Ukip. All discussion here please.

[eastbank]

There you go again with silly arguments saying peoples views are extremist and akin to the Naizis! As said... you simple make them more annoyed and push them further to the right if anything. Completely self-defeating.

 

Answer me this please.

 

In what way is it extremist for people to want the EU to not dicitate non-trade laws? Laws like human rights that are stopping us deporting foreign criminals because of their right to a family life. Is there really a risk we will decend into facism if we set our own laws as we have done throughout most of history?

 

And in what way is it extreme for people to want selective immigration at nation level? It is apparent OK to have it at EU level. It is OK for non-EU nations to do it. Why is it extreme if Britons ask for it?

 

 

 

Yep, they are the same old fail tacic I keep talking about. Tell people their concerns are uninformed, xenophobic and imply they are one goose-step away from nazidom. You have to dismiss their concerns because to acknowledge them inevitably means a compromise is required... and people like you want it all your own way.

 

Unfortunately for you and others, the recent UKIP results mean opinions can no longer be ignored by the main parties (even the EU is waking up to the risk) if they want to contend for power. They know it and anyone with any political acuman and objectivity knows it. The compromises are coming providing people hold their nerve and keep their vote in the UKIP protest camp until the compromises come.

 

it seems that UKIP are taking votes off the cons, labour and libs....so does that mean that all them voters are closet nazis......

[Zamo]

That's not the same measurement as "will never vote for". UKIP keep polling over 60% of the UK will never vote for UKIP. The main parties have levels around 30% - 40%.

 

Where are the polls to tell us how many people will never vote for the other parties? Don't think they exist because the silly question has been dreamed up by some left-wing numpty to try and mask their double standards. They are happy enough for their party to govern with a manadate from only a third of the population but it is an outrage if another party does.

 

The fact also remains that the majority of people want EU reform and tighter immigration controls. Whilst they might not feel strongly enough about those issues to vote UKIP, they will none-the-less be happy enough if the current UKIP support forces change.

 

People who vote for something without questioning the contradictory nature of UKIP's representatives and policies, and simply vote for them based on a summary of their populist policies are indeed being sucked in. You might take that as being dumb, but it's certainly the actions of the uninformed.

 

Aghh yes, the 'populist' argument... another double standard. When popular opinion supports policies you agree with then it is labelled as a mandate from the people. When you don't agree with the policy then it is populist!

 

It's all about messages with you lot isn't it, rather than action, or considering what's best for the country. But then again, UKIP have zero chance of winning a general election, so there's no chance of action.

 

I'm pretty sure the UKIP "message" will all be forgotten come next april when the parties are all out there arguing about the health service, education, the economy and things that affect everyone in their day-to-day lives.

 

It will be forgotten if the main parties have committed to taking action on immigration and EU membership. Fingers crossed.

 

Oh come on, you so are. The "vote for UKIP because other people are being nasty to them" line keeps being trotted out - it's simply an appeal to the British "tradition" of supporting the underdog.

 

If you think you know better than UKIP supporters what makes them vote UKIP and what will make them stop voting UKIP then what can I say? I believe you answer your own question with the following statement...

 

Then they're the dumbest of them all. I believe it's a tactic known as cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

It is a common human failing. It is no different to me telling you that your tactic of attacking UKIP, instead of addressing the issues making people vote for them, just wins them more support. You do it because you can't help yourself, you are too angry. You too are cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

In other words, stop being nasty to UKIP

 

No quite. In other words carry on being nasty to UKIP but also least address the issues (as oppose to dismissing them) if you want people to stop voting UKIP. Or Carry on being nasty to UKIP, ignore/dismiss the issues and see the support for UKIP stay strong or get strong.

 

I don't cry either way because they are both paths that lead to the policies I want. One is shorter than the other but I can wait. All is good.

[chalga]

Was watching one of the cop programmes on TV a few months ago and Boston in Lincolnshire, not a million miles from Newark have had an explosion in crime with the Eastern European scroungers . muggings, thefts, the old cash point scanner trick and more.

 

http://www.bostonstandard.co.uk/news/local/boston-mp-hails-fall-in-crime-figures-1-5345664

 

Boston and Skegness MP Mark Simmonds spoke out after figures from the Office for National Statistics last week showed a 15 per cent drop in crime in Lincolnshire.

 

---------- Post added 06-06-2014 at 08:34 ----------

 

Where are the polls to tell us how many people will never vote for the other parties? Don't think they exist because the silly question has been dreamed up by some left-wing numpty to try and mask their double standards. They are happy enough for their party to govern with a manadate from only a third of the population but it is an outrage if another party does.

 

 

Here they are:

 

5. Ukip are perhaps a bit to polarising to be a really successful protest party. When I spoke to voters, I found some who were very hostile to Ukip. There is a definite anti-Ukip vote. The polling bears this out. Figures in this poll (pdf) show that people are more likely to say they will definitely not vote Ukip (52%) than Conservative (49%) or Labour (38%). Only the Lib Dems are more unpopular (56%). But that was not true in their byelection-winning heyday. Then the Lib Dems won because partly because people did not strongly object to them.

 

 

Not only this,but Newark shows that people are prepared to switch their vote to another party if it means it will count more to keeping UKIP from winning,so UKIP have a double whammy against them there,the definitely will not vote UKIP.and the will vote for somebody else other than who they normally vote for to keep out UKIP.

Edited June 6, 2014 by chalga

[Zamo]

Here they are:

 

5. Ukip are perhaps a bit to polarising to be a really successful protest party. When I spoke to voters, I found some who were very hostile to Ukip. There is a definite anti-Ukip vote. The polling bears this out. Figures in this poll (pdf) show that people are more likely to say they will definitely not vote Ukip (52%) than Conservative (49%) or Labour (38%). Only the Lib Dems are more unpopular (56%). But that was not true in their byelection-winning heyday. Then the Lib Dems won because partly because people did not strongly object to them.

 

 

Not only this,but Newark shows that people are prepared to switch their vote to another party if it means it will count more to keeping UKIP from winning,so UKIP have a double whammy against them there,the definitely will not vote UKIP.and the will vote for somebody else other than who they normally vote for to keep out UKIP.

 

That is interesting... what is the source? There really isn't much of a difference.

 

I think too much is assumed in the second paragraph of your post (is that your assessment or have you cut and pasted from somewhere?). What we can say is some people will vote tactically to put in a second or third preference party ahead of a party they definitely don't want. I can see some Labour supporters voting Lib Dem or even Tory (and that may have happened in Newark) to keep UKIP out but would a Tory supporter vote Labour or Lib Dem to keep UKIP out? I think that is much less likely. In fact, I think it is more likely that Tory voters would vote tactically for UKIP to keep Labour out and that means Labour are at a real disadvantage.

 

I think the strategist in the Labour party will see this too. I don't give it too long before Labour open up the bidding war for the UKIP vote and I reckon it will start with an announcement of a tough(er) new immigration policy.

[RutlandFlyer]

Not only this,but Newark shows that people are prepared to switch their vote to another party if it means it will count more to keeping UKIP from winning,so UKIP have a double whammy against them there,the definitely will not vote UKIP.and the will vote for somebody else other than who they normally vote for to keep out UKIP.

 

I'm not sure I actually believe this - it sounds too much like a convenient piece of spin that works for both UKIP and Labour. UKIP can blame their lack of success on UKIP-haters switching to the Tories, while Labour can attribute their fall to supporters voting tactically. I'm not sure how much it actually would've happened. Labour supporters tactically voting Lib Dem I can believe, but voting Tory? They might be the lesser of two evils, but not by that much.

[Ballista]

That is interesting... what is the source? There really isn't much of a difference.

 

I think too much is assumed in the second paragraph of your post (is that your assessment or have you cut and pasted from somewhere?). What we can say is some people will vote tactically to put in a second or third preference party ahead of a party they definitely don't want. I can see some Labour supporters voting Lib Dem or even Tory (and that may have happened in Newark) to keep UKIP out but would a Tory supporter vote Labour or Lib Dem to keep UKIP out? I think that is much less likely. In fact, I think it is more likely that Tory voters would vote tactically for UKIP to keep Labour out and that means Labour are at a real disadvantage.

 

I think the strategist in the Labour party will see this too. I don't give it too long before Labour open up the bidding war for the UKIP vote and I reckon it will start with an announcement of a tough(er) new immigration policy.

 

Do you credit the Labour party with any credibility? As the party in power when the floodgates to immigration were opened how can they now say they will get tough on immigration and anyone take them seriously?

[chalga]

I'm not sure I actually believe this - it sounds too much like a convenient piece of spin that works for both UKIP and Labour. UKIP can blame their lack of success on UKIP-haters switching to the Tories, while Labour can attribute their fall to supporters voting tactically. I'm not sure how much it actually would've happened. Labour supporters tactically voting Lib Dem I can believe, but voting Tory? They might be the lesser of two evils, but not by that much.

 

http://politicalbetting.com/

 

It could also be evidence of tactical voting by Labour supporters to stop Roger Helmer and UKIP winning, according to this morning’s The Times, The Tories attempted to appeal to Labour and Lib Dem supporters last night and today, asking them to “lend your vote to the Conservatives” to keep out Ukip.

 

it's in the paragraph below the final survey poll for Newark.

 

---------- Post added 06-06-2014 at 09:52 ----------

 

That is interesting... what is the source? There really isn't much of a difference.

 

 

 

The pdf quoted is Lord Ashcroft polls if i'm not mistaken.

[RutlandFlyer]

I'd have to say that just because the Tories appealed to Labour and Lib Dem support, doesn't mean they actually got much of it. Also of note is that the turnout was down by some 13,000 voters from 2010. Not unusual in by-elections per se, but in one as loudly contested as this, only weeks after the Euro/Council elections? I suspect a good few 2010 Labour voters simply didn't bother voting, as the party didn't really try and fight this one.

[Bonzo77]

Was watching one of the cop programmes on TV a few months ago and Boston in Lincolnshire, not a million miles from Newark have had an explosion in crime with the Eastern European scroungers . muggings, thefts, the old cash point scanner trick and more.

 

Isn't there a Barnsley Forum for you to post in?? We don't want your kind round here!!

[chalga]

I'd have to say that just because the Tories appealed to Labour and Lib Dem support, doesn't mean they actually got much of it. Also of note is that the turnout was down by some 13,000 voters from 2010. Not unusual in by-elections per se, but in one as loudly contested as this, only weeks after the Euro/Council elections? I suspect a good few 2010 Labour voters simply didn't bother voting, as the party didn't really try and fight this one.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/06/tactical-voting-newark-by-election-analysis

 

 

"My lifelong Labour mum is voting Tory today to keep Ukip out of Newark," the author Matt Haig said on Twitter on Thursday. Haig's mum wasn't alone. Labour and Lib Dem campaigners in the constituency both claim to have picked up evidence that some of their supporters were going to vote Conservative to ensure Ukip lost, and some Tories said they were hearing the same story from people pledging support to them.

 

 

According to YouGov, 37% of people said they felt generally negative towards Ukip in 2009. That figure has now shot up to 53%.

 

 

http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/newark-protest-vote-protest-party/28453

 

Several Tories who worked on the party’s phone bank canvassing voters in Newark told me they came across the same phenomenon: voters who said they weren’t massive fans of the Conservatives but would vote Tory in the by-election to keep Ukip out.

It suggests that, for some voters at least, Ukip is reaching “pariah” status. Its success sends out a message about their community or their country that they’re not comfortable with.

Edited June 6, 2014 by chalga