Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

I hope to God they don't.

UKIP are a mixture of Tory voters and former BNP types who are trying to hide racism. They're a party that give easy answers to complicated questions, us being in the EU has next to no impact on the lives of 99% of the people. Farage is also as much of an "establishment" man as Cameron and co, to his credit he has done well to hide that. It was less than a year ago when some of his members were claiming gay marriage was causing the bad weather.
 
MancunianAngels said:
I hope to God they don't.

UKIP are a mixture of Tory voters and former BNP types who are trying to hide racism. They're a party that give easy answers to complicated questions, us being in the EU has next to no impact on the lives of 99% of the people. Farage is also as much of an "establishment" man as Cameron and co, to his credit he has done well to hide that. It was less than a year ago when some of his members were claiming gay marriage was causing the bad weather.
Click to expand...

In Clacton it's almost certain that Douglas Carswell will win and become UKIP's first MP, two polls on The Guardian:

Lord Ashcroft's poll 2/9
UKIP 56%
Cons. 24%
Lab. 16%
L. Dem. 2%

Mail on Sunday poll 31/8
UKIP 64%
Cons. 20%
Lab. 13%
L. Dem. 2%

In Heywood it should be Labour, UKIP are expected to come second though.
 
UKIP getting way too close for comfort in Heywood and Middleton.
 
It's shocking, they were expected to win this seat by 15-20%. Between UKIP in the north of England and the SNP in Scotland, Labour could be in some shit next year.
 
Little bit but it'll probably get lost in the noise given that such big swings are going on elsewhere, and will be made up for in terms of winning pretty much every Labour/Lib Dem marginal going. The UKIP momentum is a little bit terrifying.
 
That could well be the case. I don't expect the Liberal Democrats to do well at all in 2015, they had an abysmal performance in the European Elections in May and seem to be nowhere in these by-elections.
 
I doubt UKIP will gain that many more votes in Middleton/Heywood come the general election. You'd expect Labour to pick up the majority of the extra 10% who can be arsed to vote in June.

The Labour party really need to fight back. At the very least, they need to aim for taking back the seats they lost to Lib Dem.

Majority of UKIP policies are unworkable in 21st century politics, what's left is just very Tory.
 
Lot's of retired old age pensioners in Clacton, blaming immigrants for the lack of jobs .Go figure.
 
Drifter said:
Lot's of retired old age pensioners in Clacton, blaming immigrants for the lack of jobs .Go figure.
Click to expand...

You'll have some blaming immigrants for taking 'all of our jobs' while other moan about immigrants leeching our benefits system.
 
Not sure it's a direct analogy, but the dismay expressed about UKIP's gains remind me of folks over here talking about the Tea Party.

I think it's not a good idea for any mainstream party to dismiss a sizeable share of the electorate as a bunch of ill-informed crackpots. If anything, the mainstream parties should be looking for reasons why their policies/messages don't connect with so many people.

I'm a good Democrat and all, but I don't like the DC cocktail party chatter where many of my friends and acquaintances bemoan the inability of dumb people to just simply "get it."

That people may be misinformed or pandered to is beyond question-that's no reason to retreat into a smug cocoon and write-off potential voters.
 
There is a definite comparison. Both came about due to the grass roots wanting a more socially conservative party than the leadership did.
 
Some old blokes at work today were talking about how it's a scary thing that UKIP won last night, and potentially a sign of things to come - comparing them to all sorts of fascists throughout recent history.

I could only think that in this day and age, where so much information is available to anyone and everyone nationwide (and globally) so freely, and politicians are as transparent as ever.. is there a real danger here? I just can't see it happening. I imagine in the past, scare-mongering, divisive tactics (us vs them) like we see from UKIP were much more effective because of the distance between 'us' vs 'them' and relative lack of information, fear or ill-feeling for the unknown. The world is much smaller now and reality is clearer than ever to everyone. I think now, they can be seen for exactly what they are by the majority of the public, completely exposed. I may be way off, but I really can't put into words how important the 'internet' age has been.

Look at how terrible the mainstream parties have been. Recessions, unpopular wars, politicians who are completely alien to a normal British upbringing who cannot possibly hope to represent regular folk... this has been going on for a while now yet UKIP still remain just a fringe party. Things have gotten so bad (in some respects) yet the majority of the British public still do not want these nasty cnuts. I can't help but think if this had happened 40 years ago it'd be a much different story.
 
It's tough to say how much these by-elections and the Europeans in May will mean come 2015. UKIP weren't even supposed to be near Labour in Heywood and they got within a few hundred votes. That said, the turn out was low (36%) so the gap may widen next time.
 
saivet said:
You'll have some blaming immigrants for taking 'all of our jobs' while other moan about immigrants leeching our benefits system.
Click to expand...

Yeah while the facts are that most of the claimants for benefits are born and bred in Clacton.
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
Some old blokes at work today were talking about how it's a scary thing that UKIP won last night, and potentially a sign of things to come - comparing them to all sorts of fascists throughout recent history.

I could only think that in this day and age, where so much information is available to anyone and everyone nationwide (and globally) so freely, and politicians are as transparent as ever.. is there a real danger here? I just can't see it happening. I imagine in the past, scare-mongering, divisive tactics (us vs them) like we see from UKIP were much more effective because of the distance between 'us' vs 'them' and relative lack of information, fear or ill-feeling for the unknown. The world is much smaller now and reality is clearer than ever to everyone. I think now, they can be seen for exactly what they are by the majority of the public, completely exposed. I may be way off, but I really can't put into words how important the 'internet' age has been.

Look at how terrible the mainstream parties have been. Recessions, unpopular wars, politicians who are completely alien to a normal British upbringing who cannot possibly hope to represent regular folk... this has been going on for a while now yet UKIP still remain just a fringe party. Things have gotten so bad (in some respects) yet the majority of the British public still do not want these nasty cnuts. I can't help but think if this had happened 40 years ago it'd be a much different story.
Click to expand...
A (fairly) openly neo-Nazi party got nearly 10% of the vote in the recent Greek european elections. It doesn't really settle my mind that 90% didn't vote for them, because that's still one hell of a lot of people aligning themselves with fascists. You can win a majority in the UK with 35% of the vote (less if you're really efficient with your vote). Whilst UKIP isn't close to that at the moment nationally, it's hard not to worry when they're growing so quickly. With an elected MP they can now claim some legitimacy and the issues that popularise them aren't going away any time soon. You'd hope that with time their novelty wears thin and their credibility fades, but with the state of the mainstream parties I fear they're around for a while yet.
 
MancunianAngels said:
I hope to God they don't.

UKIP are a mixture of Tory voters and former BNP types who are trying to hide racism. They're a party that give easy answers to complicated questions, us being in the EU has next to no impact on the lives of 99% of the people. Farage is also as much of an "establishment" man as Cameron and co, to his credit he has done well to hide that. It was less than a year ago when some of his members were claiming gay marriage was causing the bad weather.
Click to expand...


I don't think that's true if you want to stop immigration. Being in the EU prevents the UK govt from implementing policies which would curb it drastically. UKIP voters want a stop put on immigration so to them the UK being in the EU is having an impact on them.
 
Just watching Thursday's QT. Anyone notice the UKIP voter unaware he was pulling a Nazi salute the whole time he was talking? :lol:

Edit -
 
Nigel Farage invited to take part in 2015 TV leaders’ debates
• Ukip leader could appear with PM, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband
• Plan rejected by Lib Dems, Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru
• PM questions how Farage can be included without Greens

Nigel Farage has been invited by the UK’s leading broadcasters to take part in a TV leaders’ debate in the runup to next year’s general election.

The Ukip leader is being offered a place in a live debate with David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband to be broadcast on ITV, in a joint proposal pitched to the main political parties on Monday morning.

The BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky News have jointly agreed to a plan for three TV debates and written to the leaders of the four parties with their proposal, which amounts to an opening of negotiations with the various political leaders.

Their plan is for three debates: Channel 4 and Sky News would co-produce a debate with Cameron and Miliband hosted by Jeremy Paxman; the BBC would host another with the leaders of the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems with David Dimbleby in the chair; and all three would face Farage in the third debate, produced by ITV and chaired by Julie Etchingham.

However, the broadcasters’ plan swiftly came in for criticism from across the political spectrum, suggesting that long and potentially tricky talks are in prospect - with the possibility of a legal challenge in the form of a judicial review from any parties that find themselves excluded.

Cameron said he was in favour of TV debates but questioned their timing and how Farage could be included without Green party leader Natalie Bennett, as both have a single MP.

“Why have all the debates inside the election campaign, rather than spreading them out over a longer period? And also, why include some parties and not other parties?” the prime minister told journalists during a visit to Portsmouth. “I’m in favour of TV debates, but you’ve got to make sure you come up with a proposal that everyone can agree to, and I can’t see how you can have one party in that has an MP in Parliament, and not another party.”

The broadcasters’ plan was dismissed by the Lib Dems and parties excluded from the proposed debates – the Greens, Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru.

Farage also responded on Twitter by asking to be included in a second debate, “if political landscape continues to change”.

Lib Dems, Green party, SNP and Plaid Cymru reject broadcasters’ proposals
The Lib Dems issued a statement saying they would not accept being excluded from one of the debates and proposed the same format as for the 2010 election – three live programmes with Clegg and his Tory and Labour counterparts.

“We do not accept the proposal that the Liberal Democrats, as a party of government, should be prevented from defending our record in one of the TV debates,” the Lib Dems said.

“That is the case we will make strongly in the negotiations that will now take place and we urge the other parties to join us around the negotiating table without excuse or delay.”

Natalie Bennett, the Green party leader, said the proposal from the broadcasters to exclude her party showed “just how out of touch they are with the public mood, and how ridiculously they cling to the idea that the future of politics looks like the past”.

In a statement Bennett said potential Green party voters “would be seriously shortchanged by debates from which we were excluded”.

The Scottish National party’s leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson, also dismissed the plan as “utterly unacceptable to any democrat”.

“Current Westminster voting intentions put the SNP in the lead in Scotland, and it is clearly wrong that the leader of the third biggest political party in the UK should be shut out of these network debates,” Robertson said.

“This looks like yet another cosy Westminster carve-up, and we need to know what discussions the broadcasters have had with the other parties, and why there has been absolutely no discussion with the SNP.”

Leanne Wood, leader of Welsh nationalist party Plaid Cymru, said the debates “should be a true reflection of the choice facing people in all corners of the UK at the general election”.

Wood added: “Broadcasters have shown themselves to be out of touch by clinging on to the notion that there is no alternative to the tired Westminster elite.”

Broadcasters’ proposals in more detail
• One head-to-head debate between the two leaders mostly likely to become prime minister – Cameron and Miliband, co-produced by Sky News and Channel 4 and chaired by Jeremy Paxman, with Kay Burley hosting pre and post debate coverage. Both broadcasters would show this debate live.

• One debate between Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, produced by the BBC, presented by Dimbleby, and broadcast live on BBC1, with extensive coverage on the corporation’s other TV and radio networks.

• One debate between Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Farage, produced and broadcast by ITV, chaired by Etchingham.

Each broadcaster will make their debate available live to all other media outlets.

All four broadcasters will also offer live online streaming of the debates, which would take place within the six week general election campaign in the run up to polling day on 7 May.

The broadcasters are proposing that the debates would take place on 2 April, 16 April and 30 April at locations around the UK, with audiences made of up members of the general public, who will be able to ask questions. Each debate would be open to questions across all subject areas.

Audiences would be asked to submit questions and the broadcasters plan to work with social media organisations including Twitter and Facebook.

The plan will be regarded as an opening gambit from the broadcasters, with the main political parties also talking to other media organisations about potential leaders’ debate formats.

Internet debate
Guardian News & Media and Telegraph Media Group have proposed an internet debate with a woman moderator to be streamed live online in a partnership with YouTube.

The newspaper groups and Google-owned YouTube have been in discussion with the main parties about the proposal, #onlinedebate, since formally pitching their plan in May.

GNM, TMG and YouTube are offering a live feed that could be embedded on any media website and carried by any broadcasters on traditional TV and radio.

They argue that this would be much more flexible and accessible than traditional TV debates, available across a range of platforms and devices and more in tune with how people consume information in the digital age.

In the 2010 general election the BBC, ITV and Sky News each hosted a live 90-minute debate with the three main party leaders – Cameron, Clegg and Labour prime minister Gordon Brown.
Click to expand...


http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/13/nigel-farage-2015-leaders-debates-bbc-itv-sky-news
 
Think they should just can the debates to be honest, overly presidential anyway and once you let Farage in (and there's no genuine reason not to), pandora's box is opened to the other smaller parties.
 
Ubik said:
Think they should just can the debates to be honest, overly presidential anyway and once you let Farage in (and there's no genuine reason not to), pandora's box is opened to the other smaller parties.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they didn't really do anything for all the parties during the 2010 election.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I don't think that's true if you want to stop immigration. Being in the EU prevents the UK govt from implementing policies which would curb it drastically. UKIP voters want a stop put on immigration so to them the UK being in the EU is having an impact on them.
Click to expand...

Will the life of a UKIP voter change if we're out of the EU? Most probably wouldn't notice it.

As for the TV debates, the ones in 2010 were great with Nick Clegg and it was made to seem like a new era for British Politics.

As a country we're very split on every major issue, this general election will be a mess. I consider myself left wing and voted Green in my by election. In a bizarre way though I hope Cameron gets a majority. Milliband could set the Labour party back years if he gets in and makes a mess of it.

There's a definite argument that Labour could rebuild with a proper manifesto with someone that is more than just the lesser of two evils. That won't happen and a Labour Government with Ed in charge will just be not quite as bad as the current Government. I do think they'll get in though but it could be very close.

I was speaking to a few NHS workers on strike today, many were anti Tory but don't see the current Labour party as the answer. There's nowhere for them to turn politically speaking. That opinion might change of course if they (Labour) come out fighting.
 
MancunianAngels said:
Will the life of a UKIP voter change if we're out of the EU? Most probably wouldn't notice it.

As for the TV debates, the ones in 2010 were great with Nick Clegg and it was made to seem like a new era for British Politics.

As a country we're very split on every major issue, this general election will be a mess. I consider myself left wing and voted Green in my by election. In a bizarre way though I hope Cameron gets a majority. Milliband could set the Labour party back years if he gets in and makes a mess of it.

There's a definite argument that Labour could rebuild with a proper manifesto with someone that is more than just the lesser of two evils. That won't happen and a Labour Government with Ed in charge will just be not quite as bad as the current Government. I do think they'll get in though but it could be very close.

I was speaking to a few NHS workers on strike today, many were anti Tory but don't see the current Labour party as the answer. There's nowhere for them to turn politically speaking. That opinion might change of course if they (Labour) come out fighting.
Click to expand...


If Ed M gets a majority the country is F****d, business realise it, and my main concern is that the deficit will not be addressed by any of the parties, nor by a coalition. The electorate just don't seem to get that to reduce the deficit there will be pain, but we pretty much have no choice, so our new govt will be a watered down version of what is really needed.
 
Chorley1974 said:
If Ed M gets a majority the country is F****d, business realise it, and my main concern is that the deficit will not be addressed by any of the parties, nor by a coalition. The electorate just don't seem to get that to reduce the deficit there will be pain, but we pretty much have no choice, so our new govt will be a watered down version of what is really needed.
Click to expand...

Which is?
 
Chorley1974 said:
If Ed M gets a majority the country is F****d, business realise it, and my main concern is that the deficit will not be addressed by any of the parties, nor by a coalition. The electorate just don't seem to get that to reduce the deficit there will be pain, but we pretty much have no choice, so our new govt will be a watered down version of what is really needed.
Click to expand...

In reality there is no option.
Farage Tory in all but name, Milliband doesn't like upsetting people and Cameron is just a cnut.

The Mansion Tax was a good idea to start with, Labour need to build on that now.

Public Sector Workers have every right to be pissed off when MP's are reportedly (is that definite?) being offered a pay rise?
 
MancunianAngels said:
In reality there is no option.
Farage Tory in all but name, Milliband doesn't like upsetting people and Cameron is just a cnut.

The Mansion Tax was a good idea to start with, Labour need to build on that now.

Public Sector Workers have every right to be pissed off when MP's are reportedly (is that definite?) being offered a pay rise?
Click to expand...
IPSA, an independent organisation set up by the government in the wake of the expenses bullshit, have basically done some maths and figured out MPs are due an 11% pay rise next year. MPs of all parties are clamouring to say they don't want it the loudest. Mess of a situation. Can't be allowed though, because as you say others in the public sector are capped far below that.
 
I thought their payrise was simply so they can get rid of a lot of ambiguity with the expenses. I could be wrong there, but is it really that important in the grand scheme of things? They should be well-paid, and if I'm not mistaken and it isn't a pay-rise out of thin air and due to changes in the way expenses are handled then it's another example of politics being scared of the obtuse media. Of course if it is just a regular pay rise then I stand corrected, I'm sure I read it somewhere though. 10% (reported figure I think) would be farcical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.