Conservative UKIP merger

[JTG]

Precisely why beyond a few core aims, they'll still try to be all things to all men. Classic path of populism - attempts to move beyond this, to get ideological end in failure.

The Lib Dem theory

 

[Dillinger4]

I suspect they will lose votes once they have defined what they stand for. The ongoing process seems more internal party between the new libertarian/ "libertarian" wing and the rest. That's my impression anyway.

They will, it is only really this ongoing dialogue that makes them interesting. They will always have a small and solid demographic who will support them though. Those to the right of the current conservative party. Nigel Farage made a comment about UKIP being more than retired colonels living on the edge of the salisbury plain, but that demographic will give them a lot of support. Little Englanders.

 

[butchersapron]

We've covered that. I'm saying that a pact is effectively the same thing. Separate argument; take it on if you want, but you'll look silly.

Answer the question: do you genuinely believe that UKIP and the Conservative Party will continue to operate separately and to field candidates against each other in forthcoming council and Westminster elections for the next few years?

No, we haven't covered that, and no, it's not a separate argument, it's the only argument. You said that Farage would "merge if Tory policy on Europe went his way" - and have linked to a) someone else not saying that and b) Farage not saying that - Farage, in fact, saying something that means the opposite of what you claimed that he had said. This, on a thread about the possibility of a UKIP/tory merger - this is not some minor issue.

Your question has nothing to do with your claim - the one that i'm disputing, and is only there to allow you to say 'answer the question', but yes, UKIP will be independent going into the 2015 elections, there will be no electoral pact.

 

[butchersapron]

They will, it is only really this ongoing dialogue that makes them interesting. They will always have a small and solid demographic who will support them though. Those to the right of the current conservative party. Nigel Farage made a comment about UKIP being more than retired colonels living on the edge of the salisbury plain, but that demographic will give them a lot of support. Little Englanders.

And all them people voting for them. More than before.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

yes, UKIP will be independent going into the 2015 elections, there will be no electoral pact.

Fine, thank you. Two years to see who is right, then.

 

[butchersapron]

Fine, thank you. Two years to see who is right, then.

So, is this correct?

But anyway, Farage has said in the past that he'd merge if Tory policy on Europe went his way

 

[Maurice Picarda]

So, is this correct?

Okay: conservatives (whose agendas are mixed) claim that "senior kippers" would be pro-merger if the Tory policy on Europe changed. Farage has said in the past that Cameron and Europe are the obstacles to electoral pacts, which suggests that a pact is something he'd consider, and there is no practical difference between pacts and mergers given the relative capabilities and machinery of both parties.

A talent for hairsplitting may be useful in your strange little sectarian world, but it doesn't make you a particularly strong analyst of realpolitik.

 

[butchersapron]

Okay: conservatives (whose agendas are mixed) claim that "senior kippers" would be pro-merger if the Tory policy on Europe changed. Farage has said in the past that Cameron and Europe are the obstacles to electoral pacts, which suggests that a pact is something he'd consider, and there is no practical difference between pacts and mergers given the relative capabilities and machinery of both parties.

A talent for hairsplitting may be useful in your strange little sectarian world, but it doesn't make you a particularly strong analyst of realpolitik.

No, it suggests that he was asked about a pact. There is a huge difference between a UKIP/Tory electoral pact and an organisational merger - to not be able to see this throws your wider approach into doubt, notwithstanding attempts to portray yourself as a hardnosed pragmatist looking only at the realities - when you have to paint fantasy as fact and are unable to decode a simple interview, then you really aren't that real.

 

[Pickman's model]

Cameron's days are numbered.

you couldn't reduce their number i suppose

 

[Pickman's model]

UKIP are probably correct to think that David Cameron will do everything possible either not to have the referendum or to water it down somehow.

by losing the next general election he will, i feel, declare he has a good excuse not to have a referendum

 

[J Ed]

by losing the next general election he will, i feel, declare he has a good excuse not to have a referendum

Yeah I meant in the very unlikely event that he won it

 

[Corax]

Yeah I meant in the very unlikely event that he won it

I'm glad someone's confident of that. I sure as hell ain't atm.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm glad someone's confident of that. I sure as hell ain't atm.

After the local election results? Do you think they indicate anything but a labour majority? I really don't see how.

 

[J Ed]

I'm glad someone's confident of that. I sure as hell ain't atm.

What difference does it make anyway? Blue Labour/Purple Labour/One Nation Labour/Big Society Labour won't even symbolically oppose workfare in opposition, would things really be that much better with Ed as PM?

 

[Corax]

What difference does it make anyway? Blue Labour/Purple Labour/One Nation Labour/Big Society Labour won't even symbolically oppose workfare in opposition, would things really be that much better with Ed as PM?

Not much, but it might be the difference between being kicked in the bollocks and having your head stamped on. Maybe.

 

[ViolentPanda]

We've covered that. I'm saying that a pact is effectively the same thing. Separate argument; take it on if you want, but you'll look silly.

Merger: Absorption of one faction into another to present united policy front. See SDP and Liberal parties.
Pact: Time-limited contractual agreement by separate factions for mutual benefit.

Not "effectively the same thing", then. The later is inherently limited, the former is not.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Fine, thank you. Two years to see who is right, then.

And when you're wrong, you'll probably appeal for another name-change.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What difference does it make anyway? Blue Labour/Purple Labour/One Nation Labour/Big Society Labour won't even symbolically oppose workfare in opposition, would things really be that much better with Ed as PM?

I propose the name "One Motion Labour", so they can point up the fact they're full of lying neoliberal shits.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Merger: Absorption of one faction into another to present united policy front. See SDP and Liberal parties.
Pact: Time-limited contractual agreement by separate factions for mutual benefit.

Not "effectively the same thing", then. The later is inherently limited, the former is not.

Can you find me an example of any two parties which have formed an electoral pact and subsequently retained separate, distinct and competing identities?

 

[J Ed]

Can you find me an example of any two parties which have formed an electoral pact and subsequently retained separate, distinct and competing identities?

The PSOE and the PSC in Spain

 

[butchersapron]

Can you find me an example of any two parties which have formed an electoral pact and subsequently retained separate, distinct and competing identities?

Is this a serious question? The political landscape of europe is littered with examples.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

The PSOE and the PSC in Spain

Oh, come on, that's just an issue around Catalan separatism. It's like the difference between Labour and Scottish Labour.

 

[where to]

Can you find me an example of any two parties which have formed an electoral pact and subsequently retained separate, distinct and competing identities?

Front de gauche in France, ongoing pact between French communist party and others.

French Greens and socialists have pacts come election time too.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Is this a serious question?

Yes: as long as they are nationally operating parties in an FPTP system.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Can you find me an example of any two parties which have formed an electoral pact and subsequently retained separate, distinct and competing identities?

Besides Labour and the Liberal parties, c. 1970s?

 

[where to]

Almost all major Italian parties are in electoral pacts too.

Edit: and non electoral.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Front de gauche in France, ongoing pact between French communist party and others.
.

The "ongoing" rather proves the point, doesn't it?

 

[butchersapron]

Yes: as long as they are nationally operating parties in an FPTP system.

Amazing are't you? Do they have to be called UKIP and Conservative and Unionist too?

 

[J Ed]

Oh, come on, that's just an issue around Catalan separatism. It's like the difference between Labour and Scottish Labour.

The Greens in the Spanish Izquierda Unida and the Portuguese CDU retain an independent identity. There are quite a few examples...

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Besides Labour and the Liberal parties, c. 1970s?

You have the advantage of having been in long trousers at the time, but surely that was a parliamentary agreement rather than an electoral one?