[Closed] Given that UKIP do well...

Split the Con vote, knock Lab & Lib Dems for six.

I suspect it will be a perception thing; the public might start taking UKIP more seriously, giving the Conservatives a headache for next May. (Given that a 'Yes' Scottish Referendum result would totally disrupt everything next May anyway.

Of course the Scots will vote No.

Apart from dragging the main parties' rhetoric even further to the right

Maybe that's what a lot of people would like to see, some people whose political leanings are more to the left might not like that but it's as valid a political view point as theirs.

PS I'm not supporting UKIP in any way, I think they're a shambles with some rather nasty under currents but the central ground mush politics has become isn't helping anyone.

But will a rightward mush be any better?

Some would think so, in fact many would think so, others would like to see the country go the other way.

Why not have a spectrum of parties with distinctive points of view?

It will be similar to the BNP, once people see how completely ineffectual they are once given the opportunity to represent the votes will drop off.

Why not have a spectrum of parties with distinctive points of view?

^This

I'd rather have parties that are clearly distinguishable by the fundamental values they stand for than very similar parties all trying to attract you by headline policies that they can't/don't deliver.

I'd find it very easy voting in the US for example.

Politics in the UK has a problem; voters are staying away from the polls in droves.

The perceived consensus amongst the main-stream parties on all the significant issues makes a 'single issue' type party like UKIP stand out, and seem attractive.

UKIP ought to be an irrelevance really, like the Green party, but here we all are talking about them.

Rhetoric isn't going to do it, one or all of the other parties will have to respond with actual policies or win the argument re immigration policy, currently they are being total crushed.

I am really interested that controlled immigration is seen as a far right policy. there are many left wing countries which have border controls, work visas etc. I mean you cannot just go and live, work in China, you have to apply. You can't buy residential property there at all.

[b]Lifer[/b] - Member

It will be similar to the BNP, once people see how completely ineffectual they are once given the opportunity to represent the votes will drop off.

I used to be constantly slammed for claiming on STW that immigration was an issue, well look at the polls, the voters are telling us it is.

I don't like nanny state me. 😆

UKIP is nothing but rhetoric!

I don't like nanny state me

what else, if anything, will they achieve?

Miliband will promise an EU referendum!

UKIP is nothing but rhetoric!

blurty - Member
Split the Con vote, knock Lab & Lib Dems for six.

I suspect it will be a perception thing; the public might start taking UKIP more seriously, giving the Conservatives a headache for next May.

Sums it up nicely

I don't like nanny state me

So you would vote for a party that's trying to control immigration, rather than freeing it up? I sense some confusion, here...

In a coalition its clear they would press very strongly for those things.

I'm pretty sure that's the only policy that they actually have though.

The rest is just all hastily prepared afterthought.

Why not have a spectrum of parties with distinctive points of view?

We don't have this as parties are desperate for votes and they do this by trying to appeal to as wide a range of people as possible which they can do best from the centre.

There isn't really a way to change this unless someone like UKIP come along with a compelling story to shift the publics point of view. They have been very sucessful in making imigration their hook as it plays on peoples fears and insecurities but the other parties are as much to blame as they have failed to oppose the view that imigration is bad with sensible rhetoric and viable policies.

There isn't anything stopping a left wing party doing the same but they haven't. Maybe because they haven't found the single issue that people care about (or are scared of) enough, maybe beacuse socialism just isn't popular in this country.

jambalaya - Member

I think you underestimate both UKIP and the strength of feeling of the people voting for them. You are not alone in this.

I used to be constantly slammed for claiming on STW that immigration was an issue, well look at the polls, the voters are telling us it is.

I've actually looked at things like attendance and voting records. It's not that difficult to see how little UKIP do, while balls deep in the very 'gravy train' they are apparently opposed to.

IMO immigration as an issue or policy has been forced into politics because it's easy to campaign on.

EDIT - jfletch above sums up the immigration 'issue' well.

Well I think it would be pretty certain that if they where in power there would be immigration controls and an exit from the EU. In a coalition its clear they would press very strongly for those things.

I doubt the economy would last long enough for them to implement any policies.

Why not have a spectrum of parties with distinctive points of view?

Because a lot of voters are conservative (small 'c') and have seen what the 70s and 80s governments were like, and would rather have something more moderate?

Shouldn't really be an issue for the general election I would have thought. Isn't the average age of a UKIP member about 89?

jambalaya - Member

I used to be constantly slammed for claiming on STW that immigration was an issue, well look at the polls, the voters are telling us it is.

Which shows that lots of people think it is an issue, not that it is an issue.

Why not have a spectrum of parties with distinctive points of view?

That would rely on the party political system accommodating principled politicians who are able to stand for what they believe rather than what the opinion polls tell them they should stand for. IT'd also need principled politicians in the first place rather than the careerists that the current system breeds.

IMO immigration as an issue or policy has been forced into politics because it's easy to campaign on

And it plays on peoples fears that Johnny Foreigner is going to take their job.

The main failing is that the main parties have spectaculalrly failed to oppose this view. Instead choosing to be "tough on imigration" in their own crappy way.

Take GDP growth as an issue. GDP has gone up but GDP per capita has dropped so the growth isn't making people feel better off. For UKIP that is an easy message, imigration means you have a smaller share of the pie.

The oposite view is harder to get across but the facts are that without imigration you may have a biger share but the pie would be smaller.

Of course the Scots will vote No.

I dont see it making any material difference. Yes there may be a change in rhetoric, but given UKIP's record of not turning up at the EU parliament they wont have any impact there, and no seats at westminster means no impact there either

AdamW - Member
Shouldn't really be an issue for the general election I would have thought. Isn't the average age of a UKIP member about 89?

I'll need to find a source but i was told at work that the over 85's are the fastest growing demographic, if true then their political influence will continue to grow.

I'm worried that the reason Ukip do well is because the majority of the British public are actually racist.

jfletch - Member

The main failing is that the main parties have spectaculalrly failed to oppose this view. Instead choosing to be "tough on imigration" in their own crappy way.

<tl;dr version- cocks, cocks everywhere>

We're in the student business and tier 4 student immigrants pay the bills. The UKBA/now Home Office constantly make it harder and more expensive for students to get student visas- quota cuts, changing criteria, increasing wait times, etc. All because the government wants to "reduce immigration", and students are the biggest single group of immigrants, and the easiest to dissuade.

Now that has 3 results. The first is, it costs us a fortune- international students are worth billions to the UK economy, it's a financial disaster for the universities and the country in general. The second is, it cuts our world influence- because it means many less UK-taught graduates around the world. And the third, is that it temporarily cuts immigration, allowing the government to pander to people impressed by such things.

Wait, temporarily? Well yeah- because most students leave at the end of their visa term. So reducing the number of new visas reduces immigration today, but it also reduces emigration in the future. The net reduction in the migrant population is a fraction of the reduction in immigration.

Coincidentally, this means that they get to say "we've cut immigration" today and in 3 years they get to say "Look, the migrant population hasn't gone down [i]for some reason[/i], we've got to cut immigration"

I'll need to find a source but i was told at work that the over 85's are the fastest growing demographic, if true then their political influence will continue to grow.

Surely they need to be immortal then for UKIP? Hopefully the under-85's are of a more sensible non-fascist disposition so when they get to that age their eyes aren't as swivelly.

Unless once you hit 85 someone comes round to your house and smacks you on the head with a big hammer?

jekkyl - Member
I'm worried that the reason Ukip do well is because the majority of the British public are actually racist.

I dont think race comes into it as much as UKIPs detractors would like to think, a lot of people simply think the amount the UK pays into the EU is now too much and would like to see less involvement from the EU parliament in law making, a return to a common economic group if you like rather than a federal europe.
I dont consider that to be racist.

I don't mean people who think about what they're doing, I mean people who perceive Ukip to be a nice BNP and vote for them because of this.

I dont think race comes into it as much as UKIPs detractors would like to think, a lot of people simply think the amount the UK pays into the EU is now too much and would like to see less involvement from the EU parliament in law making, a return to a common economic group if you like rather than a federal europe.
I dont consider that to be racist.

Do you consider the fact that UKIP candidates keep coming out with racist statements to be racist?

Maybe you feel that Nige and chums have been doing sterling work in reducing the EU budget?

I consider them to be completely racist while swimming in the gravy they claim to oppose. You can try and dress it up however you like, but they constantly reveal the reality that you so desperately try to ignore.

MSP - Member

Do you consider the fact that UKIP candidates keep coming out with racist statements to be racist?

Maybe you feel that Nige and chums have been doing sterling work in reducing the EU budget?

I consider them to be completely racist while swimming in the gravy they claim to oppose. You can try and dress it up however you like, but they constantly reveal the reality that you so desperately try to ignore.

(yawn)...yes, no and maybe....i havent voted this time round, there isnt a party out there catering for my tastes at the moment.

I was merely highlighting the fact that screaming down UKIP as racist misses the reasons lots of people are voting for them....you clearly missed that.

What i want (and i suspect i'm not alone) is a fiscally conservative party that protects the NHS, protects state education, increases funding for the armed forces, protects the emergency services, reduces bureaucracy at council/local level, reduces tax in general, reels in the welfare state, reels in international aid, offers tax breaks for people willing to take care of themselves through private pensions, private health etc....none of the main parties seem to be able to deliver this so i'd rather not vote at the moment.

What i want (and i suspect i'm not alone) is a fiscally conservative party that protects the NHS, protects state education, increases funding for the armed forces, protects the emergency services, reduces bureaucracy at council/local level, reduces tax in general, reels in the welfare state, reels in international aid, offers tax breaks for people willing to take care of themselves through private pensions, private health etc....none of the main parties seem to be able to deliver this so i'd rather not vote at the moment.

Unfortunately, no you are not alone in falling for the rhetoric and myths no matter how many times reality tries to break through.

Rhetoric and myths?

Seems eminently sensible to me, cut all the crap away from government spending and concentrate on the important bits while allowing people to spend more of their own money the way they see fit.

Shocking!

🙄

cut all the crap away from government spending

Like social services, and road repairs, lets get rid of parks as well people don't need space we could put supermarkets on that land. While were at it lets close all the sports and recreations facilities, if your not hard working enough to afford a membership to david lloyd leisure then you don't deserve leisure time.

But let's make sure we increase military funding, in case we need to repel an invasion of gay Romanians.

What i want (and i suspect i'm not alone) is a [s]fiscally conservative party that protects the NHS, protects state education, increases funding for the armed forces, protects the emergency services, reduces bureaucracy at council/local level, reduces tax in general, reels in the welfare state, reels in international aid, offers tax breaks for people willing to take care of themselves through private pensions, private health etc....[/s] [b]the moon on a stick[/b], none of the main parties seem to be able to deliver this so i'd rather not vote at the moment.

Fixed that for you.

Seems eminently sensible to me, cut all the crap away from government spending and concentrate on the important bits while allowing people to spend more of their own money the way they see fit.

What you seem to want there is not what is important, but what is important to you, now. How a party judges what they think it is important to spend the money on basically the whole point..

Paying high taxes is never going to be popular if you are used to lower but nations with high taxes as a percentage of income always come out on top of quality of life and happiness ratings. Maybe this is becuase when a government is able to provide what everyone wants, not just what the fortunate few want, it makes people happy.

The problem with that theory in this country is that every time we give the controls to the left they cock it up spectacularly since they are a bunch of incompetant cretins. Less incompetant cretins is better than more but competance would be even better.

On that basis if a party was to campaign on a platform of evidence based policy making and efficiency I'd vote for them, regardless of their political leanings. I'd trust them to make the right decision even if I didn't personally belive in it.

Never going to happen as fear and presentation are much more powerful in persuading the electorate than logic and reason.

What you seem to want there is not what is important, but what is important to you, now.

Too many people like this in the country who only wish to contribute to themselves, not what they could contribute to wider society for the benefit of all.

This country is going down.

Which shows that lots of people think it is an issue, not that it is an issue.

Shouldn't really be an issue for the general election I would have thought. Isn't the average age of a UKIP member about 89?

I still posts here from the left/centre left hoping that UKIP disrupts the Tories, they are damaging the support of all 3 main political parties. Arguable they are now the 4th main party or perhaps even replaced the Lib Dems in the top 3.

That's a pretty big leap, seeing as they have no MPs, nearly 10% of their councillors elected last year have left the party and they've lost a third of their representatives in Europe since the last elections.

jambalaya - Member

@northwind if people think it's an issue then in political terms it most certainly is one.

Bollocks to that frankly. We should be making policies based on the reality not on the perception. The only policy we should [i]ever[/i] make based on a baseless opinion, is a policy on how to inform people better.

I appreciate this is crazy talk in the modern political world though.

Just got back from a count, it was a tough night. UKIP doing well even where they haven't bothered doing any work just put up a candidate I wasn't expecting that.

Main parties have a major headaches now.

Immigration is only an issue in the sense that people are talking about it. It isn't an issue when the basic facts are addressed. "The issue" is much more that UKIP are able to present views that are divorced from reality but the main parties do not know how to deal with it. The same is happening in Scotland. People love hyperbole and unachievable objectives rather than the cold, harsh truths of reality - hence the irony is "reality" TV.

The next issue which is widespread and more justified is the dissatisfaction with the European project. That is a much bigger picture and issue that is not making e headlines this morning.

I'm very happy that UKIP are doing well, it's about time another party came into the established secular groups and split them up a bit.
Whether they will do as well in the next General Election remains to be seen however..

I'm waiting to see how well the Greens have done, so far the BBC has just contained broadcasts to the main four parties....

The next issue which is widespread and more justified is the dissatisfaction with the European project.

I'd agree if I thought that half the people angry at "Europe" understand the issue particularly well. Look at the Swiss, they decide they're going to limit immigration from the EU, which will effectively remove them from the European free trade agreement. Considering their trade with the EU is over 47B euros a year, it's going to cause them some headaches, like last time they did it. This was driven almost exclusively by immigration scare stories (swiss unemployment is at 2.9%, which puts it amongst the lowest in the world)

If British politicians want to use EU membership as a political football they should be totally clear what it means for the economy to be in or out of the EU rather than create scare stories about immigrants and MEPs spending money on pointless projects around Europe.

Bollocks to that frankly

@bikebouy - yes agreed.

@atlas - no I don't think the Swiss stance on immigration will have material impact on their trade flows with the EU.

I was merely highlighting the fact that screaming down UKIP as racist misses the reasons lots of people are voting for them....you clearly missed that.

I don't wanna invoke Godwin here but.. nnnnnngghh

Honestly I think the real "swivel eyed loons" are those in denial about the reasons for UKIPs success which are real and justified. The existing parties have created an open goal into which UKIP has gladly kicked the ball.

Why not have a spectrum of parties with distinctive points of view?

Because given that we have a FTPT system you'd never end up with a majority and there'd be nothing but arguments and nothing would get done.

Re splitting the vote - I suspect as many Labour supporters will switch to UKIP as Tories, because a right-wing viewpoint on things like immigration transcends socio-economic status.

We should be making policies based on the reality not on the perception.

Yeah ideally, but that's the problem with democracy - it's all about the electorate's perception, nothing really to do with reality.

nations with high taxes as a percentage of income always come out on top of quality of life and happiness ratings. Maybe this is becuase when a government is able to provide what everyone wants, not just what the fortunate few want, it makes people happy.

Hmm yes, maybe, but perhaps it's the other way round - perhaps populations who understand the concept of sharing are happy, and they then end up voting for socialist parties.

Yea but Jambalaya, the facts on immigration are a mile away from the rhetoric and there is blatant scaremongering being used that is unhealthy and unhelpful. The impact of immigration on welfare spending etc is a rounding error. That is not to say that immigration couldn't or shouldn't be managed better, but using scare stories to support this is v dangerous ground.

I am in favour of a free movement of labour across Europe. You and I have both benefitted from that.

The real danger is the false argument on immigration prevents the correct responses to why Europe isn't working and therefore the correct solutions.

It definitely needs to be a real discussion by politicians. A load of dodgy eastern european types robbing people around marble arch is not the same as the people who come across to work or the same as British people who go over to other parts of Europe to work.

@Northwind, it is exactly that attitude that is leading to the UKIP surge. I've posted here frequently over the last year that immigration is an issue and generally been shouted down.

No, it's perceived to be an issue.

The really sad thing about UKIP is that they're as establishment as they come, and a bunch of steaming hypocrites to boot. Anyone voting for them in the hope of change is likely to end up very disappointed.

Oh, and they hate cyclists.

but that's the problem with democracy

your stupidity is worth as much as my carefully reasoned opinion

Or something like that.

No, it's perceived to be an issue.

If people don't like too many foreigners moving into their street or town, i think that IS an issue.

Its when its justified using things that aren't true that it starts to become, in my opinion, racist i.e. That they're criminals, or coming here to claim benefits, because things aren't true and brand entire countries as lazy or criminals.

Thats what UKIP has done, and thats why he's been branded as racist.

Its also why producing facts that demonstrate these things aren't true appears to have little effect, because, as teamhurtmore points out, its not addressing the real reasons why people are voting UKIP.

because things aren't true

What if, and its only a what if, they are true?

jambalaya - Member

@Northwind, it is exactly that attitude that is leading to the UKIP surge. I've posted here frequently over the last year that immigration is an issue and generally been shouted down. Well look at the polls. people aren't voting UKIP over the economy or the NHS are they ? Of course its a very real and serious issue.

As I said, "look at the polls" tells you nothing about the actual issues facing the country- it tells you about opinions. If the opinions don't match with the reality, then that's the issue. If fear of dragon invasion is high, we shouldn't run out and buy a load of anti-dragon missiles, we should tell people there aren't any dragons.

The point isn't to "shout it down" but to counter misinformation with facts, and base policies on reality, rather than treating opinions based on nothing or falsehoods as if they're just as valid. The UKIP surge isn't fuelled by people trying to correct misinformation (well, not in principle, in practice you can do it badly and cause resentment but it doesn't have to be that way)- it's fuelled by the misinformation itself. What do you suggest we do instead?

Remember that poll a while back- on average people believe that immigration is almost 3 times higher than it really is, if opinion's so disconnected from reality how can you have a meaningful dialogue? Benefit fraud costs us 34 times more than it really does. And we have a media happy to fuel that and yes politicians happy to react to it and even pour coals on it. Crime is falling but most people believe it's rising... 30% of people think foreign aid is a top 3 government spending item, 25% of people think we spend more on jobseeker's allowance than pensions, when in fact it's 1/15th as much.

So on average, the man on the street thinks the recent immigrant population is 31%, and that's too high. What does he think if we say "We'll make it half that"? Probably quite happy even though that does mean having to find a bunch of extra immigrants.

Let's form policies based on reality. If there's a disconnect between reality and perception, lets fix that. Lets not be afraid of the truth. How is that controversial? Doing anything else is absurd, it means living in a fantasy world. No, worse than that, it means living in the real world but acting like we live in a fantasy world.

(if we must live in a fantasy world, why does it have to be a paranoid negative miserable fantasy? If you're going to make shit up, make it nice. I heard that there's been an 11% rise in wish-granting unicorns, what's UKIP's policy on that?)

@Northwind, it is exactly that attitude that is leading to the UKIP surge. I've posted here frequently over the last year that immigration is an issue and generally been shouted down. Well look at the polls. people aren't voting UKIP over the economy or the NHS are they ? Of course its a very real and serious issue.

This type of thinking is what is wrong with british politics.

People are voting UKIP on the basis of imigration because they have been whipped up in to an frenzy of fear by what at best would be referd to lies, maybe even propoganda. For example there are not "26 million Romanians after your job". To think that is just insane.

So imigration may be an "issue" by virtue of the fact that people are talking about it, but the facts and data say that economically its not a "problem". As a country we make a net gain from imigration. It is only an "issue" becuase it suits UKIP (and formerly the Tories, although the Euro split in their party keeps them going full on xenophobe) to spread untruths and fear to make it an issue.

It is the fault of our political system, our media and the other political parties that these people aren't called out effectively and shown to be the self interested tossers that they really are.

In part I lay some blame at the door of the BBC and their over zealous desire to be balanced creating a false balanace where minority, false and baseless views are given equal precidence as those based on fact and reason.

The UKIP surge isn't fuelled by people trying to correct misinformation (well, not in principle, in practice you can do it badly and cause resentment but it doesn't have to be that way)- it's fuelled by the misinformation itself. What do you suggest we do instead?

So let's form policies based on reality. If there's a disconnect between reality and perception, lets fix that. Lets not be afraid of the truth. How is that controversial? Doing anything else is absurd, it means living in a fantasy world. No, worse than that, it means living in the real world but acting like we live in a fantasy world.

Hear, hear. And may I point you now in the direction of a long running thread (nearing 9k posts) where the same logic should be applied! 😉

Edit for edit

(if we must live in a fantasy world, why does it have to be a paranoid negative miserable fantasy? If you're going to make shit up, make it nice.

Ah, that makes sense now 😉

and Northwind, well said.

Well said Northwind!

Yep, NW pretty much sums it up.

I haven't read all the above. There's a chance, a slight one, that Lab may wake up and start to lose the metroplitan elite and move back towards what remains of their traditional support: the unions and the working people.

We live in Interesting Times. Monday morning may see Dave and Ed looking insecure for a start. As for Nick - the libs could no longer assemble a quorum to vote him out.

I've posted here frequently over the last year that immigration is an issue and generally been shouted down. Well look at the polls. people aren't voting UKIP over the economy or the NHS are they ? Of course its a very real and serious issue.

The problem with this is that UKIP have seen big gains (though smaller than Labour's) in the local council elections.

Why vote for UKIP for your (I mean 'one', not you personally) council if you only want their policies on immigration and EU membership? The council can't change those, so do you actually support their policies on education, planning permissions, public transport, cycling etc?

Good point that.

There's a chance, a slight one, that Lab may wake up and start to lose the metroplitan elite and move back towards what remains of their traditional support: the unions and the working people.

Can't help thinking they'd need to get rid of Ed and Balls to do that.

One can live in hope.

The local election results are something of a red herring, largely because they need to fill the news cycle with something and we won't have the Euro election results for a couple of days

Thats where the real massacre will be

The point isn't to "shout it down" but to counter misinformation with facts, and base policies on reality, rather than treating opinions based on nothing or falsehoods as if they're just as valid.

As you note it is the effect of drip drip drivel in the media about immigration, the EU and benefit scroungers that seeps into their psyche yet they have no facts to hand to explain this.

i do not know how we counter this but IMHO its the peole in power doing this so we target immigrants and the EU t rather than the rich and the powerful who ****ed it all up in the first place

the fact they have managed to use one of them [ Farage] as the messenger is frankly flabergasting. I dont know whether to be in awe or despair.

There's a chance, a slight one, that Lab may wake up and start to lose the metroplitan elite and move back towards what remains of their traditional support: the unions and the working people.

.... which would be a surefire way to never get back into power again. It might be satisfying to have a clear, leftwing agenda, with the cold hard certainty that it brings, but it won't win an election - there are far too many people in the centre for it to work. (The same thing is also true for the rightwing, of course - "clear blue water" between the Tories and the Labour party is something Cameron will do anything to avoid).

The local election results are something of a red herring, largely because they need to fill the news cycle with something and we won't have the Euro election results for a couple of days

Thats where the real massacre will be

You've got it the wrong way round. It's the local elections which matter and no one is excited about the results of the EU elections because everyone knows full well that are completely meaningless, will not make one iota of difference, and the whole exercise is a costly and pointless charade to give the illusion that the EU is somehow democratic.

It's the local elections which matter...

So far, UKIP have 3% of council seats and 0% of councils. And acres and acres of news coverage 🙄

Ernie - All the more reason to have a bunch of rabid nutter UKIPpers over there windmilling around the place like the car park at an Essex wedding, wrecking everything for everyone 😀

This is just brilliant in so many ways:

Mike very true. As BBCs Nick Robinson put it

We [have witnessed] the emergence of a fourth national political force... [But it] is worth remembering that once every vote is counted UKIP will not run a single council, they will still have far fewer councillors than their rivals, they will not, of course, have an MP but - in the words of one Labour council leader - they will have caused mayhem.

Didn't stop Auntie using a fair degree of hyperbole in its headlines!