UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
I
Load of s
te, maybe if people actually believed the Tory party was a truly Conservative party with truly Conservative policies they'd vote for them, but since many aren't they are looking for an alternative - they find that in UKIP, hardly UKIPs fault is it?
If the idea of trying to scare people with a Labour SNP coalition is what you are resting your hopes on, prepare to be disappointed, believe it or not, some people aren't willing to vote for a party they dont feel represents their views.
Gaspode said:
Whatever that is.
UKIP supporters want the UK to exit the EU, a reduction of immigration, the preservation of the Union with Scotland and more right-wing social policies in the UK. Why would they therefore think it's a good idea to cast their vote in a way that, in some constituencies, will pretty much guarantee the opposite?
The UK voted decisively against proportional representation a year or two back. It is clear that the electorate favours a system which is more likely to deliver single-party government. Unlike many countries, we don't do coalitions particularly well. If UKIP wants to get power in such an environment, they are going to have to broaden their appeal. All they will do with 15% of the vote is act to destabilise the political landscape, and unfortunately at the moment the most likely result of such destabilisation is a Labour/SNP coalition.
A convincing argument, "You think the Conservatives aren't much cop but please don't exercise your democratic right to make a choice as to who you vote for because those guys over ther are really bad and they may get in if you don't all vote Tory".UKIP supporters want the UK to exit the EU, a reduction of immigration, the preservation of the Union with Scotland and more right-wing social policies in the UK. Why would they therefore think it's a good idea to cast their vote in a way that, in some constituencies, will pretty much guarantee the opposite?
The UK voted decisively against proportional representation a year or two back. It is clear that the electorate favours a system which is more likely to deliver single-party government. Unlike many countries, we don't do coalitions particularly well. If UKIP wants to get power in such an environment, they are going to have to broaden their appeal. All they will do with 15% of the vote is act to destabilise the political landscape, and unfortunately at the moment the most likely result of such destabilisation is a Labour/SNP coalition.
Load of s
te, maybe if people actually believed the Tory party was a truly Conservative party with truly Conservative policies they'd vote for them, but since many aren't they are looking for an alternative - they find that in UKIP, hardly UKIPs fault is it?If the idea of trying to scare people with a Labour SNP coalition is what you are resting your hopes on, prepare to be disappointed, believe it or not, some people aren't willing to vote for a party they dont feel represents their views.
Edited by Axionknight on Tuesday 27th January 20:57
steveT350C said:
So who do you think currently holds the reigns of power in the UK?
I think you'll find they are 'reins' of power. The answer is not simple. Different groups have different levels of power. One of the best analyses I have read is Jeremy Paxman's "Friends in High Places". The glib response is "The Establishment", the elements of which co-operate to ensure the smooth (debatable term) running of the country in a way which avoids either major upset from the proletariat (i.e. rioting in the street), big business (i.e. capital flight from the UK) or the politicians (i.e. getting carried away and passing stupid laws).Gaspode said:
steveT350C said:
So who do you think currently holds the reigns of power in the UK?
I think you'll find they are 'reins' of power. The answer is not simple. Different groups have different levels of power. One of the best analyses I have read is Jeremy Paxman's "Friends in High Places". The glib response is "The Establishment", the elements of which co-operate to ensure the smooth (debatable term) running of the country in a way which avoids either major upset from the proletariat (i.e. rioting in the street), big business (i.e. capital flight from the UK) or the politicians (i.e. getting carried away and passing stupid laws).Just a shame that so many believe what you do.
steveT350C said:
The electorate has the power.
Just a shame that so many believe what you do.
You honestly believe that, don't you? Blimey, I though naive idealism died out in the '60s. We live in a representative democracy, so we have an elected legislature with a professional executive and judiciary. All we get to do is elect representatives to one part of the legislature. That's not power. Influence maybe, but not power.Just a shame that so many believe what you do.
Gaspode said:
steveT350C said:
The electorate has the power.
Just a shame that so many believe what you do.
You honestly believe that, don't you? Blimey, I though naive idealism died out in the '60s. We live in a representative democracy, so we have an elected legislature with a professional executive and judiciary. All we get to do is elect representatives to one part of the legislature. That's not power. Influence maybe, but not power.Just a shame that so many believe what you do.
Gaspode said:
Whatever that is.
UKIP supporters want the UK to exit the EU, a reduction of immigration, the preservation of the Union with Scotland and more right-wing social policies in the UK. Why would they therefore think it's a good idea to cast their vote in a way that, in some constituencies, will pretty much guarantee the opposite?
The UK voted decisively against proportional representation a year or two back. It is clear that the electorate favours a system which is more likely to deliver single-party government. Unlike many countries, we don't do coalitions particularly well. If UKIP wants to get power in such an environment, they are going to have to broaden their appeal. All they will do with 15% of the vote is act to destabilise the political landscape, and unfortunately at the moment the most likely result of such destabilisation is a Labour/SNP coalition.
Why do you believe that? After all we've just had 5 years of Darling Dave and his wonderful team of expert economists and political gurus who have dragged the country back from the brink of the abyss by sheer talent and professional politicking.UKIP supporters want the UK to exit the EU, a reduction of immigration, the preservation of the Union with Scotland and more right-wing social policies in the UK. Why would they therefore think it's a good idea to cast their vote in a way that, in some constituencies, will pretty much guarantee the opposite?
The UK voted decisively against proportional representation a year or two back. It is clear that the electorate favours a system which is more likely to deliver single-party government. Unlike many countries, we don't do coalitions particularly well. If UKIP wants to get power in such an environment, they are going to have to broaden their appeal. All they will do with 15% of the vote is act to destabilise the political landscape, and unfortunately at the moment the most likely result of such destabilisation is a Labour/SNP coalition.
Following such a sterling performance in turning around the economy, a tory whitewash would be a foregone conclusion, no?
TKF said:
Nobody is coming out of this Bashir thing well.
Firstly he was selected as a Respect candidate. Then deselected him when Galloway discovered he had "no real political principles or commitment ... only naked opportunism and self-interest". Erm, wouldn't it have been an idea to find out if he was suitable before selecting him?
Then he joined UKIP and got onto their candidate list. Then elected as a UKIP MEP. Then made the party's small and medium business spokesman and their communities spokesman. He was there for 2yrs and nobody noticed something was up. Or if they did (and it seems they did a while back) rather than expel him they were happy to have him until very recently. Maybe to play the "Where's Amjad?" get-out-of-racism card.
Now Cameron has welcomed him with open arms, again seemingly without any due diligence and simply to grab some anti-UKIP headlines.
Lastly Bashir himself appears to be a bit of a dick.
When an event can make Milliband and Clegg look good you just know it's bad.
a good example of the lack of principles in politics today. Firstly he was selected as a Respect candidate. Then deselected him when Galloway discovered he had "no real political principles or commitment ... only naked opportunism and self-interest". Erm, wouldn't it have been an idea to find out if he was suitable before selecting him?
Then he joined UKIP and got onto their candidate list. Then elected as a UKIP MEP. Then made the party's small and medium business spokesman and their communities spokesman. He was there for 2yrs and nobody noticed something was up. Or if they did (and it seems they did a while back) rather than expel him they were happy to have him until very recently. Maybe to play the "Where's Amjad?" get-out-of-racism card.
Now Cameron has welcomed him with open arms, again seemingly without any due diligence and simply to grab some anti-UKIP headlines.
Lastly Bashir himself appears to be a bit of a dick.
When an event can make Milliband and Clegg look good you just know it's bad.
Gaspode said:
steveT350C said:
The electorate has the power.
Just a shame that so many believe what you do.
You honestly believe that, don't you? Blimey, I though naive idealism died out in the '60s. We live in a representative democracy, so we have an elected legislature with a professional executive and judiciary. All we get to do is elect representatives to one part of the legislature. That's not power. Influence maybe, but not power.Just a shame that so many believe what you do.
You are the one chucking out the 'naive' insults already.
Axionknight said:
Oi, Steve! Vote Tory, or you'll get a Government you don't want!
Oh wait....
It's a bugger this democracy, isn't it? If your views don't tally with the majority, you are always going to fail to get the government you want. At 15% of the vote, this is a stone cold certainty. Your only choice is which type of government do you find least offensive?Oh wait....
By all means vote UKIP if that's what you want. if you are in a constituency where the UKIP candidate has a fair chance of winning, then it's got to be worth a shot to get one of your people into Westminster. But if you're not, then a bit of careful thought about the likely outcome is probably worth engaging in.
wc98 said:
TKF said:
Nobody is coming out of this Bashir thing well.
Firstly he was selected as a Respect candidate. Then deselected him when Galloway discovered he had "no real political principles or commitment ... only naked opportunism and self-interest". Erm, wouldn't it have been an idea to find out if he was suitable before selecting him?
Then he joined UKIP and got onto their candidate list. Then elected as a UKIP MEP. Then made the party's small and medium business spokesman and their communities spokesman. He was there for 2yrs and nobody noticed something was up. Or if they did (and it seems they did a while back) rather than expel him they were happy to have him until very recently. Maybe to play the "Where's Amjad?" get-out-of-racism card.
Now Cameron has welcomed him with open arms, again seemingly without any due diligence and simply to grab some anti-UKIP headlines.
Lastly Bashir himself appears to be a bit of a dick.
When an event can make Milliband and Clegg look good you just know it's bad.
a good example of the lack of principles in politics today. Firstly he was selected as a Respect candidate. Then deselected him when Galloway discovered he had "no real political principles or commitment ... only naked opportunism and self-interest". Erm, wouldn't it have been an idea to find out if he was suitable before selecting him?
Then he joined UKIP and got onto their candidate list. Then elected as a UKIP MEP. Then made the party's small and medium business spokesman and their communities spokesman. He was there for 2yrs and nobody noticed something was up. Or if they did (and it seems they did a while back) rather than expel him they were happy to have him until very recently. Maybe to play the "Where's Amjad?" get-out-of-racism card.
Now Cameron has welcomed him with open arms, again seemingly without any due diligence and simply to grab some anti-UKIP headlines.
Lastly Bashir himself appears to be a bit of a dick.
When an event can make Milliband and Clegg look good you just know it's bad.
Farage and Cameron look real stupid in this whole thing. I'd say 51/49, but don't know which one gets top prize for me
DeanR32 said:
wc98 said:
TKF said:
Nobody is coming out of this Bashir thing well.
Firstly he was selected as a Respect candidate. Then deselected him when Galloway discovered he had "no real political principles or commitment ... only naked opportunism and self-interest". Erm, wouldn't it have been an idea to find out if he was suitable before selecting him?
Then he joined UKIP and got onto their candidate list. Then elected as a UKIP MEP. Then made the party's small and medium business spokesman and their communities spokesman. He was there for 2yrs and nobody noticed something was up. Or if they did (and it seems they did a while back) rather than expel him they were happy to have him until very recently. Maybe to play the "Where's Amjad?" get-out-of-racism card.
Now Cameron has welcomed him with open arms, again seemingly without any due diligence and simply to grab some anti-UKIP headlines.
Lastly Bashir himself appears to be a bit of a dick.
When an event can make Milliband and Clegg look good you just know it's bad.
a good example of the lack of principles in politics today. Firstly he was selected as a Respect candidate. Then deselected him when Galloway discovered he had "no real political principles or commitment ... only naked opportunism and self-interest". Erm, wouldn't it have been an idea to find out if he was suitable before selecting him?
Then he joined UKIP and got onto their candidate list. Then elected as a UKIP MEP. Then made the party's small and medium business spokesman and their communities spokesman. He was there for 2yrs and nobody noticed something was up. Or if they did (and it seems they did a while back) rather than expel him they were happy to have him until very recently. Maybe to play the "Where's Amjad?" get-out-of-racism card.
Now Cameron has welcomed him with open arms, again seemingly without any due diligence and simply to grab some anti-UKIP headlines.
Lastly Bashir himself appears to be a bit of a dick.
When an event can make Milliband and Clegg look good you just know it's bad.
steveT350C said:
Gaspode said:
steveT350C said:
Destabilise the political landscape?
Yes please.
You're starting to sound like the Militant Tendency. Yes please.
Two years ago it was not possible to discuss immigration without being labeled a "racist".
Two years ago, Dave Cameron thought that he could get away with reneging on a promise of a referendum on Europe.
Times have changed... for the better.
steveT350C said:
Gaspode said:
steveT350C said:
The electorate has the power.
Just a shame that so many believe what you do.
You honestly believe that, don't you? Blimey, I though naive idealism died out in the '60s. We live in a representative democracy, so we have an elected legislature with a professional executive and judiciary. All we get to do is elect representatives to one part of the legislature. That's not power. Influence maybe, but not power.Just a shame that so many believe what you do.
You are the one chucking out the 'naive' insults already.
You probably recall a TV sitcom in the 80s called Yes Minister with its sequel Yes Prime Minister. The biggest "joke" of all in those series was that they portrayed things as they really are. In essence, they were humorous documentaries.
Politicians don't run the country - Whitehall does, and they make bloody sure that things stay the way that they want them to stay.
When was the last time you voted for a Permanent Secretary?
Do tell, because I haven't ever been able to elect one, and they make much more difference to my daily life than any politician, domestic or European.
And they would still be there running things even if UKIP could ever form a majority government
Countdown said:
Read what it says further up (policy number 16.... (I combined two policies for the benefit of those with short attention spans)
Ah, see where you were coming from now. (I combined two policies for the benefit of those with short attention spans)16 Cutting bureaucracy, red tape, and wasteful spending from government departments.
22 Supporting bus passes for pensioners with the support of local authorities.
I don't think bus passes are wasteful spending but I do think there is far to much wasteful spending in a lot of areas of government.
You might disagree with bus passes but surely you can't disagree with the wasteful spending in a lot of areas of government?
Count - you may have a PM if I can find the files to send you.
skeggysteve said:
Ah, see where you were coming from now.
16 Cutting bureaucracy, red tape, and wasteful spending from government departments.
22 Supporting bus passes for pensioners with the support of local authorities.
I don't think bus passes are wasteful spending but I do think there is far to much wasteful spending in a lot of areas of government.
You might disagree with bus passes but surely you can't disagree with the wasteful spending in a lot of areas of government?
Count - you may have a PM if I can find the files to send you.
Fully agree that there are lots of areas of waste in LA spending. I think part of it is due to the risk averse CYA approach to everything. With regards to things like bus passes my general view is that Govt should focus on the "essentials" - IMVHO Free travel for OAPs doesn't fall into that category. We need LESS govt. not more.16 Cutting bureaucracy, red tape, and wasteful spending from government departments.
22 Supporting bus passes for pensioners with the support of local authorities.
I don't think bus passes are wasteful spending but I do think there is far to much wasteful spending in a lot of areas of government.
You might disagree with bus passes but surely you can't disagree with the wasteful spending in a lot of areas of government?
Count - you may have a PM if I can find the files to send you.
Will look out for the PM
Gaspode said:
It's a bugger this democracy, isn't it? If your views don't tally with the majority, you are always going to fail to get the government you want. At 15% of the vote, this is a stone cold certainty. Your only choice is which type of government do you find least offensive?
By all means vote UKIP if that's what you want. if you are in a constituency where the UKIP candidate has a fair chance of winning, then it's got to be worth a shot to get one of your people into Westminster. But if you're not, then a bit of careful thought about the likely outcome is probably worth engaging in.
No, it isn't.By all means vote UKIP if that's what you want. if you are in a constituency where the UKIP candidate has a fair chance of winning, then it's got to be worth a shot to get one of your people into Westminster. But if you're not, then a bit of careful thought about the likely outcome is probably worth engaging in.
Countdown said:
Fully agree that there are lots of areas of waste in LA spending. I think part of it is due to the risk averse CYA approach to everything. With regards to things like bus passes my general view is that Govt should focus on the "essentials" - IMVHO Free travel for OAPs doesn't fall into that category. We need LESS govt. not more.
Will look out for the PM
PM sent.Will look out for the PM
I understand your point about bus passes not being essential, if I had one it would be worthless as I have no bus serive to use!
Don't know what CYA means.
Totally agree that we need less govt. not more.
Scuffers said:
Zod said:
Most of them are either obvious consequences of leaving the EU, vague platitudes or Tory policy. 35 amused me the most, given that it would require massive numbers of parole staff.
remind me again what % of our prison population is EU nationals (ex. UK)?was watching a bit earlier this week about just how many Jamaicans we have locked up and the lack of progress getting them sent back home (we are even paying for the prisons to be built there!)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff