I am bored of commentators and bloggers lazily trotting out the line that "the boy Dave is just another Tony Blair and we might as well go and vote UKIP", just because he refuses to promise Tax-cuts, and has worked out that making people like you makes them more likely to vote for you.
Yes, but people are even more likely to vote for you when they like both you and your policies. As it happens, I don't like Dave; I think he's a fucking fake and a spiv at that. He'll say anything to anyone: less Blair and more LibDem really.
The Line that "Europe makes most of our laws ERGO westminster is irrelevant therefore we must vote UKIP" is just as dull.
Unfortunately, this does not make it any less true.
There is more to policy than tax-cuts and Europe, and no-one can get everything they want out of a Party, if they're prepared make the compromises nessesary to be part of a Governing movement.
You are quite right, Jackart, there is more to policy than these two things. However, both of these things are pretty fucking big. Now, I accept Letwin's point that the money has run out and—although I think that the British people, having seen that simply throwing money at public services does not make them substantially better, are now ready to hear the argument that cutting money does not necessarily make them worse—I am willing to accept that we may have to wait a few years for tax cuts.
However, the EU is another matter. If Dave is EUsceptic, why has he said that there is no place on his front bench for EUscpetics?
Why did he break his promise to withdraw from the EPP? After all, if he was really anti- the EU project he wouldn't need to form a new grouping: he could simply instruct the Conservative MEPs to join the Independence and Democracy Group (which would, coincidentally, mean splitting that group's resources between the Tories and UKIP, which would be a blow to the latter).
Why has he rigged the selection of Tory MEPs in favour of the sitting, Europhile representatives?
Why has he been in discussions with Barroso about ceding more environmental powers to the EU?
Why has he consistantly lied about repatriating the Social Chapter?
Why, despite urging their campaigners to highlight the plight of regional Post Offices, do the Tories fail to tell the truth about why they are closing?
Dave Cameron, EUsceptic? Don't make me fucking laugh.
If you're prepared to look like ridiculous lefties (revolutionary Trotskyite alliance, Socialist Peoples' party, Communist Party of Great Britain, Socialist Workers party etc... ad infinitum) each with their own religious belief in their solution to societies ills, then go ahead. Stick to your principles to the letter. Or you can grow up.
Well, I have grown up and I am sick of voting for a bunch of bastards whose policies—where we have any inkling of what they actually are—are not mine. It would not be a matter of compromising some of my principles: it means compromising them all, and why the fuck would I want to do that?
What, precisely, is Cameron's problem? The vast majority of the people in this country are, at the very least, EUsceptic (can anyone point me to that recent poll showing 69% or something?); why, if he is EUsceptic, does he not adopt this obviously vote-winning position?
Answer: because he's not EUsceptic.
If you're right of centre, and you want a new government, vote Conservative on Thursday.
If you're a swivel-eyed monomaniac with adolescent fantasies of self-importance, vote UKIP especially if you want 5 years of Gordon Brown (hey, at least he's Eurosceptic).
Trixy points out that this is a fairly stupid thing to say (not to mention insulting to people like myself).
I am sure that Timothy Congdon, former 'Wise Man' in the Treasury in the 1980s would be delighted at you calling him such names. As would Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who was given a life peerage by the Conservatives, and is chairman of the Pearson Webb Springbett (PWS) Group of reinsurance brokers, which he founded in 1964. Or, indeed, Lord Willoughby de Broke. Since 1992, Lord Willoughby de Broke has been governor of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre and since 2002 president of the Warwickshire branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (FRSA) and of the Royal Geographical Society (FRGS).
Further, as he points out in her comments, Jackart agrees with UKIP's policies.
That's not to say I don't agree with UKIPs policies. I do. No-one else cares.
Is he calling himself a "swivel-eyed monomaniac with adolescent fantasies of self-importance"? Presumably, yes.
OK, let me tell you why, tactically, you should vote UKIP in these local elections, especially if you are a Tory unhappy with Dave's policies. Because it's pretty simple.
The local elections are not going to control who runs the country; it isn't even really going to determine what your local council does: your council depends on the generosity of this NuLabour government for 75% of their funding.
However, if you would like Dave to take a more EUsceptic line; if you would like him to embrace the concepts of free trade; if you would like him to stop crapping on about the environment and instead make taxes both lower and simpler; in short, if you want a conservative (small "c") party to vote for at the next General Election (which does matter) then you need to show Dave that this is what you want.
The best way to do this is to vote for a party, minor though it may be, that espouses these principles. Then maybe, just maybe, Dave will sit up and listen to what you have to say. Maybe he will find his balls and form a EUsceptic policy. Use your protest vote to show Dave the direction that you would like the Tory party to go.
That is why, for a proper EUsceptic conservative who wants to see a properly conservative party up for election at the next GE, voting for UKIP is the only sensible tactical vote.