coley
Well-Known Member
Aye Cameron's "cast iron guarantee"
Conservative UKIP merger
- Thread starter Maurice Picarda
- Start date
ha ha I haven't got a lot - I just think the British people should decide once and for all. Europe is costing us over £50 million a day. Do we get good value for that? I'm not at all sure.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
...Wäre es da
Nicht doch einfacher, die Regierung
Löste das Volk auf und
Wählte ein anderes?
coley
Well-Known Member
If I was a good little European I might have learnt German, but I ain't and I didn't.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Roughly: "wouldn't it be easier for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?". Brecht. Much of the best ideas originated in satire. Telescreens, for a start.
coley
Well-Known Member
I know, googled it
Nothing new in that. Reminds me of when the Freepers invaded the old Guardian boards en masse years ago. Sometimes I wonder if the same kind of thing is happening. I do post on there occasionally, but tbh most of the time I can't be arsed.
JHE
.
I believe that's part of UKIP's programme. From the BBC's summary of what UKIP stands for:
This prompts the question of what counts as a major issue (and I don't know what UKIP's answer would be or what yours would be), but I certainly agree there is a lot of scope for more referendums.
If we imagine an economy that has been socialised, in which planning is the dominant mode of economic co-ordination and in which planning is subordinate to democracy (something which UKIP would oppose, of course), referendums on key issues would take on a new importance. Most people do not want to spend their lives (or even several hours a week) taking part in meetings and voting on details, but key choices between alternative sets of objectives could and should be decided by referendum.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I'm surprised he didn't say "nasty" and "venal" too.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
And those.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Except, who gets to word the referendum question(s)?
Not wishing to transgress Godwins' Law, but the Nazi regime had referenda throughout their 12 years of rule. They were meaningless, because the government could manipulate the opinion any which way it liked, anyway.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Boris's 'Go home and prepare for breakfast' was better.
coley
Well-Known Member
It would have to be unambiguous to hold any value, do you want to remain part of the EU? Should hanging be reinstated for murder? should we sell Scotland? That kind of wording
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
I thought that the plan was to mutualise it.
coley
Well-Known Member
That's their plan
coley
Well-Known Member
It would make voting UKIP worthwhile
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
That would be the benefit for half of the parliamentary party and three-quarters of the activist base.
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
The Tories do have a history of ruthlessly getting rid of leaders, I can't understand why they haven't got rid of Cameron yet, 8 years in charge, couldn't beat a deeply unpopular incumbent government, now being bossed around by lib dems and racists , what does a man have to do to get sacked around here ?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Get busted for coke?
I mean, nobody, even if they did go to Eton, could make decisions as arrogantly stupid as him and Osbourne without a lot of help from Charlie.
I wonder if the Chipping Norton DS have the balls?
There's no obvious replacement for him atm, and anyway, I suspect even those who'd like to unseat Cameron are wary of the bloodletting it could unleash. He's toast if they don't win the next election though.
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
True, The might beast Ken Clarke is not the flavour of the month and wouldn't get the gig like Howard did, Osborne wouldn't, or Gove, possibly May?
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
It's tended, over the last 40 years or so, to be a surprise candidate who emerges. Cameron was the most obviously groomed and coronated Tory leader for quite a while.
Out of that list I'd say Theresa May is the most likely, and there've been a few hints she's thinking along those lines herself. I suppose Gove is a possibility, even though he does look like Pob.
coley
Wouldn't it be just
so much simpler if the government were
to dissolve the population and
choose/elect another one?
The Solution - Berthold Brecht
[The people have thrown away the government's trust and can only regain it by working twice as hard as before]
Wouldn't it be just
so much simpler if the government were
to dissolve the population and
choose/elect another one?
The Solution - Berthold Brecht
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The tories aren't getting rid of Cameron before the general election - no chance. They are not that inept, they know full well that such internal strife is hated by the electorate, and in-fighting such a move would entail would make the current round of european based disputes look like a relatively united party. This is more to do with what the electorate has historically indicated that it doesn't appreciate than the lack of any other credible candiate. Farage is just stirring the pot whilst he can, he doesn't really expect them to dump Cameron. All very simple and straightforward.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It would have to be unambiguous to hold any value, do you want to remain part of the EU? Should hanging be reinstated for murder? should we sell Scotland? That kind of wording
The problem being that "unambigious" doesn't figure in the political dictionary. It's too...unambiguous!
andysays
Love and solidarity
A pact and a merger are clearly quite different things. The first clue is that we have different words for them.
But just to spell it out, a pact is an agreement of some sort, most likely not to stand candidates against each other in elections. It could refer to one specific election, or it could be all elections over a given period, but either way it's relatively limited, and open to either party to end should they wish.
A merger is a whole other level of agreement - basically it means that the two parties would become one, with not only a joint manifesto but also a single organisation. This is what the Liberal Party and the SDP did a few years ago, hence the Liberal Democrats. Once you've gone done this road, it's pretty much impossible to go back to the original two parties in the way they first were. I think the idea of a merger between the Conservatives and UKIP is a complete non-starter - never going to happen - why on earth would it?
The idea of a more limited electoral pact might be workable, but I still think it's unlikely and would need to hear strong counter-argument to persuade me otherwise.
So to answer your question (whoever you were originally asking it of), yes, I 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.
Similar threads
