Re: The rise of UKIP : Mon May 06, 2013 7:41 am  

There's always something a little horny about batshit crazy women

Re: The rise of UKIP : Mon May 06, 2013 10:22 am  

Apparently, Farage is willing to join with the Tory party for the next election so long as they dump Cameron and install Boris as leader

If true, he may as well join the Monster Raving Loony Party instead.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Mon May 06, 2013 10:50 am  

rover49 wrote:

... If true, he may as well join the Monster Raving Loony Party instead.

It would finish that party's credibility.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Mon May 06, 2013 11:09 pm  

rover49 wrote:

Apparently, Farage is willing to join with the Tory party for the next election so long as they dump Cameron and install Boris as leader

If true, he may as well join the Monster Raving Loony Party instead.

Good electoral tactics from Farage.

At the moment, UKIP are a real problem for the Tories. In the absence of some form of alliance, UKIP will deliver a Labour majority at the next election by leaching the Tory vote. A genuine electoral pact where the Tories agree to not field a candidate in strong UKIP areas could deliver a handful of seats for UKIP and UKIP standing down from challenging in Tory marginals will give the Tory MPs chance to stay in post. This could end up in a Tory-UKIP coalition.

However whilst Farage's tactics sound superficially like a great way to unite the right and block Labour out, they will split the Tories apart. The areas where UKIP are most likely to win are not going to be in Labour or Lib Dem areas, they will be Tory areas - how many sitting Tory MPs are going to willingly stand by and hand their seat to UKIP? Their only option will be to defect.

Also by stating the terms "this offer is only on the table if you ditch Cameron and install a leader right wing enough to be acceptable to us", Farage is trying to flush out a leadership challenge. Cameron is now going to have his hands full keeping control in his own party because the right wingers are going to be more emboldened now, I wouldn't be surprised if the next two years he is reduced to the state John Major was in, being constantly 'briefed' against by his own side with the papers cultivating constant speculation about a challenge.

UKIP divide opinions amongst Tory voters and they also will amongst Tory MPs - there will be some who would be quite happy to jump ship if they thought they would win a seat, as UKIP represent views they also hold but feel they can't share too loudly in the current Conservative party. But there will be a lot of other Tory MPs who would be horrified at the idea of having anything to do with UKIP and might end up leaving and forming another party or trying to stand as independents.

Farage has the potential to do to the Tory party in the 2010s what Roy Jenkins and his mates did to Labour in the 1980s.

[DaveO]

Re: The rise of UKIP : Mon May 06, 2013 11:40 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

Good electoral tactics from Farage.

At the moment, UKIP are a real problem for the Tories. In the absence of some form of alliance, UKIP will deliver a Labour majority at the next election by leaching the Tory vote. A genuine electoral pact where the Tories agree to not field a candidate in strong UKIP areas could deliver a handful of seats for UKIP and UKIP standing down from challenging in Tory marginals will give the Tory MPs chance to stay in post. This could end up in a Tory-UKIP coalition.

However whilst Farage's tactics sound superficially like a great way to unite the right and block Labour out, they will split the Tories apart. The areas where UKIP are most likely to win are not going to be in Labour or Lib Dem areas, they will be Tory areas - how many sitting Tory MPs are going to willingly stand by and hand their seat to UKIP? Their only option will be to defect.

What is missing from the above on the negatives of such a pact is it would represent a clear shift to the right. To win general elections as Blair realised you have to attract the centre. Any such pact would risk alienating the very voters who tend to decide elections.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue May 07, 2013 5:40 am  

And in a further rather obvious response to UKIP, Lord Lawson, writing in Murdoch's Times today, says the case for exit from the EU is clear.

Mind, I love the bit where he accuses businesses of being lazy and prepared to sit on their laurels, trading with the EU, when they should be out there, trading with China. "Globalisation" is the game, apparently.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue May 07, 2013 8:32 am  

sally cinnamon wrote:

Good electoral tactics from Farage.

At the moment, UKIP are a real problem for the Tories. In the absence of some form of alliance, UKIP will deliver a Labour majority at the next election by leaching the Tory vote. A genuine electoral pact where the Tories agree to not field a candidate in strong UKIP areas could deliver a handful of seats for UKIP and UKIP standing down from challenging in Tory marginals will give the Tory MPs chance to stay in post. This could end up in a Tory-UKIP coalition.

However whilst Farage's tactics sound superficially like a great way to unite the right and block Labour out, they will split the Tories apart. The areas where UKIP are most likely to win are not going to be in Labour or Lib Dem areas, they will be Tory areas - how many sitting Tory MPs are going to willingly stand by and hand their seat to UKIP? Their only option will be to defect.

Also by stating the terms "this offer is only on the table if you ditch Cameron and install a leader right wing enough to be acceptable to us", Farage is trying to flush out a leadership challenge. Cameron is now going to have his hands full keeping control in his own party because the right wingers are going to be more emboldened now, I wouldn't be surprised if the next two years he is reduced to the state John Major was in, being constantly 'briefed' against by his own side with the papers cultivating constant speculation about a challenge.

UKIP divide opinions amongst Tory voters and they also will amongst Tory MPs - there will be some who would be quite happy to jump ship if they thought they would win a seat, as UKIP represent views they also hold but feel they can't share too loudly in the current Conservative party. But there will be a lot of other Tory MPs who would be horrified at the idea of having anything to do with UKIP and might end up leaving and forming another party or trying to stand as independents.

Farage has the potential to do to the Tory party in the 2010s what Roy Jenkins and his mates did to Labour in the 1980s.

Their support is not confined to Tory heartlands, I am currently working a lot in the North East and Merseyside, predominently in areas of high unemployment and there are UKIP posters in a lot of windows in Labour territory and the main issue is also the one that the Tory faithfull are afraid of, immigration. Like it or not, it's an issue to many working class people as they see (rightly or wrongly) there jobs being swallowed up by immigrants.

I stayed in a Days Inn off the A1 a while back and the manager told me that it was 90% full of long term contractors from Eastern Europe who had been employed directly by an agency back home to work on a large construction project up the road. These are the things that worry the ordinary men and women the most and to many of them, UKIP have the answer.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue May 07, 2013 8:49 am  

He's not the BNP and forced repatriation, those workers would still be here working (rightly).

Some people have it in their head he's racist and hates foreigners?
I'm fed up to the back teeth of being told i'm a closest racist for supporting them too by Mr Clarke.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue May 07, 2013 8:59 am  

Dally wrote:

You will have noted that Labour's percentage of the vote was down more than even the Tories compared with last time.

And lost how many seats to UKIP?
You seem to failed to notice that my question was actually to please explain how a shift to the right by the tories would spell trouble for Labour.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue May 07, 2013 9:13 am  

Ian P wrote:

A couple of points

The vast majority of the British population are descended from immigrants, we are a mix of every nation we have ever come into contact with. From the Romans, Saxon, Jutes , Vikings, Angles, Normans, French, Dutch , Hugenots, Indians, Africans etc etc. Thats why we have so much in common with the USA, we are mongrel nations and we need the diversity it brings to enhance our future. When they say they want to stop immigration they actually mean they want to select who comes here based on whatever white right wing half wits they deem we need to bring in.

UKIP won seats against the two Tory parties in the major Tory parties heartland, that will be more of a worry to them then it will Labour. Any splitting of the right wing will help Labour in every area and I dare say we will see some reaction to this ahead of the next Gen Election.

I am also a federal European, yes I do believe a United States of Europe is a good thing long term and one we should all aim for. The armed forces of Europe are moving closer togther and share resources as the world changes, we move into the new world or we stagnate and become an impoverished island attached to a Federal Europe.

or we could revert back to the Kingdom of Northumberland

Agreed with every word of that, except the kingdom bit.
We could, of course, revert to Northumbria (or similar) as well as being part of a federal Europe, thereby gaining the best of both worlds, protection by belonging to an entity that is larger and more powerful on the global stage coupled with the local decision-making (subsidiarity) that federality allows.
UKIP, of course, would have us believe that we can be a nice little prosperous nation off the coast if we just stop putting money into the EU but omits to mention the fact that we'd be ruled economically by EU rules anyway, either that or lose most of our trade.

The EU is going through a hard time, now is the time to re-adjust it, get the format and structure sorted (including the currency and the ECB) and start deepening it rather than widening it to more countries (which can maybe continue later).

Despite the vast sums we pay into Westminster (which many are saying doesn't represent them), I don't hear Farage saying we should pull out of London.