Rochester and Strood

Mark Reckless, Ukip – 16,867

Kelly Tolhurst, Conservative – 13,947

Hmm, fun eh?

Tories got closer than I thought they would.

63 thoughts on “Rochester and Strood”

  1. To paraphrase a rather excitable Argie football commentator:

    “Ed Miliband! Nick Clegg! David Cameron! Your boys took a hell of a beating!”

  2. I thought the Tories might actually sneak in, after all the Prime Minister himself visited five times, and however cynical people might be about politicians this must have massaged some egos, there was a stream of smear stories and deliberate lies about UKIP policies in the MSM, and the Tory candidate was a personable and articulate lady.

  3. The Patriotic Socialist Party got 33 votes. Which goes to show, when the British public have a genuine socialist alternative to vote for, they turn out in their dozens (nearly three dozen, in fact)

  4. @mike fowle

    Shouldn’t that have read “I thought the Tories might actually sneak in, *until* the Prime Minister himself visited five times…”?

  5. > mike fowle

    “and the Tory candidate was a personable and articulate lady.”

    Articulate..?! You’re having a laugh:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkqa4Yduikc

    > Roue le Jour

    “Yes. This it what being “crushed” by the Conservative machine looks like. Snigger.”

    I liked this one:

    “If he has thrown the kitchen sink at it, frankly he needs a plumber”

  6. > The Tories will probably win back the seat at the GE

    Why? There’s a world of difference between a seat being taken by one of the other parties with a major Westminster presence and being taken by one with virtually none. In the former case, the electorate want someone with the clout of a major party behind them. In the latter, clearly not. I don’t think the likelihood of regression to the status quo is the same in the two cases.

  7. It is interesting though – a few weeks ago if UKIP had won it meant catastrophe for the Tories, Dave having to consider his position etc., now it’s being waved away, they’ll all come back at the GE and so on. But it is a massive humiliation for the PM, he was even reduced to begging people not to vote the way their conscience demanded but anything to keep UKIP out. As for Kelly, I must admit my view was a bit superficial – I haven’t really seen much of her and that was just a vague impression. Obviously wrong.

  8. “The Tories will probably win back the seat at the GE”

    I’m nopt sure.

    People generally cluster around one “left” and one “right” party in a constituency. Now that UKIP have won the seat, all the literature from UKIP will be around how it’s a UKIP seat and they’re the only people who can keep Labour out.

    It’s a smart move by UKIP in that regard, to hold by-elections, in a way that MPs marching across the floor isn’t. Plus it sends out a signal to people across the country that UKIP can win seats in parliament. If nothing else, that’ll translate into the Conservatives losing seats and having to cut a deal with UKIP.

  9. Bloke in Germany in Hong Kong

    Be interesting to know how the kipper new boys get treated back in parliament. Must be a real billy-no-mates feeling. The tories will probably not talk to them at all, and the others aren’t going to suddenly warm to the new guys on the opposition benches. I will have to check with my man in da house after a few weeks.

  10. Sq2 and TA:
    Only one insurgent political party in the UK has made any impact in the UK – and that is a regional party, the SNP. The SDP, the BNP, the Referendum Party, Veritas – all have withered or vanished. My hunch is that UKIP is more like the SDP than the SNP – largely because it is now trying to appeal to Labour voters with a leftish programme and Tories with a rightish one, which is exactly what the SDP did (and the Lib Dumps still do). And it won’t work for long, because the electorate soon sees through it. The UKIP coalition of libertarian low-taxers and authoritarian anti-immigrationists is fragile.

    As for Rochester, the Tories are likely to win the seat back because the demographics there are against UKIP. The typical UKIP voter is male, 50+, poorly educated, anti-immigration, socially conservative and feels the modern world has left him behind. Plenty of those in Clacton, but not so many in Rochester. Also, the incumbency factor will not help Reckless much at the GE – partly because he’s switched parties, partly because UKIP’s resources will be stretched at the GE and partly because some protest voters will desert him. If the Tories can persuade 1500 voters to come over from UKIP, Reckless will be in the dole queue.

  11. Theophrastus: Maybe–but your BluLabour pals said all that shit before the vote.

    Theo –you are the posh equivalent of the white working-class “My Dad voted Labour” idiots who give ZaNu what support it has in the North–so far at any rate. Despite the fact that the middle-class Marxist shite who are the leaders of ZaNu despise them. Do you think that green-sucking prick Camoron despises you any the less? Unless you are a BluLab stooge yourself of course. If however you are trying to conserve anything that was once worthwhile about this country you are barking up the wrong tree supporting The Giant Forehead and his gang.

  12. @Mike Fowle

    ‘As for Kelly, I must admit my view was a bit superficial – I haven’t really seen much of her and that was just a vague impression. Obviously wrong.’

    I’ve just listened to that interview (crikey I’m bored). She sounded reasonable to me – a live interview, on a crap phone line, about thorny issues can’t be that easy. You know you have to mouth the platitudes while constantly second-guessing yourself.

    I mean, obviously she’s an idiot, but no worse-sounding than most and better than many.

  13. Mr Ecks
    Another sub-rational, spittle-flecked post from you….

    FFS, just because I am sceptical about UKIP’s internal coherence and its GE prospects in Rochester doesn’t mean that I’m an enthusiastic Tory! Or that I’m “posh”, whatever that has to do with anything.

    The danger at the GE is that Milimarx will get into power. Blindly voting for UKIP will almost certainly hand the keys of No. 10 to the most left-wing Labour leader since Michael Foot. To avoid this, those on the right need to vote tactically. Very crudely, vote UKIP in the north, vote Tory in the south. And, in either case, hold your nose! Farage is as slimey as Cameron: both are professional politicians, FFS!

  14. Interested

    “I’ve just listened to that interview. She sounded reasonable to me”

    You’re forgiving..:) Don’t get me wrong, I accept it’s not easy, but she wants to represent a region of over 70,000 people in our primary legislature.

    Does this help at all:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBd6yFuiQrk

    And I’ve just watched a couple of others that are no better.

    And I’m not criticising her (it’s not her fault) – but in the circumstances was that the best the Conservatives could come up with, for a high profile “throw the kitchen sink at – must destroy Reckless” bye-election?

  15. Theo

    “The typical UKIP voter is male, 50+, poorly educated, anti-immigration, socially conservative and feels the modern world has left him behind.”

    You’ve been listening to that nice Lynton Crosby again haven’t you..;)

    You know, I really do get that it’s bloody tough for you guys right now – wallowing around in the shit, desperately hoping he will go, and doing your best to hold your noses until he does.

    And whilst the rest of us admire your sterling efforts, watching from the sidelines, sipping our Bacardis and white Russians, and refusing to jump in until Dyno-Rod have been in and cleared up all the crap…

    Hang on a second – someone has called Dyno-Rod… haven’t they…???

  16. So Much for Subtlety

    Theophrastus – “The danger at the GE is that Milimarx will get into power. Blindly voting for UKIP will almost certainly hand the keys of No. 10 to the most left-wing Labour leader since Michael Foot.”

    So what? Why is that a bad thing? To vote for the Tories and to get a second Lib-Dem party is pointless. At this stage, the worse things are, the better. I look forward to Miliband getting into Number 10. After an utterly disastrous loss, the Tories will presumably purge the Cameron Lib-Dem-lite tendency and after an even worse period in office, Labour will be out of power for a generation.

  17. PF:
    “You’ve been listening to that nice Lynton Crosby again haven’t you..;)”

    No. Peter Kellner and YouGov. 😉

    Ian B
    “If you just keep holding your nose, you will never get rid of the stench.”

    In an imperfect world, the stench can only be managed not eradicated. To believe otherwise is naïve and utopian.

    SMFS:
    “So what? Why is that a bad thing? …. At this stage, the worse things are, the better.”

    So economic collapse would be a good thing? With all the suffering it would entail? And how can you be so sure that things will turn out as you suggest post-Miliband? It is very difficult accurately to predict political outcomes more than six months in the future. Accurately predicting outcomes one or two electoral cycles into the future is impossible. ‘Events, dear boy, events.’

  18. Theophrastus

    So now you know! UKIP has formed from a liberal free – trade party, dedicated to removing us from the EU, into a reactionary ,anti-immigrant bunch of idiots with a desire to turn the world back 25 years. So you get nutters who genuinely believe a Milan government is “just the same as a Conservative government or -even better- that losing the next election will be great because it will show people jusy how bad things are and hasten our glorious revolution. And then we can scrap the NHS, local government and a load of other gov’t departments – except the one that maintains the greenbelt – and scrap all benefits that go to “scroungers” – except pensions of course.

    So, like you, I’ll watch the YouGov polls and get ready to support my local Tort candidate.

  19. Theo-

    You do not manage the stench by voting More Stench.

    Ironman-

    There are already three parties to choose from who are ideological open borders zealots. We hardly need another one.

  20. “Immigration policies”

    Clearly UKIP has more recently gained (useful) traction over this, but immigration by itself is just a red herring.

    The point is that whilst we’re a vassal state, we simply can’t control or manage any of these issues.

    Regain sovereign control, and immigration is then just one of a whole number of areas that we can properly influence again, according to the government of the day.

  21. “The typical UKIP voter is male, 50+, poorly educated, anti-immigration, socially conservative and feels the modern world has left him behind.”

    OK, let’s see:

    “male”: check
    “50+”: nope
    “poorly educated”: post-grad degree
    “anti-immigration”: anti unlimited immigration
    “socially conservative”: personally, I say what consenting adults choose to do together (or in private) is no one’s business but theirs. The keywords being consenting and adult.
    “feels the modern world has left him behind”: well, I’m a contract programmer, specialising in free software. I think that’s fairly modern-world.

    So, 1 out of 5. And I don’t think I’m an especially atypical UKIP voter.

    [The formatting in the comment preview was ‘interesting’ – let’s hope the posted comment looks OK!]

  22. So Much for Subtlety

    Theophrastus – “In an imperfect world, the stench can only be managed not eradicated. To believe otherwise is naïve and utopian.”

    We live in a democracy. Where governments are, to the dismay of the BBC and the Guardian, actually elected by the majority of people (or some such subset). There is no law that says we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. We used to have competent politics. We can again.

    “So economic collapse would be a good thing? With all the suffering it would entail?”

    Yeah, pretty much. But that is not the point. You are now at the stage of claiming hysterical outcomes to make little Miliband look the greater of two evils. You don’t know that economic collapse will occur. You can only hope so that you can scare some people into the Tory camp.

    “And how can you be so sure that things will turn out as you suggest post-Miliband? It is very difficult accurately to predict political outcomes more than six months in the future.”

    And yet you’re sure of Miliband’s economic policies. They may not turn out that way. Miliband may turn out to be a political genius. But it is the most likely outcome and the only way we are going to get sane politics again.

    Ironman – “into a reactionary ,anti-immigrant bunch of idiots with a desire to turn the world back 25 years.”

    They are sounding better all the time. But 25 years? 1989? I don’t think so. Although it would be fun to see all that again. Britain joined the EEC in 1973.

    “So you get nutters who genuinely believe a Milan government is “just the same as a Conservative government”

    Not quite the same. A different lot of London metrosexuals will get all the Qango jobs.

    “And then we can scrap the NHS, local government and a load of other gov’t departments – except the one that maintains the greenbelt – and scrap all benefits that go to “scroungers” – except pensions of course.”

    And yet again we see you need to lie about people you disagree with. I wonder why you have such little faith in your own arguments. Who has proposed any of this?

    “So, like you, I’ll watch the YouGov polls and get ready to support my local Tort candidate.”

    I am all for Torts.

    PF – “Clearly UKIP has more recently gained (useful) traction over this, but immigration by itself is just a red herring.”

    I disagree. Either Britain is going to be a Muslim majority country in the near future or it will have wait for the medium term. Immigration is *the* issue.

  23. So Much for Subtlety

    Theophrastus – “And the nihilistic politics on display here are borderline crazy because devoid of nuance or the ability to make choices about the lesser of two (or more) evils.”

    Borderline crazy is my natural home. Explain the nuance. Explain why Cameron is the lesser of two evils. Exactly how can you squeeze a cigarette paper between the three main parties? What has Cameron done that Miliband would not have? We have yet to have any austerity for instance. What would Miliband do that Clegg and Cameron would not?

    They are simply indistinguishable. Gay marriage has gone forward under one as it would have under the other. The Armed Forces have been gutted – and their historical traditions p!ssed all over – by Cameron in a way that perhaps Miliband would not have dared. The Public Sector Unions have been as coddled under the Coalition as they would have been under Labour. There simply are no policy differences at all.

  24. Oh so I’m lying am I?
    So Mr Ecks’ didn’t howl at the moon and proclaim exactly those things only yesterday then?
    so you haven’t been on this thread proclaiming that the muslims are trying to take over this country?
    So you haven’t been on this thread saying that a Labour victory in 2015 will pave the way for Ukip to step on by 2020?
    So you haven’t brought The Jews into every it at every viable opportunity?
    So Nigel Garage didn’t conduct that radio interview about Romanians then?

    The best election poster for the Conservatives would be a mash – up of Mr Ecks, IanB & SMFS. You boys are my not so secret weapon.

    PF

    Immigration a red herring is it? Read SMFS again and see the company you keep.

  25. “So economic collapse would be a good thing? With all the suffering it would entail?”

    Economic collapse is coming Theo–prob to the entire Western world because of its love of statism and willing submission to the political cunts. Camorgueron has done nothing to stop it and everything to help it on (rising debt/green-sucking etc ad naseum). If it happens while Millitwat is emptying his bowels on the throne there is a good chance socialism will get the blame it so richly deserves. If the BluPukes get back in the drift to a police state will continue and economic disaster will be attributed to their”free-market policies”. Bwahhhaahhhh—subsides into agonised groan.

  26. Ironman?. What is this cod superhero on about. I wrote about govt cuts yesterday–never mentioned fucking immigration. As for govt cuts those WILL arrive whether numpties like you want them or not when the laws of mathematics catch up with your state pals and they can no longer pay out anything worthy of the name of money. In case Econ 101 passed you by Tinman–money is not wealth but a voucher that functions as a claim on wealth. You can produce –on paper or via silicon–all the claims on wealth you want but that does not increase the actual goods/services in the world. Sooner or later there will come a day like no other and the pork–blue or red–will have to grapple with the consequences of their stupidity. As will all the chumps who have been putting their little Xs in the box on the promise of stability/prosperity . h Economic collapse has happened countless times across history and it is going to happen again. On that day you and all the rest of your little superhero band of bleeding hearts won’t win the day and Earth will not be saved in the nick of time. Whatever horrible consequences the political scum have brought about for us by their economic bungling will have to be lived through by everybody–not just those who helped bring them about. Save your “compassion” for when it will be needed.

  27. Theo

    That “yougov/profile” link didn’t work for me at all, either in IE or Opera?

    FWIW – ditto others – ie, the UKIP voters I know are all intelligent, professional, tending towards individual liberty (versus the state) / live and let live, possibly not dissimilar to most posting on here?

    I am not sure what a typical UKIP voter means in the sense you indicated?

    For example, when you say that a UKIP typical voter is male, do you mean a majority, ie it might be 51% versus 49% female or whatever?

    And in which case, it is mostly meaningless; although I could see its value as a political tool where say a party wanted to suggest that “your house price might go down if you vote for the other guys”..:)

  28. SMFS / Ironman

    “Muslim majority” and “immigration”?

    This is an aside, but Farage, perhaps coincidentally, has repeatedly (on Question Time and elsewhere) loosely used the phrase “young skilled professionals from outside of the EU, such as say India and New Zealand”.

    He has used that as his “for example” when looking at the positive benefits of being able to exercise more control that at present over borders, and hence encourage in those who can best benefit UK plc?

    Ie, rather than having zero control over who arrives from an EU that is ever expanding to the east whilst continuing to exert an ever increasing iron grip…

  29. SMFS

    “Gay marriage … The Armed Forces …”

    You forgot: Reneging on Lisbon, the green crap, DRIPA, the EAW, Tess’s proposed Data Communications Bill, Osborne trying to legislate that HMRC can act both as judge and jury over bank accounts; actually the list is bloody endless.

    Why would any Conservative vote for all that shit?

  30. PF:
    This link may not work unless you are registered
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/03/05/analysis-ukip-voters/

    What it says is:

    60% of UKIP’s current supporters voted Conservative in 2010 – a clear majority, but far from everyone. Just 12% voted UKIP last time. Small minorities voted Labour or, more likely, Liberal Democrat. (There’s nothing new in supporters from the pro-EU Lib Dems switching to the anti-EU UKIP – they are the kind of Lib Dem voters whose choice was driven by a dislike for the two big parties rather than enthusiasm for Brussels.)

    Forced to choose, UKIP supporters would, by three-to-one, prefer a Tory-lead Cameron government to a Miliband-led Labour government. But one in four UKIP supporters decline to take sides. Nevertheless, one obvious line of attack by the Conservatives at the next election will be to warn UKIP supporters of the dangers of letting Ed Miliband become Prime Minister by default, if UKIP deprives the Tories of the votes they need to hang on in Con-Lab marginals.

    UKIP is widely seen as to the Right of the Tories – but that is not how UKIP voters view themselves. Whereas 60% of Tory voters place themselves to the Right of centre, the figure for UKIP supporters is rather less, 46%. And whereas 25% of Tories say they are in the centre, or even left-of-centre, the figure for UKIP voters is 36%.

    However, UKIP voters are more likely than Tories to read one of right-of-centre tabloids, the Mail, Sun or Express.

    Demographically, UKIP voters attract men slightly more than women – and the party draws its support disproportionately from older people with fewer qualifications. Whereas 46% of all voters are over 50, and 38% under 40, the figures for UKIP are 71% and 15% respectively. And just 13% of UKIP supporters have university degrees – half the national average (though this partly reflects the age profile: older people generally were less likely to attend university when they were young).

    UKIP voters are less likely than voters generally, and far less likely than Conservative voters, to be above-average earners. 23% of UKIP supporters live in households whose total income exceeds £40,000, compared with 38% of Tories and 28% of Labour voters.

  31. Oh I forgot. UKIP people are bloody furious that the armed forces have been gutted. So that certainly one area of government spending that should be protected and -presumably – paid for. But you can’t see anywhere in the world at the moment where our national interests would justify our intervention, which leaves wondering why you want the armed forces exactly. And of course all taxes – all taxes – are theft (unless Mr Ecks believes in SOME taxation and will explain what exactly) in which case I’m left wondering how you’re intending to pay for the armed forces.

    Or maybe Ukip is nothing more than an extended episode of Grumpy Old Men. Old men infantilised in their second childhood. So we want all taxes and spending cut – except the spending we want. We want to cut immigration except GOOD immigration. We love our armed forces but don’t want them fighting any of the wars we’ve fought over the last 20 years.

  32. PF:
    “Why would any Conservative vote for all that shit?”

    Some of the things you mention concern me; others I disapprove of strongly. But, ultimately, I will vote for the party that will manage the economy with the most stability and competence, while also tackling the benefits system and the gross deficiencies of state education.

    SMFS:
    Labour – particularly under lefty Milimong – will not do any of these things I mention above. Whenever Labour has left power (post-war, at least), the economy has been in worse shape than when they inherited it. The equivalence argument simply does not wash. Under the Tories, my private pension, my investments and my rental property will be secure. Under Labour, nothing of mine will be secure, though benefit claimants and public sector workers will surely benefit in the name of ‘ekwalidee’.

  33. Theo,

    Thanks for that, and yes, it loaded fine this time in any case.

    Actually, I think it’s the word “typical” that I probably disagree with. I get what the survey comes up with, and I understand some of the causalities etc.

    Another one of course is income. If UKIP is more strongly respesented amongst retired people, and from a broader selection of society than, if you like, traditional Conservative retirees, then I can easily see average income (ie pensions) being well below the national average for that reason alone. Etc, etc..

    You are right, one has to be careful how these things are interpreted.

    Many thanks again…

  34. Theo 5.18pm

    That’s perfectly fair and I completely understand.

    My personal emphasis is more towards the liberty, privacy angle etc.

    The more I reflect on this, the more I see whichever party is in trying to be ultra authoritarian whenever they get the chance, but being stopped in their tracks by opportunists otherwise. At least Clegg did one useful thing in his tenure as DPM!

    Hence, there may be circumstances where one could actually prefer “no overall control” than have people like May back in completely unfettered?

    I am reminded of Belgium’s surge when, for a couple of years, they were unable to form a government..:)

    I agree, mileage will vary…

    And NOC is increasingly looking like the bookies favourite…

  35. Ironman is rather typical of the Progressivist. Can’t make an argument, so either just yells “burn the witch” or declares anyone who disagrees to be “frightened of progress” and “silly old fool trying to turn the clock back” and so on.

    Good example: 1970s. Progress had consisted of nationalising everything not nailed down. Thatcher arrives and reverses said “progress”, thus at least partly saving the economy. By “turning the clock back”.

    Progress can go in many directions. Just doing something isn’t necessarily progress, and sometimes you need to say, “well that was a stupid idea, let’s reverse it and try something else”. Unless you’re on the Progressive bandwagon like Mr Balls Of Steel here, in which case, you know, can’t undo the Soviet Union because it was “progress” from Czarism.

    This is why my dictionary defines “progressive” as a collective noun for a bunch of fuckwits.

  36. Ironman

    “UKIP people are bloody furious that the armed forces have been gutted. So that certainly one area of government spending that should be protected and -presumably – paid for. But you can’t see anywhere in the world at the moment where our national interests would justify our intervention, which leaves wondering why you want the armed forces exactly.”

    Big stick, soft voice?

    Rather than looking to a yapping chihuahua for inspiration..:)

    And, ultimately, aren’t armed forces about defence, rather than Blair’s (idiot) doctrine of progressive interventionism, which Cameron then aped?

  37. Theophrastus

    Thank you for summarising so perfectly the one true choice in British politics. Both parties are broad churches, both will contain senior people who propose policies hat lifelong supporters think are barmy. However, we are yet again faced with a Labour moment thay has lost all respect for the personal property for which the individual have worked long and hard.

    PF

    Defence; fine word and fine sentiment – and I agree; having been a RAF officer I would. However, may I ask you to identify the existential greats faced by our nation and then ask you to match that against our national defence needs right now
    And then explain why the gutting of the armed forces is such a disgrace. Because I repeat: the same parties in this blog so very disgusted at cuts in spending on the armed forces are also those who don’t want any of the interventions – the entirety of our operations and spending – the UK has engaged with over the past two decades
    And for good measure they are same idiots saying all tax is theft. Go figure.

  38. Theo–I can understand and appreciate self-interest. The issue then becomes –are your beliefs about the innate nature of BluLab correct?. Are you sure that they won’t get their grubby paws on your assets?. Cos all over the world political pigs are getting ready for the Great Big Bail In. (I mean great in the sense of large obviously).Poland for example is now in the process of getting the legal bollocks squared away so the govt there can do just that. It is not the first nor will it be the last. Are you sure that Mr Cam-Ogeron won’t declare that your pension is now being transferred into “safe” govt bonds? The govt “guarantees” them with promises you can take to the bank–if you like bank clerks laughing in your face–or you don’t die of old age while queuing to get in. Are you sure that Mr GF won’t allow the banks to use your deposited cash to bail themselves out?. In Cyprus it was only the richest accounts pillaged. But much more than that will be needed in the big one. The little people will be hoovered as well.
    I’m not a vindictive man (well actually I kind of am really but in as nice a way as I can manage) so I hope your fantasy of BluHonour works out for you. Suspect it won’t tho’.

    Tony Stark–I believe in zero taxes of any sort whatsoever. None. However, you have to start from where you are. If no taxes are the equivalent of doing a triumphant back flip we have to recognise we are on a tightrope over the Grand Canyon and it is the wrong time to make a first-time attempt at said back flip. Hence my plan for a 30-year wind-down of the evil while we get the circus skills needful.

  39. Zero taxes; great. So how do we pay for our armed services?

    Actually, don’ bother. You won’t answer. And when you haven’t got an answer you invent a conspiracy and hurl abuse. Crap.

  40. Again incoherency. I’ve answered every one of your dopey questions. Your remarks just get dopier.
    The military are a group who murder people on the orders of political scum. The British army has shown great courage and steadfast qualities on many occasions. That can not make up for the fact that, like all such groups it is an immoral organisation that exists to kill under orders. The brave deeds of one era can easily become the atrocities of tomorrow.The reason soldiers exist is to do as they are told–no matter what that is. It depends on who gives the orders and the quality of the recent order-givers is right down the shitter. . Sometimes in life self-defence is needed and true contributions (not enforced thievery) can pay for whatever degrees of protection may be needed in the future. What structures may arise in the future I don’t know. If we knew the details of the future it would be the present. It maybe that the UK has had its day along with all the other nation-states( and no— I hate inter-nationalism and the world govt bollocks even more ). I don’t mind the UK government going if it results in a free society. The chief obstacle to that is blokes like you who want people coerced so long as it is in a manner and for goals you approve of.

  41. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “UKIP people are bloody furious that the armed forces have been gutted. So that certainly one area of government spending that should be protected and -presumably – paid for.”

    It would cost next to nothing to give every serving soldier, sailor and airman and extra £1,000 a year. Nothing that is compared to the on-going cock ups over the big ticket items like the Eurofighter. It is not a problem with government spending, it is a problem with poor fiscal discipline.

    “But you can’t see anywhere in the world at the moment where our national interests would justify our intervention, which leaves wondering why you want the armed forces exactly.”

    So you want more than a rolling 10 year deadline that served us so well in the 1930s? The fact that there is no immediate threat is not an argument for abolishing the Armed Forces – which is what you are calling for, right? It takes 200 years to build up a decent regimental history. But this set of Lib-Dems pretending to be Tories is happy to sweep it all in the garbage can over night.

    “We want to cut immigration except GOOD immigration.”

    Not me. I want an end to all immigration. But as Britain is being overwhelmed by bad immigration why the f**k not? It is bizarre to think that I would need to defend, to someone who claims to be a Tory, the basic idea that immigration should serve Britain’s interests. And illiterate Somalis do not serve Britain’s interest.

    “We love our armed forces but don’t want them fighting any of the wars we’ve fought over the last 20 years.”

    Well that is not as irrational as you think. Britain’s Armed Forces are to defend Britain. Which serving in Afghanistan doesn’t immediately or directly do. And they are not cheap or to be thrown away lightly.

    Theophrastus – “But, ultimately, I will vote for the party that will manage the economy with the most stability and competence, while also tackling the benefits system and the gross deficiencies of state education.”

    Which is to say, not the Tories. The economy is not being managed well at all. We have not had a cut in government spending, we have not had a return to fiscal sanity. And because of that the malaise in the economy drags on. As for the benefits system and state education, for a while it looked like Cameron was going to allow Gove to bite the bullet and do something about education. But he funked it. Gutless. Now there is nothing the “Tories” are doing that Blair did not. As for benefit cuts, they are not even a dream.

    This is not a Conservative government. It is yet another set of Metropolitan metrosexuals pretending to be so.

    “Labour – particularly under lefty Milimong – will not do any of these things I mention above. Whenever Labour has left power (post-war, at least), the economy has been in worse shape than when they inherited it.”

    That may have been true pre-Blair, but it is no longer true of the Labour Party at all. You don’t know what Miliband would do. He shows no signs of breaking with Blair’s legacy on the economy. Nor has he offered any resistance to any of Cameron’s policies. Why not? They are, after all, on the same page on most issues.

    “The equivalence argument simply does not wash. Under the Tories, my private pension, my investments and my rental property will be secure.”

    Don’t be daft. They can’t even protect basic liberties like the right to enter into a contract and have it enforced. Cameron is not going to defend the bankers any more than Miliband would have.

    “Under Labour, nothing of mine will be secure, though benefit claimants and public sector workers will surely benefit in the name of ‘ekwalidee’.”

    Exactly the same as under the Tories. There just is no difference between the two and apart from some utterly nonsensical motherhood and apple pie statements, you have not shown there is.

  42. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “Oh so I’m lying am I?”

    As usual. You can’t even help yourself in this response.

    “so you haven’t been on this thread proclaiming that the muslims are trying to take over this country?”

    No I haven’t.

    “So you haven’t been on this thread saying that a Labour victory in 2015 will pave the way for Ukip to step on by 2020?”

    No I haven’t. For one I did not give a date. For another, I said that the Tories would win. Once they have purged the Lib-Dems from their ranks. Those two claims are not true, mate. You know, lies.

    “So you haven’t brought The Jews into every it at every viable opportunity?”

    No I haven’t. First I thought it was Darkies, not Jews, that I usually mentioned. And second I have yet to mention any Jews in this thread. Well, Miliband I suppose.

    “So Nigel Garage didn’t conduct that radio interview about Romanians then?”

    No idea. Do I care?

    “The best election poster for the Conservatives would be a mash – up of Mr Ecks, IanB & SMFS. You boys are my not so secret weapon.”

    Good for you.

    PF – “This is an aside, but Farage, perhaps coincidentally, has repeatedly (on Question Time and elsewhere) loosely used the phrase “young skilled professionals from outside of the EU, such as say India and New Zealand”.”

    As another aside, I did not say anything about UKIP’s views on immigration. We know TW’s views and he advises them on matters economic. What I said is that among the British public, immigration is *the* issue.

    “Ie, rather than having zero control over who arrives from an EU that is ever expanding to the east whilst continuing to exert an ever increasing iron grip…”

    How anyone can justify out-sourcing our immigration policies to the Greek and Italian navies is beyond me.

  43. Ironman,

    “Defence; fine word and fine sentiment – and I agree; having been a RAF officer I would. However, may I ask you to identify the existential greats faced by our nation and then ask you to match that against our national defence needs right now. And then explain why the gutting of the armed forces is such a disgrace.”

    I am surprised by your tone (as a former military man)?

    Of course, you must understand better than any that you ask a question (re threats) that your own former chiefs of staff would admit is difficult to answer fully?

    Rumsfeld may have been mocked, but of course he was quite accurate with his assessment. We don’t always know where the threats will come from; we simply do out best to understand, manage and prepare for them, and particularly given the rapidly changing nature of those threats: nations versus the less structured, rapidly changing technologies, etc.

    And, in the context of the discussion above, crucially we must do that. The key priority for any nation state – above emptying the bins, providing welfare benefits, funding the NHS, or even employing very large numbers of equal opportunities officers – is the defence of the realm against outside threats (existential or otherwise).

    Let me turn it on its head. You are a respected former RAF officer; you are probably considerably more knowledgeable than I am in this context. Why the challenge? Why not instead offer some valuable insight (with regard to your own question)?

    “Because I repeat: the same parties in this blog so very disgusted at cuts in spending on the armed forces are also those who don’t want any of the interventions” ”

    Is that not the very essence of “big stick, soft voice, aligned with the concept of strong defence”,

    And are we talking about the same thing? Defence versus progressive intervention?

    Defence of the wider realm (Falklands), going to the aid of allies (Kuwait 1990), honouring defensive commitments (Afghanistan first time round – NATO and Article 5 in response to the 9/11 attack), our onging defensive commitment in support of NATO that has kept the west safe for the last 70 years; or are you talking about things like tony’s progressive “interventions” (and that generally had sweet FA to do with defence of the realm)…

  44. So Much for Subtlety

    Here is how Tory this present government is:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2845106/Employers-told-watch-staff-signs-domestic-violence-including-bruising-changes-mood-frequent-personal-calls-work.html

    Employers are being urged to watch their staff for signs of domestic violence – with indicators including shifts in behaviour and changes in clothing to hide bruises.

    Public Health England (PHE) issued the warning and stressed that managers have a duty to spot people who are being abused and take steps to offer them support.

    So this “conservative” government is requiring us all to spy on each other and grass each other up to serve their pet little causes? Their pet little cause is not terrorism either, but part of the on-going war on men. Great!

    But it is Soviet, not conservative.

  45. SMFS:

    “Which is to say, not the Tories. The economy is not being managed well at all. We have not had a cut in government spending, we have not had a return to fiscal sanity. And because of that the malaise in the economy drags on. ”

    True, up to a point, But the Coalition is doing an infinitely better job than Labour would. Or UKIP.

    “This is not a Conservative government.”

    Of course it isn’t a Conservative government: it’s a coalition
    government! You are holding the government to a standard it cannot meet – by definition!

    “That may have been true pre-Blair, but it is no longer true of the Labour Party at all. You don’t know what Miliband would do. He shows no signs of breaking with Blair’s legacy on the economy.”

    1997-2010 was the usual Labour car crash of the economy but in slow motion. The fact remains that the economy has always been in a worse state when Labour leaves office compared to when it enters office. Always, post-war at least.

    “So this “conservative” government is requiring us all to spy on each other and grass each other up to serve their pet little causes? Their pet little cause is not terrorism either, but part of the on-going war on men. Great! ”

    PHE is a PC-dominated quango, not the government itself. And, to repeat, we do not have a Conservative government, we have a Coalition government.

  46. So Much for Subtlety

    Theophrastus – “True, up to a point, But the Coalition is doing an infinitely better job than Labour would. Or UKIP.”

    I am not sure that is true of UKIP actually. Nor is there any reason to think it is true of Labour. They are not fighting over these issues after all.

    “Of course it isn’t a Conservative government: it’s a coalition
    government! You are holding the government to a standard it cannot meet – by definition!”

    It is not an angry or bitter coalition. When Cameronites attack anyone, it is their voters. They are not calling the Lib-Dems fruit cakes. They are calling Tories that.

    “1997-2010 was the usual Labour car crash of the economy but in slow motion. The fact remains that the economy has always been in a worse state when Labour leaves office compared to when it enters office. Always, post-war at least.”

    Well Blair was competent. Brown less so. It has been true of Labour. It may be true of Miliband. But it will probably be true of Cameron as well. As fiscal probity is a Tory thing and no one else much does it.

    “PHE is a PC-dominated quango, not the government itself.”

    And yet Cameron is not going to sack them or replace them. So Ministerial responsibility means the buck stops with the Cabinet. And hence Cameron.

  47. Do to recap:

    The otherwise smart PF is outrages by cuts to the armed services, has been opposed to most of our military operations over the past 20 years, cannot identify any threat to our nation and so cannot offer any analysis of the appropriate nature and size of our armed services – but is still outraged by cuts to our armed services.

    Mr Ecks believes we can genuinely have zero taxes and still have armed services -and pay them -buy doesn’t say how; he swears and hurls abuse a la Murphy.

    SMFS thinks employers watching their staff for signs of being abused, which might possibly be their duty of care, is a sign of Big Brother. The right to smash your your wife about is an Englishman’s birthright right?

    And IanB thinks it should be legal to fuck 13 year old girls.

    Yep boys, you vote Ukip. I won’t be joining you and I won’t be responding to you anymore; you’re too thick for me.

  48. I don’t hurl much abuse at other commenters on here–apart from the friends of mass murder like Arnold (and to a lesser extent the Paul B’s etc). I haven’t hurled much at you apart from a few riffs on your “Ironman” persona. If I was a BluLabour supporter and–now it seems–stasi fan like you I might well have ratted you out to Marvel comics for unauthorised use of the name.
    You are a true BlueLab boy tho’. You don’t listen and you keep repeating the same crap over and over again. And it seems that you are quite happy with the record and proposals of BlueLab also. Lets see–
    * Woman has black-eye (which she could have got by accident or drunken brawl)–call the stasi. Snooping into peoples lives is a “duty of care” is it commissar?.
    *Speak your mind–get a control order –call the stasi
    *They say your an extremist–internal exile–and if victim breaks it–call the stasi.
    * Now they propose an inquisition into your marriage–in case you are “coercively controlling” your missus. As if women know nothing about how to do that. Of course it is a great chance for you BluLabour–you can listen to your neighbours quarrels through the wall and then–wait for it–call the stasi.

    Yeah–you are BluLabour’s male alright. As for your bollocks about the Army. I want a future without need of hired state-owned killers. How self-defence is to be organised in the future–yeah-I don’t know. if I knew the future I’d be a billionaire not arguing with a state informer fanboy on a blog. As Stephen Molyneux points out, it is no excuse to continue slavery on the grounds that you don’t know who will work and pick the cotton if there are no slaves. Something wrong and immoral needs to go (state control of forces –not self defence itself) and the consequences and shape of the future will emerge from the change. Machines now work far better and cheaper than slaves ever did. How people will defend themselves in the future I don’t know. But I do know that the age of state coercion must end if there is to be a future for mankind.

  49. Ironman

    You are clearly not taking prisoners tonight..:)

    “The otherwise smart PF is outrages by cuts to the armed services”

    Where is my so called “outrage”, as you put it, above? I tend to target that for those politicians determined to restrict or destroy our civil liberties, freedom of speech, and similar?

    “has been opposed to most of our military operations over the past 20 years”

    If you mean the typical progressive interventions that have arisen as a result of Blair’s policy, then I’m afraid it’s a fair cop, and I probably do have to admit, generally yes…

    I can’t begin to explain on a simple blog post why, I would be here all night and I have better things to do – but yes, I do believe that our armed forces are there for defensive / preventative purposes rather than to risk the lives of good young men sometimes simply as a means of satisfying the egos and international reputations of chancers like tony and his ilk… Yes, I know, that’s probably putting it too strongly!

    Just out of curiosity, is that a statement / admission from you that that is mainly all we have engaged in over the last 20 years (ie when you say “most”)..??

    “cannot identify any threat to our nation and so cannot offer any analysis of the appropriate nature and size of our armed services – but is still outraged by cuts to our armed services.”

    I cannot believe you have written that! You “demand” that I spend further effort without offering ANYTHING of substance yourself on this (if you can be bothered to read back what you wrote), and despite your significant implied expertise on this..?? That’s a fail my friend, and you know it..;)

    We are still the second biggest contributor to NATO’s defence capability. The USA contributes completely disproportionately the lion’s share. FWIW, I would actually increase our spending, in support of NATO, not decrease it? Our European allies continue to reduce their GDP % share of spend, and to my mind it is quite unreasonable to expect the US to bear an ever bigger share of the cost for Europe’s shield.

    And, yes, the threats are changing continually, as should deployment of resources and spend (eg, the debates over issues such as aircraft carriers and drones), but I have no intention of this being one sided, if you can’t even be bothered yourself, and despite “demanding” from me..!!

    And actually, it’s not even got anything to do with the topic of the thread, so perhaps let’s just drop it anyway.

    How would I pay for it? Again, it’s more than a blog post, but an ad lib quip might be “from what we’ve just saved each year from invoking Article 50”..!!

    “you’re too thick for me”

    Hey, you know, you are probably right..:)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *