UKIP surge to 22% ahead of Thursdays Local Elections as Tory smear campaign backfire

http://www.itv.com/news/2013-04-30/u...t-comres-poll/

UKIP surge to 22% for Local Elections

http://news.images.itv.com/image/fil...9j-4aaqsk.jpeg
A ComRes Poll for The Coalition for Marriage released on Tuesday night suggested that UKIP could win a staggering 22% of the vote. Photo: Chris Ison/PA Wire/Press Association Images

http://www.iaza.com/work/130501C/iaza13820020954200.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ITV

Here’s what we think we do know about Thursday’s local elections.

- The Conservatives will win the most seats; this is their territory
- The Conservative share of the seats will still drop most dramatically; the last time these were contested in the dog days of Gordon Brown’s premiership the Tories trounced Labour

Here’s what we know we don’t know.

- How well UKIP will do
- Well there’s a lot we don’t know yet but number one is most important

So how well might they do?

A ComRes Poll for The Coalition for Marriage released on Tuesday night suggested that UKIP could win a staggering 22% of the vote. The same poll put the Conservatives on 31%, Labour on 24% and the Lib Dems on 12%.

---

http://news.images.itv.com/image/fil...9j-4aaqsk.jpeg
David Cameron speaks to workers at the Morrisons Distribution Centre in Bridgewater, Somerset, on the local election campaign trail. Credit: Tim Ireland/PA Wire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daily Mail

Of course this is just one poll, but if UKIP do well at all they could seriously increase the number of seats the Conservatives lose.

As our Election Analyst Colin Rallings has said, the Tories are in line to lose more than 300 seats.

ComRes Poll results:

- Conservatives 31%
- Labour on 24%
- UKIP 22%
- Lib Dems 12%.

More than 400 losses and David Cameron will have had a very bad night.

There was a time when it was thought that might have threatened his leadership, although there seems to be less of that kind of talk around now.

---

http://news.images.itv.com/image/fil...9j-4aaqsk.jpeg
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg (right) and Labour Leader Ed Miliband Credit: Olivia Harris/PA Wire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ITV

This is not to say UKIP will actually win a lot of seats.

Their evenly spread support may just mean they contribute to Tory losses rather than making very large gains in their own right.

---

http://news.images.itv.com/image/fil...9j-4aaqsk.jpeg
Ed Miliband and his wife Justine meet pupils as they visit Justine's old school, West Bridgford School in Nottingham on the campaign trail. Credit: Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ITV

But a good showing for them would mark another step on the road towards UKIP becoming a new force in British politics, suggesting the next General Election will be fought not between three main parties but between four.

---

Now before anybody says it, it doesn't matter that the poll was commissioned by Coalition for Marriage (C4M) or anything like that. It's like the polls below i've posted are commissioned by The Sun or the Mail - thats just to say who ordered the poll to be carried out. Interesting results anyway, and certainly will mean UKIP will pick up seats (despite what the article says) if they manage to achieve that amount on polling day.

The latest YouGov for General Election voting intention is...

39% Labour
30% Conservatives
14% UKIP (all time high with YouGov)
11% Liberal Democrats

The latest Survation for General Election voting intention is...

36% Labour
29% Conservatives
16% UKIP
12% Liberal Democrats

But interesting how the smear campaign by the Tories has blown up in their faces. Interestingly enough i've heard that the same was done in Canada in the early 1990s to the then-Reform Party by the main two parties at the time ... and Reform went on to replace the Progressive Conservative Party and now runs Canada today. Interesting times ahead of Thursday.

Considering placing a bet or two ahead of Thursday, on a night out that night so would be good to come home to double good news. :P

Thoughts?

I must say, I would be very surprised if they got to within 2% of Labour, but I guess time will only tell :) Nevertheless, I'd personally still consider it to be impressive that they're now the 3rd party...

Who actually gets asked to participate in these polls because there seem to be a hell of a lot of them through the year and I've never seen any invitations - my guess is that it's just readers and supporters of whichever publication sets it and probably a very small proportion of those even. Will be good to be rid of the Lib Dems at least whatever happens

Interesting to see such increasing support. Lets see what happens.... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Who actually gets asked to participate in these polls because there seem to be a hell of a lot of them through the year and I've never seen any invitations - my guess is that it's just readers and supporters of whichever publication sets it and probably a very small proportion of those even. Will be good to be rid of the Lib Dems at least whatever happens

---

Random selections, again when it has 'Guardian' or 'Mail' at the front it doesn't mean anything. Sometimes it can be affected if you look at the questions asked before Voting Intention, ie say a poll commissioned asked ten questions on the EU and then asked who you'd vote for - something like that would be likely to give UKIP a small bounce but things like that are only ever slight and its pointed out if any methods/qustions have been asked.

They're pretty accurate (this poll for example was a phone poll I think and was only taken in areas who are voting on Thursday) but they can get it very very wrong, there's the famous case of the 1992 General Election where BBC exit polls predicted Kinnock winning and Major won a fair sized majority. :P

Shows how many people are pissed off with the current government. Protest votes are becoming a threat.

I can't believe what i'm seeing. Just now the Telegraph has released two stories..

Cameron suggests bringing forward referendum on EU membership - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...fore-2015.html

Cameron suggests ending ring fencing of the foreign aid budget - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-suggests.html

Put two and two together as to why he's suddenly coming up with these suggestions. It's not hard.

Trouble is, nobody believes him anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Who actually gets asked to participate in these polls because there seem to be a hell of a lot of them through the year and I've never seen any invitations - my guess is that it's just readers and supporters of whichever publication sets it and probably a very small proportion of those even. Will be good to be rid of the Lib Dems at least whatever happens

---

Usually it's phone polling, however no matter what you do there'll be a statistical bias. Even worse if you intend there to be one. An example being that most people sat at home all day and therefore more likely to pick up the phone for polling tend to be older. A demographic bias pretty quickly leads us towards a result bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Usually it's phone polling, however no matter what you do there'll be a statistical bias. Even worse if you intend there to be one. An example being that most people sat at home all day and therefore more likely to pick up the phone for polling tend to be older. A demographic bias pretty quickly leads us towards a result bias.

---

Universities have been known to do polls, too. That also creates interesting results which are also biased towards certain thoughts and ideals. That said, I'm not sure what the general student thoughts are now on Government, it used to be a clear Lib Dem answer but now it seemed skewered :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Usually it's phone polling, however no matter what you do there'll be a statistical bias. Even worse if you intend there to be one. An example being that most people sat at home all day and therefore more likely to pick up the phone for polling tend to be older. A demographic bias pretty quickly leads us towards a result bias.

---

Thats why polls are weighted, to fix errors like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Thats why polls are weighted, to fix errors like that.

---

Frankly I'd be more skeptical of a weighted poll than an unweighted poll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

Frankly I'd be more skeptical of a weighted poll than an unweighted poll.

---

It depends, I mean if you have a bog standard election thats similar to the last (ie three main parties which will have more or less same demographics voting for them, same time of the year, weathers more or less the same) then weighting can produce more accurate poll results.

But when you have things like increased tactical voting, a fourth party incursion or a unforeseen event it makes it unreliable. I mean there's debate over whether polling organisations are right to leave UKIP out of the prompt question these days - the polling companies feel so, but may change closer to the election if its proved that adding them to the prompt produces better results. Postal voting these days also makes it difficult and unpredictable.

Pretty interesting polling is, I always like reading the analysis' by Peter Kellner, Anthony Wells and Mike Smithson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I can't believe what i'm seeing. Just now the Telegraph has released two stories..

Cameron suggests bringing forward referendum on EU membership - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...fore-2015.html

Cameron suggests ending ring fencing of the foreign aid budget - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-suggests.html

Put two and two together as to why he's suddenly coming up with these suggestions. It's not hard.

Trouble is, nobody believes him anymore.

---

Of course he will say this. I don't think a referendum really bothers him at all. A) Not binding (albeit they pretty much are if you ever want the vote again) and B) Do you genuinely believe people in the UK are THAT Eurosceptic to vote to leave? Because I don't see it.

People don't vote in elections on national issues, nevermind European - people vote on local issues and what will soonest affect them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Who actually gets asked to participate in these polls because there seem to be a hell of a lot of them through the year and I've never seen any invitations - my guess is that it's just readers and supporters of whichever publication sets it and probably a very small proportion of those even. Will be good to be rid of the Lib Dems at least whatever happens

---

Our house got called by the Office of National Statistics asking us to do a survey. was all about how happy we were about the present and future so I reckon it was for that happiness index Cameron got ridiculed in the media about. I agree though, how you word the questions can influence the outcome so I don't think it's wise to put your hopes into 1 poll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

Of course he will say this. I don't think a referendum really bothers him at all. A) Not binding (albeit they pretty much are if you ever want the vote again) and B) Do you genuinely believe people in the UK are THAT Eurosceptic to vote to leave? Because I don't see it.

People don't vote in elections on national issues, nevermind European - people vote on local issues and what will soonest affect them.

---

While I don't think the British public have europe on their list of priorities (although I know euroskeptics would say that what is on their list of priorities is hampered by europe), having a referendum puts it in the spotlight that I doubt many people would just ignore it simply because it wasn't on their priority list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

Of course he will say this. I don't think a referendum really bothers him at all. A) Not binding (albeit they pretty much are if you ever want the vote again) and B) Do you genuinely believe people in the UK are THAT Eurosceptic to vote to leave? Because I don't see it.

People don't vote in elections on national issues, nevermind European - people vote on local issues and what will soonest affect them.

---

The vast majority of polls show the British public do want to leave the European Union. If they are so sure of winning the referendum, then why do the constantly refuse to hold one? they refused to hold one over the Maastricht Treaty, Labour over the Lisbon Treaty and now an in/out referendum. The only reason a referendum is being talked about is because Tory MPs with wafer-thin majorities are kacking themselves over the purple peril. I don't think people understand just how bitterly divided (especially) the Tory Party is over this issue. The topic is a box of explosives.

If the establishment thought they'd win a referendum, they'd hold it tommorow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

While I don't think the British public have europe on their list of priorities (although I know euroskeptics would say that what is on their list of priorities is hampered by europe), having a referendum puts it in the spotlight that I doubt many people would just ignore it simply because it wasn't on their priority list.

---

While the EU doesn't poll high on voters concerns, its important to note that most other areas of policy (economy, immigration, agriculture, fisheries, environment, energy etc) all are heavily impacted by the issue of the European Union.

But nevertheless, its important to note now that the UKIP vote has gone far beyond the single issue of the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The vast majority of polls show the British public do want to leave the European Union. If they are so sure of winning the referendum, then why do the constantly refuse to hold one? they refused to hold one over the Maastricht Treaty, Labour over the Lisbon Treaty and now an in/out referendum. The only reason a referendum is being talked about is because Tory MPs with wafer-thin majorities are kacking themselves over the purple peril. I don't think people understand just how bitterly divided (especially) the Tory Party is over this issue. The topic is a box of explosives.

If the establishment thought they'd win a referendum, they'd hold it tommorow.



While the EU doesn't poll high on voters concerns, its important to note that most other areas of policy (economy, immigration, agriculture, fisheries, environment, energy etc) all are heavily impacted by the issue of the European Union.

But nevertheless, its important to note now that the UKIP vote has gone far beyond the single issue of the EU.

---

Oh yes, because referendums are such quick, easy things to carry out. Not saying they need four years, but clearly they take time.

Also, yes polls can say a lot of things - but when push comes to shove? Pfft.

---------- Post added 02-05-2013 at 12:45 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

Our house got called by the Office of National Statistics asking us to do a survey. was all about how happy we were about the present and future so I reckon it was for that happiness index Cameron got ridiculed in the media about. I agree though, how you word the questions can influence the outcome so I don't think it's wise to put your hopes into 1 poll.



While I don't think the British public have europe on their list of priorities (although I know euroskeptics would say that what is on their list of priorities is hampered by europe), having a referendum puts it in the spotlight that I doubt many people would just ignore it simply because it wasn't on their priority list.

---

In actual fact, the last referendum (on AV), just 42.2% of people actually bothered to vote. And if people did vote to leave, I reckon it would be because the only people who bothered to vote are the ones who want to leave (which is why one should question the democratic legitimacy of any referendum anyway).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

Oh yes, because referendums are such quick, easy things to carry out. Not saying they need four years, but clearly they take time.

Also, yes polls can say a lot of things - but when push comes to shove? Pfft.

---

They are pretty easy to organise actually, Cameron and the Tories have already had two years to hold one and they still have another three years - so why they are talking about some distant and vague promise of one in 2017 I don't know .... the realist in me suggests they are trying to con us yet again into voting for them just as the same con was played by Labour in 2005 and the Tories and Liberals in 2010 regarding EU promises.

As for actually winning a referendum, oh I agree. The amount of propaganda that will be flowing from the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats and news outlets with scaremongering rubbish such as '3m jobs will be lost' may very well scare people into voting to stay in.

But the fact they still refuse to hold one tells me they're terrified of us giving the 'wrong' answer - just as the Irish, French and Dutch did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

They are pretty easy to organise actually, Cameron and the Tories have already had two years to hold one and they still have another three years - so why they are talking about some distant and vague promise of one in 2017 I don't know .... the realist in me suggests they are trying to con us yet again into voting for them just as the same con was played by Labour in 2005 and the Tories and Liberals in 2010 regarding EU promises.

As for actually winning a referendum, oh I agree. The amount of propaganda that will be flowing from the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats and news outlets with scaremongering rubbish such as '3m jobs will be lost' may very well scare people into voting to stay in.

But the fact they still refuse to hold one tells me they're terrified of us giving the 'wrong' answer - just as the Irish, French and Dutch did.

---

As I say, I think the answer may well be yes to leave - but only 30% of people will bother to vote, and the vast majority that vote will be the ones who desperately want to leave. The majority of people won't vote on it, showing they clearly don't care enough.

Me personally? I'll be voting to stay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

As I say, I think the answer may well be yes to leave - but only 30% of people will bother to vote, and the vast majority that vote will be the ones who desperately want to leave. The majority of people won't vote on it, showing they clearly don't care enough.

Me personally? I'll be voting to stay.

---

If you think we should have our laws made over in Brussels and be slowly taken into a federal Europe via stealth then thats an entirely valid opinion to hold, just as Ken Clarke and most of the establishment believe. But what my issue is, is that we're not being given the option as to whether we want to have a vast proportion of our laws made in Brussels and to become a mere province of a future Federal Europe.

I want that honest and open debate, and I firmly believe that given the full facts - the British public will opt for independence and self government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

If you think we should have our laws made over in Brussels and be slowly taken into a federal Europe via stealth then thats an entirely valid opinion to hold, just as Ken Clarke and most of the establishment believe. But what my issue is, is that we're not being given the option as to whether we want to have a vast proportion of our laws made in Brussels and to become a mere province of a future Federal Europe.

I want that honest and open debate, and I firmly believe that given the full facts - the British public will opt for independence and self government.

---

By firm facts,I presume you would like BOTH sides of the argument given - not just the anti-Europe esque ones?

Also, you could argue that Britain speaks in each election. Basic argument is, you democratically elect individuals to speak in parliament for you - if you vote a pro-European party into parliament, demanding a referendum is silly. If you really want to leave Europe (and have no opinion on any other policy area), vote UKIP.

If you don't want to leave Europe, vote Lib Dem, Labour or Conservative - as none of the latter parties will be leaving anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

By firm facts,I presume you would like BOTH sides of the argument given - not just the anti-Europe esque ones?

---

Indeed, I do hope your side comes out in the open and states what it really wants but refuses to discuss because its so unpopular and out of the question - the notion that the United Kingdom should become a province in a future Federal or United Europe.

I want to have that debate, because that sort of idealism will be thrown out by the British electorate - i'm 99% sure of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

Also, you could argue that Britain speaks in each election. Basic argument is, you democratically elect individuals to speak in parliament for you - if you vote a pro-European party into parliament, demanding a referendum is silly. If you really want to leave Europe (and have no opinion on any other policy area), vote UKIP.

If you don't want to leave Europe, vote Lib Dem, Labour or Conservative - as none of the latter parties will be leaving anytime soon.

---

You could also argue that people have done that by voting Labour in 1997 (who promised an in/out referendum), in 2005 (when Labour promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty) and in 2010 when the Conservatives promised a rengotiation and referendum and the Liberal Democrats promised an in/out referendum. Yet despite all of these promises, we've been treated to more EU when the public have firmly rejected it every single time.

But of course we know voting isn't that simple anyway, tribal voting/tactical voting and 'I am voting Tory to keep Labour out' under a FPTP system makes it incredibly hard for a new party to make any headway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Indeed, I do hope your side comes out in the open and states what it really wants but refuses to discuss because its so unpopular and out of the question - the notion that the United Kingdom should become a province in a future Federal or United Europe.

I want to have that debate, because that sort of idealism will be thrown out by the British electorate - i'm 99% sure of it.



You could also argue that people have done that by voting Labour in 1997 (who promised an in/out referendum), in 2005 (when Labour promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty) and in 2010 when the Conservatives promised a rengotiation and referendum and the Liberal Democrats promised an in/out referendum. Yet despite all of these promises, we've been treated to more EU when the public have firmly rejected it every single time.

But of course we know voting isn't that simple anyway, tribal voting/tactical voting and 'I am voting Tory to keep Labour out' under a FPTP system makes it incredibly hard for a new party to make any headway.

---

People don't want a United States of Europe - but we are nowhere near that stage yet.

And indeed, you definitely have a valid point - I hate it when any party doesn't do something it promises. Would it be worth mentioning that people are only voting UKIP in protest? In the 2010 election - according to a YOUGOV poll - just 7% of people cared enough about Europe to base their vote on it (in fact, not even that - 7% of people put it in their top three reasons to vote). That is even less than the environment!

Spot on about the FPTP system, which in some ways is a good thing (keeps parties such as the BNP at bay) - but it also is an excellent way to keep power in the hands of those who had it originally (ie. the big two).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

People don't want a United States of Europe - but we are nowhere near that stage yet.

---

The stated aim and destination of the European project is a united or federal Europe. Therefore, those who suppport the EU ought to come out with what the stated aim of the project is - rather than hiding behind the lie that we're in the EU to co-operate better with our European neighbours or for economic reasons. We are in the EU, as the FCO and Edward Heath stated - to become a part of a new country called Europe.

Now what I oppose is that a) we're not being told the truth (above) concerning the EU & b) we're not being given the chance to say whether or not we agreed to be a part of this project to create a new nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

And indeed, you definitely have a valid point - I hate it when any party doesn't do something it promises. Would it be worth mentioning that people are only voting UKIP in protest? In the 2010 election - according to a YOUGOV poll - just 7% of people cared enough about Europe to base their vote on it (in fact, not even that - 7% of people put it in their top three reasons to vote). That is even less than the environment!

---

If you look at polling for UKIP voters (again, a YouGov poll), they are more concerned about immigration and the economy - agreed, and thats my point. That the issue of the EU is key to regaining control of our borders or slashing regulation to get business moving, and thats why UKIP is evolving into a political party thats more than just about the EU.

As for the protest vote, thats partly true. But there's a hell of a lot worth protesting about. I'd also mention as a counter argument that polls show UKIP voters are more likely to go and vote than the other three main parties - suggesting there's something attractive about UKIP policy.

On a final note concerning "its just a protest vote that will fade" - every single time UKIP breaks records that charge is thrown at them, and every single time it proves to be false, ie the Euro elections in 1999, 2004 and 2009.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

Spot on about the FPTP system, which in some ways is a good thing (keeps parties such as the BNP at bay) - but it also is an excellent way to keep power in the hands of those who had it originally (ie. the big two).

---

Indeed, but I am more favourable towards it now. Although a FPTP system can initially protect the main parties, eventually it can help seal the fate if a main party. The same scenario was played out in Canada in the 1990s where a UKIPesque party known as the Reform Party was set up and eventually replaced the Progressive Conservative Party - today the Reform Party is the Government of Canada.

You might find this interesting reading as a Conservative Party supporter - http://conservativecompanion.co.uk/2...-party-part-1/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The same scenario was played out in Canada in the 1990s where a UKIPesque party known as the Reform Party was set up and eventually replaced the Progressive Conservative Party - today the Reform Party is the Government of Canada.

---

At which point the party turns into the party it replaced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The stated aim and destination of the European project is a united or federal Europe. Therefore, those who suppport the EU ought to come out with what the stated aim of the project is - rather than hiding behind the lie that we're in the EU to co-operate better with our European neighbours or for economic reasons. We are in the EU, as the FCO and Edward Heath stated - to become a part of a new country called Europe.

Now what I oppose is that a) we're not being told the truth (above) concerning the EU & b) we're not being given the chance to say whether or not we agreed to be a part of this project to create a new nation.



If you look at polling for UKIP voters, they are more concerned about immigration and the economy - agreed, and thats my point. That the issue of the EU is key to regaining control of our borders or slashing regulation to get business moving, and thats why UKIP is evolving into a political party thats more than just about the EU.

As for the protest vote, thats partly true. But there's a hell of a lot worth protesting about. I'd also mention as a counter argument that polls show UKIP voters are more likely to go and vote than the other three main parties - suggesting there's something attractive about UKIP policy.

On a final note concerning "its just a protest vote that will fade" - every single time UKIP breaks records that charge is thrown at them, and every single time it proves to be false.



Indeed, but I am more favourable towards it now. Although a FPTP system can initially protect the main parties, eventually it can help seal the fate if a main party. The same scenario was played out in Canada in the 1990s where a UKIPesque party known as the Reform Party was set up and eventually replaced the Progressive Conservative Party - today the Reform Party is the Government of Canada.

You might find this interesting reading as a Conservative Party supporter - http://conservativecompanion.co.uk/2...-party-part-1/

---

The original project was for economic reasons (ECSC and EEC). Realistically a Federal Europe is so far off it is untrue. Europe lacks any real culture, doesn't have a completely single currency, and even down to things like businesses - more mobile operators than I can count (USA, China, India etc - all have the main operators that work everywhere).

The UK already has stricter border controls than the rest of the EU (for example, you can get into Austria from Germany with no problem at all - just step across some mountains!) I don't see how UKIP supporters being more keen to vote shows attractiveness - it could just be that they are far more passionate about getting their point across about their hatred if the main parties (something which will go pretty quickly). The key point remains that voters really are not that bothered about Europe (7% etc etc). I think the Daily Express once branded the issue perfectly; "Europe is an issue that make politicians swoon, and the public yawn" (apologies that the wording will not be perfect, but that is effectively the quote). This is so true, the majority of voters don't really care about Europe, and if they did what on earth do they think voting UKIP is going to do in the LOCAL elections?

The fact is UKIP really has only really gained any prominence in the UK in the last few years - you will have to give it 10 years before you can really say whether the party fades or not. I imagine they will flop in the General Election (after all, no one cares about Europe), and if the economy in two general elections time is growing well again, inflation is at whatever the target is in 10 years, people will not vote UKIP.

----

I will take a read of that article tomorrow (or when I have a bit more time) - should probably be revising not engaging in a political discussion, although one could argue that it is sort of revision for Politics? :L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

At which point the party turns into the party it replaced.

---

Not at all, of course the two parties had to come to some sort of a truce.. but the man leading the renamed Reform Party (and is the Prime Minister of Canada) is Stephen Harper - somebody who was a RefoRm candidate back in the late 1980s/early 1990s. Aternatively it could go like the One Nation Party of Australia - a UKIPesque party that failed to achieve power but basically de facto won by having John Howard adopt its policies.

Either way I think its pretty much certain that Nigel Farage is going to change British politics forever.

UKIP may fall flat and fail of course, as the SDP did. But it might succeed as the Labour Party did and as the Reform Party did. It's better than simply sitting back and saying "well thats it chaps, we're stuck with three identical main parties forever".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

The original project was for economic reasons (ECSC and EEC). Realistically a Federal Europe is so far off it is untrue. Europe lacks any real culture, doesn't have a completely single currency, and even down to things like businesses - more mobile operators than I can count (USA, China, India etc - all have the main operators that work everywhere).

---

It wasn't orginally for economic purposes, read up on Jean Monnet or alternatively watch this.

As for the rest, I agree entirely - thats why I want this country to divorce itself from the European project.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

The UK already has stricter border controls than the rest of the EU (for example, you can get into Austria from Germany with no problem at all - just step across some mountains!) I don't see how UKIP supporters being more keen to vote shows attractiveness - it could just be that they are far more passionate about getting their point across about their hatred if the main parties (something which will go pretty quickly). The key point remains that voters really are not that bothered about Europe (7% etc etc). I think the Daily Express once branded the issue perfectly; "Europe is an issue that make politicians swoon, and the public yawn" (apologies that the wording will not be perfect, but that is effectively the quote). This is so true, the majority of voters don't really care about Europe, and if they did what on earth do they think voting UKIP is going to do in the LOCAL elections?

---

Look, if you're going to continue to deny its success and simply dismiss it as a protest vote, a passing fad or insult it then thats fine - infact that merely helps the UKIP cause that the Tory Party is so laid back in its approach.

Read the comments on the newspaper boards, on Tory websites, the Conservative associations around the country collapsing, look at the polling since the 1980s - the main parties are in serious trouble and especially the Conservative Party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

The fact is UKIP really has only really gained any prominence in the UK in the last few years - you will have to give it 10 years before you can really say whether the party fades or not. I imagine they will flop in the General Election (after all, no one cares about Europe), and if the economy in two general elections time is growing well again, inflation is at whatever the target is in 10 years, people will not vote UKIP.

---

We shall see. I think the article I linked to may very well change your mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

I will take a read of that article tomorrow (or when I have a bit more time) - should probably be revising not engaging in a political discussion, although one could argue that it is sort of revision for Politics? :L

---

Most delighted to hear what you think when you've read it, and indeed - i'm supposed to be pre-drinking atm so cheerio for now. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The stated aim and destination of the European project is a united or federal Europe. Therefore, those who suppport the EU ought to come out with what the stated aim of the project is - rather than hiding behind the lie that we're in the EU to co-operate better with our European neighbours or for economic reasons. We are in the EU, as the FCO and Edward Heath stated - to become a part of a new country called Europe.

Now what I oppose is that a) we're not being told the truth (above) concerning the EU & b) we're not being given the chance to say whether or not we agreed to be a part of this project to create a new nation.



If you look at polling for UKIP voters (again, a YouGov poll), they are more concerned about immigration and the economy - agreed, and thats my point. That the issue of the EU is key to regaining control of our borders or slashing regulation to get business moving, and thats why UKIP is evolving into a political party thats more than just about the EU.

As for the protest vote, thats partly true. But there's a hell of a lot worth protesting about. I'd also mention as a counter argument that polls show UKIP voters are more likely to go and vote than the other three main parties - suggesting there's something attractive about UKIP policy.

On a final note concerning "its just a protest vote that will fade" - every single time UKIP breaks records that charge is thrown at them, and every single time it proves to be false, ie the Euro elections in 1999, 2004 and 2009.



Indeed, but I am more favourable towards it now. Although a FPTP system can initially protect the main parties, eventually it can help seal the fate if a main party. The same scenario was played out in Canada in the 1990s where a UKIPesque party known as the Reform Party was set up and eventually replaced the Progressive Conservative Party - today the Reform Party is the Government of Canada.

You might find this interesting reading as a Conservative Party supporter - http://conservativecompanion.co.uk/2...-party-part-1/

---

On the issue of the FPTP system, whilst I'm not really against it, there is a massive problem when the either of the big two use advertisements like these:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...32099456_n.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbgtz

On the issue of the FPTP system, whilst I'm not really against it, there is a massive problem when the either of the big two use advertisements like these:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...32099456_n.png

---

I think that that advertisement is just as much a dig at the Lib Dems, and probably an even bigger dig at UKIP.

They are merely trying to suggest that the only serious parties that will win are Conservatives and Labour - and despite UKIP and Lib Dems presence, I don't think it would change the situation TOO much whatever voting system was used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marketing

I think that that advertisement is just as much a dig at the Lib Dems, and probably an even bigger dig at UKIP.

They are merely trying to suggest that the only serious parties that will win are Conservatives and Labour - and despite UKIP and Lib Dems presence, I don't think it would change the situation TOO much whatever voting system was used.

---

I think it would change if we did have the AV system, which I was in favour for. Personally I think with FPTP, you pretty much do have to pick between Con and Lab in most cases (unless you're in one of the places that is good for other parties :P). Of course, people are voting for things like UKIP as a protest vote, but it seems that there's so many protest votes that it's actually becoming an option to go against Con and Lab.

With the last general election, whilst I was 17 and couldn't vote, I decided I wanted to vote for the Lib Dems, but because I knew the Lib Dems wouldn't secure enough votes, I decided I would probably vote Labour because it was possible to get a non-Conservative government, which I would have liked. (In case you're interested, the Conservatives won anyway :P)

Anyway, going off at a tangent on voting systems. I voted tonight, but expect my party to come 4th out of 4th :P My girlfriend also voted and turns out she's a secret UKIP supporter :P