[Closed] UKIP, the by-elections and Labour

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