The serious and not so serious

1. Annunziata:

To me, there are geographic and demographic areas where UKIP will appeal and other areas where only a respectable ex-Tory will do – my feeling is that as long as they don’t compete, the two or even three groups, it may well be useful.

Yes we know about the splitting of the vote but I’m suggesting that ‘inside the M25’ was not going to vote TR or Batten anyway, why not pick up Brexit votes there with a party which might pick up a seat or two.

Then, in parliament, it’s almost proportional representation and a coalition – sometimes the DUP might vote with this loose alliance of three anti-Brexit groups, should they gain seats at a GE, sometimes even the Tory rump might back a proposal put by them.

Obvious issue is FPTP and no, this ragtag can’t introduce govt business but they can certainly vote on it. If the Tories had, say 25%, Labour had 20%, Nigel had 14%, UKIP 12%, AMW whatever she has, then as long as they ‘drowned out’ the enemy … ah, but that’s the rub, isn’t it?

Now let’s consider this:

Delingpole has gone down in my estimation for his heinous crime of not preparing for Brillo’s grilling on the Beeb some time back but I have to admit he has a point when he says:

If you ever were tempted to vote Conservative again, these are the sort of Conservative MPs who would justify your faith: Mark Francois, Andrea Jenkyns, Owen Paterson, Andrew Bridgen, and Priti Patel. They’ve all stood firm on Brexit and rightly so.

That is true – to vote against people who have suffered for their faith, that just seems wrong to me.  Why do it, just because of May and the other pusillanimous toadies?

And as a person who votes for policy, not party [was not always so but is now], I would really hate for them to lose their seats.

As mentioned a few times now – it is who is actually on that ballot paper on that day which counts. We can make all the pronouncements we like about ‘we would never vote for X, Y, Z’ but on that day, it is which names are there in front of you in that booth, that black pen you carried in with you about to administer a miniscule percentage of non-power.

I’m with the chap who said we must vote, if only to put a spanner in the works for the big two. Not to do so is a nothingburger. Our vote is a nothing in the sense Bill wrote, yes, he’s right about that.  it’s all rigged, yes.  I’m certainly not against supporting other ways, should the whole thing be crashed by Them quite publicly.

But voting is/was also something precious in that – when it’s gone – it’s gone. Suffrage is a topic we can debate.

Annunziata – yes, establishment, JRM’s family, yes – all of that. But doesn’t she come across well? I like her and suspect many do too. Would I vote for her?

Well again – it would depend on who else was on that ballot paper, would it not?

As for what was done to Roger Scruton – that was well out of order, that was incendiary, as it was meant to be.

08:39 a.m.


Just a bit of fun because there are only three posts before evening and I have to put them somewhere:

2. The ultimate straight man:

3. Finally today:

[H/T Chuckles and haiku]

4 comments for “The serious and not so serious

  1. April 14, 2019 at 08:04

    FPTP: if we have to have a second referendum, let it be about AV.

    • April 14, 2019 at 10:27

      Interesting point – people are wedded to FPTP.

  2. Distant Relative
    April 14, 2019 at 09:11

    Annunziata? Hmm. Reminds me of that Ardern woman. Timing is a bit off too, in my ‘umble. Maybe she has more balls than her bro though…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.