# Characterising UKIP?



## chilango (May 21, 2014)

Be interesting to discuss what type of Party/movement UKIP actually are (or are becoming so that we can be a little more accurate than "far-right" "racist" etc.

For me, at first glance they seem to have a lot in common with the Lega Nord. With Brussels replacing Rome and a mythical UK replacing Narnia (sorry, Padania), a similar harnessing of anti-politics and populism alongside the cruder racism and anti-immigrant sloganeering, yet at the same time appealing to natural consituency of both the old Left and the old Right.

Just my initial impressions.

Hopefully others can bring more insight, cos I'm getting very frustrated with the lazy labelling going on.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 21, 2014)

I posted this on one of the other threads:

I was thinking of posting something about how the backbone of UKIP are the people who would have been the backbone of the Tories at local level in the old days, and speculating on where they might move ideologically.

I very much doubt if El Farago has been reading Aufheben, but that does make me think of Winston Peters who left the New Zealand National Party back in the 80s to form his own New Zealand First party, which is (very roughly) socially conservative and (vaguely) economically centre-left.

Peters is the gadfly of Kiwi politics (does that sound right gabi and peterkro?), and he has been able to influence the formation of governments over the years, even if his NZF remains small. He has been unable to turn back the clock to pre-neoliberal Aotearoa/NZ (he's also half-Maori, but doesn't like to talk about it much).

E2A: And oh yes, Peters will happily appeal to racism and anti-immigration fears to win votes:
http://yournz.org/2014/05/19/winston-peters-stoking-immigration-fears/

The big difference is that NZ1st was very much "The Winston Peters Show", and that he was a political "big beast" before leaving the National Party (Kiwi Tories, and how) and striking out on his own.


----------



## gosub (May 21, 2014)

I do miss goneforlunch


----------



## DotCommunist (May 21, 2014)

hard right british nationalists with a libertarian wing?


----------



## frogwoman (May 21, 2014)

aren't they just a bog standard slightly to the right of the tories party? i dont know why everyone's getting so upset about them tbh, the tories have been saying this sort of stuff for years.


----------



## juice_terry (May 21, 2014)

Stolen from a friend of mine via Facebook which sum up UKIP for me:
‘If an algorithm created a political leader based on Sun and Mail articles it would be Nigel Farage', says writer Musa Okwanga. 

Elections tomorrow, and UKIP dominate the headlines. The remains of the left shriek 'fascists!' on social media but offer no resonant alternative. England's shift to the right demonstrates the abject failure of the left to respond to capitalism's latest crisis. 

UKIP are divisive & dishonest, but they aren't fascist. They aren't even especially racist. They're normally racist - like small town pubs & the masons & the countryside. Farage doesn't hate foreigners - he hates the undeserving poor who make him feel uncomfortable, and the red tape that stops the rich taking even more money from the people who actually created it. And he craves the approval of the upper echelons who have always rejected him. 

‘Politics is the shadow the economy casts on society’. The economy's fucked. The unfettered capitalism that caused the banking crisis is to blame, but influential papers have spent the last five years blaming immigrants & the undeserving poor, and some voters are responding. Farage's dog whistle 'you know what & who I mean' attracts some genuinely hateful cranks, but generally UKIP voters are normal Englishers who don't feel comfortable in the economy or in multicultural society, feel more comfortable blaming different foreigners than familiar bankers, and really don't care if you call them racists. And calling them racists, shouting & pointing, reinforces the view that UKIP are different. Rather than just another dandruffy split from the Tories. 

I won't be voting UKIP tomorrow. But I won't be voting UKIP because I don't vote for right-wing neo-liberals, not because the middle classes have decided they're exceptionally & unacceptably racist.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 21, 2014)

well the wing of a tory party that are annoyed by the modern conservatives lip service to social liberalism and perceived centrist drift


----------



## gosub (May 21, 2014)

juice_terry said:


> Stolen from a friend of mine via Facebook which sum up UKIP for me:
> ‘If an algorithm created a political leader based on Sun and Mail articles it would be Nigel Farage', says writer Musa Okwanga.
> 
> Elections tomorrow, and UKIP dominate the headlines. The remains of the left shriek 'fascists!' on social media but offer no resonant alternative. England's shift to the right demonstrates the abject failure of the left to respond to capitalism's latest crisis.
> ...




I don't think UKIP will dominate the headlines on Monday (counting takes days) They will do well but there has been a great deal of expectation management and media hype.  Last EUros headlines like this were around 









   which in the end actually helped UKIP.  Think the headlines will be about a swap in Green and Lib Dem fortunes


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

gosub said:


> I don't think UKIP will dominate the headlines on Monday (counting takes days) They will do well but there has been a great deal of expectation management and media hype.  Last EUros headlines like this were around http://www.eureferendum.com/images/000a Mail-018 Mosely.jpg: http://www.eureferendum.com/images/000a Mail-018 Mosely.jpg which in the end actually helped UKIP.  Think the headlines will be about a swap in Green and Lib Dem fortunes


What a mad thing to say. Absolutely bizarre. The headlines are written already - no matter what the outcome. Crazy stuff. Greens and lib-dems ffs.

I'll come back on UKIP ch later.


----------



## 8ball (May 21, 2014)

I'd call them a right-wing retreat-into-fantasy party mostly.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 21, 2014)

8ball said:


> I'd call them a right-wing retreat-into-fantasy party mostly.



Bit like Lega Nord, then. Or New Zealand First.


----------



## 8ball (May 21, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Bit like Lega Nord, then. Or New Zealand First.



I might well agree if I knew more about those parties.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 21, 2014)

8ball said:


> I might well agree if I knew more about those parties.



NZF's big base of support is among older voters utterly confused about the way NZ has changed since the 1980s. As for the Lega Nord, their goal of "Padania" is fantasy enough to qualify them for 8ball's designation.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2014)

Poujadiste.


----------



## J Ed (May 21, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Poujadiste.



Interesting that you suggest that, a City AM article a while back whining about how people actually want some control over vital industries, transport infrastructure and health accused UKIP of being Poujadiste.

http://www.cityam.com/article/1383618852/there-sadly-mass-support-nationalisation-and-price-controls



> By 48-43 per cent, even those intending to vote Tory don’t back the privatisation; among Ukip voters, it’s 67-25. Centre-right voters in the UK are not all classical liberal supporters of capitalism; in fact, many are poujadistes or economic nationalists.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Interesting that you suggest that, a City AM article a while back whining about how people actually want some control over vital industries, transport infrastructure and health accused UKIP of being Poujadiste.
> 
> http://www.cityam.com/article/1383618852/there-sadly-mass-support-nationalisation-and-price-controls


My early characterisations were of UKIP as poujadist. I now see those comparisons are nonsense. The pre-capitalist nature of the french economy at that point - massive agricultural sector, small villages, based on local contracts and local patrimony, small businesses and artisans based on this stich up  - all this challenged by modernising capitalism. UKIP support those changes and the fear of that change. To do anything  else in the UK after 1812 is a a joke. To lazily characterise it as poujadist only indicates passing academic interest. Not you - but phil


----------



## brogdale (May 21, 2014)

chilango said:


> Be interesting to discuss what type of Party/movement UKIP actually are (or are becoming so that we can be a little more accurate than "far-right" "racist" etc.



Really good thread idea.

I think that UKIP are supremely a party of our "post-political democracy" times. When 'ordinary' citizens feel that, which ever party is elected to govern, the policies will remain unchanged, the opportunity for a populist party emerges. Carrying no "baggage" or responsibility they can exploit widespread post-recession disaffection with the retreat to centrist managerialism, and harvest votes from across the old political spectrum. In characterising themselves as a challenge to the 'established political elite' they appeal as a sort of "sub-contracted" means of conducting the degraded form of "audience democracy" that is often characterised as apathy. On a more basic level they are (relatively) new and therefore represent the political panacea that is "change", and offer the easy prospect of politics without too many policies.

In conclusion, I think they're quite an effective and interesting political phenomena. Yes they're right-wing, pro-capital, neo-liberal, thatcherite, nasty, socially conservative, nationalistic, populist, prepared to appeal to latent xenophobia and rely on a large % of the electorate voting against their own interests, but they must offer some lessons to those who seek to rapidly build a political party from scratch.


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2014)

chilango said:


> For me, at first glance they seem to have a lot in common with the Lega Nord.


with whom they sit in the European Parliament, of course. very similar, right-wing populist, traditionalist, against multiculturalism. Lovely bunch.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2014)

pub-bore twats


----------



## brogdale (May 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> pub-bore twats



that can 'win' a national election.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> that can 'win' a national election.


i think i'd need to publicise it a bit more before it became a winning slogan


----------



## chilango (May 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> pub-bore twats


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2014)

chilango said:


>


----------



## Kesher (May 21, 2014)

I know a couple of UKIP voters who were  Conservative voters. After talking with them I just don't understand why they don't vote for at least the BNP. I've asked them why,  and they say that the BNP is too extremist; but if you heard  their views you would think that the BNP is too moderate for them. Seriously!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2014)




----------



## brogdale (May 21, 2014)

Kesher said:


> I know a couple of UKIP voters who were  Conservative voters. After talking with them I just don't understand why they don't vote for at least the BNP. I've asked them why,  and they say that the BNP is too extremist; but if you heard  their views you would think that the BNP is too moderate for them. Seriously!


 
Repugnant though their views may be, you've mentioned 2 political parties that they won't vote for and 1 that they will. How does that help us characterise UKIP?


----------



## brogdale (May 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


>


I like a pint (of real ale) as much as the next man, (and I'm not fond of flying), does that make me a UKIP supporter....or a pub bore?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I like a pint (of real ale) as much as the next man, (and I'm not fond of flying), does that make me a UKIP supporter....or a pub bore?


the point i was making is that he has pint after pint after pint and then it's no great surprise that when he does something stupid, as he will, he comes down to earth with a bump

i have you down as borderline camra bore


----------



## brogdale (May 21, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i have you down as borderline camra bore


----------



## quiquaquo (May 21, 2014)

chilango said:


> Be interesting to discuss what type of Party/movement UKIP actually are (or are becoming so that we can be a little more accurate than "far-right" "racist" etc.
> 
> For me, at first glance they seem to have a lot in common with the Lega Nord. With Brussels replacing Rome and a mythical UK replacing Narnia (sorry, Padania), a similar harnessing of anti-politics and populism alongside the cruder racism and anti-immigrant sloganeering, yet at the same time appealing to natural consituency of both the old Left and the old Right.
> 
> ...



Lega Nord is a strictly regional party with all that Padania bollocks. UKIP, the clue is in the name... If anything English Democrats would be closer to the Lega Nord from a regional perspective although in a way Farage's mouth does resemble post stroke Bossi.

Grillo ("I'm beyond Hitler") is more of an italian Farage with added populism and shady backers Casaleggio in particular. At least that's how it seems to me


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 21, 2014)

Right-wing populist. I'm not sure where the "left-leaning economics" stuff on this thread is coming from. Certainly I've not seen anything amongst the policies or from their leaders...some of their supporters/voters might have left wing economic ideas, but that just goes to show that they're not voting on those criteria.


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Right-wing populist. I'm not sure where the "left-leaning economics" stuff on this thread is coming from. Certainly I've not seen anything amongst the policies or from their leaders...some of their supporters/voters might have left wing economic ideas, but that just goes to show that they're not voting on those criteria.


I'm not sure that anyone did mention "left-leaning economics". In fact, i know they didn't.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 21, 2014)

I think it's about the only think I agree with David Cameron on



> fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> I think it's about the only think I agree with David Cameron on


That's Labour, greens, lib-dems and tories too to be scrupulously fair.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's Labour, greens, lib-dems and tories too to be scrupulously fair.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not sure that anyone did mention "left-leaning economics". In fact, i know they didn't.


mentioned in idris' comparison with nz1 & via city am article...


----------



## ffsear (May 21, 2014)

*** removed due to confusion **


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> mentioned in idris' comparison with nz1 & via city am article...


Nah, not really - idris point was a follow on from something else that didn't really fir here and the city am article - nah again. Neither were offered characterisation or defence of the idea of "left-leaning economics" being a key part of UKIP policy.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Nah, not really - idris point was a follow on from something else that didn't really fir here and the city am article - nah again. Neither were offered characterisation or defence of the idea of "left-leaning economics" being a key part of UKIP policy.


yeah, I shouldn't skim read...


----------



## DotCommunist (May 22, 2014)

ffsear said:


> Labour are committed to the same spending plans as the Tories so borrowing is not an option for them and it is international pressure that is driving this and not home politics. In my view the best way to address the PSBR is to lower tax as this will boost the economy and more tax will be raised as a net result. And we have very recent evidence that this was the case under Thatcher....as the Eighties rolled on, she was able to finally pay down all outstanding debt. Then we had Major where the country became a little too comfortable and smug. We all know what happened after that, another round of inept Labour govt. Is it just me or do all Labour govt's end in complete disaster??
> 
> Why not write into law that whoever is in government MUST balance the books year on year. If any year there is a deficit, then the budget for the following year will have the necessary cuts/adjustments to ensure that we never stray from the bottom line.
> 
> ...



LOL


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 22, 2014)

ffsear said:


> Labour are committed to the same spending plans as the Tories so borrowing is not an option for them...(snip)
> 
> Why not write into law that whoever is in government MUST balance the books year on year. I....
> 
> ...



ffsear, I suspect that you have even less idea about politics than UKIP. Don't waste any more time posting here.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 22, 2014)

To the Right of the other three Tory parties!


----------



## CNT36 (May 22, 2014)

Kesher said:


> I know a couple of UKIP voters who were  Conservative voters. After talking with them I just don't understand why they don't vote for at least the BNP. I've asked them why,  and they say that the BNP is too extremist; but if you heard  their views you would think that the BNP is too moderate for them. Seriously!


Pissed up bravado. Know people who talk this shit and have family the same. One who alternates between not voting BNP because they're too extreme and not voting for them as they are not extreme enough. Big mouths that won't follow it through.  You'll see people come in strong " I hate immigrants" then a bit later "The ones that work are ok" or "Well I do feel sorry for some of the ones that are really under threat" possibly "I just don't like 'em coming here and changing stuff but most are ok". Often gets to "It's the Muslims that are the problem" later "well some of them are ok I just don't want mosques everywhere" or "Most of them just want to live their lives its the extremists I don't like" and on it goes. People will say they're going to vote BNP  when they're not and even say a lot of the time "but they'd take it too far"


----------



## Idris2002 (May 22, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> mentioned in idris' comparison with nz1 & via city am article...



That was specifically in relation to NZ1st, though, and not UKIP. I should have thought it through a bit more, I suppose. Maybe a better comparison is the Reform party in early 90s Canada, who emerged as a right-populist insurgency in the western provinces, and who later merged with the remnants of the old Progressive Conservatives after that party's collapse. That produced a new Canadian conservatism that is much more looney-tunes hard right (socially and economically) than the old patrician "one nation tory" PC was.


----------



## ffsear (May 22, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> ffsear, I suspect that you have even less idea about politics than UKIP. Don't waste any more time posting here.





Lol,  I've confused myself with that one!   i was replying to a thread on a totally different forum  (not even U75) about PSBR .   I write my posts into MS word to spell check them (due to my dyslexia).  That post was supposed to go on an economics forum and somehow I've copied and pasted it here. 

Must drink less in the evenings!

Ignore!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 22, 2014)

ffsear said:


> Labour are committed to the same spending plans as the Tories so borrowing is not an option for them and it is international pressure that is driving this and not home politics. In my view the best way to address the PSBR is to lower tax as this will boost the economy and more tax will be raised as a net result. And we have very recent evidence that this was the case under Thatcher....as the Eighties rolled on, she was able to finally pay down all outstanding debt. Then we had Major where the country became a little too comfortable and smug. We all know what happened after that, another round of inept Labour govt. Is it just me or do all Labour govt's end in complete disaster??
> 
> Why not write into law that whoever is in government MUST balance the books year on year. If any year there is a deficit, then the budget for the following year will have the necessary cuts/adjustments to ensure that we never stray from the bottom line.
> 
> ...


Do you have a bachelor's degree in economics, by any chance?
It would explain the lack of knowledge of recent economic and political history and lack of basic political _nous_, you see.


----------



## ffsear (May 22, 2014)

are you an asshole everyday?

edit:  added to ignore list.  Bored of his passive aggressive attacks on everyone.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 22, 2014)

ffsear said:


> Labour are committed to the same spending plans as the Tories so borrowing is not an option for them and it is international pressure that is driving this and not home politics. In my view the best way to address the PSBR is to lower tax as this will boost the economy and more tax will be raised as a net result. And we have very recent evidence that this was the case under Thatcher....as the Eighties rolled on, she was able to finally pay down all outstanding debt. Then we had Major where the country became a little too comfortable and smug. We all know what happened after that, another round of inept Labour govt. Is it just me or do all Labour govt's end in complete disaster??
> 
> Why not write into law that whoever is in government MUST balance the books year on year. If any year there is a deficit, then the budget for the following year will have the necessary cuts/adjustments to ensure that we never stray from the bottom line.
> 
> ...



To balance this country's books in the space of one year you'd have to sell Wales.

I suppose we could offer the buyer a discount if they agreed to take Yorkshire off our hands as well.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 22, 2014)

Beer, fags and blazers.


----------



## NoXion (May 22, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> To balance this country's books in the space of one year you'd have to sell Wales.
> 
> I suppose we could offer the buyer a discount if they agreed to take Yorkshire off our hands as well.



Out of curiosity, is that just the land value of the principality or does that include everything on the land as well? Because somehow I doubt that the land value alone would cover it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 22, 2014)

NoXion said:


> Out of curiosity, is that just the land value of the principality or does that include everything on the land as well? Because somehow I doubt that the land value alone would cover it.



The lot. Mountains, sheep, rugby players...more sheep.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 22, 2014)

ffsear said:


> Labour are committed to the same spending plans as the Tories so borrowing is not an option for them and it is international pressure that is driving this and not home politics. In my view the best way to address the PSBR is to lower tax as this will boost the economy and more tax will be raised as a net result. And we have very recent evidence that this was the case under Thatcher....as the Eighties rolled on, she was able to finally pay down all outstanding debt.



This is demonstrable bollocks. What you're talking about here is the Medium Term Financial Strategy. Unfortunately for you there's a fair bit of academic literature on this. All of it contradicts what you're saying.

Thatcher reduced higher rate income taxes but that didn't result in an increase in income from that source. She did that by a combination of massive increases in VAT (hitting those with the least hardest) and increased income from selling of North Sea oil/gas - utterly fucking stupid - and the first (smaller) round of privatisations. It didn't boost the economy euther - in fact she very nearly killed it economy in that period. Her commitment to monetarism (which amounted to concentrating on strengthening the pound) led to the destruction of much of our manufacturing base, as exports could no longer compete after the shifts in exchange rates (one of her own strategists has since admitted this was actually about _intentionally_ increasing unemployment in order to discipline labour and weaken unions and absolutely nothing to do with strengthening the economy - which makes sense cos it achieved the former and the opposite of the latter).

This led to the economy tanking, which was hidden by the increased revenues from North Sea hydrocarbons.

As for introducing legislation forcing governments to balance the books - why do you hate democracy? If people want to elect a government that will run a deficit - maybe in order to stimulate the economy - why shouldn't they be allowed to? The idea is a fantasy anyway, it's not the kind of thing you can legislate for - it's at about the same level of lunacy as wanting to legislate against recessions.

All you've really done here is show what a credulous fuckwit you are - you've just swallowed the Tory line (which is a line even they know to be untrue - even right wing scholars agree with the majority of the above). Seriously, I'm actually embarrassed to read that post.


----------



## ffsear (May 22, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> This is demonstrable bollocks. What you're talking about here is the Medium Term Financial Strategy. Unfortunately for you there's a fair bit of academic literature on this. All of it contradicts what you're saying.
> 
> Thatcher reduced higher rate income taxes but that didn't result in an increase in income from that source. She did that by a combination of massive increases in VAT (hitting those with the least hardest) and increased income from selling of North Sea oil/gas - utterly fucking stupid - and the first (smaller) round of privatisations. It didn't boost the economy euther - in fact she very nearly killed it economy in that period. Her commitment to monetarism (which amounted to concentrating on strengthening the pound) led to the destruction of much of our manufacturing base, as exports could no longer compete after the shifts in exchange rates (one of her own strategists has since admitted this was actually about _intentionally_ increasing unemployment in order to discipline labour and weaken unions and absolutely nothing to do with strengthening the economy - which makes sense cos it achieved the former and the opposite of the latter).
> 
> ...




did you miss my next post?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 22, 2014)

ffsear said:


> did you miss my next post?



You realise that your post is still a load of old bollocks even if it was intended for a different forum?


----------



## ffsear (May 22, 2014)

You need to judge the context of the conversation.  I sense much anger in you.	 I'm out x x


----------



## RedDragon (May 22, 2014)

A Titanic party


----------



## treelover (May 22, 2014)

ffsear said:


> are you an asshole everyday?
> 
> edit:  added to ignore list. * Bored of his passive aggressive attacks on everyone*.




wouldn't say VP was one of the worse offenders


----------



## Pickman's model (May 22, 2014)

treelover said:


> wouldn't say VP was one of the worse offenders


i'm sure he's buoyed up by your support.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 22, 2014)

ffsear said:


> You need to judge the context of the conversation.  I sense much anger in you.	 I'm out x x



So in a different context the demonstrably false claims you made would have been true? What kind of economics forum is it? Counter-factual economic history or something?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (May 22, 2014)

Open mouth then insert foot


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 23, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> So in a different context the demonstrably false claims you made would have been true? What kind of economics forum is it? *Counter-factual economic history* or something?



The above is why I wondered whether ffsear holds a bachelor's degree in economics.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 24, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> So in a different context the demonstrably false claims you made would have been true? What kind of economics forum is it? Counter-factual economic history or something?



To be fair, counter-factual economic history is what all neoliberal policy is founded on.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 26, 2014)

While I'm sure it's not at all UKIP policy, I can't help thinking that it wouldn't be at all surprising if a lot of their supporters would also support re-nationalisation and other 'left wing policies' discussed in that City AM article, assuming they were on the table.

A few of them might even be fantasizing that UKIP would adopt such policies by way of protecting some 'traditional British way of life' from externally imposed change.



> No fewer than 45 per cent of the public believe that the state should have the power to control private rents, against 43 per cent who don’t; it was 74-18 for energy prices and 72-19 for public transport. Tory voters don’t support the first of these but back the other two.
> 
> Shockingly, 35 per cent of the electorate back such potential price controls on food and groceries, though 55 per cent don’t; perhaps the price-fixers need to acquaint themselves with the (horrible, product-less, queue-based, rationed) shops that used to exist in the Soviet Union during the bad old days.
> 
> ...


 http://www.cityam.com/article/1383618852/there-sadly-mass-support-nationalisation-and-price-controls

It's almost like the UKIP's game is to mobilize the fear associated with falling living standards and with economic security being eroded by neo-liberalism and the groundswell of distrust of the political classes associated with these changes, and to blame it on a nice simple narrative about EU and immigration and 'traditional British ways' vs 'nanny state', while keeping their own extreme neo-liberalism under wraps.

I've recently had several conversations with UKIP supporters where they've kind of gone into angry denial when I started saying things like 'You do understand that they're ideologically committed to privatizing the NHS and dismantling the state pension system don't you?'

So I'd tentatively characterise them as a right-wing populist con-job in the tradition of Thatcherism.


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> So I'd tentatively characterise them as a right-wing populist con-job in the tradition of Thatcherism.



...and pretty much any other administration you care to name; the parties of capital tend not to emphasise in whose interest they govern.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (May 26, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ...and pretty much any other administration you care to name; the parties of capital tend not to emphasise in whose interest they govern.



Well, the reason I mentioned Thatcherism in particular is that particular quality of mobilising mass support from people effectively voting (to a large degree) against their own interests, of which Thatcherism is a strong, but by no means unique example.


----------



## brogdale (May 26, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well, the reason I mentioned Thatcherism in particular is that particular quality of mobilising mass support from people effectively voting against their own interests, of which Thatcherism is a strong, but by no means unique example.



Yep.


----------



## treelover (May 26, 2014)

> No fewer than 45 per cent of the public believe that the state should have the power to control private rents, *against 43 per cent who don’t*; it was 74-18 for energy prices and 72-19 for public transport. Tory voters don’t support the first of these but back the other two.



I wonder if the 43% against includes private tenants, not aware of their own interests?

many of the others will be BTl'ers.


----------



## Roadkill (May 26, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> It's almost like the UKIP's game is to mobilize the fear associated with falling living standards and with economic security being eroded by neo-liberalism and the groundswell of distrust of the political classes associated with these changes, and to blame it on a nice simple narrative about EU and immigration and 'traditional British ways' vs 'nanny state', while keeping their own extreme neo-liberalism under wraps.



I think that's pretty much exactly it, and they played a blinder this year in ditching the right-wing 2010 manifesto and then keeping quiet about policies other than Europe and immigration.  That can only take them so far, though, because they're going to need a manifesto for the next election and it will be a difficult line to walk to maintain their appeal to the pretty disparate voters who've backed them this week.  Be interesting to see what's in September's outline manifesto launch in Doncaster.


----------



## steeplejack (May 26, 2014)

personally I hope a diehard traditionalist faction within the party insist on the "ladies and gentleman to be properly atired whilst eating in hotels" as a redline deal-breaker for the next manifesto

(I'll be astonished if the next manifesto isn't a wishing-upon-a-star right wing farrago, the sort of thing produced when you shred the annual minutes of the No Turning Back group from 1986, feed them into a blender and re-assemble in random order.)


----------



## Wilf (May 26, 2014)

Whilst they might have robbed the BNP of their votes, I think there's mileage in analysing them in relation to the Tory Party as much as the far right. They're the bit that lost out, the bit that hates Cameron, the bit that got deselected. They're the bit that missed out on all the 'modernising' trends of Blairism and Cameron's gay weddings. They're also the small business strand of capital, the bit that really does think that x, y and z are political correctness gone mad.  Perhaps more nationalist than racist - a point I've agreed with on other threads. Same time, it would be daft to argue there isn't a seam of racism running through them.  It's tied in with contempt for the poor as in the Romanians thing, but the number of their candidates who end up spewing racist shite on twitter are pushing it towards 'if it walks like a duck' territory.

Edit: if he had been a small businessman, _Godfrey Bloom_ would have been the true essence of UKIP. Farage is more the calculating politician.


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> (I'll be astonished if the next manifesto isn't a wishing-upon-a-star right wing farrago, the sort of thing produced when you shred the annual minutes of the No Turning Back group from 1986, feed them into a blender and re-assemble in random order.)



With respect, I think this misses the point by some margin. UKIP do not need to, or probably want to, openly advertise their neo-liberal ideology to the electorate, they merely require further populist 'policies' to ensure electoral support. Why would they seek to put off their newly generating 'core' vote? Theirs is not going to be a manifesto for government so they can pretty well include whatever they think will have widespread appeal; there's no danger of them ever being held to account on the document.

Its been said before; their 'game-plan' is too achieve enough parliamentary representation to effect a referendum leading to EU withdrawal. With that achieved they could, (theoretically like Marx' state) wither away and let 'normal' neo-liberal/bourgeois polity crack on. We would then be exactly where UKIP's atlanticist, neo-liberal zealots would want us to be.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 27, 2014)

Given a referendum (yes, I know it won't happen) there's a reasonable chance that people would vote to stay in - think it's fairly balanced in recent opinion polls. Would UKIP piss off and shut up in the wake of a vote to stay in?


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Given a referendum (yes, I know it won't happen) there's a reasonable chance that people would vote to stay in - think it's fairly balanced in recent opinion polls. Would UKIP piss off and shut up in the wake of a vote to stay in?


 Very much doubt that they'd pack-up if they 'won' tbh.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Very much doubt that they'd pack-up if they 'won' tbh.




they don't like europe but they like europes shilling etc


----------



## articul8 (May 27, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> So I'd tentatively characterise them as a right-wing populist con-job in the tradition of Thatcherism.



I'd say the difference, maybe, is that people aren't (yet?) electing UKIP to run anything but to make a stink.   People who can be bothered to vote at Euro elections often just want to say "eff youse all" to politicians, particularly politicians they neither know nor care about.  There'll be some of this at the General, but there'll be a bigger pull towards damage limitation and keeping the Tories out.   I don't know how many people who didn't vote on Thursday will emerge to vote UKIP at the GE.   Some perhaps but not all that many would be my guess.


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

How much of the current UKIP vote do you estimate will have_ keeping the tories out_ as their primary motivation in the general election?

What have you based your final line guess on?


----------



## steeplejack (May 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> With respect, I think this misses the point by some margin. UKIP do not need to, or probably want to, openly advertise their neo-liberal ideology to the electorate, they merely require further populist 'policies' to ensure electoral support. Why would they seek to put off their newly generating 'core' vote? Theirs is not going to be a manifesto for government so they can pretty well include whatever they think will have widespread appeal; there's no danger of them ever being held to account on the document.
> 
> Its been said before; their 'game-plan' is too achieve enough parliamentary representation to effect a referendum leading to EU withdrawal. With that achieved they could, (theoretically like Marx' state) wither away and let 'normal' neo-liberal/bourgeois polity crack on. We would then be exactly where UKIP's atlanticist, neo-liberal zealots would want us to be.



for goodness sake, I was being tongue-in-cheek. Stop being so po-faced.


----------



## J Ed (May 27, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How much of the current UKIP vote do you estimate will have_ keeping the tories out_ as their primary motivation in the general election?
> 
> What have you based your final line guess on?



What do you think?


----------



## butchersapron (May 27, 2014)

Pretty much fuck all.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 27, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> for goodness sake, I was being tongue-in-cheek. Stop being so po-faced.


po-po-po-po poker face


----------



## brogdale (May 27, 2014)

steeplejack said:


> for goodness sake, I was being tongue-in-cheek. Stop being so po-faced.


 I obviously missed all the of clues signifying your post to be humorous content, and realise that my attempt at a considered reply represents wasted effort.


----------



## articul8 (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How much of the current UKIP vote do you estimate will have_ keeping the tories out_ as their primary motivation in the general election?
> 
> What have you based your final line guess on?



Well, we simply don't know.  But we can't assume that motivations at a GE are the same as at locals/Euros.	Some UKIP voters might well think twice about whether they want to risk another term of Tory government - because the issues thrown up by a General Election are much wider than the Euros.  

The danger of UKIP is that the main parties panic and rush on to their agenda.  By far the better strategy for Labour would be to offer an in/out referendum, offer more positive reasons to vote Labour and deal with immigration only in the sense of talking about ending exploitation and raising the floor for all workers - none of this stuff about withdrawing translation services and forcing people to integrate.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Well, we simply don't know.  But we can't assume that motivations at a GE are the same as at locals/Euros.	Some UKIP voters might well think twice about whether they want to risk another term of Tory government - because the issues thrown up by a General Election are much wider than the Euros.
> 
> The danger of UKIP is that the main parties panic and rush on to their agenda.  By far the better strategy for Labour would be to offer an in/out referendum, offer more positive reasons to vote Labour and deal with immigration only in the sense of talking about ending exploitation and raising the floor for all workers - none of this stuff about withdrawing translation services and forcing people to integrate.


You said that come the general election more ukip voters will be voting to prevent a tory govt than protest voting for ukip. What did you base this reading on and what are your estimates for size of these two groups?


----------



## Dogsauce (May 28, 2014)

I could see some situations where UKIP would be the only viable opposition to the Tories, and where that might be an attractive option if you really hate the Tories - even if they're further to the right even I'd still be tempted (depending on the candidate) if it was the only way of getting rid of someone sinister like Fox or Letwin - rather some clumsy amateur 'common sense' reactionary than a slick neoliberal schemer.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> I could see some situations where UKIP would be the only viable opposition to the Tories, and where that might be an attractive option if you really hate the Tories - even if they're further to the right even I'd still be tempted (depending on the candidate) if it was the only way of getting rid of someone sinister like Fox or Letwin - rather some clumsy amateur 'common sense' reactionary than a slick neoliberal schemer.


So could i - but he's suggesting current UKIP voters are going to _leave_ UKIP in order to stop the tories getting in (i.e vote labour really) and in greater numbers than those  who'll stay in order to register a protest vote. I think that's head--in-sand madness when the last two studies showed 51% and 63% of local/euro UKIP vote currently intending to vote UKIP at GE. Of course some will simply go back to labour and always intended to - but a majority of the 4.5 million who just voted for them? That's startling complacency And a sort of mirror image of the _it's 1933 the nazis are here_ stuff we've also seen.


----------



## articul8 (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So could i - but he's suggesting current UKIP voters are going to _leave_ UKIP in order to stop the tories getting in (i.e vote labour really) and in greater numbers than those  who'll stay in order to register a protest vote. I think that's head--in-sand madness when the last two studies showed 51% and 63% of local/euro UKIP vote currently intending to vote UKIP at GE. Of course some will simply go back to labour and always intended to - but a majority of the 4.5 million who just voted for them? That's startling complacency And a sort of mirror image of the _it's 1933 the nazis are here_ stuff we've also seen.



I'm not suggesting that - though some might well.  I'm suggesting that THOSE WHO DIDN'T VOTE are more likely - if they are to turn out a GE - to turn out for Labour than to vote UKIP.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I'm not suggesting that - though some might well.  I'm suggesting that THOSE WHO DIDN'T VOTE are more likely - if they are to turn out a GE - to turn out for Labour than to vote UKIP.


Ok, not how your post #73 reads to me, but fair enough. I think there's only one party with the wind in it's sails sufficient enough to enthuse non-voters to turn out next time. There undoubtedly is a fair number of can't be bothered with the euro or local elections types out there, but i can't see why they would exist in greater number for labour supporters rather than tory - i imagine they're pretty similar. Hence no boost in labour vote over tories, but rise in total vote for both. UKIP - well, if you're saying this is their max vote, that they are unlikely to attract previous non-voters, i think you're wrong. Like the BNP, i think a lot of their support is actually from previous non-voters - of which there are effin' loads.


----------



## belboid (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> There undoubtedly is a fair number of can't be bothered with the euro or local elections types out there, but i can't see why they would exist in greater number for labour supporters rather than tory


polls do tend to show those saying they'd vote labour are less likely to turn out in most elections. if Miliband can enfuse them, or the tories make themselves look really evil, then they'll get a higher proportion coming out. Neither of those things look particularly likely at the moment tho


----------



## articul8 (May 28, 2014)

I think that this will prove to be UKIPs high water mark - they might do well in a very limited number of target seats (like wherever Farage chooses to stand).  My guess is that most of those likely to be responsive to UKIPs message have already been reached.   If you don't vote UKIP at the European level, you're less likely to be motivated out by then at a General, where the debate becomes "who would it be least worst to elect" and isn't a "free hit" in quite the same way.


----------



## butchersapron (May 28, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I think that this will prove to be UKIPs high water mark - they might do well in a very limited number of target seats (like wherever Farage chooses to stand).  My guess is that most of those likely to be responsive to UKIPs message have already been reached.   If you don't vote UKIP at the European level, you're less likely to be motivated out by then at a General, where the debate becomes "who would it be least worst to elect" and isn't a "free hit" in quite the same way.


I don't get why you think a doubling of turnout (roughly) will not lead to any extra voters for the only party with the wind in its sails. And i'm not here talking about individual seats, i'm not asking if they'll get an MP.


----------



## belboid (May 28, 2014)

I doubt they'll get more - except in one or two places.  Back down to 7/8% by the GE - which will be double what they got last time


----------



## articul8 (May 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I don't get why you think a doubling of turnout (roughly) will not lead to any extra voters for the only party with the wind in its sails. And i'm not here talking about individual seats, i'm not asking if they'll get an MP.


I didn't say it will wouldn't lead to any, but that its vote share will drop proportionately to the increase in turnout - because it has had the wind in its sails in the context of a set of European elections where those most inclined to find its message attractive came out.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 28, 2014)

It all depends if they're still the story in twelve months time or if the attention has waned a bit by then - my suspicion is that they would have been more motivated to come out for the euros (and more motivated generally) than the other parties, so proportionally might be a bit down come the general election. However, if polls look like certain seats are a possibility then they could rally there.

Labour will need to be the story come the election, if the media narrative is still about UKIP (even if only a few seats are possibilities) then it could take momentum/attention from Labour's campaign and not help them. The right wing press will be shilling for Cameron, the 'liberal' press busy shouting 'racist' at UKIP and beneath this noise Miliband struggling for attention.


----------



## nessa239 (May 28, 2014)

Labour will win next election imo but will make their policies more 'UKIP friendly' to be on the safe side.  Labour got nearly double the amount of votes of both Conservative and UKIP combined in my town - I can't understand why.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 29, 2014)

UKIP =The Continuity Thatcherite Party.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 30, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Labour will win next election imo but will make their policies more 'UKIP friendly' to be on the safe side.  Labour got nearly double the amount of votes of both Conservative and UKIP combined in my town - I can't understand why.



What part of the country is that?


----------



## nessa239 (May 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> What part of the country is that?



West Midlands, Black Country area


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> West Midlands, Black Country area


 
Supporting which party would be understandable?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 30, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> West Midlands, Black Country area


I'm not really famililiar with that part of the country tbh - my suspicion would be that the strength of labour there is historical, stemming from the history of manufacture in the area and the union organisation that would have accompanied it. That and people recognising that the Tories are a bunch of robbing bastards - even more so than labour - who hate the working class and won't do anything for you unless you're incredibly wealthy/went to Eton/both.


----------



## ibilly99 (May 30, 2014)

Better than the Fast Show ....


----------



## 8ball (May 30, 2014)

Obviously he was vey... vey....

... drunk!


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2014)

ibilly99 said:


> Better than the Fast Show ....



Petty small minded community type. The sort of person people will vote for.


----------



## 8ball (May 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Petty small minded community type. The sort of person people will vote for.


 
Bloody local bastards!


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2014)

8ball said:


> Bloody local bastards!


 
Absolutely no further need for LDs; these folk can do dogshit just as well.


----------



## frogwoman (May 30, 2014)

Aren't most councillors like this?


----------



## 8ball (May 30, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Absolutely no further need for LDs; these folk can do dogshit just as well.


 
I dunno, I'm going to have to look at a lot of photos of them looking glum next to dog shit and pot holes before making a judgment.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 30, 2014)

I don't really understand what's funny about that video - the kind of stuff he's talking about (apart from the green belt stuff) reminds me of the kind of stuff my old man gets up to on the parish council where he lives (and it's made him very popuIar and quite right too) and not all that different from the kind of stuff that people used to support Dave Nellist for doing.


----------



## nessa239 (May 30, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Supporting which party would be understandable?



Our existing council at time of the election was Labour and they've more or less gone bust (managed the money very badly) and had to make loads of cuts that people were always commenting on in local paper.  Local Labour-run council had a very bad name basically. Elections come round with chance to change the situation and what happens?  Labour get in, with staggering majority!  Where's the logic??  The people most likely to vote vote Labour is all I can think and those who moan are all hot air.  Alternatively it was rigged - how would anyone know if it had been?


----------



## brogdale (May 30, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Our existing council at time of the election was Labour and they've more or less gone bust (managed the money very badly) and had to make loads of cuts that people were always commenting on in local paper.  Local Labour-run council had a very bad name basically. Elections come round with chance to change the situation and what happens?  Labour get in, with staggering majority!  Where's the logic??  The people most likely to vote vote Labour is all I can think and those who moan are all hot air.  Alternatively it was rigged - how would anyone know if it had been?


 Green, then? Or maybe UKIP...or tory?


----------



## ibilly99 (May 30, 2014)




----------



## nessa239 (May 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm not really famililiar with that part of the country tbh - my suspicion would be that the strength of labour there is historical, stemming from the history of manufacture in the area and the union organisation that would have accompanied it. That and people recognising that the Tories are a bunch of robbing bastards - even more so than labour - who hate the working class and won't do anything for you unless you're incredibly wealthy/went to Eton/both.




it's just the state of Council budget and lack of ability at managing the budget - you'd vote for anything but a repeat of the same basically!  They've been closing libraries, threatened to close swimming baths, which has had a reprieve I think; all sorts of services cut back or cancelled - it's been appallingly managed.  The city has a very bad image now - people avoid it.  Shops not being able to afford rents etc.  It's turned into a right dive that we only go into when absolutely necessary.  Council don't seem to have a clue about how to regenerate it - having no money for the task being major factor, they spent a fortune on a new bus station though and a massive new Sainsburys is being built - how this is going to help I don't know.  I think council is possibly corrupt behind the scenes - loads of backhanders and people just lining their pockets - this is how it seems to me, especially with Labour getting back in again on such a majority.  It's as if people didn't realise the council was Labour not Tory and have blamed cuts on the Tories as opposed to evident Labour council mismanagement of budget.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2014)

_Thick and ignorant_ says private school and oxbridge graduate.


----------



## butchersapron (May 30, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> it's just the state of Council budget and lack of ability at managing the budget - you'd vote for anything but a repeat of the same basically!  They've been closing libraries, threatened to close swimming baths, which has had a reprieve I think; all sorts of services cut back or cancelled - it's been appallingly managed.  The city has a very bad image now - people avoid it.  Shops not being able to afford rents etc.  It's turned into a right dive that we only go into when absolutely necessary.  Council don't seem to have a clue about how to regenerate it - having no money for the task being major factor, they spent a fortune on a new bus station though and a massive new Sainsburys is being built - how this is going to help I don't know.  I think council is possibly corrupt behind the scenes - loads of backhanders and people just lining their pockets - this is how it seems to me, especially with Labour getting back in again on such a majority.  It's as if people didn't realise the council was Labour not Tory and have blamed cuts on the Tories as opposed to evident Labour council mismanagement of budget.


Do you know how council funding works?


----------



## treelover (May 30, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm not really famililiar with that part of the country tbh - my suspicion would be that the strength of labour there is historical, stemming from the history of manufacture in the area and the union organisation that would have accompanied it. That and people recognising that the Tories are a bunch of robbing bastards - even more so than labour - who hate the working class and won't do anything for you unless you're incredibly wealthy/went to Eton/both.




Saltley Gate was a long time ago, the Tories have done well in the W/M since then.


----------



## nessa239 (May 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Do you know how council funding works?



Yes, central government gives them a budget and I know those budgets have been cut but the way our council has run things you can tell they haven't got a clue regardless of any cuts.  They've closed some libraries and are turning/have turned others in to 'community hubs'.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Yes, central government gives them a budget and I know those budgets have been cut but the way our council has run things you can tell they haven't got a clue regardless of any cuts.  They've closed some libraries and are turning/have turned others in to 'community hubs'.


So they don't just spend all the money - right? They literally cannot spend all the money.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

treelover said:


> Saltley Gate was a long time ago, the Tories have done well in the W/M since then.



Not in my city as regards council they haven't.  Vote rigging would have to be suspected before anyone started checking.  Local MP is Tory - Paul Uppal and I haven't been impressed - he toes party line every time you ask him to sign an EDM etc


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> it's just the state of Council budget and lack of ability at managing the budget - you'd vote for anything but a repeat of the same basically!  They've been closing libraries, threatened to close swimming baths, which has had a reprieve I think; all sorts of services cut back or cancelled - it's been appallingly managed.  The city has a very bad image now - people avoid it.  Shops not being able to afford rents etc.  It's turned into a right dive that we only go into when absolutely necessary.  Council don't seem to have a clue about how to regenerate it - having no money for the task being major factor, they spent a fortune on a new bus station though and a massive new Sainsburys is being built - how this is going to help I don't know.  I think council is possibly corrupt behind the scenes - loads of backhanders and people just lining their pockets - this is how it seems to me, especially with Labour getting back in again on such a majority.  It's as if people didn't realise the council was Labour not Tory and have blamed cuts on the Tories as opposed to evident Labour council mismanagement of budget.



The cuts do come from the Tories though - only way the council can avoid them is by breaking the law. At the same time as making massive cuts (which are being aimed disproportionately at labour held councils in the north and midlands) the government has given councils additional responsibilities with no extra funds (in fact a massive reduction). 
People are absolutely right to blame the government for the cuts - it's them who are making them. I'd also give some blame to the council for not breaking the law and refusing to pass them on but I'm guessing you wouldn't approve of that.

As for the Sainsbury's - I'd expect Sainsbury's are paying for the bulk of that (and the council will get additional tax money from it so it's not that stupid really). I'd have to look at the bus station specifically but sometimes earmarked funds are provided by the EU for developments like that, especially in areas needing regeneration. On the other hand, it might just really need a new one.

You say there's evident mismanagement of the budget by labour - what evidence are you talking about precisely (it may well be true, I don't know, but you're being very naive if you think the Tories would do any better).

If you don't like reduced services and decline you'd have to be utterly barking to vote for a Tory council.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So they don't just spend all the money - right? They literally cannot spend all the money.



Sorry I'm not sure what point you are making


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Not in my city as regards council they haven't.  Vote rigging would have to be suspected before anyone started checking.  Local MP is Tory - Paul Uppal and I haven't been impressed - he toes party line every time you ask him to sign an EDM etc


I thought labour outpolled your tories by 2 to 1?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

treelover said:


> Saltley Gate was a long time ago, the Tories have done well in the W/M since then.



She says this one's labour dominated though so it's obviously not Saltley Gate.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

Actually, I'm backing out before this turns into a re-run of the Maxine Carr thread.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

We can't allow this person to do this though.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> The cuts do come from the Tories though - only way the council can avoid them is by breaking the law. At the same time as making massive cuts (which are being aimed disproportionately at labour held councils in the north and midlands) the government has given councils additional responsibilities with no extra funds (in fact a massive reduction).
> People are absolutely right to blame the government for the cuts - it's them who are making them. I'd also give some blame to the council for not breaking the law and refusing to pass them on but I'm guessing you wouldn't approve of that.
> 
> As for the Sainsbury's - I'd expect Sainsbury's are paying for the bulk of that (and the council will get additional tax money from it so it's not that stupid really). I'd have to look at the bus station specifically but sometimes earmarked funds are provided by the EU for developments like that, especially in areas needing regeneration. On the other hand, it might just really need a new one.
> ...



I voted UKIP

Would have voted Tory but got disillusioned as the candidate came round after we offered to help out via sending a questionnaire back and he said he needed leaflets delivering.  Never heard anything more from him so I thought if he can't be bothered, neither can I!  I have an intense dislike of Labour (and don't need another argument - just accept some people have different views)


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Actually, I'm backing out before this turns into a re-run of the Maxine Carr thread.



Lol

I won't turn it into a battle if no one else does


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I voted UKIP
> 
> Would have voted Tory but got disillusioned as the candidate came round after we offered to help out via sending a questionnaire back and he said he needed leaflets delivering.  Never heard anything more from him so I thought if he can't be bothered, neither can I!  I have an intense dislike of Labour (and don't need another argument - just accept some people have different views)


And then you turn on UKIP.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I thought labour outpolled your tories by 2 to 1?



Paul Uppal is our MP - representative in central government  Our local council is Labour controlled  - MP doesn't automatically follow what council is


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And then you turn on UKIP.



Turn on?  I voted for them


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Paul Uppal is our MP - representative in central governemnt  Our local council is Labour


By 2 to 1 is it?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I voted UKIP
> 
> Would have voted Tory but got disillusioned as the candidate came round after we offered to help out via sending a questionnaire back and he said he needed leaflets delivering.  Never heard anything more from him so I thought if he can't be bothered, neither can I!  I have an intense dislike of Labour (and don't need another argument - just accept some people have different views)



I'm not exactly a fan of labour either. I've spent the last 4 years directly confronting a labour council in anti-cuts campaigns. But you seem to have some very strange (and demonstrably erroneous) ideas about how council funding works. No council would be able to live up the expectations you appear to have, if you ended up with a UKIP one you'd have been back here in 6 months time making the same complaints about them - same goes for the Tories.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> By 2 to 1 is it?



more than

If people had voted Conservative instead of UKIP ie if UKIP hadn't split the vote, Labour would still have won!

This is in my local ward sorry, not overall but evidently similar elsewhere for Labour to win overall


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

Uppal is Wolverhampton isn't he? Isn't discokermit from those parts?


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Uppal is Wolverhampton isn't he? Isn't discokermit from those parts?


I used to live in that seat -  Budgen had it then.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

Just checked the council results for Wolverhampton. In only two seats did labour get double the combined vote of the tories and UKIP, though they came close in a third. The rest were either not won by labour at all or the combined UKIP/Tory vote either exceeded the labour vote or came very close to doing so.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Just checked the council results for Wolverhampton. In only two seats did labour get double the combined vote of the tories and UKIP, though they came close in a third. The rest were either not won by labour at all or the combined UKIP/Tory vote either exceeded the labour vote or came very close to doing so.


Majority view - fuck you. Bully.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

Not just a bully - I must be really fucking bored to check election results in a town I have no connection to at half past midnight on a Friday night


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not just a bully - I must be really fucking bored to check election results in a town I have no connection to at half past midnight on a Friday night


A bully and a nerd. I have the excuse of only popping back in for a bit...you though...


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> more than
> 
> If people had voted Conservative instead of UKIP ie if UKIP hadn't split the vote, Labour would still have won!





SpineyNorman said:


> Uppal is Wolverhampton isn't he? Isn't discokermit from those parts?



Yes, don't know


----------



## brogdale (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I voted UKIP
> 
> Would have voted Tory but got disillusioned as the candidate came round after we offered to help out via sending a questionnaire back and he said he needed leaflets delivering.  Never heard anything more from him so I thought if he can't be bothered, neither can I!  I have an intense dislike of Labour (and don't need another argument - just accept some people have different views)



And you'd have done so expecting there to be fewer cut services if they'd been elected?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Just checked the council results for Wolverhampton. In only two seats did labour get double the combined vote of the tories and UKIP, though they came close in a third. The rest were either not won by labour at all or the combined UKIP/Tory vote either exceeded the labour vote or came very close to doing so.



Most seats were won by Labour - it's a Labour majority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2014


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Most seats were won by Labour - it's a Labour majority
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2014


Yet you said that labour did what electorally in your town?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Most seats were won by Labour - it's a Labour majority
> 
> It was my ward I was talking about specifically
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2014


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yet you said that labour did what electorally in your town?



Labour won majority of seats

the double the conservative and UKIP thing was my ward


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

So why did you say town? Why make such a massively inaccurate statement?


----------



## discokermit (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Uppal is Wolverhampton isn't he? Isn't discokermit from those parts?


yeh, what?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

brogdale said:


> And you'd have done so expecting there to be fewer cut services if they'd been elected?



Better management of the money would have been my expectation/they couldn't do any worse than Labour


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Most seats were won by Labour - it's a Labour majority
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2014



Yes I know, I don't dispute that fact. But that's not the same as labour outpolling UKIP/the Tories combined by 2-1. They didn't come anywhere near it. If I was even sadder than I am I'd aggregate the results to give a figure but I'm not.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So why did you say town? Why make such a massively inaccurate statement?



Labour won with a sizeable majority of seats so it wasn't that wrong

if you want to go on about it though go ahead - I know it's what people go on forums for


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Better management of the money would have been my expectation/they couldn't do any worse than Labour



On what do you base this opinion? Given that the Tories (and the ideologues in UKIP) have a commitment to reduced state provision I think that incredibly unlikely myself.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I know it's what people go on forums for



Please don't start that on this thread.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes I know, I don't dispute that fact. But that's not the same as labour outpolling UKIP/the Tories combined by 2-1. They didn't come anywhere near it. If I was even sadder than I am I'd aggregate the results to give a figure but I'm not.



I make mistakes - do you ever do that?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> On what do you base this opinion? Given that the Tories (and the ideologues in UKIP) have a commitment to reduced state provision I think that incredibly unlikely myself.



I was willing to give them a chance - see if they were any better


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

discokermit said:


> yeh, what?



Would you agree with this?



nessa239 said:


> it's just the state of Council budget and lack of ability at managing the budget - you'd vote for anything but a repeat of the same basically!  They've been closing libraries, threatened to close swimming baths, which has had a reprieve I think; all sorts of services cut back or cancelled - it's been appallingly managed.  The city has a very bad image now - people avoid it.  Shops not being able to afford rents etc.  It's turned into a right dive that we only go into when absolutely necessary.  Council don't seem to have a clue about how to regenerate it - having no money for the task being major factor, they spent a fortune on a new bus station though and a massive new Sainsburys is being built - how this is going to help I don't know.  I think council is possibly corrupt behind the scenes - loads of backhanders and people just lining their pockets - this is how it seems to me, especially with Labour getting back in again on such a majority.  It's as if people didn't realise the council was Labour not Tory and have blamed cuts on the Tories as opposed to evident Labour council mismanagement of budget.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Labour won with a sizeable majority of seats so it wasn't that wrong
> 
> if you want to go on about it though go ahead - I know it's what people go on forums for


Your claim that labour had two votes to every other vote in your town was totally wrong. If you get basic facts like this wrong - or lie about them, or exaggerate them - people won't trust you. Now i don't trust your ability to accurately report things or to evaluate stats. God knows what a cynic might think.


----------



## discokermit (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I used to live in that seat -  Budgen had it then.


when? ish?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I make mistakes - do you ever do that?



Yes - there's no need to get defensive, you made a claim I found difficult to believe so I checked it out - it's not a personal attack on you.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Your claim that labour had two votes to every other vote in your town was totally wrong. If you get basic facts like this wrong - or lie about them, or exaggerate them - people won't trust you. Now i don't trust your ability to accurately report things or to evaluate stats. God knows what a cynic might think.



Oh my God! is all I'll say to that


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

discokermit said:


> when? ish?


Late 90s early 2000s. Was living in Dudley before that.


----------



## brogdale (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Better management of the money would have been my expectation/they couldn't do any worse than Labour



What services would you like to have seen cut, then?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes - there's no need to get defensive, you made a claim I found difficult to believe so I checked it out - it's not a personal attack on you.



it's the way people go on and on about it

Did you know JUST HOW WRONG you were???????!

half the time I can't even remember what my partner has just asked for when i ask if he wants tea or coffee and have to ask again - I do not have a mind like a steel trap!


----------



## discokermit (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Would you agree with this?


pretty much. the place is a shithole, much worse than it's ever been. labour are cunts.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> A bully and a nerd. I have the excuse of only popping back in for a bit...you though...



I'm meant to be revising for an exam - the weird thing is I'm actually interested in the subject matter but because it's something I've _got _to do I seem to be intent on finding any way I can to avoid it


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

brogdale said:


> What services would you like to have seen cut, then?



I would lower shop rents for a start and try and be more enterprising in use of empty properties for services

I wouldn't know what needed cutting until had overview of what money was being spent on

I would cut the utter wastage of money which I know occurs as have worked for council in the past


----------



## discokermit (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Late 90s early 2000s. Was living in Dudley before that.


i was living in pennfields then.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> it's the way people go on and on about it
> 
> Did you know JUST HOW WRONG you were???????!
> 
> half the time I can't even remember what my partner has just asked for when i ask if he wants tea or coffee and have to ask again - I do not have a mind like a steel trap!



Seriously, I don't know why you're taking it personally. When people make claims on these boards we like to check them out. 

And it seems you were right about labour in the council anyway:



discokermit said:


> pretty much. the place is a shithole, much worse than it's ever been. labour are cunts.


 Though I must point out that since you agree with the other Wolverhampton poster you're now agreeing with the majority view on here


----------



## brogdale (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I would lower shop rents for a start and try and be more enterprising in use of empty properties for services
> 
> I wouldn't know what needed cutting until had overview of what money was being spent on


 

and I'm out.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Seriously, I don't know why you're taking it personally. When people make claims on these boards we like to check them out.
> 
> And it seems you were right about labour in the council anyway:
> 
> ...



So I'm only right when someone backs up my point

as a stand alone opinion as uttered by just me, it was going to be dismissed

thanks!


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

discokermit said:


> i was living in pennfields then.


I was kipping on a floor in those houses of residence by the back of the ground - fantastic year that.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> So I'm only right when someone backs up my point
> 
> as a stand alone opinion as uttered by just me, it was going to be dismissed
> 
> thanks!



Yes. You're a poster who I don't know and who has form for making claims that either cannot be backed up or can be shown to be untrue. Having read DK's posts for a few years now I know him to be reliable. Him agreeing with your claims adds weight to them. This is perfectly reasonable, you're not being persecuted.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

brogdale said:


> and I'm out.





SpineyNorman said:


> Yes. You're a poster who I don't know and who has form for making claims that either cannot be backed up or can be shown to be untrue. Having read DK's posts for a few years now I know him to be reliable. Him agreeing with your claims adds weight to them. This is perfectly reasonable, you're not being persecuted.



Lol thanks for that I am honoured!

If anything I say is unreliable I can assure you it's not a malicious act


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Lol thanks for that I am honoured!
> 
> If anything I say is unreliable I can assure you it's not a malicious act



the stuff the other day was all opinion anyway, as I clearly stated - opinion isn't fact


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Lol thanks for that I am honoured!
> 
> If anything I say is unreliable I can assure you it's not a malicious act



I didn't think it was malicious. It's possible to think someone is wrong without ascribing any kind of ulterior motive. And on that note I'll leave it until something else relating to the topic of the thread comes up - I don't want this thread to become about you and I'm sure you don't either.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> the stuff the other day was all opinion anyway, as I clearly stated - opinion isn't fact


Yes it is.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes it is.



How so?


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> How so?


Not sure you'd get it.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure you'd get it.



So if I say that in my opinion you are a Martian that is a fact is it?


----------



## discokermit (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Having read DK's posts for a few years now I know him to be reliable.


lol!


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> So if I say that in my opinion you are a Martian that is a fact is it?


Well, do you think for yourself and reject majority opinion or not?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> So if I say that in my opinion you are a Martian that is a fact is it?



He is a martian so you've picked a bad example there to be honest.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

discokermit said:


> lol!



And you can fuck off


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Well, do you think for yourself and reject majority opinion or not?



What???  Answer my question


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> What???  Answer my question



Just explain your logic


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> What???  Answer my question


I just did. Am i a martian or not? Do you reject majority opinion or what?


----------



## discokermit (May 31, 2014)




----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I just did. Am i a martian or not? Do you reject majority opinion or what?



No you didn't

you haven't proved opinion is fact at all, you're just trying to wind me up

I don't reject all majority opinion, just some

opinion is a person's thoughts on a subject, it usually isn't objective fact; it's subjective opinion

it's a category error to equate opinion with fact


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> No you didn't
> 
> you haven't proved opinion is fact at all, you're just trying to wind me up
> 
> ...


In the same way that to confuse majority opinion with inaccuracy is a what sort of error?

Btw - _just_ how much of majority opinion do you reject?


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

There are different kinds of things we can have opinions on. We can have opinions about objective claims that can be shown to be true or untrue (the guilt or innocence of Maxine Carr would fit into this). In these kinds of cases your opinion can be shown to be false. For example, if I say that in my opinion UKIP will win 6 seats at the next general election and they win 5 my opinion has been shown to be wrong. On these kinds of questions you won't find people on here simply accepting that opinions differ - we will try and get the evidence so we can show who/what is right. 

Equally, we can have opinions on subjective claims that can never be resolved, for example if the two of us were to disagree over which is better: cheese or rollercoasters, I think cheese and you think rollercoasters, we'd just have to agree to disagree because there are no facts that can be known about the question.

Do you understand what I mean when I make this distinction nessa239 ?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> In the same way that to confuse majority opinion with inaccuracy is a what sort of error?
> 
> Btw - _just_ how much of majority opinion do you reject?



I said some majority opinions are inaccurate, not all

or to be more accurate I don't agree with a lot of majority opinions ie it's not a factual right/wrong thing, it's an I agree/disagree, like/dislike type thing instead
ie it's an opinion thing more than factual

I have never quantified the percentage that I reject but I'm the sort of person that if I'm told 'You must see this film!' in the media I will tend to think no way - it's mainstream crap probably ie the hype makes me do the opposite


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I said some majority opinions are inaccurate, not all
> 
> or to be more accurate I don't agree with a lot of majority opinions ie it's not a factual right/wrong thing, it's an I agree/disagree, like/dislike type thing instead
> ie it's an opinion thing more than factual
> ...


Would you say that a majority of majority opinion is wrong?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> There are different kinds of things we can have opinions on. We can have opinions about objective claims that can be shown to be true or untrue (the guilt or innocence of Maxine Carr would fit into this). In these kinds of cases your opinion can be shown to be false. For example, if I say that in my opinion UKIP will win 6 seats at the next general election and they win 5 my opinion has been shown to be wrong. On these kinds of questions you won't find people on here simply accepting that opinions differ - we will try and get the evidence so we can show who/what is right.
> 
> Equally, we can have opinions on subjective claims that can never be resolved, for example if the two of us were to disagree over which is better: cheese or rollercoasters, I think cheese and you think rollercoasters, we'd just have to agree to disagree because there are no facts that can be known about the question.
> 
> Do you understand what I mean when I make this distinction nessa239 ?



My opinion can be shown to be false in a court of law and at this moment in time given what we know so far  She could do something in future that gave more credence to my opinion though  

I can say I don't like her moral character and still have that opinion


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Would you say that a majority of majority opinion is wrong?



I've never considered it in this much depth; I just often seem to not be in agreement with a lot of it  A lot is media-dictated imo ie here's the latest gadget - ooh I must get one

I see trends in society that everyone rushes to get involved with and I don't' want to so it seems that a lot of people do stuff just because they think the majority is doing it


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> My opinion can be shown to be false in a court of law and at this moment in time given what we know so far  She could do something in future that gave more credence to my opinion though
> 
> I can say I don't like her moral character and still have that opinion


You've just argued that your opinion is false. You're a weird fish alright.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I've never considered it; I just often seem to not be in agreement with a lot of it  a lot is media-dictated imo ie here's the latest gadget - ooh I must get one


Well, consider it. And i think you have already btw.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You've just argued that your opinion is false. You're a weird fish alright.



I'm not used to having this type of agenda-based discussion; it seems unnecessarily aggressive


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I'm not used to having this type of agenda-based discussion


I'm not used to someone arguing that their opinion should be rejected in a court of law either.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I' not used to someone arguing that their opinion should be rejected in a court of law either.



you're all tying me up in knots with semantics

I'm not good at this type of discussion as the goalposts keep being moved

this is adversarial discussion ie point-scoring


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> you're all tying me up in knots with semantics
> 
> I'm not good at this type of discussion as the goalposts keep being moved
> 
> this is adversarial discussion ie point-scoring


Just be more accurate and don't insult everyone else. Or we'll tie you up.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

That was a bit of a strange think to say to be honest nessa239


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Just be more accurate and don't insult everyone else. Or we'll tie you up.



you called me a weird fish - so again the insults came from you not me


----------



## discokermit (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> you called me a weird fish - so again the insults came from you not me


that's a sign he likes you.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> you called me a weird fish - so again the insults came from you not me


Ok, you're a quare fish.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> That was a bit of a strange think to say to be honest nessa239



because you've got me confused now!

my brain can't cope with too many parameters - it thinks in serial not parallel mode

you have all these rigid cant think this or that but in my mind I think what I like - it doesn't get scrutinised as much and I can justify it to myself


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ok, you're a quare fish.



why?  what makes me one?  if I've got aspergers that's like saying oh you cant see! to a blind person really ie fking obvious!

a weird Asperger person - what a novelty!


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> why?  what makes me one?  if I've got aspergers that's like saying oh you cant see! to a blind person really ie fking obvious!
> 
> a weird Asperger person - what a novelty!


zzzz


----------



## discokermit (May 31, 2014)

whereabouts in wolvo you living nessa?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Penn/Graisley


----------



## discokermit (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Penn/Graisley


i used to live in zoar st.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Oh right, not far


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> because you've got me confused now!
> 
> my brain can't cope with too many parameters - it thinks in serial not parallel mode
> 
> you have all these rigid cant think this or that but in my mind I think what I like - it doesn't get scrutinised as much and I can justify it to myself



But don't you think your views _should _be able to stand up to scrutiny? And if they can't they might be incorrect? I like to have mine scrutinised, it's one of the things I like about these boards - because if I'm wrong about something I like to know so that I can change my mind.

We like to scrutinise views on the politics boards on this site - when there are things that can be known about issues we like to get to know them. If that kind of rigour upsets you or you don't like it you might enjoy posting on some of the other forums on here more - we discuss things a lot less seriously and intensely on the general forum and a lot of issues are covered - you might prefer it on there. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to force you to do anything, just making a suggestion.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

Is the wolves cowboy still around btw?


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> But don't you think your views _should _be able to stand up to scrutiny? And if they can't they might be incorrect? I like to have mine scrutinised, it's one of the things I like about these boards - because if I'm wrong about something I like to know so that I can change my mind.
> 
> We like to scrutinise views on the politics boards on this site - when there are things that can be known about issues we like to get to know them. If that kind of rigour upsets you or you don't like it you might enjoy posting on some of the other forums on here more - we discuss things a lot less seriously and intensely on the general forum and a lot of issues are covered - you might prefer it on there. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to force you to do anything, just making a suggestion.



I don't like it when it gets to the brain-ache level for me lol


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Is the wolves cowboy still around btw?



Haven't seen him in ages

Mind you I don't go round town a lot


----------



## discokermit (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Oh right, not far


the maisonettes.
i'm in woodcross now.


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Haven't seen him in ages
> 
> Mind you I don't go round town a lot


They finally got him. Poor lad.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I don't like it when it gets to the brain-ache level for me lol



Something I learned a while ago about posting on the internet - if a discussion is getting to you sometimes it's best to just walk away. I know sometimes it feels like you're giving up or admitting defeat but nobody else notices and it's actually quite liberating.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

Who is they?

I once overheard him having a conversation with this woman in a cafe in W-ton saying something about her always preferring to sleep outdoors ie like a homeless person, saying it wasn't right


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Something I learned a while ago about posting on the internet - if a discussion is getting to you sometimes it's best to just walk away. I know sometimes it feels like you're giving up or admitting defeat but nobody else notices and it's actually quite liberating.



it wasn't getting to me that much, I know what you mean though


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Who is they?
> 
> I once overheard him having a conversation with this woman in a cafe in W-ton saying something about her always preferring to sleep outdoors ie like a homeless person, saying it wasn't right


The injuns. And federalos.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The injuns. And federalos.



Oh lol


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

But indeed, _who is they_? *Who is they?*


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

discokermit said:


> the maisonettes.
> i'm in woodcross now.



Oh right


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> But indeed, _who is they_? *Who is they?*



Who am they


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> Who am they


They're after you not me, let us know.


----------



## discokermit (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Is the wolves cowboy still around btw?


kinda sad story. was approached by a christian couple, who kept trying to chat to him. turns out he just wanted someone to talk to. turned christian, lost the clobber.
he musta been walking round the town dressed as a cowboy shouting at people for over thirty years.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

discokermit said:


> kinda sad story. was approached by a christian couple, who kept trying to chat to him. turns out he just wanted someone to talk to. turned christian, lost the clobber.
> he musta been walking round the town dressed as a cowboy shouting at people for over thirty years.



I see.  Whenever i saw him he was mainly talking to himself and was always carrying a radio

I thought of him as being like Mike TV out of Charlie & the Chocolate Factory; like a boy in a man's body


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

discokermit said:


> kinda sad story. was approached by a christian couple, who kept trying to chat to him. turns out he just wanted someone to talk to. turned christian, lost the clobber.
> he musta been walking round the town dressed as a cowboy shouting at people for over thirty years.


I saw him have some epic battles with the christian shouters in town. Proper shooting round corners and everything. I don't want to sound glib or judgmental but, if we failed to at least offer an option for that lad all that time, well, we're doing it at least part wrong.


----------



## discokermit (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I see.  Whenever i saw him he was mainly talking to himself and was always carrying a radio
> 
> I thought of him as being like Mike TV out of Charlie & the Chocolate Factory; like a boy in a man's body


there was a rumour when i was a kid that the pressure of doing a levels had sent him mad. we were glad we'd never be doing 'em.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

discokermit said:


> there was a rumour when i was a kid that the pressure of doing a levels had sent him mad. we were glad we'd never be doing 'em.



I liked him - he was unthreatening and different

always walked very fast

I did A- Levels - look what it's done to me! Lol

That's Human Biology A-Level for you!  fucks you right up!


----------



## discokermit (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I saw him have some epic battles with the christian shouters in town. Proper shooting round corners and everything. I don't want to sound glib or judgmental but, if we failed to at least offer an option for that lad all that time, well, we're doing it at least part wrong.


you're right. the fact it took a couple of patient christians to talk to him and no one else had.
mind you, if you'd have come to our branch meetings you would have seen we were doing our bit.


----------



## discokermit (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> I liked him - he was unthreatening and different
> 
> always walked very fast


he could be a right cunt sometimes.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

discokermit said:


> he could be a right cunt sometimes.



In what way?


----------



## butchersapron (May 31, 2014)

discokermit said:


> he could be a right cunt sometimes.


Jumping out on lone women in the dark.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Jumping out on lone women in the dark.



That surprises me - I'd categorised him as harmless


----------



## discokermit (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> In what way?


he could be quite manic, aggressive and shouty.
mind you, having a circle of twelve year olds running round him whooping like indians wouldn't have helped.

and what butchers said.


----------



## nessa239 (May 31, 2014)

discokermit said:


> he could be quite manic, aggressive and shouty.
> mind you, having a circle of twelve year olds running round him whooping like indians wouldn't have helped.



I didn't see him often enough to see all this other behaviour, it was only ever him walking past


----------



## emanymton (May 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Petty small minded community type. The sort of person people will vote for.


Quite, I don't really see much wrong with anything he said.


----------



## frogwoman (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't really understand what's funny about that video - the kind of stuff he's talking about (apart from the green belt stuff) reminds me of the kind of stuff my old man gets up to on the parish council where he lives (and it's made him very popuIar and quite right too) and not all that different from the kind of stuff that people used to support Dave Nellist for doing.



Nor do I. Did you watch the whole thing?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't really understand what's funny about that video - the kind of stuff he's talking about (apart from the green belt stuff) reminds me of the kind of stuff my old man gets up to on the parish council where he lives (and it's made him very popuIar and quite right too) and not all that different from the kind of stuff that people used to support Dave Nellist for doing.



I think some people find it funny because they take what the geezer is saying as signifying his party's values etc.  Bit daft because, as you and othrs have pointed out, at local level that sort of stuff is what swings some local elections.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 31, 2014)

nessa239 said:


> it's just the state of Council budget and lack of ability at managing the budget - you'd vote for anything but a repeat of the same basically!  They've been closing libraries, threatened to close swimming baths, which has had a reprieve I think; all sorts of services cut back or cancelled - it's been appallingly managed.  The city has a very bad image now - people avoid it.  Shops not being able to afford rents etc.  It's turned into a right dive that we only go into when absolutely necessary.  Council don't seem to have a clue about how to regenerate it - having no money for the task being major factor, they spent a fortune on a new bus station though and a massive new Sainsburys is being built - how this is going to help I don't know.  I think council is possibly corrupt behind the scenes - loads of backhanders and people just lining their pockets - this is how it seems to me, especially with Labour getting back in again on such a majority.  It's as if people didn't realise the council was Labour not Tory and have blamed cuts on the Tories as opposed to evident Labour council mismanagement of budget.



TBF those sorts of cuts have happened *everywhere*, not just in Labour authorities, and a lot of it has little to do with "appalling management" (you can have the best management in the world, but with no money coming in, they can't manage!), and everything to do with year-on-year budget reductions for the laast 5-6 years.  Unless you're a Wandsworth or a Westminster, with large reserves (and even they have gone through their reserves by now, even though both had tens of millions), then you're going to be one of the hundreds of local authorities and county councils who're basically on their uppers due to having their budgets slashed by the coalition.


----------



## laptop (Jun 18, 2014)

UKIP characterises itself:

*Nigel Farage joins forces with far-right Swedish and French MEPs*
Ukip leader's group in European parliament includes party founded by white supremacists and ex-FN member
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/18/nigel-farage-far-right-european-parliament


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 18, 2014)




----------



## gosub (Jun 20, 2014)

laptop said:


> UKIP characterises itself:
> 
> *Nigel Farage joins forces with far-right Swedish and French MEPs*
> Ukip leader's group in European parliament includes party founded by white supremacists and ex-FN member
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/18/nigel-farage-far-right-european-parliament



Unwhipped grouping of convienience to enable higher tier funding and speaking time allocation.  Given the rules are rigged to make it as hard for minority views to be heard, is a bit of a cheap shot


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 20, 2014)

gosub said:


> Unwhipped grouping of convienience to enable higher tier funding and speaking time allocation.  Given the rules are rigged to make it as hard for minority views to be heard, is a bit of a cheap shot



That's an argument to defend joining a grouping within the european parliament, but it doesn't excuse them joining that particular group with those particular bedfellows. I'm sure Farage has made the same excuse, but it's just not good enough. The fact is they're in that group because that's where they belong.


----------



## gosub (Jun 20, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's an argument to defend joining a grouping within the european parliament, but it doesn't excuse them joining that particular group with those particular bedfellows. I'm sure Farage has made the same excuse, but it's just not good enough. The fact is they're in that group because that's where they belong.



Whatever, there is now 3 Eurosceptic groupings scrapping around to find  the 25 MEPs from 7 member states that you need to be able to speak.  Tories nicked 2 of their old group members, (so you could do an unattractive associates their way too), but it was more about trying to deprive the party that won the UK EUro elections of a voice.  Actually quite looking forward to what Farage has to say about Juncker, cos the whole rotten system is beyond a joke


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 22, 2014)

gosub said:


> Whatever, there is now 3 Eurosceptic groupings scrapping around to find  the 25 MEPs from 7 member states that you need to be able to speak.  Tories nicked 2 of their old group members, (so you could do an unattractive associates their way too), but it was more about trying to deprive the party that won the UK EUro elections of a voice.  Actually quite looking forward to what Farage has to say about Juncker, cos the whole rotten system is beyond a joke



Put it this way, is there any set of circumstances that would induce you to team up with overtly racist organisations? 

It's hardly a surprise that euroskeptics struggle to find friends to play with from other parts of Europe is it? They should have thought of that before they decided to be cunts in the first place.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 24, 2014)

Sometimes the supporters do the characterisation themselves:

http://stilllaughingattheukip.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/racism-uncontrolled-mass-racism/

This highlights comments on a post about Chuka on the official UKIP page. This particular blog can be a bit crap for taking the 'pointing and shouting wacist' approach to dealing with UKIP, but still, these comments show a shocking attitude. Sometimes I think we've come along way from how it was when I was growing up, then the internet reminds me that assholes still exist.


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Sometimes the supporters do the characterisation themselves:
> 
> http://stilllaughingattheukip.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/racism-uncontrolled-mass-racism/
> 
> This highlights comments on a post about Chuka on the official UKIP page. This particular blog can be a bit crap for taking the 'pointing and shouting wacist' approach to dealing with UKIP, but still, these comments show a shocking attitude. Sometimes I think we've come along way from how it was when I was growing up, then the internet reminds me that assholes still exist.



That's gross...


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 24, 2014)

Thing is, I think the internet has provided a useful echo chamber for racists.  Whilst I've worked with some quite racist people over the years (more directed at Asians in recent years) they've tended not to speak out much, keep their heads down, been challenged by others and in most cases would never actually go out of their way to be offensive to a person, they just 'don't like them' and keep out of their way.  With stuff like Facebook you have a platform for people to express opinions with similar minded people and let it all out and gain confidence that it's alright to say this stuff, and pages like the UKIP become a natural home for anti-immigrant expression.  To wade in and challenge it on every occasion this stuff crops up (and local paper websites are full of it - plenty of retired bigots with time on their hands) seems pointless and time-consuming, and probably doesn't actually achieve anything.  

I don't know if it's countered by more leftist stuff being shared or organised in a similar way on the same platforms - you don't seem to see so much UKuncut stuff getting shared anymore, and the 'lefties' on Twitter seem mostly tied up in sexual politics or arguing with each other.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 24, 2014)

It's not just Facebook either, The Telegraph (online version) has become a repository of extreme right-wing views. A blog commenting on the Umunna saga, is full of comments from the usual nutcases. Most of whom mention Umunna's ethnicity (He's half-Irish, half-Nigerian with a grandfather who was a high court judge) and repeat the usual "go back home" crap.


----------



## treelover (Jun 24, 2014)

Whats Ummana been up to now then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Sometimes the supporters do the characterisation themselves:
> 
> http://stilllaughingattheukip.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/racism-uncontrolled-mass-racism/
> 
> This highlights comments on a post about Chuka on the official UKIP page. This particular blog can be a bit crap for taking the 'pointing and shouting wacist' approach to dealing with UKIP, but still, these comments show a shocking attitude. Sometimes I think we've come along way from how it was when I was growing up, then the internet reminds me that assholes still exist.



Don't get me wrong, I think Chuka (my local MP) is an utter anus - he's the worst sort of careerist Labour machine politician - but if you're going to challenge him, then it should be on his politics, not on his heritage like these shitheads are doing.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 22, 2014)

What's the point?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 22, 2014)

Isnt there a risk that describing ukip as fash (ive seen them described as Nazis ffs) when they've got the same policies as the right wing of the tory party will just end up a self fulfilling prophecy?


----------



## dennisr (Sep 22, 2014)

J Ed said:


> What's the point?



At least the speakers include an voting alternative and striking workers. Still no 'expose' beyond "they are racist" on the leaflet though. Maybe the back spells it out. Here in Thanet South - where Farage is standing the SUTU campaign is led by an ex-swappie who is, in effect, trying to get the green candidate to stand down in favour of some new labourite. The public campaign (despite the cynical nods in the direction of critics from the left when occasionally challenged about the tactic...) is just "they are racist" - no context - no recognition that peple are voting for ukip  as a confused 'anti-establishment' vote, certainly no class based critisism of what ukip are really about. Maybe i'm wrong, but it seems to be just a polarising campaign making the rightous feel good about themselves while potentially driving ukip sympathiers further down the "well, I must be a racist" path - that they seem to add to the feeling of a strong presence of ukip in the town - what about the parties driving racist and anti-working class politics who are in power - nothing said. Their answer seems to be 'vote for the least bad one of them'.

A couple of days ago I see the usual suspects on the SUTU campaign while up the road a poshly dressed black woman hands out ukip leaflets.


----------



## treelover (Sep 22, 2014)

Jo Cardwell, so yet another SWP front


----------



## two sheds (Nov 29, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Isnt there a risk that describing ukip as fash (ive seen them described as Nazis ffs) when they've got the same policies as the right wing of the tory party will just end up a self fulfilling prophecy?



I'm presuming the best approach to countering the 'man of the people' image is to lay out where Farage made his money and is getting his money (good little piece in Private Eye on that this issue), and then add a few colourful examples of their previous candidate hatstands to suggest what life will be like under Ukippery.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2014)

That's what's been happening isn't it? How is that working?


----------



## isvicthere? (Nov 29, 2014)

http://newsthump.com/2014/11/28/uki...fits-whilst-simultaneously-stealing-your-job/


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2014)

See?


----------



## andysays (Nov 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's what's been happening isn't it? How is that working?



Is that actually happening to a significant extent?

Most of what I've been aware of is either "UKIP and their support is racist/fascist" nonsense or unfunny and unproductive "spoofery" of the kind isvicthere? has just provided an excellent example of.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2014)

andysays said:


> Is that actually happening to a significant extent?
> 
> Most of what I've been aware of is either UKIP and their support is racist/fascist nonsense or unfunny and unproductive "spoofery" of the kind isvicthere? has just provided an excellent example of.


Yes, it's exactly  what's been happening_. Farage is posh and look at the bonkers stuff ukip members say._


----------



## isvicthere? (Nov 29, 2014)

andysays said:


> Is that actually happening to a significant extent?
> 
> Most of what I've been aware of is either "UKIP and their support is racist/fascist" nonsense or unfunny and unproductive "spoofery" of the kind isvicthere? has just provided an excellent example of.



So, it's "nonsense" to dismiss the staunchly anti-immigrant UKIP as "racist", is it?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2014)

isvicthere? said:


> So, it's "nonsense" to dismiss the staunchly anti-immigrant UKIP as "racist", is it?


It's nonsense to dismiss their supporters as racist yes. It Really really is.

Nice loaded and leading question btw. Do you do that in the classroom?


----------



## andysays (Nov 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, it's exactly  what's been happening_. Farage is posh and look at the bonkers stuff ukip members say._



That seems like a bit of a characture of what two sheds is suggesting. I haven't read the Private Eye piece he was referring to, so can't comment on that, but there is scope for genuine criticism of UKIP which points out Farage and co's background in the finance world (rather than just pointing out that he's "posh"), and examines where their interests and sympathies really lie without reducing it to them being all about the racism.

I'm sure such criticism exists, but I haven't seen much sign of it - it's largely overwhelmed by the simplistic nonsense which, as we've seen, has no effect other than further alienating those who might be sympathetic to UKIP's anti-establishment pretence.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2014)

andysays said:


> That seems like a bit of a characture of what two sheds is suggesting. I haven't read the Private Eye piece he was referring to, so can't comment on that, but there is scope for genuine criticism of UKIP which points out Farage and co's background in the finance world (rather than just pointing out that he's "posh"), and examines where their interests and sympathies really lie without reducing it to them being all about the racism.
> 
> I'm sure such criticism exists, but I haven't seen much sign of it - it's largely overwhelmed by the simplistic nonsense which, as we've seen, has no effect other than further alienating those who might be sympathetic to UKIP's anti-establishment pretence.


No it's not. It's what has happened. Over and over over and over. _Oh look at what ukip members say._ That was pretty much the media narrative until may. Now they are left holding the baby with no understanding of why.


----------



## andysays (Nov 29, 2014)

isvicthere? said:


> So, it's "nonsense" to dismiss the staunchly anti-immigrant UKIP as "racist", is it?



It's nonsense to dismiss UKIP (the party) as merely racist, and it's nonsense (and totally counter productive) to suggest that their appeal/support is based simply on racism.

It's been said many, many times here, but UKIP as a party are not uniquely anti-immigrant or racist, and to reduce the Tories, LibDems or Labour to being "anti immigrant" or any other single facet of their overall approach would be equally nonsense, though for some reason people don't tend to do that...


----------



## andysays (Nov 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not. It's what has happened. Over and over over and over. _Oh look at what ukip members say._ That was pretty much the media narrative until may. Now they are left holding the baby with no understanding of why.



OK, I think we're at cross purposes now.

I agree that there's been plenty of _Oh look at what ukip members say._

I'm wondering why there hasn't been more of what I called above


> genuine criticism of UKIP which points out Farage and co's background in the finance world (rather than just pointing out that he's "posh"), and examines where their interests and sympathies really lie without reducing it to them being all about the racism


I thought that was what two sheds was calling for, though having re-read I suspect I may have been giving him the benefit of the doubt, and what you're characterising him as saying is less of a characature than I thought.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 29, 2014)

andysays said:


> It's nonsense to dismiss UKIP (the party) as merely racist, and it's nonsense (and totally counter productive) to suggest that their appeal/support is based simply on racism.
> 
> It's been said many, many times here, but UKIP as a party are not uniquely anti-immigrant or racist, and to reduce the Tories, LibDems or Labour to being "anti immigrant" or any other single facet of their overall approach would be equally nonsense, though for some reason people don't tend to do that...


Sorry, but I think that's balls. UKIP are anti-EU first and foremost because membership of the EU leads to uncontrolled immigration. That's their thing. Anything else they may have in terms of policy - and it's not much - is secondary stuff most people don't even know about. UKIP exist to get Britain out of the EU, and limiting immigration is the single clarion call - they are of course quite right that you can't limit immigration from the EU without leaving the EU, and that is hitting a chord. It's hitting a chord most where there are fewest immigrants, because people are blaming all kinds of social ills, from lack of jobs to lack of housing, on immigration. UKIP is winning that narrative. It has Cameron following it now.

'anti-immigration' _is_ UKIP.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sorry, but I think that's balls. UKIP are anti-EU first and foremost because membership of the EU leads to uncontrolled immigration. That's their thing. Anything else they may have in terms of policy - and it's not much - is secondary stuff most people don't even know about. UKIP exist to get Britain out of the EU, and limiting immigration is the single clarion call - they are of course quite right that you can't limit immigration from the EU without leaving the EU, and that is hitting a chord. It's hitting a chord most where there are fewest immigrants, because people are blaming all kinds of social ills, from lack of jobs to lack of housing, on immigration. UKIP is winning that narrative. It has Cameron following it now.
> 
> 'anti-immigration' _is_ UKIP.


Yeah, ignore all the people supporting UKIP and talk just about UKIP and its formal policies. Working a treat right now.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sorry, but I think that's balls. UKIP are anti-EU first and foremost because membership of the EU leads to uncontrolled immigration. That's their thing. Anything else they may have in terms of policy - and it's not much - is secondary stuff most people don't even know about. UKIP exist to get Britain out of the EU, and limiting immigration is the single clarion call - they are of course quite right that you can't limit immigration from the EU without leaving the EU, and that is hitting a chord. It's hitting a chord most where there are fewest immigrants, because people are blaming all kinds of social ills, from lack of jobs to lack of housing, on immigration. UKIP is winning that narrative. It has Cameron following it now.
> 
> 'anti-immigration' _is_ UKIP.


Can you support this claim that UKIP poll/vote better in areas with fewest immigrants? You really better be able to.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, ignore all the people supporting UKIP and talk just about UKIP and its formal policies. Working a treat right now.



This seems to be a fundamental point to me.

I've had conversations with a number of neighbours and relatives (in an ultra-safe Labour seat) who are more or less pro-UKIP and to at least some degree the roots of what's driving them politically seem to me to be 1) consequences of neo-liberal capitalism like precarity, roll-back of the welfare state etc and 2) disillusionment with the political status quo, their inability to influence any of that stuff by voting Labour or Tory etc.

That all might get _expressed_ as stuff about hating immigrants, the EU, middle-class do-gooders etc and seeing UKIP as standing up for "the man in the street" but that seems to me to be effect, albeit one UKIP has been successful in channeling, rather than cause and certainly isn't the only _imaginable_ political expression of those underlying concerns.


----------



## andysays (Nov 29, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sorry, but I think that's balls. UKIP are anti-EU first and foremost because membership of the EU leads to uncontrolled immigration. That's their thing. Anything else they may have in terms of policy - and it's not much - is secondary stuff most people don't even know about. UKIP exist to get Britain out of the EU, and limiting immigration is the single clarion call - they are of course quite right that you can't limit immigration from the EU without leaving the EU, and that is hitting a chord. It's hitting a chord most where there are fewest immigrants, because people are blaming all kinds of social ills, from lack of jobs to lack of housing, on immigration. UKIP is winning that narrative. It has Cameron following it now.
> 
> 'anti-immigration' _is_ UKIP.



So are you arguing that being "anti-immigration" is UKIP's first and founding principle, that everything is based on that as a foundation? You don't think there might ultimately be economic interests underlying their position which they believe can best be furthered by getting out of the EU and bringing all aspects of "national sovereignity", including but certainly not limited to immigration control, back under the control of the UK govt?

If so, that strikes me as being a ludicrously superficial way of looking at things, and if not, how would you describe their first principles?

And the idea that UKIP is somehow forcing Cameron and the Tories to become anti-immigrant, as if they never were before or never would have thought of it on their own is a little naive.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 29, 2014)

andysays said:


> And the idea that UKIP is somehow forcing Cameron and the Tories to become anti-immigrant, as if they never were before or never would have thought of it on their own is a little naive.


UKIP is forcing Cameron to adopt their narrative, yes. Or at least, Cameron is choosing to adopt their narrative as a response to UKIP successes. 

There's a lot of confusion on here, I think, where people are jumping all over any poster who talks about what UKIP are, suggesting immediately that they are talking about everyone who votes UKIP as well. UKIP are an anti-immigration party. They stand for little else. There is a separate discussion to be had about what is motivating people to vote for them and why - or indeed whether - their message is being taken on board.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> UKIP is forcing Cameron to adopt their narrative, yes. Or at least, Cameron is choosing to adopt their narrative as a response to UKIP successes.
> 
> There's a lot of confusion on here, I think, where people are jumping all over any poster who talks about what UKIP are, suggesting immediately that they are talking about everyone who votes UKIP as well. UKIP are an anti-immigration party. They stand for little else. There is a separate discussion to be had about what is motivating people to vote for them and why - or indeed whether - their message is being taken on board.


Maybe some sort of thread? One where uncomprehending  liberals could shout about UKIP candidates? Sort of like was suggested above.


----------



## andysays (Nov 29, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> UKIP is forcing Cameron to adopt their narrative, yes. Or at least, Cameron is choosing to adopt their narrative as a response to UKIP successes.
> 
> There's a lot of confusion on here, I think, where people are jumping all over any poster who talks about what UKIP are, suggesting immediately that they are talking about everyone who votes UKIP as well. UKIP are an anti-immigration party. They stand for little else. There is a separate discussion to be had about what is motivating people to vote for them and why - or indeed whether - their message is being taken on board.



But *why* are UKIP an anti-immigration party do you think*?

Is it just because they are nasty people who don't like immigrants (which seems to be where your characterisation begins and ends) or are there economic interests which are finding expression through anti-EU/anti immigration ideas?

And can you not remember the Tories ever before using "get tough on immigration" talk as part of their electioneering before UKIP even existed?

ETA: * and I'm not agreeing that they are, in the simplistic way you're suggesting


----------



## laptop (Nov 29, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> UKIP are an anti-immigration party. They stand for little else.



No, they're an anti-EU party. They stand for hiring and firing workers at will, no health & safety and no right to paid time off.

Anti-immigration rhetoric is mostly the means to that end.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 29, 2014)

laptop said:


> No, they're an anti-EU party. They stand for hiring and firing workers at will, no health & safety and no right to paid time off.
> 
> Anti-immigration rhetoric is mostly the means to that end.


That's not the stuff they push, though. That's not the rhetoric that they use to get votes. It's ammunition, hopefully, to get people not to vote for them. Again, I think there are two separate things - first, why is the anti-immigration rhetoric winning so many people over: so you point at the real causes of the problems immigration is being blamed for; second, all the other stuff you would get with UKIP in power, and yes, stuff you would lose if you left the EU. 

But most people aren't voting UKIP because they think workers have too many rights.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 29, 2014)

laptop said:


> No, they're an anti-EU party. They stand for hiring and firing workers at will, no health & safety and no right to paid time off.
> 
> Anti-immigration rhetoric is mostly the means to that end.



Not the whole story, but I think this is a valid point.

I strongly suspect that another goal, and one which helps them get generously funded, is to protect the City from EU regulation.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 29, 2014)

What approach to you suggest butchers? That's why I made the post - I want to know what tactics are best in combatting it.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 29, 2014)

andysays said:


> OK, I think we're at cross purposes now.
> 
> I agree that there's been plenty of _Oh look at what ukip members say._
> 
> ...



I'm interested to know what the caricature is - I tried to be careful in my choice of words. What you said is broadly what I was suggesting,

Butchers in his last couple of posts before the one of yours I'm quoting has been saying that I'm suggesting targeting ukip members. I was suggesting detailing where he was getting his finances from rather than being posh, and views of ukip candidates rather than members - like the one who said some particular storms were a punishment by God for the government's decision to legalise gay marriage.

I'm specifically interested because of other boards I go on where the threads are being overrun by Kippers. If they made comments like the ones they do on here, the response would be to first patiently explain why people feel that what they've said is wrong (which I've tried) and when it happens again start in with the multiple "fuck off you racist cunt"s until they leave, but that won't work on other boards because you put off people who haven't made their minds up yet. I want to respond without pushing undecided parties their way.

Another reason I suggested it is that it is in my experience a good approach with people in cults. You need to show the contradictions in what the cult leaders say in different places, and in what they say and what they do. What other people say about them doesn't have any effect.


----------



## andysays (Nov 29, 2014)

two sheds said:


> I'm interested to know what the caricature is - I tried to be careful in my choice of words. What you said is broadly what I was suggesting,
> 
> Butchers in his last couple of posts before the one of yours I'm quoting has been saying that I'm suggesting targeting ukip members. I was suggesting detailing where he was getting his finances from rather than being posh, and views of ukip candidates rather than members - like the one who said some particular storms were a punishment by God for the government's decision to legalise gay marriage.
> 
> ...



Thanks for clarifying what you were saying, and apologies if I was putting forward a caricature of what you were saying.

In my opinion, it's the question of where he's getting his finances from, and expanding on that to look at whose interests he's ultimately serving, that I'd suggest would be most relevant. In other words, what is actually behind the anti EU/anti immigration stuff? It's not that they're genuinely concerned about the issues that most people who are attracted to them are concerned by, they're merely exploiting those issues to mask their real interests which are those of a section of the best off, particularly the financial sector.

I'd be less keen on focussing on some of the off-the-wall statements of some members, because that can just play into the idea that they are saying the unsayable and the liberal establishment is trying to censor them.

And I'd also be a little wary about making references to cults, because that may come across as if you think that UKIP supporters are somehow equivalent or similar to brain washed cult members, and that's not a tactic likely to win many arguments.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 29, 2014)

andysays said:


> But *why* are UKIP an anti-immigration party do you think*?
> 
> Is it just because they are nasty people who don't like immigrants (which seems to be where your characterisation begins and ends) or are there economic interests which are finding expression through anti-EU/anti immigration ideas?
> 
> ...



UKIP existed for many years as the anti-EU party and very much a fringe party because nothing they said struck a chord with many people. Borderline cranks wittering on about nonsense. What changed? I suggest a combination of economic 'austerity' and a change in net migration such that there are now significantly more people coming into Britain now than leaving. Despite the 'austerity', there are bits of Europe where job prospects are bleaker, and many people from those places are emigrating to places like the UK and Germany, which is also seeing lots of immigration from the rest of the EU. 

And yes, the tories have a long history of blaming the social ills they create on immigrants. Thatcher did it, and effectively neutralised the National Front in doing so. The tories were doing it against Brown, prompting Brown's absurd 'British jobs for British people' line. Labour do it. 

But Farage is right about one thing - the UK govt cannot control how many people come here from the rest of the EU, and despite setting targets and talking big, this govt has seen net immigration continue to rise. None of the major parties seems willing or able to discuss this in positive terms - 'UK can weather the economic storm because we have the added vibrancy of keen, hard-working young immigrants' would be another way they could characterise net immigration. This leaves the narrative of UKIP that immigrants are taking jobs away from British people unchallenged. 

There is a long history of blaming all kinds of things on immigrants, from all parties, but the climate has changed now so much such that David Blunkett talking about being 'swamped' is left more or less unchallenged. We have a combination of people being fucked over and growing net immigration. Space is left open to UKIP to link the two in a causal way.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 29, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'd be less keen on focussing on some of the off-the-wall statements of some members, because that can just play into the idea that they are saying the unsayable and the liberal establishment is trying to censor them.
> 
> And I'd also be a little wary about making references to cults, because that may come across as if you think that UKIP supporters are somehow equivalent or similar to brain washed cult members, and that's not a tactic likely to win many arguments.



I wasn't planning on introducing the cult stuff it was more as background, but good points both, ta.


----------



## rover07 (Nov 29, 2014)

If only there were less people in the UK then there would be plenty of jobs and housing.

Just like in the 1930's when the UK population was 30 million.


----------



## andysays (Nov 29, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> UKIP existed for many years as the anti-EU party and very much a fringe party because nothing they said struck a chord with many people...



So are you saying now that they are anti-EU rather than/before being anti-immigration, and that the anti-immigration is an expression of their more fundamental anti-EUness rather than their entire reason for being?

And if so, *why* are they anti-EU? Is it just because NF doesn't like Europeans, or is there some economic interest at the bottom of it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 29, 2014)

andysays said:


> So are you saying now that they are anti-EU rather than/before being anti-immigration, and that the anti-immigration is an expression of their more fundamental anti-EUness rather than their entire reason for being?
> 
> And if so, *why* are they anti-EU? Is it just because NF doesn't like Europeans, or is there some economic interest at the bottom of it?


I have said from the start that they are anti-EU. That is now expressing itself as anti-immigration - it is their opposition to immigration, not the EU in general, that they now stress above all else. It is what they push and push and push. It is by presenting themselves as the anti-immigration party that they have achieved the success they've had so far, that makes the difference between now and 20 years ago. It's also the thing they have found that they think might just work in getting the UK out of the EU. 

I'm not sure it matters why they choose to be anti-immigration. What matters is to counter the arguments they put, and the blame they place on immigration/immigrants. One fundamental argument has to be: If you think there are not enough jobs now, you just wait and see how few there are when strict immigration limits are set. That's one of the biggest lies, that immigrants are taking away jobs.  None of the major parties is countering it. They've used it themselves in the past - Brown, for instance. Instead of countering it, the Tories and Labour are enthusiastically coopting it. That will probably be UKIP's biggest legacy - their effect on the other parties.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 29, 2014)

andysays said:


> In my opinion, it's the question of where he's getting his finances from, and expanding on that to look at whose interests he's ultimately serving, that I'd suggest would be most relevant. In other words, what is actually behind the anti EU/anti immigration stuff? It's not that they're genuinely concerned about the issues that most people who are attracted to them are concerned by



I'm not even sure that saying they're not genuinely concerned about these issues is good - as you say a lot of people *are* genuinely concerned, so saying 'I know you're genuinely concerned but he's not' could sounds somewhat weasley. 



> they're merely exploiting those issues to mask their real interests which are those of a section of the best off, particularly the financial sector.



Private Eye says Farage claims that he is "campigning for a "radical change from "corporatist politics" but are being funded by Christopher Mills of Harwood Capital Management (£50,000), Odey "who pocketed £28 million after short-selling Bradford & Bingley shares as the bank collapsed in 2008" (£22,000) and Stuart Wheeler, "the spread-betting "pioneer"" (£197,300). And "Last month Arron Banks, the insurance tycoon, pledged £1 m."

I'm not sure how convincing that is, though, not a huge difference from the other parties really.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 29, 2014)

The UKIP supporters that I encounter most are a particular subset, but fairly easy to characterise or caricature. They're monied, comfortable, often owning businesses etc, and generally most concerned with protecting that personal position now that it's established. They're what I would rightly or wrongly file under the term libertarian; rabid free marketists who believe that any given person in any scenario can match their achievements by simply getting on one's bike, and that the individual ought to be solely responsible for themselves. There's a distinct lack of self-awareness and empathy running through all that rhetoric, but as far as I can tell it is a genuinely held belief, rather than a wilfully self-serving stance.

I agree with andysays that 'anti-EU' isn't a political ideology that can survive on its own. What's the point of it? I think it's partly the above, and partly some doomed attempt to revive the imagined version of some former era, sort of the height of the British Empire meets Just William. A psychologist could have a field day with that.


----------



## two sheds (Nov 29, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One fundamental argument has to be: If you think there are not enough jobs now, you just wait and see how few there are when strict immigration limits are set. That's one of the biggest lies, that immigrants are taking away jobs.



Any figures/estimates? The other side is the fairly simple equation: jobs taken by immigrants = jobs lost by British people. 

Related are the recent figures for whether immigrants represent a cost or a benefit, but they were a bit nuanced according to http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/telegraph-mail-headline-migrants-cost-contribution


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 29, 2014)

mauvais said:


> The UKIP supporters that I encounter most are a particular subset, but fairly easy to characterise or caricature. They're monied, comfortable, often owning businesses etc, and generally most concerned with protecting that personal position now that it's established. They're what I would rightly or wrongly file under the term libertarian; rabid free marketists who believe that any given person in any scenario can match their achievements by simply getting on one's bike, and that the individual ought to be solely responsible for themselves. There's a distinct lack of self-awareness and empathy running through all that rhetoric, but as far as I can tell it is a genuinely held belief, rather than a wilfully self-serving stance.


Interesting. I'm guessing that was the subset more or less that was already voting UKIP before their recent rise.


----------



## andysays (Nov 29, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have said from the start that they are anti-EU. That is now expressing itself as anti-immigration - it is their opposition to immigration, not the EU in general, that they now stress above all else...



Well, a little while ago you said this (emphasis mine):


littlebabyjesus said:


> Sorry, but I think that's balls. *UKIP are anti-EU first and foremost because membership of the EU leads to uncontrolled immigration. That's their thing*. Anything else they may have in terms of policy - and it's not much - is secondary stuff most people don't even know about. UKIP exist to get Britain out of the EU, and limiting immigration is the single clarion call - they are of course quite right that you can't limit immigration from the EU without leaving the EU, and that is hitting a chord. It's hitting a chord most where there are fewest immigrants, because people are blaming all kinds of social ills, from lack of jobs to lack of housing, on immigration. UKIP is winning that narrative. It has Cameron following it now.
> 
> *'anti-immigration' is UKIP*.



This thread, as I understand it, is about characterising UKIP, examining what they are fundamentally about, rather than why they are currently on the rise which is the subject of another thread (although ultimately the two things need to be examined together).

And you *still* seem to be running shy of addressing *why* they are anti-EU or anti-immigration - is it simply because of NF's personal dislike of foreigners, is it a purely cynical tapping into the feelings of a section of the electorate, or is it perhaps the expression of a particular economic interest? 

I'd argue that it's the latter and until you recognise this, until you manage to distinguish between the interests they ultimately serve and the policies and ideas they put forward to support those interests (in the same way as you should do with any other political party), you won't really understand them and you won't be able to counter them effectively.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 29, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Interesting. I'm guessing that was the subset more or less that was already voting UKIP before their recent rise.


As I understand it, they're all ex-Tory voters, although that's a fairly wide political spectrum in itself. Some of them seemed to have historically placed faith in Cameron, to do what I don't really know, now evaporated. The detail is where they start to fan out into different and more complicated origins IMO, but I'd suggest that the key drivers away from previous allegiances would be Labour public spending, the perception of the Cons becoming more centrist (ho ho), and general disenfranchisement from main party politics (more chuckles, of course)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 29, 2014)

andysays said:


> And you *still* seem to be running shy of addressing *why* they are anti-EU or anti-immigration - is it simply because of NF's personal dislike of foreigners, is it a purely cynical tapping into the feelings of a section of the electorate, or is it perhaps the expression of a particular economic interest?


Some people from the old UKIP have actually left now, precisely because they think it is no longer just an anti-EU party, and that Farage has turned it into an anti-foreigner party. Why were they or are current UKIP people anti-EU? I'm not sure that's the most important question, tbh. Why are people voting for them? What bad things do those voters blame on the things UKIP blames them on?


----------



## andysays (Nov 29, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Some people from the old UKIP have actually left now, precisely because they think it is no longer just an anti-EU party, and that Farage has turned it into an anti-foreigner party. Why were they or are current UKIP people anti-EU? *I'm not sure that's the most important question, tbh*. Why are people voting for them? What bad things do those voters blame on the things UKIP blames them on?



It's certainly not the only question, but it's an important one.

In the same way, you can't adequetely understand the Labour party by focussing solely on why people are voting for them, the policies they put forward or the ethos they claim to believe, you also have to consider what interests they ultimately serve to understand the complete picture and why people's hopes and expectations for Labour will ultimately always be dashed.

Or are you saying that UKIP is somehow unique amonst political parties in that they exist only to promote a handful of headline policies with no wider overall socio-economic interest? Maybe once they have achieved withdrawal from the EU, Nigel will pack the whole politics thing up and go back to his original career in the city, happy in the knowledge that UK independence has once more been achieved.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 29, 2014)

I also don't think that the people I'm referring to support UKIP on the basis of it being racist, or even anti-immigration. It just doesn't strike much of a chord at that level. Some of the people might _be_ racist, and generally a long way from progressive or even average contemporary views, and so as a result don't really care if UKIP are accused of racism, but it's just not an important piece for them. If your political aspirations mostly loop back to yourself, rather than the welfare of some general population, who gives a fuck about whether your aligned party is or isn't racist? Unless you become some sort of Nazi social outcast. So that line of attack does nothing.

Aside from nationalism and that weird false traditionalism, the motivation seems to be largely about economics and public spending, which immigration & the EU feed into, but mostly don't become the dominant issue themselves. You can do what you like with the specific arguments within, because for most people they're intangible and complicated effects, and so you can take mostly ideologically driven positions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 29, 2014)

andysays said:


> It's certainly not the only question, but it's an important one.
> 
> In the same way, you can't adequetely understand the Labour party by focussing solely on why people are voting for them, the policies they put forward or the ethos they claim to believe, you also have to consider what interests they ultimately serve to understand the complete picture and why people's hopes and expectations for Labour will ultimately always be dashed.
> 
> Or are you saying that UKIP is somehow unique amonst political parties in that they exist only to promote a handful of headline policies with no wider overall socio-economic interest? Maybe once they have achieved withdrawal from the EU, Nigel will pack the whole politics thing up and go back to his original career in the city, happy in the knowledge that UK independence has once more been achieved.


I'm not sure UKIP represents a coherent set of interests, no. Most business owners are not pro-UKIP. Big business certainly isn't. It was suggested that the City might be pro-UKIP, but I suspect only a small minority. Leaving the EU could be disastrous for London's financial sector.

ETA: They're nationalists. Nationalists represent the idea of a nation at a particular (essentially arbitrary) level and giving power to a govt at that level. Does the BNP represent particular economic interests? No, they represent a particular racist vision of the British nation. UKIP take out the formally racist bit, but they also represent primarily the vision of the British nation whose sovereignty is sacred. At root, that's not a rationally arrived at position. It's a position based on faith in an idea - in this case the idea of 'Britain'.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 29, 2014)

mauvais said:


> The UKIP supporters that I encounter most are a particular subset, but fairly easy to characterise or caricature. They're monied, comfortable, often owning businesses etc, and generally most concerned with protecting that personal position now that it's established.



None of this applies to the UKIP suppporters I know. In fact if it applies at all to anyone then it applies a bit more to the people I know who are anti-UKIP.


----------



## laptop (Nov 30, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> UKIP are anti-EU first and foremost because membership of the EU leads to uncontrolled immigration.



But they existed for years as an anti-EU party *before* they started banging on about immigration.



That doesn't mean they're not racist. It doesn't mean an anti-immigration line doesn't win them votes.

It does mean that the actual *reason for their existence* is to promote the interest of those businesses that want rid of EU regulation (those that want a return to Victorian employment practices, and as BG notes the banks).


----------



## newbie (Nov 30, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Some people from the old UKIP have actually left now, precisely because they think it is no longer just an anti-EU party, and that Farage has turned it into an anti-foreigner party.



I think you're misreading him.  He's been at pains to say that foreigners from outside the EU should have as much, not less, not more, as much, opportunity to come here as those from inside, within whatever limits "we" set.  His message is not crudely anti-foreigner, and importantly not pro-white and against all the rest. He's demanding a sense of fairness which plays on his little islander, British sense of values, underlying message.

I've heard him explicitly reject anti-foreigner rhetoric, quite angrily, using his German (?) wife to show he takes that stuff personally.  I've also heard his anger when candidates or supporters have been outed as BNP, or ex BNP, and didn't think he was playing to the gallery.


----------



## newbie (Nov 30, 2014)

laptop said:


> It does mean that the actual *reason for their existence* is to promote the interest of those businesses that want rid of EU regulation (those that want a return to Victorian employment practices, and as BG notes the banks).



no.  That may be an underlying message that leftist economists can identify, and it may be why they have a funding stream, but it's not what they're for, not what has motivated people to spend year after no hope year building the party.  The specific interests of British (or more accurately British-American) capital is low on their priorities. They're small government Little Englander nationalists who resent 'interference', especially with sovereignty. 

There's a _spirit of the age_ aspect to that- much of left of Labour is saying similar stuff, though with different emphasis.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 30, 2014)

J Ed said:


> None of this applies to the UKIP suppporters I know. In fact if it applies at all to anyone then it applies a bit more to the people I know who are anti-UKIP.


Can you expand on this? I'm not sure whether you're telling me I'm wrong about the people I encounter, but they're fairly easily demonstrated. Interested either way.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 30, 2014)

This is quite interesting. Database of political party donations.

https://pefonline.electoralcommissi...onReturnsSearch.aspx?type=basicDonationSearch

Off to the gym now. More later.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 30, 2014)

mauvais said:


> Can you expand on this? I'm not sure whether you're telling me I'm wrong about the people I encounter, but they're fairly easily demonstrated. Interested either way.



No, I obviously have no idea about the people you know. I am just pointing out that your experience here isn't universal.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 30, 2014)

laptop said:


> But they existed for years as an anti-EU party *before* they started banging on about immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok. My wording wasn't quite right - you are right that they existed before as an anti-EU nationalist party. But as they present themselves to the public now, they are anti-immigration - that's the thing they want to show themselves as. And it's also the thing Farage has turned them into. I'd say that is mostly opportunistic - back in the 1990s, the UK had very low net immigration, coming off the back of decades of net emigration. It wasn't an effective stick to beat people with, and the identifiable bogeypeople - Eastern Europeans - hadn't started coming. 

Farage sells getting out of the EU with the promise of controlling immigration, and he plays racist cards to do so - languages on trains, Romanians/Romanies. It's not much different in terms of rhetoric from Enoch Powell - attacking 'that lot', the most recent wave of immigrants.


----------



## andysays (Nov 30, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok. My wording wasn't quite right - you are right that they existed before as an anti-EU nationalist party. But as they present themselves to the public now, they are anti-immigration - that's the thing they want to show themselves as. And it's also the thing Farage has turned them into. I'd say that is mostly opportunistic - back in the 1990s, the UK had very low net immigration, coming off the back of decades of net emigration. It wasn't an effective stick to beat people with, and the identifiable bogeypeople - Eastern Europeans - hadn't started coming.
> 
> Farage sells getting out of the EU with the promise of controlling immigration, and he plays racist cards to do so - languages on trains, Romanians/Romanies. It's not much different in terms of rhetoric from Enoch Powell - attacking 'that lot', the most recent wave of immigrants.



So again, you're saying that all we need to look at is how UKIP present themselves to the public, there is no point in looking beneath the surface, because the real interests and purposes of a political party are always reflected perfectly by their stated policies and rhetoric?

Would you say that the Conservative Party or the Labour Party can be understood and explained in the same way?



Some of those most superficial bullshit I've ever read on Urban


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> So again, you're saying that all we need to look at is how UKIP present themselves to the public, there is no point in looking beneath the surface, because the real interests and purposes of a political party are always reflected perfectly by their stated policies and rhetoric?


You're being extraordinarily selective in the way you reply to me. I've said that they are a nationalist party, and that they don't necessarily represent a coherent set of interests. They represent an idea first and foremost - the idea of a sovereign British state. Beyond that, they are incoherent - they will both protect British jobs and curb worker rights; they are not internally coherent. The second bit is just absurd. If you want to understand their rise, you need to look at the rhetoric, yes. You also need to look at the people voting for them and why and to what extent that rhetoric is winning them over.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 30, 2014)

This is the kind of thing that shows how UKIP are both setting the agenda and profiting from it. A poll from May this year showing that immigration is considered the top issue facing the country. 

Whether UKIP existed or not, that is an issue that needs tackling. Immigrants are being scapegoated.


----------



## andysays (Nov 30, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're being extraordinarily selective in the way you reply to me...



It seems to me that you're being extraordinarily selective and superficial in the way you approach the question of how we characterise UKIP.

You seem determine to focus entirely on the surface and resistant to examining what might by underneath the surface, in a way  I don't recall you ever being on any other subject, where you normally at least attempt a nuanced or more-than-superficial analysis, even if I don't always agree with everything you're saying.

Of course UKIP's position is incoherent in some ways, but the same can be said about the Tories or Labour. To mention UKIP's incoherence in this way as if it's something unique is to ignore that all parties are incoherent.

You wouldn't simply accept everything Cameron or Miliband says as being the whole story about their respective party positions and interests and ignore the idea that there is stuff underneath which is left unsaid (at least I hope you wouldn't), so I'm baffled as to why you do that with Farage.


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 30, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the kind of thing that shows how UKIP are both setting the agenda and profiting from it. A poll from May this year showing that immigration is considered the top issue facing the country.
> 
> Whether UKIP existed or not, that is an issue that needs tackling. Immigrants are being scapegoated.



Immigrants have been scapegoated for decades. UKIP didn't make that. They may profit from it, but they aren't the ones spreading the myths. I seem to remember Michael Howard playing up to anti-immigrant sentiment in the 2001 election, it's been around as a political technique forever. It's not that alone that's driving their support.

Farage succeeds largely I think because he speaks in a way people understand, and seems less servile to focus group/media bullshit. The fact that he's posh and frequently contradictory is secondary to this in I guess a lot of people's view. They want someone straight-talking that isn't transparently faking it like Cameron. Someone that says 'so what' and shrugs it off rather than saying 'that's a very good question' then going off at a tangent. That and a desire for 'something different', which at least in terms of presentation they are. How that'll stand up as technocratic tory defectors start swelling their ranks will be interesting. 

I don't think anti-European sentiment (people rather than the EU) has been that strong in general, living in what is becoming a bit of a Polish area of a big city I think I've only seen one bit of anti-Polish graffiti - they've settled in here without much bother. That may be less of a case in some towns, particularly some of the smaller towns out to the east where there's lots of agricultural workers and maybe people do feel more 'swamped'. I'd be interested in other people on this forum's perspective on this. More recently I think it's the long-demonised Roma that are getting the hostility, and allowing 'EU immigration' to be painted as a bad thing. Perhaps that's a factor in the rise of attention UKIP (or immigration in general) has got over the last year, that they now have some 'bad guys' to point at and say 'we can't stop this lot coming in'.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 30, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Immigrants have been scapegoated for decades. UKIP didn't make that.



Are you not making a common mistake here? Is it not actually the case that UKIP aren't against immigration _per se_; rather they're against immigration that isn't controlled by the U.K.? And they're highlighting the uncontrolled immigration from other EU countries as a reason to leave the EU. Immigration is just a side-issue for them - granted it's a profitable side-issue.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 30, 2014)

Three preconditions for the rise of UKIP:

1. Economic problems, with contraction in wages for those in the bottom half of society.

2. Year-on-year rises in net immigration.

3. A Tory government.


1. is reflected in the demographic - average UKIP voters are below average income. They are struggling, and hit hard by cuts.

2. This is their trump card. They are the only party that can honesty say they can do something about it. They also link 2. to 1.

3. Under a Labour govt, the tories can, and did, take the UKIP position. UKIP pointed out at the last election that the tories would not be able to live up to the limits they set. UKIP was right. They couldn't. In opposition the tories could, and did, position themselves as the anti-immigration party. In power, they cannot - immigration continues to rise under their watch. UKIP can now very credibly take this space, and point very credibly at how they pointed out at the last election that this would happen.

I would add a 4. Nigel Farage. If Farage had been killed in that helicopter crash, UKIP would not be the force they are today. Under the likes of Neil Hamilton, they would not be winning by-elections. The necessary preconditions need to be there for him to exploit them, but he has had the skill to exploit them. He's probably the most impressive mainstream politician in Britain today.


----------



## coley (Nov 30, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Three preconditions for the rise of UKIP:
> 
> 1. Economic problems, with contraction in wages for those in the bottom half of society.
> 
> ...



If not the best, certainly in the stakes for the best liked, as is Boris, not the publics fault when you look at the alternatives


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 1, 2014)

coley said:


> If not the best, certainly in the stakes for the best liked, as is Boris, not the publics fault when you look at the alternatives


The only way to limit immigration from the rest of the EU is to leave the EU. On this basic point, of course, he is right. So he is able to present himself as a politician who is speaking the truth. By contrast, Cameron is shown to be a liar - he said he would limit immigration and he did not. And Farage is right in saying that it was not in Cameron's power to do so. 

On his terms, Farage is right to focus on this basic fact. 

So this is why UKIP have risen. What is to be done against them? Hard, as anti-immigration is hardly new. It is a storm we must weather, as we weathered it before. Each new wave of immigrants must win a new battle, it seems.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's probably the most impressive mainstream politician in Britain today.



He does fall apart a bit under a proper grilling, but then I think the others would do the same.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 1, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Are you not making a common mistake here? Is it not actually the case that UKIP aren't against immigration _per se_; rather they're against immigration that isn't controlled by the U.K.? And they're highlighting the uncontrolled immigration from other EU countries as a reason to leave the EU. Immigration is just a side-issue for them - granted it's a profitable side-issue.



The UKIP members I know (and they're the comfortable (retired) demographic more like Mauvais noted) tend to have a particular bee in their bonnet about islamic immigration, all that 'Britain is under Sharia law now' crap. Most of that migration is nothing to do with the EU as it tends to originate outside it, and something I guess that could be more 'controlled' without leaving.  Recent proclamations that they want more 'commonwealth migration' rather than EU migration seem to go against this type of view.  Is 'banning the burqa' still UKIP policy, or something they mention/pledge?  Are they just standing against the 20 million Romanians coming here or whatever it was, or is there a wider hostility to all immigrants that's either expressed or hinted at?

It seems that anti-immigrant sentiment just moves from one group to another, I remember when it was all 'thieving asylum seekers'. We've had years of this.


----------



## treelover (Dec 1, 2014)

8ball said:


> He does fall apart a bit under a proper grilling, but then I think the others would do the same.




The BBC Panorama 'expose' including allegations of possible corruption seemed to have done him no harm at all.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 1, 2014)

J Ed said:


> No, I obviously have no idea about the people you know. I am just pointing out that your experience here isn't universal.


Fair enough, never sure on here. No of course it's not universal, and I didn't mean to express it as such. Perhaps it's inevitably a set of disparate groups when the whole idea is a party that recruits defectors from anywhere it can.

Here's an example of the kind of demographic I'm on about, albeit in vast and probably impenetrable form. Here's a bit of context to explain what that site actually is - the comments are interesting.

I'm interested though in what you say about the people you know who match that description being anti-UKIP - what is their political outlook, then?


----------



## Quartz (Dec 1, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Three preconditions for the rise of UKIP:..
> 
> 3. A Tory government.



I'm not sure you're right on this one: the BNP rose when Labour were in power.


----------



## FNG (Dec 1, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I'm not sure you're right on this one: the BNP rose when Labour were in power.


 And collapsed when the tories came to power, like the national front before them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 1, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I'm not sure you're right on this one: the BNP rose when Labour were in power.


Not in the way UKIP have risen. Like UKIP, they got MEPs but unlike UKIP they didn't come close to UK parliament election. UKIP have taken pretty much all of the BNP's extra voters gained under Labour, but there are also plenty of people voting UKIP who I would suggest would never have voted BNP.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 1, 2014)

FNG said:


> And collapsed when the tories came to power, like the national front before them.


Yes, but this time, the votes have gone to UKIP, not the tories. UKIP have wiped the BNP out, leaving them just with the hardcore white supremacist vote.


----------



## Quartz (Dec 1, 2014)

FNG said:


> And collapsed when the tories came to power, like the national front before them.



I'm not sure that's relevant. Electoral success for the BNP allowed people to see what nasty pieces of work Griffin et al really were. That hasn't happened - yet - with UKIP. Remember Griffin's roasting on Question Time? Farage has navigated those waters successfully.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 1, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I'm not sure that's relevant. Electoral success for the BNP allowed people to see what nasty pieces of work Griffin et al really were. That hasn't happened - yet - with UKIP. Remember Griffin's roasting on Question Time? Farage has navigated those waters successfully.


Bit of a historical rewrite here, to say the least. It wasn't Griffin's roasting on QT that did for the BNP but mainly their own internal stuff.


----------



## gosub (Dec 1, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Bit of a historical rewrite here, to say the least. It wasn't Griffin's roasting on QT that did for the BNP but mainly their own internal stuff.


And marmite


----------



## Quartz (Dec 1, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> It wasn't Griffin's roasting on QT that did for the BNP



The roasting on QT was just the most obvious example of their vile views being made public, and thus causing the public to desert them in droves. Most people don't care two hoots about internal party politics unless we're talking a major split in a major party, like the Tories & the EU or Labour & Militant Tendency.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2014)

Quartz said:


> The roasting on QT was just the most obvious example of their vile views being made public, and thus causing the public to desert them in droves. Most people don't care two hoots about internal party politics unless we're talking a major split in a major party, like the Tories & the EU or Labour & Militant Tendency.


Their vote went up after question time.

And if internal disputes lead to the party disintegrating - as happened with the BNP - then it doesn't matter whether voters give two hoots for them or not, as there simply will not be any candidates to vote for.

edit: and split parties are the biggest electoral turn off. This is democratic ABC.


----------



## treelover (Dec 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> *Their vote went up after question time.*
> 
> And if internal disputes lead to the party disintegrating - as happened with the BNP - then it doesn't matter whether voters give two hoots for them or not, as there simply will not be any candidates to vote for.
> 
> edit: and split parties are the biggest electoral turn off. This is democratic ABC.



Really?, that seems to go against all the social media discussion/liberal opinion that states QT was a disaster for the BNP, intriguing.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 20, 2014)

I wasn't sure where to post this. According to this Guardian article, UKIP high command has instructed its members not to "go on" (sic) Twitter.


> Nigel Farage is cracking down on Ukip supporters’ social media activity after a series of scandals over racist comments. The party has changed its constitution to prevent unauthorised use of the Ukip logo by supporters, members and officials, while Ukip’s chairman has warned those tempted to join Twitter: “My advice: just don’t.”
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics...rs-dont-go-twitter-nigel-farage?commentpage=2


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 20, 2014)

two sheds said:


> What approach to you suggest butchers? That's why I made the post - I want to know what tactics are best in combatting it.


Well I think the first thing to ask is what do you want to achieve with your anti-UKIPism?


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 20, 2014)

mauvais said:


> The UKIP supporters that I encounter most are a particular subset, but fairly easy to characterise or caricature. They're monied, comfortable, often owning businesses etc, and generally most concerned with protecting that personal position now that it's established. They're what I would rightly or wrongly file under the term libertarian; rabid free marketists who believe that any given person in any scenario can match their achievements by simply getting on one's bike, and that the individual ought to be solely responsible for themselves. There's a distinct lack of self-awareness and empathy running through all that rhetoric, but as far as I can tell it is a genuinely held belief, rather than a wilfully self-serving stance.


Well seeing as polling shows that UKIP voters/supporters are more pro-nationalisation than those of any other party bar Labour perhaps your encounters don't tell us much about UKIP or their supporters.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 20, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Well seeing as polling shows that UKIP voters/supporters are more pro-nationalisation than those of any other party bar Labour perhaps your encounters don't tell us much about UKIP or their supporters.


Perhaps you should have got your helpful remark in a month ago. I never claimed it was representative, just that that's been my experience.


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 22, 2014)

so whats rozanna duncan said now then


----------



## laptop (Dec 22, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> so whats rozanna duncan said now then



My jaw is dropped and waiting to find out why...


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2014)

laptop said:


> My jaw is dropped and waiting to find out why...





> Ukip is expelling Cllr Rozanne Duncan under rule 15 of its constitution for *bringing the party into disrepute*.



Seems a tad harsh to single her out for that!


----------



## laptop (Dec 22, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Seems a tad harsh to single her out for that!



A constitution that properly balanced rights and responsibilities would surely allow one member to expel the Party on these grounds?


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 22, 2014)

Given the stuff people have got away with in the past it's got to be something fairly bad.

The Mail (not posting a link because nobody else should have to dirty their feet) says:



> Ukip have expelled a prominent local councillor who is understood to have links with a far-Right group, it emerged last night.
> 
> Rozanne Duncan was dropped with immediate effect for associating with an organisation which ‘clearly brings the party into disrepute’ while serving on Thanet District Council in Kent.
> 
> Her allegiance with the group came to light after comments she made in an unbroadcast television interview, which have been described as ‘jaw-dropping’.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Given the stuff people have got away with in the past it's got to be something fairly bad.
> 
> The Mail (not posting a link because nobody else should have to dirty their feet) says:



She been talking to the tories?


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 22, 2014)

brogdale said:


> She been talking to the tories?



According to the BBC article she had previously stood as a Conservative candidate.  Damned for hanging out with right-wing extremists then.


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 22, 2014)

I have UKIP down as a party slightly to the right of the Tories, who appeal to disillusioned voters on the old right and left and the anti-establishment vote who oppose the EU and want control of immigration. I'd say males are far more likely to vote for them than females. Wouldn't go as far to say they're a toned down version of the BNP, although they do attract party members and voters with similar views.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 22, 2014)

> A phone app made by school students and featuring a character called Nicholas Fromage kicking immigrants off the white cliffs of Dover has been criticised by the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage.





linkage (grauniad)


----------



## brogdale (Dec 22, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I have UKIP down as a party slightly to the right of the Tories, who appeal to disillusioned voters on the old right and left and the anti-establishment vote who oppose the EU and want control of immigration. I'd say males are far more likely to vote for them than females. Wouldn't go as far to say they're a toned down version of the BNP, although they do attract party members and voters with similar views.



Perhaps some polling should be done on this sort of stuff?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 22, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> linkage (grauniad)


I wounder how many more downloads the will get now.


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I have UKIP down as a party slightly to the right of the Tories, who appeal to disillusioned voters on the old right and left and the anti-establishment vote who oppose the EU and want control of immigration. I'd say males are far more likely to vote for them than females. Wouldn't go as far to say they're a toned down version of the BNP, although they do attract party members and voters with similar views.



look up their is gullible written on the ceiling

*shakes fist at sk*


----------



## elbows (Dec 23, 2014)

Press continue to have a field day with wacky UKIP quotes.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...er-odddities-how-ukip-keeps-going-off-message



> Ironically, Rees-Evans unveiled his contribution to the list of wacky Ukip quotes when he was being asked to respond to some of the most controversial things that Ukip members have said in the past. What about the claim from the chair of a Ukip branch that “some homosexuals prefer sex with animals”?
> 
> “Actually, I’ve witnessed that,” Rees-Evans replied in an apparent attempt at humour, prompting a burst of hilarity among the protesters.
> 
> ...


----------



## elbows (Dec 23, 2014)

laptop said:


> My jaw is dropped and waiting to find out why...



It could be quite a wait, as it seems we won't find out until either the BBC or UKIP decide to tell us.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 23, 2014)

the video from Merthyr


----------



## brogdale (Dec 23, 2014)

How others (by nation) see UKIP's (and 6 other 'main' parties) position on the linear, left-right ideological spectrum...









> _The table (below) shows the mean average response to a series of questions asking respondents to place the parties on an eleven point scale, where 0 is left-wing and 10 is right-wing. The data are drawn from wave 3 of the BES, which was in the field in September and October this year, after the referendum result in Scotland. The table is broken down by each of the three countries that make up Great Britain. It also gives – in the top row of data – the average respondents’ self-placement._



Source.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 23, 2014)

See also the earlier article he's referring to.


> It’s also worth looking at where each party’s voters think their own parties are. Again, here we take the mean average for those saying they are going to support that party.
> 
> Green:  2.7  Labour: 3.5  Lib Dem: 4.7  UKIP: 7.0   Cons: 7.6
> 
> ...



http://www.britishelectionstudy.com...d-centre-by-professor-phil-cowley/#.VJmxfsgDB


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 23, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I like a pint (of real ale) as much as the next man, (and I'm not fond of flying), does that make me a UKIP supporter....or a pub bore?



They are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Do you have a bachelor's degree in economics, by any chance?
> It would explain the lack of knowledge of recent economic and political history and lack of basic political _nous_, you see.



Ouch!


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 23, 2014)

Characterising UKIP?

Difficult. As a party they are somewhat hard to categorise, many prima facie conflicting views within a single political entity.

They have plucked policies from the other parties, and amalgamated them into a package, that ensures that everyone could find a point of resonance.

Here are some of their 'manifesto promises' plucked from their web site, these are the ones I agree with:

– UKIP will increase personal allowance to the level of full-time minimum wage earnings (approx £13,500 by next election).

– UKIP will set up a Treasury Commission to design a turnover tax to ensure big businesses pay a minimum floor rate of tax as a proportion of their UK turnover.

– UKIP will scrap the HS2 project which is uneconomical and unjustified.

– Subject to academic performance UKIP will remove tuition fees for students taking approved degrees in science, medicine, technology, engineering, maths on the condition that they live, work and pay tax in the UK for five years after the completion of their degrees.*

– UKIP will ensure the NHS is free at the point of delivery and time of need for all UK residents.

– UKIP opposes the sale of NHS data to third parties.

  – UKIP will abolish the export of live animals for slaughter

The full whack is here:http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people

If you click the link, you will find that whole sections of their policy have been overlooked, because I don't agree.

*That is how it works in the army, you undergo a lengthy and expensive training course, you have to 'pay back', by service after qualification, for the time that the course took, so, for a nurse it was three years.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 27, 2014)

Nigel Farage shows his fox hunting support at Boxing Day chase - but 80% of Brits back the ban


----------



## teqniq (Dec 27, 2014)

I have just heard on the radio that Farage has been declared 'man of the year' by the Times.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 27, 2014)

teqniq said:


> I have just heard on the radio that Farage has been declared 'man of the year' by the Times.



Wonder what the deal with Rupert was?


----------



## teqniq (Dec 27, 2014)

Indeed


----------



## brogdale (Dec 27, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Wonder what the deal with Rupert was?



No deal needed; just another expression of Murdoch's hatred of Dave for what he did to his precious.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 27, 2014)

> What could the leader of Britain’s fervent Eurosceptic and fastest growing political party and one of the country’s most powerful media magnates have to talk about?
> 
> Well, no-one knows for sure because the private meeting between Ukip’s Nigel Farage and News Corp’s Rupert Murdoch will remain exactly that.


 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...media-mogul-have-private-meeting-9715073.html


----------



## brogdale (Dec 27, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...media-mogul-have-private-meeting-9715073.html



Oh yeah, for sure they've met and all that. Unsurprising that Murdoch should take an interest in a growing political presence on the right; but doing deals for NI to throw its weight behind Farage is a long way away from a nuisance person of the year position designed to tweak Dave's nose (again).


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 27, 2014)

Murdoch's a eurosceptic though right?


----------



## brogdale (Dec 27, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Murdoch's a eurosceptic though right?



Yep, but he only backs winners. UKIP can't 'win'.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 27, 2014)

teqniq said:


> Nigel Farage shows his fox hunting support at Boxing Day chase - but 80% of Brits back the ban



Ha, look at the expressions, you can tell the traditional Tory set don't think much of him, can't you?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 27, 2014)

I was thinking more in terms of him using Farage to push the agenda his way.


----------



## brogdale (Dec 27, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I was thinking more in terms of him using Farage to push the agenda his way.



For sure.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 28, 2014)

Osborne was 'Man of the Year' last year, laughably. It's meaningless, just a troll to get people talking about the newspaper.


----------



## youngian (Jan 19, 2015)

Kippers have already shown they're devoid of any zero creative talent in many areas (leaflet design and spoof songs for eg). Now they're having a stab at humour to sock it to those lefty comics like Al Murray


----------



## ddraig (Jan 19, 2015)

which area is that from?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2015)

Respect to the good burghers of Penarth...






http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/ukip-leader-left-egg-face-8471624


----------



## teqniq (Jan 19, 2015)




----------



## ddraig (Jan 19, 2015)

quite lol


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Respect to the good burghers of Penarth...
> 
> http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/ukip-leader-left-egg-face-8471624


That's about a billion times better than a lot of the anti-UKIP "humour" shite that you see.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 20, 2015)

UKIP75's favourite Tim Aker has quit as policy chief.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 20, 2015)

J Ed said:


> .



I am struggling to come to terms with the rolled up sleeves and fingerless gloves combo. What does that actually mean?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 20, 2015)

that's his inner rebel being displayed
also a chain and top shirt button not done up!


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 20, 2015)

youngian said:


> Kippers have already shown they're devoid of any zero creative talent in many areas (leaflet design and spoof songs for eg). Now they're having a stab at humour to sock it to those lefty comics like Al Murray



Ouch. That's not only painfully shit, it's also presumably, from the "recognizing",  been plagiarised from a painfully shit Yank original.


----------



## gareth taylor (Jan 21, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Ouch. That's not only painfully shit, it's also presumably, from the "recognizing",  been plagiarised from a painfully shit Yank original.


 a ukip tory government is way forward


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 21, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> a ukip tory government is way forward



Cheers for that. That Dulwich Hamlet forum was a great idea, wasn't it?


----------



## gareth taylor (Jan 21, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Cheers for that. That Dulwich Hamlet forum was a great idea, wasn't it?


 excuse me ?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 21, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> excuse me ?



Yes, you are excused.


----------



## gareth taylor (Jan 21, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Yes, you are excused.


 you have are sort of voter who supports labour goes on this marches and thinks that your great wonderful person,


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Cheers for that. That Dulwich Hamlet forum was a great idea, wasn't it?


You're the non-cuckoo here? Really?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 21, 2015)

http://www.petplace.com/cats/a-little-girl-has-free-kittens/page1.aspx


----------



## gosub (Jan 22, 2015)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 22, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> a ukip tory government is way forward



Forward unto death, maybe. Forward unto a stronger economy, though? That's about as likely as an incontinent tramp *not* pissing themselves.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 22, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> you have are sort of voter who supports labour goes on this marches and thinks that your great wonderful person,



And you're obviously the sort of minimally-intelligent politically-ignorant _gonif_ who thinks that anyone who doesn't support the right wing is obviously left wing.
In other words, you're a dolt.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 24, 2015)

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/1...t-accept-a-jewish-prime-minister-poll-reveals

Looks like they characterise themselves.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 24, 2015)

J Ed said:


> UKIP75's favourite Tim Aker has quit as policy chief.



thats right, Jon Galt the clear browed aryan rapist played for heroism by a sociopathic author


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/1...t-accept-a-jewish-prime-minister-poll-reveals
> 
> Looks like they characterise themselves.


I reckon you should read the actual article that JC piece is ripped from:



> Yet they appear to exist irrespective of anything the parties themselves have said and done. While UKIP has had the odd problem with a candidate or two in this respect, and there are doubts about some of its allies in the European Parliament, there is nothing whatsoever in UKIP’s rhetoric or policies that could conceivably be labelled anti-Semitic.
> 
> While political leaders clearly have some responsibility for those who stand as candidates for, or who simply join, their parties, they can hardly be held responsible for the opinions, however controversial or unsavoury, of those who choose to vote for them.
> 
> Whether leaders should distance themselves from such people by asserting that they don’t want their votes is another matter: in UKIP’s case they constitute only a small minority at a time when the party is recruiting way beyond those who see themselves as right-wingers.



Or are you saying that UKIP _as a party_ formally and proudly characterises themselves as anti-semitic?

More generally, this has been one of the holes this debate has fallen into - the failure to make (i.e actually look at what motivates,what interests they represent, how they organise, with who, where have they come from etc - actually doing some work on that) the different levels across the UKIP milieu. That's voters/supporters/members/activists/national leadership/actual leadership. And the result has been the sort of mess we've often see where an individual loon says something daft and this is then supposed to flatly characterise the whole of the above. Not really much good to anyone that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 24, 2015)

Individual loons such as leader Farage talking about a "fifth column" of Muslims against whom 'we' must defend 'our' "Judeo-Christian values". A loon who has previously stirred against anyone not speaking English, Romanies and Romanians. A loon who reportedly speaks of 'nignogs' in private. 

Individual loons such as one of the party's two MPs Reckless advocating the 'repatriation' of migrants. 

Two of the party's three senior people. Loons. 

UKIP does not formally characterise itself as racist. But its leaders are racist. Do you not see parallels here with the newly 'non-racist' FN in France? How are UKIP different from the FN or the Party for Freedom in Holland, or the other more openly racist extreme right parties in Eastern Europe with whom they are aligned? 

They are not formally white supremacist like the BNP, but they are racists. Any attempt to characterise UKIP without acknowledging that is going to fail, as any attempt to characterise the FN in France without addressing its racism will fail.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2015)

There we have a good example of what I was talking about.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 24, 2015)

Show me facts in there that are wrong. Tell me Farage and Reckless are not racist. Tell me they are not two of the party's three leading people. Tell me the difference between UKIP and the FN. Would you berate those in France who point out the racism of the FN?

Several high-profile members have now left UKIP citing the racist direction Farage has taken as the reason for them leaving.

In a way, they have already won. The next election will be fought over an agenda that has largely been set by them. Even nastier immigration policies than we already have will be the result. We see on this very page a typical example - a person in North Wales blaming unemployment on immigration.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2015)

After your last couple of embarrassing UKIP outbursts i decided that you weren't worth talking to on this issue. You have so little interest in it and what it says about wider social issues that all you think needs to be said, all that can be said is _they're racist._ In my post above i tried to outline the basics of what a sensible critical approach to an analysis of UKIP milieu would need to contain (based actually on analysis of the nazi's and the use of the standard movement/party/regime distinctions and each of theirs relation to different interest and power groups). An attempt to get a  big of intellectual rigour into the debate. One that those who just want to shout racist would do well to adopt as well. Your response?  _But they're racist. _So no, i don't think i'll be bothering doing all this shit with you again. Thanks though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Individual loons such as leader Farage talking about a "fifth column" of Muslims against whom 'we' must defend 'our' "Judeo-Christian values". A loon who has previously stirred against anyone not speaking English, Romanies and Romanians. A loon who reportedly speaks of 'nignogs' in private.
> 
> Individual loons such as one of the party's two MPs Reckless advocating the 'repatriation' of migrants.
> 
> ...




So ask yourself a few questions, such as:

Why are they polling as they are?
Why is Farage so personally-popular on the stump?
Is the party the sum of its' members desires, or only of the leader and the MPs' desires?

Yes, there's a base of racism. it's exactly the same racism that successive politicians from the three mainstream parties have utilised during local, general and by-elections in order to garner support. it's exactly the same scapegoating of minorities that has served party politicians well for hundreds of years. To present UKIP as some kind of uniquely racist party flies in the face of history and of common sense, and focusing on racism rather than on their complete message will burn those who do so,just like it burnt elements of the French left who focused on FN's racism, rather than on addressing their populist policies and why they garnered the support they did - hint: it wasn't about racism.


----------



## gareth taylor (Jan 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> So ask yourself a few questions, such as:
> 
> Why are they polling as they are?
> Why is Farage so personally-popular on the stump?
> ...


 i am not supporting ukip anymore, they place on people weakness,

I met a ukip official and he took time to speak to me about what they offer that's how I got into them, I will be voting next election but just not for ukip


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 30, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> So ask yourself a few questions, such as:
> 
> Why are they polling as they are?
> Why is Farage so personally-popular on the stump?
> ...



Uniquely racist? No. They are playing on exactly the same kind of racist and xenophobic fears and insecurities that the Tories used to play on, and will also still play on in more subtle ways today. But the Tories, hate them as I do, are more than just xenophobes. UKIP aren't really. Their xenophobia is their key message. 

I think the FN isn't quite the best comparison here. The Dutch Freedom Party is. Reading the Freedom Party's policies, I'd be very surprised if Farage isn't consciously nicking from them, right down to issues such as the smoking ban. They take a Dutch slant on things, emphasising gay and lesbian rights for instance as part of the example of what makes the Dutch Dutch - what they call their 'Christian and humanist traditions'. But their agenda is exactly the same - while advocating hard-right low-tax economics and leaving the EU, and blaming all kinds of social and economic ills on immigration, they also outline what it is to be the 'in'-group in the country, culturally, and who it is that does not belong. They distinguish between 'good' immigrants who fit (such as people from certain former colonies such as Suriname - they can claim not to be racist by endorsing 'good' black people) and 'bad' immigrants who don't (basically Muslims). 

And in the last few years, they've regularly been polling between 10 and 15 per cent in national elections, around the figure I expect UKIP to get in the general election this year. It is odd to say that playing on racist and xenophobic fears is not central to their appeal - they themselves very very clearly think that it is.


----------



## gareth taylor (Feb 2, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Uniquely racist? No. They are playing on exactly the same kind of racist and xenophobic fears and insecurities that the Tories used to play on, and will also still play on in more subtle ways today. But the Tories, hate them as I do, are more than just xenophobes. UKIP aren't really. Their xenophobia is their key message.
> 
> I think the FN isn't quite the best comparison here. The Dutch Freedom Party is. Reading the Freedom Party's policies, I'd be very surprised if Farage isn't consciously nicking from them, right down to issues such as the smoking ban. They take a Dutch slant on things, emphasising gay and lesbian rights for instance as part of the example of what makes the Dutch Dutch - what they call their 'Christian and humanist traditions'. But their agenda is exactly the same - while advocating hard-right low-tax economics and leaving the EU, and blaming all kinds of social and economic ills on immigration, they also outline what it is to be the 'in'-group in the country, culturally, and who it is that does not belong. They distinguish between 'good' immigrants who fit (such as people from certain former colonies such as Suriname - they can claim not to be racist by endorsing 'good' black people) and 'bad' immigrants who don't (basically Muslims).
> 
> And in the last few years, they've regularly been polling between 10 and 15 per cent in national elections, around the figure I expect UKIP to get in the general election this year. It is odd to say that playing on racist and xenophobic fears is not central to their appeal - they themselves very very clearly think that it is.


 one thing does interest me about ukip why has it taken them so many years to win seats, because they have been around since 1992ish


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> one thing does interest me about ukip why has it taken them so many years to win seats, because they have been around since 1992ish



Until 09-10-14, in elections/by-elections other parties got more votes.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 3, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> one thing does interest me about ukip why has it taken them so many years to win seats, because they have been around since 1992ish



Because the 'traditional' protest vote party turned out to be a bunch of duplicitous bellends, so someone new stepped up giving it the anti-establishment rhetoric.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> one thing does interest me about ukip why has it taken them so many years to win seats, because they have been around since 1992ish


they were a lunatic fringe before they managed to shape up, kill kilroy and start campaigning on a right-populist platform


----------



## BigMoaner (Feb 3, 2015)

ukip are popular because they want to slow down immigration and lots of people in this country want to slow down immigration.

they are also popular because a lot of people want to leave Europe, and they want to do that as well.

those two factors, massively important in many people's world views, have been seen, rightly or wrongly, to be ignored by the three main parties.

hence their rise.


----------



## gosub (Feb 3, 2015)

I'd say there are 2 UKIP's- old UKIP and new UKIP.  Old UKIP went on about things like sovereignty and democratic accountability, though at the time these were to most voters abstract concepts and they didn't poll very highly.  Then when things like EU forcing budgets in Greece and changing governments in Italy, they became less abstract, bizarrely they switched to New UKIP which seems more about how beastly johnny foreigner is, and the EU slid down their agenda.   It has however garnered them more votes.


----------



## gareth taylor (Feb 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> they were a lunatic fringe before they managed to shape up, kill kilroy and start campaigning on a right-populist platform


 some people in labour party aren't all there !


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 21, 2015)

Ax^ said:


> so whats rozanna duncan said now then



It's out now -  pretty much as one might expect.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31565770

"I used the word 'negroes' as you would do Asians, Chinese, Muslims, Jews. It's a description, it's not an insult - in the same way as you would say, 'What do you mean by Jewish? Well, they belong to a community, they have got a certain faith, they have usually got noses that have got a bit of a curve to them, married women - if they are orthodox Jews - wear wigs.' It's description."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 21, 2015)

Going back to an earlier point that UKIP do best in areas with fewest immigrants, this article puts some numbers on that. 

The article does suggest a reason for the seeming paradox - there is a mismatch between the number of people who think immigration is a problem and the number of people thinking that the immigrants living next door are a problem. It appears that it is easier to hate immigration and scapegoat immigrants in the abstract than the concrete.


----------



## BigMoaner (Feb 21, 2015)

is it racist to want to slow down immigration?

i'd like to live and work in america, but i can't. i don't see that as them being racist, rather they have their own way of doing things and they don't want me there. it's annoying, but so be it - they are a nation and that's the way they want to run things. 

i have to admit i would rather immigration, at this moment in time, to be say in the 10s of k instead of the 100s of k. i just think it'd be nice if everyone could settle a bit.

where i live in south london, many of mates, who are second/third gen immigrants, are against further migration of people into their areas from outside the Uk. are they all racists?


----------



## laptop (Feb 22, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Going back to an earlier point that UKIP do best in areas with fewest immigrants, this article puts some numbers on that.
> 
> The article does suggest a reason for the seeming paradox - there is a mismatch between the number of people who think immigration is a problem and the number of people thinking that the immigrants living next door are a problem. It appears that it is easier to hate immigration and scapegoat immigrants in the abstract than the concrete.



What's odd about that is that _City AM_ in general reckons that Genghis Khan's main problem is that piles of skulls at the city gate were a wet-liberal gesture.

Of course, the banks are worried about immigration controls - saying they fear that they might be applied fairly and keep their people out.

Haven't had the heart to look at the paper  recently - has it shifted its position in the past few months?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2015)

laptop said:


> What's odd about that is that _City AM_ in general reckons that Genghis Khan's main problem is that piles of skulls at the city gate were a wet-liberal gesture.
> 
> Of course, the banks are worried about immigration controls - saying they fear that they might be applied fairly and keep their people out.
> 
> Haven't had the heart to look at the paper  recently - has it shifted its position in the past few months?


Doubt it. I'm not defending the paper, but they are a source of the figures, which seem sound. It's not that surprising, and in fact, I take it as a positive: in general, the more everyday contact you have with immigrants, the _less_ likely you are to vote UKIP. 

UKIP are relying on ignorance and misconceptions about largely imagined social problems rather than real lived experience of those social problems to get people to vote for them. Speaking very generally, they are getting people who are not doing well economically or socially to blame their problems on a false story - a story of immigrants taking 'their' jobs, housing and social security.


----------



## laptop (Feb 22, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Doubt it. I'm not defending the paper, but they are a source of the figures, which seem sound. It's not that surprising, and in fact, I take it as a positive: in general, the more everyday contact you have with immigrants, the _less_ likely you are to vote UKIP.
> 
> UKIP are relying on ignorance and misconceptions about largely imagined social problems rather than real lived experience of those social problems to get people to vote for them. Speaking very generally, they are getting people who are not doing well economically or socially to blame their problems on a false story - a story of immigrants taking 'their' jobs, housing and social security.



Not disagreeing with that as _part_ of the story. Just noting the irony* of the source.



* (C) Alanis Morissette 1990-2015


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2015)

It's only part of the story, yes. Another part is the very straightforward one that they've taken the racist vote from the BNP. They've annihilated the BNP, and at the same time they've actively fomented hostility towards immigration generally and immigrants personally (Farage's racist outbursts about languages on trains, Romanians/Romanies, an Islamic Fifth Column, etc, etc) in order to lay blame on the pro-EU parties for allowing it to happen. Among other things, they have made themselves the happy home of the racist vote.

It's not always that coherent, but it's now a consistent theme: Kilroy may have ranted irrelevantly about Brussels; but Farage rants about almost only one thing now, the open borders. A combination of EU expansion eastwards, a switch here in the UK from net emigration up to the 90s to net immigration since, and economic crisis across the continent leading to the living standards of the majority being squeezed has given Farage his narrative. And he will shamelessly combine it with scare stories about Muslims, just as he shamelessly conflated Romanians with Romanies, because he is relying on misconceptions and ignorance to grow the anti-immigrant vote. The model is there in Holland with Wilders' Freedom Party, and Farage is vigorously pursuing exactly the same tactics.


----------



## treelover (Feb 27, 2015)

At their conference they have decided to support deficit reduction and a spokesperson on the news said they would work with the conservatives to achieve it.

opportunity for Labour to get back some of their defectors?

btw, Farage has just attended a conference in the U.S with hard right politicians, etc.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 7, 2015)

UKIP has some commonalities with the Tea Party: they're nostalgic for the 1950s; they favour low or no taxes; they want a smaller state, and they're anti-intellectual and reactionary.



> Commentators across the board have been hailing the "British Tea Party" for at least a year. Daniel Hannan, the Tory MEP, has even tried to launch one, without much success.
> 
> The latest to ride on the coat-tails of the popular US movement is Nigel Farage, newly re-elected as UK Independence Party leader. Speaking on Sky News, he said that his party shared the feeling of being "overtaxed, overgoverned, not being listened to". He claimed that this gave the party a "bigger political opportunity than ever before" to recruit Tories dissatisfied with David Cameron's EU-friendly policies.
> 
> ...



Hannan's Tea Party idea (backed by The Freedom Association, natch) never got off the ground. UKIP seems to have become the very thing Hannan wanted. Yet, he still refuses to follow his best buddy, Doug, into the Kippers.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 7, 2015)

Here's one characteristic we can dismiss...Farage is not the messiah...


----------



## treelover (Apr 16, 2015)

> I don’t believe Cameron has delivered on his promises. I don’t want to be a member of a club. As Groucho Marx said, I don’t want to join any club that would have me as a member. I always have challenged the establishment and I want to continue to challenge it. I’m giving this money because I believe, as Emerson, Lake and Palmer might put it, Ukip’s political outlook is a ‘fanare for the common man’. I want to back our customers, Daily Express readers, who believe in many of Ukip’s common-sense policies on the EU and immigration and taxation. That is why I am putting my hand in my pocket; it is for my customers, my readers. I hope by doing this, it will encourage more people to do the same.
> 
> I want them to stand up like me and be counted. I believe there are still people out there who are frightened to stand up for something new and I hope they will follow my example.
> 
> http://order-order.com/2015/04/16/confirmed-desmond-gives-a-million-to-ukip/#_@/SIHMuBkfyZ9OBQ



Desmond has donated 1million to UKIP


----------



## starfish (Apr 16, 2015)

treelover said:


> http://order-order.com/2015/04/16/confirmed-desmond-gives-a-million-to-ukip/#_@/SIHMuBkfyZ9OBQ
> 
> Desmond has donated 1million to UKIP


Was just about to say that.


----------



## Dan U (Apr 16, 2015)

How much did he give labour previously?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2015)

How does this help characterise UKIP?


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Apr 16, 2015)

Characterising UKIP the right wing of the conservatives on steroids and turned up to eleven


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2015)

James Meek has produced another worthwhile, perceptive LRB piece about 'Farageland'; this time Grimsby.



> I’d come to Grimsby to see why, after seventy years of voting Labour, the town was flirting with the United Kingdom Independence Party. After a while I began wondering what had happened to make Grimsby a wild and lonely enough place for the sandpiper to feel at home. It turns out the reason is the same. Someone, or something, abdicated power in Grimsby, leaving swathes of it to rot.





> Trying to describe the mood of the electorate, and why they’re drawn to Ukip, Dunn told me: ‘It’s about emotions, it’s about anger … [The truth] is not something you can easily persuade people of with statistics. That’s not what to listen to any more. They’ve got a feeling something’s not right.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2015)

.....whereas, the LP has decided to characterise UKIP as directly comparable with the BNP...



> _*Labour is planning to send out thousands of letters comparing Ukip to the British National party* in the seat being targeted by the rightwing party’s leader, Nigel Farage.
> 
> In a combative move, the party will target up to 16,000 voters in South Thanet, saying: “*The one thing that the BNP [in Barking] had in common with Ukip was the way in which they denigrated the area and the people living there.”*_



Hmmm


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2015)

Not characterising, I know, but wtf?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 18, 2015)

Axelrod hates him! UKIP activist proves party not racist with this one weird trick, you'll never guess what happened next!


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> James Meek has produced another worthwhile, perceptive LRB piece about 'Farageland'; this time Grimsby.



I have a friend who lives up that way on a boat, she says the economic situation there and around is dire, many of the people she knows are on sanctions, don't have enough to eat, she says people are scared and see immigrants, many from Russia, Latvia, Lithuania as a threat to any chance of a job,

btw, she loathes UKIP and says her whole (multicultural) family will emigrate if he achieves power.


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> .....whereas, the LP has decided to characterise UKIP as directly comparable with the BNP...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm



'UKIP in, Waitrose Closes'

Every time I see that I have to do a double take, I wish the person that created that would come on here.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> I have a friend who lives up that way on a boat, she says the economic situation there and around is dire, many of the people she knows are on sanctions, don't have enough to eat, she says people are scared and see immigrants, many from Russia, Latvia, Lithuania as a threat to any chance of a job,
> 
> btw, she loathes UKIP and says her whole (multicultural) family will emigrate if he achieves power.



I'm sure that there will be some immigrants in Grimsby, but from some of the quotes within Meek's piece it does not appear to be a direct local driver of UKIP support...



> Hardie, who is 72, has joined Ukip. He’s voted Labour, Conservative and Ukip in the past, but it will be Nigel Farage’s party for him this time. *For Hardie, it’s not about immigration – there aren’t many immigrants in Grimsby – *but about the European Union, and a lingering bitterness over the end of the old fishing days, and a sense that Labour has failed. ‘I don’t want to be ruled by Europe,’ he said. ‘Told what I can catch, what I can’t catch … Why Labour’s taken such a big knocking for Grimsby is, why would you vote for them? Take a look at it. What’s Labour done for Grimsby? All the industry has gone, we’ve got vast unemployment. Give somebody else a chance. Labour will lose this seat.’


----------



## gosub (Apr 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I'm sure that there will be some immigrants in Grimsby, but from some of the quotes within Meek's piece it does not appear to be a direct local driver of UKIP support...


http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85526


----------



## brogdale (Apr 18, 2015)

gosub said:


> http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85526


 Yes, did you read Meek's piece? He pretty much covers all those factors that led to the demise of the fishery.


----------



## chilango (Apr 18, 2015)

I was in Newlyn (a very much still working fishing port in Cornwall) the other day. The pub by the harbour was sporting "Enoch was Right" and "Enoch Powell - the best Prime Minister we never had" stickers in its front windows.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 18, 2015)

my experience of attempting to debate with UKIP supporters on the Internet, is if you press the right buttons, they invariably come out with some nonsense about Common Purpose or cultural Marxism. It's bizarre.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 18, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> my experience of attempting to debate with UKIP supporters on the Internet, is if you press the right buttons, they invariably come out with some nonsense about Common Purpose or cultural Marxism. It's bizarre.



The stuff on Common Purpose reminds me of conspiracy theory stuff


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> The stuff on Common Purpose reminds me of conspiracy theory stuff



It *is* conspiracy theory stuff.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> The stuff on Common Purpose reminds me of conspiracy theory stuff



New to me. 

Is the cpexposed.com site representative?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 18, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> New to me.
> 
> Is the cpexposed.com site representative?



This stupidity is


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 18, 2015)

hmm ... prisonplanet links ... I *see*


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 18, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> It *is* conspiracy theory stuff.


Indeed my partner used to work for one of the main people behind Common Purpose and she's a paid up Tory (the CP woman not my partner!) definitely no Marxist.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 18, 2015)

brogdale said:


> James Meek has produced another worthwhile, perceptive LRB piece about 'Farageland'; this time Grimsby.



Thanks for linking this btw, well worth the read


----------



## J Ed (Apr 19, 2015)

This is insane. Five blokes wind up and insult a UKIP councillor until he lashes out and gives one a minor tap. In response one of these five takes to social media to claim that he suffered some kind of serious assault (which is contradicted if you watch the video that he himself is publicising) and gets the councillor arrested.

If this is what Hope not Hate have to offer then I think a lot of people are going to go with hate...


----------



## J Ed (Apr 19, 2015)




----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 19, 2015)

Yeah I saw that mentioned yesterday, noticed the bloke was from Hope not Hate and kind of went ...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 19, 2015)

Here's the video I in question? (there's footage from a few different phones linked)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstru...ent-a-ukip-councillor-hits-an-anti-ukip-campa


----------



## J Ed (Apr 19, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Here's the video I in question? (there's footage from a few different phones linked)
> 
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstru...ent-a-ukip-councillor-hits-an-anti-ukip-campa



Yeah, although you have to scroll down to the second video to realise just how minor the incident is.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 19, 2015)

Are hope not hate linked to the SWP?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 19, 2015)

Can anyone translate the UKIP guy?

I kind of get the idea that he's upset about something (other than the HnH guy being a patronising wanker) but can't make out what.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 19, 2015)

Depressing stuff...all round.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Apr 19, 2015)

brogdale said:


> James Meek has produced another worthwhile, perceptive LRB piece about 'Farageland'; this time Grimsby.



This is a great link brogdale - thanks, I grew up in Grimsby and live in Immingham (know a couple of people mentioned in the article, too) and recognise a lot of what Meek says. It's (ahem) grim.


----------



## Batboy (Apr 19, 2015)

chilango said:


> Be interesting to discuss what type of Party/movement UKIP actually are (or are becoming so that we can be a little more accurate than "far-right" "racist" etc.
> 
> For me, at first glance they seem to have a lot in common with the Lega Nord. With Brussels replacing Rome and a mythical UK replacing Narnia (sorry, Padania), a similar harnessing of anti-politics and populism alongside the cruder racism and anti-immigrant sloganeering, yet at the same time appealing to natural consituency of both the old Left and the old Right.
> 
> ...




Simple.... Diet BNP


----------



## J Ed (Apr 19, 2015)

I have to admit that I enjoy watching Farage put the boot into Cameron both on his invasion of Libya and our responsibility to give asylum to those who continue to directly suffer from it. Smart politics.



> Nigel Farage has blamed “fanatical” David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy for the drowning of hundreds of migrants off Italy, saying the exodus was “directly caused” by western intervention in the civil war in Libya.
> 
> The Ukip leader said that Nato had destabilised Libya when it launched bombing raids against Col Gaddafi in March 2011, causing the flight of refugees from the country.
> 
> ...


----------



## J Ed (Apr 19, 2015)

...but in the interests of balance



WTF


----------



## brogdale (Apr 19, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Simple.... Diet BNP


Blimey, what a shame that you weren't there on P1 to answer the OP. Would have saved loads of posting.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 20, 2015)

The Boneheil Chronicles (cont.)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/20/man-abusive-tweets-jack-monroe-bail


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 20, 2015)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...el-Farage-is-fading-away-without-a-fight.html

"Hardcore BNP switchers are sticking"


----------



## bemused (Apr 20, 2015)

I know a few people voting for UKIP who would be horrified to think they would be considered racists. For many it's become the acceptable protest vote, much like the LibDems use to be. He's not going to get many MPs so people don't see it as that risky. It's shame there isn't a similar thriving nationalist movement as to the SNP in England; that would be quite interesting to watch. Sadly groups like the BNP have forever linked nationalism with racism in England.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2015)

So, in the last two posts we have you taffboy firstly, linking to a man with mental health issues who isn't in UKIP and doesn't represent them and secondly a dan hodges piece, approvingly quoting him quoting either a labour tory or lib-dem official or candidate attempting a pretty transparent smear. That graphic he gives doesn't even support the main contention of his piece as it fails to demonstrate the UKIP vote melting away. Nor does it make any logical sense - if UKIP are left with pretty much only BNP hardcore vote they would be on _at best _1% not the low to medium teens (with 17%s still popping up regularly) that hodges has to admit they are on.

Can you tell us how either or both of these things help us establish a critical accurate characterisation of UKIP on any level (membership, leadership, voting supporters, protest voters etc)?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Apr 20, 2015)

Hi Butchers. Hope you're well.

What does it tell us that Bonehill uses UKIP as a vehicle for promoting his hatred? Quite a lot I think. The same as Griffin, Lennon / Robinson and BF endorsing them.

The Hodges piece, to be honest, I was treating the thread more as just a general place to stick UKIP stuff on. I think his point about polls is that they aren't increasing, despite the "major" status accorded by OFCOM. "hardcore BNP switchers" would, I guage be higher than 1%, perhaps knocking towards 5 compared to the 2009 Euros.  It may have been an overstatement, but it reflects something I have genuinely seen in the last 12 months or so...a continuing trend for UKIP supporters to adopt EDL/BNP tropes...the endless moaning about "cultural marxism", "traitors", "TRUE BRITISH" etc.

And is Bonehead the only case of anti-semitism in the mix?

Perhaps not.

"Get off my doorstep, Jew"

http://m.folkestoneherald.co.uk/RAC...told-shocked/story-26348806-detail/story.html

Care to characterise that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Simple.... Diet BNP



You have to be simple to think that UKIP is "diet BNP".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Blimey, what a shame that you weren't there on P1 to answer the OP. Would have saved loads of posting.



It's always gratifying to see old verities unchanged by time and experience, though, even if it is the ridiculous trope about UKIP being a more populist version of the BNP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The Boneheil Chronicles (cont.)
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/20/man-abusive-tweets-jack-monroe-bail



Which has what to do with UKIP besides showing that some of their supporters may have mental health issues, just like the supporters of any other political party (1 in 4 of us will have a mental health issue serious enough to require treatment during our lifetime)?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Hi Butchers. Hope you're well.
> 
> What does it tell us that Bonehill uses UKIP as a vehicle for promoting his hatred? Quite a lot I think. The same as Griffin, Lennon / Robinson and BF endorsing them.
> 
> ...



What it tells us is precisely nothing. At least about UKIP. What it tells us if that you have abandoned any attempt at critical characterisation - both here and in the wider world. Instead preferring the simple _they're all BNP racists_ approach and attempting nothing else whatsoever.

That's also evident by both your choice of hodges link (ffs) and the bit from it that you choose to focus on - i.e a tory/lib-dem or labour candidate/official doing exactly what you are and telling hodges _they're all BNP_ - and with the sum total of sweet FA evidence offered to support this claim - and him passing it along to you as fact and you then passing it on again.

There's also that same shared desperation in your defence of his argument - UKIP haven't melted away, the last poll on his little graphic showed them on 17%. And it's there again in your defence of his BNP claim - that UKIP would be around 5% if they ('hardcore BNP switchers') did in fact make up the bulk of UKIP voters - apart from this being well below the 13% UKIP low point in his graph the BNP only managed to score 1.9% of the vote in the 2010 election. So just how likely do you think it is that the UKIP 13-17% they are currently getting is from 'hardcore BNP switchers'? I reckon it's more to be a load of smeary bollocks that you , hodges, and the lib-dems/tories and labour party are happy to put about.

That link doesn't work but i'm pretty sure it'll be more of the same stuff.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2015)

bemused said:


> I know a few people voting for UKIP who would be horrified to think they would be considered racists. For many it's become the acceptable protest vote, much like the LibDems use to be. He's not going to get many MPs so people don't see it as that risky. It's shame there isn't a similar thriving nationalist movement as to the SNP in England; that would be quite interesting to watch. Sadly groups like the BNP have forever linked nationalism with racism in England.



The problem there being that with regard to English nationalism, for the last 100 or so years most of the signifiers chosen by those who self-identify as English nationalists have been negative, insofar as they generally refer back to tropes that are racially monocultural, sexist and classless.  We've seen abhorrent examples of English nationalism repeatedly, even from the supposedly more considered versions of it, so finding a "neutral" English nationalism that could act as a positive force for unity would be a very hard task.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2015)

The big three parties (as was) got 88% of the national vote last time around. The BNP got 1.9%. The last poll on UK polling report's round up has them (the big three) combined on 70% this time around - BNP no longer even appear, they don't breach 1%. It also has UKIP on 17%. I guess that 14% rise in the UKIP vote must be down to that 1.9% BNP vote switching to UKIP. I can see no other way the numbers could possibly work.


----------



## treelover (Apr 20, 2015)

> The fourth woman running for the Great Grimsby seat is Val O’Flynn, the ex-Militant Tendency candidate for the radical left-wing Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition. I met her one Friday lunchtime in a sprawling hotel bar near Grimsby Town station where mothers with pushchairs and plates of food shared space with tottering, booze-darkened drinkers. We talked for a while about TUSC, its desire for a socialist transformation of society and its policy of quitting the EU – ‘nothing more than a pro-business, neoliberal organisation’.* I could see, when she talked about immigration, what a gaping space there was on the radical left for Ukip to enter. The open door immigration policy, she said, ‘suited the capitalist because it increases the labour force, it has a downward effect on wages, and immigrants are much easier to exploit. Immigrants come over here partly because of the faults of capitalism in their own countries. What is a minimum wage here is a good wage compared to what it would be at home. That brings the wages down for the rest of us.’*



From the Meek article, is this TUSC's position?



> She smiled. ‘I’m engaged to a Ukip man,’ she said. To Chris Osborne, in fact, the campaign manager for Steve Harness, Ukip candidate for Cleethorpes. They met over a shared cause. ‘I’ve been banned from Morrison’s for doing a protest about them selling Israeli goods and Chris has been sort of fighting this pro-Palestine corner for years so that’s how we got talking.’ He would have been very much at home in the old Labour Party, she said.




Bizzarely or not the TUSC candidate is engaged to a Kipper



> A few days after I left Grimsby, there was another leak. The _Sunday Mirror_ got hold of a recording of a showdown between the neo-socialist local Ukippers and a party official over the lack of support for Ayling. On the tape, Osborne is heard to describe Ayling as ‘possibly the worst candidate we could have’. He says: ‘I cannot endorse or support a candidate who I genuinely believe – whether anybody else does or not – who I genuinely believe is racist.’



Btw, its a superb article, and indicates UKIP is not homogenous and has plenty of old socialists in it, probably more socialist than some of its enemies.


----------



## treelover (Apr 20, 2015)

> Fitzgerald says he has £500 million to spend on new projects in the Humber, but his position as steward of one of Canada and Singapore’s far-flung estates does not permit him to set money aside to mend the roof of the ice factory. ‘We’re happy to talk to anybody who has a plan for it,’ he said. ‘Ultimately, the renovation of a building like that is not a business we are in.’



A Tory Kipper like Ayling is not going to do anything to challenge that view, even though UKIP are meant to be against Globalism and the putative voters would expect her to rail against it..

Btw, my older friend who i mention a fair bit who is a full on campaigner recently took on the above, Associated British Ports(ABP) over a pollution issue, they are a very shady global outfit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2015)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> What does it tell us that Bonehill uses UKIP as a vehicle for promoting his hatred? Quite a lot I think. The same as Griffin, Lennon / Robinson and BF endorsing them.



It doesn't tell us anything of the sort. "The same as..."? Is Bonehill a known hard-rightist, then?
Nope, he's just some unknown with a mental health problem and crap politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2015)

Handily, from YG today:


----------



## laptop (Apr 20, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Handily, from YG today:



I have tried, and utterly failed, to understand the figures in that table, and the link isn't helping me.


----------



## treelover (Apr 20, 2015)

> Shakespeare was born as *Stephan Kukowski* in 1957 in Mönchengladbach, where his German father, a journalist, was the German Press Liaison Officer of Headquarters British Army of the Rhine. When he was five years old, the family moved to the UK, where he was educated at Christ's Hospital school near Horsham, West Sussex. Stephan was also an artist (as Stephan Kukowski) creating The Brunch Museum together with the fluxus artist George Brecht, first exhibited in London in 1976. After graduating from Oxford, he took a one-year teaching course in Kingston upon Thames, during which time he was a member of the Socialist Workers' Student Society. He became a teacher and headmaster in Los Angeles, California in the 1980s. After marrying Rosamund Shakespeare, he exchanged his surname for that of his wife.
> 
> After returning home to the UK from the US, he became involved in politics, first as a political commentator and then as Jeffrey Archer’s Campaign Director during and after his failed London mayoral campaign. He was also a Conservative Party pollster.



Interesting to see that the boss of You Guv and a Tory was once in SWSS.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2015)

laptop said:


> I have tried, and utterly failed, to understand the figures in that table, and the link isn't helping me.


On the left you have 2010 vote of 32 000 voters on YouGov's book. On the the top you have the Voting intention for each party in 2015. Looking at the UKIP column we see 39% of their 2015 vote voted tory last time, 13 labour, 15 lib-dem and so on.


----------



## bemused (Apr 20, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> On the left you have 2010 vote of 32 000 voters on YouGov's book. On the the top you have the Voting intention for each party in 2015. Looking at the UKIP column we see 39% of their 2015 vote voted tory last time, 13 labour, 15 lib-dem and so on.



Does that mean only 67% of people in that poll who voted Labour last time intend to this time?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 20, 2015)

bemused said:


> Does that mean only 67% of people in that poll who voted Labour last time intend to this time?


No, it means of those who intend to vote Labour this time, 67% voted Labour last time


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2015)

bemused said:


> Does that mean only 67% of people in that poll who voted Labour last time intend to this time?


It means of the 32 000 people polled those that voted labour in 2010 and who also be voting labour in 2010 make up 67% of the current labour vote.


----------



## laptop (Apr 20, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> It means of the 32 000 people polled those that voted labour in 2010 and who also be voting labour in 2010 make up 67% of the current labour vote.



Thanks!

Was trying to add up the _rows_...


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Apr 20, 2015)

Our local UKIP candidate looks like a Bond villain.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2015)

articul8 said:


> No, it means of those who intend to vote Labour this time, 67% voted Labour last time


Yeah, took me a while, but this is what it means.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 20, 2015)

Meaning the labour vote should be 33% (?) higher this time than last?

Eta: or no because you have to deduct the people in the column who voted labour last time but aren't doing this time?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 20, 2015)

I really don't understand why anyone who voted Labour last time would vote Tory or LD this time - some people are just weird.


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2015)

YG have produced a nice graphical version of their 'churn' data that might be better for those not so keen on numbers...


----------



## mk12 (Apr 20, 2015)

Surely the table Butchers linked to confirms that UKIP isn't fascist, but a populist right-wing party that appeals to a broad spectrum of voters. I know working-class former BNP voters who will be voting UKIP, but I also know middle-class students who'll be doing so, for quite very different reasons. They've done well at tapping into anger about immigration, the 'political class', Europe, political correctness, the betrayal of the Labour party, Islam, the failings of the NHS, and much more. Christ, even I agree with a lot of their individual policies (abolishing parking charges at hospitals, ensuring those who work in the NHS speak English, etc.). Yes, they have a large number of racist, sexist, and homophobic members in their party. Yes, they attract votes from former BNP voters. But you shouldn't define UKIP by these things alone. I'm sure the Tory party (and all parties?) has racist, sexist, and homophobic members in their party. Does this make them 'fascist'?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2015)

mk12 said:


> ensuring those who work in the NHS speak English


Really? You think this is a problem that needs central government intervention?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2015)

mk12 said:


> Surely the table Butchers linked to confirms that UKIP isn't fascist, but a populist right-wing party that *appeals to a broad spectrum *of voters.


Don't think it does show this really. Taking brogdale's thing, which contains more information, as many Labour voters from 2010 have switched to the Tories this time as have switched to UKIP.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2015)

It's the same information.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2015)

And it shows twice as many lab to ukip switchers as labour to tory.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> It's the same information.


No it's not. Not unless I'm reading it wrongly. The second one shows the total numbers in proportion to each other. So there are roughly the same numbers switching to each.


----------



## mk12 (Apr 20, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really? You think this is a problem that needs central government intervention?



It's not a priority for me at all. But I agree with the principle of it, definitely.


----------



## Up the junction (Apr 20, 2015)

brogdale said:


> YG have produced a nice graphical version of their 'churn' data that might be better for those not so keen on numbers...



It's all very pretty and the improving infographics seemingly add something but it all supports a bogus premise. And pretty much a bogus industry.

Is there a single consitituency in which the above is a fair reflection of what will happen? No, because none of the above matters in safe seat and in marginals combinations of pre-existing Party strengths, tactical and protest voting means  each is unique. It might have worth in the most general of sense but that's about it. Ashcroft knocks this nonsense into a cocked hat.


----------



## mk12 (Apr 20, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't think it does show this really. Taking brogdale's thing, which contains more information, as many Labour voters from 2010 have switched to the Tories this time as have switched to UKIP.



Of those intending to vote UKIP, 39% voted Tory in 2010, 13% Labour, 15% LD, 14% UKIP, 11% BNP...I'd say that's a broad spectrum.


----------



## Up the junction (Apr 20, 2015)

Ad YouGove can't even spell 'colour'.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 20, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No it's not. Not unless I'm reading it wrongly. The second one shows the total numbers in proportion to each other. So there are roughly the same numbers switching to each.


Click on the link i provided when i posted the chart.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 20, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> And it shows twice as many lab to ukip switchers as labour to tory.


so what?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 20, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Click on the link i provided when i posted the chart.


6 % of current Tory voters and 13 percent of current UKIP voters voted lab in 2010. But there are twice as many current tory voters as current ukip voters. Hence that 6% is about the same number of people as the 13 %.


----------



## Batboy (Apr 20, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Blimey, what a shame that you weren't there on P1 to answer the OP. Would have saved loads of posting.





ViolentPanda said:


> You have to be simple to think that UKIP is "diet BNP".



Thats me ...simple thinking it makes life so much easier


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 20, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> It's all very pretty and the improving infographics seemingly add something but it all supports a bogus premise. And pretty much a bogus industry.


What on earth are you going on about? 

Are you really claiming that there's no use in national polling? That getting an picture of how the UK as a whole is voting isn't useful information? Good constituency polling is great but the idea that makes national polling obsolete is ludicrous.


----------



## Up the junction (Apr 20, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> What on earth are you going on about?
> 
> Are you really claiming that there's no use in national polling? That getting an picture of how the UK as a whole is voting isn't useful information? Good constituency polling is great but the idea that makes national polling obsolete is ludicrous.


What on earth are you going on about? Etc.

It's just the old way and very convenient. Means slightly more that fuck all. Only three weeks to the next round of 'how did the pollsters get it so wrong'.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 20, 2015)

Apart from the pollsters haven't got it "wrong" for a long time. And until we have constituency polls that cover all the constituencies with the same regularity as national polling there is clearly a place for nation wide polling.


----------



## Up the junction (Apr 20, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Apart from the pollsters haven't got it "wrong" for a long time. And until we have constituency polls that cover all the constituencies with the same regularity as national polling there is clearly a place for nation wide polling.


Er no. The election is won and lost in marginals. As Ashcroft well understands. I'm not sure why you want to poll safe seats, unless you're stuck in the 1970s?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 20, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Er no. The election is won and lost in marginals. As Ashcroft well understands. I'm not sure why you want to poll safe seats, unless you're stuck in the 1970s?


I doubt that the Scots would agree with that.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 20, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Er no. The election is won and lost in marginals. As Ashcroft well understands. I'm not sure why you want to poll safe seats, unless you're stuck in the 1970s?


Because there's clearly value in have a weekly/daily look at the wider picture as well as a more irregular look at specific constituencies. Indeed having that national picture is going to help in identifying marginals. As brogdale pointed out unless you had the UK/Scotland wide polling showing that surge of SNP support then would people have done any constituency polling on a lot of the "safe" Labour seats in Scotland?

But also because there are seats that could change that have not had any constituency polling if you are going to try and build any model that predicts the outcome of the election you're going to have to consider what the national polling data is showing.

There simply isn't enough polling done at the constituency level to use it alone. In lots of cases you have a single poll done in 2014. If you think that makes the information national polling gives us totally useless, you're daft.


----------



## belboid (Apr 20, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Er no. The election is won and lost in marginals. As Ashcroft well understands. I'm not sure why you want to poll safe seats, unless you're stuck in the 1970s?


What, close seats are most likely to change hands??!!  What an amazing insight. Thank god you're here.


----------



## belboid (Apr 20, 2015)

Btw, most of those marginals polls show the parties doing pretty much as you'd expect them to be doing according to the national polls.


----------



## Up the junction (Apr 21, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> There simply isn't enough polling done at the constituency level to use it alone. In lots of cases you have a single poll done in 2014.


Yeah there is. Private polling. Resources are finite - human and financial. Of course each party directs those resources to best advantage. Plus Ashcroft. 

Meanwhile the great British public laps up all kind of monkey polls - hey everyone, look at our poll of polls


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2015)

the cleverest man on Earth


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 21, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Er no. The election is won and lost in marginals. As Ashcroft well understands. I'm not sure why you want to poll safe seats, unless you're stuck in the 1970s?



What's happening outside the narrow world of middle-class swing voters in key marginals is interesting for reasons other than 'who wins?'


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 21, 2015)

After all, what's interesting about UKIP, the subject of this thread, isn't who gets to form a government next month.

It's about the changing dynamics of UK politics, how UKIP's policies appeal to a various segments of an alienated public while others are leaving the neoliberal parties for various alternatives to the left.

All of these things are illuminated to some degree by wider polling.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No it's not. Not unless I'm reading it wrongly. The second one shows the total numbers in proportion to each other. So there are roughly the same numbers switching to each.


It's the same data, the one I posted just doesn't have the VI % that each 100 in the rows represents for each party - 34%, 32% etc at the bottom. I suspect that was done deliberately as this would give the suggestion of it being a proper weighted poll rather than a return to a group of people who took part in a weighted poll give years ago. I did initially part both charts btw but took up too much space.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 21, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> After all, what's interesting about UKIP, the subject of this thread, isn't who gets to form a government next month.
> 
> It's about the changing dynamics of UK politics, how UKIP's policies appeal to a various segments of an alienated public while others are leaving the neoliberal parties for various alternatives to the left.
> 
> All of these things are illuminated to some degree by wider polling.


Exactly.  Up the junction : there are a lot of people voting UKIP, and doing so in seats where UKIP won't win.  Indeed, the vast majority of UKIP voters are doing so in seats where UKIP won't win.  Those people, their motivations, are far more interesting than the targeted swing voters in the handful of marginals.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 21, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Yeah there is. Private polling. Resources are finite - human and financial. Of course each party directs those resources to best advantage. Plus Ashcroft.
> 
> Meanwhile the great British public laps up all kind of monkey polls - hey everyone, look at our poll of polls


What kind of private polling are you telling us to trust?

Maybe the ones the Lib Dems say tells them they're doing well?  Or the informal doorstep "polling" of Lord George Foulkes, who yesterday said the feeling he got on Scottish doorsteps was that Labour are winning in Scotland?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2015)

danny la rouge said:


> What kind of private polling are you telling us to trust?
> 
> Maybe the ones the Lib Dems say tells them they're doing well?  Or the informal doorstep "polling" of Lord George Foulkes, who yesterday said the feeling he got on Scottish doorsteps was that Labour are winning in Scotland?


Maybe the private polling that the sainted Ashcroft has criticised as being exercises in comfort polling, as opposed to the stuff on this thread which utj has criticised and Ashcroft praised.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> Yeah there is. Private polling. Resources are finite - human and financial. Of course each party directs those resources to best advantage. Plus Ashcroft.
> 
> Meanwhile the great British public laps up all kind of monkey polls - hey everyone, look at our poll of polls


you do realise you have just completely contradicted yourself? And that the above post makes virtually no sense.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 21, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe the private polling that the sainted Ashcroft has criticised as being exercises in comfort polling, as opposed to the stuff on this thread which utj has criticised and Ashcroft praised.


I'm just catching up on the thread, and I'm realising that Up the junction's opinions don't actually tally with each other, never mind reality.

Oh well.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> What on earth are you going on about? Etc.
> 
> It's just the old way and very convenient. Means slightly more that fuck all. Only three weeks to the next round of 'how did the pollsters get it so wrong'.



The pollsters don't generally get it wrong on run-up polling. Exit polling, on the other hand, is notoriously shonky, not least because some people "mislead" the pollsters as to whom they voted for.


----------



## Up the junction (Apr 21, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The pollsters don't generally get it wrong on run-up polling. Exit polling, on the other hand, is notoriously shonky, not least because some people "mislead" the pollsters as to whom they voted for.


You're missing the point entirely.

Polls are bollix. What is helpful is seat number predictions.

But sure, go back and marvel at how wonderful YouGov were at getting within 3% of the Tory vote.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> There simply isn't enough polling done at the constituency level to use it alone. In lots of cases you have a single poll done in 2014. If you think that makes the information national polling gives us totally useless, you're daft.



It's done so little because unless some sugar daddy pays for it (and even Ashcroft didn't do that), it's way too expensive and labour-intensive to poll regularly at constituency level, except informally even if you only polled marginals.


----------



## treelover (Apr 21, 2015)

There was a pensioner interviewed on Victoria Derbyshire on BBC, he said he was torn "between Labour and Ukip over the high levels of immigration", yet when he discussed his concerns he talked about workfare, benefit levels, cuts, etc and how awful they were.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> You're missing the point entirely.
> 
> Polls are bollix. What is helpful is seat number predictions.



Some polls are bollocks, some are accurate. Depends on the methodology and the analysis, as well as the spin outside parties (the media etc) put on that.



> But sure, go back and marvel at how wonderful YouGov were at getting within 3% of the Tory vote.



Have I marveled at anything of the sort? No. Don't let that stop you vocalising rectally, though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> the cleverest man on Earth



Once humanity has died off, anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2015)

Bernie Gunther said:


> What's happening outside the narrow world of middle-class swing voters in key marginals is interesting for reasons other than 'who wins?'



Yep. Not least because an indication of current political dynamics is given, which allows the likes of us to predict where the major parties will go policy-wise, and the political pointy-heads to trim their sails to the prevailing wind.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> You're missing the point entirely.
> 
> Polls are bollix. What is helpful is seat number predictions.
> 
> But sure, go back and marvel at how wonderful YouGov were at getting within 3% of the Tory vote.


Jesus, are you trying to get dumber each post?  How do they get those seat number predictions, then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2015)

treelover said:


> There was a pensioner interviewed on Victoria Derbyshire on BBC, he said he was torn "between Labour and Ukip over the high levels of immigration", yet when he discussed his concerns he talked about workfare, benefit levels, cuts, etc and how awful they were.



All that's doing is manifesting the difference between voting with your head, and voting with your heart, to be fair.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2015)

belboid said:


> Jesus, are you trying to get dumber each post?  How do they get those seat number predictions, then?



Necromancy, blatantly, and a direct line of communications to Beelzebubbles.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 21, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> You're missing the point entirely.
> 
> Polls are bollix. What is helpful is seat number predictions.
> 
> But sure, go back and marvel at how wonderful YouGov were at getting within 3% of the Tory vote.


How do you think people make those seat number predictions? Most models will use polling data you knob.



danny la rouge said:


> I'm just catching up on the thread, and I'm realising that Up the junction's opinions don't actually tally with each other, never mind reality.
> 
> Oh well.


Aye, don't know why I'm bothering he(?) can't even keep his story straight for a page.


----------



## Up the junction (Apr 21, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Have I marveled at anything of the sort? No. Don't let that stop you vocalising rectally, though.


I have no idea who you are. Nor you I. In those circs people assume a generic usage, unless a little precious.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> I have no idea who you are. Nor you I. In those circs people assume a generic usage, unless a little precious.


and some people just talk rubbish and refuse to answer criticisms


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> I have no idea who you are. Nor you I.



Who you are? No.
That you talk out of your arse, though, that's pretty easy to discern.



> In those circs people assume a generic usage, unless a little precious.



People do, do they?
It's always good to be *told* what people do, especially when the telling is itself based on assumption.


----------



## Up the junction (Apr 21, 2015)

LOL. Proper Kenneth Williams.


----------



## rioted (Apr 22, 2015)

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n08/james-meek/why-are-you-still-here

Interesting article on the political dynamics of Grimsby from the London Review of Books. The UKIP agent is the partner of the TUSC candidate.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 22, 2015)

It's not on the British Election Study website as a news item, but poliitcalbetting.com has an interesting piece on BES research which suggests that Kippers tend to be managerial and supervisory, rather than being disenfranchised victims of the commodity labour market.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2015)

Up the junction said:


> LOL. Proper Kenneth Williams.



So, as ever, you've got nowt substantive to say.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 30, 2015)




----------



## teqniq (Apr 30, 2015)




----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 30, 2015)

teqniq said:


>




Hard to believe he's barely in his early 20s.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 30, 2015)

Swiss Toni's let himself go!


----------



## brogdale (Apr 30, 2015)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Swiss Toni's let himself go!


Standing for election. Standing for election is very much like....


----------



## rioted (Apr 30, 2015)

An academics take:
*Real Man, Real Emotions? The Truth behind Nigel Farage’s Cocksure Campaigning*


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2015)

> Farage, who has pulled out of a BBC Radio 1 appearance later today, told Sky News:
> 
> Ukip are the fourth major party in British politics and that is something that has been respected by Sky, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 but not by the BBC. If I was in a position of power, I would take away a lot of their funding, a lot of their influence.



from G update
Threatening the BBC?


----------



## belboid (May 1, 2015)

treelover said:


> from G update
> Threatening the BBC?


yes, its been a frequent theme throughout their campaign. The reporting to the police of HIGNFY as well. Let's hope no one calls them racist, or the Rahman verdict will mean they could have the election rerun!


----------



## CNT36 (May 1, 2015)

treelover said:


> from G update
> Threatening the BBC?


If only they'd had some coverage on the BBC, been regularly invited to and discussed on Question Time or their leader been given an hour to himself in Question Times usual spot. Discrimination.


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

The answer...it turns out is....very successful.

A right-wing government offering an "in/out" EuroRef. Tick. Job done.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2015)

Bring on the referendum and bury the issue, I'm sick of it.  The (fanciful) nightmare scenario with that is that UKIP gain support campaigning for an out (like the SNP in Scotland) then retain support and activists afterwards (even in the event of a loss) and get an SNP-style landslide.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (May 8, 2015)

Bumping this, rather than starting a new thread, to ask:

With Farage stepping down as leader of UKIP, are they going to be able to continue to capitalise on their relative success at the election? Or will they go the way of the BNP - when the 'charismatic' figurehead goes, they fall apart and disappear from the public consciousness?


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

They were supposed to melt away in the heat of the election - 13% i think it was they ended up with - and a big lot obv coming from labour voters. Comparison with BNP doesn't quite work - BNP - not such a national profile, better 2nd level of leadership (some of the guests on the progs last night showed this), people coming with experience from both other main parties, and crucially, a wider remit to cause trouble on than the BNP ever had and across a broader social spectrum with wider extended legitmacy (time and geography). A good leader like farage is going to help focus all that but a) these conditions might _produce _similarly skilled leaders and b) the conditions are not going way any time soon.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Oh yeah, farage will be back after the summer anyway.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2015)

They're scoring well in the local elections in Leeds, no seats but in the traditionally working class areas they're generally getting a couple of thousand votes, quite a few second places.  Those votes aren't coming from the tories.


----------



## Corax (May 8, 2015)

chilango said:


> Be interesting to discuss what type of Party/movement UKIP actually are


Failures?


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

Corax said:


> Failures?


I don't buy that.

Without the perceived threat of UKIP, Cameron would not have caved in to the swivel-eyed loons on his right. Maybe they're a better pressure group than party...but with Brexitref on stream they've won whislt also helping the right into power.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Only a child with eyes only on westminster could answer the question in that way. Have you no curiosity about society corax, no solidarity no interest in why people do things, why they don't,why they act? I though you were a christian?


----------



## Corax (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Only a child with eyes only on westminster could answer the question in that way. Have you no curiosity about society corax, no solidarity no interest in why people do things, why they don't,why they act? I though you were a christian?


Oh *do* fuck off dear - flippant wry answers aren't banned in the FAQ.  And back on ignore you go...


----------



## ska invita (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Oh yeah, farage will be back after the summer anyway.


why do you say that? a hunch or is that whats out there?


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

ska invita said:


> why do you say that? a hunch or is that whats out there?


Brain work


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 8, 2015)

I got UKIP a bit wrong. Election proved that, as they hurt Labour possibly more than they hurt the Tories. They certainly had more purchase with former Labour voters than I thought they would.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I don't buy that.
> 
> Without the perceived threat of UKIP, Cameron would not have caved in to the swivel-eyed loons on his right. Maybe they're a better pressure group than party...but with Brexitref on stream they've won whislt also helping the right into power.


Yes, their success was always going to be measured by the effect they had on the other parties, imo. They successfully made immigration a central topic in the election for all sides.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2015)

ska invita said:


> why do you say that? a hunch or is that whats out there?



it makes sense after his quasi-resignation. There'll be the usual post-election recriminations, a bit of civil war between the muckety-mucks, and then Farage can walk back in and play the hero returning to the struggle because his people need him.


----------



## ska invita (May 8, 2015)

i havent watched any coverage - getting it mainly off urban and a few other net sources - hadnt realised it was a quasi resignation


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I got UKIP a bit wrong. Election proved that, as they hurt Labour possibly more than they hurt the Tories. They certainly had more purchase with former Labour voters than I thought they would.



I only need remember two words to know in my bones that Labour supporters are susceptible and even amenable to that sort of politics.
The two words? Frank Chapple.


----------



## ska invita (May 8, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I only need remember two words to know in my bones that Labour supporters are susceptible and even amenable to that sort of politics.
> The two words? Frank Chapple.


Can you explain more? What did Frank say and do?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2015)

ska invita said:


> Can you explain more? What did Frank say and do?



He was the leader of a trade union, later ennobled as Lord Chapple of Hoxton. His union (the EEPTU) was a by-word for Labour right-wing trade unionism, and his politics once in the upper house reflected his rightism.


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2015)

Saw this vote share by region thing on twitter - interesting to see that the SE is near the bottom, when that's been their imagined heartland...

North E 16.7 
Yorkshire 16.7 
West Mid 16 
East 16.4 
East Mid 15.3 
South E 14.9 
South W 14 
North W 13.7 
London 8.2


----------



## co-op (May 9, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> They were supposed to melt away in the heat of the election - 13% i think it was they ended up with - and a big lot obv coming from labour voters. Comparison with BNP doesn't quite work - BNP - not such a national profile, better 2nd level of leadership (some of the guests on the progs last night showed this), people coming with experience from both other main parties, and crucially, a wider remit to cause trouble on than the BNP ever had and across a broader social spectrum with wider extended legitmacy (time and geography). A good leader like farage is going to help focus all that but a) these conditions might _produce _similarly skilled leaders and b) the conditions are not going way any time soon.



Also a lot of money, they got some very good campaigns up and running in a relatively short space of time.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2015)

co-op said:


> Also a lot of money, they got some very good campaigns up and running in a relatively short space of time.


Always helps! I think the fact they could do hit-and-run style campaigns with that money was also useful to them. (greens seemed to learn from that over the month-moved away from pompous proposals they could be tied down to and robustly challenged on towards looser _wouldn't it be nice _style crap)


----------



## treelover (May 9, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I got UKIP a bit wrong. Election proved that, as they hurt Labour possibly more than they hurt the Tories. They certainly had more purchase with former Labour voters than I thought they would.



Lots of us on here were fully aware who UKIP were appealing to, especially in the North.


----------



## Combustible (May 9, 2015)

Looking at some of the valley's results in South Wales, UKIP have shot up to third or a quite distant second, whereas the Tory vote has either remained steady or increased a bit. The only party who have plummeted have been the Lib Dems, I wonder how many of those voters in 2010 went straight to UKIP.


----------



## belboid (May 9, 2015)

killer b said:


> Saw this vote share by region thing on twitter - interesting to see that the SE is near the bottom, when that's been their imagined heartland...
> 
> North E 16.7
> Yorkshire 16.7
> ...


there was a map of their results up somewhere, showing their highest votes in a darker purple.  It was basically a map of run down coastal resorts and ex-mining areas


----------



## co-op (May 9, 2015)

Combustible said:


> I wonder how many of those voters in 2010 went straight to UKIP.



At first sight it's crazy to suggest that Lib-Dem voters would have gone over to UKIP in any numbers but I wonder if maybe a few more did than people think; the 2010 vote for the LDs was a historic high and must have included quite a few people who were desperate for something different and took a punt on Clegg and Co., we might think that was naive but anyone who did that would have just had a pretty good lesson in political cycnism since and could well have gone over to UKIP as a two-fingered response to the coalition & bubble politics & all the rest of it.


----------



## belboid (May 9, 2015)

they may have lost Thanet South, but they've just  taken control of the council, from Labour. 
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/09/ukip-wins-control-of-its-first-uk-council


----------



## crossthebreeze (May 9, 2015)

I agree there is evidence for a LibDem to UKIP swing in north east England (where I am) at least - there's lots of constituencies where Labour gained voting share, Conservatives' share stayed about the same, and the LibDem's share totally collapsed, while UKIP's share rose by a similar amount to come second or third.  There were definitely people who voted LibDem in 2010 as a kind of anti-Labour/Conservative/Establishment protest rather than because of LibDem policies, and i did get the sense that some people were considering voting UKIP for similar reasons this time.

Personally i've also heard more anti-EU-immigration sentiment in the last two years from people in my neighbourhood than ever before, especially from people who I really wouldn't expect it from - and this seems to be linked to worries about austerity (about accessing schools, doctors surgeries, etc and about social problems which the council cuts have exacerbated, or about benefits).  As Labour are  pro-austerity they wouldn't have helped with this.  

Less significantly in terms of numbers, but more worrying, its likely that with the collapse of BNP and NF much of the far right is supporting UKIP - certainly at least one of the local ex-BNP types had UKIP posters in their window this time, and EDL/Infidels/Britain First all seem to endorse (and be willing to physically intervene on behalf of) them.


----------



## gosub (May 9, 2015)

Find it interesting that latest news bit on the UKIP site is largely about changing the UK voting system with a couple of sentences about the referendum tacked on the end.... time was winning that referendum would have been it's raison detre, now the priority is power for the party,  how very animal farm


----------



## Dogsauce (May 9, 2015)

Lib dem votes move to labour, labour votes out the other side to UKIP. That's how that 'swing' plays out. Not many are doing the direct LD-UKIP transition.

Some of the north will also be tactical switching from the Tories if that looked like a better vehicle to challenge labour incumbents, although my gut instinct is that not that many people vote tactically, a lot won't even know what party currently holds their seat.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 9, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Lib dem votes move to labour, labour votes out the other side to UKIP. That's how that 'swing' plays out. Not many are doing the direct LD-UKIP transition.
> .


I suspect you're wrong. Makes sense for a vote against the main two to switch directly to another party not of the main two. LD voters aren't necessarily pro-EU liberals, and UKIP voters aren't necessarily anti-EU right-wingers. Some are just pissed off.


----------



## bemused (May 10, 2015)

I can see them putting Suzanne Evens in charge and reinvent themselves as an English nationalist party before the 2017 referendum; which will vote to stay in the EU.


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2015)

Here we go:

*Matthew Goodwin*
@GoodwinMJ

Of 50 seats that saw the largest 2010->2015 increase in Ukip vote share 32 were held by Labour, 17 by Conservatives & 1 by Lib Dem #GE2015


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Lib dem votes move to labour, labour votes out the other side to UKIP. That's how that 'swing' plays out. Not many are doing the direct LD-UKIP transition.
> 
> Some of the north will also be tactical switching from the Tories if that looked like a better vehicle to challenge labour incumbents, although my gut instinct is that not that many people vote tactically, a lot won't even know what party currently holds their seat.


Some of the lib-dems moved to labour in labour seats, those in the marginals went to tory.


----------



## brogdale (May 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Some of the lib-dems moved to labour in labour seats, those in the marginals went to tory.


yep, and some on the media now bleating that they didn't actually want a tory maj administration


----------



## treelover (May 10, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Here we go:
> 
> *Matthew Goodwin*
> @GoodwinMJ
> ...




That really does show the hubris of the labour figures who were proclaiming loudly it would only be the Tories who were affected by the rise of UKIP, all in all, a massive strategic mistake.


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2015)

treelover said:


> That really does show the hubris of the labour figures who were proclaiming loudly it would only be the Tories who were affected by the rise of UKIP, all in all, a massive strategic mistake.


I figure we're going to see a great deal of analysis on this issue of UKIP damage to Labour. Here's the Indy's take on it...



> *Labour figures have admitted they underestimated the threat from Ukip*, after it emerged that Nigel Farage’s party may have deprived Labour of victory in many seats in last week’s election.
> 
> Analysis of the results by _The Independent_ shows that *Ukip won more votes than the size of the Conservative majority in nine seats the Tories gained from Labour*. They included Morley and Outwood, where the former shadow Chancellor Ed Balls suffered a shock defeat by 442 votes after the third-placed Ukip candidate won 7,951 votes.


and the Statesman has this...



> One of Ukip’s main aims of the election was to establish a base from which to launch a renewed assault on Labour’s heartlands at the next election: the 2020 strategy. Paul Nuttall, Ukip’s deputy leader, told me in January that he hoped Ukip would “crack the dam” in the north this time and make “big, big gains” at the next election. *Of the 120 seats in which Ukip came second, 44 were in Labour seats. Nine of these were in the 20 seats with the lowest turnout; across the 20, Ukip averaged 17 per cent.*


​


----------



## brogdale (May 14, 2015)

...and this morning...the best characterisation has to be _troubled...
_


> 2m ago10:59
> 
> *Matthew Goodwin*, the academic and Ukip specialist who co-authored Revolt on the Right and who is writing a book about Ukip’s election campaign, tells me the current crisis - with Nigel Farage at war with both Douglas Carswell and Patrick O’Flynn - could be the most serious in Ukip’s history.
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2015)

brogdale said:


> I figure we're going to see a great deal of analysis on this issue of UKIP damage to Labour. Here's the Indy's take on it...
> 
> ​and the Statesman has this...
> 
> ...




Labour really are in big trouble, squeezed on all sides, I'm not sure another leader will make that much difference, time to start building bridges.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2015)

treelover said:


> Labour really are in big trouble, squeezed on all sides, I'm not sure another leader will make that much difference, time to start building bridges.


instead of embarking on civil engineering projects a period of political introspection might be a good idea.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 11, 2015)

Only the UKIP MEP out of British MEPs in the European Parliament's Trade committee voted against proceeding with the TTIP, all the Labour MEPs voted for it.

They are to the left of the Labour in the arena where they have elected muscle which is Brussels.

This is their spin on it
http://www.ukip.org/william_dartmou...e_nhs_against_ttip_in_the_european_parliament

Their local government power is surprisingly small for what is obviously a mass party, however its selling point is that it has no whip for its councillors meaning the sense of councillors listening to their small electorate.

http://www.lgcplus.com/news/politics/ukip-joins-ruling-coalition-in-midlands/5086574.article

I think Thanet where they have power might try to paint itself as a populist Kent version of Tower Hamlets First


----------



## treelover (Jun 11, 2015)

I met my close relative last weekend, he really wants to stand for UKIP, humanise it, etc, he says the biggest motivation for joining is they support the armed forces and the left, well, the greens, "want to 'abolish the army".


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 11, 2015)

treelover said:


> Labour really are in big trouble, squeezed on all sides, I'm not sure another leader will make that much difference, time to start building bridges.


They need to do more than that a whoselale, root-and-branch renewal, and re-connection, with the people who should, by any logic, be their _raison d'etre; _the have-nots, the masses.  
They are finding out the hard way, that if you neglect your roots for long enough, they wither and die.
They need to work out wheter they wish to - and can afford to - completely cut themselves off from those roots to become in entirety and in essence - a middle-class fabian centre-right party - or whether they want to try and save somethin from this wreckage.
And, tbh, either way I care not in the slightest.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 11, 2015)

Streathamite said:


> They need to do more than that a whoselale, root-and-branch renewal, and re-connection, with the people who should, by any logic, be their _raison d'etre; _the have-nots, the masses.
> They are finding out the hard way, that if you neglect your roots for long enough, they wither and die.
> They need to work out wheter they wish to - and can afford to - completely cut themselves off from those roots to become in entirety and in essence -* a middle-class fabian centre-right party - or whether they want to try and save somethin from this wreckage.*
> And, tbh, either way I care not in the slightest.



we know the answer. They've automatically said they lost cos ed was the second coming of lenin or something and renewed calls to fellate the CBI while chasing the aspirational m/c vote they supposedly lost by being too red


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 11, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> as they hurt Labour possibly more than they hurt the Tories. They certainly had more purchase with former Labour voters than I thought they would.


tbf, that was their plan all along. Not hindsight - from years back, they saw traditional Labour voters as their 'low hanging fruit'.


----------



## andysays (Jun 12, 2015)

Streathamite said:


> tbf, that was their plan all along. Not hindsight - from years back, they saw traditional Labour voters as their 'low hanging fruit'.



I'm not sure that's the right metaphor but to extend it, they've now found the fruit has withered on the vine


----------



## gareth taylor (Jun 15, 2015)

andysays said:


> I'm not sure that's the right metaphor but to extend it, they've now found the fruit has withered on the vine


 ukip may be gone by 2017


----------



## Quartz (Jun 15, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> ukip may be gone by 2017



I'm sure something similar was said about the SNP some years ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2015)

Quartz said:


> I'm sure something similar was said about the SNP some years ago.


By such noted commentators as Gareth?


----------



## gareth taylor (Jun 15, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> By such noted commentators as Gareth?


 eu vote will be make or break for them


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jun 15, 2015)

Just like the no vote decimated the SNP.


----------



## gosub (Jun 15, 2015)

but the No thats winnable, out of EU but still in Single Market, is at odds with UKIP's Immigrants!, we must do something about immigrants


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 15, 2015)

Anyone?


----------



## gareth taylor (Jun 15, 2015)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> Just like the no vote decimated the SNP.


 its different for ukip, if eu vote goes against them really they don't have much more to offer


----------



## andysays (Jun 15, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> its different for ukip, if eu vote goes against them really they don't have much more to offer



Another (equally simplistic, but you started it) way of looking at it is that if the EU vote goes the way they want, they will have served their purpose and won't have anything more to offer


----------



## brogdale (Jun 16, 2015)

Would be interesting to know how the 0.75m SE England voters who helped elect Janice Atkinson in 2014 feel about her defection to the FN led group "Europe of nations and freedom".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/16/ex-ukip-janice-atkinson-joins-le-pen-led-eu-group


----------



## gareth taylor (Jun 16, 2015)

andysays said:


> Another (equally simplistic, but you started it) way of looking at it is that if the EU vote goes the way they want, they will have served their purpose and won't have anything more to offer


 or maybe it drive more support there way ! you never know,


----------



## youngian (Jun 16, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Would be interesting to know how the 0.75m SE England voters who helped elect Janice Atkinson in 2014 feel about her defection to the FN led group "Europe of nations and freedom".
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/16/ex-ukip-janice-atkinson-joins-le-pen-led-eu-group


If they didn't get a feel of who Ukip were when they voted for her, I doubt this news will mean very much.


----------



## gosub (Jun 17, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> or maybe it drive more support there way ! you never know,



With tory euroskeptics leashed to Cameron til after his 11th hour EUropean negotiations, short term party politicing such as yesterday's :

 might serve them quite well, though if the government haven't depoliticized the civil service when the referendum legislation comes back for review, they may well end up with a couple more MP's.

More interesting is what will happen on the left, depending on Labour leadership, and more importantly what is in TATP, could see new party emerging out of Labour /SNP, particuraly if TATP as expected opens the door to the NHS for US Health insurance companies


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 17, 2015)

andysays said:


> I'm not sure that's the right metaphor but to extend it, they've now found the fruit has withered on the vine


their words (or that one of their senior people, IIRC), not mine. Can't find the quote. Sure I'm right, though.
(Also, I'm pretty sure they meant by fruit 'traditional labour-type voters, or voters in Labour heartlands')


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 17, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> ukip may be gone by 2017


I doubt it. very much indeed. for all thedir batshit aspects, they struck too loud and resonant a chord, with too many. Thedir momentum was driven by people - loads of them - flocking to their flag.


----------



## gareth taylor (Jun 18, 2015)

Streathamite said:


> I doubt it. very much indeed. for all thedir batshit aspects, they struck too loud and resonant a chord, with too many. Thedir momentum was driven by people - loads of them - flocking to their flag.


 just under 4 million people in the uk


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 18, 2015)

gareth taylor said:


> just under 4 million people in the uk


just over three million, yes in the UK given they don't campaign for office in any other country.

much as I despise their politics, thats a lot of votes with only one seat to show for it.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 18, 2015)

Streathamite said:


> I doubt it. very much indeed. for all thedir batshit aspects, they struck too loud and resonant a chord, with too many. Thedir momentum was driven by people - loads of them - flocking to their flag.




I agree with that, but I also wonder what proportion of their support is soft/flakey.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 18, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> just over three million, yes in the UK given they don't campaign for office in any other country.
> 
> much as I despise their politics, thats a lot of votes with only one seat to show for it.


3.88m


----------



## gareth taylor (Jun 18, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> I agree with that, but I also wonder what proportion of their support is soft/flakey.


 I really disagree with all this talk of everyone who votes ukip is racist it is total nonsense !


----------



## andysays (Jun 18, 2015)

Streathamite said:


> their words (or that one of their senior people, IIRC), not mine. Can't find the quote. Sure I'm right, though.
> (Also, I'm pretty sure they meant by fruit 'traditional labour-type voters, or voters in Labour heartlands')



Apologies, I misunderstood your post. 

Your use of the metaphor was correct and the withering on the vine applies to what happened to the Labour party support from their point of view.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jun 18, 2015)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> I also wonder what proportion of their support is soft/flakey.





gareth taylor said:


> I really disagree with all this talk of everyone who votes ukip is racist it is total nonsense !




Never said racist now did I?

only stupid


----------



## gareth taylor (Jun 19, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Never said racist now did I?
> 
> only stupid


 I didn't say you did !


----------



## brogdale (Jun 19, 2015)




----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2015)

worst tatooes ever thread-------------->


----------



## gareth taylor (Jun 20, 2015)

brogdale said:


>



 crazy


----------



## brogdale (Aug 19, 2015)

Thought they'd gone a bit quiet on the politics front...


----------



## gareth taylor (Aug 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Thought they'd gone a bit quiet on the politics front...



 farage kicking up a stink about London mayor


----------



## sihhi (Sep 4, 2015)

There is a basic anti-liberal streak 

_While they're waiting they could maybe take in one of the UK's 3,000 rough sleepers? Maybe a homeless ex-serviceman? _

and a strong belief in "looking after your own" and "charity starts at home"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 5, 2015)

sihhi said:


> There is a basic anti-liberal streak
> 
> _While they're waiting they could maybe take in one of the UK's 3,000 rough sleepers? Maybe a homeless ex-serviceman? _
> 
> and a strong belief in "looking after your own" and "charity starts at home"




I've seen this on many boards, with the same lack of appreciation that a minority of rough sleepers can't handle hostels or homes, and choose to sleep out.


----------



## sihhi (Sep 7, 2015)

Here's centre Labour's analysis


----------



## Quartz (Sep 8, 2015)

sihhi said:


> Here's centre Labour's analysis



Interesting to see no attention at all paid to the SNP. Have they completely abandoned Scotland?


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 24, 2016)

Who are these goons beside Farage in his victory speech this morning? Are they kippers? They wouldn't look out of place in a BNP photo-op but now their dirty mugs have been beamed around the world.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 24, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Who are these goons beside Farage in his victory speech this morning? Are they kippers? They wouldn't look out of place in a BNP photo-op but now their dirty mugs been beamed around the world.
> 
> View attachment 88840


They're a rum lot if ever I've seen one.


----------



## treelover (Jun 24, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Who are these goons beside Farage in his victory speech this morning? Are they kippers? They wouldn't look out of place in a BNP photo-op but now their dirty mugs have been beamed around the world.
> 
> View attachment 88840



Men in ill fitting suits?


----------



## Ax^ (Jun 24, 2016)

can ya believe 51.8 percent of the population voted in line with that cunts world view


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 25, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> can ya believe 51.8 percent of the population voted in line with that cunts world view


No. A goodly chunk did - 20 percent perhaps or a little more, judging by those citing immigration as their main concern in polls - but not that many. And that's of the vote, which was 70 per cent. So it's more like 15 percent of the population. Too many, but not 51.8 percent.

This was a binary choice over a rather marginal issue, all big things considered - of course there will be groups on the same side of that silly binary that will agree. Doesn't mean much really. My thinking on that would be in a fantasy world in which there is a vote on leaving NATO. In such a vote, I really don't care who else is on the side of leaving, I'm still leaving.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2016)

Right, not something that really effects the way we organise our lifes. But Something we can't. Sounds about right.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 25, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Right, not something that really effects the way we organise our lifes. .


Yes, something that really affects the way we organise our lives. In a profound way, an opportunity to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the rest of the world. That affects the way every British soldier who has fought abroad organises their lives. It affects what 'we' do to the rest of the world.

This didn't exercise me in the same way, no. And the extent to which it really affects the way we organise our lives is still to be seen.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2016)

Jesus.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 25, 2016)

You are rather lost if you think membership of the EU is comparable to/ more important than membership of NATO.

If you don't think that, and you're just posturing, then fuck off.


----------



## Ax^ (Jun 25, 2016)

still go to see what happens when people figure out that the member states of the efta still are obliged to accept the freedom of movement for workers but we shall see how that pans out


----------



## steeplejack (Jun 25, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Who are these goons beside Farage in his victory speech this morning? Are they kippers? They wouldn't look out of place in a BNP photo-op but now their dirty mugs have been beamed around the world.
> 
> View attachment 88840



stampede at the Burton's sale


----------



## brogdale (Jun 25, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Who are these goons beside Farage in his victory speech this morning? Are they kippers? They wouldn't look out of place in a BNP photo-op but now their dirty mugs have been beamed around the world.
> 
> View attachment 88840


Far right (!) is Peter Whittle, UKIP's candidate in the 2016 London Mayoral election.


----------



## Ax^ (Jun 25, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Far right (!) is Peter Whittle, UKIP's candidate in the 2016 London Mayoral election.



did he not call for an end to multi language forms by linking it to child grooming in the Rotherham


----------



## brogdale (Jun 25, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> did he not call for an end to multi language forms by linking it to child grooming in the Rotherham


That's him.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2016)

Led by a woman, now.
Labour & LDs are well out of step.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 16, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Led by a woman, now.
> Labour & LDs are well out of step.


Don't tell me, it's Diane James.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 16, 2016)

Captions, anyone?


----------



## JHE (Sep 16, 2016)

Ugh!  When he's trying to kiss you, he looks strangely like Jean-Claude Juncker!


----------



## belboid (Sep 16, 2016)

JHE said:


> Ugh!  When he's trying to kiss you, he looks strangely like Jean-Claude Juncker!


That's one of the nicest things ever said about him


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Sep 17, 2016)

brogdale said:


> Led by a woman, now.
> Labour & LDs are well out of step.


The lib-democrats not so much "out of step" but more "irrelevant" to me and most other people now, See you in another 100 years lib-democrats. As for labour howabout being an effective opposition that so many people want and need rather than trying to keep blair's toxic legacy alive


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 29, 2017)

I was just looking back through some old threads and found this post from back in 2009. 



butchersapron said:


> People aren't daft - thery know full well that there's no chance of a BNP fascist govt being elected, they also know full well the labour party took them for mugs (_fuck 'em, where can they go?_) and also that the other mainstream parties are simply more of the same shit. This is why the BNP vote is still soft vote _right now_ (but may not be for much longer) because it's essentially a negative angry protest vote - but once it becomes normalised (as is becoming more and more common) we may well (in fcat, we will) see positive votes based on identification with the BNP rather than rejection of other parties.


Obviously the BNP have gone but it got me wondering to to what extent the UKIP vote is still soft and what extent there's a positive UKIP vote. 

For my part I think the process outlined above is well underway and a significant proportion of the UKIP is hard. Despite the predictions of some the UKIP vote has stood up well post-referendum, despite the leadership struggles, they are still polling ahead of the LibDems. 

(Wasn't sure if this discussion should be split off to a new thread or just stuck here?)


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 29, 2017)

Paul Nuttals was photo'd with the lead Stockport area for the EDL yesterday. Both looked very cheery and chummy. At least they're not r****t though. That's the last thing we must ever say.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 3, 2017)

Rumours that Mr Nuttall, despite claiming otherwise still hasn't actually moved into 65 Oxford Street.


Lying bastards gonna lie.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 7, 2017)

_Ukip MEP ordered to pay £160,000 to Labour MPs she accused of covering up child abuse
_


> The High Court ruled that Jane Collins must pay £54,000 each in compensation to Rotheram MPs Kevin Barron, John Healey and Sarah Champion, plus costs of £120,000.
> 
> The case refers to allegations Ms Collins made at the 2014 Ukip conference that the town’s MPs had known about child abuse in the area before it was exposed by the Jay Review.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 7, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> _Ukip MEP ordered to pay £160,000 to Labour MPs she accused of covering up child abuse_





> But Ms Collins had insisted her speech was political and expressed an opinion rather than an allegation of fact.



A quality defence there, one from the Trump playbook.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2017)

Obviously on the more 'fruit-cake' wing of the party....





Source : 

Worth reading the thread under that post for the shits & giggles.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 20, 2017)

Even their own people don't like how it is now being characterised:-


----------



## brogdale (Feb 27, 2017)

St. Pauli of Mason reads UKIP the last rites.



> Ukip’s broad support has been composed of perfectly ordinary people. The 3.8 million who voted for the party in 2015 felt excluded from mainstream politics; dumped upon by their (often Labour) local council, they saw industrial jobs destroyed by globalisation and, for some, their town disrupted by rapid inward migration. “Left behind” is the phrase most used to sum this up.
> 
> It is possible to feel all of the above and not be racist. Yet Ukip – from the very beginning – played a racist descant on top of this tune of justifiable grievances. Although always subtle and expressed within the law, this created the environment for the hardcore fascists and Ulster loyalists to amplify the message with hate speech and fake imagery.


----------

