UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[anonymous-user]

So what is there to debate about Nuttall? He's the leader of a party with 1 MP, which has arguably achieved its stated goal. He's not obviously got a charismatic personality. He says he wants to make UKIP the official opposition - can't see that happening.

Are there more debating points than "Does UKIP have a future, if so what is it, and how does Nuttall get it there?"

[Jockman]

Greg66 said:

So what is there to debate about Nuttall? He's the leader of a party with 1 MP, which has arguably achieved its stated goal. He's not obviously got a charismatic personality. He says he wants to make UKIP the official opposition - can't see that happening.

Are there more debating points than "Does UKIP have a future, if so what is it, and how does Nuttall get it there?"

Yes, I'd say UKIP has a future. It will surely target marginal labour constituencies and aim to hold the balance of power in 2020? Stranger things have happened.

[Jockman]

saabster14 said:

I grew up thinking the world was at last putting all this intolerance behind it. It deeply saddens me that there are so many people out there who have probably been just keeping quiet and had those views. Something has gone seriously wrong. or maybe I was being naïve and overly hopeful of a better world.

A vote is a powerful weapon. It saddens me more that 12m people 'stayed in bed' on the 23rd June.

[saabster14]

Jockman said:

A vote is a powerful weapon. It saddens me more that 12m people 'stayed in bed' on the 23rd June.

it saddens me too.

what I did note during the referendum was that people I know who voted leave were generally non-voters in previous elections and that people I know who were previously quite conscientious about voting, didn't vote. I don't have any statistics to back this up and is purely anecdotal but that is what I observed. Of those who normally vote but didn't, there seemed to be a consensus amongst them that just didn't know what to do, based on the argument's and campaigns strategies.

Should there have been a 3rd option on the paper?

the one overriding thing that I noticed was the poor remain campaign (almost half hearted, poorly planned and executed) The leave campaign was bolder and more vigorous (although contained even more bulst than the remain campaign)

Edit: sorry this should probably have gone in the referendum thread

Edited by saabster14 on Tuesday 29th November 08:36

[Jockman]

saabster14 said:

it saddens me too.

what I did note during the referendum was that people I know who voted leave were generally non-voters in previous elections and that people I know who were previously quite conscientious about voting, didn't vote. I don't have any statistics to back this up and is purely anecdotal but that is what I observed. Of those who normally vote but didn't, there seemed to be a consensus amongst them that just didn't know what to do, based on the argument's and campaigns strategies.

Should there have been a 3rd option on the paper?

the one overriding thing that I noticed was the poor remain campaign (almost half hearted, poorly planned and executed) The leave campaign was bolder and more vigorous (although contained even more bulst than the remain campaign)

There's always a third choice on a ballot paper - disappointingly 12m took it.

Mobilisation of voters is key. The SCLC used this to positively devastating effect in 1960s America.

UKIP is also good at this.

[saabster14]

Jockman said:

There's always a third choice on a ballot paper - disappointingly 12m took it.

Mobilisation of voters is key. The SCLC used this to positively devastating effect in 1960s America.

UKIP is also good at this.

I wasn't around for the SCLC but I had assumed they had more of a positive message (correct me if I'm wrong here) about equal rights, anti-discrimination etc..

UKIP seem to be polar opposite (again, I stand to be corrected) and have a largely divisive, negative separatist agenda.

So how are they motivating and gaining support? Is UKIP's primary recruiting tool fear?

edit to add: I did read an interesting study by Julian Aichholzer in Science Direct in which it's literature review attributed support of right wing party's as a defence mechanism triggered by perceived social threat. The paper also delves into right wing party support and its linkage to personality.

Edited by saabster14 on Tuesday 29th November 09:11

[alfie2244]

saabster14 said:

I wasn't around for the SCLC but I had assumed they had more of a positive message (correct me if I'm wrong here) about equal rights, anti-discrimination etc..

UKIP seem to be polar opposite (again, I stand to be corrected) and have a largely divisive, negative separatist agenda.

So how are they motivating and gaining support? Is UKIP's primary recruiting tool fear?

Unlike the EU policies, by wanting "EQUAL" treatment of all regardless of what part of the world they come from?

Seems more like the EU have a largely divisive, negative separatist agenda to me but no doubt you will correct me.

[saabster14]

alfie2244 said:

saabster14 said:

I wasn't around for the SCLC but I had assumed they had more of a positive message (correct me if I'm wrong here) about equal rights, anti-discrimination etc..

UKIP seem to be polar opposite (again, I stand to be corrected) and have a largely divisive, negative separatist agenda.

So how are they motivating and gaining support? Is UKIP's primary recruiting tool fear?

Unlike the EU policies, by wanting "EQUAL" treatment of all regardless of what part of the world they come from?

Seems more like the EU have a largely divisive, negative separatist agenda to me but no doubt you will correct me.

My last post wasn't a dig.. it was a genuine question and I'd genuinely like to know

I've honestly never seen the EU have a separatist agenda, if you can give me an example or two to support you assertion, that would be appreciated. My impression of the EU was always the opposite of your assertion, maybe you've seen something that I have missed?

[SilverSixer]

Jockman said:

Greg66 said:

So what is there to debate about Nuttall? He's the leader of a party with 1 MP, which has arguably achieved its stated goal. He's not obviously got a charismatic personality. He says he wants to make UKIP the official opposition - can't see that happening.

Are there more debating points than "Does UKIP have a future, if so what is it, and how does Nuttall get it there?"

Yes, I'd say UKIP has a future. It will surely target marginal labour constituencies and aim to hold the balance of power in 2020? Stranger things have happened.

It would indeed be bloody strange to win over enough Labour voters to UKIP to achieve this fantasy by proposing the privatisation of the NHS as one of your main policy tenets, as Paul Nuttalls of the Yookips does.

[wiggy001]

SilverSixer said:

It would indeed be bloody strange to win over enough Labour voters to UKIP to achieve this fantasy by proposing the privatisation of the NHS as one of your main policy tenets, as Paul Nuttalls of the Yookips does.

But it's not UKIP policy, so let's wait and see what Paul Nuttall's current position is on it. If he can convince the electorate that reducing the number of managers in the NHS in order to increase the number of doctors and nurses is possible, who knows?

[jjlynn27]

wiggy001 said:

But it's not UKIP policy, so let's wait and see what Paul Nuttall's current position is on it. If he can convince the electorate that reducing the number of managers in the NHS in order to increase the number of doctors and nurses is possible, who knows?

Didn't Nige prat on about introducing insurance? Then figured out that that's not really that popular, had a pint, and changed to oh yea, we'll keep it as it is.

As for 'the future'; LOL. Apparently even BNP now receives more donation than UKIP.

[alfie2244]

jjlynn27 said:

wiggy001 said:

But it's not UKIP policy, so let's wait and see what Paul Nuttall's current position is on it. If he can convince the electorate that reducing the number of managers in the NHS in order to increase the number of doctors and nurses is possible, who knows?

Didn't Nige prat on about introducing insurance? Then figured out that that's not really that popular, had a pint, and changed to oh yea, we'll keep it as it is.

As for 'the future'; LOL. Apparently even BNP now receives more donation than UKIP.

IIRC you know a bit about the NHS...if so do you not think there are already many areas being "privatised" in all but name?

for example:

http://www.nhsforsale.info/private-providers/priva...

eta I recognise it is bit of a "no go" area but recent history tells us that ignoring the elephant in the room doesn't make it go away.

[SilverSixer]

wiggy001 said:

SilverSixer said:

It would indeed be bloody strange to win over enough Labour voters to UKIP to achieve this fantasy by proposing the privatisation of the NHS as one of your main policy tenets, as Paul Nuttalls of the Yookips does.

But it's not UKIP policy, so let's wait and see what Paul Nuttall's current position is on it. If he can convince the electorate that reducing the number of managers in the NHS in order to increase the number of doctors and nurses is possible, who knows?

Hang on, you want him to make a U-Turn on a major policy out of expedience in order to appeal to left-leaning Labour voters?

I thought Yookips was about straight talking, telling it like it is and sticking it to the lefty establishment?

Huh?

[wiggy001]

SilverSixer said:

wiggy001 said:

SilverSixer said:

It would indeed be bloody strange to win over enough Labour voters to UKIP to achieve this fantasy by proposing the privatisation of the NHS as one of your main policy tenets, as Paul Nuttalls of the Yookips does.

But it's not UKIP policy, so let's wait and see what Paul Nuttall's current position is on it. If he can convince the electorate that reducing the number of managers in the NHS in order to increase the number of doctors and nurses is possible, who knows?

Hang on, you want him to make a U-Turn on a major policy out of expedience in order to appeal to left-leaning Labour voters?

I thought Yookips was about straight talking, telling it like it is and sticking it to the lefty establishment?

Huh?

There's a difference between party policy and personal opinion, just ask Mr Corbyn on his views of the EU for example. I don't want any politician to say things just to garner votes. I want them and their party to have a set of policies which they believe in, regardless of whether people will vote for them on that basis or not.

UKIP policy isn't to privatise the NHS. Paul Nuttall may change that, he may not. Either way, with the Labour party the way it is (including their complete disregard for their constituents on the Brexit vote), I can see them taking seats from Labour in 2020 and think it would be foolish to ignore that possibility.

[saabster14]

wiggy001 said:

SilverSixer said:

wiggy001 said:

SilverSixer said:

It would indeed be bloody strange to win over enough Labour voters to UKIP to achieve this fantasy by proposing the privatisation of the NHS as one of your main policy tenets, as Paul Nuttalls of the Yookips does.

But it's not UKIP policy, so let's wait and see what Paul Nuttall's current position is on it. If he can convince the electorate that reducing the number of managers in the NHS in order to increase the number of doctors and nurses is possible, who knows?

Hang on, you want him to make a U-Turn on a major policy out of expedience in order to appeal to left-leaning Labour voters?

I thought Yookips was about straight talking, telling it like it is and sticking it to the lefty establishment?

Huh?

There's a difference between party policy and personal opinion, just ask Mr Corbyn on his views of the EU for example. I don't want any politician to say things just to garner votes. I want them and their party to have a set of policies which they believe in, regardless of whether people will vote for them on that basis or not.

UKIP policy isn't to privatise the NHS. Paul Nuttall may change that, he may not. Either way, with the Labour party the way it is (including their complete disregard for their constituents on the Brexit vote), I can see them taking seats from Labour in 2020 and think it would be foolish to ignore that possibility.

I thought UKIP was a populist party?

[SilverSixer]

wiggy001 said:

SilverSixer said:

wiggy001 said:

SilverSixer said:

It would indeed be bloody strange to win over enough Labour voters to UKIP to achieve this fantasy by proposing the privatisation of the NHS as one of your main policy tenets, as Paul Nuttalls of the Yookips does.

But it's not UKIP policy, so let's wait and see what Paul Nuttall's current position is on it. If he can convince the electorate that reducing the number of managers in the NHS in order to increase the number of doctors and nurses is possible, who knows?

Hang on, you want him to make a U-Turn on a major policy out of expedience in order to appeal to left-leaning Labour voters?

I thought Yookips was about straight talking, telling it like it is and sticking it to the lefty establishment?

Huh?

There's a difference between party policy and personal opinion, just ask Mr Corbyn on his views of the EU for example. I don't want any politician to say things just to garner votes. I want them and their party to have a set of policies which they believe in, regardless of whether people will vote for them on that basis or not.

UKIP policy isn't to privatise the NHS. Paul Nuttall may change that, he may not. Either way, with the Labour party the way it is (including their complete disregard for their constituents on the Brexit vote), I can see them taking seats from Labour in 2020 and think it would be foolish to ignore that possibility.

But the Yookips mantra is one of "common sense" and "telling it like it is". Surely this is incompatible with differing opinions and changing policy?

Or should they be dropping their claims to ownership of great, universal, self-evident, simple truths and acting as you suggest like a proper political party? If they do, then their USP is gone and that's that, unless they claim virgin political ground such as far-right extremism. Which is hardly likely to attract Labour voters.

Essentially whichever way they look they're in catch-22. There is no place for them as a mainstream political party, and as a fringe single issue party (an issue which may well have 'gone away') they're not getting in to government either.

Unless Paul Nuttalls is some kind of political visionary and can see something I can't.

[smn159]

Bill said:

Well, at least he's not a career politician who's never had a "proper" job.

isn't he a lifelong politician with a background in academia (politics lecturer) with added essence of religious nutcase?

Or just the sort of elitist career politician that kippers like to froth about?

[don4l]

Paul Nuttall's victory seems to have gone down very badly with a lot of people.


One wonders if the Corbyn/Nuttall combination could result in UKIP replacing Labour as the main opposition at the next General Election?

[FredClogs]

don4l said:

Paul Nuttall's victory seems to have gone down very badly with a lot of people.


One wonders if the Corbyn/Nuttall combination could result in UKIP replacing Labour as the main opposition at the next General Election?

Wonder no more, it won't.

[alfie2244]

FredClogs said:

don4l said:

Paul Nuttall's victory seems to have gone down very badly with a lot of people.


One wonders if the Corbyn/Nuttall combination could result in UKIP replacing Labour as the main opposition at the next General Election?

Wonder no more, it won't.

That's what they said about Brexit, Trump and Leicester..... how many did you predict? Me = zero