Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

by Guest Sat Mar 14, 2015 11:22 pm

The Ukip leader would demand an in/out European Union referendum

Nigel Farage has revealed his radical plans for Ukip to support a minority Conservative government after the next election.

The UK Independence Party leader says that he is willing to make a deal with the Tories on the condition that they hold an EU referendum before Christmas.

The detailed plans for a hung parliament set out that Ukip and Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party would work together to support the Conservatives on a vote by vote basis.

Ukip - forecast to gain up to six seats in the election - would vote for the Conservative's first Budget, which would be the first major test of this new right of centre alliance.

Until now Mr Cameron has only said that he will have a referendum – in which he would campaign to stay in a reformed EU – by the end of 2017.

More at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11471179/Revealed-Nigel-Farages-offer-to-support-a-minority-Conservative-Government.html

lol!

UKIP, the 'anti-establishment party' who would 'never do a deal with the Tories'!

lol!

by eddie Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:15 am

Hmmmm seems a tad stupid for farage to say that??

by nicko Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:57 pm

If that happened what a great Government that would be, not for the left on here of course.

by Guest Sun Mar 15, 2015 10:43 pm

It wouldn't be the left on here who would bear the brunt, but the ordinary Birtish person, who would be suffering even more than they are now.

by eddie Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:58 pm

I may vote for Clegg. I kinda like him.

by Guest Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:04 am

I despair Eddie, I really really despair. You don't like the Conservatives but you are going to vote for the man who propped them up and didn't have the guts to stand up to them. Broke every promise he made. You don't, or shouldn't, vote for people because you 'like' them, you vote because of their policies, or you are making a mockery of the election process. So what policies of his do you like?

by Eilzel Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:18 am

Wow Sass, imagine the current government without the Liberals there to hold them back? The raising of the tax threshold was Liberal policy, as were pupil premiums. The Liberals helped push through gay marriage too. And though tuition fees rose (this was coalition, not a Liberals govt) the Liberals were key to negotiating repayment terms which are actually BETTER for students now than under Labour.

The Liberals have been good for this government- it would have been neo-Thatcherite without them.

by Guest Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:23 am

Sorry Les, I disagree. When they realised quite how bad this Government were, and how much the sick and vunerable were suffering under them, they should have had the guts to say 'no more' and withdrawn their support. I realise in the beginning they thought they were doing it for the good of the country, but within a very short space of time they must have realised quite how back the Conservatives were. Clegg just liked being deputy PM. Well he'll be lucky if he keeps his seat.

by Eilzel Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:29 am

If they withdrew support the economy would have been at risk again as elections and unforeseeable outcomes always rattle the markets. As it is we have growth which is predicted to continue. Though many things have not improved for some, they will, as growth continues. What point is there in the LDs withdrawing and leaving a paralysed government that gets nothing done?

The Conservatives were not as bad as in the past- and that's partly down to coalition.

by Guest Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:33 am

If they withdrew support we would have had an election. Who knows what would have happened. Er, what growth? The one that Osborne says we are the fastest growing in Europe when we are the 10th? The national debt that has gone through the roof, he has borrowed more in 5 years than every Labour Government PUT TOGETHER has done. Or the job growth, which is all low paid and zero hours so that our tax income has gone down and down and we have had to pay out more and more in benefits for working people. Is that the growth?

by Eilzel Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:40 am

Yes there would have been an election, which would have been as uncertain an outcome as it will be now. Leading to instability and a shaky market. Growth and any jobs at least provide a stable base for improvements down the line.

Anyway I'm not supporting the Tories by any means. Just pointing out it could have been worse but that the Liberals did the responsible thing, economically, by sticking around- when they knew it would cost them.

by Guest Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:42 am

I know where you are coming from, but I really disagree. Clegg got a taste of powere and didn't want to give it up. How can it be responsible economically when they know they were shooting up the National Debt?

Current UK National Debt Numbers
Gross National Debt
FY 2015* £1.36 trillion
FY 2014 £1.26 trillion
FY 2013 £1.19 trillion
FY 2012 £1.10 trillion
FY 2011 £0.91 trillion
FY 2010 £0.76 trillion
FY 2009 £0.62 trillion
FY 2008

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html

by Eilzel Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:44 am

Btw the attack that they borrowed more is worthless. The reason I say so is the same accusation is levelled at Barrack Obama in the States. What The Democrats and coalition have in common is having to solve the crisis that happened under the GOP and Labour respectively. What that should show is the massive borrowing seems to have been taken as a requirement on both sides of the Atlantic regardless of political persuasion.

by Guest Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:50 am

They say time and time again they have REDUCED the debt when they have more than DOUBLED it, if it wasn't for the low interest rates we would be bankrupt, and Obama didn't bring in the austerity measure the Cons have. And he brought in a health service, didn't try to sell one off.

Labour managed to keep it down EVEN WITH THE BANKING CRISIS, and before the banking crissis we were doing very well. The Cons didn't have a banking crisis to deal with (only the one that involved banks committing fraud and getting knighthoods for it and handing money over to the Con Party).

by Irn Bru Mon Mar 16, 2015 1:01 am

Les, Clegg has continually supported the Tory line that Labour were the cause of the financial melt-down that occurred in 2007/8, and when he stood in for Cameron when he dodged PMQ's he sounded just like him and he was cheered to the rafters by the Tories sitting behind him.

But you're right to some extent in that the LibDems did prevent some of the worst aspect of the Tories but Clegg in particular was as guilty as sin for so much more for his collaboration in pushing his MPs to vote with them for policies that by their own principles were nothing near what they believe is right for this country.
Wait until the hustings and I think you will find that Clegg will rip into the Tories but it's probably all too late and it may cost him his seat at the election.

by veya_victaous Mon Mar 16, 2015 1:06 am

it just shows how naive self important Brits are

HOW COULD ANYONE IN BRITAIN BE RESPONSIBLE
For the US sub prime crisis that caused the GFC..
It's like fools here giving credit or blame for things that are entirely Caused by China's demand the leaders of nations like Oz and the UK CAN NOT cause these things they can just limit or exasperate the impact on the local economy. Lack of regulation in t e banking sector (that is much older than any current pollie) was the reason UK got sucked in so hard to the US sub [rime crisis

by captain Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:29 am

Labour has won already, forget the voting. Ukip has no chance because it has all been arranged. I have even read articles assuming that labour will be the next RULE. Elections, what a shower of sgrit.

by captain Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:32 am

veya_victaous wrote:it just shows how naive self important Brits are

HOW COULD ANYONE IN BRITAIN BE RESPONSIBLE
For the US sub prime crisis that caused the GFC..
It's like fools here giving credit or blame for things that are entirely Caused by China's demand the leaders of nations like Oz and the UK CAN NOT cause these things they can just limit or exasperate the impact on the local economy. Lack of regulation in t e banking sector (that is much older than any current pollie) was the reason UK got sucked in so hard to the US sub [rime crisis

How naive can a lab rat get, it has no chance to think live or breathe for itself.

by nicko Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:40 am

Labour has "already won" what are you taking ? whatever it is stop it. [It's affecting your brain] Laughing

by captain Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:55 am

nicko wrote:Labour has "already won" what are you taking ? whatever it is stop it. [It's affecting your brain]

Hells teeth. There was a report a while back, I so wished I could find it. It was a letter about some policy, and it clearly read, it will be up to the labour government what they choose to do. Lol. Bloody crazy, I honestly believed we were voting for real. The last election was dodgy; they sure made some errors on the cover ups there.

by Original Quill Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:44 pm

captainJane wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:it just shows how naive self important Brits are

HOW COULD ANYONE IN BRITAIN BE RESPONSIBLE
For the US sub prime crisis that caused the GFC..
It's like fools here giving credit or blame for things that are entirely Caused by China's demand the leaders of nations like Oz and the UK CAN NOT cause these things they can just limit or exasperate the impact on the local economy. Lack of regulation in t e banking sector (that is much older than any current pollie) was the reason UK got sucked in so hard to the US sub [rime crisis

How naive can a lab rat get, it has no chance to think live or breathe for itself.

Name calling, no more; not a very intelligent way to respond.

The facts support veya's contention. The melt-down of October 2008 was started back in 1999, with the Republican passage of Commodity Futures Modernization Act (forbade regulation of derivatives) and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, or Financial Services Modernization Act, (eliminated New Deal barriers to mergers of stockbrokers, commercial and investment banks and insurance companies). Combined, these laws had the effect of abolishing all of the significant rules put in place at the time of the Great Depression designed to prevent a repeat.

As expected, the predictable took place as predicted. (Lol--I so rarely get to use that sentence.) Dismantle the dam, and the floods return. Remove the barriers to another great depression, and lo...you get another great depression. That is what happened in October 2008. It was averted only by a massive infusion of capital by the government of the US...under a (hold your breath) Democratic government.

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act, in point of fact, allowed the packaging of risks--in particular, home mortgages, in a market far too overinflated--so risky that the economy was bound to collapse. When AIG, the world's largest insurance company, could not cover the risks it had underwritten the US government had to step in and assume the loss. Had it not been for the financial strength of the United States, the entire world economy would have gone down that black hole.

The crisis was created by conservatives, acting on their greedy instincts. While they knew they were dismantling the protections against depression, they reasoned that we had come too far and were much more responsible today. However, almost immediately the London office of AIG started exploring new ways to market financial serves, with absolutely no research into the wider implications involved with each new product. Wiser indeed...we are too soon olt, and to late shmart, said the old German.

As an aside, I marvel at how often liberals must act as the mature adult in the room, and clean up after conservative and Republican children have made a mess. We are 15-years into this century and already we have had to pick up after two conservative-inspired ego wars, and one financial debacle.

by Guest Mon Mar 16, 2015 1:40 pm

Why do you think that everything revolves around Americian politics Quill.? To us, Obama is RW, you don't have anything like the Labour Party in America, they would be thrown out as communists. Our politics are nothing like yours and never will be.

by Original Quill Mon Mar 16, 2015 1:57 pm

risingsun wrote:Why do you think that everything revolves around Americian politics Quill.? To us, Obama is RW, you don't have anything like the Labour Party in America, they would be thrown out as communists. Our politics are nothing like yours and never will be.

It is what it is, sass. The Brit's day is gone...faded like the sunset. The US is now the big dog in the grass.

Plus, due to electronics and the economics of travel, the world has grown smaller, and into a single economy, and a single political being. The US is in charge during this time. It's just...that's the way it is.

by Guest Mon Mar 16, 2015 2:54 pm

Oh FGS, this is a thread about BRITISH POLITICS. It's not all about you and America.

by Eilzel Mon Mar 16, 2015 2:55 pm

You are both full of crap tbh.

The US is not in charge- you'd be able to dictate a lot more than you do in world affairs if that were the casr. You are a dominant force for sure, but faded from where you were even 10-20 years ago.

And Obama is NOT seen as RW. Centrist maybe, but a leftie in many ways. A conservative he isn't.

Now stop splitting straws fgs lol

by Original Quill Mon Mar 16, 2015 3:27 pm

The truth hurts...but, we cannot ignore it. The UK is subject to the influence of the US, and the US drags it along everywhere it goes.

Nowhere was this more evident that when a Labour PM became the puppy dog of a Christian extremist President.

by Eilzel Mon Mar 16, 2015 3:52 pm

The UK yes to a great extent, but not the whole world. And no question Blair became a slobbering puppy to the Bush administration.

by Original Quill Mon Mar 16, 2015 4:12 pm

Eilzel wrote:The UK yes to a great extent, but not the whole world. And no question Blair became a slobbering puppy to the Bush administration.

It is inevitable, Les. I'm not particularly proud of the US...I don't think it has done a good job of it. It is a time and place thing...the US happens to be the big dog just when the world is getting smaller. So, it's an even bigger dog than when Britain was the dog in its day.

I used to think the UK had moved into a role of keeper of the morals for the world. They were seniors, of course; but they had been there and could bring all that experience to the table.. It was obvious they were not the equal to the US in terms of the military and the economy, but I thought at least they are wise and could help out.

That is gone now. Whether it is UKIP, their attitudes on Muslims/blacks, or their failure to serve as opinion leaders on issues like Iraq and Iran, they are just another group of Joes on the street corner. Blair was only part of my awakening.

by eddie Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:20 pm

risingsun wrote:I despair Eddie, I really really despair. You don't like the Conservatives but you are going to vote for the man who propped them up and didn't have the guts to stand up to them. Broke every promise he made. You don't, or shouldn't, vote for people because you 'like' them, you vote because of their policies, or you are making a mockery of the election process. So what policies of his do you like?

I did an online "what party tk vote for ?" thingy and I got lib dens
This was four years ago though befroe the GE

I don't like any of the padties much

And I did read, more than once, that most of policies passed in this term of office were lib dem ones.

You despair of me yet I bet you have always voted for the same party BECAUSE it's the same party?
Who's more blinkered?

by eddie Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:49 pm

risingsun wrote:Oh FGS, this is a thread about BRITISH POLITICS. It's not all about you and America.

lol Everything on this site becomes about America. Particularly if it's about Britain!

by Guest Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:32 pm

You're not wrong!

by Original Quill Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:41 pm

eddie wrote:
risingsun wrote:Oh FGS, this is a thread about BRITISH POLITICS. It's not all about you and America.

lol Everything on this site becomes about America. Particularly if it's about Britain!

Prophetic. Britain depends on America.

by Guest Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:48 pm

Quill, do give it a rest, we rely on the EU far more than we rely on the US.

by Original Quill Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:05 pm

risingsun wrote:Quill, do give it a rest, we rely on the EU far more than we rely on the US.

Er, um...who do you think the EU relies upon?

Washtimes wrote:Europe relies on U.S. power again

Even under NATO command, the U.S. military will do the bulk of the fighting in Libya — even as the Obama administration argues that this is Europe’s conflict to lead, not America’s.

The number of U.S. warplanes and ships deployed to fight Libya’s regime underscores that NATO’s other 27 members do not have the firepower and high-tech targeting capability to go solo or with little U.S. help.

Even though Europe pressed the White House to enter the war, it provided only a few of the 110 ship-launched cruise missiles fired in the first days and has flown only about 40 percent of all sorties. To some military analysts, the European performance is the result of two decades of cutting defense spending and relying on the United States to do the heavy lifting.

“The European countries have made a strategic-level decision to disarm essentially, particularly in their armies and air forces,” said James Russell, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School.

“Ten years from now, the European armies will cease to be able to perform the kind of policing operations now going on in Afghanistan. Even the British and the French will have a hard time getting forces any sort of distances and sustaining them on the ground.”

Mr. Russell just completed a book, “Innovation, Transformation, and War,” on counterinsurgency in Iraq. He is researching the coalition’s effort in Afghanistan and the contributions, or lack thereof, by Europeans.

“NATO is just a headquarters staff at this point,” he said. “Look at what’s going on in Afghanistan. The Europeans are barely able to sustain battalion-level formations, with the exceptions of the British. But even the British, with recent defense cuts, are not going to be able to sustain this for very much longer.”

America’s might and European cuts add up to a U.S.-dominated mission in Libya.

“There are certain competencies … that only the Americans have,” said retired Gen. T. Michael Moseley, former Air Force chief of staff.

“And since the [1991] Gulf War a lot of our coalition partners have reduced their defense budgets to the extent that whatever capabilities they used to have they don’t necessarily have. And so it falls on primarily the U.S. Air Force to be able to maintain the bulk of the command and control, the [intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance], overhead, etc., etc.”

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said the U.S. has flown 60 percent of all sorties over Libya to date.

“The U.S. will have to carry the burden,” he said.

by eddie Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:11 pm

Original Quill wrote:
eddie wrote:
risingsun wrote:Oh FGS, this is a thread about BRITISH POLITICS. It's not all about you and America.

lol Everything on this site becomes about America. Particularly if it's about Britain!

Prophetic. Britain depends on America.

Like I said...... Rolling Eyes

by veya_victaous Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:20 pm

risingsun wrote:Why do you think that everything revolves around Americian politics Quill.? To us, Obama is RW, you don't have anything like the Labour Party in America, they would be thrown out as communists. Our politics are nothing like yours and never will be.

The GFC definitely did
it does because the USA controls so much of the world credit/debt SO a lot of your banks were buying debt off the US banks but the US banks could just keep selling it on and did so several times amongst themselves and knew really there was no chance of ever recouping that money (as it has disappeared with the crash in house prices)
BUT it all increased the total value of the bank on paper so the CEO got his bonus.. of course it was all a house of cards and when the actually trying to liquefy the assets well the whole thing fell down.

by Sponsored content

Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government

Re: Revealed: Nigel Farage's offer to support a minority Conservative Government