[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.