UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[dandarez]

Greg66 said:

Yazar said:

This was not a win against the Torycandidate, it was a win against Cameron himself.

Isn't that quite often the case with a by-election? It's a vote against the current Govt and its leader?

Yeah, but usually (always) it has been the opposition party that wins that by-election.
Things are different now.
Very different.

You are witnessing a real change in the face of politics in this country.

Wait and see.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Esseesse said:

On Conservative Home: Ed West: Tim Montgomerie has ten reasons for not voting for UKIP. Here are ten of mine for doing so.

That reminds me of something I meant to ask.

He says that UKIP would simplify the tax code. That has oft been claimed in the past. But none of the policies seem to achieve that. Indeed the policies on the UKIP site state they will introduce a new tax rate, so it will actually become more complex.

Can anyone point me at anything?

[mrpurple]

Wombat3 said:

Dog Star said:

Greg66 said:

I will be genuinely impressed when UKIP wins a seat by putting up its own homegrown candidate, who starts from a a base of basically zero, and pinches the seat from Labour or Conservative.

What? You mean like Heywood and Middleton? This is sooo overlooked by people: it's in the NW; it;s a very poor area, and under normal circumstances you could stick a red rosette on a gibbon and it would get in with a 10K majority. They scraped home by 600 votes in a safe labour seat in a sthole area.

This, IMO, is the most important thing that UKIP have acheived. If they can fail by a whisker in such a constituency with a zero base and a homegrown candidate then there should be a lot of Labour MPs absolutely bricking themselves about the GE.

No, its not overlooked, IIRC the turnout was very, very low, about 35%. In such circumstances it is not unreasonable to assume that it is the voters of the larger /majority party that stayed at home. Anyone who felt strongly enough to vote to make a point probably did so. Odds would be that Labour will retain H&M at the GE with a significantly larger majority than 600

Is it not at least feasible that they stayed at home as a way of "sitting on the fence"? Not wanting to vote for the usual suspects but not yet quite brave enough to vote UKIP because of all the "misinformation lets say" continually being aimed UKIP's way?...

Even I would not put up a poster in my window let alone a board in the front garden, not because I am ashamed but because I don't want any hassle from those that haven't quite been able to see through all of the media and established parties' rhetoric (bullst)just yet.

[s2art]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Esseesse said:

On Conservative Home: Ed West: Tim Montgomerie has ten reasons for not voting for UKIP. Here are ten of mine for doing so.

That reminds me of something I meant to ask.

He says that UKIP would simplify the tax code. That has oft been claimed in the past. But none of the policies seem to achieve that. Indeed the policies on the UKIP site state they will introduce a new tax rate, so it will actually become more complex.

Can anyone point me at anything?

Income tax rates are as nothing compared to the rest of the Byzantine tax regulations. Blame Gordon for a big chunk of this.

[johnxjsc1985]

JustAnotherLogin said:

That reminds me of something I meant to ask.

He says that UKIP would simplify the tax code. That has oft been claimed in the past. But none of the policies seem to achieve that. Indeed the policies on the UKIP site state they will introduce a new tax rate, so it will actually become more complex.

Can anyone point me at anything?

maybe they will increase VAT and reduce income tax. Did I hear someone mention that the other day?

[Wombat3]

mrpurple said:

Wombat3 said:

Dog Star said:

Greg66 said:

I will be genuinely impressed when UKIP wins a seat by putting up its own homegrown candidate, who starts from a a base of basically zero, and pinches the seat from Labour or Conservative.

What? You mean like Heywood and Middleton? This is sooo overlooked by people: it's in the NW; it;s a very poor area, and under normal circumstances you could stick a red rosette on a gibbon and it would get in with a 10K majority. They scraped home by 600 votes in a safe labour seat in a sthole area.

This, IMO, is the most important thing that UKIP have acheived. If they can fail by a whisker in such a constituency with a zero base and a homegrown candidate then there should be a lot of Labour MPs absolutely bricking themselves about the GE.

No, its not overlooked, IIRC the turnout was very, very low, about 35%. In such circumstances it is not unreasonable to assume that it is the voters of the larger /majority party that stayed at home. Anyone who felt strongly enough to vote to make a point probably did so. Odds would be that Labour will retain H&M at the GE with a significantly larger majority than 600

Is it not at least feasible that they stayed at home as a way of "sitting on the fence"? Not wanting to vote for the usual suspects but not yet quite brave enough to vote UKIP because of all the "misinformation lets say" continually being aimed UKIP's way?...

Even I would not put up a poster in my window let alone a board in the front garden, not because I am ashamed but because I don't want any hassle from those that haven't quite been able to see through all of the media and established parties' rhetoric (bullst)just yet.

Anything is possible, but, IMO, it is unlikely that a majority of those that stayed at home in H&M will come out for anyone other than Labour come the GE. Not everything in the political landscape is going to change.

[s2art]

Wombat3 said:

Anything is possible, but, IMO, it is unlikely that a majority of those that stayed at home in H&M will come out for anyone other than Labour come the GE. Not everything in the political landscape is going to change.

Come on, give Millband a chance. With the assistance of people like Thornberry he could do to the Northern Labour vote what Labour Scotland did to their vote up there.

[Digga]

s2art said:

Wombat3 said:

Anything is possible, but, IMO, it is unlikely that a majority of those that stayed at home in H&M will come out for anyone other than Labour come the GE. Not everything in the political landscape is going to change.

Come on, give Millband a chance. With the assistance of people like Thornberry he could do to the Northern Labour vote what Labour Scotland did to their vote up there.

What, you mean calling the public bigots and then wondering why you've alienated them?

[anonymous-user]

dandarez said:

Next defector to UKIP?

Tory Philip Hollobone voted alongside Carswell and Reckless in HoC backing the Labour NHS vote today.
Hollobone noted to be wearing a vivid 'purple' tie.

PS
Hollobone was educated at Dulwich College, where he was a contemporary of the current leader of UKIP.

As I said, a couple of pages back. Think they were in the CCF together too.

He's slos put out some sort of survey in his constituency, in a similar form to that which Reckless and Carswell put out before jumping ship.

Must admit, I don't have enormous respect for people who jump party - a bit like "I used to support Man Utd when they were good but now I support Chelsea" - but at least Carswell and Reckless put themselves back up for election. Watching others do that and then jumping just inside the 6m pre GE, if intended to avoid a by-election, seems pretty low IMO (though I think Farage said on the radio today he'd like to keep having by-elections all the way to May).

[Wombat3]

johnxjsc1985 said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

That reminds me of something I meant to ask.

He says that UKIP would simplify the tax code. That has oft been claimed in the past. But none of the policies seem to achieve that. Indeed the policies on the UKIP site state they will introduce a new tax rate, so it will actually become more complex.

Can anyone point me at anything?

maybe they will increase VAT and reduce income tax. Did I hear someone mention that the other day?

I very much doubt anyone will increase VAT again any time soon - at least nobody that understands the Laffer curve would do it. I would suggest it would encourage too much evasion, I can't see it as being a sensible revenue raising or socially acceptable tax change now.

[Yazar]

Wombat3 said:

Dog Star said:

Greg66 said:

I will be genuinely impressed when UKIP wins a seat by putting up its own homegrown candidate, who starts from a a base of basically zero, and pinches the seat from Labour or Conservative.

What? You mean like Heywood and Middleton? This is sooo overlooked by people: it's in the NW; it;s a very poor area, and under normal circumstances you could stick a red rosette on a gibbon and it would get in with a 10K majority. They scraped home by 600 votes in a safe labour seat in a sthole area.

This, IMO, is the most important thing that UKIP have acheived. If they can fail by a whisker in such a constituency with a zero base and a homegrown candidate then there should be a lot of Labour MPs absolutely bricking themselves about the GE.

No, its not overlooked, IIRC the turnout was very, very low, about 35%. In such circumstances it is not unreasonable to assume that it is the voters of the larger /majority party that stayed at home. Anyone who felt strongly enough to vote to make a point probably did so. Odds would be that Labour will retain H&M at the GE with a significantly larger majority than 600

Didn't UKIP blame the loss on the postal voting tricks Labour got up to? Would imagine UKIP will be targeting this to improve their vote.

p.s. Wombat, was your christmas bonus dependent on UKIP losing Rochester or on the margin of victory? Hope your employment contract wasn't weasel worded so you ended up with just the min wage

[JustAnotherLogin]

s2art said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Esseesse said:

On Conservative Home: Ed West: Tim Montgomerie has ten reasons for not voting for UKIP. Here are ten of mine for doing so.

That reminds me of something I meant to ask.

He says that UKIP would simplify the tax code. That has oft been claimed in the past. But none of the policies seem to achieve that. Indeed the policies on the UKIP site state they will introduce a new tax rate, so it will actually become more complex.

Can anyone point me at anything?

Income tax rates are as nothing compared to the rest of the Byzantine tax regulations. Blame Gordon for a big chunk of this.

True, but I can find no specific statement on any simplification UKIP intend to make. So is it just more fine woolly words with no substance?

[WinstonWolf]

Wombat3 said:

Dog Star said:

Greg66 said:

I will be genuinely impressed when UKIP wins a seat by putting up its own homegrown candidate, who starts from a a base of basically zero, and pinches the seat from Labour or Conservative.

What? You mean like Heywood and Middleton? This is sooo overlooked by people: it's in the NW; it;s a very poor area, and under normal circumstances you could stick a red rosette on a gibbon and it would get in with a 10K majority. They scraped home by 600 votes in a safe labour seat in a sthole area.

This, IMO, is the most important thing that UKIP have acheived. If they can fail by a whisker in such a constituency with a zero base and a homegrown candidate then there should be a lot of Labour MPs absolutely bricking themselves about the GE.

No, its not overlooked, IIRC the turnout was very, very low, about 35%. In such circumstances it is not unreasonable to assume that it is the voters of the larger /majority party that stayed at home. Anyone who felt strongly enough to vote to make a point probably did so. Odds would be that Labour will retain H&M at the GE with a significantly larger majority than 600

I would just like to take this opportunity to say

[don4l]

Greg66 said:

As I said, a couple of pages back. Think they were in the CCF together too.

He's slos put out some sort of survey in his constituency, in a similar form to that which Reckless and Carswell put out before jumping ship.

Must admit, I don't have enormous respect for people who jump party - a bit like "I used to support Man Utd when they were good but now I support Chelsea" - but at least Carswell and Reckless put themselves back up for election. Watching others do that and then jumping just inside the 6m pre GE, if intended to avoid a by-election, seems pretty low IMO (though I think Farage said on the radio today he'd like to keep having by-elections all the way to May).

So would I. These by-elections have been tremendous fun so far.

One a fortnight would be nice. We could take a break at Christmas as we will all be celebrating anyway.

[Scuffers]

Zod said:

So what happened to the landslide? It was a decent victory for UKIP, but there were predictions reported in this thread of 49% and statements to the effect that the BBC could find nobody in Rochester who wasn't voting UKIP.

3000 is not a big majority to defend in May.

well, according to the lib-dems, they were telling all their supporters to vote tactically to keep UKIP out....

(or that could just be an excuse for losing their deposit - AGAIN!)

[Wombat3]

Yazar said:

Wombat3 said:

Dog Star said:

Greg66 said:

I will be genuinely impressed when UKIP wins a seat by putting up its own homegrown candidate, who starts from a a base of basically zero, and pinches the seat from Labour or Conservative.

What? You mean like Heywood and Middleton? This is sooo overlooked by people: it's in the NW; it;s a very poor area, and under normal circumstances you could stick a red rosette on a gibbon and it would get in with a 10K majority. They scraped home by 600 votes in a safe labour seat in a sthole area.

This, IMO, is the most important thing that UKIP have acheived. If they can fail by a whisker in such a constituency with a zero base and a homegrown candidate then there should be a lot of Labour MPs absolutely bricking themselves about the GE.

No, its not overlooked, IIRC the turnout was very, very low, about 35%. In such circumstances it is not unreasonable to assume that it is the voters of the larger /majority party that stayed at home. Anyone who felt strongly enough to vote to make a point probably did so. Odds would be that Labour will retain H&M at the GE with a significantly larger majority than 600

Didn't UKIP blame the loss on the postal voting tricks Labour got up to? Would imagine UKIP will be targeting this to improve their vote.

p.s. Wombat, was your christmas bonus dependent on UKIP losing Rochester or on the margin of victory? Hope your employment contract wasn't weasel worded so you ended up with just the min wage

WTF are you on about? Self employed, no employment contract for me

[s2art]

JustAnotherLogin said:

s2art said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Esseesse said:

On Conservative Home: Ed West: Tim Montgomerie has ten reasons for not voting for UKIP. Here are ten of mine for doing so.

That reminds me of something I meant to ask.

He says that UKIP would simplify the tax code. That has oft been claimed in the past. But none of the policies seem to achieve that. Indeed the policies on the UKIP site state they will introduce a new tax rate, so it will actually become more complex.

Can anyone point me at anything?

Income tax rates are as nothing compared to the rest of the Byzantine tax regulations. Blame Gordon for a big chunk of this.

True, but I can find no specific statement on any simplification UKIP intend to make. So is it just more fine woolly words with no substance?

Possibly, just a statement of intent. Simplifying our current tax codes make the labours of Hercules look like a doddle, it would require a multi year project by the best academics and experts. I guess all UKIP could do is say they will establish a project to do this which will require multi party support as it will take more than a single term to complete. And it cant really be done while we are subject to the whims of Brussels.

[anonymous-user]

don4l said:

So would I. These by-elections have been tremendous fun so far.

One a fortnight would be nice. We could take a break at Christmas as we will all be celebrating anyway.

I rather took that to mean that he'd (Farage) like to keep having by-elections so long as UKIP kept doing well.

A succession of by-elections which UKIP lost, and which re-established Conservative and Labour electoral dominance in the run up to a GE would, I assume, be less welcomed by him, and by every other minority party.

Which illustrates why the convention is there in the first place, "fun" notwithstanding.

[steveT350C]

Interesting article with some illuminating graphs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11245808/...

[don4l]

Greg66 said:

I rather took that to mean that he'd (Farage) like to keep having by-elections so long as UKIP kept doing well.

A succession of by-elections which UKIP lost, and which re-established Conservative and Labour electoral dominance in the run up to a GE would, I assume, be less welcomed by him, and by every other minority party.

Which illustrates why the convention is there in the first place, "fun" notwithstanding.

There is no need for your pessimism.

I'm sure that UKIP would win them all.

After all, UKIP would be choosing which by-elections to go for.