Breaking: Mark Reckless MP defects to Ukip

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29394697

Conservative MP Mark Reckless has announced that he is joining UKIP.

"A decision I make from optimism, born of belief Britain can be better," says MP Mark Reckless as he defects to UKIP


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Byi5NruIgAADql3.jpg


The Rochester and Strood MP told the UKIP conference, in Doncaster, that he has resigned as an MP, triggering a by-election in the constituency.

Delegates started to spontaneously chant "UKIP, UKIP" when Mr Reckless announced his decision to defect, which he said was not easy.

The move comes just weeks after Clacton MP Douglas Carswell defected from the Conservatives to join UKIP.

Mr Carswell announced that he would stand down as an MP in his constituency to seek re-election in a by-election.

Appearing on stage to a rapturous reception at the conference, he said: "Today I am leaving the Conservative party and joining UKIP."

Commenting on his decision, Mr Reckless said he had not taken it lightly.

He claimed the Conservative leadership was "part of the problem that is holding our country back".

Mr Reckless said voters felt "ripped off and lied to".

He won his seat in 2010 with 23,604 votes - 49% of the vote. Labour's Teresa Murray came second, with 13,651 votes.

:)

[scottish]

Hardly worth the title of breaking.

Keep breaking for important updates

[Michael]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzR5kmJn2IY

[Inseriousity.]

Not a certain victory compared to Carswell so perhaps even braver.

[-:Undertaker:-]

DM now has full article up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2771883/BREAKING-NEWS-Tory-MP-Mark-Reckless-defects-UKIP.html

New blow for David Cameron as second Tory MP defects to UKIP ahead of Conservative Party conference

- Mark Reckless announced his move at UKIP party conference in Doncaster
- Former Tory MP Douglas Carswell defected to UKIP last month
- Mr Reckless said Tory leadership was 'holding the country back'
- Added he felt voters had been 'ripped off and lied to' by Tory leaders
- He will resign his seat and stand as a UKIP candidate to fight by-election


A second Conservative MP has defected to UKIP in a shock announcement today.

Rochester and Strood MP Mark Reckless announced his decision at the UKIP conference in Doncaster today.

Mr Reckless said he would stand down as a Conservative MP to fight a by-election because his constituents were ‘the boss’.



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/27/1411828195367_wps_23_Ukip_leader_Nigel_Farage_.jpg
Mr Reckless spoke to rapturous applause after being introduced to the stage by party leader Nigel Farage

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/27/1411828414634_wps_32_Ukip_s_Mark_Reckless_deli.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/27/1411828412580_Image_galleryImage_Mandatory_Credit_ Photo_by.JPG
Mark Reckless announced his defection today at the UKIP conference in Doncaster (left) a month after Douglass Carswell (right) revealed he would be leaving the Tories


He said: 'I will resign my seat in Parliament, trigger a by-election and your national executive committee allowing, stand for UKIP.'

It comes just 24 hours before the start of the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham tomorrow.

Mr Reckless’s defection is a damaging blow to David Cameron ahead of his set piece address on Tuesday.

The backbench MP’s decision follows fellow rebel Douglas Carswell who last month announced he was leaving, triggering a by-election on October 9.

Mr Reckless blamed the Tory leadership for his decision to leave the party.

Launching a scathing attack on the Prime Minister, he said Mr Cameron's government was 'part of the problem that is holding our country back’ .

Appearing on stage to a rapturous reception at the eurosceptic party's conference in Doncaster, he said voters felt ‘ripped off and lied to’.

On immigration, Mr Reckless said constituents needed to believe that Britain had control over who comes into the country and in what numbers, adding: ‘At the moment we do not have any sense of that.’

Mr Cameron pledged to cut net immigration to ‘tens of thousands’ a year – but has seen it rise to around 250,000 a year.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/27/1411828513215_wps_33_Pic_Bruce_Adams_Copy_Lobb.jpg
Mr Reckless was met with rapturous applause at the conference after being introduced to the stage by the party leader Nigel Farage


Mr Reckless said: ‘The insanity of our immigration rules means that a second generation Briton wanting to bring granny over for a wedding, still less if they want to get married to someone from abroad themselves, will face huge difficulties, yet they will see an open door to immigration to anyone from the European Union.’

He added: ‘Now does anyone left or right genuinely support an immigration system where we turn away the best and brightest from our Commonwealth, people with links and family here in order to make room for unskilled immigration from southern and eastern Europe.’

He went on: ‘I promise to cut immigration while treating people fairly and humanely, I cannot keep that promise as a Conservative, I can keep it as Ukip.’

Mr Reckless announced that he will quit as an MP so he can trigger a by-election and fight the Kent seat as a Ukip candidate.

He told activists he answered to his constituents and wanted to seek their permission to change allegiance.

‘They are the boss and if I am to seek to represent them under different colours, I hope in a party that is closer to their values, then I shall ask their permission.

‘So I will resign my seat in Parliament, trigger a by-election and, your national executive allowing, stand for UKIP.’

Mr Reckless, a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, was introduced at the UKIP party conference by Nigel Farage at Doncaster Racecourse this afternoon.

Mr Farage said he had been due to speak for half an hour but only gave a 10 minute address before introducing his new Tory catch.

Before the surprise announcement he claimed that UKIP were now ahead in six constituencies.

Mr Farage said the party was set to win in Boston and Skegness, Thanet South, Thanet North, Clacton, Eastleigh and Great Yarmouth. The party was a close second to Labour in Rotherham as well.

He said: ‘It doesn’t matter if it’s a Labour held seat, a Lib Dem seat of a Conservative held seat, it doesn’t matter, we cross every social boundary in this country.’

His announcement comes after Douglas Carswell, the former Tory MP for Clacton, revealed he was defecting last month.

Michael Dugher, Labour’s Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, said the defection was a ‘hammer blow to David Cameron's already weakened authority’.

He added: ‘On the eve of his conference we again see that Conservatives' confidence in Cameron is plummeting.

'David Cameron has always pandered to his right, and even they are now deserting him.

‘This also underlines that UKIP are a party of Tory people, Tory policies and Tory money.

‘It is clearer than ever that only Labour has a plan to make everyday working people across the country better off.’

I want to see these Survation polls, very interesting.

Even more interesting is if they can win these by-elections, will the curse of FPTP 'wasted vote' be broken? And then what?

[The Don]

Hopefully with all these tory MP's joining the party the working class will wake up and realise that UKIP is anything but a party for the poor.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Hopefully with all these tory MP's joining the party the working class will wake up and realise that UKIP is anything but a party for the poor.

And Labour is? ...with a millionaire leader who lived his life on Camden Hill, and a party which supports mass immigration which affects the poorest in society the worst? A party that swept the abuse of young girls under the rug in Rotherham (working class area) to be politically correct? A party that brought in PFI schemes which privatised large parts of the NHS? A party soft on crime (which affects the poor the most) and a friend to the criminals?

The working classes are waking up. Good thing there's rumours of defections from the Labour backbenchers to Ukip too.

You support the EU. The very thing that smashed working class fishing towns into the ground.
You support the EU. The very organisation that is pushing ahead with a TTIP with the US which will privatise healthcare.
You support mass immigration. The very thing that results in overcrowding in schools, hospitals and housing.
You support soft justice for criminals, the very same scum that terrorise working class council estates.

You sound just like Labour in everything. You don't speak for the working class, it's just a mask for you.

[The Don]

And Labour is? ...with a millionaire leader who lived his life on Camden Hill, and a party which supports mass immigration which affects the poorest in society the worst? A party that swept the abuse of young girls under the rug in Rotherham (working class area) to be politically correct? A party that brought in PFI schemes which privatised large parts of the NHS? A party soft on crime (which affects the poor the most) and a friend to the criminals?

The working classes are waking up. Good thing there's rumours of defections from the Labour backbenchers to Ukip too.

Labour is more so than UKIP, yes.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Labour is more so than UKIP, yes.

The good thing is that the Labour frontbenches believe the same as you, which makes our job a lot easier.

We're blessed with incredibly out of touch opponents.

[The Don]

Majority of the population believes the same as me. Do you even read Ukips policies? A return to grammar schools (yes, let's write off the poorer students, talk about stalling social mobility), massive public spending cuts, lower tax rates for the rich, repeal the human rights act and introduce a flat rate tax (lol). But yes, they are a party for the poor.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Majority of the population believe the same as me. Do you even read Ukips policies?

As I said, delusion. But that's only good for my cause which is why i'm confident.

Even Labour backbench MPs are warning the party it is losing touch with the working class, especially over the affects of mass immigration.


A return to grammar schools (yes, let's write off the poorer students, talk about stalling social mobility)

Grammar schools help the poorest by giving them a chance to go to better schools. Even Labour agree with me, hence why they all send their children to grammar schools (if they can get in the few that remain) or instead go private.

It was only after the grammars were abolished that the poor were left stuck in piss poor comprehensives.


massive public spending cuts

Large public spending cuts have to be made regardless of which party is in, look at the national debt. If you look at the spending plans of Labour and the Tories, they're virtually identical. Instead of cutting vital services though, Ukip will cut the likes of foreign aid, EU contributions.


lower tax rates for the rich

And the poor.


repeal the human rights act

Asolutely, we're sick of the ECHR keeping terrorists and foreign criminals here: taxpayers (including the poor) don't want to pay for it.

Foreign terrorists are granted human rights, what about our rights in this country?


and introduce a flat rate tax

The poor need jobs y'know.

[The Don]

Lol, Grammar schools are better for the poor? What nonsense. This article sums it up best.


It is impossible to be involved in the education debate without encountering passionate campaigners arguing in defence of grammar schools. In the past few days this issue has jumped to the forefront again after comments from the former Prime Minister John Major that he found the concentration of people from privately educated middle class people in the upper echelons of power “truly shocking”. If these voices focused their energies on demanding educational improvement for all then Michael Gove’s task of improving standards across the board would be markedly easier. Today grammar schools only educate around 4% of students, even less than Independent Schools. Yet they absorb a vastly disproportionate amount of airtime.

Prior to outlining why this is the case it must first be noted that this debate is overwhelmingly the preserve of politicians and campaigners, rather than educationalists. This may be because the facts of the matter, recognised by educationalists, are so at variance with the public perception and myths about grammar schools, which are adhered to by many in the political and chattering classes – especially on the right. These myths focus on the idealised notion that grammar schools are the ‘engine of social mobility’ and that they allowed bright working class boys and girls to get to Oxbridge, enter the professions and, so the tale goes, to become Prime Minister. It is an alluring tale.

Historical information about the social makeup of grammar schools is hard to find, which makes an analysis of whether this story was ever true somewhat difficult. It may be the case that in the 1940s and 50s that grammar schools lived up to their claims and that the likes of Heath and Thatcher truly were examples of working class kids who ‘made good’ – irrespective of the argument that Heath and Thatcher may well have been middle class themselves.

What we do have information for is that, irrespective of their history, grammar schools are not serving those needs today. Today they are overwhelmingly the preserve of middle class children. While around 18% of pupils are eligible for Free School Meals (FSM), in grammar schools this falls to 2.7%, demonstrating in shocking fashion just how the poorest are being cut out of these ‘engines of social mobility’. The 2.7% pales to insignificance next to the more than 12% who come from outside the state sector, overwhelmingly from Independent Schools. On top of this even if you compare like with like; children on FSM with Level 5 in English and Maths are far less likely to go to grammar school than those not on FSM.

However, the truth of grammar schools is far wider than them only being middle class. They draw in resources, in money and good quality teachers, that otherwise could be working to secure true social mobility, rather than reinforcing the positions of middle class children whose parents can afford tutoring or private primary school. Beyond this however there is evidence to suggest that in selective counties an entire term of Year 6 is dedicated to preparation for the 11+ exam, at the cost of pupils making true academic progress.

Beyond even this however, there is one final problem with the notion of grammar schools. The implication that the most rigorous and academically challenging education should be open to only the 4% of students who attend Grammar Schools is both morally abhorrent and economically destructive. grammar schools may have suited the needs of the mid 20th Century economy, where fewer people needed an academic education for the jobs they would pursue – irrespective of its holistic benefit. Today however, our economy is dependent on high skilled industries, be they service-based, such as financial services, or high tech manufacturing as in the case of our defence industry. We need as many of our pupils as possible to benefit from a grammar schools style education, not just a tiny minority.

We have seen the benefit a traditional education and a commitment to high standards can bring to a community, yet we limit this chance to only the few. Toby Young’s West London Free School, founded as a ‘comprehensive grammar schools’ provides the model for the future, and demonstrates that a classical education and high standards benefit all kinds of pupils, not just the most academically gifted. The future of grammar schools must be that they open their doors to all pupils. In the short term they must do more to increase the number of FSM pupils they take in, the Sutton Trust recommendations form a sound basis for this. In the long term however, should see the conversion of grammar schools into Academies, their long and proud history allowed to continue and prosper as they serve the whole community, rather than a privileged section of it.

http://parliamentstreet.org/blog/2013/case-grammar-schools/

Party for the poor, sure they are Dan... :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

What we do have information for is that, irrespective of their history, grammar schools are not serving those needs today. Today they are overwhelmingly the preserve of middle class children. While around 18% of pupils are eligible for Free School Meals (FSM), in grammar schools this falls to 2.7%, demonstrating in shocking fashion just how the poorest are being cut out of these ‘engines of social mobility’. The 2.7% pales to insignificance next to the more than 12% who come from outside the state sector, overwhelmingly from Independent Schools. On top of this even if you compare like with like; children on FSM with Level 5 in English and Maths are far less likely to go to grammar school than those not on FSM.

A complete false argument. The very few remaining grammar schools are those in the likes of Kent and the shires so of course the number of children on free school meals will be lower. That's like comparing wages between London and Liverpool: a huge difference.


They draw in resources, in money and good quality teachers, that otherwise could be working to secure true social mobility, rather than reinforcing the positions of middle class children whose parents can afford tutoring or private primary school.

Another void argument. This has always been the argument of the left, that - as Harriet Harman put it in an exchange with Peter Hitchens - she wanted to make every school a good school. But we know this cannot be achieved, every school cannot be a good school so the question is do we have some bad schools, some good schools (yes, we do and always will) therefore what is best to do with the poor? Is it better to leave the bright children of the working classes in failed comprehensives or is it better to have them go to grammar schools to better themselves?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjGavtSciXc

With comprehensives we have selection by money, with grammars we had a system which selected by ability.


there is one final problem with the notion of grammar schools. The implication that the most rigorous and academically challenging education should be open to only the 4% of students who attend Grammar Schools is both morally abhorrent and economically destructive.

Which is why they need to be brought back nationwide.

Do you know one of the first things East German parents brought back after the fall of the Berlin Wall? Grammar schools.