UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[FiF]

So when, not if, when will UKIP implode?

Personally I don't agree with this view. I can see support falling away. I can see problems in 2017 depending if there is a referendum and upon that result. Even then there will be the run up to the end of Farage's term as leader and he's stated he will stand down, so there will be some fair old infighting. We already know that the electorate do not like divided parties.

So can see support falling away, but implode? Don't think so.

[smn159]

Article said:

So when UKIP supporters see their political heroes backing the interests of big business, or when their elected representatives appear as craven as others and when simple solutions to complex problems cannot be delivered, disillusionment will drive down the party’s support just as it drove it up.

Sounds about right to me

[JustAnotherLogin]

An interesting article FiF, thanks for posting. I must admit that after reading the first and a bit paragraph my reaction was to go and check whether this was fake (seems real, they are listed on their University's website for example)

Unusual for academics to write with anything like that certainty- at least in the field of politics. Not sure whether I fully go along with their conclusion. Not least because one comparison does not comprehensive evidence make.

Nevertheless the 2nd paragraph is an accurate summary of the party and its followers I think. Many of the themes mentioned there have appeared many times on this forum.

[jogon]

If you read any of the Greek main stream papers this week you will probably find the same article albeit UKIP replaced with Syriza.

[XJ Flyer]

smn159 said:

Article said:

So when UKIP supporters see their political heroes backing the interests of big business, or when their elected representatives appear as craven as others and when simple solutions to complex problems cannot be delivered, disillusionment will drive down the party’s support just as it drove it up.

Sounds about right to me

The 'disillusionment' in this case is more likely to be the result of the realisation there is no way that UKIP is going to be able to have an influence over what is likely to be Federalist pro EU pro immigration,pro global warmist government.Based on an alliance of Socialism in the form of what remains of the Libdems,the SNP and the Greens,with Labour and the Cons.IE the country gets the government and result it deserves and at least those of us who are/were sympathetic to the aims of UKIP can say we tried.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 20th December 22:03

[JustAnotherLogin]

For goodness sake XJ. How many more times are you going to keep repeating your delusional twaddle about the Tories being socialist. You have been called on it many times and it has been demonstrated several times that you are talking rubbish.

TBH I doubt the other kippers like being associated with your particular blend of tinfoil hattery

[XJ Flyer]

JustAnotherLogin said:

For goodness sake XJ. How many more times are you going to keep repeating your delusional twaddle about the Tories being socialist. You have been called on it many times and it has been demonstrated several times that you are talking rubbish.

TBH I doubt the other kippers like being associated with your particular blend of tinfoil hattery

I didn't say that the Cons are socialist.I said the Cons have historically and continue to be all about an exploitative 'form of Capitalism',based on cheap labour that is 'closer' to Communism than 'proper' Fordist Capitalism.I also said that the Cons are Federalists just like the Libdems which,together with the issue of that cheap labour immigration agenda,is why they kicked out Powell and went wholeheartedly into the EU project starting with Heath.While all the time pretending that they aren't Federalists and are an EU sceptic Party.Added to which is their full on belief in the global warmist agenda, and a development policy that is as close to that of Labour as makes no difference.

All of which makes the Cons more the natural allies of the Socialist Libdem/SNP/Green cause and Labour which is somewhere between Socialism and the Cons regarding a pro Federalist,pro immigration,global warmist agenda and all of which keep the expectations of the working class where the Cons want them.While certainly being no allies of UKIP in any regard.

As for UKIP,the contradictions in its immigration policy of anti EU immigration,but pro non EU immigration and anti Federalist stance, regarding the EU,but Federalist regarding the UK and anti EU,but pro global free market economics,leave massive questions as to its ideology and aims.That is even 'if' that natural alliance between the Cons as they stand and LabLibdemGreenSNP group didn't exist thereby providing UKIP with a chance of influencing government policy.

Ironically it will probably be that UK federalist agenda which UKIP supported,thereby tying us to the Scottish vote,that will be one of the main issues that will sink any chance which UKIP might have had in that regard,by its potential parliamentary representation at the election being more than wiped out by that of the SNP's.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 21st December 00:43

Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 21st December 00:56

[don4l]

steveT350C said:

Wow don4l!

I do hope if I was in your situation I would have recognised him. I do follow him on twitter so see his pic every day.

Was he the unassuming, intelligent, English gentleman that I believe him to be?

Very much so. In fact, probably more unassuming and more intelligent.

His neighbour, who introduced us, was blissfully unaware of who he was. Hopefully, I haven't blown the anonymity that he seems to enjoy.

[chris watton]

don4l said:

steveT350C said:

Wow don4l!

I do hope if I was in your situation I would have recognised him. I do follow him on twitter so see his pic every day.

Was he the unassuming, intelligent, English gentleman that I believe him to be?

Very much so. In fact, probably more unassuming and more intelligent.

His neighbour, who introduced us, was blissfully unaware of who he was. Hopefully, I haven't blown the anonymity that he seems to enjoy.

He is one of the very few who would be an asset to whatever party he allied himself to.

[powerstroke]

JustAnotherLogin said:

For goodness sake XJ. How many more times are you going to keep repeating your delusional twaddle about the Tories being socialist. You have been called on it many times and it has been demonstrated several times that you are talking rubbish.

TBH I doubt the other kippers like being associated with your particular blend of tinfoil hattery

Yes but you have to admit there has been more than a little drift to the left under Cameron which lost them the last and most likely will lose them next year's election .

[anonymous-user]

FiF said:

So when, not if, when will UKIP implode?

Personally I don't agree with this view. I can see support falling away. I can see problems in 2017 depending if there is a referendum and upon that result. Even then there will be the run up to the end of Farage's term as leader and he's stated he will stand down, so there will be some fair old infighting. We already know that the electorate do not like divided parties.

So can see support falling away, but implode? Don't think so.

The first part of the article (the part before the table) could not be more right IMO.

The second part, which is the real thesis of it, depends I think on UKIP actually attaining a degree of real power in the first place. The article basically (as it concedes) models UKIP's implosion once it has a degree of power on the LDs when they went into coalition.

But UKIP certainly won't any power before May 2015 and probably won't get it after then either. I doubt infighting alone (which is not dependent on acquiring power, as we've already seen) will lead to an implosion, unless it followed on from Farage not securing a seat in May.

So, no implosion while UKIP can remain a quasi-guerrilla party. Post referendum whichever way it goes, they will have real problems though, as you say.

[brenflys777]

Greg66 said:

The first part of the article (the part before the table) could not be more right IMO.

The second part, which is the real thesis of it, depends I think on UKIP actually attaining a degree of real power in the first place. The article basically (as it concedes) models UKIP's implosion once it has a degree of power on the LDs when they went into coalition.

But UKIP certainly won't any power before May 2015 and probably won't get it after then either. I doubt infighting alone (which is not dependent on acquiring power, as we've already seen) will lead to an implosion, unless it followed on from Farage not securing a seat in May.

So, no implosion while UKIP can remain a quasi-guerrilla party. Post referendum whichever way it goes, they will have real problems though, as you say.

The articles like these seem to be increasing in frequency and they might be correct, but equally they rely on making too many assumptions in my opinion.

This was in the Telegraph and paints a similar picture:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/1130...

I get the impression these interpretations are based on hoping that things haven't changed as much as they have. Particularly from a conservative point of view the hope that they don't have to change seems deep seated. Ukip might lose votes at the GE, they might implode with in fighting, but as a former conservative voter I think it highlights that the sense of entitlement and lack of respect for their voters is too strong to deal with the reality. Ukip need to change to get more professional and keep the positive trend, but the conservatives need to change to stop loss of members, MPs and voters.

UKIPs divisions are well publicised, but the conservatives must be like juggling Mercury for Cameron. Ken Clarke thinks a debate on the EU is silly. Heseltine thinks ukips immigration policy is racist, Cameron threads his way through the middle depending on wind direction and MPs like Rees-Mogg appear to endorse all ukips foreign policy except the fact it's ukips! That's serious variation and if anyone might implode after the GE I'd suggest it's the conservatives.

[JustAnotherLogin]

brenflys777 said:

UKIPs divisions are well publicised, but the conservatives must be like juggling Mercury for Cameron. Ken Clarke thinks a debate on the EU is silly. Heseltine thinks ukips immigration policy is racist, Cameron threads his way through the middle depending on wind direction and MPs like Rees-Mogg appear to endorse all ukips foreign policy except the fact it's ukips! That's serious variation and if anyone might implode after the GE I'd suggest it's the conservatives.

I agree that the Tories have many divisions - though I think UKIPS divisions will be on other policies such as the economy. Their relative unity on EU and immigration masks the fact that they agree on very little else. They have pulled together for those 2 policies but inevitably on little else. Whereas the Tories are broadly united on a traditionally conservative theme - reduce taxes spending and benefits whenever possible for example.

What you also omit is that the Tories (and Labour) have more "glue" to hold them together. Partly that is the party organisation, partly it is what the populists decry - they are career politicians, so they know that to get on, and influence the party/country in the direction they think it should go, that they need to stick together, and accept that they will lose on some issues in the hope/expectation of winning on those that matter to them more.

[XJ Flyer]

brenflys777 said:

UKIPs divisions are well publicised, but the conservatives must be like juggling Mercury for Cameron. Ken Clarke thinks a debate on the EU is silly. Heseltine thinks ukips immigration policy is racist

Firstly UKIP needs some serious reflection and arguments within to sort out where it actually stands in regard to its economic policy ( race to the bottom global free market or a protectionist stance ),immigration policy as part of that,and wether it is really ideologically anti federalist in which case there is no way that it can continue with the UK heading as opposed to an English independence stance.None of which involves any potential for any 'implosion'.

As for the Cons that just confirms that it is closer to Labour than UKIP for the simple reason that Labour is ironically more sympathetic to the Con agenda ,of a cheap labour based economy,than UKIP 'would' be 'if' UKIP gets its actual economic policies sorted out in that regard.IE the Cons are hopelessly lumbered with being a Party based on the cheap labour agenda of the CBI with the help of Labour..

While Labour long since lost the plot in both the form of socialism and support for the situation to justify its own existence.Which keeps the expectations of the working class where the Cons want them while providing Labour with its naive voter base who think that Labour is for the working class when it plainly isn't.Labour is just there for its own agenda.Which in this case is more or less that of the Cons,as opposed to doing what is needed to get income levels up.

As for UKIP the jury is still out but ironically its electoral chances and getting us out of the EU have probably been hopelessly damaged by the Unionist stance with Scotland which it supported.

[JustAnotherLogin]

XJ Flyer said:

Firstly UKIP needs some serious reflection and arguments within to sort out where it actually stands in regard to its economic policy ( race to the bottom global free market or a protectionist stance ),immigration policy as part of that,and wether it is really ideologically anti federalist in which case there is no way that it can continue with the UK heading as opposed to an English independence stance.None of which involves any potential for any 'implosion'.

As for the Cons that just confirms that it is closer to Labour than UKIP for the simple reason that Labour is ironically more sympathetic to the Con agenda ,of a cheap labour based economy,than UKIP 'would' be 'if' UKIP gets its actual economic policies sorted out in that regard.IE the Cons are hopelessly lumbered with being a Party based on the cheap labour agenda of the CBI with the help of Labour..

While Labour long since lost the plot in both the form of socialism and support for the situation to justify its own existence.Which keeps the expectations of the working class where the Cons want them while providing Labour with its naive voter base who think that Labour is for the working class when it plainly isn't.Labour is just there for its own agenda.Which in this case is more or less that of the Cons,as opposed to doing what is needed to get income levels up.

As for UKIP the jury is still out but ironically its electoral chances and getting us out of the EU have probably been hopelessly damaged by the Unionist stance with Scotland which it supported.

I hate to break this to you, but I think you';; find that UKIP are definitely in the "free trade" camp as far as you are concerned. Certainly its leader and economics spokesman are. In fact you'd be hard pushed to find any serious economist in the west agreeing with your way of thinking. Mercantilism (which is what you evidently believe in) was discredited a century ago and UKIP no more believe in it than Labour or Tories.

So you are right, from your point of view Labour and Conservatives are close in economics. Just as they are close in that neither accepts a premise that the earth is flat. But it terms of modern thinking, they are miles apart.

[FiF]

JustAnotherLogin said:

brenflys777 said:

UKIPs divisions are well publicised, but the conservatives must be like juggling Mercury for Cameron. Ken Clarke thinks a debate on the EU is silly. Heseltine thinks ukips immigration policy is racist, Cameron threads his way through the middle depending on wind direction and MPs like Rees-Mogg appear to endorse all ukips foreign policy except the fact it's ukips! That's serious variation and if anyone might implode after the GE I'd suggest it's the conservatives.

I agree that the Tories have many divisions - though I think UKIPS divisions will be on other policies such as the economy. Their relative unity on EU and immigration masks the fact that they agree on very little else. They have pulled together for those 2 policies but inevitably on little else. Whereas the Tories are broadly united on a traditionally conservative theme - reduce taxes spending and benefits whenever possible for example.

What you also omit is that the Tories (and Labour) have more "glue" to hold them together. Partly that is the party organisation, partly it is what the populists decry - they are career politicians, so they know that to get on, and influence the party/country in the direction they think it should go, that they need to stick together, and accept that they will lose on some issues in the hope/expectation of winning on those that matter to them more.

Couple of comments.

We don't really know what UKIP unity is on other issues. This is because they haven't really pushed on other issues, which I've been saying for ages they need to really work on bringing those out, if only to kick into touch the one/two issue protest group jibes.

Furthermore their opponents have concentrated the argument so much on the immigration question in order to try and nail the racist label it's been difficult for them to open up other issues.

Secondly the point about glue holding the party together is valid in terms of party organisation and professionalism, both of these are things which UKIP clearly need to work on. However a significant element of the glue is simple tribalism in my opinion.

Tribalism accounts for some crazy moves and results and is imo generally a bad thing. Nevertheless it allows people to justify to whom they should give their vote even when an objective examination of policies suggests that their interests could be better served elsewhere.

[XJ Flyer]

JustAnotherLogin said:

I hate to break this to you, but I think you';; find that UKIP are definitely in the "free trade" camp as far as you are concerned. Certainly its leader and economics spokesman are. In fact you'd be hard pushed to find any serious economist in the west agreeing with your way of thinking. Mercantilism (which is what you evidently believe in) was discredited a century ago and UKIP no more believe in it than Labour or Tories.

So you are right, from your point of view Labour and Conservatives are close in economics. Just as they are close in that neither accepts a premise that the earth is flat. But it terms of modern thinking, they are miles apart.

In which case there isn't much point in UKIP trying to sell itself to the disillusioned Labour vote ( being that it will be that vote which determines wether UKIP has the slightest chance ) on an agenda of stopping east European immigration for example,because it distorts the labour market in favour of cheap labour employment.

While yes I believe in protectionism and Fordism.Being that it is actually the idea of the race to the bottom,in the form of free market economics,that follow the flat earth belief.With a debt ridden,stagnating,economy that,just like Communism,only performs for the few at the top,to prove it.Wether that translates as so called 'Mercantilism' is a different matter being that Fordism only really took off in the States during the 1960's before being stamped out again by Reaganomics.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 21st December 16:39

Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 21st December 17:45

[handpaper]

FiF said:

So when, not if, when will UKIP implode?

Personally I don't agree with this view. I can see support falling away. I can see problems in 2017 depending if there is a referendum and upon that result. Even then there will be the run up to the end of Farage's term as leader and he's stated he will stand down, so there will be some fair old infighting. We already know that the electorate do not like divided parties.

So can see support falling away, but implode? Don't think so.

Article said:

Or when self-interested internal power struggles dominate media coverage of the party the drift in support can lead quickly on to implosion.

I wonder if this was what the famously impartial Nick Robinson was attempting to draw attention to/fabricate last week. He did a short report to the effect that a very dirty fight was going on over the UKIP candidacy in Thurrock, since it is a seat that seems likely to go to the party.
Something for UKIP to be wary of for sure, but not a dealbreaker for most, at this time.

Agree with JustAnotherLogin that it seems very un-circumspect for an academic piece, but then, it isn't one. It's a blog post, written by a pair of academics. Richard North and Alan Sked are also well-respected in their own fields; it doesn't stop them writing occasional nonsense about UKIP.

[FiF]

handpaper said:

Agree with JustAnotherLogin that it seems very un-circumspect for an academic piece, but then, it isn't one. It's a blog post, written by a pair of academics.

Yes basically this. It tries to give itself a veneer of academia by selectively quoting from some academic work, but essentially it's a blog. Full stop.

Nevertheless it raises some interesting points.

[vonuber]

Blimey, another one:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/21/uk...