Was the UKIP result a protest vote blip or will it translate into MPs at the general election?(64 Posts)
My mum reckons all the UKIP councillors were down to a lot of people voting for them as a protest not actually thinking UKIP councillors would get in. She reckons the people who voted for them won't vote UKIP at a general election.
I'm not so sure she's right and am worried now at the next general election more people will vote for them as they become seen as more of a mainstream party.
'Recent right wing Tory parties under Hague and Howard were electoral poison'
But this is where Hague, members of the chumocracy, Portillo and the progressives are wrong. They say that Hague tried to be anti-Europe and it was a disaster. What they all fail to understand is that UKIP is much more than just Europe and immigration, Farage told them that it was a mindset
The chumocracy doesn't believe that, they think it is just about Hague's anti-Europe failed policies. It isn't. The people have been anti-Europe for years and years, but that is not their main concern, which is why Hague lost. The journalist from the "New Statesman" was right - this is about "culture wars", this is about a "mindset", this is people fed up of an elite of all parties and a chumocracy that does not represent them and not listen to them. This is the revolt of the plebs against the patricians. This is not about Europe. And if the chumocracy fails to understand the mindset then mpre plebs will vote against them and for UKIP.
The Daily Mail has it right. They say this is because of the "modernisation" of the Tory party, the "detoxification" of the party by progressives within it who believed it was in fact the "nasty party".
As Cecil Parkinson said when interviewed about Thatcher's funeral, it was a mistake for people to call their own party the nasty party.
Thatcher's funeral reminded Tories of Thatcher and how far-removed from Thatcher the chumocracy is. They looked at Farage with his anti-windmill, anti-global warming, anti-Europe , anti-immigration, lower taxes, cutting of quangos policies and thought that he rather than the chumocracy was the true inheritor of Thatcher's crown.
The people are fed up of not being represented. That is why they sent a message to the metropolitan elite and to Labour also, who pretend that they represent the working people.
Do you realise when you talk about UKIP representing working people that they want to abolish the minimum wage, paid holiday, 40 hour working week and increase taxes for lower paid workers while decreasing them for higher paid workers.
I don't think many average working people will support this.
'The UK electorate is currently generally centrist'
This is what all the oundits and politicos always say. But it is not true. The UK electorate is basically rightwing, it shares the views of the Daily Mail. The Tories and UKIP got 48%, Labour and LibDems 43%.
If we had a party that adopted the views of the Daily Mail, it would win. But the chumocracy will never do that, because it disagrees with many of those views and instead believes in global warming, windmills, carbon taxes, foreign aid and minimum pricing levels for units of alcohol for working class people. It does not represnt the majority of the people, which is why so many people turned in desperation to a party whose policies they don't even know, they turned to UKIP.
Cameron thought that promising a referendum on Europe would keep the plebs happy. But it didn't work, and the reason is because they don't believe him, but more importantly their concerns are about much more than Europe.
The chumocracy hope that if they throw some bones to the plebs, that they will be content and vote for them again.
No one really knows if that will work. We have witnessed the rise of a fourth party in UK politics. The chumocracy hopes it will just go away, but I am not sure it will.
AKiss, you are right that their policies will come under scrutiny and they may end up being unpopular when people understand what they are. Now, most people don't really know what their policies are and if they are feasible.
If they fail to make a good case, then they will lose the support that they have recently gained.
Now, most people don't really know what their policies are
People who bothered to read their manifesto do. Does it not worry you at all that you voted for a party without knowing what they stand for?
I hope not, because my town now has a UKIP councillor and I'd really rather not have a UKIP MP!
I'm really not sure to he honest, i can't really engage with the mindset of a UKIP voter, not being one personally and finding them generally repugnant.
(I think UKIP are repugnant is what I was trying to get at there)
'Does it not worry you at all that you voted for a party without knowing what they stand for?'
No, because I did it to protest about the Tories who have abandoned their own voters. I think lots of other former Tory voters will have done the same. We all risked allowing New labour to make gains, which is not what any of us want, but we took that risk in order to be heard.
We didn't know how many others felt like us and did the same thing. It was only when we heard the results that we realised we were not alone, that Labour had fortunately not made many gains at our expense, and that we all felt the same.
What happened is that the Tory party lost many of its traditional voters - the Thatcherites.
The government of the day almost always performs badly in council elections.
That is true but normally it is the main opposition parties that clean up. Not some little party that was so minor, it didn't even have its own bar on the bar charts until now.
That said, UKIP will be hard pressed to get any MPs in 2015.
The PR voting system used for the European Elections favours smaller parties so they are expected to do well next year but, in 2015, first past the post system makes it hard for them to win even just 1 seat at Westminster.
Their aim is to be a catalyst for change. Like the Green Party support in the 1980s and 1990s forced main parties to adopt green policies and green issues became part of mainstream politics.
UKIP want to force Labour to rethink not supporting an in/out referendum on Europe and to get the Tories to shift to the right and not faff around with policies that nobody cares much about right now.
UKIP can't win a significant number of seats in a General Election just because the system is stacked against them, but they don't have to win seats to get what they want. They want to influence policies and changes in the ruling parties.
If the Tories do not change, if the chumocracy carries on as usual, then the risk is that the Tories will not be able to get their lost voters back, and that may allow New Labour to get the 36% of the vote that they apparently need in order to form a government.
As tiggy says, with our current first-past-the-post system, it is very unlikely that UKIP will get many MPs themselves, but they can split the Tory vote and allow New Labour back in.
The other possibility is that the Tories and UKIP form a pact. But that does not look very likely, because it would mean the chumocracy swallowing humble pie.
They were prepared to eat pasties for popularity, but can they really eat hunble pie?
chibi - I feel like you. I am an immigrant, have lived here for 20 years, my DC were born here, teach MFL and around here 1/4 of people voted UKIP. Today I walked through our village and at the back of one house flew a large English flag. I feel unwanted and paranoid.
'The UK electorate is currently generally centrist'
This is what the Tories believe and that is why they lost so many voters - they abandoned their core to try and appeal to the centre.
If the UK electorate was really centrist, then why did 25% of voters vote for a party that is more rightwing than the Tories, a party that the Tory modernisers themselves called "the nasty party"?
then why did 25% of voters vote for a party that is more rightwing than the Tories, a party that the Tory modernisers themselves called "the nasty party"?
Because they are too ignorant to bother finding out what they've actually voted for, as you yourself have admitted.
Yes, that is possible. But in general they also know that UKIP is more rightwing than the Tories.
But you are right that a lot of the vote is a protest vote and it will not last, and probably the majority will return to their usual parties.
The other possibility is that it will split the right wing vote and let Labour back in through the back door. Which wouldn't be a problem if we had voted to change the electoral system but as a nation we decided it was more important to give Nick Clegg a bloody nose than think carefully about the future of the country.
If you mean the lack of AV - that wasn't just punishing LibDem.
PR had been part of their manifesto for a long time - nobody cared enough to vote for the only party that would offer them PR
AV is even less popular - too little change for many and too much for the rest.
Generally people are happy with a system that is supposed to create one winner and no coalitions
I am with claig on this. The hard workers of Essex with their taxi firms and hairdressing shops and grocers' shops in Grantham are a core group of voters wanting low taxes and less regulation whom no party that is likely to get in represents. The Tories could have become that party but they have chosen not to be it.
What UKIP may achieve as the SDP did years ago is to influence the policies of the main parties and therefore achieve success indirectly that way.
We always knew that whoever won last time would be unlikely to rule for a generation due to the recession and general mess so I suspect most people know it's fairly likely Labour will get in. The Tories will not do a deal with UKIP and the Tories will not bring to the fore any of the non -wet business people including women who would improve the cabinet and its policies.
Join the discussion
Please login first.