ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Conservatives must make a pact with Ukip, Lord Tebbit says(59 Posts)
Is it over?
"The Conservatives must make a seat-swapping "pact" with Ukip if they are to have a chance of winning the next election, a former party chairman has said."
" He said that Mr Farage had damaged the Conservatives' electoral prospects by winning over traditional Tories who feel they have been "abandoned" by David Cameron.
"It would help if we didn't abuse former Tory voters by attacking Ukip as nutters," he added.
The Conservatives, he said, were at risk of looking like jealous shopkeepers "shouting abuse" at former customers choosing to shop in a newly opened store."
"Lord Tebbit made his comments as a major study of Ukip suggests that it can mobilise its support it could attract up to 30 per cent of the vote.
The academic study, which analysed the views of 100,000 voters, said support for Ukip was driven not just by Euroscepticism, but also by 'hostility' to immigration and 'intense dissatisfaction' with the three main parties."
Wise words by Lord Tebbit, but will Call Me Dive take note?
If this wise counsel is ignored, I fear it will require all of the Bullingdon bullshit, the Oxford old flannel and the PPE poppycock it is possible to muster in order to climb out of this hole.
The "revolt of the people" has begun and they can't stop it. They're tearing their hair out, they're going nuts, they know it's over and the people have won!
“If this wise counsel is ignored, I fear it will require all of the Bullingdon bullshit, the Oxford old flannel and the PPE poppycock it is possible to muster in order to climb out of this hole."
The "revolt of the people" has begun and they can't stop it. They're tearing their hair out, they're going nuts, they know it's over and the people have won”
Jez Claig….you sound like some cheesy third world dictator, broadcasting from somewhere close to Cuba; all that’s missing is the cat stroking and the evil cackle at the end of it.lol
Who is Lord Tebbit nowadays, he certainly don’t speak for me, if Ukip had ANY policies, never mind any a Conservative might identify with, then possibly. So I’ll reiterate a statement I’ve made before; I’d rather chew my own left arm off than ‘enable’ a political party that has gained support by campaigning on people’s fear, with a firm promise to bring the UK out of the EU, which they can’t deliver on.
I’d suggest that Ukip looking to 2015, realising that like six by-elections they might end up being ‘the bridesmaids’ and not get any parliamentary seats, would bite my left arm off for a pact with the Conservatives.
Thanks to Mr Miliband siding with the Lib Dems on the NO EU REFERENDUM, only a vote for the Conservatives will provide the people with a say on Europe, and that potentially is a game changer – as a vote FOR THIS LOT, will allow THIS LOT, to let Labour back in power.
“Inside the Ukip 'zoo': Former staffers describe party's bizarre Mayfair HQ where people take their clothes off, bring animals into the office and keep a whiteboard naming people they want to have sex with”
“Ukip's new London headquarters is a chaotic environment where workers are sex-obsessed and volunteers frequently leave work early to go to the pub, it was claimed today.”
“Former employees say that the office in Mayfair is often full of workers' pets, while staff regularly take their clothes off and compile lists of people they would like to have sex with.”
“Nigel Farage's wife, who works as a secretary for Ukip, has reportedly described the office - which the party moved in to last year as part of its push to become a major political force - as a 'freakshow'.”
And the loss of an EU referendum may not be the worst consequence of ‘vote Ukip, get Labour’, as Labour will get another chance of finishing the job of taking a growing, business friendly economy in 1997 and turning it into a basket case affecting everyone.
On a Ukip ‘game of chicken’, with over a year to go, if the Conservatives cannot get this message across and/or if the people still want Labour, then so-be-it.
Unfortunately most of ‘the people’ have to first identify Labour’s incompetence in running the economy before allowing the Conservatives to have a working majority, as in 1979.
Labour’s 2010 electoral cowardice and 2015 re-election plan in not providing the electorate with their own ministerial spending, cuts and increased taxes they promised ensured they would bounce back. So pussy footing around with Ukip now would just be a sideshow, a short term distraction from the inevitable 2015 Labour majority.
There won't be any pact in my constituency that's for sure.
'Who is Lord Tebbit nowadays, he certainly don’t speak for me'
Of course he doesn't speak for you. He is a real Tory.
He was a real Tory then and he is one of the few remaining real Tories now.
He's not one of these what they call modernisers . He hasn't got a wind turbine on his roof. He's just a real Tory, a man of principle, one of the few remaining Thatcherites left.
He went to a grammar school, not to Eton. He is one of the people, just like a certain Nigel Farage.
Tebbit knows it's over, we know it's over and the Bullingdon Club knows it's over.
Does Gove know it's over too?
"The Tories' man of the people? Michael Gove tries to bring a common touch to the Cabinet with attack on 'ridiculous' number of Old Etonians in Cameron's inner circle
Education Secretary said elitism was unlike anything in the developed world"
The Financial Times, the elite's paper, has an interview with him tomorrow. The Financial Times does not waste its time. Apparently some of their journalists have even asked whether Gove could be the next leader.
"He is the busiest, spikiest, most complex – and by far the most divisive – education secretary in living memory. But is he also a Conservative party leader in the making?"
I think the Tories will be wiped out by UKIP in the May Euro elections because the "revolt of the people" has begun and it cannot now be stopped, and I think the Tories may then need a new leader quite quickly.
Claig….the key policies the Conservatives in coalition with a left wing party that neither Thatcher or Tebbit ever had to work with, are STILL following the key Conservative policies of the party – they have to, it was proven to work for this country from 1979, and the country went t*ts up when Labour did the opposite to what they found in 1997.
As for the Bullingdon Club, Eaton, or anywhere else they teach you how to rescue an economy, rather than crash one, should only be a problem for The Tooting Popular Front and Citizen Smith, not anyone with half a brain who can see what ‘the party of the people’ did to them, with a stonking great parliamentary majority that probably never went under 100 seats, until 2010.
If those idiots went to the Bullingdon Club or Eaton, you’d have a point, as it is, ‘the brains’ within the current Labour Parliamentary Party are only just WORKING OUT their policies caused the crisis, no wonder in 2010 they didn’t have a clue how to fix their problems without throwing more money at them – and the crack is, there will still be a budget deficit in 2015.
Your view that a probable less than 40% turnout a year before the General Election, on an immigration platform, will make the Conservatives throw out a leader before the General Election who has successfully tackled problems Labour was unable to, indicates to me that you are 'playing with half a deck', yourself.
'‘the party of the people’ is UKIP, not Labour.
Labour are the party of the policy wonks, the party of the Primrose Hill Mob, the Oxford PPEs, the think tank employees and climate change coordinators - not much different from the Tories, in fact, except that they are the Nottting Hill Mob.
It has recently been reported that Gove would prefer Osborne to Boris as leader, and now the Financial Times has an interview with Gove and it mentions him as a possible leader, even though he says he does not want to be leader.
The Tory elite and the ruling elite are not stupid, they understand the 'revolt of the people' and they know that 'the party of the people' is UKIP and not Labour. They are getting ready for change, they are making plans and new leaders are being discussed. We know it's over and they know it's over.
It wouldn't matter if the Tories said they wanted to leave Europe and copied UKIP's immigration policies, they would still lose because the 'revolt of the people' is not about that.
It is really about " 'intense dissatisfaction' with the three main parties" as the new book on UKIP called 'Revolt on the Right' says. And the dissatisfaction is because many of their policies are essentially the same and that is because they are all the same - they all went to Oxbridge, they all studied PPE, they are all millionaires and they all have rooftop wind turbines. They are divorced from the public, they no longer represent or understand the public.
That is why Gove is reported to have come out
"with attack on 'ridiculous' number of Old Etonians in Cameron's inner circle
Education Secretary said elitism was unlike anything in the developed world"
The battle is now about who represents the people, who is the 'party of the people' and it has all come about due to the rise of UKIP.
Without UKIP, the policy wonks, the PPEs, the think tanks, the so-called "charities" and the rooftop wind turbines would have continued to proliferate.
But their time is up, their game is up, the 'revolt of the people' has upset their apple cart and there is panic in Primrose Hill and Notting Hill.
Claig…your little threatening mantras are a cross between the Daleks and The Borg, and about as monotonous; ’the party of the people’ have to have a record of standing on polices benefiting the people across a broad range of issues for many years, currently have serious policies across a broad range of issues AND have at least ONE seat in parliament – Ukip have NONE of the above, but come to think of it, based on their recent record, Labour only have 1 out of 3. Lol
As for as the way this country is governed, polls don’t count, the people only ‘speak’ in the ballot box in May 2015 – as history has shown us time and time again – so may I suggest that you don’t get too carried away about other party leaders until then, especially as Farage has said he will stand down if not successful.
Worry who will want to lead the Ukip "freakshow" (Mrs Farage's words, not mine) from then, when Ukip has stopped the prospects of a Conservative referendum on the EU.
Come back after the results of the May Euro elections and after the earthquake that that will have caused, when the LibDems lose many MEPs and when Tory leadership may change.
There has been nothing like this in politics for decades. A 'party of the people' has been born and a 'revolt of the people' is underway. This is new, so some like you cannot see or hear it, but wait until after May and you will see it more clearly.
Farage is a great speaker, but it doesn't matter if he one day resigns, because UKIP is like a snowball that is growing and growing because it represents the people. If Farage goes, someone new will take his place because the people are behind UKIP and it is a force that is here to stay.
That is why Tebbit has said that the Tories will have to make a pact with UKIP and that is why Gove has decried elitism.
The time for elitism is over, the time of the people has come.
How many moderate, pro-EU conservatives would they lose if they made a pact with UKIP? I don't think they could win an electoral majority without those centre-right voters. So the question is: can they win a majority without those 'swivel-eyed loons' ?
UKIP do seem to to an outsider to be somewhat, shall we say, poorly disciplined and disorganised. For many that's part of their charm and a marked difference between the three main parties. I think that would act as a significant barrier to any agreement.
Look at what's happened to UKIP's as the official opposition on Lincolnshire County Council.
The actual data. A Tory (there aren't any conservatives in that party) pact with UKIP would have some real entertainment value, and heighten the chances of getting neoliberal economic illiteracy out of No. 11.
Good points, TheHammaconda They would lose some Conservative voters. They would possibly lose Isitmebut.
I think UKIP, being a democratic representative of the people, are less disciplined than New Labour for example. It looks like there is all sorts of politics going on within certain councils etc. But I think the public do not take interest in these sort of squabbles and the squabbles will eventually get sorted out.
KissesBreakingWave, I have had a quick look at the data, but I don't think it deals with the impact of a Tory-UKIP pact where Tories stand down in certain constituencies, such as in the North, where UKIP then challenge Labour head-on.
There is a really interesting post on John Redwood's blog. He quotes a report from the UKIP website "The article says that at 16% of the vote – the highwater mark of polls before the recent decline in support – UKIP does most damage to the Conservatives. From 16-25% UKIP damages Labour more. "
Assuming this is true, UKIP are currently at 13.85% - so in their damaging the Conservative range.
I hate the notion of pacts, it's dangerous and anti-democratic. Tactical voting by individual voters is one thing but a pact saying "We'll stand aside for you" would do irreparable damage to democracy. How could any party that won an election through this kind of pact have a clear and legitimate claim to a mandate?
Have been googling John Redwood to see what his position is about a possible pact, and as far as I can make out he has not said that he wants one. He seems to be saying that UKIP should work with the tories and as UKIP have little chance of getting many MPs, they should basically go along with the Tory Eurosceptic position. I don't think this is realistic. I think this is trying to have your cake and eat it.
Here is an article from Oct 2012 where nothing firm is stated about a pact. It starts by quoting John Redwood.
"Eurosceptics must try to win over those who were "broadly in sympathy" with their cause but who were put off by the "apparent extreme language some use and the extreme conduct that some undertake...We need to build bridges rather than destroy them."
He added: "Now is the time for Eurosceptics to come together and stop arguing about what group or sect they belong to...Now is the time to set out the case in moderate and sensible language."
Asked about the prospect of the Conservatives and UKIP co-operating at the next election, Mr Redwood said that "given the leaders of the two parties that's not looking very likely at the moment".
Some Tory MPs fear the apparent surge in public support for UKIP will be enough to rob their party of an overall majority at the next election and UKIP leader Nigel Farage has floated the possibility of an electoral pact - if David Cameron agrees to an in/out referendum.
But Mr Cameron has dismissed such talk, describing UKIP as a "waste of time".
Professor Tim Congdon, UKIP's economic spokesman, said Mr Cameron's promise to stand up for British interests in Europe - including his guarantee of a vote on the Lisbon Treaty - had turned "to jelly".
"The referendum has to be in or out. If David Cameron and William Hague think by promising a referendum after the election on some silly little negotiation they have had and that is somehow going to neutralise UKIP then they are fooling themselves as well as the people".
Hurting the Tories at the ballot box was the best way to get a referendum, he said, adding his party "intended to cause as much damage as possible to other parties so they wake up and listen to the British people".
In the Redwood article you linked to, Redwood is basing his predictions on what will happen on what happened in the past. I think he has misunderstood what is going on. Five years ago, the BNP outpolled UKIP in many areas, but not anymore. In teh past 5 years there has been a transformation in UKIP's fortunes. Why?
In my opinion, it is not to do with Europe or immigration. It is really to do with 'intense dissatisfatcion' with the 3 established parties. To many people, it has now become clear that they are all in it together. They are the same type of people with teh same type of views. They are all Oxbridge, most of them PPEs, many of them millionaires and nearly all greens and global warmists. They are part of a metropolitan elite which shares the same vision of the world. Big Society is a Marxist Saul Alinsky view of the world
"This plan is directly based on the successful community organising movement established by Saul Alinsky in the United States and has successfully trained generations of community organisers, including President Obama."
That statement, which beggars belief even in the political fairground we now inhabit, is not taken from some far-out Trotskyite samizdat, but from the official Conservative Party introduction to David Cameron’s Big Idea – the creation of a “Neighbourhood army” of 5,000 full-time community organisers to implement his grotesque fantasy called “Big Society”. If you ever doubted that, under Cameron, the Conservative Party has become ideologically and culturally deracinated, has lost its political compass and is occupied by an alien clique that has disfigured it beyond recognition, here is the incontestable evidence.
This is not Conservatism as the people knew it. This is not Thatcher and Tebbit. This is polar bear, husky hugging, hoodie hugging modernising metropolitan elitism.
That is why half of the Tory Party's membership has left. The people had no choice, they had to vote for modernisers, the metroplitan elite or for Labour, and the Guardian and BBC pretended that the people were happy with that.
But what has changed in the past 5 years, is that the people have had enough and they want change.
The Euro elections will show that. The metropolitan elite believbe that teh people will fall back in line afterwards and carrying on voting for the modernisers because of our electoral first past the post system that does not reflect the views of the people. But I think the metropolitan elite is wrong. The buzzing of their rooftop wind turbines has fooled them into not understanding what is happening.
'I hate the notion of pacts, it's dangerous and anti-democratic.'
I disagree. An upfront, open pact is democratic because the people have a choice and can choose if they want it.
I think it is in the interests of UKIP to make a pact because at the moment that is the only way that they can gain substantial MPs. If they make a pact, and if they win many seats, then they can change politics forever by introducing proportional representation and referenda which will reflect the view of the people in a democracy. Then we will see how popular the metropolitan elite really are.
Politics is about change and making things better and listening to the people. To achieve these goals, compromises have to be made and pacts are part of that.
Tony Benn was in favour of referenda and so are UKIP. Tony Benn was against EU membership and so are UKIP. Tony Benn wasgainst proportional representation, but UKIP is not against it.
A pact is the first step to change politics.
UKIP is not stuffed full of elites and PPEs and think tank policy wonks and phoney "charity" types. It is full of ordinary people and it is giving a voice to ordinary people.
A pact is the way to change politics forever and to give real representation to the people.
Politics has changed. Five years ago, UKIP were nowhere, now they are everywhere and they will only grow stronger if they carry on listening to the people.
And if UKIP do make a pact and if they get seats in Parliament, they will begin to displace the Conservative party. Just as Tony Benn caused the right wing of the Labour Party to leave Labour and join the SDP, Nigel Farage will cause the modernisers and progressives and Saul Alinsky fans in the Conservative Party to join Labour where they belong.
Things really have changed. The people really do want change and I think it will come.
Ah, should have realised this was one of Claig's threads.
Bring on the pact. If anything can make the Tories very unelectable, that'll be it.
The Tory elite is very clever. That is why the Tories were the most successful party in the UK in the twentieth century.
They are already talking about who the next leader will be. Will it be Boris, will it be Osborne, will it be Gove?
Why are they talking about it now and why is Tebbit talking about a pact now?
I think it is because they think they may lose. What will they do? Just sit and wait to lose and then change leader while Labour are in power for the next 5 years? I don't think so, but one never knows.
I think they will act quickly if they see doom on the horizon.
The other thing about pacts is that every party consists of pacts.
Tony Benn and Michael Foot were on the left and Denis Healey and Tony Blair were on the right.
No one agrees on everything, not even Boris and Cameron.
No one expects the Coalition (incumbent government) to do well in the EU elections in May, governments rarely do in between General Elections - THE MEP PRESSURE IS NOW ON UKIP & LABOUR.
Miliband’s Labour has now confirmed that THEIR voters will NOT get an EU Referendum after 2015, as similar to the Lib Dems, NOTHING will change their based socialist views that the EU is good for the UK.
Miliband is clearly confident that Labour will NOT lose any more voters to Ukip, so if Ukip do NOT get Labour votes in May in a EU/immigration electoral platform, Farage will be soiling his boxers that the CURRENT Labour support he has, will fall away by the 2015 General Election.
Whilst I've already stated my opinion on a pact, they are an interesting topic..
The last party that I know of to benefit was in fact labour, all the way back in the very early 20th century. The Liberals ( not to be confused with Cleggy's mob) agreed to step aside in about 30 seats to give them a chance. They took it with both hands and the rest is history, about twenty years later they formed a weak government.
I can see the attraction if you merely do some arithmetic, that presupposes that things are as simple as arithmetic however.
UKIP might benefit in that they could devote resources to particular campaigns, and that there would be a rump of voters in any constituency whose favoured candidate was not running or viable. The arithmetic claims that these voters would switch en masse however are flawed.
Due to the lib dems woeful performance in government there is already the best part of 20% of voters in each constituency who fall roughly into this category. Adding another 30% or so might make things more interesting for wonky speculators but I suspect most would simply refuse to vote in disgust at the undemocratic shenanigans or run local look a like candidates.
There is also the question of what is in it for UKIP? This might seem obvious - to gain more MPs - but how many? Concentrating resources on a limited number of constituencies is already likely, with our current vote share in the opinion polls ( 13% or 17% prompted) we would probably return 5 or 10. The magic figure however is 22% which isn't far out of sight. At that point we would start returning lots of MPs, due to the spread across the country 25% would give us between 80 and 100. Much more than that and, whilst it depends upon where the votes were coming from ( labour or tory), we would be serious contenders for government.
If UKIP agreed to some form of a pact the above scenario is toast. Whilst we might return a handful of extra MPs in the shires we would certainly lose our support in the North and Wales especially. The tories have nothing to lose as they have displayed a total lack of ability in taking labour's rotten boroughs. Giving up these constituencies loses them nothing.
Then there is UKIP's membership to think of. We lost 40% of the membership overnight when Lord Pearson ( leader at the time) offered an electoral pact to the tories before the last GE. Many more simply didn't renew their membership or campaign in 2010. More again resigned over his policy decision to ban the burka. As did many when Nigel announced that our flat tax policy might be dropped. I could go on, however the fact is that Libertarians are... somewhat volatile when it comes to matters of principle. I know a couple of ladies who resigned because Godfrey Bloom was punished by the party, they were appalled in many ways but the principle of freedom of speech was more important to them.
It is in fact quite remarkable that the UKIP membership agrees on anything, the best analogy I heard was that organising them was like trying to herd cats with a sheepdog.
The one thing that Ukipians do appear to agree on however is that we distrust, dislike and disagree with tories. Subreptile and conniving, the fact that we keep them awake at night brings joy to my little libertarian heart.
The fact that we don't keep the other two heads of the MiliCleggEron beast awake annoys me greatly. Clegg may have finally been pushed through desperation into debating against Nigel but he did it in a smug way. Miliband's contempt for the public may have been evident in his recently ruling out a referendum, but his contempt for the threat from UKIP was greater still.
Generally we peak late, whilst the GE polls put us in the teens I have seen remarkably few actual results from council elections or by elections which concur with the polls.
Hence this is heartening..
"The poll also asked about European election voting intentions and found toplines of CON 21%, LAB 28%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 30%."
Some very good points, Spinflight.
I hope you are right that UKIP can get seats without a pact.
The arithmetic is key and is complicated and UKIP would lose votes up North if they were seen as merely helping Tories. And I think the Tories would probably not offer a good deal. I don't think the Tories will be able to swallow their pride and admit that they are a declining force. If they were to offer a good pact, they would need to offer up safe seats as well as changing some of their key policies towards UKIP ones. I don't think they will do that.
You are right that UKIP members are very hard to control as they are a real democratic bunch with differing views, and are libertarian and believe in free speech and don't believe in being corralled by party leaders or political correctness or anything else.
I didn't realise that 40% of UKIP's members left after Lord Pearson suggested a Tory-UKIP pact once before.
I agree that the metropolitan elite and the pollsters and the pundits are all underestimating the real support of the people for UKIP. They were all shocked by what happened in the local elections last year. I hope it will be the same in the general election. We will have to wait and see if politics will be changed forever and if the people vote for change.
More interestingly claig, from John Redwood's blog it appears that some tories did take UKIP seriously in 2009. Cameron however confidently predicted, with an edge of certainty, that our vote share would decline to almost nothing.
Whether that confidence was predicated purely on political nous, or inside information, is not clear. I was in the sandpit at the time but it appears that remarkably few members busted a gut for a leadership whose first pronouncement was that he would not stop stalking on his 10,000 acre estate.
He was honest enough to say that he wasn't up to the job.
The opposite case of course is the Reform party in Canada, who came from nowhere to destroy that nation's conservative party. They refused any notion of pacts and suffered extremely unpleasant infiltration tactics from the Canadian tories. At a similar point in the election cycle to where UKIP now stand a group of tories posed as Reform members during a rally, chanted racist slogans and turned the rally into a mass brawl.
This destroyed Reform's support - until the truth came out, at which point the tories were annihilated at the polls.
The real story for me from the local elections was the 800 or so seats where we came second. This has continued in sporadic local election results since then, always with higher polling than the opinion polls suggest.
Hence if we are on 30% with a couple of months to go this is very encouraging for the local elections, which are far more important to me than the euros.
Banging on about the EU whilst standing candidates for the higher offices is all fine and well, as long as you have local councillors in spades. They are the ones who local people can see to be doing a good job and making a difference. They are the local face who campaign at the bigger elections. They are the ones who can push support for Grammar schools and lower taxes.
Until very recently it was a topsy turvy party ( arguably simply wrong). May should change all that.
If you look at Eastleigh we only need a 2% swing to take it in 2015. Several consituencies were predominantly UKIP at the local elections. We don't have much data on many areas, which will change.
Join the discussion
Please login first.