An "unprecedented and historic result"

wymondham

BobQ wrote: »

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.

Good post. I'll be voting UKIP until we get a referendum or massive reduction of movement across our borders... so for quite a while yet I suspect!

StevieJ

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.

Reminds me of Groucho

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

StevieJ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Personal choice. That's the bigger issue at stake. Not politicians imposing their narrow view of the world on the electorate. Without a real mandate for their policies.

The poll below was taken before the ban was introduced.

The YouGov survey, commissioned by Cancer Research UK and Action on Smoking and Health, reported that 66 per cent of the general public in England now backed an all-out ban in pubs - up from 51 per cent in spring 2004.

The case for an outright ban has only hardened since as many smokers support it, seems like quite a mandate to me.

"It is one of the most important public health acts in the last century. There's no question it's been hugely beneficial."
The ban was popular with British adults when it was implemented - and a recent poll of more than 12,000 people found that 78% of adults still support it

.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18628811

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

The poll below was taken before the ban was introduced.


The case for an outright ban has only hardened since as many smokers support it, seems like quite a mandate to me..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18628811

I think the smoking ban is what finally pushed me to give up.

Having said that, as a Libertarian I would never vote for a party that stood on a ticket of banning smoking in pubs.

Such is life.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

I think the smoking ban is what finally pushed me to give up.

Having said that, as a Libertarian I would never vote for a party that stood on a ticket of banning smoking in pubs.

Such is life.

Or death

In England, the legislation resulted in a statistically significant reduction (−2.4%) in the number of hospital admissions for myocardial infarction (MI). This amounted to 1,200 emergency admissions for MI in the year following the introduction of smoke-free legislation.

http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/smoking-ban

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Not at all.

They're still an irrelevant party which attract more than their fair share of racists, fruitcakes and loons.

And their position as a protest party is significantly weaker than that of many previous protest parties, such as the SDP (remember them?), the Greens (now where did they go?) and especially the Lib Dems, who unlike UKIP actually won a significant number of MP seats but are currently heading for electoral oblivion.

In 10 years we'll still be in Europe and UKIP will be a distant memory.

In the meantime, we can continue to laugh at them.:)

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

I think the smoking ban is what finally pushed me to give up.

Having said that, as a Libertarian I would never vote for a party that stood on a ticket of banning smoking in pubs.

Such is life.

You defend the right of people to smoke in restaurants yet you do not defend the rights of those whose health and enjoyment of the restaurant is impaired by their actions.

ILW

BobQ wrote: »

You defend the right of people to smoke in restaurants yet you do not defend the rights of those whose health and enjoyment of the restaurant is impaired by their actions.

I would defend the right of those that don't like it not to use the place.

I prefer choice to being told what I can or cannot do.

I also am an ex smoker.

Itruly believe smoking and non smoking establishments would have been the ideal solution.

BobQ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A)

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.

I cannot locate the post you refer to but I cannot see that asking for evidence unreasonable in any context. That said I do think that UKIP is a protest movement rather than a serious contender for Government. Its manifesto is united on being anti-EU and anti- immigration but is in other respects an uncosted populist agenda that were it given proper scrutiny would not attract as much support.

I have met people who said they were planning on voting UKIP for very different reasons. One who is a retired military officer is expecting UKIP to restore the army to its past status and dismantle the socialist health care system. Another who thinks leaving the EU will ensure we can spend more on the NHS and repatriate people who were born here.

Eventually, when the media scrutinises its policies we will get more analysis of the following type:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/30/ukip-manifesto-closer-look?CMP=twt_fd

michaels

StevieJ wrote: »

Or death

Which should be mine to choose - I have never smoked but it is not for me to decide whether I would prefer to smoke and risk dying younger or not to do so and spend an extra ten years in old age penury and confusion.

It is a very dangerous situation when one group of adults thinks to presume they know what is best for another adult.