/ Are all UKIP votes protest votes, surely not?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The Lemming - on 03 May 2013
Anybody care to explain why UKIP did so well at the ballots?

Father Noel Furlong on 03 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:

At a guess I'd say was it that more people voted for them than for the other parties?
Don'tTellHim Pike - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming: It's because they can't see daylight between the other three parties.
Don'tTellHim Pike - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming: I believe that as we approach 2015 there will be something of a shift with UKIP overtaking the LibDems or even the Conservatives to acheive a "major" party status.
Sir Chasm - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming: It's a mid term protest vote for a party people don't feel has shafted them, yet. Prior to 2010 it might have been lib dems but people seem unwilling to vote for them now for some reason.
Clint86 - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming: I reckon we are in changing times and the mainstream parties aren't able to offer people what they want...more of what we already have. Ukip are offering an alternative, (not a very good one) . If they got into power, they would then realise that they can't deliver either.
Mike Stretford - on 03 May 2013
In reply to GrumpySod: They'll have the same problem as the lib dems/sdp alliance ect have had for years. Decent support but unable to turn it into enough parliamentary seats.
puppythedog on 03 May 2013
In reply to GrumpySod: I agree, i hope that we see the same from the Green party too. I no longer vote any of the main parties because they are all clumped to the right of centre (my feeling so no-one ask for evidence). There are obvious differences between the Party's identities but not necessarily much in their economic policy/plan/ideals.
EeeByGum - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming: Whether you love or hate UKIP, they do talk a language that resonates with the views of many punters on the street.

Anti EU
Anti immigration
Tax the rich
UK people first

That sort of thing.

As for the Tories and Labour. The Tories are hell bent on trying to make a name for themselves in the history books by screwing everything up and all Labour can do is oppose everything. Whilst both bicker like an elderly wedded couple, neither are showing any sort of interest or compassion for the hard times the ordinary man on the street is experiencing.
pebbles - on 03 May 2013
In reply to EeeByGum: Whether you love or hate UKIP, they do talk a language that resonates with the views of many punters on the street.
>

yeah, but so does the pissed up old git in the corner of the pub! In fact the P.U.O.G is probably their target voter
tony on 03 May 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to The Lemming) Whether you love or hate UKIP, they do talk a language that resonates with the views of many punters on the street.
>
> Anti EU
> Anti immigration
> Tax the rich
> UK people first

And they're selling lies. They're selling the idea that if they were allowed to 'solve' all the above problems, the world would be right and England would be a lovely place (and I say England deliberately). Whereas the truth is that it's pretty unlikely that the average person in the street would notice much difference just on the back of exit from the EU and fewer immigrants. None of that is an answer to the economic problems we have. I don't think it's coincidence that UKIP is coming to prominence at a time when there is so much general discontent - they're a fine focus for the discontented, but as a solution to the country's problems, they leave a lot to be desired.
bluebealach - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming: Just watching BBC 24hr News Channel and a debate relating to the election results as they come in.

It's interesting to see (in the seating plan and the debate) that it appears to be Farage against the others.

It seems at times quite heated, but it it does appear that the 'major' parties are extremely worried about UKIP and its almost 'gang' mentality to discredit UKIP in general and Farage in-particular.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 03 May 2013
In reply to pebbles: There must be a lot of P.U.O.G 's then judging by the voting last night.

What's interesting is how politics has to keep shifting rightwards to keep up with the man on the street. We already had Nu labour shift rightwards to gain power from the Tories. The Tories have tried to be more central to compete with Nu Labour but we are still centre right,

And now we have UKIP disturbing the peace.

For me the prime reason for this is the economic death spriral we are all in. Without wanting to sound dramatic, there are a few similarities with the Weimar republic with debt levels, potential inflation (after deflation) and a disseffected electorate desperate for change with few alternatives. (I don't think we are about to invade anyone though)

As for their policies being lies and promising a better future? err, where have we seen that before? Labour and Tories economic policies are completely made up with guess work. Look where we are now. UKIP can buy their policies off the shelf from some think tank for a general election...it doesn't matter a jot. They are forcing a change in the big two. That will be their likely legacy as far as I am concerned.
The New NickB - on 03 May 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:

Tax the rich?!

Are you sure, I know much of their policy is confused, but they seem like a low tax party to me.
Chris the Tall - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:
Blaming foreigners for our problems will always attract votes from knee-jerk thinkers.

This is a party who believe that getting bikes off the roads will solve traffic problems. Basically the sort of right wing mutters normally only found in the comments section of the mail online.
Don'tTellHim Pike - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming: It's becoming pretty obvious that when members of political parties resort to dirty war tactics against an emerging group, firstly it's an indication that they fear that emergent party and, secondly, the result is that the electorate shun the ones slinging the mud.
neilh - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:

It's our equivalent of the tea party in the USA. Except that Farage is not as good looking as Palin.
Sir Chasm - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Chris the Tall:
> (In reply to The Lemming)
> Blaming foreigners for our problems will always attract votes from knee-jerk thinkers.
>
> This is a party who believe that getting bikes off the roads will solve traffic problems. Basically the sort of right wing mutters normally only found in the comments section of the mail online.

Surely the vaguely xenophobic "the poles are stealing our jobs" people that ukip appeal to are working class, aka left wing mutters [sic].
EeeByGum - on 03 May 2013
In reply to tony:

> And they're selling lies. They're selling the idea that if they were allowed to 'solve' all the above problems, the world would be right and England would be a lovely place (and I say England deliberately). Whereas the truth is that it's pretty unlikely that the average person in the street would notice much difference just on the back of exit from the EU and fewer immigrants.

Agreed. But at least they are publicly talking about difficult matters that people on the street and pubs are talking about. The main parties will not really engage in a meaningful debate about immigration or Europe at all. As a result, they have left a gap that is being very successfully filled by UKIP. If the main parties want to head off UKIP, they simply need to move into that uncomfortable gap.
EeeByGum - on 03 May 2013
In reply to pebbles:

> yeah, but so does the pissed up old git in the corner of the pub! In fact the P.U.O.G is probably their target voter

It is all very well deriding old gits in the pub, but if they are the ones who turn up to vote whilst we languish in a malaise of apathy, at the end of the day, we only have ourselves to blame if the old gits get their way.
Don'tTellHim Pike - on 03 May 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to pebbles)
>
> [...]
>
> we only have ourselves to blame if the old gits get their way.
And why shouldn't the old gits get their way? :)

Don'tTellHim Pike - on 03 May 2013
In reply to GrumpySod:
> (In reply to EeeByGum)
> [...]
> And why shouldn't the old gits get their way? :)
(Many of us will become old gits)

EeeByGum - on 03 May 2013
In reply to GrumpySod:

> And why shouldn't the old gits get their way? :)

I never said they shouldn't. But if you don't think UKIP are the way forward but old gits are voting for them, then my argument holds true.
EeeByGum - on 03 May 2013
In reply to GrumpySod:

> (Many of us will become old gits)

I am 36 and well on my way! :-)
Jon Stewart - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to EeeByGum)
>
> Tax the rich?!
>
> Are you sure, I know much of their policy is confused, but they seem like a low tax party to me.

They're one of these "tax cuts and higher spending" parties who'll never actually have to deal with how completely hollow and nonsensical their manifesto is.

As for the immigration, I doubt we'd notice a difference anyway - it's not like they're going to send all the Poles home. Dunno what the figures are at the moment, but post 2015 I doubt there'll be hardly anyone coming in anyway - it's not like there's any jobs here.
EeeByGum - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> They're one of these "tax cuts and higher spending" parties who'll never actually have to deal with how completely hollow and nonsensical their manifesto is.

True, but to be fair, the main parties manifestos are pretty farcical too. We had the lib dems "No tuition fees" U-turn and I am right in thinking that many of the health and education reforms currently under way were not in the Tory manifesto?

> As for the immigration, I doubt we'd notice a difference anyway - it's not like they're going to send all the Poles home. Dunno what the figures are at the moment, but post 2015 I doubt there'll be hardly anyone coming in anyway - it's not like there's any jobs here.

True, but it is not rather farcical that our own government can not deport someone convicted? Or remove illegal immigrants if their passport can not be located? I have no issue with immigration on the whole, but it is well known that once in the country, it is exceedingly difficult to be deported even if you get caught. What is the point in classing people as illegal immigrants if you can do nothing about them? Why not just open our borders to anyone?
The New NickB - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I appreciate that their policies are nonsense, but I am surprised they have given the impression they are a tax the rich party.
The New NickB - on 03 May 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
> True, but it is not rather farcical that our own government can not deport someone convicted? Or remove illegal immigrants if their passport can not be located? I have no issue with immigration on the whole, but it is well known that once in the country, it is exceedingly difficult to be deported even if you get caught. What is the point in classing people as illegal immigrants if you can do nothing about them? Why not just open our borders to anyone?

Is any of this actually true, I appreciate stories will have appeared in certain papers, but do they reflect reality.
Jon Stewart - on 03 May 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
> [...]
>
> True, but to be fair, the main parties manifestos are pretty farcical too. We had the lib dems "No tuition fees" U-turn and I am right in thinking that many of the health and education reforms currently under way were not in the Tory manifesto?
>
Yes, but doing stuff not in your manifesto is different to simply having no logical tax and spend policy to begin with.
>
> True, but it is not rather farcical that our own government can not deport someone convicted?

Well, that's the cost of the way the human rights legislation works. On balance is it still a good thing?

> Or remove illegal immigrants if their passport can not be located? I have no issue with immigration on the whole, but it is well known that once in the country, it is exceedingly difficult to be deported even if you get caught. What is the point in classing people as illegal immigrants if you can do nothing about them? Why not just open our borders to anyone?

I used to work in immigration. No party is going to come in and dramatically change anything on illegal immigration - there is a lie that has been propagated since time immemorial that the government has the facility to control who comes into and goes out of the country. We're an island with a lot of ports and airports and lots and lots of people. We're also a liberal democracy which respects people's human rights. Put these things together and you just don't have control of people's movements. UKIP would achieve nothing on immigration from outside the EU. Sorry to shatter the illusion.

EeeByGum - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The New NickB:

> Is any of this actually true, I appreciate stories will have appeared in certain papers, but do they reflect reality.

Yep. Ever heard of Abu Qatada? I am not saying that the Human Rights law isn't one of the best things that has happened to our country, but I do draw the line with the fellow.

It is also a fact that if you are arrested as an illegal immigrant, but the authorities can not find your passport, either because you don't have one or have hidden it, there is sweet FA we can do about it and the immigrant is released.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Jon Stewart - on 03 May 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to The New NickB)
>

> It is also a fact that if you are arrested as an illegal immigrant, but the authorities can not find your passport, either because you don't have one or have hidden it, there is sweet FA we can do about it and the immigrant is released.

So you have an individual who's suspected of being here illegally. You kind of have to prove that before you go putting someone on a plane. You can't say "well look, he's brown and he speaks funny" it won't stand up in court.
EeeByGum - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> UKIP would achieve nothing on immigration from outside the EU. Sorry to shatter the illusion.

You make a very fair point. But there is nothing wrong with having the discussion. Immigration and the EU are a few of the last great taboos of any government.
Dave Garnett - on 03 May 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:

(In reply to The New NickB)
>
> [...]
>
> Yep. Ever heard of Abu Qatada? I am not saying that the Human Rights law isn't one of the best things that has happened to our country, but I do draw the line with the fellow.

Do you think we should have rules that apply to everyone, or only to people we agree with?

>
> It is also a fact that if you are arrested as an illegal immigrant, but the authorities can not find your passport, either because you don't have one or have hidden it, there is sweet FA we can do about it and the immigrant is released.

It's certainly true that you don't improve your chances by dealing with the case as incompetently as Theresa May and her advisors have done so far. Abu Qatada's brief has run rings round them.

The Lemming - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> It's certainly true that you don't improve your chances by dealing with the case as incompetently as Theresa May and her advisors have done so far. Abu Qatada's brief has run rings round them.

I'm no fan of the Tories but its not through Theresa May's incompetence that Abu is taking the p1ss with our way of life. She's not the only MP who's tried to get rid of Abu.


Jon Stewart - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Dave Garnett:
> (In reply to EeeByGum)
>

> It's certainly true that you don't improve your chances by dealing with the case as incompetently as Theresa May and her advisors have done so far. Abu Qatada's brief has run rings round them.

I wouldn't like to make a judgement about how difficult it is before I'd had a crack myself. I wouldn't normally leap to Theresa May's defense, but any govt would have the same legal advice (from the civil service) so I doubt v much the Qatada pantomime is anything to do with her being a sourfaced Tory bitch.
EeeByGum - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Do you think we should have rules that apply to everyone, or only to people we agree with?

Of course. But it would be nice if we could make our own rules up once in a while, rather than having to accommodate rules that probably make perfect sense to those on the other side of Europe.
In reply to The Lemming:

Not one politician canvassed my vote, no leaflet, nothing! Who was I meant to vote for!
EeeByGum - on 03 May 2013
In reply to 6BStu: Are you in a safe seat? In which case, no one really cares about your vote unfortunately. That said, there is nothing wrong with doing a bit of leg work yourself and downloading manifestos / articles written / interviews given by the candidates.
tony on 03 May 2013
In reply to 6BStu:
> (In reply to The Lemming)
>
> Not one politician canvassed my vote, no leaflet, nothing! Who was I meant to vote for!

Were there actually elections going on where you live? Not everywhere was voting yesterday.
In reply to The Lemming:

Yep, I had my polling card through.

I could have done some leg work and checked out manifestos myself that's true but it doesn't say much for any of the candidates to not make any effort. I'm not a particulary political person so doing the leg work myself didn't even enter my head, guess I'm a real child of Thatcher :-/
Dave Garnett - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Dave Garnett)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> I wouldn't like to make a judgement about how difficult it is before I'd had a crack myself. I wouldn't normally leap to Theresa May's defense, but any govt would have the same legal advice (from the civil service)

I certainly hope she's changed her advisors since they demonstrated that they couldn't actually calculate the deadline for filing an Appeal at the ECHR.
pebbles - on 03 May 2013
In reply to EeeByGum: those rules can be good too though. for example the recent european vote restricting pesticides believed to be toxic to bees - the uk government only wanted a very watered down version, but europe voted for the full version, surely a good thing considering everyone is very worried about the huge decline in bee numbers
Dave Garnett - on 03 May 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to Dave Garnett)
>
> [...]
>

But it would be nice if we could make our own rules up once in a while, rather than having to accommodate rules that are a consequence of international treaty obligations freely entered into and which benefit our citizens too, you mean?
Jon Stewart - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Dave Garnett:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
>
> I certainly hope she's changed her advisors since they demonstrated that they couldn't actually calculate the deadline for filing an Appeal at the ECHR.

That was a bit embarrassing wasn't it? But Ministers don't choose their officials the way they choose their political advisers (SpAds - special advisers)...although I suspect some people were shuffled around to avoid being literally decapitated!
Clarence - on 03 May 2013
In reply to 6BStu:
> Not one politician canvassed my vote, no leaflet, nothing! Who was I meant to vote for!

Normally we don't get anything, no leaflets, no-one calling. This year we got UKIP (leaflet, doorstep canvasser), Conservative (6 separate leaflets, wrong wards), BNP (lost canvasser didn't realise he was in the wrong area, no BNP standing in my ward), Labour ( 2 leaflets, doorstep canvasser), Greens (leaflet, wrong ward) and a Lib Dem person who seemed very depressed and was quite rude. Unfortunately due to the boundary changes only Labour and UKIP managed to target us with the correct candidate's literature.
In reply to Clarence:

Blimey! Guess I was lucky then :-)
Dave Garnett - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Dave Garnett)
> [...]
>
> That was a bit embarrassing wasn't it?

Yes, it was and in a way it's linked to a deeper issue, which is our half-baked unenthusuaatic way of engaging with anything European (the Tories especially).

The problem was that there's a European way of calculating legal deadlines. It's very consistent and explicitly explained in a European Convention. Since it was a European institution that set the deadline you might have thought it would be worth checking this but of course that would have meant engaging with some foreign process that we don't deign to worry about.

Alternatively, of course, she could have kept her mouth shut until she was sure no Appeal had been filed but that would have meant missing an opportunity to throw some raw meat to the baying Tory backbenches.
EeeByGum - on 03 May 2013
In reply to pebbles:
> (In reply to EeeByGum) those rules can be good too though. for example the recent european vote restricting pesticides believed to be toxic to bees - the uk government only wanted a very watered down version, but europe voted for the full version, surely a good thing considering everyone is very worried about the huge decline in bee numbers

Yep - but that if government generally. Despite the occasional "thank goodness" pieces of legislation that drip out of the EU, I would be reasonably happy bet that the EU doesn't really serve any country in the EU very well. With regard to this particular piece of legislation. Don't get your hopes up too much. It is only for 2 years and I don't reckon that is long enough for something more meaningful to come out of the EU to replace it when it runs out.
RCC - on 03 May 2013
In reply to pebbles:
> (In reply to EeeByGum) those rules can be good too though. for example the recent european vote restricting pesticides believed to be toxic to bees - the uk government only wanted a very watered down version, but europe voted for the full version, surely a good thing considering everyone is very worried about the huge decline in bee numbers


It would be if banning them had no consequences, but that is not true. It is a complex issue, but they are certainly an important class of seed treatment. It's probably a bit too early to say (with confidence) whether the UK or other EU governments were right in this case, but one could certainly make the case that there may not be a single decision that applies equally well across the very wide range of agricultural conditions within the EU.

I think that this applies to many aspects of centralised policy making/ legislation.
Jon Stewart - on 03 May 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to pebbles)
> I would be reasonably happy bet that the EU doesn't really serve any country in the EU very well.

The reason we're in is the common market at nowt else, not for the regulation.
MG - on 03 May 2013
In reply to 6BStu:
> (In reply to The Lemming)
>
> Yep, I had my polling card through.
>
> I could have done some leg work and checked out manifestos myself that's true but it doesn't say much for any of the candidates to not make any effort. I'm not a particulary political person so doing the leg work myself didn't even enter my head,

These things do work two ways. OK, no leaflets is odd. But equally if you are so apathetic that "doing the leg work" to determine who will decide how you taxes are spent and how your council is run didn't even enter your head, it suggests you don't really care how things progress.
Irk the Purist - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:

At my polling booth last night I had the "choice" of conservative, lib dem or ukip.

And people say our democracy isn't broken.

EeeByGum - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Eric the Red: So why didn't you stand? We forget that politics is in theory open to anyone.
jkarran - on 03 May 2013
In reply to GrumpySod:

> I believe that as we approach 2015 there will be something of a shift with UKIP overtaking the LibDems or even the Conservatives to acheive a "major" party status.

It's a bit of a stretch from doing a bit better than expected on the back of protest voters to achieve Zero Councils (as yet) and Zero MPs in 2013 to overtaking the Conservatives or even the LibDems in parliament two years down the line. Hell, I'd be surprised if they achieve much better than parity with the Greens and that's assuming Farage is willing to stick his neck out and stand.

jk
Scarab9 - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:

Something regularly dismissed on this forum is the power of the "old git in the corner of the pub" mentioned above. This tends to be a guy everyone in the pub knows, possibly works with him as an apprentice or whatever, and despite him being a grumpy git they consider him intelligent because he knows a little about a lot of things. Sadly he's also likely reading the Mail or the Sun for his news, though that's still more than most of the guys in the pub, particularly the younger ones, do to get their news. You know what they do? They listen to the grumpy old it in the corner of the pub.

That's why you'll often find the lower class pubs to be full of people who have fairly right wing views on things like immigration, and there's a lot of people that pass through those pubs.

You might say "that's just your opinion" and that's true, but after years of working in a variety of bars/pubs I can see how a large number of the BNP/UKIP/etc parties get their support.
Irk the Purist - on 03 May 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:

I have no interest in entering politics, local politics especially. I'd have to work with other councillors.

I also thought you needed a deposit - turns out you don't for local authority elections!


Duncan Bourne - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:
Well having spoken to someone I have known for years and was a long time labour supporter. I would have to say it is people who feel that neither of the major parties represents them, they have bought the DM anti-imigration spiel and believe in tough decisions (providing they can side step them) but don't want to vote BNP and be seen as racist
EeeByGum - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Eric the Red:

> I have no interest in entering politics,

Nowt wrong with that response, but if you multiply that by the number of people in your ward, you suddenly realise why politics in this country is dying on its arse.
Irk the Purist - on 03 May 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:

To be honest, had I known that there was no independents in our ward I might have put my name down! Just to give people an option. There is zero chance of getting elected unless you're further right than Nick Griffin so I'd have been safe on that front.

Shame.


Cú Chullain - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Scarab9:

What a load of patronising tosh.

I would say the 'lower class' folk are the ones who feel the brunt of immigration policy be it the massive cultural change in their neighbourhoods or suddenly finding themselves unable to compete in the job market with people who will work for longer at half the price. Believe it or not the average joe on the street does not get all their news from a red top newspaper or the old git down the pub banging on about how great things were in his day.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Eric9Points - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:

A few observations from someone from Scotland where UKIP are so far, an irrelevance and seem too "english" to ever become a party of substance here. I suspect the same is true of NI, maybe less so for Wales.

Skimming through the reports it looks like the numbers voting were significantly down on the last set of council elections I haven't seen overall voting numbers but I suspect that the some of the UKIP success is simply due to mainstream voters not turning out. Same as in the European elections.

Of the minority parties the BNP lost more votes than any of the others suggesting that a lot of folk who had voted BNP in the past are more comfortable with UKIP.

Looking through the various threads on here and elsewhere about UKIP I sense that a lot of people,especially tories, have forgotten that we are governed by a coalition not the tory party and see the current government as a tory government that has betrayed them. I note some Lib Dems seem to be making the same mistake. Perhaps the lesson that can be learned from this is that coalitions please no one.

The three mainstream parties seem to hold a degree of consensus on the role a government should take in society. They all currently seem to favour a nanny state to some degree or other. A lot of people are opposed to Governments trying to tell you how much you should drink or smoke etc, etc and UKIP have capitalised on this. I read this morning somewhere (I'm off work with the cold today) that minimum alcohol pricing and the removal of branding from cigarettes will be dropped from the next Queen's speech in response to today's results.

I agree with previous posters that UKIP are a kind of Tea Party who appeal to less sophisticated disaffected voters, mainly the Norman Tebbit/Enoch Powell faction of the Tory party and the Alf Garnetts of the Labour party (I know he voted Tory but you know what I mean). Like the Tea Party or Newt Gingrich before them I expect they'll have a few years of success until people realise that although they can talk the talk they can't actually walk the walk and their less objectionable views will be absorbed into mainstream politics. In other words people will become disillusioned with them while the mainstream parties steal those of their policies that will win the most votes.

One other obesrvation, I haven't read anything at all about the EU in any of the stuff I've read this morning. Remarkable!


Dave Garnett - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to The Lemming)
>
> Looking through the various threads on here and elsewhere about UKIP I sense that a lot of people,especially tories, have forgotten that we are governed by a coalition not the tory party and see the current government as a tory government that has betrayed them. I note some Lib Dems seem to be making the same mistake.

Good point. Although in the case of the Lib Dems there is also a sense of betrayal that, accepting that a coalition was necessary, Clegg chose to go with the Tories even though some of the compromises would be impossible for his core vote to swallow (me for one).

Had he chosen Labour, on condition that Brown stepped down from the leadership, there would have been compromises and financial hard times but maybe not on such core values. Even if the worst had happened Clegg could at least have claimed he'd been mugged by what he thought were fellow travellers. No-one should have been surprised by what the Tories wanted and I suspect Clegg will never be forgiven for helping them.
MJ - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Scarab9:

That's why you'll often find the lower class pubs to be full of people who have fairly right wing views on things like immigration, and there's a lot of people that pass through those pubs.

I think it's too simplistic and perhaps convenient to label having stronger controls on immigration as being a Right Wing ideology. In my experience, people can have very strong views on such matters and still be a staunch Labour voter.
The New NickB - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Dave Garnett:

I suspect he just could not make the numbers works on a coalition with Labour.
The New NickB - on 03 May 2013
In reply to MJ:

I think a lot of people who have been brought up to vote Labour are quite right wing and quite a lot of people who have been brought up to vote Conservative are quite left wing, seems odd to say, but makes sense when you start looking beyond the conventions of traditional party allegiance.
Sir Chasm - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to MJ)
>
> I think a lot of people who have been brought up to vote Labour are quite right wing and quite a lot of people who have been brought up to vote Conservative are quite left wing, seems odd to say, but makes sense when you start looking beyond the conventions of traditional party allegiance.

Sounds suspiciously like a "no true Scotsman" argument.
Jim C - on 03 May 2013
In reply to MJ:
> (In reply to Scarab9)
>
> That's why you'll often find the lower class pubs to be full of people who have fairly right wing views on things like immigration, and there's a lot of people that pass through those pubs.
>
> I think it's too simplistic and perhaps convenient to label having stronger controls on immigration as being a Right Wing ideology. In my experience, people can have very strong views on such matters and still be a staunch Labour voter.

Also one of the strongest opinions I have heard have been expressed BY immigrants( who seem to b able to say things others can't or are not brave enough to say)
They have come in settled and now have a view that immigration controls are not tight enough, and we should shut the door behind them!
I'm not so sure about the lower class angle though.
Jim C - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Eric the Red:
> (In reply to The Lemming)
>
> At my polling booth last night I had the "choice" of conservative, lib dem or ukip.
>
> And people say our democracy isn't broken.

If you had , had an option of :- 'none of the above' instead of just spoiling a ballot paper would you have taken it?
Jimbo W on 03 May 2013
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Had he chosen Labour, on condition that Brown stepped down from the leadership, there would have been compromises and financial hard times but maybe not on such core values. Even if the worst had happened Clegg could at least have claimed he'd been mugged by what he thought were fellow travellers. No-one should have been surprised by what the Tories wanted and I suspect Clegg will never be forgiven for helping them.

Quite so. And this is the core reason why they have sacrificed their core vote. Because they have not looked in the least uncomfortable in preaching neoliberal economic policy...
Jim C - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to EeeByGum)
> [...]

> I used to work in immigration. No party is going to come in and dramatically change anything on illegal immigration .....

We're an island with a lot of ports and airports and lots and lots of people. We're also a liberal democracy which respects people's human rights. Put these things together and you just don't have control of people's movements.

Australia seem to manage better than us, or am I mistaken?

Jon Stewart - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Jim C:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)

> Australia seem to manage better than us, or am I mistaken?

One of the main differences is that we had an empire and have strong connections with loads of poor countries all over the world, and a history of periodically inviting huge numbers of immigrants over here when the economy demands it (and then turning all racist when the economy falls over). There is a huge infrastructure that gets people from other places to the UK. We're also rather close to mainland Europe. The challenge of controlling immigration into Australia isn't comparable.
Jon Stewart - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'd also say that it might be possible to completely change the system so that it was effective if we invested billions upon billions of pounds. But no govvernment can take what we've got and make it work by standing up in parliament with some wishy-washy policy chat. Thousands more staff, complete overhaul of all the systems, processes and data, dismantling huge areas of law that we like having to protect us, etc etc. Never going to happen.
Green-Winged Orchid - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming: it gives us a fair indication of where the education system failed.
The Lemming - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Green-Winged Orchid:
> (In reply to The Lemming) it gives us a fair indication of where the education system failed.

I'd be interested to work out where the education system failed?

Because the younger voters are apathetic and don't want to vote, or the older generation who were taught the three R's?
Green-Winged Orchid - on 03 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming: because people asked what they were protesting about didn't know or at best didn't want to have to compete in the job market with people who wanted to take every chance given to them. Many were probably the same feckless work shy who recently blamed an old woman for all thier problems. The vast majority of the UK were born with a silver spoon in thier mouth compared to the rest of the world and should consider themselves very very fortunate that we have a government red, blue or yellow.
The New NickB - on 03 May 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to The New NickB)
> [...]
>
> Sounds suspiciously like a "no true Scotsman" argument.

Not unless some has radically changed what is meant by a "no true Scotsman" argument.
Oliiver - on 04 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming: ukip are lead by a lion - the others are lead by donkeys.
Gudrun - on 04 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:

Ukip is the typical capitalist and British fascist reaction in times of economic hardship, brought on by the excesses of the rich who want to keep the wealth flowing to them and not the people.
Troy Tempest - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to The Lemming) ukip are lead by a lion - the others are lead by donkeys.

Hehe 'Nigel the Lionheart'

Not quite the same ring to it.

Oliiver - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun: why are ukip 'fascist' ? You low life socialist
Jim C - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Jim C)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> One of the main differences is that we had an empire and have strong connections with loads of poor countries all over the world, and a history of periodically inviting huge numbers of immigrants over here when the economy demands it (and then turning all racist when the economy falls over). There is a huge infrastructure that gets people from other places to the UK. We're also rather close to mainland Europe. The challenge of controlling immigration into Australia isn't comparable.

I accept here are differences, and I am currently reading my way through Robert Winder's 'Bloody Foreigners' ( the story of immigration to Britain) so can see what you are getting at , but I still think that we can take lessons from Australia, and not be so defeatist, albeit I accept geography is in their favour.

I have friends and colleagues at work who have come in from all over the world in and tell me the difficulties they have had, flying in the face of a lot of the perceptions people have, including my own at one time. Having family in Australia who left here in the 60's and with whom I can get their view on Australian immigration from those who were invited to go there, and what their view is now to more people coming in , and what basis.

Just now listening to the Westminster hall debate on Bulgarian and Rumanian immigration, some interesting points, so maybe my view may change depending how the debate goes.
Postmanpat on 04 May 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
> I'd also say that it might be possible to completely change the system so that it was effective if we invested billions upon billions of pounds. But no govvernment can take what we've got and make it work by standing up in parliament with some wishy-washy policy chat. Thousands more staff, complete overhaul of all the systems, processes and data, dismantling huge areas of law that we like having to protect us, etc etc. Never going to happen.
>

Any idea if the French system works any better and if so how it works and is resourced?

Oliiver - on 04 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming: The French suffer massively from immigration, not as bad as Britain though.
Simon4 - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Scarab9:

> ... Sadly he's also likely reading the Mail or the Sun for his news

Not a guardianista "intellectual", like the few remaining operatives/members of the Labour party? The shame of it, these "incorrect" papers really should be censored, to stop the ignorant proles having the wrong views and thinking that they are allowed to express them. Can't have this free speech and freedom of the press malarkey getting out of hand and lower class people getting ideas above their station.

> That's why you'll often find the lower class pubs to be full of people who have fairly right wing views on things like immigration

Epitomises the sneering, patronising arrogance of the metropolitan elite left-winger - but also contains a well-hidden truth. Northern white voters, especially working-class voters, have no reason to vote Labour at all, other than tribalism and habit. The "vote for a pig if it wore a red rosette" group have been treated for decades as despised cannon-fodder by Labour. South Shields is a case in point. It was given as a sinecure to David Milliband, an Islington Marxist who probably barely knew where it was, then when he pursued his own fortunes to America in a fit of pique at the loss of his ambitions, he casually abandoned it to its fate, dropping it like a hot potato when it no longer served his purposes, hence the by-election. The result in South Shields was in fact a catastrophe for Labour, where against an unpopular coalition government, in tough economic times that show no sign of ending, their majority in one of their safest seats was halved and their share of the vote dropped significantly.

If Northern white voters, the ones that Labour and Guardian readers call bigots, racists, little-Englanders, reactionary and every other disdainful contemptuous insult they can think of but whose votes they still regard as theirs by divine right start to express the anger they undoubtedly feel by abandoning their tribal loyalty to Labour by voting UKIP, which is actually much closer to their views and does not look down on them with loathing and contempt, there will be a real sea-change in UK politics. All those safe seats in the North will be safe no longer, and the disappearance of safe seats that are treated like rotten boroughs by whatever party is an unmixed good thing.


OwenM - on 04 May 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to Dave Garnett)
>
> [...]
>
> Of course. But it would be nice if we could make our own rules up once in a while, rather than having to accommodate rules that probably make perfect sense to those on the other side of Europe.


The convention of human rights were written by the British post 1945, for very good reasons.

wbo - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Oliiver: Because they won't vote how she wants them too, and there's too many for a reeducation camp.

That's the trouble with democracy... people
Jon Stewart - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
>
> Any idea if the French system works any better and if so how it works and is resourced?

They're not really responsible for an immigration system, are they? They're part of the Schengen area.
grimtage - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Oliiver:


Low-life socialist is an oxymoron. Low-life would be someone who exploits others, the whole point of socialism is that everyone has a share in the means of production and thus can't be exploited so easily. You see how silly you sound now? And why everyone else ignored your comment?
Al Evans on 04 May 2013
In reply to wbo: My dad was working class (very much) and voted labour all his life, he worked alongside the first of the immigrants after the war in the Sheffield steelworks had served with them in the war and called them friends, we had them calling in for dinner sometimes and he met them at the pub at night. BUT later when Enoch Powells 'River of blood' speech was made, I remember dad saying to me 'It's not their fault, but unless the government control immigration he's going to be right, too many workers jobs are being taken cheaply by immigrants'.
The problem is/was that without union control the employers, as they would have to do, seized on the cheap labour coming available and the UK workforce was stuffed. Maggies friends were on a high but the UK working man was struggling with no union protection and huge competition from cheap labour from abroad. Forget the miners struggle, that was just Maggies front. The whole of the UK workforce were at the front.
Life for the working man in the UK would never be the same after Margaret Thatcher and her lunatic voters.
grimtage - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Al Evans:

Unemployment is lower in immigrants than in the total population. Assuming the (crazy, pointless) austerity measures worked, then immigrants would have been contributing more to the economic growth per capita than non-immigrants in general. As for immigrants "taking our damn jobs" - they produce jobs by being here, the only difference is that they seem to be more willing to do the more manual labour intensive work than non-immigrants. Frankly, immigrants are a boon to our economy and without them we'd be in worse shape economically speaking. The problem isn't immigrants, the problem is the British people who think they shouldn't have to work hard to get places and see immigrants who are working hard and they just want an excuse.
Postmanpat on 04 May 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> They're not really responsible for an immigration system, are they? They're part of the Schengen area.
>
Who decides who an enter Schengen?
Postmanpat on 04 May 2013
In reply to grimtage:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
>
>
> Low-life socialist is an oxymoron. Low-life would be someone who exploits others, the whole point of socialism is that everyone has a share in the means of production....
>
I think we're into "no true Scotsman" territory x10 here.
bluebealach - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to The Lemming) The French suffer massively from immigration, not as bad as Britain though.

In a country more than twice the size (area) of the UK and about the same population.

With 1000 people per square mile in England, (allegedly), we are one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Perhaps we have to say enough is enough at some point??

Jon Stewart - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
> Who decides who an enter Schengen?

'Fraid I don't know much about how it works. I think if you want to go to France, you apply to the French consulate where you are for a Schengen visa. Presumably the visa criteria are harmonised...?

France are obliged under the agreement to enforce controls on the external borders that are theirs.

However it works, it's got to be rather different to the job of controlling UK immigration.
In reply to neilh:
What's Michael Palin got to do with it? Oh - UKIP - Monty Python's Flying Circus! I get it! Nigel Farage does look like a "Nudge, nudge. wink .wink, know wot I mean" man
In reply to The Lemming:
U kip - and end up sleep-walking into a nightmare
dissonance - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Simon4:

> Not a guardianista "intellectual", like the few remaining operatives/members of the Labour party?

Not sure why a labour party bod would be pro a lib dem newspaper but I guess it makes sense in your world.

> Epitomises the sneering, patronising arrogance of the metropolitan elite left-winger

or indeed the right winger. Hence why they read the telegraph or the times and not the sun or mail.

> It was given as a sinecure to David Milliband, an Islington Marxist

oh dear you have disappeared into true nuttery here. Whilst the father was marxist his sons are anything but. Well unless you are

> The result in South Shields was in fact a catastrophe for Labour, where against an unpopular coalition government, in tough economic times that show no sign of ending, their majority in one of their safest seats was halved

Lets see.
2013 - 50.4% of the vote compared to 52% in 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Shields_by-election,_2013
Postmanpat on 04 May 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Simon4)
>
>
But nevertheless, what he says is largely true. Sometime in the past four decades the Labour party abandoned its roots as the party of the old working class (partly because there wasn't much of it left) and cultivated the support of ethnic minorities and other minority interest groups. The traditional values of the working class actually conflicted with many of those of the new (small "n") labour party.( to be honest I doubt whether Atlee and his Old Etonian chums actually had much empathy for the contemporary working classes)

A little later the Tories, having won three elections by appealing to "pebbledash man", recognised that this had got them labelled as the "nasty party", and nobody wants to vote for a nasty party so Cameron rowed them back to the middle whilst desperately trying to appease his "right wing".

So, the much despised readers of the despised Sun and Daily Mail were largely abandoned by both parties. I suspect part of the reason was that the pollster geek focus groups had discovered that actually elections were won and lost in small number of marginal seats so they had to focus on appealing to those voters and abandon the rest who guaranteed support anyway..

Unfortunately for them the result has been that "the rest" either stopped voting or, as of Thursday, decided to vote for UKIP which for all its obvious flaws, at least reflected their concerns back to them.

Jim C - on 04 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:
> Anybody care to explain why UKIP did so well at the ballots?

Well this will not help, what will our drunken loutish holidaymakers who fall and injure themselves in Spain now?
( more to the point what about my elderly FIL if he falls ill)

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2186978/British-tourists-denied-free-care-Spanish-ho...
Oliiver - on 04 May 2013
In reply to grimtage: I think you'll find, socialists do exploit people - the rich. Why should every be equal if they don't work for it? Socialists are utterly disgusting, who wants to live in a world were every ones equal? I don't, where's the motivation to better your self?
andy - on 04 May 2013
In reply to bluebealach:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
> [...]
>
> In a country more than twice the size (area) of the UK and about the same population.
>
> With 1000 people per square mile in England, (allegedly), we are one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Perhaps we have to say enough is enough at some point??

Well I've been out on my bike in the Forest of Bowland today and there's a bit of spare room there if you're struggling.
Jon Stewart - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

If you wanted a world in which everyone who worked hard became rich, and everyone who was lazy remained poor, then everyone would have to be brought down to the same level at birth.

Are you in favour of that?

Or do you think there might be a centre ground in which the state tries to level-up opportunities for those born into poorer situations, to try to help those who work hard to succeed by taking down barriers?

You're going to have get to develop a much more sophisticated understanding of politics before anyone will be interested in a word you say.
Oliiver - on 04 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming: clearly on ukc forum, as you're all labour / liberals, with no idea of the political and economic thunderstorm that looms overhead. I want to live in a democracy, very little government . Another 20 years under labour and we'd all be living in a world with equal pay and equal intelligence. Do you really want that? Capitalism and democracy is the future, your outdated, in-educated and naive at very least. Ask your self this, when you all get old and need looking after financially by the stae, for care homes and your state pension, how the hell do you think we're going to be able to manage the books when socialism has crippled capitalism. Well be so ingulfed into equality, that no one will want to aspire to better them selves. The evidence is all around us, over the last 100 years look at the amount of government control we now have. Give it another. 30 years of membership with the Eu, will be living in a communist dictat with all our decisions made by foreigners.
Oliiver - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart: oh and also, there's such. Things as. Grammar schools. Oh I'm sorry, labour abolished most of them.
Oceanrower - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Oliiver: in-educated? Really?
Jim C - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

"in-educated"

Jon Stewart - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to The Lemming) clearly on ukc forum, as you're all labour / liberals, with no idea of the political and economic thunderstorm that looms overhead. I want to live in a democracy, very little government . Another 20 years under labour and we'd all be living in a world with equal pay and equal intelligence. Do you really want that? Capitalism and democracy is the future, your outdated, in-educated and naive at very least. Ask your self this, when you all get old and need looking after financially by the stae, for care homes and your state pension, how the hell do you think we're going to be able to manage the books when socialism has crippled capitalism. Well be so ingulfed into equality, that no one will want to aspire to better them selves. The evidence is all around us, over the last 100 years look at the amount of government control we now have. Give it another. 30 years of membership with the Eu, will be living in a communist dictat with all our decisions made by foreigners.

Go and see a doctor.
dissonance - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

> (In reply to Jon Stewart) oh and also, there's such. Things as. Grammar schools. Oh I'm sorry, labour abolished most of them.

So which education secretary got rid of more grammar schools than any other education secretary?
IainRUK - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Dave Garnett:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
> [...]
>
> Good point. Although in the case of the Lib Dems there is also a sense of betrayal that, accepting that a coalition was necessary, Clegg chose to go with the Tories even though some of the compromises would be impossible for his core vote to swallow (me for one).
>

Have you read Blairs memoirs?

He finishes just as LD form the coalition and says they will be found out.. they are the poeples conscience.. say what you want a politician to say.. even when its not practicable.. in reality governments make unpopular calls.. they could no longer be that party.. even in a labour coalition.. which for me (as a labour supporter) would have been wrong.

The tories won. The two lower supported parties than forming a coalition just stinks.
IainRUK - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Oliiver: Eh? Labour were very pro pen markets under Blair.. that was a central feature of new labour.. mixing state and private sectors. How did wages become more equal under Blair? I thought that was one objection.. that exec pays bloomed..

You say some stupid things.. potentially homophobic.. which I gave you the benefit of the doubt for.. then the un-Britishness of criminals.. because they weren't white..

You're ideas on the EU are way way off..
Jon Stewart - on 04 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Dave Garnett)

> The tories won. The two lower supported parties than forming a coalition just stinks.

Absolutely - a Lib-Lab govt would have been the ultimate piss-take for the FPTP system, deeply hypocritical for supporters of PR.
Oliiver - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Oceanrower: uneducated
dissonance - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to dissonance)
> [...]
> But nevertheless, what he says is largely true.

You mean apart from not understanding the Guardian is a libdem paper, confusing the drop in the tory vote with the Labour in South Shields and so on? Any points made are lost in the rabid ranting against the evil left.
Its worth noting that the labour dont seem to have really been impacted (although the actual percentage voting seems a bit up in the air at the moment) with the main variance them getting more councillors due to the tory vote being split by UKIP (same way labour was hit by the sdp in the 80s).

> So, the much despised readers of the despised Sun and Daily Mail were largely abandoned by both parties.

Apart from this is not the case. Sure they were not the key people being targeted, since they didnt tend to be swing voters but both new labour and the tories have shown plenty of willing to pander to whatever campaign the newspaper editors come up with from time to time.

> Unfortunately for them the result has been that "the rest" either stopped voting or, as of Thursday, decided to vote for UKIP which for all its obvious flaws, at least reflected their concerns back to them.

The rest havent really stopped voting though. There has been a drop but it did pick up again in 2010. I would suggest a larger problem is the number of safe seats where it isnt really worth going to vote (and thanks to the lib dem incompetence a proper proportional voting system is wrecked for the next few years).
As for UKIP there is a difference between voting for a one policy party in local vs national elections. Guess we will see what happens next year in the European elections although that may end up being another protest vote.
dissonance - on 04 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> The tories won. The two lower supported parties than forming a coalition just stinks.

not necessarily. It would depend on if there was a greater overlap between the two lower supported parties policies or not.
Certainly the current scenario where a party is pushing through policies that it didnt dare to announce in advance and still didnt get a majority vote could be seen as stinking somewhat.
IainRUK - on 04 May 2013
In reply to dissonance: I just think.. out of principle.

Tories had the most votes. It was a technicality. I'd have had serious concerns had a LidLab coalition got in...

TBH I don't think Labour wanted it.. they knew what was coming.. And it suited the tories.. huge cuts were needed.
IainRUK - on 04 May 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> [...]
>
> not necessarily. It would depend on if there was a greater overlap between the two lower supported parties policies or not.
> Certainly the current scenario where a party is pushing through policies that it didnt dare to announce in advance and still didnt get a majority vote could be seen as stinking somewhat.

I really don't think it is.. you vote politicians in to make unpopular decisions.. Clegg has done that.
dissonance - on 04 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to dissonance) I just think.. out of principle.

hmmm, personally I find it far more offensive that parties deliberately dont come clean on the manifestos or go back on said promises.
If you cant keep them fine, but dont pretend you then have a mandate instead go back to the people.

> Tories had the most votes. It was a technicality.

No it really wasnt. They didnt have the most seats which is what counts in FPTP. Whilst I agree that is dubious there is an obvious way of fixing it, which needless to say the tories undermined.

> I'd have had serious concerns had a LidLab coalition got in...

I cant say i would be that impressed but then again the current coalition gives serious concerns. Also again that is a problem with FPTP.

> TBH I don't think Labour wanted it.. they knew what was coming.. And it suited the tories.. huge cuts were needed.

Yes those cuts, remind me how they are going? How much is being saved with the massive changes to the NHS/schools etc?
Jon Stewart - on 04 May 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to dissonance)

> huge cuts were needed.

Maybe, but what we got was huge cu^ts
IainRUK - on 04 May 2013
In reply to dissonance: Tuition fees were a formality.. we've known about them for years.. that was nothing sudden.. Labour.. Libdems.. Cons.. they were coming in.
Postmanpat on 04 May 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> You mean apart from not understanding the Guardian is a libdem paper, confusing the drop in the tory vote with the Labour in South Shields and so on? Any points made are lost in the rabid ranting against the evil left.
>
Oh FFS, surely you grasped I wasn't referring to that? There was a core point highways that Labour abandoned its traditional supporters. My point is that, an extent, so did the Tories.

> Its worth noting that the labour dont seem to have really been impacted (although the actual percentage voting seems a bit up in the air at the moment) with the main variance them getting more councillors due to the tory vote being split by UKIP (same way labour was hit by the sdp in the 80s).
>
I don't think that is clear yet.
>
> Apart from this is not the case. Sure they were not the key people being targeted, since they didnt tend to be swing voters but both new labour and the tories have shown plenty of willing to pander to whatever campaign the newspaper editors come up with from time to time.
>
Yes, but "pander" is the appropriate term. It's a form of appeasement to people and views they basically have no time for.
>
> The rest havent really stopped voting though. There has been a drop but it did pick up again in 2010. I would suggest a larger problem is the number of safe seats where it isnt really worth going to vote (and thanks to the lib dem incompetence a proper proportional voting system is wrecked for the next few years).
>
Well turnout was oonsistently 70%+ and often nearer 80% until 1997 since which time it collapsed. A bounce to 65% in 2019 hardly seems a cause for celebration.

> As for UKIP there is a difference between voting for a one policy party in local vs national elections. Guess we will see what happens next year in the European elections although that may end up being another protest vote.
>
Well, I agree but the point is that given a chance to protest my people do. Obviously if UKIP ever got into power they would crater like the libdems.

ads.ukclimbing.com
IainRUK - on 04 May 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> hmmm, personally I find it far more offensive that parties deliberately dont come clean on the manifestos or go back on said promises.
> If you cant keep them fine, but dont pretend you then have a mandate instead go back to the people.
>
> [...]
>
> No it really wasnt. They didnt have the most seats which is what counts in FPTP. Whilst I agree that is dubious there is an obvious way of fixing it, which needless to say the tories undermined.
>
> [...]
>
> I cant say i would be that impressed but then again the current coalition gives serious concerns. Also again that is a problem with FPTP.
>
> [...]
>
> Yes those cuts, remind me how they are going? How much is being saved with the massive changes to the NHS/schools etc?

I still think the cuts were needed.. OK we invested.. but the NHS especially needed that..
dissonance - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

> There was a core point highways that Labour abandoned its traditional supporters.

there really wasnt. There was a rabid rant about Labour and the Guardian but it lacked any real point.
That new labour did focus on the swing voters and on the lobbyists isnt in question. Wasnt part of that rant though.

> I don't think that is clear yet.

UKIP will likely take some eurosceptic votes from Labour but overall impact will be interesting to see. I would have thought the tory promise of a referendum would have cut them off at the knees but apparently not.

> Yes, but "pander" is the appropriate term. It's a form of appeasement to people and views they basically have no time for.

yeah well, Until those people come up with some nice big donations or directorships they will be back of the queue. I dont expect anything more from UKIP mind.

> Well turnout was oonsistently 70%+ and often nearer 80% until 1997 since which time it collapsed. A bounce to 65% in 2019 hardly seems a cause for celebration.

and it started creeping back up once the tories presented a half useful opposition.

> Well, I agree but the point is that given a chance to protest my people do. Obviously if UKIP ever got into power they would crater like the libdems.

should be amusing to see how they do as local councillors.
Bulls Crack - on 04 May 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> hmmm, personally I find it far more offensive that parties deliberately dont come clean on the manifestos or go back on said promises.
> If you cant keep them fine, but dont pretend you then have a mandate instead go back to the people.
>
> [...]
>
> No it really wasnt. They didnt have the most seats which is what counts in FPTP. Whilst I agree that is dubious there is an obvious way of fixing it, which needless to say the tories undermined.
>
> [...]
>
> I cant say i would be that impressed but then again the current coalition gives serious concerns. Also again that is a problem with FPTP.
>
> [...]
>
> Yes those cuts, remind me how they are going? How much is being saved with the massive changes to the NHS/schools etc?

And who TF want to cut schools budgets?
Gudrun - on 04 May 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Sometime in the past four decades the Labour party abandoned its roots as the party of the old working class (partly because there wasn't much of it left)

How can that be when 50% of tax payers earn £20,000 or less?

Or does that make them middle class
=)
John Rushby - on 04 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:

People who vote for UKIP are the ones who watch Embarrassing Bodies and TOWIE.

I believe they are called morons.

If that makes me sound a snob then so be it, but I'm still a card carrying member the local WMC (free beer at Xmas as I have inherited my granda's number).
Postmanpat on 04 May 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> How can that be when 50% of tax payers earn £20,000 or less?
>
> Or does that make them middle class
> =)

Did you miss the bit where all those old working class manufacturing jobs disappeared? Odd, could have sworn you mentioned it once or twice....
Postmanpat on 04 May 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to The Lemming)
>
> People who vote for UKIP are the ones who watch Embarrassing Bodies and TOWIE.
>
> I believe they are called morons.
>
>
And there's lots of them and, damn it all,they're allowed to vote.

MJ - on 05 May 2013
In reply to John Rushby:

People who vote for UKIP are the ones who watch Embarrassing Bodies and TOWIE.

Maybe, but I think the general UKIP voter is probably more partial to The Antiques Roadshow.
stroppygob - on 05 May 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to The Lemming)
>
> People who vote for UKIP are the ones who watch Embarrassing Bodies and TOWIE.
>
> I believe they are called morons.
>
> If that makes me sound a snob then so be it, but I'm still a card carrying member the local WMC (free beer at Xmas as I have inherited my granda's number).

People who go to WMC are morons, and alcoholics, and probably wife beaters.

(It doesn't make you sound like a snob. It makes you sound like a moron.)

Jim C - on 05 May 2013
In reply to MJ:
> (In reply to John Rushby)
>
> People who vote for UKIP are the ones who watch Embarrassing Bodies and TOWIE.
>
> Maybe, but I think the general UKIP voter is probably more partial to The Antiques Roadshow.

Farage himself on the Andrew Marr show this morning says his supporters are 'old labour' AND 'New Tory' A Tory Cabinet minister says they are:-' frustrated Conservative voters'

I don't personally watch EB, and am not really aware of the content programme called Towie , but that apart, I live in an area that is Labour, but no matter what I do , I get a Labour MP, and have had a labour MP my whole voting life.
If UKIP was to stand in my area would I vote for them? I don't know.
(But, I DO watch the AR so by your assumption I might do so, either as a tactical/protest/ frustration vote)
Totally-Normal - on 05 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming: I feel slightly patronised by some of the comments in this thread. This was my first vote and I voted UKIP. I certainly do not feel I fit into "the old git down the pub" demographic. I voted UKIP because I feel that the other parties have no genuine interest in changing anything, instead they just want another 4 years in office. At least UKIP have a bit of backbone and character to stand up for what they believe in (lib dems are particularly guilty of this). I also believe the EU needs to be all or nothing. Either we need literally a single government and currency for all countries, or we need independence. Jefferson puts it well: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none"

Don'tTellHim Pike - on 05 May 2013
In reply to taylorct: May I (seriously) congratulate you for you coherent and well considered comments. I don't wish to sound patronising but it's good hearing such from a first time voter. 10/10
dissonance - on 05 May 2013
In reply to taylorct:
> I voted UKIP because I feel that the other parties have no genuine interest in changing anything

really? Have you actually looked at all the changes the tories are pushing through?
Remodelling of NHS/schools/social security etc. Admittedly the majority are previous policies taken to new levels and I disagree with the majority but to claim they are not pushing changes through is nuts.

> At least UKIP have a bit of backbone and character to stand up for what they believe in

Leaving aside the UKIP character being interchangable with Farage (where are the other representatives?) what are they actually for?
They need more policies than just get out of Europe and whenever the other ones come into focus they seem to be somewhat flexible on what they are.

> Jefferson puts it well:

From what I recall Jefferson was a fan of state rights with a limited federal government to oversee it.
Mike Stretford - on 05 May 2013
In reply to taylorct:
> (In reply to The Lemming) I feel slightly patronised by some of the comments in this thread. This was my first vote and I voted UKIP. I certainly do not feel I fit into "the old git down the pub" demographic. I voted UKIP because I feel that the other parties have no genuine interest in changing anything, instead they just want another 4 years in office. At least UKIP have a bit of backbone and character to stand up for what they believe in (lib dems are particularly guilty of this). I also believe the EU needs to be all or nothing. Either we need literally a single government and currency for all countries, or we need independence. Jefferson puts it well: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none"

You've got no idea how UKIP would act as the minority party in government, and as they don't even have one mp, there's bugger all for you to base your "backbone" claim on.

Your binary attitude towards Europe has no basis either, it just seems like a naive assumption. Jefferson might have said that but the US has gone onto numerous successful alliances throughout it's history.
Eric9Points - on 05 May 2013
In reply to taylorct:
> (In reply to The Lemming) I feel slightly patronised by some of the comments in this thread. This was my first vote and I voted UKIP. I certainly do not feel I fit into "the old git down the pub" demographic. I voted UKIP because I feel that the other parties have no genuine interest in changing anything, instead they just want another 4 years in office.

Could you give me some examples of the sorts of things the other parties are not interested in changing and what you would like to see happening instead? I'm genuinely interested.

Totally-Normal - on 05 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming: I admit I am young and naive so reading back through my last post I appear to have used quite a lot of UKIP rhetoric that is misplaced. When I talk about little desire to change I talk about things that on the face of things have changed but have they really sorted anything properly, the way I look at it they have just tried to balance the books ready for the next GE. Take the armed forces, they have laid off a number of support personnel (admin) from all 3 services. Yet we now have more civil servants doing exactly the same jobs for more money. My next point is quango departments, this government has had 3 years to do something, only now (with an election looming) do they even begin to talk about sorting it out. Will they ever actually do it? Probably not, in January of this year a report was published showing that 70 election promises had not been acted on.
UKIP may not have detailed policies, and economic plans but hey, the likelihood of one of the main parties actually sticking to their manifestos is so low they might as well not have one either.

Call me young, naive, even stupid but I am entitled to my opinion and my right to vote for who I believe should govern this country. Perhaps I do feel angered by the current political parties, and thus my UKIP support is a protest but wouldn't you if someone turned round and said "before you start your proper working life your going to have 50k debt and still face an applicant ratio of 52:1 per job"
Oliiver - on 05 May 2013
In reply to taylorct: +1 farage for Leader.
Lurking Dave - on 06 May 2013
In reply to taylorct: No name calling from me...

Did someone actually say to you "before you start your proper working life your going to have 50k debt and still face an applicant ratio of 52:1 per job"?

Really? or have you replayed something that you have heard elsewhere?
I ask as 52:1 sounds very specific.

Cheers
LD
Chris Shorter - on 06 May 2013
In reply to taylorct:
> Probably not, in January of this year a report was published showing that 70 election promises had not been acted on.

This is at least in part due to the fact that the UK has a coalition government. Both the Conservatives and the LibDems had to make compromises on policies to be able to enter a coalition together. Inevitably, this has meant that a number of pre-election commitments made by both parties have not been acted upon and won't be.
Totally-Normal - on 06 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming: Source for 52:1 figure http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18694748

I'm sure Oliver will agree with me in saying on the whole many young people just feel a little disenfranchised with the main parties, UKIP offer something different, their tactical approach is very good as it appears like the almost don't have one (similar to Boris)at a time when others still dodge questions, thus appearing both deceitful and like he is playing a political game rather than wanting to serve the people. Whilst im sure UKIP play the same games they very rarely show it, when Farage is asked about wanting to be prime minister he says no, when he was asked if he would stand as an MP he said yes. How many times did Miliband dodge the question on borrowing?- 12 or was it 13?
dissonance - on 06 May 2013
In reply to taylorct:
> When I talk about little desire to change I talk about things that on the face of things have changed but have they really sorted anything properly, the way I look at it they have just tried to balance the books ready for the next GE.

they really havent. Many of the tory changes have resulted in increased short term costs. Take the restructuring of the NHS any benefits will take several years to kick in whereas the cost is now.

> My next point is quango departments, this government has had 3 years to do something, only now (with an election looming) do they even begin to talk about sorting it out.

well they closed down 80 or so but the problem they ran into is that, well, those Quangos actually do jobs.
Could you please give your definition in a nutshell and say five quangos which you feel perform well and five which dont with reasons?


> UKIP may not have detailed policies, and economic plans but hey, the likelihood of one of the main parties actually sticking to their manifestos is so low they might as well not have one either.

So shouldnt UKIP, if they are provided an alternative, be leading the way in clear cut policies plus performance criteria that will trigger a election if they dont keep to them. Exactly how are they varying?

> Perhaps I do feel angered by the current political parties, and thus my UKIP support is a protest but wouldn't you if someone turned round and said "before you start your proper working life your going to have 50k debt and still face an applicant ratio of 52:1 per job"

well I would want to see how the alternatives propose to fix it.
Jim C - on 06 May 2013
In reply to Chris Shorter:
> (In reply to taylorct)
> [...]
>
> ..........Both the Conservatives and the LibDems had to make compromises on policies to be able to enter a coalition together. Inevitably, this has meant that a number of pre-election commitments made by both parties have not been acted upon and won't be.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on what the policies are that have not been implemented.
Jon Stewart - on 06 May 2013
In reply to taylorct:

> My next point is quango departments, this government has had 3 years to do something, only now (with an election looming) do they even begin to talk about sorting it out. Will they ever actually do it?

You must have missed it when very early in the Parliament that massive bastard Francis Maude announced the supposed 'bonfire of the quangos'.

What happens with this issue is that one govt comes in and says "we must get rid of all these quangos" and they put the functions of the quangos into govt departments. Then the next govt comes in and says "there is too much political influence in these functions, they must be independent" and take the functions out of the depts, creating quangos. Then the next govt comes in and says "we must get rid of all these quangos"...

It's absolutely never the case that a govt comes in and says "we not going to do any of the following things any more: [list of functions of quangos] so everyone who depends on those things can swivel".
Totally-Normal - on 06 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming: Ok, having read the numerous comments regarding quangos I am changing my opinion on the matter. I'm acutely aware that there are many things that I do not understand, but I believe my understanding of basic politics to be higher than many of my peer group. Despite this I have gained incorrect opinions perhaps shows the lack of clarity of the main parties. Hence when a party does come along with a clear message then perhaps we feel more attracted to this party whether the actual politics are good or not.

Having said that I am still UKIP because I fundamentally disagree with the current EU.
Mike Stretford - on 06 May 2013
In reply to taylorct:
> (In reply to The Lemming)
>
> Having said that I am still UKIP because I fundamentally disagree with the current EU.

I disagree with the current EU but it is a reality and it is on our doorstep. No UK political party has the power to change it save take the UK out, which would probably mean becoming a member of the EEA, so not really out ( a gesture). Full separation from the EU would be a disaster which is why no country is..... if anyone is tempted to mention Switzerland do a bit of research first, they are more entangled with the EU than we are.
Doug on 06 May 2013
In reply to taylorct:

> Having said that I am still UKIP because I fundamentally disagree with the current EU.

Why ?
Lurking Dave - on 06 May 2013
In reply to taylorct:

> Having said that I am still a troll because I fundamentally disagree with stuff and I'm far too articulate for a newly registered poster.

2/10

Cheers
Ld

dissonance - on 06 May 2013
In reply to taylorct:
> Despite this I have gained incorrect opinions perhaps shows the lack of clarity of the main parties.

does it? Why so?

> Hence when a party does come along with a clear message then perhaps we feel more attracted to this party whether the actual politics are good or not.

and what is this clear message?

> Having said that I am still UKIP because I fundamentally disagree with the current EU.

ok, so why not vote tory. They have promised a referendum on the matter after all and have a few more policies to look at.
sphagnum - on 07 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:
> Anybody care to explain why UKIP did so well at the ballots?


Because rather than vote for the tories who demonise and attack the most vulnerable in UK society; the poor, elderly and disabled, people now prefer to vote for UKIP who in addition want to demonise and attack foreigners and the European Union as well.

Rather than being better together, people are voting for separation.
The UK Independence Party say it would give the Navy 70 new ships and set aside 90 billion for building nuclear power stations but they cannot even explain where this money would come from. Nor, does the UK Independence Party say what the effect of separation from the EU would have on the economy, trade, currency, national security etc.

The type of discrimination the UKIP promote is becoming socially acceptable. It is convenient to blame and to discriminate against foreigners rather than face up to the real problems of capitalist austerity and a corrupt banking system.

Farage smiles at the camera and he can put the public at ease, he makes the voters think it is normal and 'ok' to express anti foreign views.

Cameron once said UKIP were 'closet racists'. Now the torie voters defected to UKIP will he call them all racists ?
No, instead he will introduce state pension reforms that mean if, heaven forbid, you were to pass away after having paid NI for the best part of your life, you can now be rest assured that if your partner devoted his/her life to raising your family she/he will be left to rot in poverty by the state.
But rather than focus on the fact that everyone in the UK will now be worse of as a result of the reforms the tories want to boast to the public that there will no longer be 'foreign people' receiving a UK pension. A classic example of creating an enemy where there is none whilst robbing and conning the public with yet another austerity measure.

Lastly I do hope people realise that the UK Independence Party deny the existence of global warming and believe bicycles should have tax disks.

Jim C - on 07 May 2013
In reply to sphagnum:
> (In reply to The Lemming)
> [...]
>
>
.....
>
> Lastly I do hope people realise that the UK Independence Party deny the existence of global warming ....

I was unaware of that, but somehow I don't think they are alone.
(By the way did you mean 'global warming' or did you mean ' climate change' ?)

You will be telling me next that Wind Turbines are the saviour of the planet and by building them they will create mass employment .

ads.ukclimbing.com
GrahamD - on 07 May 2013
In reply to The Lemming:

People always like to try and blame someone for the fact that we don't sell enough stuff to support the standard of living we would like to have.

The main thing a politician tries to do is appease as many people as they can whilst trying to play an impossible hand. At the moment, UKIP seems to appease more people than the rest by blaming it on 'them'.
sphagnum - on 07 May 2013
In reply to Jim C:
> (In reply to sphagnum)
> [...]
> .....
> [...]
>
> I was unaware of that, but somehow I don't think they are alone.
> (By the way did you mean 'global warming' or did you mean ' climate change' ?)
>
> You will be telling me next that Wind Turbines are the saviour of the planet and by building them they will create mass employment .


They have amateurish views on both climate change and GW. Essentially they believe fossil fuels are the future (senior party figures have declared financial interests with Shell) and that we need to increase CO2 levels.
Feel free to do your own research on wind turbines; do let us know what you find please.
JSA - on 07 May 2013
In reply to sphagnum:

They are far better than this bunch of muppets!

"That very sentiment has been expressed by federal legislators. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) said in 2010 that he opposed action on climate change because “the Earth will end only when God declares it to be over.” He is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/01/belief-in-end-times-stifling-climate-change-action-in-u-s-stud...
Jim C - on 07 May 2013
In reply to sphagnum:
> (In reply to Jim C)
> [...]
>
>
>
> Feel free to do your own research on wind turbines; do let us know what you find please.

I work for a company who makes wind turbines.
sphagnum - on 08 May 2013
In reply to Jim C:
> (In reply to sphagnum)
> [...]
>
> I work for a company who makes wind turbines.

Take it you do not like UKIP then.
David Martin - on 08 May 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to EeeByGum)
> [...]
>
> I don't think it's coincidence that UKIP is coming to prominence at a time when there is so much general discontent - they're a fine focus for the discontented, but as a solution to the country's problems, they leave a lot to be desired.

In one way the rise of UKIP is actually quite comforting. Admittedly we haven't suffered Greek style collapse, but if middle England's knee-jerk and extreme reaction is to elect UKIP, as opposed to the BNP or some other Golden Dawn look-alike, then we aren't doing too badly.

The conspiracy theorist in me would like to believe UKIP is a Labour/Lib Dem ploy to give the extremists a moderate option and the conservatives a vote splitter.

Bruce Hooker - on 08 May 2013
In reply to David Martin:

In France the National Front is at all time records of support and the situation here is much the same as in Britain, except it's a centre-left government replacing a centre-right one rather than the other way around. Neither of the traditional camps have been able to tackle the real problem - unemployment - despite promising they would so those at the bottom, or scared of going there, have joined the traditional extreme right voters.

It's a protest vote, the parties concerned don't really have much of a policy either except for Nationalism, like the UKIP, so it is unlikely they will ever come to power. They could be of a positive use if their popularity pushed the traditional parties to listen to the people whose votes they want.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.