Floating voter - UKIP why not?

[brenflys777]

I have voted for the Conservatives and Labour at different stages of my life. I am pro-Europe but anti-EU.

I am increasingly frustrated by politicians who seem to justify a reluctance to give a referendum on the EU on the basis that I do not understand the issue and may vote the wrong way...

I hoped a coalition might provide the best of talents but now see just a lack of direction. The recent 'plebgate' incident has tipped me away from tactical voting on the basis of which party I do not want elected and made me consider UKIP more seriously. A review of their website and policies shows nothing to concern me. So as someone who has not entirely made their mind up.. UKIP - why not?

[brenflys777]

Ok. So, no reasons so far other than 'vote UKIP = get Labour' .. well I don't find this convincing anymore, even voting Conservative does not get Conservative so I think I may go back to principals and vote for belief rather than tactics, in which case - why not UKIP?

[brenflys777]

martin84 said:

brenflys777 said:

even voting Conservative does not get Conservative

Not when nearly 7 million vote for the Liberal Democrats and 35% stay at home you don't. Keep in mind maybe a quarter of them 7m could transfer to Labour in 2015 as the Lib Dems fall off the cliff. Do you really want to take your vote away from the one party with a halfway realistic chance of stopping them and instead vote for one which needs 1 million votes to get one seat?

At the moment YES. If they are closer to my ideal than a party whose chief whip either labels his protection team as plebs or liars, quite frankly why not?

[brenflys777]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

OP, list 5 reasons ?

Is that list 5 reasons 'why not', 'why' or something more obscure?

[brenflys777]

Pesty said:

martin84 said:

B) Vote UKIP = get Labour.

I really really really fking hate this argument.

Who cares blue/red get in its all the same.

Until people start voting for something different we will just continue as we are for ever and ever.

Our politics is broken, until we show them by doing somethign different we just perpetuate it and s like Blair and cameron get in for ever and ever.

Exactly.

[brenflys777]

Thanks for the replies.

If I've followed this so far the negatives are perceived by some to be:

a) a wasted vote if they are unlikely to get in.
b) a policy of allowing some smoking in public.
c) a policy which refutes man made climate changes impact.
d) some people will assume you are a racist, xenophobic or sympathiser etc even without evidence.
e) a reliance on their current leader to sustain the party.
f) disputed figures over the financial effects of a withdrawal from the EU.

Have I missed any?

[brenflys777]

eharding said:

brenflys777 said:

Thanks for the replies.

If I've followed this so far the negatives are perceived by some to be:

a) a wasted vote if they are unlikely to get in.
b) a policy of allowing some smoking in public.
c) a policy which refutes man made climate changes impact.
d) some people will assume you are a racist, xenophobic or sympathiser etc even without evidence.
e) a reliance on their current leader to sustain the party.
f) disputed figures over the financial effects of a withdrawal from the EU.

Have I missed any?

g) They get really arsey if you mention (a)-(f)

The arsey-ness seems to occur on both sides of the street from the evidence of this thread, so not a particular issue with UKIP.

[brenflys777]

eharding said:

So...tell me what you see...



1) A Butterfly?

2) Two Brussels Eurocrats plotting to destroy the UK?

3) Two eastern-European plumbers fixing a blocked khazi for 20% of the fee one of our own home-bred plumbers would charge?

Two lesbians with feathery hats around a cauldron trying to spear a butterfly with their chests? Psychometric testing has always passed me

[brenflys777]

otolith said:

I assumed most people had come across it before, sorry about that. If you haven't, you may find it interesting to go through the questionaire it is based on and see where the results place you;

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I've never seen that graph before... it was very interesting but I think the questions may be flawed - I answered honestly and ended up at the same point
as the Dalai Lama.

[brenflys777]

Prof Beard said:

brenflys777 said:

eharding said:

So...tell me what you see...



1) A Butterfly?

2) Two Brussels Eurocrats plotting to destroy the UK?

3) Two eastern-European plumbers fixing a blocked khazi for 20% of the fee one of our own home-bred plumbers would charge?

Two lesbians with feathery hats around a cauldron trying to spear a butterfly with their chests? Psychometric testing has always passed me

I thought much the same, but didn't come to any conclusion regarding their sexual preferences...

I'm a glass half full person. I forgot to mention that they were naked.

[brenflys777]

Breadvan72 said:

UKIP = BNP for people who don't like tattoos.

I'm not entirely convinced by the reasoned arguments you have presented, but I'm also troubled by this quandary you present, as I loathe the BNP, quite like tattoos, but am considering voting UKIP.

[brenflys777]

Breadvan72:

I am prepared to defer to your knowledge of army and prison sex. HTH.

Edited by brenflys777 on Saturday 6th October 00:43

[brenflys777]

Breadvan72 said:

Political opinions are of course just opinions. I don't feel insulted if someone disagrees with my opinions, and don't feel the need to shout and swear if someone characterises one of my opinions in a disparaging fashion.

Is it fair to describe UKIP as a party which has xenophobic elements, or appeals to xenophobia in voters? I think that it is. See, for example, a bit of research here:-

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/news/documents/pdf/str...

My main objection to UKIP is that it is effectively a pressure group, or single issue lobbying or protest party. I am no fan of either of the mainstream parties (I discount the Lib Dems as a spent force; the Coalition was for them a suicide pact).

]

Thanks for offering some evidence to support your position. I found the data interpretation quite unusual. The title of the paper - Strategic Eurosceptics and Polite Xenophobes : Support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the 2009 European Parliament Elections - suggested a less than balanced evaluation and by the end of the introduction their colours were well and truly nailed to the mast! I have only dealt with scientific data analysis at University and this is the first paper where a data loss of 40% was considered acceptable!

The repeated accusations of xenophobia and attempts to associate the party with the BNP were exceptionally poorly evidenced, I love Europe and I come from a family of immigrants so if they have some evidence rather than smears I would rather see it before any vote.

Anyway, the paper was not a total loss for me because the evident bias made me wonder about the authors agenda and at the time of the publication in 2010 the authors were associated with The University of Manchester and Nottingham University. A quick look on the EU website shows that The University of Manchester was a shared beneficiary of the EU budget centrally administered by the Commission to the tune of 226,012,728 Euro's for research in 2010. Whilst this was shared with many other institutions and firms my particular favourite was an individual grant to The University of Manchester of 80,000 Euros for - Multilateral project : The Reconceptualization of European Union Citizenship. I think your link may have made my mind up!

( Nottingham also had extensive shared funding but my daughters gymnastics finished before I added up the totals!)

[brenflys777]

Breadvan72 said:

HTH, but are you not mildly perturbed by the alliances made by UKIP in the Europarliament? In addition, there remains the problem of a party that is focussed on one main issue.

In the smog of the more emotional posts I'd missed the issue of alliances made by UKIP in the Europarliament. One of the questions on the graph data posted earlier asks if you agree with the statement 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'... well my answer would be no, so would I be concerned that UKIP talk to bigots and nut jobs.. well yes, but in my own experience as a former Policeman, we had to deal with informants to get the job done, I have no doubt the British Government will have contacts with the Taliban for times when pragmatism overides principal, so unfortunately I can foresee a point where UKIP might form a convenient alliance with someone UKIP supporters would not favour to get the job done and depending on the circumstances and issues I would accept that as one of the costs of doing business. Having said that if anyone can point me in the direction of an example of one of these alliances I will look into it.

As for the focus on a single issue, I think that's fair comment. The party stands on the unfairness of the EU as its guiding principal so there will doubtless be areas I disagree with, but of the issues raised so far none was a deal-breaker for me.. but then everey other party has stances I disagree with so I may just be disagreeable!

One thing I failed to mention about the link you provided was that I can understand why pro-EU people might be alarmed by UKIP, because if researchers like the authors of that paper genuinely think that UKIP=BNP + politeness ( and aren't just trying to score cheap shock effect ) then between the two they achieved over 22% of the UK vote. So over 1 in 5 UK voters in that election are racist xenophobes by their definition.