jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (163 posts)

UKIP a party on the rise, why?

  1. Silverspeeder profile image59
    Silverspeederposted 3 years ago via iphone

    UKIP is a UK party who's policies include removing the UK from the EU, stopping immigration, cutting bureaucracy and spending more on the military and building prisons has received a huge boost in the local UK council elections, the first time a so called non mainstream party has done so well.
    Why is it that a party that has Micky mouse
    by the mainstream politicians had done so well? Are their policies so appealing to the electorate? Have the electorate had enough of the the mainstream party's policies which they perceive have been anti British?
    The experts say that their vote share was made up of 50% from the Conservatives with the other 50% coming from Labour the LibDems and new voters.

    Radical party? Or in tune with the people?

    1. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The same thing happened and is happening all around the first world atm minor parties are doing well, look how well the lib dems did in the British elections not long ago, same happened with the Greens in Australia etc. that is a common occurrence during economic crisis and the recovery from them, people don't like any party so vote for third parties, it is also often something of a protest vote, it pretty much never lasts though once stability is resumed.

      1. Silverspeeder profile image59
        Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think with UKIP its a little deeper than just the recession.
        As the mainstream party's in the UK have promoted the ideals of the pseudo socialist dream of the European dictatorship the electorate has become more enlightened to the ridiculousness that is after all a faceless dictatorship who seek to control every aspect of an individuals life. They also realise that the economies of the individual nations are much the worse for their involvement in a economic zone that pursues a false economic model.
        While the control of the European political elite continues to dominate the British electorates life and lifestyle parties like UKIP will continue to prosper.

    2. days leaper profile image50
      days leaperposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      At last a party to vote for with balls (or should that be "without (Ed._)balls? !!!)

      an open door policy didn't work for the Airports in America -obvious after 9/11.  So why hasn't Europe learned those lessons?

  2. innersmiff profile image80
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    UKIP does appeal to the section of the population that feels resentment towards the swathes of immigrants that land on our shores, but also represent the only perceived alternative to the Old Firm of Labour and Conservative. As a libertarian I am turned on by anybody who wishes to scale back government bureaucracy, but if what you're saying is true and they are in favour of increasing military spending, I have to conclude that they do not represent a significant difference.

    I guess the American equivalent would be the Tea Party: some good, some bad.

    Personally, I voted for Murray Rothbard lol

    1. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think the British people are fed up with the EU, unfettered immigration and migration, bureaucracy everywhere and the political elite continuously giving powers away to foreign politicians.

      Political commentators think UKIP may make the huge jump to national politics in the 2015 general elections.

  3. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    Remember, these were only local elections which often show minority parties in a good light. When it comes to national elections many voters will slip back into their old ways and vote as usual.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Considering they were only local elections its got the mainstream party's wondering.
      UKIP may be the surprise and as more and more people realize that Labour or the Conservative are not listening that they may just be the party that represents the British people.

  4. innersmiff profile image80
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    If, one day, Left vs. Right in Britain meant the Libertarian Party vs. UKIP, it would make me happy.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That would just be more of the same - the right against the extreme right.

    2. EmpressFelicity profile image85
      EmpressFelicityposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Be honest, how many British people would vote for the Libertarians given their policies?

      Most people in Britain (IMO) vote on a "what's in it for me?" basis. The trouble with the Libertarians is that they don't work like that: their platform is "we believe it's every man (or woman) for themselves, as long as you don't harm anyone else". And there is no gun lobby in Britain (the libertarians' natural franchise).

      That said, from a personal perspective I can completely understand why so many people in Britain are voting for UKIP - many British people are fed up with the fact that Britain is such a magnet for immigration and many people (myself included) are fed up with the EU and its bureaucratic nonsense.

      1. innersmiff profile image80
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I do agree. There is an intellectual precedent for Libertarianism in the US where there isn't in the UK. No gun lobby, as you say, and no 'Constitutional Movement' or anything like that.

      2. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I can't think of anything more "what's in it for me" than voting for lower taxes.

        1. EmpressFelicity profile image85
          EmpressFelicityposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, but libertarianism goes further than lower taxes. Libertarians want to dismantle the welfare state (not just trim it down, *dismantle* it).

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And isn't that the ultimate "what's in it for me"?

            1. EmpressFelicity profile image85
              EmpressFelicityposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I suppose it is - for those who believe they're never going to need any form of welfare.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I think very few of us go through life expecting to need any form of welfare.

                1. EmpressFelicity profile image85
                  EmpressFelicityposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  State pension? Treatment on the NHS? Tax credits? Child benefit? Paid maternity/paternity leave?

                  All of us in Britain (apart from the very wealthy) certainly expect to need/want the first two at some point in our lives, if not the rest.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry, I was focused on welfare being unemployment benefit and sickness.
                    I wouldn't call the NHS welfare.

                  2. Silverspeeder profile image59
                    Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That's what we pay our taxes for. They are an insurance against when an if we need those things. The problem comes when millions who haven't paid a penny towards the safety net expect to use it all their lives for free.

          2. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Precisely, as in what in it for me, me being anyone who is not on some form of welfare or can afford to pay for their or their child's medical care.

            1. innersmiff profile image80
              innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It's easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost.

              But I think Libertarianism is very compassionate. Any movement that seeks to end destructive wars, and promote freedom of speech, privacy and property for everybody has to be considered compassionate.

              1. Josak profile image59
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                IF we are going to cherry pick the parts of an ideology that sound rosy there is not a single one on earth that is not compassionate.

                ie.

                Communism seeks to provide equality, fair labor, dignity and basic necessities for all, it is thus compassionate.

                As for other people's money well in most nations leftists are wealthier (because of the massive education gap) so really it is mainly their money.

                1. innersmiff profile image80
                  innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  But wait a minute . . . I thought in capitalist economies, the richest people are the greedy capitalists, not the compassionate leftists.

                  1. Josak profile image59
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Nope, leftists are more educated so in first world nations they are almost always wealthier.  7% wealthier in the US for example.

              2. HollieT profile image90
                HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Who, exactly, are you footing the costs for Innersmiff?

                1. innersmiff profile image80
                  innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The state and the states' special interests.

                  1. HollieT profile image90
                    HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Wrong way around, the special interest groups use the state for their own ends. The state is merely the puppet of the special interest groups.

  5. jenniferrpovey profile image95
    jenniferrpoveyposted 3 years ago

    ...I am completely annoyed now. This is a placeholder to remind me to post on this when the UKIP's website starts working again...

    All I'm going to say for now is that I really, really don't like this crowd. They give me very bad vibes. Homophobia is part of the issue, but everything else I want to highlight...is on their dead website. Sigh. Later.

  6. HollieT profile image90
    HollieTposted 3 years ago

    Personally, I think that all the hoo haa about UKIP on the rise is hilarious. Cameron could not secure a workable majority in 2010, why? Because in this country we have a collective consciousness(those who are old enough) and he was still associated with the nasty party. He had to lie pre-election, as the main parties do, to secure a tiny majority. Now, after this huge UKIP surge (not, and not  forgetting that many of Farrage's voters would not vote for him in a general election) he is moving towards the "It's all the fault of immigrants and Europe" codswallop. He will lose many of the middle of the road types!Remeber those, they once voted for Blair?

    This will split the Tory vote even further, and reaffirm the doubts of all those who thought that the nasty party had changed. And even if, even if, Farrage is able to muster more votes in 2015, this will not equate to seats- our voting system is too antiquated.

    I believe that it was 1989, where the Greens secured 15% of the vote ( before the last byelection the Farrage types were celebrating such a percentage) Yet, it was 2010 before they gained a seat in parliament!

    Also quite hilarious is those who are voting for UKIP because they are sick and tired of immigrants, strangely, many them appear to originate from white, middle class suburbia. Not multi ethnic/cultural cities. Oh how the mask slips. Reading the Daily Mail will surely dumb you down.

    1. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Perfectly stated.

      1. HollieT profile image90
        HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And the Torygraph outlines this perfectly, which is why I rarely slag them off:
        http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james … l-to-arms/

        1. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yay a blog opinion piece with no factual data. *sigh*

        2. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Shame about the comments though!

  7. HollieT profile image90
    HollieTposted 3 years ago

    @Josak, John, *precisely* Can't help it, Tory and uber rights make me really giggle. SINKING. SHIP.RATS.LEAVING.

  8. jenniferrpovey profile image95
    jenniferrpoveyposted 3 years ago

    Okay. It's finally up, if laggy.

    So, here are my problems with the UKIP:

    1. They want to withdraw from the European Commission on Refugees. Combined with their immigration policy, it's clear they would really rather not allow refugees. Given my great grandparents were refugees who went to England, I'm wary.

    2. They want to increase Britain's nuclear arsenal. Come on, people. It's the 21st century.

    3. They have an incoherent policy on same sex marriage that is, admittedly, based on a real concern, but is still a mess.

    4. I'd talk about their tax policy. If I understood what they were blathering on about. Well, except that they seem to think they can fund the NHS without NI... Oh, and you can both cut taxes and improve services. Would be nice.

    5. They consider all renewable energy to be a scam. They don't believe in global warming. Whether you do or not, they don't care about pollution.

    6. "Require all visitors to exhibit adequate health insurance at port of entry" Way to kill tourism, guys.

    7. Young Independence, for some reason, gives me the creeps. Probably because their website sucks and provides no information.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I take your a Labour voter then?

      It would be nice to see some of Labours policies but of vcourse they will wait until just before the election before they spout their lies wont they.

      Europe is a mess, immigration is a mess, the economy is a mess and all the systems and controls put in place by Labour and the ConDems are a mess yet non of them have any ideas on how to get us out of it.

      And you think UKIP are idiots.........

      1. HollieT profile image90
        HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Immigrants and refugees are not one and the same.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image59
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed

          But mixed up liberal humanitarians cant tell the difference between refugees and refugees.

          1. HollieT profile image90
            HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And that means what, exactly? Refugees are refugees and immigrants are immigrants.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image59
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The UK is an island, the only way for a refugee to come here is by air or through other safe countries, therefor this suggests that the UK should have no refugees by their very definition.
              The same with asylum seekers, unless they arrive by air they can not really claim asylum.

              1. HollieT profile image90
                HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                A refugee can claim the status of a refugee, or do you believe that they are all "smuggled" here? Ever heard of the Vietnamese Boat People, white Rhodesians, Poles or Hungarians? What about Lord Carrington, ever heard of him? In other words, and in certain situations, countries including the UK agree to accept refugees before they have even entered the country. It's been going on for years you know.

                The fact that we are an Island does not mean that we should not have refugees.  Surprise, surprise- many of them enter the country legally.

                1. Silverspeeder profile image59
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That's why there are 159000 current claims for asylum status.

                  A refugee must claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, they can not wonder from country to country until they see one that they like.

                  1. HollieT profile image90
                    HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    They must claim asylum yes, but not necessarily to stay in the first safe country they reach. When human beings are escaping persecution en masse, it quite usual for other countries to agree to take x amount of refugees, or otherwise. But the fact still remains, immigrants and refugees are not one and the same.

  9. jenniferrpovey profile image95
    jenniferrpoveyposted 3 years ago

    Actually, I haven't voted in a UK election for years - I live in the US and hold US citizenship. And if I did, I'm not sure who I'd vote for at this point. I'm a little out of touch.

    And no.

    I don't think the UKIP are idiots. I think they're dangerous and part of a dangerous trend.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The trend is alittle to the right because of the mess the left made of it in just 13yrs.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        But the last time the left were in government in this country was 1979!
        Isn't there a cut off point?

        1. Silverspeeder profile image59
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Even New Labour were pseudo socialists left of centre.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            They were Thatcherite's almost to a man. Don't you remember Tory Blur removing all hints of socialism from the Labour party constitution?

            1. Silverspeeder profile image59
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              They were led and ruled by the left wing unions that funded them.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You are joking!

                1. Silverspeeder profile image59
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The Labour party relies on funding from the unions currentlu standing at about 90%.
                  The party is left of centre.
                  The Labour party is a full member of the the party of European socialists.
                  It also holds observer statue in the socialist international.
                  The Labour Party is a membership organisation consisting of Constituency Labour Parties, affiliated trade unions, socialist societies and the Co-operative Party,

                  1. HollieT profile image90
                    HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Would love to see the data, from a reliable source, for the 90% funding. I can find figures banding around between 36 and 72%, but none are reliable or particularly accurate.

                  2. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    And yet Thatchers proud boast was that her greatest achievement was Tony Blair and New Labour!

                    Not bad for a woman who hated socialism and socialists - or do you think she was a liar and a hypocrite?

                  3. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    BTW, that's the Labour party you talk of, not New Labour.

              2. HollieT profile image90
                HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Is that why union membership continued to decline under Bliar and why more an more trade unionists left the labour Party and became members of other parties? And if the left wing unions were leading and ruling New Labour, why weren't the powers previously held by the Trade Unions restored?

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh don't baffle him with facts Hollie.

                2. Silverspeeder profile image59
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Blair moved the party further to the centre that's all. Now Milliband is moving back to the left.

                  1. innersmiff profile image80
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It seems to me that anything that is not full out socialism is considered "right-wing" to John, i.e. anyone who disagrees with him.

                    I'm pretty much done with 'left' and 'right' as indicators of significant ideological difference. It's statism versus liberty now.

  10. jenniferrpovey profile image95
    jenniferrpoveyposted 3 years ago

    I would not be alive with my current combination of genes if the UK had not given asylum to my ancestors.

    Of course, that was quite a while ago and there are more "safe" countries now, but a civilized country does not turn away those who would die or be imprisoned if they were to return home.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with what you say but should countries take refugees from safe countries? So people who have escaped from a country where they are persecuted to France should then be allowed to claim asylum in the UK?
      Also there must be a limit to how many asylum seekers a country can take so taking refugees from other safe countries can and will affect the population of that country.
      I am glad your ancestors found asylum in a safe country but there must be a limit or their offspring will suffer in the future.

  11. HollieT profile image90
    HollieTposted 3 years ago

    @Innersmiff, spoken like a true Libertarian, I'll give you that. You want your property and person protected, but how will you pay for this- you don't like taxes either? Do you want me to pay for your protection?

    I know you don't care what we call it, yet you are the one who talks about "all out socialism" and in the same breath, talks about people being hypnotised to produce a reaction. I'll count backwards from 10, disagreement about policy does not equate to "all out socialism" that's an irrational thought.

    1. innersmiff profile image80
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It will be a cooperation between myself and private defence firms that protect my person and property. If they don't do what I like, I withdraw my funds. With the state, I have no choice but to accept it.

      1. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        HAHAHA oh my obviously never dealt with or served with "private security firms " tongue

        Not to mention many people can't afford any such service meaning that crimes can simply be committed against them with impunity meaning they will never be able to acquire enough wealth to afford it and will be perpetually poor.

        This hilariously bad idea was actually tried (Like most anarchist and libertarian ideals) in many places in the early 19th and late 18th century, in England for example the most trusted company that provided a police service was eventually found to have been committing most of the crime and chasing itself the leader of it was executed, amazingly it worked so badly that people decided they needed a public system (as with most anarchist and libertarian ideas).

        1. innersmiff profile image80
          innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The demand for cheap security is already taken up by the state police force (that bastion of transparency and justice roll ) so private security firms take up the higher market. The absence of a state police force will free up that demand and prices will fall.

          This amazingly good idea was tried in the early days of the United States in the form of militias. And remember, these were the days when American armies didn't go gallivanting around the world destroying everything in its wake - I wonder why that was?

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Military and police force are different things entirely, not to mention that militias were armed, clothed etc. with tax payer money, and that they were not very good (being untrained compared to professional soldiers).

            Edit: forgot to say, you will never ever be able to make it cheap enough so that everyone can afford it, and people completely unprotected will never be able to change their station.

            I don't think you would be able to drop the real cost at all anyway, first off because many cops I know take the pretty meager pay and benefits for ideological reasons because they are working to protect everyone, that will go out the window when it's simply a business dedicated to helping some people and #2 the inefficiency.

            Let's say that every street need a cop car patrolling it (for the sake of simplicity) currently that means we pay for one cop car, if there are four companies competing in that area which each have some clients on every street and still need a car on every street that is four cars patrolling now at presumably four times the cost.  I think those factors will easily overcome the lowered cost of competition and still without providing anything to a whole lot of people who need protection most.

            Excellent system.

            1. innersmiff profile image80
              innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              In a free market they will serve the same basic function. The modern military is not principally concerned with protection but structured to facilitate interventionism abroad.

              Remember that, before the government stepped in and ruined it, fraternal societies acted as a safety net for the very poorest and most unfortunate, and it is conceivable that protective services for these could be paid for in this way too. (Interestingly, the welfare reforms in Britain were originally meant to be non-state solutions, in the form of expanding fraternities, i.e. a mass voluntary welfare system. Even the leftists of yesteryear realised that the state was rubbish at it.)

              Your scenarios are economically flawed. Firstly, cops' wages will be subject to supply and demand like everything else. As they are completely necessary, prices will need to be low anyway. Not to mention, time and resources won't be being spent persecuting voluntary association such as drug abuse and prostitution.

              Your second scenario is baffling. What is more likely is that street owners will hire the security services, and will specify in the contract how much protection they need, e.g. whether they need one or two cop cars patrolling the street. The contract signed in order to buy a house on the street would most likely include security as part of the community fee, which happens all the time now anyway. If there is no street owner, the home owners will most likely come together and pool funds for a security force, or simply create one out of their own numbers. You act is if people just lose their brains as soon as the government stops deciding things for them.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Er, you must live in a different Britain to me!

                The welfare reforms came about in Britain precisely because non-state solutions did not work. Remember Dickens comments about the deserving and the undeserving poor?
                Where is your evidence that "even the leftists of yesteryear realised that the state was rubbish at it"?

              2. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Back in the days before the fire brigade was nationalised, private fire fighters would sit and watch properties burn down because the property was not insured with the watching company.

                Do you think private police forces would act any differently?

      2. HollieT profile image90
        HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Could you honestly afford G4S? And even if you could, would you honestly want to employ security firms that have their hand in the oppression of the Palestinians?

        And are you suggesting that only "well off" property owners should have access to protection? Should protection only be afforded to the comfortable/wealthy? What about people who don't own property, like so many women, should they be denied protection?

        1. innersmiff profile image80
          innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I addressed the price point in my reply to Josak.

          I have the choice whether or not I want to interact with G4S. I don't have the choice but to interact with the government, a government that facilitates the oppression of Palestine and numerous other nations.

          1. HollieT profile image90
            HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Innersmiff, you are not being prevented from hiring a private security firm should you wish.

            1. innersmiff profile image80
              innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I am not arguing that.

  12. carlarmes profile image79
    carlarmesposted 3 years ago

    The reason why people vote for UKIP is simple, none of the above, the citizens of the UK are fed up with the way the establishment runs things, all main three parties have MP's that come out of the same mould. UKIP is not part of the ruling elite. The three main parties run a closed shop policy, if you didn't go to the right university you won't get selected to be an MP.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think people are just fed up with the liberalisation of the UK. mostly forced upon us by the faceless bureaucrats of the big EU gravy train.

      In 1965, the playwright Joe Orton wrote: ‘We live in a country which would give the power of arrest to the traffic lights if three women magistrates and a Liberal MP would only suggest it.’ And nothing much has changed since.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Wow! Nearly 30 years before the EU was founded!

        1. Silverspeeder profile image59
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Foresight indeed.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And at a time when the political climate in the UK was entirely different to today.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image59
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Absolutely John, its much worse now.
              With all the liberalisation and so call political correctness we seem to come to the point where not only would the traffic lights have the power of arrest the parking machine has the power to judge you guilty.
              A point where an illegal immigrant who commits a crime cant be deported because he as a cat and a murder can claim financial recompense because he had to wait to for trial while the victims family gets nothing for losing their loved one.
              A point where politicians can steal money from the public but then give it back and get away with it.
              A point where political leaders can start wars on falsehoods and suffer no punishment when found to be lying. In fact they are lauded by their equals.

              The system may have been set up for the protection of all but it has become the refuge of the murderer the scoundrel, the fraudster and the politician.

 
working