UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
don4l said:
I'm sure that UKIP would win them all.
After all, UKIP would be choosing which by-elections to go for.
I have no doubt that you are as certain as you claim. After all, UKIP would be choosing which by-elections to go for.
Of course, UKIP will be choosing which seats to fight in the GE. I'm doubt even Mr Farage will have a realistic expectation of winning them all.
And there is little point winning a by-election between now and May if you can't hold onto it in May.
Einion Yrth said:
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.
You are increasingly pathetic.3000 is not a big majority to defend in May.
s2art said:
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?
Most of the rest is not much better. If all they can do is establish a project how do they or anyone else know what can be achieved. At the very least they can specific some examples
Just to poke the wasp nest here's a fun statistic from Rob Ford. No not that Rob Ford the Toronto mayor but the wonk from Manchester Uni politics dept at the wrong end of the Snake Pass 
Rochester win means UKIP have now received more votes in by-elections during the life of this Parliament than have the Cons 104,583 vs 104,536
Nice one Rob, lightened up a cold and wet Friday afternoon.
Rochester win means UKIP have now received more votes in by-elections during the life of this Parliament than have the Cons 104,583 vs 104,536
Nice one Rob, lightened up a cold and wet Friday afternoon.
s2art said:
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.
Bin council tax, business rates and replace with LVT; bin the dole, tax credits, income tax allowances and upper/lower rates and replace with a flat rate and 'citizen's wage'. HMRC should be given a hunting licence to stop the egregious misuse of brassplate companies in Luxembourg or wherever, avoiding corporation tax via ridiculous internal loans. Having got rid of this lot a huge number of civil servants can be given P45s or directed to tackling serious things like carousel fraud.Other than VAT, what things require any harmonisation with europe?
Greg66 said:
don4l said:
I'm sure that UKIP would win them all.
After all, UKIP would be choosing which by-elections to go for.
I have no doubt that you are as certain as you claim. After all, UKIP would be choosing which by-elections to go for.
Of course, UKIP will be choosing which seats to fight in the GE. I'm doubt even Mr Farage will have a realistic expectation of winning them all.
And there is little point winning a by-election between now and May if you can't hold onto it in May.
Greg66 said:
And there is little point winning a by-election between now and May if you can't hold onto it in May.
I wouldn't agree. It depends what causes the by election to be held and the potential collateral damage may result from that cause. Look at the fall out from Emily Thornberry's Tweet for example. JustAnotherLogin said:
s2art said:
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?
Most of the rest is not much better. If all they can do is establish a project how do they or anyone else know what can be achieved. At the very least they can specific some examples
As for what can be achieved, we can look to the recent past or to other countries. What man has once achieved, man can aspire to recreate. Pointless specifying unconnected examples at this stage, as there is too much interdependency. Big mistake for UKIP to try and specify particular examples before the analysis is done.
egor110 said:
They say they get it , but it's too late , the public have had enough and will vote for a change.
Do two former Tory MPs actually represent a change??? If Joe Public is fed up with what they see as a cliquey Westminster self-interest group of Tory and Labour MPs taking it in turns to run the country, how does moving the same people into a new party change anything?UKIP is mainly a bunch of former Conservatives who feel they have been left behind by the modern Conservative Party. It's a pretty reactionary bunch. And yet they're attracting quite a lot of former Labour voters.
So its a non-changey change, and a right wing reactionary home for left wing voters. Universal suffrage ... seemed like a good idea.
Greg66 said:
And there is little point winning a by-election between now and May if you can't hold onto it in May.
This by-election result either way would have heavily influenced the high profile Immigration speech Cameron has promised before Xmas. A win should now mean less weasel words (one hopes).So yes, there was a very tangible short term point.
ATG said:
UKIP is mainly a bunch of former Conservatives who feel they have been left behind by the modern Conservative Party. It's a pretty reactionary bunch. And yet they're attracting quite a lot of former Labour voters.
So its a non-changey change, and a right wing reactionary home for left wing voters. Universal suffrage ... seemed like a good idea.
It all depends how you define "reactionary", do you mean by that England outside the M25?So its a non-changey change, and a right wing reactionary home for left wing voters. Universal suffrage ... seemed like a good idea.
As Nigel Farage has said it isn't really about Left and right any more. The working classes have often had conservative views on immigration, law and order and benefits. The more popular Conservative prime ministers have been able to get a significant slice of their support.
I think it would be a very profound change personally if England were no longer run by a self serving metropolitan elite.
Edited by JagLover on Friday 21st November 18:40
ATG said:
egor110 said:
They say they get it , but it's too late , the public have had enough and will vote for a change.
Do two former Tory MPs actually represent a change??? If Joe Public is fed up with what they see as a cliquey Westminster self-interest group of Tory and Labour MPs taking it in turns to run the country, how does moving the same people into a new party change anything?UKIP is mainly a bunch of former Conservatives who feel they have been left behind by the modern Conservative Party. It's a pretty reactionary bunch. And yet they're attracting quite a lot of former Labour voters.
So its a non-changey change, and a right wing reactionary home for left wing voters. Universal suffrage ... seemed like a good idea.
Greg66 said:
don4l said:
We were talking about by-elections.
That's right. We were. Then the discussion moved on. Keep up!However, with each by-election victory, UKIP gain more credibility. This is important in the "first past the post" system.
Most of the "protest" vote has already switched to UKIP. The recent LibDem results demonstrate this clearly.
So, if UKIP could win a couple more by-elections, then I am sure you would agree that it would be extremely good news for Britain.
Edited by don4l on Friday 21st November 19:38
ATG said:
egor110 said:
They say they get it , but it's too late , the public have had enough and will vote for a change.
Do two former Tory MPs actually represent a change??? If Joe Public is fed up with what they see as a cliquey Westminster self-interest group of Tory and Labour MPs taking it in turns to run the country, how does moving the same people into a new party change anything?UKIP is mainly a bunch of former Conservatives who feel they have been left behind by the modern Conservative Party. It's a pretty reactionary bunch. And yet they're attracting quite a lot of former Labour voters.
So its a non-changey change, and a right wing reactionary home for left wing voters. Universal suffrage ... seemed like a good idea.
None of which seems to be part of the UKIP agenda.Not surprisingly because it obviously contradicts/alienates the cheap labour agenda of Conservative to UKIP swing vote and the immigrant vote.
In general the next election will be characterised by a low turn out when the disillusioned Labour swing vote realises that there is no Party which represents the interests of the indigenous working class.Which calls into question the electoral mandate of whichever Party/Parties get into power.
XJ Flyer said:
ATG said:
egor110 said:
They say they get it , but it's too late , the public have had enough and will vote for a change.
Do two former Tory MPs actually represent a change??? If Joe Public is fed up with what they see as a cliquey Westminster self-interest group of Tory and Labour MPs taking it in turns to run the country, how does moving the same people into a new party change anything?UKIP is mainly a bunch of former Conservatives who feel they have been left behind by the modern Conservative Party. It's a pretty reactionary bunch. And yet they're attracting quite a lot of former Labour voters.
So its a non-changey change, and a right wing reactionary home for left wing voters. Universal suffrage ... seemed like a good idea.
I think a lot of people are going to vote ukip purely because there bored of the normal choice of blue or red.
They don't care if its actually going to help labour, they want to vote ukip and there's nothing you, I, cameron or milliband do to change that, the damage is already done.
Basically all that is/was in it for the Labour to UKIP swing vote is an anti EU policy that returns sovereignty thereby allowing trade barriers in favour of domestic industry over imports,thereby increasing demand for domestic labour.Together with an anti immigration policy that reduces the labour supply.Thereby increasing wage levels.
None of which seems to be part of the UKIP agenda.Not surprisingly because it obviously contradicts/alienates the cheap labour agenda of Conservative to UKIP swing vote and the immigrant vote.
In general the next election will be characterised by a low turn out when the disillusioned Labour swing vote realises that there is no Party which represents the interests of the indigenous working class.Which calls into question the electoral mandate of whichever Party/Parties get into power.
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.
Now we get to the real political differencesTory 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.
Tie colour
egor110 said:
XJ Flyer said:
ATG said:
egor110 said:
They say they get it , but it's too late , the public have had enough and will vote for a change.
Do two former Tory MPs actually represent a change??? If Joe Public is fed up with what they see as a cliquey Westminster self-interest group of Tory and Labour MPs taking it in turns to run the country, how does moving the same people into a new party change anything?UKIP is mainly a bunch of former Conservatives who feel they have been left behind by the modern Conservative Party. It's a pretty reactionary bunch. And yet they're attracting quite a lot of former Labour voters.
So its a non-changey change, and a right wing reactionary home for left wing voters. Universal suffrage ... seemed like a good idea.
I think a lot of people are going to vote ukip purely because there bored of the normal choice of blue or red.
They don't care if its actually going to help labour, they want to vote ukip and there's nothing you, I, cameron or milliband do to change that, the damage is already done.
Basically all that is/was in it for the Labour to UKIP swing vote is an anti EU policy that returns sovereignty thereby allowing trade barriers in favour of domestic industry over imports,thereby increasing demand for domestic labour.Together with an anti immigration policy that reduces the labour supply.Thereby increasing wage levels.
None of which seems to be part of the UKIP agenda.Not surprisingly because it obviously contradicts/alienates the cheap labour agenda of Conservative to UKIP swing vote and the immigrant vote.
In general the next election will be characterised by a low turn out when the disillusioned Labour swing vote realises that there is no Party which represents the interests of the indigenous working class.Which calls into question the electoral mandate of whichever Party/Parties get into power.
All of which has turned the country at best into a net importer of just about everything from energy to manufactured goods with an oversupplied labour market and resulting low wage levels to match.Or at worst a breeding ground for the Jihadist cause.
XJ Flyer said:
Both UKIP wins so far seem to point to a low turnout.As I've said there doesn't seem to be anything in UKIP's policies which would change anything radically,in regard to the present situation,regarding the immigration issue,at least from the point of view of the indigenous population.Or that of globalisation and EU membership resulting in loss of sovereignty and thereby loss of control over inward/outward trade flows.
All of which has turned the country at best into a net importer of just about everything from energy to manufactured goods with an oversupplied labour market and resulting low wage levels to match.Or at worst a breeding ground for the Jihadist cause.
Wasn't rochester a 50% turn out?All of which has turned the country at best into a net importer of just about everything from energy to manufactured goods with an oversupplied labour market and resulting low wage levels to match.Or at worst a breeding ground for the Jihadist cause.
That's pretty good for a local election.
Zod said:
Einion Yrth said:
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.
You are increasingly pathetic.3000 is not a big majority to defend in May.
...suitably 'Kippered'!
Anyway, you miss the point in saying 3,000 is not a big majority to defend in May.
The point is, and was, the Tories were previously sitting on a NINE THOUSAND MAJORITY which Ukip has overturned rather easily, and this despite the Tories throwing everything at this by-election ...including the kitchen sink ...and the worktop!
Who, what, can stop the Kipper train?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff