Labour heartlands under attack as Ukip launches it's biggest ever campaign in north

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/nor...during-7026149

UKIP leader Nigel Farage warns Labour: We are coming after you

Nigel Farage speaking to a packed out audience of 1,200 people in the Gateshead Sage.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage told party members and potential voters that he is deliberately targeting Labour voters in the North East.

Nigel Farage last night told a packed out North East meeting of 1,200 that he is “here for Labour votes”.

The UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage told party members and potential voters at the Sage in Gateshead that UKIP had deliberately set out on a policy to target voters across the North.

The party, he said, was no longer interested in just taking votes off the Conservatives and was seeking to replace Labour in the minds of voters across cities such as Newcastle, Sheffield and Manchester.

Already, polling has suggested the party will come second in the upcoming European elections in the North and elsewhere.

Mr Farage said those polls showed his party was about to cause “an earthquake in British politics”.

He said: “We are about 4% behind Labour in the North East, we are likely to get one of the three MEP seats in this region, and if we do even better, if those polls increase just a little, we would take two of the three seats. Beating Labour in its real heartland here would certainly be a mini-earthquake.”

Farage unveiled the posters in Sheffield.

Setting out a pitch for votes at this May’s elections, Mr Farage said: “It is no coincidence that we launched in Sheffield and are here in the North East today, we are going for the big northern cities, we are going for the Labour heartlands.

“We are here to say that Labour used to stand up for the people in this region, but they have turned their backs on you in favour of the European project. Well, UKIP will stand up for you now.

“If we get this right, we will top the polls nationally, we will beat Labour in its heartland and we will force Labour and the Conservatives to promise a referendum on the European Union.”

He later added: “The days of mockery for UKIP are over. We are a force now and people have to start listening to us.”

One of the posters that is being advertised by Ukip in key Labour heartlands, the northern cities along with the Midlands.

Last night Gateshead MP Ian Mearns urged voters not to believe the UKIP hype.

He said: “Apart from opposition to the EU UKIP are clearly and simply a party wedded to opposition to workers’ rights and protective legislation.

“They have nothing to offer working-class voters but a deterioration of their rights at work and a return to individuals being expendable.” Many Labour and Liberal Democrat figures have criticised UKIP’s calls for a referendum on EU membership, saying leaving Europe would put jobs at Nissan in Sunderland and elsewhere at risk.

Addressing that issue, Mr Farage told the audience: “Nissan will still sell cars to Europe because we will still buy BMWs and other cars; the German car market will insist on a trade deal. When Cleggers and others say a million jobs are at risk they are wrong. It is probably just their jobs that are at risk.

“It is time we governed ourselves and came up with our own trade agreements.”

More than 1,200 people turned up for the public meting, which saw far-left and far-right protesters outside and a heavy security presence around the concert hall.

A show of hands at the end of Mr Farage’s speech showed around half of those at the event were not party members.

North East Euro election candidate Jonathan Arnott joined Mr Farage on stage and said UKIP was second in the polls across the North because Labour was not doing enough for it.

He added: “I think people know now we are the main challenger to Labour in the North East. It is no longer just about trying for Conservative votes.

“UKIP offers voters here a choice. It knows they are concerned about crime, pay and immigration. We stand up for those concerns.”

Excellent news, i've been waiting for this for a while considering I live in one of the strongest Labour areas in the entire country (it's the strongest or 2nd strongest Labour seat) as have many others. For many years now, Labour have controlled northern cities with an iron grip since the 1950s and before: with the Tories not being able to put up any opposition being as useless as they are. But in recent years, Labour are in right trouble considering they were the ones who opened the borders to cheap labour: something that has affected the working class and lower middle class more than anything else.

Even Labour themselves admit it now -

A senior member of the party admitted that Labour no longer represented the people who set it up.

Lord Glasman, said: "The Labour party became very progressive. It was committed to very abstract general ends - fairness, rights, justice - and it in many ways viewed working- class voters as an obstacle to progress. And also their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters, as in the Gillian Duffy case, were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class."

And now it's payback time for the Labour Party which has spat on it's core vote for years now.

On a side note, amazed at the 1,200 figure for a Farage public meeting. That's verging on the Ron Paul 2008/2012 sort of figures. So far I have seen two of the posters up in a very short distance from my old school to my house.

Thoughts? Do you think Labour are vunerable?

[Inseriousity.]

Well I hate how 'safe seat' is a norm in our political vocabulary. democracy at its best should be about offering a real choice with a real competition. I hate that Labour have got a monopoly of seats in the north east and it gives them a free pass to be lazy. As for whether they're vulnerable, I would say so, there's a Tory seat up here in Stockton South (I reckon he'll lose it) so it is possible and the majority swing in my seat is only tiny - it's on the list of marginals for what must be the first time in ages - so I'm looking forward to the next general election, I might actually see some campaigning for once lol rather than here's a leaflet.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well I hate how 'safe seat' is a norm in our political vocabulary. democracy at its best should be about offering a real choice with a real competition. I hate that Labour have got a monopoly of seats in the north east and it gives them a free pass to be lazy. As for whether they're vulnerable, I would say so, there's a Tory seat up here in Stockton South (I reckon he'll lose it) so it is possible and the majority swing in my seat is only tiny - it's on the list of marginals for what must be the first time in ages - so I'm looking forward to the next general election, I might actually see some campaigning for once lol rather than here's a leaflet.

Agreed, it's always been said that the only way politicians and political parties ever learn is by losing elections or seats. There's been an outcry among Conservative and Labour members in recent years as the central party HQ now often parachutes people in to safe seats totally ignoring the local party organisation and placing somebody in what is essentially a job for life. I know Labour has been worst for it in recent months as we now have a family sort of system with one of the Kinnock sons waiting in the wings alongside Jack Straw's son and the son of Tony Blair.

I've always said that i'd like to see the names of the political parties removed from the ballot slip with only names of candidates on the forms.

[peteyt]

A bit of topic but I've never voted before but debating voting for UKIP and wondering what people think. I don't know a lot about Farrage atm but he seems to have more balls than most politicians and wants to bring some of britain back - getting us out of the EU for example. Need to really look into UKIP a lot more - People claim they are racist but I've not seen any examples myself

[Joshirin]

I want to vote UKIP, as Conservatives don't give a ****, and Labour are terrible, but Farage and some members of UKIP aren't that professional tbh

[The Don]

A bit of topic but I've never voted before but debating voting for UKIP and wondering what people think. I don't know a lot about Farrage atm but he seems to have more balls than most politicians and wants to bring some of britain back - getting us out of the EU for example. Need to really look into UKIP a lot more - People claim they are racist but I've not seen any examples myself

The debate about the EU is a lot closer than Farrage or any UKIP Supporter will have you believe. I suggest you research further into the EU from multiple sources to get a better idea. As for UKIP being racist? I wouldn't call the party racist, however they definitely do attract racists due to their xenophobic policies. Also, having 'balls' is completely irrelevant and you shouldn't base your choice on that, he may be a better public speaker than the other party leaders, and has stronger rhetoric, but you should vote based on the policies of the party and not how charismatic the leader is. Contrary to what Dan will shove down your throat, or anyone for that matter as naturally people are bias, you should always look for the sources of statistics and numbers which people use, as they are frequently misleading to make the EU/Immigration appear worse than it actually is.

[lemons]

LABOUR ARE GOING TO WIN THE NEXT ELECTION I HAVE VISIONS

IT'S GOING TO BE A DISASTER!

[-:Undertaker:-]

The debate about the EU is a lot closer than Farrage or any UKIP Supporter will have you believe. I suggest you research further into the EU from multiple sources to get a better idea. As for UKIP being racist? I wouldn't call the party racist, however they definitely do attract racists due to their xenophobic policies. Also, having 'balls' is completely irrelevant and you shouldn't base your choice on that, he may be a better public speaker than the other party leaders, and has stronger rhetoric, but you should vote based on the policies of the party and not how charismatic the leader is. Contrary to what Dan will shove down your throat, or anyone for that matter as naturally people are bias, you should always look for the sources of statistics and numbers which people use, as they are frequently misleading to make the EU/Immigration appear worse than it actually is.

A bit of topic but I've never voted before but debating voting for UKIP and wondering what people think. I don't know a lot about Farrage atm but he seems to have more balls than most politicians and wants to bring some of britain back - getting us out of the EU for example. Need to really look into UKIP a lot more - People claim they are racist but I've not seen any examples myself

When it comes to the European Union for example, people like Don (as above) will claim that there is somehow a conspiracy by Ukip and others and that IF ONLY the stupid British people educated themselves about the 'reality' of the EU, they'd learn to love it. But you have to ask yourself though, why is it that after 40 years of membership we've never been given a vote by these people? If they are so sure of their arguments on EU membership and how great the EU apparently is, then they'd hold a referendum and come in the open and debate it but they never ever ever do. All they do is keep promising referendums and they keep promising that no more powers will go to the EU.... but that's exactly what happens year by year by year.

And whenever referendums have been held, the EU/politicians have made the people vote twice to get the 'correct' answer/ignored them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_...ferendum,_2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_r...n_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_r...n_Constitution

The only time one of them has tried to openly debate it was Nick Clegg in his debate against Farage, and he was destroyed.

On the racist point as well as the xenophobic point (which Don says), again - this is the usualy scare tactic regarding the immigration debate. Have you noticed that over the past decade or so, whenever somebody dared raise concerns over hundreds of thousands of very poor people coming into this country they were dismissed as bigots, racists, xenophobes and a whole manner of slurs? Well again, that's because they can't and do not want to debate the issue. They've thought for a long time now that they can get away with it by shouting racist at anybody who dares question mass immigration. Just read the quote I provided above where Lord Glasman also criticises his own party on this very issue.

If you want the Ukip policy on immigration, just watch the short clip I posted above where Ukip's Amjad Bashir says clearly: we want an immigration policy that is based on quality and quantity - similar to Australia and New Zealand. And that's another reason why we need to leave the EU - a criminal from anywhere in Europe for example has as much right to walk into the United Kingdom as you do and there's absolutely nothing the British Government can do about it... and that is fundementally anti-democratic. Our elected government should be in control of our borders.

Indeed, in many ways the immigration policy at the moment is ridiculous - we have no control over who comes in from Europe (so we could have many unskilled workers who we do not need coming in) where as instead of those, we could be taking in Indian or Asian doctors/scientists.

I think it's time to get our country back and break this cosy political consensus between the three establishment parties. And you know, even if your unsure about the EU or even Ukip as a whole for example: it's worth voting them to force the other parties into giving us a say on the EU.

[The Don]

When it comes to the European Union for example, people like Don (as above) will claim that there is somehow a conspiracy by Ukip and others and that IF ONLY the stupid British people educated themselves about the 'reality' of the EU, they'd learn to love it.

This doesn't even make sense, care to rephrase it? @peteyt; Take note of how Dan's cleverly warped me saying to research things yourself into calling all British people stupid, or that there's some sort of conspiracy (trying to imply anyone pro-eu is crazy).

But you have to ask yourself though, why is it that after 40 years of membership we've never been given a vote by these people? If they are so sure of their arguments on EU membership and how great the EU apparently is, then they'd hold a referendum and come in the open and debate it but they never ever ever do.

We don't have referendums on every single thing, that's not how our parliamentary system works and you very well know that. If people want a referendum on the EU, they'll vote for the party promising that (ukip) it's as simple as that, we don't need referendums on every single thing, I don't see you calling for a referendum on our nato membership?

And whenever referendums have been held, the EU/politicians have made the people vote twice to get the 'correct' answer/ignored them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_...ferendum,_2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_r...n_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_r...n_Constitution

These are all about the European Constitution, which was never put through. It was changed and instead the Lisbon Treaty was put through which took into account the concerns of those previous nations. So the above is completely false and misleading.

The only time one of them has tried to openly debate it was Nick Clegg in his debate against Farage, and he was destroyed.

That's not what you said in the discussion thread, you said it was pretty close if I recall correctly. Even so, nobody is doubting the fact that Farrage is a good public speaker, and Farrage didn't win on facts, he won on rhetoric.

On the racist point as well as the xenophobic point (which Don says), again - this is the usualy scare tactic regarding the immigration debate. Have you noticed that over the past decade or so, whenever somebody dared raise concerns over hundreds of thousands of very poor people coming into this country they were dismissed as bigots, racists, xenophobes and a whole manner of slurs? Well again, that's because they can't and do not want to debate the issue. They've thought for a long time now that they can get away with it by shouting racist at anybody who dares question mass immigration. Just read the quote I provided above where Lord Glasman also criticises his own party on this very issue.

Again, Dan's only showing half the argument. About 1.8 million brits live in other parts of Europe with about 2.3 million eu born citizens living in the UK. That's not a huge surplus and certainly isn't the huge issue Dan wants it to be.

If you want the Ukip policy on immigration, just watch the short clip I posted above where Ukip's Amjad Bashir says clearly: we want an immigration policy that is based on quality and quantity - similar to Australia and New Zealand. And that's another reason why we need to leave the EU - a criminal from anywhere in Europe for example has as much right to walk into the United Kingdom as you do and there's absolutely nothing the British Government can do about it... and that is fundementally anti-democratic. Our elected government should be in control of our borders.

Ooh, a criminal can work in our country. Standard scaremongering. Our elected government was the ones that joined the EU and opened borders to its member states, what's anti-democratic about that?

Indeed, in many ways the immigration policy at the moment is ridiculous - we have no control over who comes in from Europe (so we could have many unskilled workers who we do not need coming in) where as instead of those, we could be taking in Indian or Asian doctors/scientists.

I think it's time to get our country back and break this cosy political consensus between the three establishment parties. And you know, even if your unsure about the EU or even Ukip as a whole for example: it's worth voting them to force the other parties into giving us a say on the EU.

We still can take in Indian or Asian Doctors/Scientists, why are you purposely pretending its one or the other?

[-:Undertaker:-]

This doesn't even make sense, care to rephrase it? @peteyt; Take note of how Dan's cleverly warped me saying to research things yourself into calling all British people stupid, or that there's some sort of conspiracy (trying to imply anyone pro-eu is crazy).

Because I have read articles in pro-EU publications, newspapers and I am sure even you said this once - that the Great British public simply aren't 'educated' enough on the benefits of the European Union and that's why we can't have a referendum.

We don't have referendums on every single thing, that's not how our parliamentary system works and you very well know that. If people want a referendum on the EU, they'll vote for the party promising that (ukip) it's as simple as that, we don't need referendums on every single thing, I don't see you calling for a referendum on our nato membership?

That's true. But it's also true that in our parliamentary system, whenever there's been a great constitutional change - devolution, EEC membership, Northern Irish/Scottish independence or the voting system we've had a referendum on the subject. It's also been used as a method to help the main two political parties get over their divides on the EU issue, hence why Harold Wilson held one in the 1970s and why there was intense pressure on John Major to hold one on the Maastricht Treaty. So for you to tell me that referendums aren't the done thing in this country simply isn't true anymore - whether you agree with referenda or not.

I'd withdraw from NATO too.

These are all about the European Constitution, which was never put through. It was changed and instead the Lisbon Treaty was put through which took into account the concerns of those previous nations. So the above is completely false and misleading.

TOTAL RUBBISH. And don't take my word for it!

"As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum." — Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Taoiseach

"There’s nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed." — Astrid Thors, Finnish Europe Minister, TV-Nytt, 23rd June 2007

"They haven't changed the substance - 90 per cent of it is still there." — Bertie Ahern, Irish Prime Minister, Irish Independent, 24th June 2007

"In terms of content, the proposals remain largely unchanged, they are simply presented in a different way... The reason is that the new text could not look too much like the constitutional treaty." — Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, addressing the Constitutional Affairs Committee in the European Parliament, 17th July 2007

"The good thing is that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left." — Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark, in Jyllands-Posten, 25th June 2007

"A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK." — Nicolas Sarkozy, French President, The Daily Telegraph, 14th November 2007

"If we needed a referendum we would have one. But I think most people recognise that there is not a fundamental change taking place as a result of this amended treaty." — Gordon Brown, The UK Prime Minister, interviewed by the BBC, 24th September 2007

"A great part of the content of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties." — José Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister, El Pais, 23rd June 2007

"Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same." — Václav Klaus, Czech President, , in Hosposarske Noviny, 13th June 2007

"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it." — Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the Constitution, speech to the London School of Economics, 20th February 2007

"The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact." — Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, speech to the European Parliament, 27th June 2007

"For Austria it was important to keep the essence, to keep the institutional side of it intact, and also to keep the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is the essence, and we were able to safeguard that." — Ursula Plassnik, Autrian Foreign Minister, BBC 10 o'clock news, 7th September 2007

You see why I seethe with anger over this issue? I am so SICK of the lies and the lies which you foolishly repeat like a parrot.

The Lisbon Treaty was the EU Constitution just repackaged. You ought to retract your false claim that it was not.

That's not what you said in the discussion thread, you said it was pretty close if I recall correctly. Even so, nobody is doubting the fact that Farrage is a good public speaker, and Farrage didn't win on facts, he won on rhetoric.

I said the first debate was pretty close to my mind, and the second Farage won by a landslide.

In terms of the public polling on both debates, Farage won by a landslide on both.

Again, Dan's only showing half the argument. About 1.8 million brits live in other parts of Europe with about 2.3 million eu born citizens living in the UK. That's not a huge surplus and certainly isn't the huge issue Dan wants it to be.

That simply adds to my argument. We're constantly told that it's an equal balance and that just as many Britons go over to Europe as Europeans come here. But that's a false argument considering how Britain's population is 60m and the EU's combined population is 400m+. That'd be like saying that if 8m Chinese came to live in the UK and 8m Britons went to live in China, that that's somehow a fair trade-off when if you take it into proportion it isn't. And that's not to mention the fact that many of those who have gone to Europe have been wealthy retired Britons, not young poor people as we have had here.

Besides, why would leaving the EU stop this movement of people? It wouldn't. Many Britons go off to live in America, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and all around the world. There's nothing to prevent an intergovernmental solution to this.

Ooh, a criminal can work in our country. Standard scaremongering.

That's not scaremongering, that's a fact. Just look at Romanian crime figures in London for fraud.

Our country should have the power to keep those with criminal records out of the UK. Period, end of story.

Our elected government was the ones that joined the EU and opened borders to its member states, what's anti-democratic about that?

Because our elected government lied to our faces about it, that's whats wrong about it.

We still can take in Indian or Asian Doctors/Scientists, why are you purposely pretending its one or the other?

Because there's such a thing as town planning and infrastructure planning: school places, strain on hospitals, doctors waiting lists, the price of houses, the protection of our greenbelt sites, traffic, jobs......... you cannot have unlimited numbers coming in.

It's just common sense.