[Closed] Will UKIP really split the tory vote and let Labour in?

bokonon - Thatis why I just filled my postal vote in for the Green party.

It's why I dedicate an inordinate amount of my time to campaigning for and working for (volunteering for) the party as well.

It is clear on the door step, that it is difficult to engage people in discussions about policies - the notion that "there is no alternative" is a very strong one, that governments don't really have a choice, any government you elect will have to do these things - cut welfare, privatise more stuff, give tax breaks to rich people and decrease the amount of protection employees get - that all the major parties have signed up to this mantra is a real concern, that people generally are going along with it is even worse.

tbh the changes the West is going through (lower standard of living, lower levels of wealth and competitiveness) are way beyond the power of national governments - and no set of policies adhering to a certain political stance are likely to help us survive/thrive.

Essentially, globalisation and technology are wreaking havoc with the old world order and as the ones who have the most, we also have the most to lose. My view is that people are basically terrified about this loss of relative wealth and power - even though the reality may not really be that bad. The ageing population and obesity are added burdens that will inflict massive cost on the working population.

Farage is playing on this fear - nothing more - he has no better idea than anyone else how to maintain our standard of living.

Right now we need 2 things: 1) change our expectations of what the government can afford to provide for us at current levels of taxation 2) a technocratic government rather than a political one. Coalition might well be far better for us in the long run... party politics is all rhetoric and not enough pragmatism for the situation we're in...

....any government you elect will have to do these things - cut welfare, privatise more stuff, give tax breaks to rich people and decrease the amount of protection employees get - that all the major parties have signed up to this mantra is a real concern, that people generally are going along with it is even worse.

It's the power of marketing.

And going along with what you've been told is far easier and requires much less effort than challenging it. Specially when there's something vaguely entertaining to watch on the telly.

The Greens would get my vote if it wasnt for their ludicrous science policy

fair enough they dont understand the need for animal testing, everyone loves fluffy animals?!?

but their stance on embryonic stem cells
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/jun/01/european-elections-science-stem-cells-gm?guni=Article:in%20body%20link

their confusion over nuclear power

and ultimately their dogmatic rejection and ignorance over GM crops

means an otherwise worthy party are best kept on the fringes IMHO

kimbers - Member

The Greens would get my vote if it wasnt for their ludicrous science policy

So are you voting Labour because you like their "science policy" ?

The problem with the Greens is their policies were salvaged from the old school Labour bin. A government wielding big stick approach to saving the environment isn't going to work, the incentivised, competitive version of capitalism might, but the Greens for some reason can't see that. It's also pretty clear that a lot of 'Green' policies are doing more harm than good.

as a scientist its important to me, and I was very impressed with the achievements under nulab, eg human genome, ITER investment etc

I don't know what UKIP policies are.

Really?

I thought they had one fairly substantive policy that they had clearly and repeatedly stated was their primary aim!

Beyond that, perhaps everything else is bullshit, but it still leaves them with one overriding and heartfelt, genuine policy that people can get behind, and thats one more than any of the other parties that they are campaigning against...

Yeah Z-11 "policies" is plural. Everyone knows one UKIP policy.

I don't know what UKIP policies are and neither do you.

binners, with soundbites like these

looks like he's got more pressing concerns than sourcing fairtrdade humous in Islington

I wouldn't trust him to run a bath

you could go into politics.

The Greens would get my vote if it wasnt for their ludicrous science policy

Hippies don't do science, they do crystals and ley lines.

<runs>

Everyone knows one UKIP policy.

Precisely

Beyond that, do the others matter?

Clearly not to a fairly significant proportion of the population

[quote=Junkyard ]Unlike Binners i dont think they can lurch that far as all the parties have to flirt with the floating/swing voters as they are the ones who decide elections
not the rabid diehards who will also vote for their party [ or against the others]- I include myself in that statement

The trouble for the Tories is that some of those they would have considered to be rabid diehards have become swing voters who they have to appeal to - it does them no good if they win floating voters from Labour by moving to the left* if that results in them losing floating voters from the other side. If the Greens were to become a real force I imagine Labour might have to deal with the same issue.

*not that I'm sure whether Labour is actually to the left of the Tories or whether such a continuum is a useful description of politics nowadays.

do the others matter?

Obviously I'm not expressing myself very clearly - I thought I had been making the point over several posts that the electorate aren't interested in policies. So in answer to that question is 'apparently no'.

And if you are suggesting that people are rushing to vote UKIP because of their anti-EU stand then that doesn't explain why the highest vote they have received in their 20 years of existence was in last year's local/shire elections.

Nor does it explain why there should be a sudden a surge of anti-EU feelings within the electorate.

The sudden increase in support for UKIP appears to have very little to do with the EU.

The sudden increase in support for UKIP appears to have very little to do with the EU.

Not sure I would agree with that? The anti-Eu sentiment is a common theme across Europe. UKIP have tapped into that (in terms of policy) and anti-political establishment (in terms of sentiment) rather successfully. So not exclusively EU but without that they are a little lost.

Not sure I would agree with that?

Well there's no point asking me - do you or don't you ?

fair enough they dont understand the need for animal testing, everyone loves fluffy animals?!?

This is an area where I disagree with party policy, I don't support an immediate ban on animal testing, and wouldn't want to lose it asa technique to use where appropriate - I don't think the current government/previous governments have got it right either, there seems to be a massive focus on it as a technique when it's not always that useful.

but their stance on embryonic stem cells
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/jun/01/european-elections-science-stem-cells-gm?guni=Article:in%20body%20link

This is from 2009 - this is a long time in Green Party policy making (where policies can be revised at two opportunities every year) and much of the policy which informed that article is no longer party policy - that is the nature of a democratic decision making process - people who are informed about science, and are willing to sit down and put forward informed and useful policies.

The current policy on Stem Cells and research is:

"The Green Party acknowledges the existing and potential future benefits to humans and other animals from stem cell technologies, using both adult and embryonic cellular material. These benefits include direct medical advances, improved non-animal testing methods for new medical treatments, and the advancement of knowledge. However, we also emphasize the importance of continuing ethical regulation, adequate government funding, and transparency of research in the areas of embryonic and adult stem cell technologies, to protect donors and the public health."

Which is a hell of a lot clearer than the policy of the Labour party, or any other party, who only have a vague mumble.

HE 324 from here: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/he.html

their confusion over nuclear power

There is no confusion over nuclear power, The Green Party is opposed to it - and it's a sensible position to take. Whilst other parties would not invest heavily enough in renewables to ensure that no nuclear meant more fossil fuels, the Green Party would invest enough in renewables to ensure that no nuclear did not require greater fossil fuel usage. I agree that other parties have to support investment (however you drew it up) in new nuclear, but that's simply because they are not willing to invest in other sources of power, not because there is a predetermined course along which they must go.

and ultimately their dogmatic rejection and ignorance over GM crops

I agree, the policy on GM isn't right, and needs sorting. I think the underlying problem with GM is not the science, it's the politics - which is pretty well covered in Green Party policies:

"ST362 Control of research and the use of genetic engineering by a few multinational companies threatens the autonomy of farmers and health services and makes profit an underlying motive for the use of GMOs."

The problem is not GM per se, but the fact that GM is currently being pursued to close down the autonomy of farmers and ensure a greater level of control by a smaller and smaller number of massive companies - that's not healthy for anyone.

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/st.html

means an otherwise worthy party are best kept on the fringes IMHO

Given that your impression of what Green Party policies are is, as far as I can tell, quite different to what they actually are, I'm not sure if your judgement is that great - particularly given that they are published online for all to see. As a scientist, I would expect you to base your decision on the best available evidence of what the policies are - rather than relying on old data.

The problem with the Greens is their policies were salvaged from the old school Labour bin.
A government wielding big stick approach to saving the environment isn't going to work,

I don't think that's true, and I'm interested in which policies you think best characterise that - http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ The Green Party has more young members than most parties, and a large number of active members are not old enough to remember old Labour, I'm older than the author of the most recent Euro Elections Manifesto, and I wasn't old enough to vote out the last Tory government Nu Labour is the only Labour i've ever known.

The Greens are, by a long way, the most libertarian party currently operating in British politics - basically every single other political party is deeply authoritarian by comparison - the Green approach is broadly one of genuine decentralisation - unlike the current government who dress up moving more power to whitehall as local control - like Free Schools and Academies.

the incentivised, competitive version of capitalism might, but the Greens for some reason can't see that.

I'm not sure what you mean by that - i'm happy to be a died in the wool anti-capitalist, so generally I disagree that capitalism can do anything useful for the environment - more competition means more growth, which means a greater degree of exploitation of the worlds resources - which is how we got into this mess in the first place - but i'm interested in hearing the arguments.

It's also pretty clear that a lot of 'Green' policies are doing more harm than good.

This is interesting this - The 'Green' Party have to take the wrap for the 'green' policies of other parties - even if they are not what we would support or implement…I think there are some so called 'green' initiatives which are total crap, and are greenwashing for the sake of appearance, there are some 'green' policies which are excellent - I'm keen on the recent experiment in Paris with free public transport, for example…neither of them are Green Party policies, but both of them are 'green' policies.

ABSOLUTELY NOT

Excuse the capitals but this is a naive and optimistic view. UKIP is drawing votes from accross the spectrum. If it where true that UKIP supporters where coming purely from the Tories the Tories would be polling around 5-10% which they are most clearly not. In France the National Front (sort of a watered down BNP) has won a lot of votes from the extreme left. The realty is that those in low paid work have the most to fear from immigration as it's those new immigrants which undercut their wages and take their jobs.

If Labour supporters are sitting back and ignoring UKIP on the basis that it's the Tories who will suffer they are playing a very dangerous game

One of the reasons why the economy experienced difficulties is because instead of building a surplus during the boom/growth period they chose instead to implement vote winning tax cuts.

I'm talking about the deficit not the recession, hence my reference to "a surplus". All recessions cause a deficit, one of the ways of minimising the effects of this is by building up a surplus during the good times/periods of growth.

New Labour chose not to do this because apparently there would be "no more boom and busts" and chose instead to follow the neoliberal and populist agenda of tax cuts.

No one, including the Tories, objected at the time, although later when things went tits up those same people castigated New Labour for not "fixing the roof while the sun was shining".

There are no fundamental differences between the economic policies of the Tories and New Labour. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either in denial or being disingenuous.

If you want different policies then vote differently.

[quote=bokonon ]There is no confusion over nuclear power, The Green Party is opposed to it - and it's a sensible position to take. Whilst other parties would not invest heavily enough in renewables to ensure that no nuclear meant more fossil fuels, the Green Party would invest enough in renewables to ensure that no nuclear did not require greater fossil fuel usage. I agree that other parties have to support investment (however you drew it up) in new nuclear, but that's simply because they are not willing to invest in other sources of power, not because there is a predetermined course along which they must go.

Sounds confused to me, given that however heavily you invest in renewables, they're not going to provide sufficient base load (see http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/storing-renewable-energy for discussion of storage to try and help with that) in the medium term (within the timescale new nuclear will come online) to avoid increased fossil fuel usage. To imagine otherwise is wishful thinking. Hence why some Green party supporters who have a sense of reality have changed their stance.

I wish I could support the Green party as I like a lot of what they stand for (and the Green party councillors etc. I've come into contact with seem to be very intelligent and sensible people).

Probably only people suffering from an un diagnosed mental illness will vote con dem, and thats becase they cant see a gp due to the cuts.

Vote ukip or labour and show this curent gang of posh boys you have a voice and a wish to show them they have no idea how to run a country, let alone a political party of any standing.

Probably only people suffering from an un diagnosed mental illness will vote con dem, and thats becase they cant see a gp due to the cuts.

You really are rather unpleasant, aren't you? Or is joking about mental illness funny for you? Or is it the chip on your shoulder making you unbalanced?

im not sure that public school educated millionaires farige or milliband represent much of a departure from the posh boys, project

im not sure that public school educated millionaires farige or milliband represent much of a departure from the posh boys, project

Vote ukip as a protest vote, and vote labour for real change, milliband is like hague,blair and major, just talking heads, easily shoved aside when the time comes, you need to vote for the party and its principoles not the talking head.

Probably only people suffering from an un diagnosed mental illness will vote con dem, and thats becase they cant see a gp due to the cuts.

Vote ukip or labour ......

Vote UKIP for cuts in the NHS ?

[url= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100257048/nigel-farage-the-tories-have-failed-only-ukip-dares-cut-spending-on-nhs-and-pensions/ ]Nigel Farage: 'The Tories have failed; only Ukip dares cut spending on NHS and pensions' [/url]

[i][b]...he hopes to cause maximum agony to David Cameron, by pressing the Tories harder on deficit reduction and spending cuts

His focus will be on spending cuts.

Mr Farage intends to "outline the absolute necessity to cut government spending"

Mr Farage will strike out in favour of cuts to the NHS, pensions, and all the other protected areas of public spending.[/i][/b]

Don't like Tory austerity measures ? ....then vote UKIP and support them in their attempt to take us back to the 19th century.

OP,

I hope they don't let Labour in for at least 3 terms as they already had their fill.

😆

There are no fundamental differences between the economic policies of the Tories and New Labour. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either in denial or being disingenuous.

To imagine otherwise is wishful thinking. Hence why some Green party supporters who have a sense of reality have changed their stance.

I wish I could support the Green party as I like a lot of what they stand for (and the Green party councillors etc. I've come into contact with seem to be very intelligent and sensible people).

Energy is by far and away not my area - however, the full policy is currently being revised in quite some depth, I can send over a copy along with the background paper if you like - it's to be voted on in September.

The basic idea is a decrease in electricity use by increased efficiency by a third in order to decrease the base loading, then phase out Nuclear and fossil fuel.

In today's Guardian, UKIP is splitting the Labour vote

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/16/ukip-divided-left-right-cut-labour-support ]UKIP divides the Left[/url]

I read that as the people who voted for Blair because they correctly identified him as being a better Tory than the Tory party was at the time, are now going to vote for a different party that looks better at being Tory than the present lot of Tories

Excuse the capitals but this is a naive and optimistic view. UKIP is drawing votes from accross the spectrum. If it where true that UKIP supporters where coming purely from the Tories the Tories would be polling around 5-10% which they are most clearly not. In France the National Front (sort of a watered down BNP) has won a lot of votes from the extreme left. The realty is that those in low paid work have the most to fear from immigration as it's those new immigrants which undercut their wages and take their jobs.

If Labour supporters are sitting back and ignoring UKIP on the basis that it's the Tories who will suffer they are playing a very dangerous game

This ^^^

UKIP are giving Labour voters who would never ever vote Con a potential way of 'protesting' against any perceived immigration / EU stance that they actually agree with.

The danger for Labour is that the ex-Con UKIP voters go back to Cons for a General Election (as they recognise UKIP won't win any election/seats), but stick with UKIP instead of going back to Labour.

In today's Guardian, UKIP is splitting the Labour vote

UKIP divides the Left

I read the article up to this point [i]"In 2010 Labour was at a low ebb"[/i] and decided to stop there and not waste my time any further.

2009 was when the Labour Party suffered its worst post-war election result. By 2010 Labour had staged a remarkable recovery and it is for this very reason that the Tories failed to win the 2010 general election and were forced into coalition with the LibDems.

The Labour "low ebb" was in 2009 not 2010 otherwise we would have a Tory majority government today. If the authors of the article fail to understand this simple analytical fact then they clearly have little creditability. Well as far as I'm concerned anyway.

Borrowing skills?

The rationale I have had explained to me for what is happening in France (far right taking votes from far left) is that the far left say they will protect your job with a strong union (and generally national protectionism) whilst the far right say they will protect your job by keeping the foreigners out (and national protectionism). Its quite clear many people in France feel their employment is threatened by immigrants undercutting their wages/employment prospects despite the country having strong unions and a relatively high minimum wage, hence someone swings from far left to far right.

This is from a blog somewhere so not claiming accuracy or lack of bias but...
[img] [/img]

The amazing thing about UKIP supporters is that so many of them are left-wing, yet they support a party that is significantly more right-wing than the Tories. A recent YouGov poll showed that the average UKIP supporter is significantly more left-wing than the average Lib-Dem or Tory voter and almost as left-wing as the average Labour supporter.

It's also worth noting this small coincidence
[img] [/img]

From a slightly more removed perspective now I'm down here in Oz...
We have a very right wing government (right wing enough to make some of it's own members a bit uncomfortable) a center left with some very left bits and a bunch of independants. The greens hold a decent balance of power due to an ability to provide and promote a balanced view on most things and have a full manifesto. It's interesting to hear the UK greens have the same but still seem to struggle to get the message out. One of the hardest things for a party like that is to stop being known as the "NO!" party objecting to everything and move into a more real world space. Minority parties need to get a foot hold in the process to start and effect change, you can't get it all on day 1, it will be a long time before anyone elects a majority green government for instance. It will be interesting to see how the Lib Dems play their success's at the next election, like the minority green part of the governments down here they could be seen as part of the problem and marginalised at the next election.

The final point about European elections is that once you understand it's not going to go away and learn to embrace it, it makes more sense to elect people to represent you and do a good job over in Brussels rather than a bunch of crack pots and idiots who want to tear the whole thing down. When Farage whines on about the EU doing all these things remember he is part of it and did nothing constructive to help the UK.

One of the hardest things for a party like that is to stop being known as the "NO!" party objecting to everything and move into a more real world space.

I'm currently in South Africa and they've just had a general election. The fifth democratic election since the end of apartheid in 1994. The ANC party is to remain in power as it has done since '94, but with its lowest majority ever.

There are many serious issues in SA at the moment concerning education & health services, housing and essential supply services, corruption and theft within government and local authorities, and the serious/violent crime rate is one of the highest in the world.

After 20 years of democracy, when asked why millions of people still live in squatter camps, why over 3 million people don't have access to electricity, why if you go to a government hospital you have to take your own clean sheets and food, the government say that there hasn't been enough time yet since the end of apartheid to fix these things. Hopefully for the millions of people who live in such awful conditions, 25 or 30 years will have "been enough time" and they will have access to the basic services - clean running water and electricity. It will be a step in the right direction if the government and local authorities can stop "losing" money. Last year alone 32 billion rand was unaccounted for.

Meanwhile, the masses have spoken. They are apparently happy enough with things as they are to remain loyal to the ANC.

Sounds like South Africans need to vote UKIP as a protest vote then. Nigel Farage would be the obvious answer for them.

Last year alone 32 billion rand was unaccounted for.

@SST Mugbe still rolls out the White Opression argument very effectively, the ANC will do so for many more years as well as enriching its senior members even further.

@mikesmith that chart on rail privatisation makes sense.

I personally think UKIP OS quite hard to pin down on left / right. I see it as a party with quite extreme views taken from both sides of the political spectrum. It has one very popular policy and that is that's it's anti EU. It's quite clear to me that if we had a straightforward in/out EU referendum the vote now would be "out"

Oh so now there's no difference between Mugabe and the ANC ? ffs

[quote=5thElefant ] Last year alone 32 billion rand was unaccounted for.
With accounting like that they should join the eu.

Most of its misspent money is done by the national govts rather than by the EU- oh and you should see how our MOD does

Eg CAP is administered nationally IIRC and has much fraud

Should not blame the EU because the countries are corrupt IMHO

I personally think UKIP OS quite hard to pin down on left / right.

The rest of UKIPs policies demonstrate that they occupy the extreme-right fringe of the neoliberal orthodoxy. They support massive tax cuts for corporations and the super-rich, the privatisation agenda, the destruction of what remains of the social safety net, the protection of the idle rentier class, the deregulation of firearms, the militarisation of the police, the construction of dozens of new privately operated jails as part of the prison-industrial complex, open discrimination against homosexuals, the scrapping of our human rights, the indoctrination of children with nationalist propaganda, anti-environmentalism, the expansion of Iain Duncan Smith's Stalinist forced labour schemes, an energy policy built on heavily subsidised nuclear power plants and fracking, the pushing of "free trade" onto the third world and all pervaded by the stench of barely concealed xenophobia.

The general feeling in SA is that there is very little difference between Mad Bob and what the ANC would do if they thought they could get away with it. Time will tell I guess - I'm just a visitor 🙂

The ANC of today bares no resemblance to the ANC of Nelson Mandela. You would have to live here to fully appreciate how bad it is though.

Eg CAP is administered nationally IIRC and has much fraud

Should not blame the EU because the countries are corrupt IMHO

Oh, come on - the process of auditing is inherent to preventing fraud and corruption at a national or local level.

EU's own audit authorities accept that approx 5% of spending is 'in error' - the definition of 'error' includes fraud, for example [i]“A farmer was granted a special premium for 150 sheep. The Court [of auditors] found that the beneficiary did not have any sheep. The corresponding payment was therefore irregular.”[/i]

The problem is that the EU knows of this fraud, knows of the corruption going on, that the national governments involved are turning a blind eye to it, and the EU keep making the payments!

[i]For the majority of transactions affected by error in shared management areas (e.g. agriculture and
cohesion), the Member State authorities had sufficient information available to have detected and
corrected the errors. [/i]

If you know that the member state could have prevented it and didn't, then you stop handing over the money till their house is in order - simple! Its the fact that the EU is aware of this and keeps paying that leads to people calling the EU corrupt, because while they are aware of it, they're complicit in it!