Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 22:42:28 GMT
My problem with the above plea is that is it rather difficult to tell the difference between the Conservatives and UKIP in terms of their rhetoric.The Conservatives are dancing to Farage's tune. Cameron is saying, don't vote for the organ grinder, vote for his monkey. Obviously I agree with you generally, John; but I always try to bear in mind that it's like three people looking at each other: to me, standing a long way from UKIP and the Tories, they look very close together; to them, standing closer to each other than to me, the gap between them looks very big. But the point here is the sheer brass neck of the man, asking people for their votes on an entirely hypocritical basis. If we had AV now, lots of people would happily vote Green (or Lab, or LD) 1st and Con 2nd, knowing they could show their political preference and still stop their 'worst' option winning. But he stopped that happening. It's that terminally bossy attitude of saying that we're not smart enough to have our choice all the time and with our own judgment, only when someone tells us which way to vote. I rarely swear on here (I think), but he has really made my blood boil with this. |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Nov 11, 2014 23:07:38 GMT
Cameron wants people to vote tactically for the Tories? The same Cameron who opposed AV which would have allowed people to make their choices sensibly, and not know their vote was wasted? That Cameron? You know what. Fuck him, and fuck his stupid party that wants to benefit from being voters' second choice, but wants to deny that to us the rest of the time.
"If you want a strong local candidate, then Kelly can be your tribute
More front than Selfridges that one... Matthew Goodwin comments on this today www.matthewjgoodwin.com/2014/11/where-things-stand-rochester-and-strood.htmlI have to say having listened to the debate last night online on Radio Kent I have to agree with this assessment. Khan came across well professional and assured, Tolhurst came across as angry and as someone who would be out of her depth in top level politics. Reviewing their performance on the TV show on the iPlayer the contrast was even greater. Khan's demeanour was professional, Tolhurst quite frankly just wasn't (do watch it to see what I mean). No Green or Labour voter watching that debate would have been persuaded to vote Tory, even tactically. |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Nov 11, 2014 23:25:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by independentukip on Nov 12, 2014 2:05:23 GMT
I have to say having listened to the debate last night online on Radio Kent I have to agree with this assessment. Khan came across well professional and assured, Tolhurst came across as angry and as someone who would be out of her depth in top level politics. Reviewing their performance on the TV show on the iPlayer the contrast was even greater. Khan's demeanour was professional, Tolhurst quite frankly just wasn't (do watch it to see what I mean). No Green or Labour voter watching that debate would have been persuaded to vote Tory, even tactically. I logged on to make largely the same point, though not so eloquently. I watched the debate rather than listened to it and Tolhurst came across terribly. I'm astonished that CCHQ concluded that she was an appropriate candidate for any election above Parish level let alone a crucial Parliamentary by-election. I understand CCHQ insisted that only a female candidate was permitted here and the failure to permit the best people to be submitted to the primary via preventing credible male candidates almost explains of itself why Reckless should be returned to the House of Commons. Reckless came across as very calm & capable and wholly unruffled by the hostile BBC picked audience. The strongest performance overall was by Naushabah Khan who went on the attack against Reckless and unlike Tolhurst scored a hit or two. The Green appeared to be nothing more than an angry man railing against Reckless and the world and the Liberal Democrat was so bad Tolhurst looked impressive by comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by independentukip on Nov 12, 2014 2:14:34 GMT
Asked if he wanted Labour supporters to consider tactical voting, he said: “Yes, of course. I think there will be lots of Labour supporters in Rochester and Strood who don’t want to see Ukip with their divisiveness and their message succeed here. "If you want a strong local candidate, then Kelly can be your tribute More front than Selfridges that one... As the best candidate other than Mark Reckless is clearly the Labour candidate isn't it time for Cameron to now insist that all Conservative supporters vote for Naushabah Khan rather than Kelly Tolhurst? |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 12, 2014 3:13:05 GMT
I assume that's a spelling mistake, and Cameron actually said tribune rather than tribute. Of course, if he's inviting people to tribute Kelly Tolhurst, that would be a novel, if messy, way of getting the vote out.
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,032 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 12, 2014 9:53:50 GMT
Can any Conservative here explain why your party is putting up so many really poor candidates for by-elections? The last three selections have been way past weak in direction of dire. Is there some sort of corporate death wish in the party?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,000
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 12, 2014 11:27:47 GMT
I assume that's a spelling mistake, and Cameron actually said tribune rather than tribute. Of course, if he's inviting people to tribute Kelly Tolhurst, that would be a novel, if messy, way of getting the vote out. A use of the word I wasn't previously aware of  |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 12, 2014 15:33:06 GMT
Can any Conservative here explain why your party is putting up so many really poor candidates for by-elections? The last three selections have been way past weak in direction of dire. Is there some sort of corporate death wish in the party? I think they're trying to seem more "popular" by having open primaries but they just aren't producing impressive candidates. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,032
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 12, 2014 15:38:26 GMT
Can any Conservative here explain why your party is putting up so many really poor candidates for by-elections? The last three selections have been way past weak in direction of dire. Is there some sort of corporate death wish in the party? I think they're trying to seem more "popular" by having open primaries but they just aren't producing impressive candidates. That does seem to be a fairly fatuous policy with little or no input to the short-list process. If a party selects two modest quality women and insists that it is only two and both must be women, effective choice has gone completely, other than the rather Soviet idea of permitting a choice between the two party hackettes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 18:28:58 GMT
Cameron wants people to vote tactically for the Tories? The same Cameron who opposed AV which would have allowed people to make their choices sensibly, and not know their vote was wasted? That Cameron? You know what. Fuck him, and fuck his stupid party that wants to benefit from being voters' second choice, but wants to deny that to us the rest of the time. As a Conservative supporter and an advocate of open list PR, I hope you're not including all of us in this generalisation. Do you have the same view of the 13 million people who voted against AV, many of whom view AV as even less proportional than FPTP? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 19:45:27 GMT
Cameron wants people to vote tactically for the Tories? The same Cameron who opposed AV which would have allowed people to make their choices sensibly, and not know their vote was wasted? That Cameron? You know what. Fuck him, and fuck his stupid party that wants to benefit from being voters' second choice, but wants to deny that to us the rest of the time. Why have you changed from being a pleasant reasonable poster with plenty of good points to being a total something or other in the space of a couple of weeks? We don't use words like "fuck him and fuck his stupid party" on here regardless of how much we do or don't like people. This isn't the Daily Mirror comments page. We all have very different opinions and to get on we need to be a lot more civil than that. You are a nice chap and normally farbetter than this. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 12, 2014 21:26:09 GMT
Anyway .. if Cameron really wants to play some kind of Popular Front type games of appearing to be closer to Labour and the Greens or part of a 'mainstream' which includes those parties but excludes UKIP, then that plays perfectly in to our hands and sends lots more of his voters our way without getting the compensatory votes from the left. Is he really that stupid? I wonder if he really said it just to piss off Labour and Green supporters which judging by James's tantrum appears to have had the desired effect. Still wouldn't stop it playing into our hands though.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 12, 2014 22:05:54 GMT
I had a conversation with a political friend tonight about Nicky Morgan's comments, re arts and humanities graduates. She seems to think it'll drive potential voters away but I pointed out that its an interesting dog whistle tactic to voters in seats such as this. So on the one hand we have Cameron behaving like he's in France circa 1933 and on the other we have a minister targeting the kind of people disliked by lots of WWC voters. A two pronged attack.
And interestingly, it ties into the thread on MPs with degrees. I wonder if briefing against university arts types will be a low key issue at the GE.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Nov 12, 2014 22:37:56 GMT
Cameron wants people to vote tactically for the Tories? The same Cameron who opposed AV which would have allowed people to make their choices sensibly, and not know their vote was wasted? That Cameron? You know what. Fuck him, and fuck his stupid party that wants to benefit from being voters' second choice, but wants to deny that to us the rest of the time. As a Conservative supporter and an advocate of open list PR, I hope you're not including all of us in this generalisation. Do you have the same view of the 13 million people who voted against AV, many of whom view AV as even less proportional than FPTP? The trouble is that Cameron and the Conservative Party leadership prevent there being a referendum on a more proportional system. The Lib Dem manifesto stated a preference for STV, Cameron could have agreed a referendum on that. The highly unsatisfactory AV compromise was arrived at because it suited the narrow self interest of the Tory leadership. |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Nov 12, 2014 22:51:44 GMT
I think they're trying to seem more "popular" by having open primaries but they just aren't producing impressive candidates. That does seem to be a fairly fatuous policy with little or no input to the short-list process. If a party selects two modest quality women and insists that it is only two and both must be women, effective choice has gone completely, other than the rather Soviet idea of permitting a choice between the two party hackettes. I'm sure Tory central office thought it was a clever to run their absurd, two candidate, no hustings, no proper reporting of the results, joke of a primary. A neat trick to get around campaign spending limits laws. I wonder if they had devoted as much thought to getting a decent candidate as they have to running these kinds of schemes then they might be doing better. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,032
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 12, 2014 23:17:56 GMT
Cameron wants people to vote tactically for the Tories? The same Cameron who opposed AV which would have allowed people to make their choices sensibly, and not know their vote was wasted? That Cameron? You know what. Fuck him, and fuck his stupid party that wants to benefit from being voters' second choice, but wants to deny that to us the rest of the time. Why have you changed from being a pleasant reasonable poster with plenty of good points to being a total something or other in the space of a couple of weeks? We don't use words like "fuck him and fuck his stupid party" on here regardless of how much we do or don't like people. This isn't the Daily Mirror comments page. We all have very different opinions and to get on we need to be a lot more civil than that. You are a nice chap and normally farbetter than this. Possibly Joe, because even rather nice reasonable people can be stung into just the sort of blind anger that I felt myself and which drove me out of your party. The blind opposition to devolution or having Devo-Max on the Referendum: followed by a snivelling scuttle and brown-nosing appeal near the end that was sickening and unnecessary? Because of a snide and dishonest campaign against AV: followed by a whining plaintive desire for tactical voting that AV would have facilitated? Possibly because a cast-iron Referendum guarantee was welched on once he was in power? Possibly because an outright promise to have a vote on the European Arrest Warrant was welched on by a new 'cunning plan' dreamed up by another person starting with 'cun.'! Take your choice Joe. The man is a serial liar and cheat and two-faced inadequate, posing as a PM....and not very well. We shall be rid of him in May and so luckily for you...will the party. It is a measure of the gross turpitude of Cameron and his clique that it reduces a decent James to language he will regret because as you say "It is not him". It was not James speaking but the pain of all of us who loath the very guts of the duplicitous two-faced Cameroon Conservatives. Please help us to rid your once honest party of this sickness next year. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 12, 2014 23:19:23 GMT
I had a conversation with a political friend tonight about Nicky Morgan's comments, re arts and humanities graduates. She seems to think it'll drive potential voters away but I pointed out that its an interesting dog whistle tactic to voters in seats such as this. So on the one hand we have Cameron behaving like he's in France circa 1933 and on the other we have a minister targeting the kind of people disliked by lots of WWC voters. A two pronged attack. And interestingly, it ties into the thread on MPs with degrees. I wonder if briefing against university arts types will be a low key issue at the GE. Arts degrees are not the problem. Degrees in shit, watered-down versions of arts subjects are the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 12, 2014 23:28:41 GMT
Can any Conservative here explain why your party is putting up so many really poor candidates for by-elections? The last three selections have been way past weak in direction of dire. Is there some sort of corporate death wish in the party? I think they're trying to seem more "popular" by having open primaries but they just aren't producing impressive candidates. Open primaries are a total and utter disaster. Dreadful, dreadful, dreadful. For all the talk of "the people having more of a say" etc, there's an easy way for people to do this- join a political party. After all, the people who attend these primaries never reappear to help elect these candidates they select- they do, of course, expect the party activists to do it. And that's the problem- the electorate regarding party volunteers of all political hues as some kind unpaid civil servants to have to put their decisions into action but can't have their own opinion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 23:41:30 GMT
Why have you changed from being a pleasant reasonable poster with plenty of good points to being a total something or other in the space of a couple of weeks? We don't use words like "fuck him and fuck his stupid party" on here regardless of how much we do or don't like people. This isn't the Daily Mirror comments page. We all have very different opinions and to get on we need to be a lot more civil than that. You are a nice chap and normally farbetter than this. Possibly Joe, because even rather nice reasonable people can be stung into just the sort of blind anger that I felt myself and which drove me out of your party. The blind opposition to devolution or having Devo-Max on the Referendum: followed by a snivelling scuttle and brown-nosing appeal near the end that was sickening and unnecessary? Because of a snide and dishonest campaign against AV: followed by a whining plaintive desire for tactical voting that AV would have facilitated? Possibly because a cast-iron Referendum guarantee was welched on once he was in power? Possibly because an outright promise to have a vote on the European Arrest Warrant was welched on by a new 'cunning plan' dreamed up by another person starting with 'cun.'! Take your choice Joe. The man is a serial liar and cheat and two-faced inadequate, posing as a PM....and not very well. We shall be rid of him in May and so luckily for you...will the party. It is a measure of the gross turpitude of Cameron and his clique that it reduces a decent James to language he will regret because as you say "It is not him". It was not James speaking but the pain of all of us who loath the very guts of the duplicitous two-faced Cameroon Conservatives. Please help us to rid your once honest party of this sickness next year. While I agree with your the shambles upin Scotland I totally and utterly disagree as regards AV. That argument does not make sense. Just because you are against preferential voting does not mean that you shouldn't look for tactical votes or try to get voters to gang up on an opponent. I am set against AV - were at the time before ukip were really on the map and would happily try to get labour voters to vote Con tactically. As for Europe. I would vote out but think that Cameron would do what he did in Scotland. Think he would win by a mile, shit his pants at the last second and promise something substantial then not deliver it. I don't think he would cancel the referendum. You hate Cameron - thats fair enough, but managed to keep it civil. |
|
