Tuesday, 19 January 2010

David Camerons Conservatives

Guido got hold of an email today from Conservative Central Office, see CCHQ Drops “David Cameron’s Conservatives”.

The fact that the Tory party even considered calling their party 'David Camerons Conservatives' on the ballot paper makes me wonder if he is going to be a party leader or a president. Frankly I'm really fed up of spin and I do not want another president Blair. We have a parliamentary system not a presidential one, please can we keep it that way.

Bookmark and Share


  1. I am amazed that after Andrew Mackay's shinanigans that Bracknell can even consider another Tory MP.

  2. Absolutely agree. This is a Parliamentary Democracy where control is supposed to be in the hands of a cabinet drawn from the largest political grouping, not an individual.

  3. The LibLabCon policies are all the same but the Leaders aren't. So of course it has to be about the person not the policy. As Cast Iron Dave says on that poster "Time for a change" so I'm going to vote UKIP for a change.

  4. I think the fact that they were even contemplating using 'David Cameron's Conservatives'indicates either: the dearth of heavyweights in their shadow cabinet OR deep dissatisfaction within the tory party with some considering setting up a XX YY's Conservative Party!

  5. Gadfly, Thats your right but I think your find your get nowhere with UKIP in Bracknell in a General Election. Also I do feel like that parties are different

  6. Murray Barter, UK Independence Party PPC22 January 2010 at 19:19

    After decades of the electorate receiving Red or Blue, (New Labour or Blue Labour), with the reality being a stifling of democracy, policy, outcome and direction, surely they won't be taken on another ride of broken promises and a rush of policy expedited out just in time for the election.

    Take the Labour party - 'no more boom and bust', yet when the sun shone, no nuts were squirreled away in case of requirement. And given the seizmic new debt, I'd say having done some saving beforehand would have been a good policy. We could go on - in 1997 'no new tax increases' -swiftly followed by an increase in N.I instead. And the promise of a referendum on the renamed Constitution, which according to one of the main authors of it (Giscard D'Estaing) is exactly what it is. Just two examples of how the electorate are treated with utter contempt.

    Take the Conservatives - ask them for their cogent, credible policy on supporting families, on Europe, on incentivising the entrepreneurs to employ and create wealth.

    The reality of them both is that they trade handbags, squabbling over what they perceive as the middle ground, whereas, ALL of the time, they are missing the point entirely.

    In fairly succinct form, I believe that we should be a progressive, modern, forward-thinking country and Party that is Pro-European, and that trades without barriers or tariffs with our European colleagues and friends, and, simalarly, with a reciprocal agreement in place for them with us.

    We inwardly receive far more of EU-countries' goods than we sell. Which is why, of course, the EU will want us to continue to trade in this fashion. This can be done by a free trade agreement. We do NOT need to be encumbered by the institution of the EU to achieve this, which costs the UK taxpayer £40 million PER DAY! Think of the hospitals and schools, and roads, and new train lines, and debt-paydown could go on simply by saving this vast waste of our precious resources, ie wealth.

    Coupled with that, we can reclaim our fishing waters, which decimated our fishing industry to the tune of 85% due to the EU (mainly taken by the Spanish)

    Coupled with that, we will have control of our borders again, and we can elect what population, or what skills requirement we require.

    Peter Hain said that he did not want to allow the population to grow to 70 million, though it is NOT in his control as being part of the EU, as 270 million people are free to come (and go) at will.

    Politicians talk tough about immigration, about points-based systems and so forth - all utterly pointless, and worse of all, DECEIVING, as by being part of the EU there is absolutely no control of migration.

    I hope that the electorate nationally, and Bracknell specifically, will start to consider that they have been taken for granted for too long, that there IS another way, and, please believe this, it WILL be better than what's been seen for the past 100 years.

    Murray Barter

  7. Does Murray Barker not remember that it was our own fishermen that chose to sell their licences & quotas to the Spanish fishermen? More to the point is we should remain in the EU and fight to amend the fisheries policy. Quotas resulting in 'throwback' are pointless. The over-quota fish hauled up die whether they are thown back or not.
    Whilst admitting that free movement does include 'go'he glosses over that with a(snort). Check how many of the EU immigrants are temporary and do go back, to say nothing of the numbers of people born in the UK that choose to emigrate, sometimes for short periods,sometimes for ever. The Tories fuelled this by stopping collecting that statistic years ago. Recording of in/out has now been reinstated but there is minimum data to compare it with for some time to come. The trouble with near-blue New Labour is that they are too close to real-blue to show any confidence when they do put that sort of thing right.
    UKIP members just want to live in a fairy tale, frantically casting around for way to sound as if they are more than a one-issue party.

  8. Murray Barter, UK Independence Party PPC26 January 2010 at 23:19

    Oldbiddy, Many thanks for your reply.

    Regarding why our fishermen decided to sell their ships to the Spanish & Dutch, it was they were offering the highest prices. The main alternative - EU scrapping grants - were not on offer in Britain. If you bought the boat, you also got the licence to fish & a guaranteed share of the national quota.

    On fishing, the UK Independence Party advocates :
    Restoring British waters and fishing to national control by leaving the European Union Common Fisheries Policy

    Abandoning all quotas and strictly forbidding ‘discards’

    In co-operation with scientists & fishermen, introducing technical measures & net design to be more selective, allowing immature fish & non-targeted species to escape

    Requiring all commercial species fish caught, regardless of size or species, to be landed and recorded in order to compile meaningful figures to establish a Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and to plan accordingly

    Establishing Minimum Landing Sizes (MLS) for all commercial species and ensuring that only fish above the MLS are offered for sale. All undersized fish to be confiscated and processed into either fish meal or fertiliser, proceeds from the sale of which will go towards administrative costs

    Establishing a system of moveable ‘No Take Zones’ seasonally to allow fish to spawn, or in areas considered to be overfished to allow recovery

    Banning all forms of ‘industrial’ fishing and pair trawling for bass. Restricting beam trawling to areas considered suitable by working fishermen and scientists

    Licensing foreign fishing boats with a proven record of fishing in the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone to continue for a transition period of five years, provided they observe British rules. Licences would not be offered to foreign boats in receipt of EU subsidy and foreign boats would not be licensed to fish in UK territorial waters (12-mile limit). After the transition period, licences would only be issued to foreign boats if fish stocks exceeded of British boats’ catch capability in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

    Building artificial reefs

    Encouraging profitable mariculture (fish farms), particularly encouraging shellfish farm ventures in suitable inshore waters

    Establishing a Fisheries College and a Crew Training school and conducting properly structured training programmes

    Taking advice from Norway and Iceland to establish a Fishing Ministry to overseeing a Fishing Management Agency and co-ordinating the activities of the existing Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs), who would become the ‘front line’ of sustainable management of our fish stocks

    Strengthening the fishery protection service and providing adequate Naval ships to effect distant water patrols (minesweepers in a dual role).

    The 12-page policy can be gleaned from here: www.ukip.org/media/pdf/fishing.pdf

    Relating to your assertions on immigration, you are indeed correct to point towards my previous concession relating to two-way movement of migration. And you are also correct that no accurate data exists on such net flows. Yet you have so far failed to grasp the main tenets of the migration issues.

    Should, as you state, people migrate here for a while and then go back to another country… Well, your argument will naturally follow that:

    a), people need a home and where does this housing stock come from? We are increasingly short of housing supply, and if projections are made based upon a transient population figure, it will be impossible to predict stock, leading to the possibility of further greenbelt land being lost to the bulldozers, bricks & mortar forever, surely the ghost towns of future generations

    b) economic migrants who have no allegiance to the country, who are intending to save hard from their gains from this country & repatriate themselves and their salaries, will remove this cashflow from this economy, rather than the money being recycled back into the economy for jobs & prosperity

    Do you agree with either of these statements?

  9. Murray Barter, UK Independence Party PPC26 January 2010 at 23:21

    You may be more interested to note that:

    1) 10% of the UK population are born overseas, yet they are producing 25% of all children currently being born.

    2) Much of the migration away from the UK are from highly-skilled, self sufficient or high net worth individuals people, yet the inflow tends to be the unskilled or semi-skilled labourers. Of course there are several exceptions to these scenarios.

    3) The governments own statistics show that the population will grow to 70 million in less than one generation. Mind you, this is the government that forecast no more boom & bust, and that only 13,000 Poles would come into Britain after Accession. The reality was c. 300,000 in the first year and many more since. Using the governments (likely to be underestimated) figures, this means 16% more population. 16% more energy requirement. 16% more houses. 16% more cars. This isn't scaremongering, this is the roll-out of the outcome. For the sake of our children and their children, let's act now before this becomes a reality.

    In terms of the suggestion that UKIP only has one issue, it is correct that solely one outcome, namely the transition from the EU to a free-trading relationship with the EU, will lift the burden on individuals and businesses to thrive and prosper exponentially.

    However, please feel free to fully verse yourself with our policies on areas such as Welfare, Pensions, Food/Farming/Countryside, Criminal Justice, Defence, Energy, Education and so forth. Please click on:

    Murray Barter