David Cameron twice refuses to rule out Ukip coalition – The Guardian

150105cameron-a-like1

David Cameron and (below) Nigel Farage. They’re not really dogs but…

150105farage-a-like1

… it seems they want to run with the same pack.

David Cameron and Nigel Farage have refused to rule out a deal between the Conservatives and UKIP after the election, The Guardian reports.

The prime minister was twice asked whether he would ever align with UKIP on the BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show, but dodged the question, saying he would not comment on any potential combinations before the election.

It’s clear that Cameron will do anything to hold on to power, and Farage will do anything to have any power at all. If UKIP gains any significant number of seats, a coalition with the Tories is on the cards – meaning Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless will (in effect) be Tories once again.

Were they – or the rest of UKIP – ever anything else?

Read the rest of the article on The Guardian‘s website.

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
bringing you the best of the mainstream media.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

12 thoughts on “David Cameron twice refuses to rule out Ukip coalition – The Guardian

  1. Tony Dean

    I suspect even a remote possibility of a Tory/UKIP coalition will lose both a lot of votes.

  2. chopale

    Bigots vote 4 U-kip and Bigots vote Tory! Lets hope the masses in this country are much less Bigoted & Race-less. The only way i can see it working for a Tory pact is if the yellow streaks back them in a three horse stable. People need to take off the blinkers to see through this horse s***.

  3. Andy Robertson-Fox

    Seems The Guardiıan’s story ıs more of a non story…. Cameron simply pointed out that his focus was on securing an overall majority at the general electıon; he did not want any coalitions, pacts or deals. Clearly, therefore, to say he would or would not do so if necessary with any other party would be unwisely premature.
    Has Mılıband made any declaration of his intentions if faced with a similar question…like a coalition with the SNP?

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      The point was that he refused to answer the question in any way at all.
      Labour has said it is looking for an outright win; if that does not happen, then party leaders will consider the possibilities that are available – which is a bit more honest than Cameron, I’m sure you’ll agree.

      1. Andy Robertson-Fox

        Cameron’s reply was that he was focused on an outright Conservative majority. Miliband, according to you, has said he is lookıng for an outright Labour win.

        I see nothıng different in their expressed intentions.

        Cameron would not comment on any potential combination before the election which, a spokesperson for the party advises indicates that he is stickıng to his decision not to comment on hypothetical coalitıons..

        It seems Miliband has not commented on any potential combinations eıther hypothetical or otherwise..

        I see nothing different in eıther leader’s posıtıon ın expressed (Cameron) or unexpressed (Miliband) intentions regarding a coalition.

        It is the the Guardian, not Miliband, that says that all parties are thinking carefully over the next few months about the possibility of alliances wıth one or even two of their rivals. This, of course, includes the LibDems and Ukip – although Farage has already indicated he is not fussy and would form a coalition with the devil if it brought about withdrawal from the EU.

        No Cameron dıd not refuse to answer the questıon ın fact he answered ıt by sımply poınting out that beıng hypothetical it was irrelevant at this time.

        As I said a Guardian non story and Miliband’s position is no more honest or dishonest than Cameron’s on this aspect as I am sure you wıll now agree… .

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        I think what we’re seeing is your particular angle on this, rather than anything more all-encompassing. You’re right that Ed hasn’t said “all parties” are thinking about alliances – he could only comment on his own. Did you think I wouldn’t notice that attempt at clever diction?
        So, no – the article is fair comment. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it anything else.

      3. Andy Robertson-Fox

        Oh Mike – although the alert to your response in my Inbox shows a “reply” button, when I clicked on it the word “reply” does not appear after your last comment on the thread. Is there a problem wıth your system?

        Of course you are seeıng an aspect of my partıcular angle on this – just as your comments presumably reflect your own partıcular angle and those of other contrıbuters theirs.

        Do you really only want comments in support of the views that you put forward?

        The question, lıke “Have you stopped beating your wife?” clearly invited a “Yes” or “No” reply and which, quite obviously as Cameron, like Miliband, is looking for an outright majority it did not warrant.

      4. Mike Sivier Post author

        A question like “Have you stopped beating your wife” makes clear assumptions before the person addressed by it can even answer. An innocent person would have to respond by saying they don’t accept the premise, which isn’t a “Yes” or “No” reply at all. In this case, neither party leader could say they don’t accept the premise. Miliband said he’d cross that bridge when he comes to it but Cameron didn’t want to answer at all. I know which of them I’d trust, given those responses.

        No, there’s nothing wrong with the system. It seems to be designed to expect only a certain number of responses. Everybody else just scrolls up to where the last “reply” button appears and clicks on that; it works just fine. If you want to take it up with WordPress, go ahead.

      5. Mike Sivier Post author

        I see another comment lined up but won’t be publishing it. You’re wasting our time.

  4. loobitzh

    Re were UKIP ever anything els but Tories,

    Well Ive never believed they were anything more than a cleverly set up Propaganda Arm of the Right Wing Agenda, specifically designed and implemented to Divide, Conquer and Confuse those on the Left.

    UKIP tends to draw in the Working Classes who were already feeling discontented with the Political Scene and of the belief that there was very little difference between the three main Parties even before the Austerity Agenda was being rolled out.

    By creating UKIP and using the the Immigration Card as a distractor from the underlying issues, many people who would have previously voted labour have fallen for the propaganda and lies, because UKIP has created the illusion of Hope in the voice of Nigel Farage along with justification for being angry.

    This is rather clever and yet disturbing politics in my opinion, because its purpose is designed to split the vote, especially the vote on the left.

    How convenient would it be for the Tories to end up in bed with UKIP after the next election.

    I really believe this has all been orchestrated for this very purpose.

Comments are closed.