An "unprecedented and historic result"

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The Green Party simply didn't have enough substance to gain the votes. Neither did the SDP.

The UKIP have. And that substance is growing all the time, especially with the EU going the way it is.

UKIP would only die out if:

A) The EU fell apart and no longer existed.
We left the Euro
C) The problems faced by people in this country by immigration and the Euro area dissipated.

The Greens have plenty of substance, even if I disagree with much of it; they've lost momentum because green issues aren't most people's priority in tough times.

UKIP have plenty of substance as well, it's just substance I'd be ashamed of being associated with:
> Massive tax cut for high earners and tax increase for anyone earning £11k-£90k due to their single tax rate.
> Crime policy built on DOUBLING prison capacity; surely based on intending to incarcerate twice as many people, because we all know that the US prison rates are something to aspire to!
> Bar climate change debate in school, encourage more coal power, remove landfill disincentives because rubbish is great!
> Increase military spending while firing 2 million public sector staff. Who needs doctors, teachers etc! People with guns though, now that's what we really need.

I disagree with UKIPs position on Europe but respect it; they have a few other reasonable ideas but their ideas as a whole are exactly what I'd expect from a regressive, spiteful party aimed at europhobes, homophobes, racists and the ignorant

ILW

Greens talk some sense, but most of their policies are rubbish which disadvantage the UK.

All the "green" policies we follow are going to make no difference at all whilst the China. India, Brazil etc are just intent on increasing their own living standards. Carbon in the atmosphere does not recocnise political borders.

Jennifer_Jane

TheFactory wrote: »

Anyone who has said its a protest vote need to get a grip of themselves. The current generation of people who are in their 20's (like me) grew up under a wreckless labour government and are now being squeezed by the conservatives. We have seen this country systematically ruined with lots of change and are now struggling to buy a house or even get a job. This constant two party politics has done nothing for this country apart from erode it beyond recognition, its time for thinking outside the box.

TheFactory: um, it's "reckless". I expect that was just a typo though.

OK, the Country hasn't been "ruined", it is in a state of constant change.

What are the alternatives you would vote for in a local election? If it's UKIP, what are their local policies ? How will they improve your area?

Regarding a General Election, what are the policies that UKIP have that will reduce the deficit and the debt, whilst ensuring that the most vulnerable are kept safe? What are their policies on the NHS, Education, Defence, Finance, etc?

Could you vote for a party - in a General Election, because that's where the UKIP policies will be revealed - that will take the UK (including Scotland if their vote is to stay with the UK) definitely out of the EU? Or would you prefer to vote LibDem or Labour who would also have no choice and will eventually take the UK into the Euro?

On this one point, the key UKIP point, only one party is offering a referendum, a democratic choice, which the electorate can vote after a great deal of discussion and debate.

These are local elections, UKIP policies simply do not apply at a local election point of view. Therefore, voting for them at local election stage has to be a protest vote, something to shake up the main political parties to get them to listen to the electorate.

Graham_Devon

N1AK wrote: »

The Greens have plenty of substance, even if I disagree with much of it; they've lost momentum because green issues aren't most people's priority in tough times.

UKIP have plenty of substance as well, it's just substance I'd be ashamed of being associated with:
> Massive tax cut for high earners and tax increase for anyone earning £11k-£90k due to their single tax rate.
> Crime policy built on DOUBLING prison capacity; surely based on intending to incarcerate twice as many people, because we all know that the US prison rates are something to aspire to!
> Bar climate change debate in school, encourage more coal power, remove landfill disincentives because rubbish is great!
> Increase military spending while firing 2 million public sector staff. Who needs doctors, teachers etc! People with guns though, now that's what we really need.

I disagree with UKIPs position on Europe but respect it; they have a few other reasonable ideas but their ideas as a whole are exactly what I'd expect from a regressive, spiteful party aimed at europhobes, homophobes, racists and the ignorant

I agree with their policies being not that great.

However, as referenced before on this thread. The UKIP is not a party looking to form a government. It is a party trying to change the current status quo. This is a very important distinction.

If you listen to either Farage or the deputy leader, both will say the same thing. They are in no position to actually run the country, neither do they see themselves doing so.

Farage said it last night on This Week. The deputy said it this morning on BBC Breakfast. People seem to want to tell UKIP exactly what UKIP are telling us.

So their policies, if running the country could be seen as pretty irrelevant.

We all know that if any of the 3 parties took power and pulled out of the EU or stopped immigration, the UKIP vote would fall off a cliff.

It's not about taking power. It's about TWO main issues. Two main issues they want to change. They just have to have other policies. In reality, they are an irrelevance. The only time they become relevant is if they became big enough to actually rule the country....which would take decades yet, or something of epic proportions to propel them in this decade.

Their policies are not what they are about. I know it sounds stupid, but parties such as this exist to keep the main 2/3 in check.

The lib dems started this way. As did the other 2. No new party has all the answers or the ability to run the country from nothing

greggymagic

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

TheFactory: um, it's "reckless". I expect that was just a typo though.

OK, the Country hasn't been "ruined", it is in a state of constant change.

Um, I'm pretty sure you don't need a capital letter for country.

X

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The tories can still join up with UKIP to form a coalition. So it may be bad for the tories....but it's worse for labour!

It's bad for the Tories because the UKIP vote has come disproportionally from their voters and in many seats that they previously held safely. The conservatives are at a difficult point where they can either swing right to try and win back the voters they are losing to UKIP but lose more moderate voters, or keep fighting for the centre and lose some of their traditional conservative voters.

A lot of these 'conservative' issues are real dividing lines. Gay mariage for example; I won't vote for a party that doesn't support it, even if I agree with everything else they stand for. Other people have the opposite position. Whichever way the conservatives decide they will lose some votes.

ILW

Doubt if any party would lose many votes by promising a Europe referendum.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I agree with their policies being not that great.

So their policies, if running the country could be seen as pretty irrelevant.

They're entirely relevant. Even if the premise that the policies aren't 'serious' because they won't ever be put in place IT TELLS US WHAT UKIP VOTERS WANT TO HEAR.

You're supporting a party which is building its support base out of people with views I wouldn't want to associate with. You may not have those ethical qualms, that's your choice, but I'll be honest about the fact that it does make me think less of you that you can just dismiss those views as 'unimportant'.

Graham_Devon

N1AK wrote: »

They're entirely relevant. Even if the premise that the policies aren't 'serious' because they won't ever be put in place IT TELLS US WHAT UKIP VOTERS WANT TO HEAR.

You're supporting a party which is building its support base out of people with views I wouldn't want to associate with. You may not have those ethical qualms, that's your choice, but I'll be honest about the fact that it does make me think less of you that you can just dismiss those views as 'unimportant'.

Hang on a second... I don't support the party as a governing party. I have never voted UKIP. I don't intend to vote UKIP.

I support UKIP in what they are doing, and what they are achieving, and that's changing the status quo of the current main 3.

As I said, there is a very important distinction to make here.

If you, as it seems you are, assume that by supporting what they are doing and achieving today, I want to see them govern the country, then you are missing the point of the party, and the points I'm making massively.

Scottish parties have scottish idealisms. Welsh parties welsh idealisms. Irish etc.

None of them could run the UK with their current policies. But that's not what they stand for.

purch

StevieJ wrote: »

When did we join :eek:

Last Tuesday.

It's been kept quiet so far, but Dev has just let the chat out of le baggage :eek: