Wednesday, January 17, 2007

George Pascoe-Watson gets it very wrong

The political editor of the Sun has made a few errors in his article about Cameron and UKIP....oops!

DAVID CAMERON has proudly declared himself a true blue Thatcherite – to snuff out the threat of the United Kingdom Independence Party. UKIP could be the one hurdle standing between Mr Cameron and the door to 10 Downing Street.
Jumping up and down and saying "I'm a Tory, I like Thatcher" does not a convincing argument make. Don't tell me, show me, I say. Especially when every speech you make points to the opposite.

Thousands of EU-hating Tory diehards could ditch Mr Cameron at the next election. And they risk handing power to Labour by default.
Well, if you don't like the EU, why would you vote for David Cameron? He is PRO EU, after all. And handing power to Labour by default? It's not one or the other, George.

So now Mr Cameron has left no one in any doubt by shouting from the rooftops that he IS a Tory.
Well, no, he hasn't actually. He's left plenty of people in no doubt that he's worried about UKIP, and is desperate to try stop yet more people defect to UKIP. Actions speak louder than words, as I said.

He said yesterday: “We believe in freedom under the law, personal responsibility, sound money, strong defence and national sovereignty.
Yet we want to remain in the EU, which has taken away huge amounts of our national sovereignty, and makes 75% of our laws, his concept of personal responsibility is to do what he says you should do, he doesn't want to cut tax, wants to keep state spending high and is happy for the EU to keep a Common Foreign Security and Defence Policy (it was Major who signed up to Maasctricht after all. )

“Those who ask whether I am a Conservative need to know that the foundation stones of the alternative government that we’re building are the ideas that encouraged me as a young man to join the Conservative Party and work for Margaret Thatcher.”
Alternative how? What does Cameron actually want to change?

The Conservatives must win more than 125 more seats at the next election to form a government.
Then they had better start fighting for them. Some policies would be a start, instead of all this window dressing and empty rhetoric.

Mr Cameron needs many more than that to give him a fighting chance of staying in power for more than one term. Every single marginal seat must turn blue.
Although it will be faux-blue. Because the Conservative Party under David Cameron is not a traditional party of low tax and small state.

A few hundred hardline Tories voting UKIP on the night could prove the difference between success or failure. Their supporters have given up on Mr Cameron sticking to traditional Conservative values.
That would be because they have given up. People will vote UKIP because they feel that UKIP are the party who represents them. If that is the case, why should they vote for any other? Why should I care about the Tories getting in when they don't represent me?

He has spent an entire year rebranding the party as a modern-day force interested in the environment and public services.
Without actually bothering to look at the science behind climate change, either. He's pushing full steam ahead with this 'save the planet' bullshite that I think is just a convenient way to raise taxes and demand more state control. And I do wish that people would stop holding up our public services as some kind of indication of excellence. They aren't. They are shit.

In trying to bring his party screaming into the 21st Century, he has left many feeling they no longer belong.
Presumably because they don't. I used to think I was a Tory, but I ain't!

And so UKIP have already enticed two Tory peers and one of Iron Lady Mrs Thatcher’s most respected economists to their ranks. Conservative funder Stuart Wheeler might even follow suit. Yet UKIP have absolutely no chance of ever winning a Commons seat.
Is there some kind of ban on UKIP holding seats that I haven't heard of? Or is this just a fatuous remark? If enough people vote UKIP, then they can win a seat. Simple.

They won just 2.2 per cent of the vote in the 2005 General Election yet cost the Conservatives around 30 seats.
In a very bad year for the party, when the politicians and media made sure that the EU was not mentioned during the entire campaign.

UKIP’s uncompromising “quit Europe” message still appeals to large numbers of dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives.
Like your dad? And Labour, and Greens, and Lib Dems, and people who don't vote. People like your father actually, George. People who don't want to be ruled by Brussels, people who want free trade, who want low taxes, low state interference. Those are the people who want out of the EU.

UKIP’s leader Nigel Farage has himself cost one Conservative candidate a seat. Mr Farage contested Labour marginal Thanet South for UKIP, coming fourth with 2,079 votes. If just 667 of those had voted for Tory candidate Mark MacGregor, he would have taken the seat from Labour.
Considering that Norman Tebbit told people not to vote for MacGregor, I think it's a pretty clear indication that voting for Mark would have been the same as voting for Ladyman. Why should the people in Thanet South not have the chance to vote for someone who represents their views?

UKIP are trying to blackmail Tory MPs by promising them no opposition if they sign up to a campaign to pull Britain out of the EU.
Erm, no they're not. They're just saying they are not going to stand against people who stand for the same things they do. Seems sensible to me.

Mr Cameron is furious and has warned his troops not to touch the UKIP offer with a bargepole. He has already declared he would pull Britain out of the EU’s social chapter, which saddles firms with job-destroying costs.
George. The Social Chapter does not exist. The Social Chapter was a protocol of the Maastricht Treaty, signed by John Major, which he secured an opt out to. Since Labour signed it in 1997 (and let's not forget that you supported the Labour party then) we no longer have a choice about opting out. The clauses are now contained in Articles 136 - 145 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which David Cameron does not want to withdraw Britain from. This is just another example of Cameron saying anything to get elected, like the Tory promise to withdraw from the CFP, when to do so would have required leaving the EU altogether as it is contained in the Treaty Establishing a European Union.

He has vowed never to scrap the Pound or sign up to an EU constitution. And he has already pulled the Tories out of cosy links with pro-EU parties in Brussels — which predecessors William Hague and Michael Howard never did.
Wrong again. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

He has promised not to sign up to thisConstitution, but not any.
And as for saying that he has pulled the Tories out of the EPP, where have you been? They are still quite happily sitting there, being led by a man who may soon face criminal charges for misuse of public funds, unless MEPs vote to allow him immunity. Please, if you must write, get your facts straight.

The irony is this: If UKIP are to blame for a hung Parliament, the pro-EU Lib Dems will hold the balance of power.
Why would UKIP be to blame? What, for having the audacity to stand in an election because the other political parties do not represent them? Naughty, bad UKIP. How dare you have a voice in politics.

To me, it matters not one bit if Labour, Tories or the Lib Dems are in power - they are all the bloody same.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I couldn't say it better myself, Trixy. There is also the point that were ALL marginal losses for ALL parties in May 2005 the result of UKIP alone? Why do the Tories think they ALONE `suffered' losses?