UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
IainT said:
He comes across well in that. Some of his views I'm completely in agreement with, others I can't agree with but he does seem to have a strong sense of personal integrity. From the interview it struck me that he's a UKIP MP as a protest over the state of the Tories rather than being fully signed-up to their full manifesto. Almost as if UKIP were the least-worst option.
I would agree. I read his blog and at times he speak sense. He very strong on developing democracy. He has good ideas on e-voting, internet party membership, recall of MP's, increasing the power of sub-committees to scrutinise the Government. His record on financial matters is less so. He has sponsored 2 financial bills, one made no sense and the other allowed you to do something you could already do!
I think he was very frustrated that he was being ignored by the party. He was clearly of an age where he expected some sort of Government job but none was on offer.
I do not think he will get on with Farage.
jogon said:
Still no comments on political correctness or climate bill? Oh well here is the latest odds from the bookies for Rochester and Strood
Conservative odds worsening as each day goes by will Dave win this one as he defiantly declared?
We shall see
Personally think this will be on a knife edge. It does not look as good for UKIP as the survey which is partly driving these odds. Conservative odds worsening as each day goes by will Dave win this one as he defiantly declared?
We shall see
My reasoning. The survation poll includes non voters in 2010. ICM and Ashcroft type polling excludes 2010 non voters partly for the reason they are notoriously the most difficult to get out.
If you do the analysis excluding last time non voters then it's neck and neck.
Secondly last time Reckless had a clear run which means there are no 2010 UKIP figures to work on.
This means that UKIP have no constituency info to work with and possibly an uncertain infrastructure. Thus they have little chance to figure out the non voters and lock them in by getting a postal vote organised. I don't particularly approve of that approach but it's increasingly being used and on that will be potentially fatal to chances in Labour heartlands, as we saw in Middleton and Heywood.
Thirdly Reckless has nothing like the personal support that Carswell has.
Ashcroft has a new poll out at 4pm, commentary on Conservative Home.
JustAnotherLogin said:
steveT350C said:
Any thoughts on Barroso's interview this morning?
Well I have.BBC said:
Mr Barroso would not comment on a report in the Sunday Times that the government could limit the number of national insurance numbers given to low-skilled immigrants.
But he said that while the EU was willing to discuss benefit fraud and sham marriages, an "arbitrary cap" on migration would "not be in conformity with European rules".
Does that not satisfy you if we can restrict benefit payments etc? So the only ones coming are contributing to the economy not draining it? Seems to be in our interest.But he said that while the EU was willing to discuss benefit fraud and sham marriages, an "arbitrary cap" on migration would "not be in conformity with European rules".
While we were talking on thoughts, no Kipper has decided to say what the UKIP manifesto means by "no to political correctness". Can it just another "common sense" soundbite that actually has nothing behind it can it?
And no comments on my suggestions that the heirs to squadron 303; or Jerzy Rozycki, Henryk Zygalski and Marian Rejewski deserve the same respect that some of you believe the rest of Europe owes us for saving them?
Why not answer the serious questions and points before you spend so much time accusing anyone not worshipping at the high altal of Farage of trolling
FiF said:
Personally think this will be on a knife edge. It does not look as good for UKIP as the survey which is partly driving these odds.
My reasoning. The survation poll includes non voters in 2010. ICM and Ashcroft type polling excludes 2010 non voters partly for the reason they are notoriously the most difficult to get out.
If you do the analysis excluding last time non voters then it's neck and neck.
Secondly last time Reckless had a clear run which means there are no 2010 UKIP figures to work on.
This means that UKIP have no constituency info to work with and possibly an uncertain infrastructure. Thus they have little chance to figure out the non voters and lock them in by getting a postal vote organised. I don't particularly approve of that approach but it's increasingly being used and on that will be potentially fatal to chances in Labour heartlands, as we saw in Middleton and Heywood.
Thirdly Reckless has nothing like the personal support that Carswell has.
Ashcroft has a new poll out at 4pm, commentary on Conservative Home.
Heywood and Middleton showed the polls and even the bookies almost got it wrong. My reasoning. The survation poll includes non voters in 2010. ICM and Ashcroft type polling excludes 2010 non voters partly for the reason they are notoriously the most difficult to get out.
If you do the analysis excluding last time non voters then it's neck and neck.
Secondly last time Reckless had a clear run which means there are no 2010 UKIP figures to work on.
This means that UKIP have no constituency info to work with and possibly an uncertain infrastructure. Thus they have little chance to figure out the non voters and lock them in by getting a postal vote organised. I don't particularly approve of that approach but it's increasingly being used and on that will be potentially fatal to chances in Labour heartlands, as we saw in Middleton and Heywood.
Thirdly Reckless has nothing like the personal support that Carswell has.
Ashcroft has a new poll out at 4pm, commentary on Conservative Home.
Con was 7/2 a few days ago and now 3/1. The media blackout now occuring in Rochester and Strood, like we saw in Heywood and Middleton, suggests it's not going too well for them.
JustAnotherLogin said:
WinstonWolf said:
If you need common sense explaining you wouldn't understand it anyway...
Try me.Can you explain what it is that UKIP would do in govt that is different from the current situation? No-one else on here has so far
JustAnotherLogin said:
FiF said:
Well of course it's not acceptable. Not sure why you are asking me about moderator response or lack of.
My apologies. I took it from some previous exchanges that you were a moderator. My earlier comment should therefore be addressed to any passing mod then
chris watton said:
IainT said:
Almost as if UKIP were the least-worst option.
That's exactly how I see it - the least worst option. Doesn't mean I trust them any less, though....(For the record, I do think that Labour is the worst, worst option, as they will bleed the UK dry at a faster rate than even Cameron's version of the Tories)
I also wonder if the UK is already bled dry. Trouble is, far too many secure "jobs for life" types cushioned against the harmful decisions and measures they put in place for us. Who then incessantly hold their hands out for more. Yes, at all levels. Here I do not simply have in mind huge rewards for failure.
We're all doomed... Yes, all of us. That is one certainty. Be nice to delay it as far as possible though.
Meantime... I'm definitely in favour of all those necessary cuts. Just as long as none of them affect me or mine.
... with my hand fully extended out for more. I'm worth it and a special case .. 
JustAnotherLogin said:
Can you explain what it is that UKIP would do in govt that is different from the current situation? No-one else on here has so far
Thats an impossible question to answer for anyone who doesn't have a crystal ball.I think its important for UKIP to admit they don't have all of the answers, that makes them more human.
The other parties will tell you their "plans" but they are impossible to implement.
The most intelligent people on the planet still cannot predict the future, which is constantly what the anti-UKIP people keep asking for and I don't understand why?
JustAnotherLogin said:
So Fif, as you are so keen to emphasis that you are even handed. What say you after I have raised serious points, which no-one has yet answered fully, and in the last page or so alone have been called:
moronic
witless
rambling
pathetic
and various other such insults. Surely you do not condone such insulting terms used in a serious discussion? If anti-kippers did that it would be termed trolling would it not?
I did of course report a similar set of insults via the "report" button in accordance with forum rules. But never got a response. So this time I will ask publicly
Pot, kettle, black.moronic
witless
rambling
pathetic
and various other such insults. Surely you do not condone such insulting terms used in a serious discussion? If anti-kippers did that it would be termed trolling would it not?
I did of course report a similar set of insults via the "report" button in accordance with forum rules. But never got a response. So this time I will ask publicly
Edited by JustAnotherLogin on Sunday 19th October 23:35
On Saturday you wrote the following:-
JustAnotherLogin said:
I just want to know so that I can tell whether your comment was through ignorance, stupidity, political zealotry or just plain contrariness,
WinstonWolf said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
WinstonWolf said:
If you need common sense explaining you wouldn't understand it anyway...
Try me.Can you explain what it is that UKIP would do in govt that is different from the current situation? No-one else on here has so far
If I suggested that on here I would get accused of everything under the sun.
Yours is a ridiculously stupid post.
The conservatives are just not listening IMO. I broadly support UKIP. I certainly don't approve of the vote blue get red or vice versa politics, to get my vote back the conservatives or Labour have to offer something positive.
I don't think the UKIP candidate for Telford and Wrekin has been selected yet, if I don't like them I wouldn't vote for them just because of the party so it's possible I could be persuaded back. However first I've got to get over the insults - if voting UKIP is for thicko's and loons they don't really want me back - do they?
Then they've got to learn the lessons that the rise in UKIP support should show. In my case I don't want weasley answers I want direct answers and I want my MP to be more worried about local support than staying on message with spin.
My local conservative candidate is doing a lot of mail drops, local news placements and photo ops. It's very professional, very glossy and yet actual answers prove illusive. With a recent story photo op in front of the local hospital I asked her the question online if she agreed with the public spending priority of increasing and protecting foreign aid (now more than the entire uk policing budget) whilst public service budgets like the police were cut?
Easy enough to answer..
Her answer in writing was 'Policing in Telford is good - Justice Minster coming next week anything you want me to ask him?'
I've tried asking for a direct answer but none is forthcoming. If this is the best they can do locally with an on message parachuted candidate, and Cameron can only threaten people with someone worse than him in power, the conservatives don't deserve to win.
I don't think the UKIP candidate for Telford and Wrekin has been selected yet, if I don't like them I wouldn't vote for them just because of the party so it's possible I could be persuaded back. However first I've got to get over the insults - if voting UKIP is for thicko's and loons they don't really want me back - do they?
Then they've got to learn the lessons that the rise in UKIP support should show. In my case I don't want weasley answers I want direct answers and I want my MP to be more worried about local support than staying on message with spin.
My local conservative candidate is doing a lot of mail drops, local news placements and photo ops. It's very professional, very glossy and yet actual answers prove illusive. With a recent story photo op in front of the local hospital I asked her the question online if she agreed with the public spending priority of increasing and protecting foreign aid (now more than the entire uk policing budget) whilst public service budgets like the police were cut?
Easy enough to answer..
Her answer in writing was 'Policing in Telford is good - Justice Minster coming next week anything you want me to ask him?'
I've tried asking for a direct answer but none is forthcoming. If this is the best they can do locally with an on message parachuted candidate, and Cameron can only threaten people with someone worse than him in power, the conservatives don't deserve to win.
FiF said:
Thanks for taking the trouble to give that thoughtful considered reply. Sorry haven't got round to replying sooner, needed to be at my PC rather than a phone to access some data, main reason for delay.
You have correctly identified the key passages and it's worth expanding that a little more.
Essentially the concept of anti-politics came in part from the results of a YouGov survey June 2013 and data from the decades long academic British Election Study.
It came out in three key areas and neatly summarised by what I think was a Carswell comment, "different clique, same sofa."
In answering questions on the ability and willingness of politicians to deal with the problems facing Britain the key areas emerging were self-interest, spin/cynicism and lack of leadership.
Leadership
There is a feeling that politicians do not have the leadership to tell the public the truth about the tough decisions which have to be made. There is felt to be a lack of conviction and seriousness, and criticism is levelled at the Conservative party and politicians more generally in this respect. To keep on topic the public feeling on this was only 33% felt political leadership was capable, 28% of UKIP. So not far from the general public opinion.
Self Interest
Politicians are viewed as being motivated by self interest and lacking principles. We can all name politicians who have been and are "conviction politicians" and I'm not talking about Dennis McShane but those animated by principle. They soon get shuffled away and not long in high office, usually never. Tony Benn is one of the few I can think of who did achieve high office for some time, but after that tbh struggling a bit. No doubt someone will set me right, which is fair enough.
There is a general belief that politicians serve to protect the rich and the powerful, 72% of respondents agreeing with the view that politics “is dominated by self-seeking politicians protecting the interests of the already rich and powerful in our society”, and just 8% disagreeing. Again to keep it on topic 85% of Ukip supporters take this view, much the highest group, though this contrasts with just 53% of Conservative supporters who frankly seemed to be the ones a bit out of touch with the prevailing mood.
Finally we have Spin/cynicism
It's felt that politics has become too much like a schoolboy game of spin and positioning with the players devoid of any real connection with the real world and the problems faced by the people. Leads to a game of all about position, not thinking things through, making on glib announcement after another,then moving on asap. Next announcement / speech / headline / what are the papers saying about me today / next call from the TV drop everything / oh this TV interview will be a tricky one run and hide. 80% of the respondents agreed politicians were too focussed on short term headline grabbing, 88% of UKIP supporters, pretty much in line with the general mood I'd argue.
The prevailing mood appears to be contempt, and whilst there has been some talk of a Frasier Crane like "we're listening" there is a clear push from the voting public for a change in the way politics is carried out. Despite promise to change there has been no evidence of such change, and frustration is growing and continues to deepen. The Carswell defection is just one bit of evidence, so far, that frustration is growing within Westminster too, albeit, so far, limited.
Interesting. To me, there's quite a bit of overlap between those three headings: the Leadership and Self Interest points strike me as close to two sides of the same coin; Spin appears to be a symptom of poor Leadership and a cover for Self Interest. You have correctly identified the key passages and it's worth expanding that a little more.
Essentially the concept of anti-politics came in part from the results of a YouGov survey June 2013 and data from the decades long academic British Election Study.
It came out in three key areas and neatly summarised by what I think was a Carswell comment, "different clique, same sofa."
In answering questions on the ability and willingness of politicians to deal with the problems facing Britain the key areas emerging were self-interest, spin/cynicism and lack of leadership.
Leadership
There is a feeling that politicians do not have the leadership to tell the public the truth about the tough decisions which have to be made. There is felt to be a lack of conviction and seriousness, and criticism is levelled at the Conservative party and politicians more generally in this respect. To keep on topic the public feeling on this was only 33% felt political leadership was capable, 28% of UKIP. So not far from the general public opinion.
Self Interest
Politicians are viewed as being motivated by self interest and lacking principles. We can all name politicians who have been and are "conviction politicians" and I'm not talking about Dennis McShane but those animated by principle. They soon get shuffled away and not long in high office, usually never. Tony Benn is one of the few I can think of who did achieve high office for some time, but after that tbh struggling a bit. No doubt someone will set me right, which is fair enough.
There is a general belief that politicians serve to protect the rich and the powerful, 72% of respondents agreeing with the view that politics “is dominated by self-seeking politicians protecting the interests of the already rich and powerful in our society”, and just 8% disagreeing. Again to keep it on topic 85% of Ukip supporters take this view, much the highest group, though this contrasts with just 53% of Conservative supporters who frankly seemed to be the ones a bit out of touch with the prevailing mood.
Finally we have Spin/cynicism
It's felt that politics has become too much like a schoolboy game of spin and positioning with the players devoid of any real connection with the real world and the problems faced by the people. Leads to a game of all about position, not thinking things through, making on glib announcement after another,then moving on asap. Next announcement / speech / headline / what are the papers saying about me today / next call from the TV drop everything / oh this TV interview will be a tricky one run and hide. 80% of the respondents agreed politicians were too focussed on short term headline grabbing, 88% of UKIP supporters, pretty much in line with the general mood I'd argue.
The prevailing mood appears to be contempt, and whilst there has been some talk of a Frasier Crane like "we're listening" there is a clear push from the voting public for a change in the way politics is carried out. Despite promise to change there has been no evidence of such change, and frustration is growing and continues to deepen. The Carswell defection is just one bit of evidence, so far, that frustration is growing within Westminster too, albeit, so far, limited.
Taking a bird's eye view, it appears that the public wants strong and objectively fair conviction leader (Leadership/Self Interest) that tells it like it is (Spin) and who looks to protect every segment of society equally (Self Interest).
I doubt such a thing exists; or that if it did, it would be very popular.
Take two fairly recent conviction politicians, one of whom was a leader (Thatcher) and one of whom wasn't (Benn). Both divided affections very sharply, pretty much along a love/hate line with little in between. To me, that is the eternal paradox of a conviction politician: they don't try to please all the people, all the time, and tend to view those whom they don't please as wrong. Ultimately, they are extremely divisive, so much so that I view modern politicians as regarding conviction politics as something of a third rail: get too close and you get labelled the next Thatcher, and die instantly.
In short, conviction politicians are usually loved by those who share their convictions, and loathed by everyone else. So if the public is saying "we want someone with clear beliefs and conviction", it seems to me that this really means "I want someone with my clear beliefs and convictions". Don't we all.
I'm also pretty sceptical that the public actually wants their leadership to tell things as they are: viz: a large swathe of the country did not seem to like being told in 2010-2012 that austerity was needed, preferring to claim that it was all Tory-led ideological changes dressed up as necessary economic recovery measures. Again, I wonder whether the real message is "I want to be told what I want to hear".
Despite having suggested earlier that disenfranchisement was at the root of anti-politics, it seems from what you've written that Spin is a major contributor. It's Spin - ultimately deception - that masks poor leadership and self interest (although it can also amplify good news and good governance).
Back to UKIP: Farage hasn't really had to resort to Spin yet, mostly because he and UKIP have been on a largely upward curve. There have been blips here and there, in the shape of UKIP members making gaffes of varying magnitude, but really he has had nothing of the scale that the PM or the Leader of the Opposition have to deal with regularly. It will be interesting to see how he responds if he is ever placed under pressure like that.
Silverbullet767 said:
It doesn't take that many sales nowadays to get in the charts so will be interesting to see if the BBC play it. Currently 24th on iTunes singles chart and only released this morning.
Edited by jogon on Monday 20th October 13:07
jogon said:
Silverbullet767 said:
It doesn't take that many sales nowadays to get in the charts so will be interesting to see if the BBC play it. 
JustAnotherLogin said:
WinstonWolf said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
WinstonWolf said:
If you need common sense explaining you wouldn't understand it anyway...
Try me.Can you explain what it is that UKIP would do in govt that is different from the current situation? No-one else on here has so far
If I suggested that on here I would get accused of everything under the sun.
Yours is a ridiculously stupid post.
brenflys777 said:
jogon said:
Silverbullet767 said:
It doesn't take that many sales nowadays to get in the charts so will be interesting to see if the BBC play it. Evidently we aren't going to get very far with the "no to political correctness"
So can anyway explain this one from the UKIP policies:
[quote=UKIP]Develop shale gas to reduce energy bills and free us from dependence on foreign oil and gas - place the tax revenues into a British Sovereign Wealth Fund[/UKIP]
What is a "British Sovereign Wealth Fund", and how does this differ from paying the money that we are already developing from shale gas into the normal treasury coffers?
i.e. in what was is this not the status quo?
So can anyway explain this one from the UKIP policies:
[quote=UKIP]Develop shale gas to reduce energy bills and free us from dependence on foreign oil and gas - place the tax revenues into a British Sovereign Wealth Fund[/UKIP]
What is a "British Sovereign Wealth Fund", and how does this differ from paying the money that we are already developing from shale gas into the normal treasury coffers?
i.e. in what was is this not the status quo?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff