An "unprecedented and historic result"

Devon_Sailor

Michaels,

Indeed - the BBC love a good bit of hyperbole; let's face it, the reason we are in the state we are in at present is because the BBC and media got their knickers all in a lather over a mildly competent first televised debate by Nick Clegg, and an uncharacteristically dreadful performance by Cameron. Big G was his usual doleful self . Without all the mass hysteria over "that" debate, and if the Tories had had even a slim shred of situational awareness to see just how potentially damaging it was, we could have got a Conservative majority. Simple as that.

This is little more than the preferred "angle" as it gives them much more room for colourful stories and quotes with equally colourful characters.

However, rumour has it that Farage is eyeing up the Labour held second seat in Portsmouth (cant remember name off top of my head). It would be very interesting to see how he fares there. Maximising their efforts, and getting him into Parliament may just be realistic.......

The big question then becomes whether or not he becomes more or less effective as a leader if he has a voice in Parliament? All of a sudden he will be forced to vote on issues. As a one man band, his voting record will de facto become their party policy - unless he just sits there and nags away about Europe, which could backfire as it could be viewed as treating his constituents (who would probably not be single issue voters) with contempt?

Im looking forward to the next couple years. Whatever "colour" party you support, it is going to be one hell of a ride! :rotfl:

DS

antrobus

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

....

However, rumour has it that Farage is eyeing up the Labour held second seat in Portsmouth (cant remember name off top of my head). It would be very interesting to see how he fares there. Maximising their efforts, and getting him into Parliament may just be realistic.......

Its Portsmouth South. There are rumours of a possible by-election. But that's a Lib Dem seat.

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/ukip-leader-eyes-up-portsmouth-seat-1-5053987

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

So 3 scenarios:
....

Why only 3 scenarios?

The future is uncertain. There are a multiplicity of future scenarios. I can't exclude the possibility that Ed M will be run over by a number 48 bus.:)

Devon_Sailor

antrobus wrote: »

Its Portsmouth South. There are rumours of a possible by-election. But that's a Lib Dem seat.

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/ukip-leader-eyes-up-portsmouth-seat-1-5053987

Antrobus,

Thanks - that's the badger. Oh, Libs eh? Even better - give them a good shoeing!

DS

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

So 3 scenarios:
Labour win it due to their own popularity
Labour win because ukip split the opposition vote
Labour don't win as ukip supporters realise defeat for the Tories equals more immigration and more Europe

The fourth. Milliband loses the confidence of the UK electorate entirely, as did Kinnock. Own goals are easy to score in politics. Nothing worse than indecision in a crisis.

RJP33

If for any reason there's any doubt about where the EU is going this is from Jean Monet, one of the founders of the EU, from 1952. His aim is explicit:

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”

Moby

Generali wrote: »

I certainly agree with the first bit: UKIP's vote is almost certainly too far spread for them to win (m)any seats.

However, examine the second part more closely:

Really? So you're saying that at the end(?) of a pretty brutal economic period, the incumbent main party of the national Government would have romped home with by far the biggest share of the popular vote in the Locals were it not for a lot of people voting for a party with no realistic chance of forming a national Government without electoral reform.

Furthermore, those same voters will knowing elect a Labour Government by supporting a party that has no chance of winning a seat rather than voting for their second favourite party (the Tories) that has at least a chance of keeping out the party that is at best their 3rd most favoured (Labour).

You might want to think that through again.;)

I think much of the UKIP support is an emotional 'gut' thing rather than a logically thought out strategy. The words 'Europe', 'immigration', has a habit of taking over the senses of such 'types' and although some will return to the comfort of the tory fold....other's are really angry with Cameron because of what they feel he stands for. In other words this is a battle over ideology. Look at the history of the nineties. Look at how Nigel Lawson has now come out and said that Cameron's Europe policy is a sham! They can't help themselves!

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

I think much of the UKIP support is an emotional 'gut' thing rather than a logically thought out strategy. ...

I think much of the Labour support is an emotional 'gut' thing rather than a logically thought out strategy. In fact, come to think of it, much of the Conservative, or Lib Dem, or you-name-it support is an emotional 'gut' thing rather than a logically thought out strategy.

But that's 'politics' for you.:)

N1AK

Thrugelmir wrote: »

People are not concerned about globalisation. They don't care that workers in China work 12 hour shifts to make Apples latest gadgets or 500 people die in Bangladesh in a factory fire. As all they want is cheap goods. So that their money can be spent on travelling the world, living in comfortable houses with all mod cons etc. The word I would use is duplicity. Western society as a whole needs to change.

My own view is a little more forgiving of the typical westerner. People only have so much time and money and have lots of things to worry about. Trying to balance up whether spending 30p more on eggs to stop birds being caged against spending an extra £1 on a t-shirt so that the worker wasn't a child labourer (if you can even find that out) is not simple or quick.

There was a suggestion on a comedy radio show to come up with labels for the opposite of 'fair trade'. Products produced using abusive, unsustainable etc processes would be labelled as 'b&st&rd trade'. It's funny and yet effectively impossible to implement but highlights a fair point (it was the most popular idea on the show with the audience). The point is: People want simple, clear guidance on good/bad products and it will affect some buying decisions.

N1AK

RJP33 wrote: »

If for any reason there's any doubt about where the EU is going this is from Jean Monet, one of the founders of the EU, from 1952. His aim is explicit:

It's Jean Monnet and he never said it. In fact, not only is that not a quote from him but it is a rather notably altered version of a view ascribed to Monnet by an eurosceptic MP.

If the best case you can make is to use fictional quotes by a person who's name you can't spell correctly then I suggest you let it rest.