The Wasted Vote
Discussion
Mark Benson said:
All very true IMO, and it's what has stopped me so far putting a cross in any box next to 'UKIP'.
However, the allure of UKIP as a 'none of the above' party is strong - with Westminster discredited after expenses and the like and with the notion that politician=liar almost taken as read, the worst thing the mainstream and their supporters could do is to say that UKIP are not 'proper' politicians.
An increasing number of the voting population would like to rid politics of the 'professional' politician, and instead have people in charge who've 'served an apprenticeship' in the real world. For myself, I'm heartily sick of politicians telling me they know what's best for the country despite having never left the Westminster bubble since the day they graduated. How can they know what their voters have to go through day to day if they've never lived in the world outside Westminster?
It's much of what's wrong with politics in Britain today and it's driving ever fewer numbers of people out to vote - there's a reason turnout was higher than usual for a by-election in Eastleigh, it's that there was a party that people felt positive about voting for instead of one they felt they ought to in order to keep a more unpleasant one out.
The mainstream parties need to up their game quite considerably. A serious strategy to beat UKIP involves promoting scrutiny of its actual policies and accepting a rather unpalatable truth - that people outside the metropolitan elite in London are not as liberal (with a lower case 'l') as the Westminster populous and the mainstream media. They perhaps do care about gay marriage, the perceived 'decline' of the UK, immigration and the effect on jobs and they're crying out for someone that speaks to them in agreement, rather than at them in admonishment.
At the moment only UKIP, for all it's populism and the fruit-loopery of a number of it's members, does this and if the Tories or any other party wants to recapture people's trust and inspire them they have to look closely at what the appeal of UKIP is and try to emulate it - a leader with charisma and purpose would be a good start....
UKIP has had its own "issues" surrounding expenses & misuse of allowances etc. They are not so whiter than white.However, the allure of UKIP as a 'none of the above' party is strong - with Westminster discredited after expenses and the like and with the notion that politician=liar almost taken as read, the worst thing the mainstream and their supporters could do is to say that UKIP are not 'proper' politicians.
An increasing number of the voting population would like to rid politics of the 'professional' politician, and instead have people in charge who've 'served an apprenticeship' in the real world. For myself, I'm heartily sick of politicians telling me they know what's best for the country despite having never left the Westminster bubble since the day they graduated. How can they know what their voters have to go through day to day if they've never lived in the world outside Westminster?
It's much of what's wrong with politics in Britain today and it's driving ever fewer numbers of people out to vote - there's a reason turnout was higher than usual for a by-election in Eastleigh, it's that there was a party that people felt positive about voting for instead of one they felt they ought to in order to keep a more unpleasant one out.
The mainstream parties need to up their game quite considerably. A serious strategy to beat UKIP involves promoting scrutiny of its actual policies and accepting a rather unpalatable truth - that people outside the metropolitan elite in London are not as liberal (with a lower case 'l') as the Westminster populous and the mainstream media. They perhaps do care about gay marriage, the perceived 'decline' of the UK, immigration and the effect on jobs and they're crying out for someone that speaks to them in agreement, rather than at them in admonishment.
At the moment only UKIP, for all it's populism and the fruit-loopery of a number of it's members, does this and if the Tories or any other party wants to recapture people's trust and inspire them they have to look closely at what the appeal of UKIP is and try to emulate it - a leader with charisma and purpose would be a good start....
Wombat3 said:
McWigglebum4th said:
McWigglebum4th said:
I live in Scotland
I can vote tory and get lib dem as my MP
I can vote UKIP and get lib dem as my MP
I've only got one vote and the local lib dem MP has a huge majority
I vote tory and i have given a thumbs up to the current spinless s
t and get a lib dem local MP
I vote UKIP and i have given a thumbs down to the current spinless st and i get a lib dem local MP
Tell me why i should vote for tories
Tory fanboyI can vote tory and get lib dem as my MP
I can vote UKIP and get lib dem as my MP
I've only got one vote and the local lib dem MP has a huge majority
I vote tory and i have given a thumbs up to the current spinless s
t and get a lib dem local MPI vote UKIP and i have given a thumbs down to the current spinless s
t and i get a lib dem local MPTell me why i should vote for tories
Not answering the above?
Probable better question using that rather weak logic is why should you bother voting at all?
If i don't vote the government will take it as read that i'm prefectly happy with what they are doing as they are too arrogant to belive that people who don't vote could be objecting or feel that the system is broken beyond repair so have nothing to do with it.
So why should i vote tory?
Wombat3 said:
Mark Benson said:
All very true IMO, and it's what has stopped me so far putting a cross in any box next to 'UKIP'.
However, the allure of UKIP as a 'none of the above' party is strong - with Westminster discredited after expenses and the like and with the notion that politician=liar almost taken as read, the worst thing the mainstream and their supporters could do is to say that UKIP are not 'proper' politicians.
An increasing number of the voting population would like to rid politics of the 'professional' politician, and instead have people in charge who've 'served an apprenticeship' in the real world. For myself, I'm heartily sick of politicians telling me they know what's best for the country despite having never left the Westminster bubble since the day they graduated. How can they know what their voters have to go through day to day if they've never lived in the world outside Westminster?
It's much of what's wrong with politics in Britain today and it's driving ever fewer numbers of people out to vote - there's a reason turnout was higher than usual for a by-election in Eastleigh, it's that there was a party that people felt positive about voting for instead of one they felt they ought to in order to keep a more unpleasant one out.
The mainstream parties need to up their game quite considerably. A serious strategy to beat UKIP involves promoting scrutiny of its actual policies and accepting a rather unpalatable truth - that people outside the metropolitan elite in London are not as liberal (with a lower case 'l') as the Westminster populous and the mainstream media. They perhaps do care about gay marriage, the perceived 'decline' of the UK, immigration and the effect on jobs and they're crying out for someone that speaks to them in agreement, rather than at them in admonishment.
At the moment only UKIP, for all it's populism and the fruit-loopery of a number of it's members, does this and if the Tories or any other party wants to recapture people's trust and inspire them they have to look closely at what the appeal of UKIP is and try to emulate it - a leader with charisma and purpose would be a good start....
UKIP has had its own "issues" surrounding expenses & misuse of allowances etc. They are not so whiter than white.However, the allure of UKIP as a 'none of the above' party is strong - with Westminster discredited after expenses and the like and with the notion that politician=liar almost taken as read, the worst thing the mainstream and their supporters could do is to say that UKIP are not 'proper' politicians.
An increasing number of the voting population would like to rid politics of the 'professional' politician, and instead have people in charge who've 'served an apprenticeship' in the real world. For myself, I'm heartily sick of politicians telling me they know what's best for the country despite having never left the Westminster bubble since the day they graduated. How can they know what their voters have to go through day to day if they've never lived in the world outside Westminster?
It's much of what's wrong with politics in Britain today and it's driving ever fewer numbers of people out to vote - there's a reason turnout was higher than usual for a by-election in Eastleigh, it's that there was a party that people felt positive about voting for instead of one they felt they ought to in order to keep a more unpleasant one out.
The mainstream parties need to up their game quite considerably. A serious strategy to beat UKIP involves promoting scrutiny of its actual policies and accepting a rather unpalatable truth - that people outside the metropolitan elite in London are not as liberal (with a lower case 'l') as the Westminster populous and the mainstream media. They perhaps do care about gay marriage, the perceived 'decline' of the UK, immigration and the effect on jobs and they're crying out for someone that speaks to them in agreement, rather than at them in admonishment.
At the moment only UKIP, for all it's populism and the fruit-loopery of a number of it's members, does this and if the Tories or any other party wants to recapture people's trust and inspire them they have to look closely at what the appeal of UKIP is and try to emulate it - a leader with charisma and purpose would be a good start....
So when people like you bang on about how ill prepared they are for government, it simply serves to strengthen that image in peoples minds.
Mark Benson said:
Wombat3 said:
Mark Benson said:
All very true IMO, and it's what has stopped me so far putting a cross in any box next to 'UKIP'.
However, the allure of UKIP as a 'none of the above' party is strong - with Westminster discredited after expenses and the like and with the notion that politician=liar almost taken as read, the worst thing the mainstream and their supporters could do is to say that UKIP are not 'proper' politicians.
An increasing number of the voting population would like to rid politics of the 'professional' politician, and instead have people in charge who've 'served an apprenticeship' in the real world. For myself, I'm heartily sick of politicians telling me they know what's best for the country despite having never left the Westminster bubble since the day they graduated. How can they know what their voters have to go through day to day if they've never lived in the world outside Westminster?
It's much of what's wrong with politics in Britain today and it's driving ever fewer numbers of people out to vote - there's a reason turnout was higher than usual for a by-election in Eastleigh, it's that there was a party that people felt positive about voting for instead of one they felt they ought to in order to keep a more unpleasant one out.
The mainstream parties need to up their game quite considerably. A serious strategy to beat UKIP involves promoting scrutiny of its actual policies and accepting a rather unpalatable truth - that people outside the metropolitan elite in London are not as liberal (with a lower case 'l') as the Westminster populous and the mainstream media. They perhaps do care about gay marriage, the perceived 'decline' of the UK, immigration and the effect on jobs and they're crying out for someone that speaks to them in agreement, rather than at them in admonishment.
At the moment only UKIP, for all it's populism and the fruit-loopery of a number of it's members, does this and if the Tories or any other party wants to recapture people's trust and inspire them they have to look closely at what the appeal of UKIP is and try to emulate it - a leader with charisma and purpose would be a good start....
UKIP has had its own "issues" surrounding expenses & misuse of allowances etc. They are not so whiter than white.However, the allure of UKIP as a 'none of the above' party is strong - with Westminster discredited after expenses and the like and with the notion that politician=liar almost taken as read, the worst thing the mainstream and their supporters could do is to say that UKIP are not 'proper' politicians.
An increasing number of the voting population would like to rid politics of the 'professional' politician, and instead have people in charge who've 'served an apprenticeship' in the real world. For myself, I'm heartily sick of politicians telling me they know what's best for the country despite having never left the Westminster bubble since the day they graduated. How can they know what their voters have to go through day to day if they've never lived in the world outside Westminster?
It's much of what's wrong with politics in Britain today and it's driving ever fewer numbers of people out to vote - there's a reason turnout was higher than usual for a by-election in Eastleigh, it's that there was a party that people felt positive about voting for instead of one they felt they ought to in order to keep a more unpleasant one out.
The mainstream parties need to up their game quite considerably. A serious strategy to beat UKIP involves promoting scrutiny of its actual policies and accepting a rather unpalatable truth - that people outside the metropolitan elite in London are not as liberal (with a lower case 'l') as the Westminster populous and the mainstream media. They perhaps do care about gay marriage, the perceived 'decline' of the UK, immigration and the effect on jobs and they're crying out for someone that speaks to them in agreement, rather than at them in admonishment.
At the moment only UKIP, for all it's populism and the fruit-loopery of a number of it's members, does this and if the Tories or any other party wants to recapture people's trust and inspire them they have to look closely at what the appeal of UKIP is and try to emulate it - a leader with charisma and purpose would be a good start....
So when people like you bang on about how ill prepared they are for government, it simply serves to strengthen that image in peoples minds.
Wombat3 said:
In real terms its also an immense weakness. The Chinese/Indians/Americans etc (and the EU) will eat them for breakfast.
How? You've alluded to this a few times, so what do you think will actually happen? Not loss of credibility, problems in "the markets" or any other vague insinuations. What will we actually lose out on form this breakfast eating?AJS- said:
Wombat3 said:
In real terms its also an immense weakness. The Chinese/Indians/Americans etc (and the EU) will eat them for breakfast.
How? You've alluded to this a few times, so what do you think will actually happen? Not loss of credibility, problems in "the markets" or any other vague insinuations. What will we actually lose out on form this breakfast eating?Wombat3 said:
We are quite a smalll country that owes a lot of money. They will get negotiated into oblivion (and won't even see it coming). Its what usually happens to inexperienced and reactionary politicians.
In any negotiation I would be rather more inclined to back someone with experience in business than a career politician. (And that's without remarking that a lot of the negotiation is being fecked up by the uncivil disservice.)AJS- said:
Wombat3 said:
We are quite a smalll country that owes a lot of money. They will get negotiated into oblivion (and won't even see it coming). Its what usually happens to inexperienced and reactionary politicians.
What negotiations? What won't they see coming?Inexperienced & reactionary = get killed in any negotiation. Every time. Business or politics, its always the same
Wombat3 said:
AJS- said:
Wombat3 said:
In real terms its also an immense weakness. The Chinese/Indians/Americans etc (and the EU) will eat them for breakfast.
How? You've alluded to this a few times, so what do you think will actually happen? Not loss of credibility, problems in "the markets" or any other vague insinuations. What will we actually lose out on form this breakfast eating?In your own words, next!
AJS- said:
Wombat3 said:
Oh for goodness sake, Everything that happens internationally. G7, G20, EU exit terms, IMF etc etc etc.
Inexperienced & reactionary = get killed in any negotiation. Every time. Business or politics, its always the same
We'll get killed by G7 and the IMF?Inexperienced & reactionary = get killed in any negotiation. Every time. Business or politics, its always the same
Negotiating what?
(then again as a UKIPer you probably think we can sit on our little island and never talk to anyone again!)
Wombat3 said:
Are you Ed Miliband?
(then again as a UKIPer you probably think we can sit on our little island and never talk to anyone again!)
No, I'd just like some specifics of what it is that so horrifies you, rather than vague lists of international organisations, and threats that they'd kill us and eat us for breakfast in some way, while Cameron sails through with the assured confidence of someone who wears a blue, red or yellow rosette at election time.(then again as a UKIPer you probably think we can sit on our little island and never talk to anyone again!)
What do you actually mean?
Einion Yrth said:
AJS- said:
What do you actually mean?
As far as I can tell it's just FUD, they're more desperate than they claim.AJS- said:
Wombat3 said:
Are you Ed Miliband?
(then again as a UKIPer you probably think we can sit on our little island and never talk to anyone again!)
No, I'd just like some specifics of what it is that so horrifies you, rather than vague lists of international organisations, and threats that they'd kill us and eat us for breakfast in some way, while Cameron sails through with the assured confidence of someone who wears a blue, red or yellow rosette at election time.(then again as a UKIPer you probably think we can sit on our little island and never talk to anyone again!)
What do you actually mean?
It makes for some quite good entertainment but it doesn't fly in the real world.
Your opinion is clearly different but I only hope(for your sake) you too can afford to leave if UKIP delivers Mili-Balls to Downing st in 2015.
There is no doubt that Cameron (and Hague) etc are experienced politicians who carry considerable respect in the US & elsewhere.
Wombat3 said:
Anything and anyone I've ever encountered or seen from UKIP has been inexperienced, reactionary & clearly didn't understand the mening of the words debate or compromise. You only have to look at the way they work in Brussels, on TV etc etc.
It makes for some quite good entertainment but it doesn't fly in the real world.
Your opinion is clearly different but I only hope(for your sake) you too can afford to leave when UK delivers Mili-Balls to Downing st in 2015.
There is no doubt that Cameron (and Hague) etc are experienced politicians who carry considerable respect in the US & elsewhere.
Yeah yeah. It makes for some quite good entertainment but it doesn't fly in the real world.
Your opinion is clearly different but I only hope(for your sake) you too can afford to leave when UK delivers Mili-Balls to Downing st in 2015.
There is no doubt that Cameron (and Hague) etc are experienced politicians who carry considerable respect in the US & elsewhere.
So is there actually any one specific thing where this experience, and the global respect Cameron commands (really?) helps us as British citizens that a UKIP government could not deliver?
Anything at all?
AJS- said:
Wombat3 said:
Anything and anyone I've ever encountered or seen from UKIP has been inexperienced, reactionary & clearly didn't understand the mening of the words debate or compromise. You only have to look at the way they work in Brussels, on TV etc etc.
It makes for some quite good entertainment but it doesn't fly in the real world.
Your opinion is clearly different but I only hope(for your sake) you too can afford to leave when UK delivers Mili-Balls to Downing st in 2015.
There is no doubt that Cameron (and Hague) etc are experienced politicians who carry considerable respect in the US & elsewhere.
Yeah yeah. It makes for some quite good entertainment but it doesn't fly in the real world.
Your opinion is clearly different but I only hope(for your sake) you too can afford to leave when UK delivers Mili-Balls to Downing st in 2015.
There is no doubt that Cameron (and Hague) etc are experienced politicians who carry considerable respect in the US & elsewhere.
So is there actually any one specific thing where this experience, and the global respect Cameron commands (really?) helps us as British citizens that a UKIP government could not deliver?
Anything at all?
No, of course not, absolutely no value WHATSOEVER in experience or ability or knowledge or approach etc etc
Lets just send Nigel & that lunatic Bloom out there to tell them all how wrong headed they are - its bound to go down an absolute storm!
Hurrah and sausages for tea!
What?
I never said experience has no value, I just asked what and how Farage's relative lack of experience compared to Cameron would make life worse for the average voter?
Just for the record, Cameron was 7 when Britain joined the EU, and since we haven't been involved in any trade negotiations since joining, it's hard to see that he has any more experience than Farage in that matter.
I never said experience has no value, I just asked what and how Farage's relative lack of experience compared to Cameron would make life worse for the average voter?
Just for the record, Cameron was 7 when Britain joined the EU, and since we haven't been involved in any trade negotiations since joining, it's hard to see that he has any more experience than Farage in that matter.
AJS- said:
What?
I never said experience has no value, I just asked what and how Farage's relative lack of experience compared to Cameron would make life worse for the average voter?
Just for the record, Cameron was 7 when Britain joined the EU, and since we haven't been involved in any trade negotiations since joining, it's hard to see that he has any more experience than Farage in that matter.
Farage is a loose cannon and therefore a liability. SImple enough?I never said experience has no value, I just asked what and how Farage's relative lack of experience compared to Cameron would make life worse for the average voter?
Just for the record, Cameron was 7 when Britain joined the EU, and since we haven't been involved in any trade negotiations since joining, it's hard to see that he has any more experience than Farage in that matter.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff