Floating voter - UKIP why not?
Discussion
Hey, Government lawyer rates are almost voluntary! I only hired two people, sorry. No houses, but I went to Ikea a few times, if that helps. Those meatballs are still quite good.
I only mention some work stuff because it amuses me that the blowhards who rant on about the country being broken don't always or often, as far as I can tell, do a lot about fixing it.
Political opinions are of course just opinions. I don't feel insulted if someone disagrees with my opinions, and don't feel the need to shout and swear if someone characterises one of my opinions in a disparaging fashion.
Is it fair to describe UKIP as a party which has xenophobic elements, or appeals to xenophobia in voters? I think that it is. See, for example, a bit of research here:-
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/documents/pdf/str...
My main objection to UKIP is that it is effectively a pressure group, or single issue lobbying or protest party. I am no fan of either of the mainstream parties (I discount the Lib Dems as a spent force; the Coalition was for them a suicide pact).
I don't buy my political views off the shelf. For example, I am quite hawkish on foreign policy and sentencing. I would like a small state when we are talking about security and policing, but a large state when we are talking about education and healthcare. I think that someone like me ought to pay about 50% tax. I currently pay a bit more than that, which is too much. I don't mind carrying a tax burden, but would like some help from low taxed people in the City who earn a lot more than mere lawyers. I have no great attachment to historically accidental nation states, and would vote for a democratic Federal Europe, if that were ever to be offered (this seems unlikely). I think that controlled immigration is more positive than negative, but do not support unthinking multiculturalism. I think that Western culture is objectively superior to most other cultures (through development, not through innate ethnic differences). I think that all religions suck, but Islam sucks more than most. I think that regulated Capitalism is the best system that we have for delivering prosperity and freedom. I would describe myself as a left-libertarian, but who knows where I would pop up on the graph?
I only mention some work stuff because it amuses me that the blowhards who rant on about the country being broken don't always or often, as far as I can tell, do a lot about fixing it.
Political opinions are of course just opinions. I don't feel insulted if someone disagrees with my opinions, and don't feel the need to shout and swear if someone characterises one of my opinions in a disparaging fashion.
Is it fair to describe UKIP as a party which has xenophobic elements, or appeals to xenophobia in voters? I think that it is. See, for example, a bit of research here:-
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/documents/pdf/str...
My main objection to UKIP is that it is effectively a pressure group, or single issue lobbying or protest party. I am no fan of either of the mainstream parties (I discount the Lib Dems as a spent force; the Coalition was for them a suicide pact).
I don't buy my political views off the shelf. For example, I am quite hawkish on foreign policy and sentencing. I would like a small state when we are talking about security and policing, but a large state when we are talking about education and healthcare. I think that someone like me ought to pay about 50% tax. I currently pay a bit more than that, which is too much. I don't mind carrying a tax burden, but would like some help from low taxed people in the City who earn a lot more than mere lawyers. I have no great attachment to historically accidental nation states, and would vote for a democratic Federal Europe, if that were ever to be offered (this seems unlikely). I think that controlled immigration is more positive than negative, but do not support unthinking multiculturalism. I think that Western culture is objectively superior to most other cultures (through development, not through innate ethnic differences). I think that all religions suck, but Islam sucks more than most. I think that regulated Capitalism is the best system that we have for delivering prosperity and freedom. I would describe myself as a left-libertarian, but who knows where I would pop up on the graph?
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 6th October 08:38
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 6th October 09:00
AJS- said:
Then deride UKIP as a bunch of xenophobes?
Standard practice for this type. It's like calling all Republicans swivel eyed Tea Partiers - a very weak and very transparant tactic to deride what you don't like - for the Europhiles, the term 'Xenophobe' is the latest derisory term.....very hackneyed...(Edited because I don't know the difference between 'phile' and 'phobe'......)
Edited by chris watton on Saturday 6th October 15:19
Breadvan72 said:
No, I just happen from time to time to do some immigration cases for the government. I do some for immigrants as well. I also do cases about Eurorules and all sorts of stuff. I sometimes help to enforce immigration control. I don't take the view that all foreigners are scroungers.
Then what does that have to do with "doing something to fix the country" while everyone else just moans about it? You mean to say you have a job? Well done, but so do lots of people. Despite how it might feel sometimes in the UK. chris watton said:
AJS- said:
Then deride UKIP as a bunch of xenophobes?
Standard practice for this type. It's like calling all Republicans swivel eyed Tea Partiers - a very weak and very transparant tactic to deride what you don't like - for the Europhobes, the term 'Xenophobe' is the latest derisory term.....very hackneyed...AJS- said:
It's a possibility. In my view though it was because they failed to get their core vote out precisely by sticking to a deceitful middle ground where they promised a smaller government without saying what they would cut, tighter controls on immigration without actually having control of immigration policy and of course lots of vague promises about a more decentralized EU without being prepared to even consider the possibility of abandoning the treaties that are not working.
You may have a point. In 1987 the Conservatives received 13.7million votes to Labours 10million. In 1992 they received a record 14million to Labours 11.5million. In 1997 the Conservative popular vote fell through the floor to 9.6million where as Labour achieved 13.5million. You could say the Tories losing over 4million votes was more significant than Labour gaining 2million. Even if those 2million flipped from the Tories, that's still 2million Tory voters who stayed at home. By 2001 (the so called quiet landslide) Hagues Tories received 8.3million votes. Wheres the 6million who voted Tory in 1992? Where did they go? There's no doubt Tony Blair took Labour to the middle and courted the middle ground. He gave the public what they wanted by 1997 which was a Tory Government without having to vote for the shambles infested scandal ridden Tories. Tony Blair PM being an anagram of Im Tory Plan B is not a co-incidence
Even if 'New' Labour didn't drag Tory voters across to them, they did enough for people to become content with Labour in Government and to lose interest in voting. Turnout has plummeted since the New Labour era began.Labour are moving back towards the left under Miliband so you could say there's a huge centre ground to seize but the question is are there any voters there? The Blair years were hard for the Tories, Labour inherited a strong economy and probably the best set of circumstances any post-war Government inherited and their first term ran so smoothly most didn't bother voting in 2001. Cameron came along to take on Labour at their own game but I think the time of the Camerons of this world was over when Blair left office.
I wouldn't agree with you about Blair being a Tory in Lab (to use another anagram!) but the rest is pretty much spot on.
To the extent that Blair was going for the middle ground, he recognised that Labour had lost the arguments of the 70s and 80s. His most significant reform was probably removing Clause IV in Labours constitution and abandoning the drive for common ownership. This could be viewed as a move to the right to capture the middle ground, but I would say it was more a move to the right to capture their core voters. The difference being that in the 1970s when Labour was last in power, their core voters were steel workers, dockers, miners and so forth. By 1997 they were public sector workers, the unemployed, minorities who felt excluded by the Conservative Party, and others who were perceived to have been left behind by the more entrepreneurial economy Thatcher created.
Blair wasn't going for the middle ground to attract raving Thatcherites who didn't like Major's tie, or some backbencher's bedroom antics. He was going for it because the ground had shifted, and the arguments had moved on. Blair was shrewd enough to realise this.
The question Tories should be asking is not how can we arrive at some smart and attractive combination of taxation and spending that will make some imaginary middle ground vote their way over Labour, the question should be where have our voters gone?
UKIP is one obvious answer. Abroad is another answer.
What I don't see as being any sort of an answer is that they have switched to Labour because Labour has stopped supporting closed shop factories and a nationalised car industry as these things have retreated into irrelevance anyway.
To the extent that Blair was going for the middle ground, he recognised that Labour had lost the arguments of the 70s and 80s. His most significant reform was probably removing Clause IV in Labours constitution and abandoning the drive for common ownership. This could be viewed as a move to the right to capture the middle ground, but I would say it was more a move to the right to capture their core voters. The difference being that in the 1970s when Labour was last in power, their core voters were steel workers, dockers, miners and so forth. By 1997 they were public sector workers, the unemployed, minorities who felt excluded by the Conservative Party, and others who were perceived to have been left behind by the more entrepreneurial economy Thatcher created.
Blair wasn't going for the middle ground to attract raving Thatcherites who didn't like Major's tie, or some backbencher's bedroom antics. He was going for it because the ground had shifted, and the arguments had moved on. Blair was shrewd enough to realise this.
The question Tories should be asking is not how can we arrive at some smart and attractive combination of taxation and spending that will make some imaginary middle ground vote their way over Labour, the question should be where have our voters gone?
UKIP is one obvious answer. Abroad is another answer.
What I don't see as being any sort of an answer is that they have switched to Labour because Labour has stopped supporting closed shop factories and a nationalised car industry as these things have retreated into irrelevance anyway.
Breadvan72 said:
Political opinions are of course just opinions. I don't feel insulted if someone disagrees with my opinions, and don't feel the need to shout and swear if someone characterises one of my opinions in a disparaging fashion.
Is it fair to describe UKIP as a party which has xenophobic elements, or appeals to xenophobia in voters? I think that it is. See, for example, a bit of research here:-
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/documents/pdf/str...
My main objection to UKIP is that it is effectively a pressure group, or single issue lobbying or protest party. I am no fan of either of the mainstream parties (I discount the Lib Dems as a spent force; the Coalition was for them a suicide pact).
]
Thanks for offering some evidence to support your position. I found the data interpretation quite unusual. The title of the paper - Strategic Eurosceptics and Polite Xenophobes : Support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the 2009 European Parliament Elections - suggested a less than balanced evaluation and by the end of the introduction their colours were well and truly nailed to the mast! I have only dealt with scientific data analysis at University and this is the first paper where a data loss of 40% was considered acceptable! Is it fair to describe UKIP as a party which has xenophobic elements, or appeals to xenophobia in voters? I think that it is. See, for example, a bit of research here:-
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/documents/pdf/str...
My main objection to UKIP is that it is effectively a pressure group, or single issue lobbying or protest party. I am no fan of either of the mainstream parties (I discount the Lib Dems as a spent force; the Coalition was for them a suicide pact).
]
The repeated accusations of xenophobia and attempts to associate the party with the BNP were exceptionally poorly evidenced, I love Europe and I come from a family of immigrants so if they have some evidence rather than smears I would rather see it before any vote.
Anyway, the paper was not a total loss for me because the evident bias made me wonder about the authors agenda and at the time of the publication in 2010 the authors were associated with The University of Manchester and Nottingham University. A quick look on the EU website shows that The University of Manchester was a shared beneficiary of the EU budget centrally administered by the Commission to the tune of 226,012,728 Euro's for research in 2010. Whilst this was shared with many other institutions and firms my particular favourite was an individual grant to The University of Manchester of 80,000 Euros for - Multilateral project : The Reconceptualization of European Union Citizenship. I think your link may have made my mind up!
( Nottingham also had extensive shared funding but my daughters gymnastics finished before I added up the totals!)
Breadvan72 said:
HTH, but are you not mildly perturbed by the alliances made by UKIP in the Europarliament? In addition, there remains the problem of a party that is focussed on one main issue.
In the smog of the more emotional posts I'd missed the issue of alliances made by UKIP in the Europarliament. One of the questions on the graph data posted earlier asks if you agree with the statement 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'... well my answer would be no, so would I be concerned that UKIP talk to bigots and nut jobs.. well yes, but in my own experience as a former Policeman, we had to deal with informants to get the job done, I have no doubt the British Government will have contacts with the Taliban for times when pragmatism overides principal, so unfortunately I can foresee a point where UKIP might form a convenient alliance with someone UKIP supporters would not favour to get the job done and depending on the circumstances and issues I would accept that as one of the costs of doing business. Having said that if anyone can point me in the direction of an example of one of these alliances I will look into it.As for the focus on a single issue, I think that's fair comment. The party stands on the unfairness of the EU as its guiding principal so there will doubtless be areas I disagree with, but of the issues raised so far none was a deal-breaker for me.. but then everey other party has stances I disagree with so I may just be disagreeable!
One thing I failed to mention about the link you provided was that I can understand why pro-EU people might be alarmed by UKIP, because if researchers like the authors of that paper genuinely think that UKIP=BNP + politeness ( and aren't just trying to score cheap shock effect ) then between the two they achieved over 22% of the UK vote. So over 1 in 5 UK voters in that election are racist xenophobes by their definition.
It's interesting how as much as we may dislike Blair, the core Labour base hate him even more. The core, unwavering, hard left teaching union leader type will always tell you Blair was their least favourite leader despite the fact he is the only leader to win Labour consecutive general elections. There were huge posters of him at the Labour conference though, more than I can say for Gordon Brown who Labour seem to be trying to erase from history. We criticise Labour plenty but their base is scathing for different reasons. They believe Labour left its principles behind in 1997 and 'tried to be better Tories than the Tories.'
I think left, centre and right are somewhat changable with the issues of the times and Labours 'principles' lost them four general elections so like you said, Blair recognised they'd lost the arguments and stopped peddling them. Is that a 'move to the centre' or merely accepting defeat and moving on to different arguments?
I think left, centre and right are somewhat changable with the issues of the times and Labours 'principles' lost them four general elections so like you said, Blair recognised they'd lost the arguments and stopped peddling them. Is that a 'move to the centre' or merely accepting defeat and moving on to different arguments?
AJS- said:
The question Tories should be asking is not how can we arrive at some smart and attractive combination of taxation and spending that will make some imaginary middle ground vote their way over Labour, the question should be where have our voters gone?
I don't believe Blair targeted Tory voters because people who believe fully in the Tory fundamentals would not vote for Labour irrespective of some rebranding. I do believe there is a middle ground however. The middle ground are those who don't want mass nationalisation but really love the NHS. Floating voters do exist and some would've switched to Labour in 1997, but those people would've been those who stuck with the Tories as the best of a bad bunch when Labour lost every argument in the 80s. The more significant part is the amount of Tory voters who didn't vote for anybody. I'd describe myself as 'middle ground' as I intend to vote for whoever will cause me the least amount of problems over the following five years.AJS- said:
What I don't see as being any sort of an answer is that they have switched to Labour because Labour has stopped supporting closed shop factories and a nationalised car industry as these things have retreated into irrelevance anyway.
Well if you voted for John Major in 1992 then I very much doubt you'd now be favouring Ed Miliband's Labour. You might not approve of Cameron Conservatism (whatever that actually is) but you'd sooner not vote at all than vote Labour. I agree the Conservatives need to stop worrying about the floating voter, that 2million from 1997 sort of voter and instead they need to get their supporters to the ballot box. Is being 'not Labour' enough to do that?Breadvan72 said:
HTH, but are you not mildly perturbed by the alliances made by UKIP in the Europarliament? In addition, there remains the problem of a party that is focussed on one main issue.
Atleast they are focused on something and something important at that, the others are focused on what ????sorting the economy ?? hmm just fiddle round the edges and make people feel misrable (torys) and labour just want to borrow more money to spunk on the same s
te for the apeasement of there union masters... cardigankid said:
Very simple.
Ia lot of what UKIP says makes sense.
If however a significant number of current Tories vote UKIP they will put the bd Labour back in, Miligit, Ballsup, Fat Diane and they will finish the country for good.
I have got to the point where I don't really care - and that's coming from a 'natural' Tory voter (if there is such a thing).Ia lot of what UKIP says makes sense.
If however a significant number of current Tories vote UKIP they will put the b
d Labour back in, Miligit, Ballsup, Fat Diane and they will finish the country for good.Perhaps Labour need to get in again to finish what they started. The next time, maybe the general public will put more though into their voting habits, instead of acting like complete automatons.
Right now, I see little to no difference between the two main parties – I would be a turkey voting for Christmas, so UKIP is my only viable alternative.
chris watton said:
I have got to the point where I don't really care - and that's coming from a 'natural' Tory voter (if there is such a thing).
Perhaps Labour need to get in again to finish what they started. The next time, maybe the general public will put more though into their voting habits, instead of acting like complete automatons.
Right now, I see little to no difference between the two main parties – I would be a turkey voting for Christmas, so UKIP is my only viable alternative.
These are almost exactly my thoughts.Perhaps Labour need to get in again to finish what they started. The next time, maybe the general public will put more though into their voting habits, instead of acting like complete automatons.
Right now, I see little to no difference between the two main parties – I would be a turkey voting for Christmas, so UKIP is my only viable alternative.
I think a severe kicking in the polls (ideally with plenty of votes going to UKIP) to show the Tories that they need to change. THEN we might finally get a Tory party with decent policies and we can get this country turned around and back on its feet...
That political compass test surprised me
I always thought I was slightly right leaning, although I guess it's not the most comprehensive of tests.
I always thought I was slightly right leaning, although I guess it's not the most comprehensive of tests.
eharding said:
So...tell me what you see...
1) A Butterfly?
2) Two Brussels Eurocrats plotting to destroy the UK?
3) Two eastern-European plumbers fixing a blocked khazi for 20% of the fee one of our own home-bred plumbers would charge?
A gentleman with an upturned shirt collar, jacket and a tiny red bow tie along with some very red ears.1) A Butterfly?
2) Two Brussels Eurocrats plotting to destroy the UK?
3) Two eastern-European plumbers fixing a blocked khazi for 20% of the fee one of our own home-bred plumbers would charge?
cardigankid said:
Very simple.
Ia lot of what UKIP says makes sense.
If however a significant number of current Tories vote UKIP they will put the bd Labour back in, Miligit, Ballsup, Fat Diane and they will finish the country for good.
Increasingly this is the Tory's only real argument. It's patheticIa lot of what UKIP says makes sense.
If however a significant number of current Tories vote UKIP they will put the b
d Labour back in, Miligit, Ballsup, Fat Diane and they will finish the country for good.I query, however, whether UKIP can be much more than a repository for protest votes. A protest vote is by its nature negative. I have only protest voted once, in 2005 when fed up with Blair. UKIP's stronger showing in Euroelections than in national elections seems to reflect both Euroscepticism, and a realisation that the Europarliament has little real power (most decisions being made by the Commission and Council).
The electorates in Europe do appear to cluster in the centre ground. The US appears to have a more starkly polarised electorate, making every Presidential election very close, but in Europe centre right and centre right parties engage in a tug of war over a large group of voters who do not appear driven by strong ideologies of right or left.
The electorates in Europe do appear to cluster in the centre ground. The US appears to have a more starkly polarised electorate, making every Presidential election very close, but in Europe centre right and centre right parties engage in a tug of war over a large group of voters who do not appear driven by strong ideologies of right or left.
Jasandjules said:
chris watton said:
I have got to the point where I don't really care - and that's coming from a 'natural' Tory voter (if there is such a thing).
Perhaps Labour need to get in again to finish what they started. The next time, maybe the general public will put more though into their voting habits, instead of acting like complete automatons.
Right now, I see little to no difference between the two main parties – I would be a turkey voting for Christmas, so UKIP is my only viable alternative.
These are almost exactly my thoughts.Perhaps Labour need to get in again to finish what they started. The next time, maybe the general public will put more though into their voting habits, instead of acting like complete automatons.
Right now, I see little to no difference between the two main parties – I would be a turkey voting for Christmas, so UKIP is my only viable alternative.
I think a severe kicking in the polls (ideally with plenty of votes going to UKIP) to show the Tories that they need to change. THEN we might finally get a Tory party with decent policies and we can get this country turned around and back on its feet...
Edited by powerstroke on Sunday 7th October 07:51
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff