We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
An "unprecedented and historic result"
Comments
-
God......... that sounded soooo exciting..... A panel on tv laughing at someone's inability at maths. I'm gutted I missed it. :eek:Graham_Devon wrote: »That expectation was very much revised.
The 500 seat thing even I saw in the media.
Chucka Urma (Think I have spelt that wrong) made everyone crack up on the BBC news yesterday, including the presenter and the BBC political correspondant.
He actually seriously tried to suggest that you take the number of seats that the tories state labour will win. Divide that by 3 and you come up with the number of seats labour should win.
They all cracked up because it was said so much on the spot that you could actually see him working out the math.
Of course, once you had run his made up calculation, labour came out spot on where they should be....and miracles prevailed!
This kind of denial does not help any party. Everyone around the table laughing at you is never good. It's one thing to have the other parties laugh, but everyone including the presenter and correspondants!? He wasn't much impressed!0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Farage admitted it on radio yesterday.
No he did not. I've already corrected you in my second post on this thread.
What Farage has admitted is that they will be the party of protest. They have NOT said the majority of their votes will be protest votes.
There is a key distinction. They have been growing for a while, as if their membership base. That's not just protest.
I have heard the interview aswell, as will lots of people. No need to lie to change the context of what was stated.0 -
-
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/05/03/immigration-and-europe-give-ukip-appeal/
The above poll suggests the main reasons why people voted UKIP. Hardly surprising that most did so because they are anti-EU and anti-immigration. But 47% appear to vote UKIP as a protest vote. The traditional vote for Lib Dems as a protest vote was clearly not feasible as they were in Government.
I think we can speculate about things as much as we like but the questions that are difficult to answer are (a) how strong is the anti-EU/immigration vote and (b) will the protest vote be maintained in a general election?
The UKIP job is to keep fuelling anti- EU sentiments, in particular over fears of mass immigration from Romania and Bulgaria, while remaining vague on their other "commitments". Anti-Immigration naturally appeals to a mixture of allsorts from the latent racists to those with sincere intellectually based opinions on its economic consequences. However, the UKIP job is also to be as vague as possible about the implications of some other policies (eg on reducing income tax for the rich and increasing it for the poor).
Also interesting that only 20% of those who say they would vote UKIP in a GE do so because they think the party reflects their views and values.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
I think we can speculate about things as much as we like but the questions that are difficult to answer are (a) how strong is the anti-EU/immigration vote and (b) will the protest vote be maintained in a general election?
A) Pretty strong, as can be seen. We'll also have people who would like a referendum, but under no circumstances would they change the vote from who they vote for.
That is to say, if they had a referendum, they would take the time to go out and vote. BUT, they won't vote for a party they do not agree with to get one.
So, the political voting does not show who would like a refendum and who wouldn't. For example, I would like more housing built. Labour are starting to say we need more housing built. I agree with labour on this issue, but not enough to actually vote for them. I'd welcome more housing though and would encourage it if they were in power.
Looking at who voted for who does not tell you their thoughts on immigration.
No.
And neither does the protest portion of the vote need to be maintained. They are now the "fourth party". More and more people will be seeing them, boting for them. The protest portion of the vote has been used as a springboard.
Look at the evidence we have today. The tories have already started leaning towards offering a referendum earlier.
This is quite something when you think about it. It took a LOT to get them to offer a promise at all. To start talking about bringing it forward quite so quickly shows the impact UKIP and its voters are having in changing the 3 main parties.
I'll keep saying it, as those againt UKIP obviously don't seem to be getting it. UKIP do NOT want to govern the country. They want immigration controlled and they want us out of the EU.
They can (and are) doing that successfully without being in power. Talking about whether they will take power is simply a misguided side show....presumably in an attempt to belittle their current standing.
Everyone who has been against UKIP (including you bob, who asked for evidence that people wanted this just before the results) has tried to belittle them from the start. Hamish was claiming they were utterly irrelevant racists only months ago.
Lib dems "nothing but protest, people won't actually vote for them". Tories "clowns, fruitcakes". Bob "wheres the evidence". Hamish "irrelevant racists".
Time to realise they are growing and you can't simply keep upping the smearing campaigns the more they grow in popularity. If theres anything you should have learned from all this is that this game is precisely what it propelling them further.0 -
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »Tories "clowns, fruitcakes". Bob "wheres the evidence". Hamish "irrelevant racists".
Yeah, that's still pretty much the case.
They've attracted a bunch of protest votes on issues like gay marriage, windfarms, immigration, etc. But that support is wide and shallow, which in the UK political system is not good for getting control of anything.
They haven't won control of a single council.
They don't have a solid base of support in enough numbers to win any MP's.
They'll do well again at the next Euro elections, as another protest vote, but come GE time in 2015 they'll lose a lot of support as they're simply not credible and the rebel tories don't want to split the right and see a Labour victory.
The only party to see an increase in the number of councils controlled this week was Labour.
And the biggest loser was the previous "protest vote" party of choice, the Lib Dems.
UKIP played a big part in that, but they haven't achieved much else.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Yeah, that's still pretty much the case.
They've attracted a bunch of protest votes on issues like gay marriage, windfarms, immigration, etc. But that support is wide and shallow, which in the UK political system is not good for getting control of anything.
They haven't won control of a single council.
They don't have a solid base of support in enough numbers to win any MP's.
They'll do well again at the next Euro elections, as another protest vote, but come GE time in 2015 they'll lose a lot of support as they're simply not credible and the rebel tories don't want to split the right and see a Labour victory.
The only party to see an increase in the number of councils controlled this week was Labour.
And the biggest loser was the previous "protest vote" party of choice, the Lib Dems.
UKIP played a big part in that, but they haven't achieved much else.
Poor show then that you are having to lie about what was actually said on the radio in order to prove something about "fruitcakes and loons".
To think they were, in your words, irrelevant racists just months ago. Now they are the fourth party in the UK.
Time to re-think how you talk about such a party now.0 -
The UKIP job is to keep fuelling anti- EU sentiments, in particular over fears of mass immigration from Romania and Bulgaria, while remaining vague on their other "commitments".
Freedom of movement is causing issues all around Europe. In the broadest sense people are fed up with it. Whilst it has benefits. With it comes social unrest issues.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Farage admitted it on radio yesterday.
All votes are protest votes. If you vote for the cons, you are protesting against labour policy and vice versa.
It really doesn't matter which way you spin it UKIP had a big win yesterday, and it was a victory for common sense.
It's certainly put some people's nose out of joint, the bitterness coming from some tory councilors (well, ex councilors) is unbelievable.
They're all saying it's a protest vote too.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards