. Over Europe, they're basically pro-EU whatever meally-mouthed things they say.

And seriously? You're blaming UKIP? In 2005 you had a leader who was likened to Nosferatu fighting against a charismatic politician in the middle of a boom, and you got 32.3% share of the vote. Fighting a terrible PM in one of the worst recessions ever, and you got 36.1% of the vote. Maybe you should look in the mirror and ask why you couldn't get people to vote for you.

Why You Should Vote UKIP

You could vote for them, but after reading today's Cameronbollocks about co-operatives, you might as well not. Vote UKIP. Even if Labour get in, it's not bad news.

Here's the situation:-

If you vote Conservative, you get David Cameron with his woolly grip on pseudo-Conservative / psuedo-LibDem of policies. He's barely going to dismantle the state and in 5 years time, might be kicked out and replaced with another Labour PM and 5 years of taking the economy into disaster.

Even if you vote UKIP and get a Labour MP, there are benefits. The main one is that Cameron will get the boot along with most of the lightweights in the shadow cabinet. We get a robust Conservative opposition to 5 years where Labour utterly destroy their credibility. But also, you register where you feel British politics will go.

Don't compromise... Vote UKIP.