So UKIP have got an MP...

RideOnTime

I know we've discussed this alot...
but I'm baffled by UKIP. When it comes to running the country surely you have to have something a bit more credible than just wanting a referendum on Europe.
We pull out of Europe... ta dah... then what we're f@@ked.
I guess we all just stay in the pub for the rest of our lives uttering mildly offensive comments about immigrants.

symo

More public school city boys deciding the country's future.
No change at all.

pblakeney

One MP out of 650 will not make any difference.

arran77

PBlakeney wrote:

One MP out of 650 will not make any difference.

Maybe not but those useless feckwits like Cameron and Miliband need to start taking note. They get too complacent and people will let them know what they think by voting for the likes of UKIP no matter how unsavourary people might find that idea.

pblakeney

arran77 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

One MP out of 650 will not make any difference.

Maybe not but those useless feckwits like Cameron and Miliband need to start taking note. They get too complacent and people will let them know what they think by voting for the likes of UKIP no matter how unsavourary people might find that idea.

One out of 650 just now will not make a difference right now, but I agree with you.
I think that in the next election those who voted Liberal last time as a protest vote will migrate to UKIP along with a few disaffected from the other parties.
Then there will be a difference.

lostboysaint

Only until the next general election when the electorate will go back to it's default "I'm voting red/blue (delete as appropriate, because I can't risk the other lot getting in" attitude.

pblakeney

lostboysaint wrote:

Only until the next general election when the electorate will go back to it's default "I'm voting red/blue (delete as appropriate, because I can't risk the other lot getting in" attitude.

I think you will see that those days have gone.
Most people now realise that the difference between the two major parties policies are wafer thin and are getting fed up with it.

lostboysaint

PBlakeney wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

Only until the next general election when the electorate will go back to it's default "I'm voting red/blue (delete as appropriate, because I can't risk the other lot getting in" attitude.

I think you will see that those days have gone.
Most people now realise that the difference between the two major parties policies are wafer thin and are getting fed up with it.

£10 says that they're not.

Your second sentence is absolutely correct but when it comes down to it the first past the post system means that they shit themselves whenever a general election comes around so they go to their default red/blue setting in order to make sure that "the others" don't get in. That won't change. This last parliament has, if anything, hardened that view as a vote for anyone else simply dilutes the chances of the chosen "big party". All that it will change is the policies of the reds and blues

pblakeney

£10 says it will be a hung Parliament.
One of the big two will win but not by enough.
There will be another coalition.

nathancom

PBlakeney wrote:

£10 says it will be a hung Parliament.
One of the big two will win but not by enough.
There will be another coalition.

I am not so sure - I can't see Milliband managing to keep the Cons out. His approval ratings are terrible and he still hasn't learnt to speak human yet.

DeVlaeminck

There is a school of thought that Labour chose the wrong brother to lead them. Undoubtedly David is more media friendly but arguably in terms of policies on Europe and immigration as far as I'm aware he doesn't differ a great deal. I think this is the problem for Labour - they see their lack of support as a question of not having sold their policies well - it's a problem of presentation rather than accepting their policies may be turning a significant section of the public away.

No doubt better presentation would help but I think a bigger problem is that they are viewed as out of touch with the majority of the public on those issues. Ironically back in the 70s they were the more eurosceptic of the main parties.

joelsim

I think that a majority of people whilst liking Labour in theory just don't trust them to run the country's finances. Whilst there is much I dislike about the Tories, they have a far better grasp of modern economics, and a realisation that the social welfare bill is only going to go up in the future which is beyond the means of the country.

Sleeper Cell

The best thing about the Tories is that they make people realise that they have to make their own financial plans and not rely on the welfare state because they are going to abolish a lot of it.

The best thing about Labour is that they make people realise that they have to make their own financial plans and not rely on the welfare state because they will bankrupt the country through gross financial mismanagement so it is no longer viable.

The best thing about democracy is that different parties aren't able to cling on to power long enough to do too much damage, and nothing relly changes in the longer term.

RideOnTime

PBlakeney wrote:

£10 says it will be a hung Parliament.
One of the big two will win but not by enough.
There will be another coalition.

Not a well hung Parliament.

pblakeney

RideOnTime wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

£10 says it will be a hung Parliament.
One of the big two will win but not by enough.
There will be another coalition.

Not a well hung Parliament.

No. But some of them should be.

rick_chasey

Sleeper Cell wrote:

The best thing about Labour is that they make people realise that they have to make their own financial plans and not rely on the welfare state because they will bankrupt the country through gross financial mismanagement so it is no longer viable.

Yeah because the UK labour government had so much to do with the global financial crisis, which was triggered by a US sub-prime mortgage and affected the majority of the developed world.

Anonymous

Yeah but he didn't say 'labour will cause the global financial crisis'

financial mismanagement is what happened before, during and after the crisis occurred.

secretsam

It's amusing to see how many have fallen for Cameron and Osborne's line that the whole financial crisis was the then government's fault, and that therefore the poor should pay.

The crisis was down to financial irresponsibility by the (rich) banks and their inappropriate lending.

Which can be traced back to the 80s, when Thatcher's government (and Reagan's in the USA) de-restricted the financial markets. "Greed is good" became the mantra, and our society was changed for good.

joelsim

coriordan wrote:

Yeah but he didn't say 'labour will cause the global financial crisis'

financial mismanagement is what happened before, during and after the crisis occurred.

And in fact every time they come into power.

Frank the tank

SecretSam wrote:

It's amusing to see how many have fallen for Cameron and Osborne's line that the whole financial crisis was the then government's fault, and that therefore the poor should pay.

The crisis was down to financial irresponsibility by the (rich) banks and their inappropriate lending.

Which can be traced back to the 80s, when Thatcher's government (and Reagan's in the USA) de-restricted the financial markets. "Greed is good" became the mantra, and our society was changed for good.

I agree (unsurprisingly).

However, while I know who I won't vote for at the next GE I'm not at all sure who I will vote for.

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

coriordan wrote:

Yeah but he didn't say 'labour will cause the global financial crisis'

financial mismanagement is what happened before, during and after the crisis occurred.

And in fact every time they come into power.

+1. They didn't cause the global financial crisis but they sure as hell didn't stop it either - after all, it happened on their watch. After Gordon triumphantly declared he had eliminated boom and bust

Even without the global finacial crisis, Labour's financial incompetence would have brought this country to the brink of bankruptcy eventually. They are remarkably consistent when it comes to doing that - late 70's was the last time they got a stint in power and look at the mess they left then. And yet here we are with over 30% of the electorate thinking of giving them another shot at screwing things up :roll:

DeVlaeminck

Probably because the 30% don't benefit from any economic upturn that the tories may or may not produce.

pblakeney

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Probably because the 30% don't benefit from any economic upturn that the tories may or may not produce.

Has anyone looked at the current state of the economy?
Upturn? Not really.

anonymousblackfg

Any one see that program on Farrage last night? Made him look much as you imagine, self serving and very childish. That said there is at least some respect to be had that Farrage has had a job in the real world, at least the working man may be conned into the idea Ed Balls worked in a butchers once but I am sure for most the UKIT voting (not necessarily supporting) public do not like the established party leaders telling them what to do when they'd hardly be able to buy a pint of milk, yet alone know the price of one.

I agree with the comments above on the 30%,

orraloon

anonymousblackfg wrote:

Farrage has had a job in the real world,

Commodities trader in City of London for Drexel Burnham Lambert, etc . That would qualify him as being in touch with the common man then...? Real job in the real world? Or an ex public school educated, self important and self aggrandising oaf? Let me think which might be closer...

rick_chasey

He wasn't a trader.

He was a broker. Big difference.

--

Out of interest, how come Greens didn't get this coverage when they won a seat?

VmanF3

anonymousblackfg wrote:

Any one see that program on Farrage last night? Made him look much as you imagine, self serving and very childish. That said there is at least some respect to be had that Farrage has had a job in the real world, at least the working man may be conned into the idea Ed Balls worked in a butchers once but I am sure for most the UKIT voting (not necessarily supporting) public do not like the established party leaders telling them what to do when they'd hardly be able to buy a pint of milk, yet alone know the price of one.

I agree with the comments above on the 30%,

Dreadful chap. Re-enforced by the documentary referred to above.

veronese68

Rick Chasey wrote:

Out of interest, how come Greens didn't get this coverage when they won a seat?

Because they are more than just headline grabbing attention whores?

BelgianBeerGeek

Veronese68 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Out of interest, how come Greens didn't get this coverage when they won a seat?

Because they are more than just headline grabbing attention whores?

Because the Greens are not going to give the Tories and Labour any sleepless nights.

pblakeney

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Out of interest, how come Greens didn't get this coverage when they won a seat?

Because they are more than just headline grabbing attention whores?

Because the Greens are not going to give the Tories and Labour any sleepless nights.

Things will be so tight that any seats lost to any party will be a concern.

Sleeper Cell

Veronese68 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Out of interest, how come Greens didn't get this coverage when they won a seat?

Because they are more than just headline grabbing attention whores?

Or because their leader is dull as ditchwater?