Their policies are unfundable, too vague, too populist.
You could apply that to every political party, which is why I get annoyed at UKIP being held to standards the LibLabCon aren't.
One 'commentator' said UKIP councillors ran on an 'uncosted' manifesto when no party costs their manifesto due to funding being decided by central Government. Mind you the LibLabCon do have an allergy to 'populism' don't they.
My neighbour voted UKIP as a protest vote
Maybe your neighbour recognises there's plenty to protest against. A bit of 'populism' isn't a bad thing you know.
The sad fact is that if you vote UKIP, you get Labour.
Well actually last week many up and down the land voted UKIP and got UKIP. Your argument was put forward by LabCon over the years to discourage voting for the Lib Dems with both claiming it'll let the other one in. The Lib Dems are now serving in Government. The LabCon was wrong.
The Labours will get in come the next election.
So what? What difference will it make to anything? This is what I hate about the 'vote UKIP - get Labour' argument. That argument implies there's some detectable difference between the Conservative and Labour parties today in 2013.
All the big stuff is decided in Brussels and the LibLabCon are all identical. Who cares who wins the next election? It doesn't matter.
|
Their policies are unfundable, too vague, too populist.
You could apply that to every political party, which is why I get annoyed at UKIP being held to standards the LibLabCon aren't.
No you can't. Look at the UKIP policies, less tax, more defence spending for example. Eh?
One 'commentator' said UKIP councillors ran on an 'uncosted' manifesto when no party costs their manifesto due to funding being decided by central Government. Mind you the LibLabCon do have an allergy to 'populism' don't they.
My neighbour voted UKIP as a protest vote
Maybe your neighbour recognises there's plenty to protest against. A bit of 'populism' isn't a bad thing you know.
The sad fact is that if you vote UKIP, you get Labour.
Well actually last week many up and down the land voted UKIP and got UKIP. Your argument was put forward by LabCon over the years to discourage voting for the Lib Dems with both claiming it'll let the other one in. The Lib Dems are now serving in Government. The LabCon was wrong.
The Labours will get in come the next election.
So what? What difference will it make to anything? This is what I hate about the 'vote UKIP - get Labour' argument. That argument implies there's some detectable difference between the Conservative and Labour parties today in 2013.
Council and European elections are quite different to national ones, where UKIP are unlikely to get many MPs if any.
All the big stuff is decided in Brussels and the LibLabCon are all identical. Who cares who wins the next election? It doesn't matter.
They are not identical. Sigh. Not in the least bit. If you want more public spending, more state, more control, vote Labour.
|
No you can't. Look at the UKIP policies, less tax, more defence spending for example. Eh?
To say lower taxes & higher defence spending cannot coexist is madness as it could be paid for by slashing other spending, but that's not the point. The last Government ended up spending £175billion a year more than they had, not just in a fanciful manifesto but in actual reality. Yet the Labour Party are deemed serious contenders to win an election, so I fail to see the relevance of UKIP's unbalanced books.
The media report the UKIP 'manifesto' as though it's their plan for their first Budget in Government and that it'd be implemented overnight. I read it as a general outline of where they'd like us to be. Read any LibLabCon manifesto and you'll see its full of 'ten year aspirations' etc.
Council and European elections are quite different to national ones, where UKIP are unlikely to get many MPs if any.
When UKIP came from nowhere to win 3 European seats in 1999, people like you said it was a fluke never to be repeated.
When UKIP quadrupled their MEPs in 2004, people like you said it was just a protest vote and they'd fall away soon enough.
When UKIP beat the governing Labour Party into third place in 2009, people like you said they'd never be able to take votes in a domestic election of any kind.
Now UKIP have made a massive dent in a domestic election in 2013, people like you are now saying council elections & european elections are much the same thing (contrary to the claims of 2009) and that they'll never win Westminster seats.
I know what my money is on....
They are not identical. Sigh. Not in the least bit. If you want more public spending, more state, more control, vote Labour.
Not in the least bit? Oh come on. They all believe in the big state, just Labour want it slightly bigger than the Tories. They all believe uncontrolled immigration is perfectly fine. They all support EU membership. They all support tuition fees. They all support the climate change agenda. They all support the abolishment of grammar schools.
They all agree with each other on the really big stuff. Three brands of the same thing.
|
When UKIP came from nowhere to win 3 European seats in 1999, people like you said it was a fluke never to be repeated.
When UKIP quadrupled their MEPs in 2004, people like you said it was just a protest vote and they'd fall away soon enough.
When UKIP beat the governing Labour Party into third place in 2009, people like you said they'd never be able to take votes in a domestic election of any kind.
Now UKIP have made a massive dent in a domestic election in 2013, people like you are now saying council elections & european elections are much the same thing (contrary to the claims of 2009) and that they'll never win Westminster seats.
I know what my money is on....
Look. UKIP have been a protest vote in European elections over 10 yrs. On a roll at the moment they've got, for the first time, a slate of characters to stand in County elections. On a pathetically low turnout they've won in a few wards.
They might just win in a high profile by-election if Farage is wiling to stand. In a General Election with a proper turnout they'll do nothing but split the Tory vote and let Labour in.
Now I'd regard that as fortuitous but I doubt many UKIP supporters would.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 07/05/2013 at 23:47
|
I think Nigel Farage should rejoin the Conservative Party, and be sponsored for a leadership takeover from Cameron.
|
|
Look. UKIP have been a protest vote in European elections over 10 yrs.
Have you never stopped to ask why the public protest against the EU in European elections? Or do you - much like the career political class - just not give a stuff what the public think?
When people are protesting for more than a decade, perhaps it's time to ask why?
On a pathetically low turnout they've won in a few wards.
Oh so the turnout is now a stick with which to beat UKIP? Were you saying that last year when Labour swept the local elections board on a 33% turnout? The fact the vast majority couldn't be bothered to vote at all, let alone vote for the LibLabCon should tell you quite a lot.
In a General Election with a proper turnout they'll do nothing but split the Tory vote and let Labour in.
Now I'd regard that as fortuitous but I doubt many UKIP supporters would.
I'm a UKIP supporter and I couldn't care less who wins the General Election. The 'it'll let Labour in' argument doesn't scare me I'm afraid. As far as I can see they never left.
|
Have you never stopped to ask why the public protest against the EU in European elections? Or do you - much like the career political class - just not give a stuff what the public think?
Of course. It's the job of polticians though to decide whether to lead or follow. If they are convinced of the case for remaining in a (reformed? ) EU then they should be making that case. That's broadly what happened in 1975. Neither Thatch nor Wilson were fronting the Yes campaign, that task fell to Roy Jenkins and Ted Heath.
We need proper discussion based on the facts not a lot of specious blather about how we can no longer make any of our own laws.
Oh so the turnout is now a stick with which to beat UKIP? Were you saying that last year when Labour swept the local elections board on a 33% turnout? The fact the vast majority couldn't be bothered to vote at all, let alone vote for the LibLabCon should tell you quite a lot.
It's not a stick and I'm not beating UKIP. My narrative for the main parties is 'don't panic'. It's mid term, the government is unpopular and the official opposition aren't going to show their hand now any more than Cameron did in 2008/9. As the Libs are in bed with the Tories UKIP represents a natural 'none of them' choice.
I'm a UKIP supporter and I couldn't care less who wins the General Election. The 'it'll let Labour in' argument doesn't scare me I'm afraid. As far as I can see they never left.
If you think this lot, now turning their 'undeserving recipients' fire on groups of pensioners, are Labour in another guise you need to read more widely.
|
Of course. It's the job of polticians though to decide whether to lead or follow.
Blindly ignoring the electorate and looking after your own cushy job and pension is not 'leading.'
If they are convinced of the case for remaining in a (reformed? ) EU then they should be making that case.
First off the EU is unreformable. Even Tony Blair tried a few times and failed. May I remind you that when France, Holland & Ireland all voted NO to the EU constitution, they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty, forced it through anyway and made the Irish vote again until they got the 'right' result.
This is the same EU which deposed elected Governments in Italy & Greece, leaving the former without a single elected member of Government and the latter run by three foreign officials akin to Greece's days of Nazi occupation.
The American constitution is short, concise and all about liberty of the individual. The EU constitution is long, wordy and all about power for the state. The LibLabCon aren't even trying to convince us they can reform it though, they're all just pleading with UKIP to stop stating blunt facts on national television.
That's broadly what happened in 1975.
In 1975 Harold Wilson claimed he'd got a better deal, in reality he'd done nothing and we fell for it. In the age of YouTube we will not be fooled again Mr Cameron.
We need proper discussion based on the facts not a lot of specious blather about how we can no longer make any of our own laws.
It's not specious blather. The fact is we can indeed make our own laws so long as they do not conflict with a European Union law.
My narrative for the main parties is 'don't panic'. It's mid term, the government is unpopular
Yes the ostrich impression seems to be the LibLabCon's tactic but you're missing one crucial thing; the public have been deserting the three main parties now for decades.
As recently as 1970, 90% of all votes went to the big two parties. In 2010 it was 65%.
No election has achieved turnout above two-thirds since 1997. In 2005 Labour formed majority Government with just 35% of the vote, which scholar types would've previously deemed impossible. More people stayed at home than voted for Labour. They achieved a comfortable majority despite it actually being very hard to find someone on the streets of Britain who voted for them.
People have been deserting these established parties for years and with the Lib Dems losing their status as 'plague on both your houses' vote, it's only natural for another party to now make inroads. 20 years ago the prospect of the Lib Dems serving in Government looked bonkers so I'd be very careful about writing UKIP off as merely a mid term protest. You seem convinced voters (not just Tory but Labour too) will 'come home' in 2015. I'm not so sure.
If you think this lot, now turning their 'undeserving recipients' fire on groups of pensioners, are Labour in another guise you need to read more widely.
What has this lot done to pensioners exactly? The last I looked they were getting hammered for not stripping them of universal pensioner benefits. If differing views on pensions and welfare spending is all that seperates the parties then I stand by my statement that they're three brands of the same thing.
|
|
|
|
They are not identical. Sigh. Not in the least bit. If you want more public spending, more state, more control, vote Labour.
Not in the least bit? Oh come on. They all believe in the big state, just Labour want it slightly bigger than the Tories. They all believe uncontrolled immigration is perfectly fine. They all support EU membership. They all support tuition fees. They all support the climate change agenda. They all support the abolishment of grammar schools.
They all agree with each other on the really big stuff. Three brands of the same thing.
Jamie, you have hit the nail on the head, this is why so many voters feel ignored by professional politicians (many of whom never did an honest day's work) and are fed up of the "We know what's best for you" arrogance they display
|
fed up of the "We know what's best for you" arrogance they display
Yes I saw a news snippet of Farage pitted against three representatives from the LibLabCon. They really are all identical, all said 'I completely agree with so and so...' sat beside them as they all ganged up on him. Chummy chum chums.
Simon Hughes (Lib Dem) in an attempt to defend the entirity of Bulgaria/Romania having full entitlement to settle in Britain next year actually said they'd surely go to Germany because Britain is struggling. So...hooray we're in s***? Well that's really helpful Simon.
It's been fantastic to watch the establishment squirm this week and accuse UKIP of being irrational, of using emotive language and of stirring up hatrid etc etc etc. The fact is the Emperor doesn't like the fact he's got no clothes.
|
I have some advice for UKIP so that they and their legion of new supporters don't get tagged with a right wing fascist tag.
Drop the UK bit, which gives it a BNP feel, and call yourselves the "Independance Party".
And ditch that rediculous £ sign. Gives the party a fake comedic look. If you want to get away from the clown persona like the candidate in Monty Python; Tarqui-Fim-Lim-Bim-BusStop-Fatang-Fatang-Olay-Biscuit Barrell, then make these subtle changes.
|
Drop the UK bit, which gives it a BNP feel, and call yourselves the "Independance Party".
Yes I forgot we're not allowed to say the name of our own country in case it offends someone, so we have to whisper our nations name very quietly. Perhaps put it in the small print or produce the passports in Urdu.
And ditch that rediculous £ sign. Gives the party a fake comedic look.
The £ sign logo goes back to the days of Blair wanting us to join the Euro. UKIP and other sensible people won that argument a decade ago so you could say the £ sign is no longer relevant, but the £ sign and the UKIP name is snappy. People recognise and remember it. Even awful branding is better than anonymous non-branding.
We all recognise the Go Compare man don't we.
If you want to get away from the clown persona
The only people calling them clowns are frightened old Tory men, terrified of losing their European Union pensions. To be honest, the mocking and abuse works for UKIP. Every time some senior Tory/Labour/Lib Dem pleads with the public to not vote UKIP, UKIP go up in the polls.
Keep the abuse coming lads...
|
Jamie I voted UKIP.
Having the UK in the title doesn't offend, its just a waste. You don't have UKLabour or UKLiberal. There's no need anymore. They've made their point. Now is the time to become serious. I bet even Farage is surprised by the uptake in votes. It's like a scene from a comedy, "vote for non of the above", but it's actually come about.
But I feel that the wider majority might see the appeal more, especially the minority vote that keeps Labour afloat and who might be persuaded to switch, if they were to drop the UK and £ bits. It gives the feeling and look of a softer, friendly neo BNP party.
They are no longer just a keep the pound two fingers up to Europe fringe party. So have a makeover. All the parties have done in recent times. So why not UKIP.
Yes the Tories called them closet rascists and clowns. Well now is the time to show how serious they are about coming to or sharing power at the next GE.
Get a makeover. Otherwise they will fail to keep the protest votes won this month.
|
"...I voted UKIP."
"... I feel that the wider majority might see the appeal more, especially the minority vote that keeps Labour afloat and who might be persuaded to switch, if they were to drop the UK and £ bits. It gives the feeling and look of a softer, friendly neo BNP party."
You voted for a party that you want to look like a "neo-BNP party"? BNP? Are you serious?
Do you realise that makes UKIP sound definitely like racists - not even closet racists?
|
Having the UK in the title doesn't offend, its just a waste. You don't have UKLabour or UKLiberal. There's no need anymore.
Well those two parties especially hate Britain so you'd struggle to find them ever putting it in their name. UKIP is named UKIP for simple reasons, they want the UK to be independent and the name will probably never change until we leave the EU, then they'll probably rename the 'Libertarian Party' or some such.
I bet even Farage is surprised by the uptake in votes.
He probably is. In fact he said as much on Sky News.
But I feel that the wider majority might see the appeal more, especially the minority vote that keeps Labour afloat and who might be persuaded to switch, if they were to drop the UK and £ bits.
If brown people refuse to vote UKIP purely because they have UK in their party name and the £ sign on their umbrellas, then I'd have to ask why they live here in the first place.
It gives the feeling and look of a softer, friendly neo BNP party.
Look, this 'link' with the BNP is an entirely media made fabrication, pushed by the establishment politicians as a means to shut down sensible debate on immigration. For a decade in Britain, you couldn't talk about immigration without being linked to the BNP or extreme race-hate organisations.
I find it interesting how 'right wing' or 'far right' is a tag often liberally labelled by the media to anybody they deem some sort of baddie. 'Right wing' gets applied to all sorts of strange people including Adolf Hitler, the English Defence League and perhaps most curiously of all; the British National Party. The BNP believe in trade tariffs and councils running factories. The BNP are a left-wing party and I'd like to think the EDL - and indeed Hitler - transcend the political spectrum.
Why do we talk about the BNP so much? This is a party with 1 European seat and 2 councillors across all of Britain. Never in the history of politics has a party with so little representation been spoken about so much.
So have a makeover. All the parties have done in recent times. So why not UKIP.
Maybe that's why they shouldn't. Every party has transformed into different brands of blandness, with their roses and trees painted by children. The public like UKIP because they're not career politicians trying to blend with the rest.
Edited by jamie745 on 14/05/2013 at 20:48
|
Jamie, quite agree with your comments, the "professional poilticians" of the three other parties have ruined this country over the last 40 years.
|
FFS Jamie, I'll just post this last time.
You're starting to put me off, with your obstinate confrontational stance for the sake of an argument. Is there nothing you wont listen to from others without shooting them down ALL the time on here.
The BNP right wing touch is what "others" might percieve with the UK £, not me. Some people are persuaded by media and others so don't be surprised if there are such opinions made when the ID for UKIP leads these people to think what I point out.
I'm just trying to suggest HOW UKIP might appeal across the board. Seeing as they don't have a broad selection of policies yet.
Nothing wrong with a change of colour, name or symbol. Why are you so against? I am trying to give an honest opinion about HOW they can garner more votes at the next GE.
So don't bother with your preposterous highlighted quotes from this, just post a reply if you want, but I wont be replying. Just get my gist on this for once. Sometimes left field ideas work for the best. Which you clearly don't see.
Edited by Ben 10 on 14/05/2013 at 23:15
|
The BNP right wing touch is what "others" might percieve with the UK £, not me.
I didn't claim you did think those things, I was responding to the general point.
Calm down dear, it's the internet.
Nothing wrong with a change of colour, name or symbol. Why are you so against? I am trying to give an honest opinion about HOW they can garner more votes at the next GE.
Well there's no need to change the colour. Labour have used red for over a century and nobody says they need to change it - though changing leader, history and manifesto might help.
The name is a tricky one. The name UKIP still dates from when the party was formed in a back room of a pub by about 9 people protesting against EU membership in 1993. Without the finances and structure of a big party, they had to state who they were on the tin. Could they have won 3 European seats in 1999 if it wasn't totally obvious who they were just by reading the name on a ballot paper?
I do think 'Libertarian Party' would work better long term but right now UKIP is so recognisable and snappy they'd be stupid to change it. People would keep calling them UKIP for a decade even if they did. Like with Opel Fruits....
|
|
|
|
|