[Closed] UKIP, the by-elections and Labour

I rarely agree with Binners politically, but he is dead right there. Refusing to address peoples real concerns on immigration, whether the concerns were justified or not, Labour left the door wide open for Ukip, and they will regret it.

Finding the language to address the concerns of the ignorant

This is Labour's problem - a belief that only their point of view, experiences, expectations and wants are valid and the demonisation of any who dare to disagree with them.

I am an immigrant and therefore, not too surprisingly, think that some level of immigration is a very good thing. It has been beneficial to me and to people that I work and socialise with, but...

I agree with Binners.

if you're middle class, and your Polish cleaner and Latvian nanny come at very reasonable rates. Not so great if you're an unskilled school leaver in Rochdale and just can't get a job, because some firms, by default, just get immigrants in, without even advertising positions locally

If there are winners, there are going to be losers. In the case of immigration the people who have lost out are those who have been given, at best, a bog standard comprehensive education and who, with poor academic ability, are destined for low paid and semi-skilled jobs. They have lost out to a glut of cheaper and often more motivated and better educated immigrants on the factory floors and fields of the UK. These people should be one of the bedrocks of support for Labour and they have been taken for granted as they have never had any other party to turn to. Now the grubby oiks might just upset their masters and betters in North London.

@rockape - that's great news and I have had similar experiences. All I would like to see is people fill in a form before coming to UK as part of an application for a work permit/visa and that they should have an offer of employment (US and many other systems tie the work permit to a specific employer in most cases).

What we need to avoid is the sort of situation brought to light in the article below where immigrant workers are abused by "gangmasters"

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/08/wisbech-migrant-workers-exploited-gangmasters-eastern-europe ]Workers Expoilted[/url]

Addressing our rush to a low wage ecomony, would be a start.

Low wages are an outcome not an input. We continue to employ more to produce the same/less. It's called declining productivity and we have a good (!) track record here. Unfortunately the solutions are not short term ones, so politicians prefer tinkering and hiding the underlying issues with minimum wage legislation etc. We need proper supply side reforms of the UK economy. Oddly, one of the few people talking about such policies is the much maligned (rightly for other reasons) M Hollande.

Immigration has a positive impact in the UK economy but this will get complete lost in the soundbites garbage that we will be subjected to as the GE approaches. The only thing worse than UKIP is the SNP.

"Yes Labour has not got any policies."...

Let's look at those "policies" shall we:

[s]Hasn't committed to fundamentally changing the way our dysfunctional energy market works. [/s]Has pledged to disrupt a market that currently means we pay significantly less for energy than many other countries in Europe, and a market in which one of largest "profiteering / cartel" retail energy companies has made a substantial loss 3 years in a row.

[s]Hasn't committed to a jobs guarantee program [/s]hasn't explained how this would work, how much it would cost or who would pay for it for those young people who have been out of work for a year or more.

[s]Hasn't committed to a significant increase in the minimum wage.[/s] Has committed to ignoring the recommendations of the low pay commission it established in the last parliament and won't even commit to the living wage. Has also committed to a significant increase in the minimum wage that would take low paid Londoners over 5 years to less than the living wage is now.

[s]Hasn't committed to create a new nationwide apprenticeship and vocational training programme. [/s]Has committed to raising the costs of apprentice programmes so significantly employers will simply opt out.

[s]Hasn't committed to the reintroduce the 10p rate of tax. [/s] Has committed to reintroducing a rate of tax that punished low pay workers in the last parliament. Has not committed to reducing the overall tax burden on these workers.

[s]Hasn't committed to build 200,000 houses a year in the next parliament[/s].Has committed to building 850,000 more homes than it managed in the last parliament when they actually halved the number of houses built by the public sector.

So yes, some interesting commitments, but some of them reflect the people making them have never spent a second outside of the westminster bubble, and others are best judged against what the same party actually did last time round. People are easily fooled.

Guardian piece on how campaigning on the NHS when voters care about immigration nearly cost Labour the Heywood seat.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/10/heywood-and-how-labour-nearly-lost-it ]link[/url]

A quote from it ...

[i]But while many voters in the constituency undoubtedly hold dear the idea of universal healthcare for all, it was not their first concern in this byelection. In three visits to the area over the last two weeks, almost all the voters I spoke to began each conversation by saying, unprompted, that they were concerned about immigration – the electrician complaining about wages being undercut by eastern European workers, the parents unable to get their offspring into local primary schools because immigrant children were taking up scarce places, the patients waiting for a GP appointment in a waiting room filled with foreign chatter. Others said things like: “I just want our country back.”[/i]

JY I will accept that for you this result wasn't a wake up call.

I do understand why you wish to discuss labours "problems" with Ukip" but the Tory house has burnt down to the ground and labour can see the smoke and smell it and it is a little irritating. Why would anyone choose to discus labour "problems" ? We should discuss [s]your[/s] the tory problems with them not labours as . lets be honest, they are the ones in real trouble here.

As I said it's going to be an interesting 7 months, lets see what the Labour response is over the next few weeks

It will be as nothing compared to the rapid scramble to the right you will see in the Tory party.

Its funny to see all you right wingers [ THM aside] rounding on labour .....it was such a bad day you cannot even talk about it so you attack labour.

Nice to see that Dave has received the message loud and clear,. He's just been on the radio saying that the UKIP showing in the by-elections is.... and you really couldn't make this up....

"a wake up call for voters"

Not a wake up call for him, his party, the Westminster establishment generally. No... its the voters who need to sort their act out.

Dear god! The sheer arrogance!

Maybe someone needs to take him to one side and quietly explain to him, in words of less than 2 syllables, the fundamental principles of this whole democracy lark

The first thing we have to consider is why people migrate to the UK. It isn't because of the benefits system, the vast majority migrate for employment opportunities or education.

So looking at the Labour market we need to consider what is dysfunctional about it. Most of the issues centre around employment practices, wages, job creation and skills.

On employment practices it has been well documented that certain employers are recruiting staff via agencies from outside the UK to work in the Uk under unfair terms and conditions. These contractual loop holes mean that the foreign workers have very few guarantees and can effectively be hired and fired. It also means that agencies can minimise the ammount of taxes they have to pay. This system undercuts UK workers on both pay and working conditions.

When it comes to wages all of us are aware of it, many of us will have encountered it. Poor enforcement of the minimum wage means some employers are not paying the minimum wage especially when it comes to less skilled or casual Labour.

Another issue is that we are not creating enough decent jobs. Jobs that are skilled and pay at least the living wage with regular hours.

The next issue is skills our education system and our employers have failed to provide adequately skilled and educated workers for those jobs that do exist. NHS and high tech manufacturing are prime examples of this.

On migration to the UK for education as long as they are here to be educated then there is nothing wrong with it. They will be effectively subsidising our education system for us.

Other issues around immigration but not the cause of it is community cohesion and housing.

We need to build more houses and they have to be genuinely affordable. The sector is highly dysfunctional and houses will only built if they provide significant profit for developers. In the last couple of decades supply of housing has only met demand in a single year (2005).

On cohesion we need to apply interculturalism to public policy and support community cohesion. We have to make sure programmes similar to ESOL are properly funded. Yes we are tolerant but we need a cohesive society.

So we need to outlaw bad employment practices

Enforce the minimum wage properly

Create decent skilled jobs

Make sure our native workforce has the necessary education and skills

Tackle the housing crisis

Improve community cohesion through public policy

EDIT typed on my phone so may be some pretty poor grammar!

If there are winners, there are going to be losers.

Hmm… not everything is a zero win competition. The economy of Rochdale needs a kick up the arse, or everyone there will continue to see quality of life decline. If migration occurs into the area, from inside or outside the UK, linked to a local economy that is no longer declining, then there is lots to gain, or at least less is lost. Companies may need people that aren't already in the area… and that's not always about cost. Sometimes it's about skills and attitudes. I can't think of a single company I've worked for that hasn't needed skills from outside the area, and yes the country, to succeed, and to expand and employee more local people.

Immigration has a positive impact in the UK economy

Maybe it has from an economists point of view, from anyone having to compete with immigrants for work it has a negative impact, this in turn leads to resentment towards the immigrants themselves.

Finding the language to address the concerns of the ignorant, without offering simple solutions, is damn hard

That must one of the most self damning, conceited statements I have ever read anywhere, ever !

Maybe it has from an economists point of view, from anyone having to compete with immigrants for work it has a negative impact, this in turn leads to resentment towards the immigrants themselves.

I agree but some immigration to fill skills gaps is necessary.

[b]Conceited?[/b] Maybe. But also self evidently true. The less informed you are, the more you will respond to simple solutions offered to you. Truthfully saying that the problems faced are complicated, and intertwined, and that there is no simple fix (such as pulling up the drawbridge), and that no party can fix things without changes outside “government” also occurring, isn't a vote winner.

I agree but some immigration to fill skills gaps is necessary.

Why would it be there vote held up the shift was from Lib dem and tory and BNP to UKIP. It was a largely protest vote and the scale and shift wont be seen in a general election

Labour vote should have been much higher at this point in the electoral cycle. So although it 'held up', you should have been doing much better. A lot of those previously conservative votes should have come to Labour.

Both by-elections have also demonstrated one fact to voters considering UKIP - that they are electable. They have moved in one parliament from being a party from whom a vote is on a par with voting green - pretty much wasted, to one with real electoral clout.

Now they have a momentum which comes from voters believing that putting an cross next to UKIP could actually mean a UKIP MP. That seed is planted not just in conservative-leaning voters, but in Labour voters too, plenty of whom agree with Farage's core policy statements.

I'm interested in the Mark Reckless by-election. Clacton was a lost cause because of the personal popularity of the candidate. The tories will throw absolutely everything at the next one.

@Frosty top phone effort ! All of those things are indeed admirable and will result in even more uncontrolled immigration as the UK becomes an even better place versus those poorer EU states. Also enforcing the employment laws costs money, so you'd need increased government spending and more police time. Controlling immigration can be cost neutral as the cost of visas equal the costs of processing them and funding the compliance system. We definitely need more social housing, this should be built by local authorities with a covenent that it can never be sold on.

JY I really think you are over-analysing what you think are my motives, if it where purely something pro-Tory I would have been in favour of Scottish independence no ? What I care about is people taking the immigration issue seriously and avoiding the growth of a party like UKIP (horse has well and truly bolted on that).

Someone posted earlier that they thought Cameron believed Conservatives wouldn't win the next election, I don't think that at all. He knows they have a fight on their hands but believe they are better placed than Labour with the Lib Dems to be a sideshow.

Controlling immigration can be cost neutral

Try telling the American's that…

[b]Idle thought…[/b] but what happens if UKIP get a similar share of the vote at GE as Labour/Tories, yet only win a very small number of seats? It's highly likely that they will end up a close second all over the country, but with hardly any representation in parliament to reflect that. Could that further disenchantment for voters cause real problems?

Labour vote should have been much higher at this point in the electoral cycle. So although it 'held up', you should have been doing much better. A lot of those previously conservative votes should have come to Labour.

JY I really think you are over-analysing what you think are my motives,

if it where purely something pro-Tory I would have been in favour of Scottish independence no ?

What I care about is people taking the immigration issue seriously and avoiding the growth of a party like UKIP (horse has well and truly bolted on that).

It's highly likely that they will end up a close second all over the country,

Cannot see this happening? I don't want to see it happening, but it's far from impossible.

JY, really this isn't about me, not this time anyway 🙂 Definitely not a troll-er, the Scottish Referendum point was that if you where purely interested in a Tory election success a No vote would have helped. I think the Tory/UKIP interaction is well known, I don't think there is the level of denial we see from Labour supporters. I understand you see UKIP as a right wing distraction,
I think that's a mistake. Come the election you will see high profile left leaning policies form UKIP, on say tax. Also I do not in any way see immigration control as a right vs left policy choice. If Labour campaign on the "it will all be alright" they will get crushed. As per the Guardian piece I linked to above Heywood voters haven't forgiven Labour for allowing Poland unlimited access to the UK workforce market. UKIP has pushed the Conservatives in pledging a referendum on the EU. If UKIP take Conservative seats it won't make a difference as they are more likely to vote with the Tories due to the EU referendum. The danger to the Tories is UKIP votes letting Labour win seats. If UKIP win Labour seats they will vote with the Tories to get the referendum.

Try telling the American's that…

The following share of the vote is not impossible:

Labour ~ 29%
Tories ~ 27%
UKIP ~ 21%
LibDem ~ 8%

But with UKIP MPs only in single figures, or low teens.
There's little chance of their number of MPs being even close to representing their share of the national vote if they poll well.

I should probably add that both Greens and SNP might gain a greater share of the vote than last time, but without gaining any more seats.

Some interesting quotes from the BBC analysis from Labour politicians....

[i]Speaking in Heywood, where he congratulated winning candidate Liz McInnes, Mr Miliband said Labour had changed and realised it was "not prejudiced" to worry about immigration.[/i]

[i]Veteran Labour MP Frank Field said the result in Heywood and Middleton meant that "all bets were off" for Labour at next year's general election. But Mr Field said: "If last night's vote heralds the start of UKIP's serious assault into Labour's neglected core vote, all bets are off for safer, let alone marginal seats at the next election."[/i]

[i]John Mann, the Labour MP for Bassetlaw, told the Guardian newspaper Labour would not win a majority government unless Mr Miliband broadened the party's coalition to include working class opinion.[/i]

[i]Peter Tatchell, who stood as a Labour candidate in the 1983 by-election in the south London constituency of Bermondsey, said Labour bore some of the responsibility for the rise of UKIP. He said on Twitter: "Labour has part responsibility for rise of UKIP. It played Thatcherism lite & neglected working class people."[/i]

Yes.... remember those Ed? Working class people? The ones your party has pretended don't exist? Who you wilfully ignored? Well they're not going to vote for you any more, you sock-puppet! It might be a bit late to realise this. 7 months before a general election.

Given we have shifted from a three party system to a four [ in non general elections anyway] those votes have to come from somewhere- they are not coming from labour so why discuss what it means to them?

Maybe because this thread is titled "UKIP, the by-elections and Labour"

The reason we're not discussing the Tories' problem with UKIP (on this occasion, we've done it often enough) is not only because that's not what this thread is about, but also because I think everybody acknowledges they have a problem.

Of course I could have just saved myself all those words and described your comments as whataboutery.

If UKIP really aren't a threat to Labour electorally, then why didn't Labour increase their share of the vote by 11.2% as they did in Wythenshawe and Sale East just 6 months ago?

I think the focus on Labour as has already been expressed is that it was a surprise, polls were a long way out. All the main parties had a dreadful night. they all had a bucket of sick poured over them and we are obsessing over which is the biggest and which is the lumpiest.

However, on a numbers point, Labour did indeed slightly increase their vote share, but their 2010 vote share was the second lowest in their modern history, only just more than Michael Foot is 1983. Could we be looking at a ruling party next year with less than 30% of the vote because we have a four party system?

Could we be looking at a ruling party next year with less than 30% of the vote because we have a four party system?

I fear so. Far from unlikely.

Either that, or a coalition that the major parties keep pretending is off the cards.
A coalition that might need three parties… prepare for politicians to have to compromise more than ever with each other, in order to try and represent as broad a section of the electorate as possible… and to be damned for it.

On cohesion we need to apply interculturalism to public policy and support community cohesion. We have to make sure programmes similar to ESOL are properly funded. Yes we are tolerant but we need a cohesive society.

Jesus it is Ed Miliband! Frosty have you considered for a second that this is exactly the sort of meaningless twaddle that has sent many voters into the arms of UKIP? Instead of skirting round the issue with policy gobbledegook, the labour party should be clearly making the case for immigration and standing up to UKIPs simplistic jingoism and xenophobia.

Its no secret that Team Millibean are (or were) aiming for a 35% of the vote. That was the limit of their feeble ambition. Perhaps they were just being realistic and realised that as they presently look as appealing as a bucket of shit, and 35% was as good as its going to get. But the vagaries of the electoral system might deliver enough for a minority government.

The Tory's are exactly the same. They're equally as unpalatable to most people. So they are (well were...) aiming to mobilise their core vote to limp over the line with about 35% of the vote

Well neither of those 'election strategies' (such as they are) are looking like a goer this morning. But as stated... labour are in trouble, but the Tories look well and truly screwed!!!

UKIP could end up only winning a couple of seats, but wreaking absolute havoc by being the 2nd largest party all over the country. Delivering labour victories in the south, and god-only-knows-what in the north

Given we have shifted from a three party system to a four [ in non general elections anyway] those votes have to come from somewhere- they are not coming from labour so why discuss what it means to them?

Have we?

Heywood and Middleton seat was contested by UKIP last election and got 2.6% of the vote - so much for shifting to four parties!

Your claim that UKIP votes are not coming from Labour seems strange as well, where did the Labour vote go in Clacton?

2010: (turnout 43k)
Conservative 22,867 53.0 %
Labour 10,799 25.0%
Lib Dem 5,577 12.9%

2014: (turnout 35k)
UKIP 21,113 59.7%
Conservative 8,709 24.6%
Labour 3,957 13.8%

Labour vote has lost 7k voters, Lib Dems lost 5k Combined Tory and UKIP vote has gone up by 8K (despite turnout falling by 8k!) - so even if the Tories had lost 14k voters to UKIP, UKIP have still picked up another 6k from somewhere else!

They are run by an ex tory, funded by ex tories and their first MP is an ex Tory. They could not be more ex Tory yet you want to discuss Labour problems as if this will address UKIP. It makes no sense given the actual facts. IMHO it remains largely a right wing distraction to do this because you cannot discuss the real issues of tories leaving to create UKIP and taking your votes and then your seats.

You appear to be forgetting the uncomfortable and unforgettable truth - Labour only wins elections when it acts like Tories!

Putting a stop to state funded faith schools would be a start towards “interculturism” (if that is supposed to mean what I think it means).

On cohesion we need to apply interculturalism to public policy and support community cohesion. We have to make sure programmes similar to ESOL are properly funded. Yes we are tolerant but we need a cohesive society.

Jesus it is Ed Miliband! Frosty have you considered for a second that this is exactly the sort of meaningless twaddle that has sent many voters into the arms of UKIP?

Indeed. Most people roll their eyes in despair when they hear utterly meaningless PC claptrap like that! WTF is interculturalism anyway. Its the same as multiculturalism, but we don't like using that word any more, so we've thought of a new one. Do you think anyone will notice?

Jesus H Corbett, how does that dweeb expect to reconnect with the working classes when he doesn't even speak the same language?!!

John Harris summed up Milliband and his advisors perfectly... "a Poilcy Book Club whose political antennae don't function outside North London"

Didn't take long for the cracks to appear.. [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/10/douglas-carswell-ukip-plans-migrants-hiv ]http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/10/douglas-carswell-ukip-plans-migrants-hiv[/url]

This will be the one saving grace. UKIP is so full if crackpots and self-serving egotists that they'll implode in an orgy of in-fighting and squabbling before they get anywhere near real power.

binners - Member

Indeed. Most people roll their eyes in despair when they hear utterly meaningless PC claptrap like that! WTF is interculturalism anyway. Its the same as multiculturalism, but we don't like using that word any more, so we've thought of a new one. Do you think anyone will notice?

Jesus H Corbett, how does that dweeb expect to reconnect with the working classes when he doesn't even speak the same language?!!

John Harris summed up Milliband and his advisors perfectly... "a Poilcy Book Club whose political antennae don't function outside North London"

Yes because what we should do is visit places all over the country talk to those affected by these issues. Talk to national and world experts on these topics. Discuss it with various stakeholders then ignore it all because it is all bollocks!

Binners for once I'm actually shocked that your attitude is dismiss these issues so off hand.

In the past we have done community cohesion very well but we need to keep that going with the latest wave of migration. If not we could end up like Germany in 30 -40 years time because they screwed up their integration policy in the 1970s.

I'm not dismissing the issues. I'm dismissing the ridiculous language used. Its claptrap. And it alienates people when they have to listen to this increasingly opaque drivel that just screams 'Westminster think tank'

Yes because what we should do is visit places all over the country talk to those affected by these issues. Talk to national and world experts on these topics. Discuss it with various stakeholders then ignore it all because it is all bollocks!

No one's talking about ignoring anything. But in order to implement the things you suggest you need to get into government. To do that you need votes. And you're not going to get them if you confuse the hell out of people with techno-babble which is designed to hedge your bets so that you don't actually have to come out and say which side of the argument you're on. Whether the labour party is for or against immigration, it should come out and clearly state it's position and then do it's damndest in clear simple language to argue it's case and persuade people to agree with them. People are not going to vote for them if they do not know what they stand for.

Putting a stop to state funded faith schools would be a start towards “interculturism” (if that is supposed to mean what I think it means).

Good luck with that one in the west of Scotland.

Well I'm sorry you feel the language is inappropriate, multiculturalism is passive acceptance and tolerance of different cultures as part of the fabric of wider society. Interculturalism is an evolution of this which actively encourages interaction between cultures in a society and the breaking down of segregation in society.

There you go again. You really don't get it do you? 🙂

Can I suggest that the sort of language they should be using should be like...

"We the labour party believe immigration is good/bad for Britain, here's why, and here's what we're going to do about it"

This is [s]Labour[/s] STW's problem - a belief that only their point of view, experiences, expectations and wants are valid and the demonisation of any who dare to disagree with them.

Fixed that for you.

But I agree with Cranberry, and I'm in a similar situation to him/her as well.

Lots of disillusioned people out there (judging by the benefits by the seaside programme on C5 last night) that would never dream of voting Cons but are starting to like the cut of the UKIP jib. Some of the Labour voters I've come across are so right wing it's scary but they could never bring themselves to vote Cons, well no they've got an alternative.

Labour should be concerned. In fact all of us us regardless of political persuasion should be concerned.

dazh - Member

No one's talking about ignoring anything. But in order to implement the things you suggest you need to get into government. To do that you need votes. And you're not going to get them if you confuse the hell out of people with techno-babble which is designed to hedge your bets so that you don't actually have to come out and say which side of the argument you're on. Whether the labour party is for or against immigration, it should come out and clearly state it's position and then do it's damndest in clear simple language to argue it's case and persuade people to agree with them. People are not going to vote for them if they do not know what they stand for.

What I was saying wasn't hedging bets it is the logical policy approach to some of the issues.

I believe it is too complex to say for for or against immigration is too simplistic. A level of immigration is necessary. Even UKIP say this! It is how you control and balance immigration that issues. Not a black and white issue.

Not a black and white issue

And if you stopped 100 people randomly on the street and asked them to define 'intercultural', how many responses would resemble the description you've just given? Theres no way you'd get into double figures! And how many would look at you like you'd just been beamed down? Reckon it got much 'traction' in Middleton?

This is exactly what I'm talking about! This is exactly why people are alienated from politics. They don't even think politicians speak the same language as them then. And they're right! Ultimately its this kind of twaddle that says to normal people that they're not in the exclusive club, because they don't know these ridiculous words, phrases and acronyms, dreamt up by policy wonks in Westminster.

And someone like Farage just (rightly) mocks this drivel! Then he wins!

dazh - Member
There you go again. You really don't get it do you?

Rather lose votes and say what I believe rather than play the easy cards like UKIP.

Rather lose votes and say what I believe

But that's the whole point. You need to say what you believe in language people understand, otherwise it's totally pointless. Is the labour party really so far up it's own backside that they just don't understand this?

Interculturalism is an evolution of this which actively encourages interaction between cultures in a society and the breaking down of segregation in society.

Integration then 🙄

@frosty I know what you are trying to say but it is stuff like that (especially if it where quoted by a Labour party candidate for example) which has people running to what they perceive as the "people's alternative" (see Peter Tacthell's remarks quoted by binners). But let me be very clear I think we can have multi-culturism with immigration control, the two are not mutually exclusive.

On Kelvin's point I don't have a philisophical problem with state funded faith schools, we've had CoE and Catholic schools for the longest time, however they should be reflective of modern British values and recognise that all faiths including those who have none have an equal standing.

I would imagine Ed Milliband will be having some uncomfortable conversations over the weekend as will Cameron and Clegg.

I'll be out of circulation but will try and follow, have fun !

[i]Speaking in Heywood, where he congratulated winning candidate Liz McInnes, Mr Miliband said Labour had changed and realised it was "not prejudiced" to worry about immigration.[/i]

So the Lady wasn't a Bigot then.......official!

[i]Not a black and white issue[/i]

😯

lol!

On the black and white I meant yes or no on or off I or O but i think you guys knew that 😉

ninfan - Member
Integration then

Not necessarily integration might imply that those of other cultures rejecting their old culture and confirming to a new one.

Faith schools are about segregation. They support and enforce it, even when they teach otherwise.

Personally I'm against faith schools for that reason.

Not necessarily integration might imply that those of other cultures rejecting their old culture and confirming to a new one.

I thought that thats what we wanted in Britain?

In fact the entire future of a culturally sensitive and vibrant society depends on people rejecting parts of their old culture - like the suppression of women, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, nepotism, corruption, binge drinking, violence, etc.

Yes some aspects of some cultures are totally incompatible and you have named some of them. However there is an even longer list that is compatible. I don't think we need some sort of 1950s mono culture. BTW were you taking the piss RE binge drinking?

Well I had a chat with our resident dyed in the wool labour supporter we live in working class west London Brentford that's gradually being gentrified by the likes of us guardianista types.
My neighbour (former postie) voted labor all his life,still delivers leaflets for em etc, is very worried about ukip, he'd never vote for em as they're just Tories in disguise, Hes written to Ed twice saying he should say he should back an EU referendum as it'd win them the election.
He might just be right

You right Kimbers there is no denying there is a UKIP problem. But I don't think we should try and out UKIP UKIP!

BTW were you taking the piss RE binge drinking?

Why? its a very unappealing element of British culture that has (arguably) reduced massively in recent years!

or did you think I meant that only immigrants needed to adapt their cultures for the benefit of society?

Interesting point of view I think binge drinking is very destructive but it is widely accepted as part of culture.

Stopping foreigners from being all muslamic is one thing but attacking the rights of a man to get smashed in his local boozer ..... You must be a Looney 😉

[img] [/img]

Come the election you will see high profile left leaning policies form UKIP, on say tax.

No we wont we will see low taxes masquerading as helping the poor. The slash and burn affect their low tax will have on the poor wont. They will probably get lucky as the average voter is not that bright so will probably buy the spin.

Also I do not in any way see immigration control as a right vs left policy choice.

Which parties tend to get most uptight about immigration Right wing ones or left wing ones? I agree some of it crosses over but only in times of a poor economy when we forget to blame the fat cat bankers and global corporations for the economic situation and low wages and instead blame other piss poor people form somewhere even poorer.

Maybe because this thread is titled "UKIP, the by-elections and Labour"

Of course I could have just saved myself all those words and described your comments as whataboutery.

If UKIP really aren't a threat to Labour electorally, then why didn't Labour increase their share of the vote by 11.2% as they did in Wythenshawe and Sale East just 6 months ago?

Labour vote has lost 7k voters

Poor sod, Greene King IPA 😮

speaking of schools...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11154466/David-and-Samantha-Cameron-look-to-send-daughter-to-inner-city-comp.html

linky no worky

@kimbers I don't think Labour could justify an in/out referndum. It goes against so much of their policy.also if they had a vote and it was for an exit they wouldnt know what to do. I think theyd be genuinely afraid of such a thing

JY I suspect the average voter wouldnt see through UKIPs headline grabbing tax cuts, which means you'll have your work cut out explaining it to them all

I have my work cut on here never mind out there 😉

Indeed you are correct but I cannot fathom how Labour voters can see this cabal of to right wing and racist for the Tory party as their saviours.

I know what you mean Junkyard

I don't think Labour could justify an in/out referndum. It goes against so much of their policy

Just like the lib dems grandstanding over tuition fees ?

The Scottish referendum has shown that the parties can work together if they have to as shonky as the no campaign was, it worked
In my fantasy land wed have the politicians to easily spell out the obvious disaster of leaving the EU and the support of the objective media.....

It goes against so much of their policy.also if they had a vote and it was for an exit they wouldnt know what to do. I think theyd be genuinely afraid of such a thing

There is significant opposition to the EU within the Labour Party, the fact these views aren't widely aired is purely down to the control that the right-wing faction which seized control of the party 20 years ago exerts over all aspects of party presentation.

Back in the day when the Labour Party was a democratic organisation and party policy was not decided by one man, Labour Conference voted to withdraw from the EEC. In fact in 1983 Labour fought the general election on a manifesto commitment to withdraw from the EEC, it was one of the principle reasons why the SDP was formed out of disgruntled right-wingers.

In contrast btw the Tory Party under Thatcher at that time was very pro-EEC. Thatcher had criticised the previous Labour government for refusing to sign up to the Exchange Rate Mechanism.

There has always been strong opposition to the EEC/EU from within the left of the Labour Party, as typified by Tony Benn's opposition. And although it has now become a left-right issue within the Labour Party it wasn't always so, many on the right of the party were opposed to EEC membership. Labour's most outspoken critic of the EEC was the cabinet member Peter Shore, not someone who was particularly left-wing.

What he said.

Interesting commentary Ernie.

Ed Miliband for PM ... look into my eyes ... look into my eyes.

[img] [/img]

Or Nick Clegg for PM ... look into my eyes ... look into my eyes.

[img] [/img]

That will learn you ... they are watching youuuuuu ... 😆

Some will say that UKIP have no policies, but looking at the Labour and Conservative website shows that these parties have even less credible policies. Read for yourself:

http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people

http://www.labour.org.uk/issues

http://www.conservatives.com/Plan.aspx

A quick look through these suggests that UKIP are at least trying to have some policies that act in the interests of the citizens and not the ruling elites that dominate the main parties.

Yes but cowboy, most of that list is complete bllx apart from some of the tax stuff and abolishing the Ministry of Climate Change.

Read for yourself

But first of all I want to know if it's approved by Nigel Farage.

[url= http://news.sky.com/story/1200525/nigel-farage-disowns-ukip-manifesto-as-drivel ]Nigel Farage Disowns UKIP Manifesto As 'Drivel'[/url]

[b][i]UKIP leader Nigel Farage has disowned the party's entire general election manifesto - which he helped launch - branding it "drivel".[/i][/b]

I don't want to read it if it's drivel mtbcowboy.

Some of it may be complete bllx but is it less bllx than the main parties attempts at policies?

On your link it says that the manifesto he disowned was the 2010 one. That is different to the policies on the website. Political parties change their policies from time to time that is normal.

If it is drivel you at least have to read it to know it is drivel. My point is that many people don't go to the websites and read the manifesto or policies. They just take in what the TV feeds them which often doesn't cover all the policy topics.

Some of it may be complete bllx but is it less bllx than the main parties attempts at policies?

No they really do win the medal for bllx. Way ahead of other parties (SNP/yS aside)

If it is drivel you at least have to read it to know it is drivel.

Not at all, if Nigel Farage says that the entire UKIP manifesto he helped to launch is drivel, then that's good enough for me. I'm sure he's right. He should know after all - who am I to argue ?

But first of all I want to know if it's approved by Nigel Farage.