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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

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.

[AgnesIO]

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).

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

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.

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/

[Chippiewill]

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.

[AgnesIO]

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

[dbgtz]

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:

[AgnesIO]

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:

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.

[Kardan]

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 ). 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 )

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