Douglas Carswell: UKIP needs a 'fresh face' as leader
Discussion
johnfm said:
Given that Art 50 notice is to be issued on Wednesday, I'm no longer sure of the point of UKIP.
They've achieved their stated goal. Job done. Not sure what the point is of them trying to gain seats in Westminster as the "UK Independence Party".
At least they had a stated goal, stuck to it in the teeth of a howling gale of prejudice and rancour, and finally achieved it. As for the rest of the political establishment? Goals that change with the wind as soon as their funding by secret donors or old school chums is threatened, become controversial, or they wriggle out of their coalition loyalties of electoral convenience. They've achieved their stated goal. Job done. Not sure what the point is of them trying to gain seats in Westminster as the "UK Independence Party".
Thorodin said:
johnfm said:
Given that Art 50 notice is to be issued on Wednesday, I'm no longer sure of the point of UKIP.
They've achieved their stated goal. Job done. Not sure what the point is of them trying to gain seats in Westminster as the "UK Independence Party".
At least they had a stated goal, stuck to it in the teeth of a howling gale of prejudice and rancour, and finally achieved it. As for the rest of the political establishment? Goals that change with the wind as soon as their funding by secret donors or old school chums is threatened, become controversial, or they wriggle out of their coalition loyalties of electoral convenience. They've achieved their stated goal. Job done. Not sure what the point is of them trying to gain seats in Westminster as the "UK Independence Party".
johnfm said:
Thorodin said:
johnfm said:
Given that Art 50 notice is to be issued on Wednesday, I'm no longer sure of the point of UKIP.
They've achieved their stated goal. Job done. Not sure what the point is of them trying to gain seats in Westminster as the "UK Independence Party".
At least they had a stated goal, stuck to it in the teeth of a howling gale of prejudice and rancour, and finally achieved it. As for the rest of the political establishment? Goals that change with the wind as soon as their funding by secret donors or old school chums is threatened, become controversial, or they wriggle out of their coalition loyalties of electoral convenience. They've achieved their stated goal. Job done. Not sure what the point is of them trying to gain seats in Westminster as the "UK Independence Party".
alfie2244 said:
johnfm said:
Thorodin said:
johnfm said:
Given that Art 50 notice is to be issued on Wednesday, I'm no longer sure of the point of UKIP.
They've achieved their stated goal. Job done. Not sure what the point is of them trying to gain seats in Westminster as the "UK Independence Party".
At least they had a stated goal, stuck to it in the teeth of a howling gale of prejudice and rancour, and finally achieved it. As for the rest of the political establishment? Goals that change with the wind as soon as their funding by secret donors or old school chums is threatened, become controversial, or they wriggle out of their coalition loyalties of electoral convenience. They've achieved their stated goal. Job done. Not sure what the point is of them trying to gain seats in Westminster as the "UK Independence Party".
There can't be much doubt that most of the UKIP impetus came from NF's presence. Bombast and a refreshing acquaintance with the truth is very powerful. I reckon he knows the party is over following the debacles of the inadequates that followed him, hence his removal to USA. The only way he could make a comeback is in a new party where he calls the shots. That doesn't necessarily mean as leader.
Hayek said:
Indeed. Also, although they would have to reinvent and rebrand themselves there are many many more issues that are ignored by the other parties, that also have a good chance of being important to the average UKIP voter.
I was reading the review of "The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics" by David Goodhart today in the Times.http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-road-to-some...
Goodhart’s basic thesis is that Britain has split into two tribes: Somewheres and Anywheres.
Anywheres — about a quarter of the population by his reckoning — are the exam-passing classes; those that believe in social mobility, meritocracy and the benefits of immigration; those that are doing well. They well may be you, dear reader.
Somewheres, who he thinks make up half of the population, are more provincial, more rooted in their neighbourhoods, less well educated, poorer, more traditionalist. They are alarmed by rapid social change, such as from immigration, and believe such change brings loss.
He highlight's Labour's problem. In the 2010 general election, Labour’s middle-class vote of 4.4 million outstripped its working-class vote of 4.2 million for the first time. The party is skewed towards the Anywheres. Of its membership 75 per cent are middle-class and 40 per cent from London and the southeast.
AstonZagato said:
Goodhart’s basic thesis is that Britain has split into two tribes: Somewheres and Anywheres.
Anywheres — about a quarter of the population by his reckoning — are the exam-passing classes; those that believe in social mobility, meritocracy and the benefits of immigration; those that are doing well. They well may be you, dear reader.
Somewheres, who he thinks make up half of the population, are more provincial, more rooted in their neighbourhoods, less well educated, poorer, more traditionalist. They are alarmed by rapid social change, such as from immigration, and believe such change brings loss.
He highlight's Labour's problem. In the 2010 general election, Labour’s middle-class vote of 4.4 million outstripped its working-class vote of 4.2 million for the first time. The party is skewed towards the Anywheres. Of its membership 75 per cent are middle-class and 40 per cent from London and the southeast.
So where am I?Anywheres — about a quarter of the population by his reckoning — are the exam-passing classes; those that believe in social mobility, meritocracy and the benefits of immigration; those that are doing well. They well may be you, dear reader.
Somewheres, who he thinks make up half of the population, are more provincial, more rooted in their neighbourhoods, less well educated, poorer, more traditionalist. They are alarmed by rapid social change, such as from immigration, and believe such change brings loss.
He highlight's Labour's problem. In the 2010 general election, Labour’s middle-class vote of 4.4 million outstripped its working-class vote of 4.2 million for the first time. The party is skewed towards the Anywheres. Of its membership 75 per cent are middle-class and 40 per cent from London and the southeast.
Passed Exams. Believe in Meritocracy, and am doing well (for my career, of not compared to those earning hundreds of grand a year.) But whilst I see benefit in immigration. I don't believe in the benefit of the current (for the last 20 years!) immigration policy.
Problem with writing a book and focusing on what you think are the problems is you don't actually ask people questions and give their bnaswers the weight they deserve if you disagree.
Rich_W said:
AstonZagato said:
Goodhart’s basic thesis is that Britain has split into two tribes: Somewheres and Anywheres.
Anywheres — about a quarter of the population by his reckoning — are the exam-passing classes; those that believe in social mobility, meritocracy and the benefits of immigration; those that are doing well. They well may be you, dear reader.
Somewheres, who he thinks make up half of the population, are more provincial, more rooted in their neighbourhoods, less well educated, poorer, more traditionalist. They are alarmed by rapid social change, such as from immigration, and believe such change brings loss.
He highlight's Labour's problem. In the 2010 general election, Labour’s middle-class vote of 4.4 million outstripped its working-class vote of 4.2 million for the first time. The party is skewed towards the Anywheres. Of its membership 75 per cent are middle-class and 40 per cent from London and the southeast.
So where am I?Anywheres — about a quarter of the population by his reckoning — are the exam-passing classes; those that believe in social mobility, meritocracy and the benefits of immigration; those that are doing well. They well may be you, dear reader.
Somewheres, who he thinks make up half of the population, are more provincial, more rooted in their neighbourhoods, less well educated, poorer, more traditionalist. They are alarmed by rapid social change, such as from immigration, and believe such change brings loss.
He highlight's Labour's problem. In the 2010 general election, Labour’s middle-class vote of 4.4 million outstripped its working-class vote of 4.2 million for the first time. The party is skewed towards the Anywheres. Of its membership 75 per cent are middle-class and 40 per cent from London and the southeast.
Passed Exams. Believe in Meritocracy, and am doing well (for my career, of not compared to those earning hundreds of grand a year.) But whilst I see benefit in immigration. I don't believe in the benefit of the current (for the last 20 years!) immigration policy.
Problem with writing a book and focusing on what you think are the problems is you don't actually ask people questions and give their bnaswers the weight they deserve if you disagree.
Rich_W said:
AstonZagato said:
Goodhart’s basic thesis is that Britain has split into two tribes: Somewheres and Anywheres.
Anywheres — about a quarter of the population by his reckoning — are the exam-passing classes; those that believe in social mobility, meritocracy and the benefits of immigration; those that are doing well. They well may be you, dear reader.
Somewheres, who he thinks make up half of the population, are more provincial, more rooted in their neighbourhoods, less well educated, poorer, more traditionalist. They are alarmed by rapid social change, such as from immigration, and believe such change brings loss.
He highlight's Labour's problem. In the 2010 general election, Labour’s middle-class vote of 4.4 million outstripped its working-class vote of 4.2 million for the first time. The party is skewed towards the Anywheres. Of its membership 75 per cent are middle-class and 40 per cent from London and the southeast.
So where am I?Anywheres — about a quarter of the population by his reckoning — are the exam-passing classes; those that believe in social mobility, meritocracy and the benefits of immigration; those that are doing well. They well may be you, dear reader.
Somewheres, who he thinks make up half of the population, are more provincial, more rooted in their neighbourhoods, less well educated, poorer, more traditionalist. They are alarmed by rapid social change, such as from immigration, and believe such change brings loss.
He highlight's Labour's problem. In the 2010 general election, Labour’s middle-class vote of 4.4 million outstripped its working-class vote of 4.2 million for the first time. The party is skewed towards the Anywheres. Of its membership 75 per cent are middle-class and 40 per cent from London and the southeast.
Passed Exams. Believe in Meritocracy, and am doing well (for my career, of not compared to those earning hundreds of grand a year.) But whilst I see benefit in immigration. I don't believe in the benefit of the current (for the last 20 years!) immigration policy.
Problem with writing a book and focusing on what you think are the problems is you don't actually ask people questions and give their bnaswers the weight they deserve if you disagree.
AstonZagato said:
Goodhart’s basic thesis is that Britain has split into two tribes: Somewheres and Anywheres.
AstonZagato said:
Not read the book but I guess you are them probably in the remaining 25% (according to Goodhart)
Even the review is behind a paywall 
But if the author says everyone fits into 2 moulds. But then has a third option with no name, he's a s
te writer with a badly executed thesis! Rich_W said:
Even the review is behind a paywall
But if the author says everyone fits into 2 moulds. But then has a third option with no name, he's a ste writer with a badly executed thesis!
But these things aren't exact, I can recognise that the middle class people I know are more EU enthusiasts and the more working class people I know are more against it. I'm like you, exam passing etc... although I'm less worried about immigration in itself, but am worried that the government doesn't have absolute control over it. I don't want the country dissolved into an EU super-state, quite happy with Britain being Britain thanks.But if the author says everyone fits into 2 moulds. But then has a third option with no name, he's a s
te writer with a badly executed thesis! Did you live abroad as a child?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff