Ukip 'Most Favourably Regarded Party'

Itis

ignoring the sarcasm from your first line, I agree with generally with your last (two) post(s).

But you are missing my point, why is UKIP a party with no "visible" policies, a party that is being called "racist", a party that is being called "disablist" and "anti-women" getting any votes at all?

the talk about "suckering" voters to vote for them ignores that there is a mass of the electorate that feels strongly enough to vote for a party just to annoy the main stream parties.

on the last point I didn't and wouldn't vote UKIP. I am not being "suckered" but I can their (supporters) point and I can see (if we are not careful) history repeating itself.

both claiq and isitmebut make great points ( I say through gritted teeth ...gosh darn it)

I am starting to get a little bit fed up of the ukippers being described in a patronising way - i don't think they know any less than the majority of the averagely media informed electorate.

and isitme's point is bang on - no one actually states where the scope of what we can do and what change can be effected actually lies.

In conclusion; still clueless Ukip cannot bring us out of the EU, the ‘political sheep’ are Ukip voters, who say they want ‘CHANGE’, do not know what can be ‘CHANGED, as they don’t even have a clue what Ukip domestically want current policies CHANGED into – yet you think they are the answer? Lolololololol

So there is a huge difference in “listening” to get the targeted suckers votes, and “fucking” delivering white, blue, red and yellow party policy CHANGE, via the purple patch party who can say what they want - as they’ll never have any power in Westminster, whether they have one, ten or 20 MP seats.

Come September at the Ukip party conference, those Ukippered (brain washed) will see the 2015 manifesto policies for CHANGE, that is different to red, blue and yellow party policies – so lets see how many UKippers get the 'smoke' from their eyes.

Vote Ukip in 2015, get the pro EU Labour administration, probably in coalition with the pro EU Lib Dems – but Farage won’t care, at least he will finally have his Westminster seat, on what will it be, the fifth or sixth time of trying – STILL BEING PAID to pretend that an EU referendum is more important to him than political power. Suckers.

BoneyBackJefferson …. Re your pearls of wisdom below, I see like Ukip’s political machine in general, you fail to acknowledge any facts e.g. either the Conservatives or Labour will form the next government – as you don’t want voters to focus on their REAL choices, as represented by both main parties – as one of them, the Conservatives, is the ONLY option in giving the people an EU in/out say, which is possibly the ONLY way to sold any immigration problem from EU citizens.

“A party that listens to the people How fucking dare they!”

and

“there is a lot of people saying that the three main parties have to change”,

So “CHANGE” on what, the EU/immigration AND their domestic policies e.g. the economy?

I ask this as Ukip does not have a domestic manifesto they stand by to effect ‘change’, as they disowned the 2010 General Election one as it was designed for Conservative votes (which they achieved in 2010), when from then on they were targeting Labour votes last Thursday in the local and EU elections – which they clearly achieved.

*So Ukip, while telling voters they cannot trust the main political parties, stand by NOTHING to get your votes – and yet you don’t see you are being done up like ‘kippers – how funny is that, they first targeted BNP voters to get jack boots on the ground delivering leaflets, then Conservative and now Labour, using one EU ‘exit’ policy they cannot deliver and NO domestic policies that last past the ink drying.

niceguy2
"Except it's only good if they're telling the people the truth."

But the truth is that there a lot of people saying that the main 3 parties have to change. (or at least listen)

Except it's only good if they're telling the people the truth.

Blaming immigrants and the EU (ie. someone else) for all our woes is over simplfying the problems we face and will do nothing to help. In fact probably the complete opposite. We could do great harm to our country by adopting short sighted and borderline racist attitudes.

We have problems with kids not aspiring enough, not valuing education enough. Our tax system is too complex and too much of a burden for most people. Let's face it. Do you understand it? I don't. Our welfare state is out of control. We can't afford it and none of the politicans seem to be able to deal with it. Our NHS bless it is wasting too much money on the wrong things. Again it's too cumbersome.

None of those things will be fixed by kicking out the immigrants. If anything it will be made worse because all of a sudden you are losing a huge swathe of hard working people paying their taxes.

Isitmebut
"No wonder Ukip are ‘more popular’ than the established parties; they have thrown away their 2010 general election manifesto and are TELLING THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR"

A party that listens to the people How fucking dare they!

I agree Vivienne that the NHS & schools are overstretched. That said I can't remember a time when the NHS wasn't 'overstretched'.

Plus I'm not convinced that UKIP are the solution. I think there is a debate to be had on immigration but think UKIP are guilty of having too many racists/anti gay/idiots in their party and have been playing the race card too much.

You only have to see the interviews on BBC news with UKIP voters to see their core supporters. Those who think "England should be for the English", a lady who thinks we should leave the.........(couldn't name it until the interviewer said "EU?" and a Essex guy who said "Those immigrants coming here and working...." I mean how DARE they come here and work.

I think UKIP's communities spokeswoman got it absolutely right when she said that UKIP was finding it hard to win the votes of the "cultured, educated and young". Could it be that if you are educated that you see through the bullshit? If you are young and have been growing up in the UK in this multi-cultural society we have that they don't actually see any issues and look further than the colour of someone's skin?

Judging by the interviews I've seen your average UKIP supporter are simply idiots. Unfortunately it seems we have many of them.

The number of people coming into the country has got out of hand. NHS is overstretched and people cannot get their children into their local school. This is the fault of the Labour party and people shouting anybody who raises this as a concern is a racist. That is why UKIP has the votes they have.

NZ a country around the size of the UK has less than 5m people and an extremely strict immigration policy.

Spin, I seem to recall a story about Farage and a lap dancer...

I think Clegg is the only politician who feels qualified to debate from a pro-EU standpoint. He spent a lot of time in the Commission and then the Parliament. I can't find anything on Clegg's voting and attendance records as an MEP but I wouldn't be surprised if it were better than Farage's.

NEWSFLASH – Ukip is a one policy party, they don’t HAVE any serious OTHER issues/policies to debate with serious politicians who between them WILL form the next administration, after a General Election in 2015.

On the Clegg-Farage debate; it is now crystal clear that there are only two political parties who would give the people a referendum on the EU, but only a Conservative majority CAN give the people a vote.

Farage therefore goes into this debate with what, as he cannot say he could influence or work with a Miliband administration, and like 2010 by taking away votes from the Conservatives, the UK will remain within the EU?

What is now the point of a Ukip until the run up to the 2020 general election, now the electoral lines on the EU are drawn along firm ideological lines for 2015?

Farage should give his slot to the Green’s, so we can hear a debate on something not already decided upon, like fracking, climate change and how the country can repel mother nature, rather than Ukip’s main party piece, repelling EU citizens, they/we can do nothing about without a referendum.

I doubt it is the end, though what they have left to print after dredging up stories from ten or fifteen years ago is another matter.

I'm of the firm opinion that all publicity is good publicity seeing as though even the average journalist can spell UKIP. Interesting that only Clegg has shown willing to debate issues rather than throwing childish insults. It appears to be the last option considered and only then out of desperation.

Bugger, posted too soon.

Both of these are old stories but make riveting headlines. UKIP strategists are unlikely to welcome headlines linking them to the BNP or Nigel Farage to infidelity and expenses abuse.

Is this the beginning or the end of a smear campaign from the main parties? If it's the end, what more is there to come?

Stepping away from the bridge dweller...

There seem to have been a number of stories recently about UKIP. Talks of forming a pact with the BNP ( Guardian ) and accusations of hiring Nige's former mistress.

Translation: You think I'm an ignorant wanker.

Not more food for you.

Something we both agree on, the Hammoconda should NOT get any bigger, but I sense that it is literally in your hands, often.

FYI I’m not worried about the inherent ignorance of other posters dropping ‘the c-bombs’ etc, I was brought up within a London council estate, to me it just means the other poster is getting desperate for answers – as proven by your last post, with more back passage smoke blowing, than in a kipper shed, so I’ll keep this short.

And on that note, you make me laugh on your answers to WHAT DOES IT MEAN “rub the rights nose in diversity” and “a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”.

Of course we don’t know what it means, those are feeble excuses to try and justify a secret and destructive policy on an unsuspecting domestic population – but proves the open door intent from the beginning, with no regards for any social consequences i.e. on domestic jobs, unemployment , housing and services.

On the 500,000 coming in (give or take) each year under Labour you mention, this link was on my post just before your previous one, when clearly frothing at the mouth, unfortunately NOT with carbolic soap.
migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-and-uk

As for Cameron reversing Brown’s plan to boost his voting base, how do you do that once they have become British Citizens and/or have jobs and settled here? As an example when Brown enlarged the Public Sector payroll by over 1 million from 1997 to 2010, how many were from overseas?

What Cameron tried to do was address Labour’s need for just 35% of the electorate’s votes to obtain a decent 2015 majority, was to try and make the UK electoral boundaries fairer, but the Lib Dems stopped that.

But as to reversing Labour’s ‘UK jobs for migrant worker votes’, Cameron appears to have done something about that, on both the lowering of the numbers on non EU citizens coming in, and with the help of benefit reforms, who is apply/getting the new jobs.

June 2011 “Frank Field: Migrants take nine out of 10 jobs

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8585750/Frank-Field-Migrants-take-nine-out-of-10-jobs.html

November 2013 “Over 90% of new UK jobs taken by British nationals”

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/13/uk-jobs-british-nationals-romanians-bulgarians
“Figures demolish claims that majority of new jobs have gone to foreigners despite rise in number of Romanians and Bulgarians”

Clearly after reading that last post, you are somewhat of a larger Hammaconda than the original

I don't think The Hammaconda should get any bigger TBH .

... believing the best form of defence is attack – and mostly a personal attack from a foul mouthed self professed teacher (hopefully not of children)

There's no personal attack. I was very careful not to include a personal attack. I find your constant change of tack, indecipherable posts and posting of your own opinion as fact slightly irritating.

Teachers (self-professed or otherwise) are allowed to swear.

I find your disablism far more offensive than my, apparently, foul-mouthed swearing. If you don't like swearing, try netmums.

... as when it comes to Labour’s intent, you are more than screwed

What do you mean? This does not follow logically from the rest of your sentence.

So lets get it clear exactly WHO was blowing smoke up the electorates bottom holes by intent and subsequent excuses once it went horribly wrong, the Labour Party and you, or me.

Is this a question? You seem to think that someone who does share your conservative values or openly support the Conservative party is automatically a Labour supporter. I don't know what's given you that view. Other than the fact that I disagree with you.

Ex Labour speech writer Andrew Neather’s quote “Rub the Right's nose in diversity”, so what exactly DOES THAT MEAN, from an ex speech writer for Labour politicians, apart from the usual lets blame the Conservatives for everything we do’, implying it was the the right’s lack of something, rather than what Labour wanted?

I think it means that, in Andrew Neather's view, it was desirable to piss off the right wing by making Britain a more multicultural place.

Neather also said “a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural” – so wasn’t the (then) UK or EU Brown then signed us up for... multicultural enough for them – again, WHAT DID THAT MEAN and if it was a covert Labour objective

I don't know why you keep asking me Andrew Neather meant. I'm not Andrew Neather. I can only infer that he meant that the Labour government believed that multiculturalism was something to aim for so, yes it probably was an objective of government.

Gordon Brown didn't actually sign us up for the the European Union. Nor was he PM in 2004 (when the A8 countries officially joined and their citizens gained access to our labour mkts).

why wasn’t ‘the people’ who would have to share their jobs, housing stock and services ever ASKED?

Why weren't the people asked? Because we have a representative democracy not a direct one. The government are elected to govern. They are given a mandate to do so by the electorate. Most of the immigration over this period came as a result of the expansion of the European Union. Transitionary controls were placed on workers (but only

And let’s get this straight, from 2002 to 2010, when Labour opened the United Kingdom's doors to more than 500,000 legal incomers a year (whilst building over 100,000 new homes a year), are YOU seriously trying to tell me that Labour did not think they could fill our skills shortages from an open door EU immigration policy alone?

I'm not sure where you've got your data from on the number of migrants entering the UK each year from 2002 to 2010. I've always used this with my GCSE students as it gives all the salient points in a nice, interactive graph.

Yes, they were unable to fill skills shortages from the available pool of European Union workers that why there were, and are, shortages of skilled professionals. For example, I remember Headteachers travelling to Australia to try to recruit teachers of shortage subjects.

That whatever ‘multicultural’ benefits there were, they would more than outweighed by the price the voters that put THEM in power, had to pay?

This doesn't make any sense.

Labour would now like us to think that this (secret) immigration policy was just a ‘mistake’, incompetence on a grand scale, but there was no upside for their voters in a “reserve army of labour” (Marx), SO IT WAS A CONSPIRACY for Labour’s gain.

That's a non sequitur.

And the BBC was in on the objective, but probably not the main ‘benefit’ of the conspiracy, from the very beginning.
www.theweek.co.uk/tv-radio/53951/bbc-immigration-coverage-affected-liberal-bias

A million Commonwealth citizens living in England and Wales should be stripped of the right to vote because they could significantly influence the outcome of the next (2015) general election, according to a new report
^www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10268870/Million-foreign-voters-could-sway-result-of-next-general-election-warns-report.html
“Except for nationals of a handful of Commonwealth countries that grant similar rights, it should be brought to an end immediately^

The report said a similar proposal was made by Lord Goldsmith, the former Labour Attorney general, in a 2008 report commissioned by the then prime minister Gordon Brown, but was never acted upon.

“MigrationWatch said its analysis of 2011 Census data showed there are 960,000 Commonwealth citizens who have the right to vote in England and Wales but do not have British citizenship.”

I'm a British Citizen who lives abroad. After 15 years has elapsed since my last UK voter registration I will be unable to vote in UK elections. It pisses me off no end that citizens of other nations are able to vote in UK elections when British citizens are disenfrachised.

The Goldsmith report didn't actually present any data on the number of Commonwealth nationals who are registered to vote. It presented no data on the number of actual votes that were cast.

You seem to imply that Brown didn't act on this because the Labour Party would benefit from increased votes. So, given the benefits to them, why do you think the coalition hasn't done anything about it?

Clearly after reading that last post, you are somewhat of a larger Hammaconda than the original, believing the best form of defence is attack – and mostly a personal attack from a foul mouthed self professed teacher (hopefully not of children) as when it comes to Labour’s intent, you are more than screwed.

So lets get it clear exactly WHO was blowing smoke up the electorates bottom holes by intent and subsequent excuses once it went horribly wrong, the Labour Party and you, or me.

Ex Labour speech writer Andrew Neather’s quote “Rub the Right's nose in diversity”, so what exactly DOES THAT MEAN, from an ex speech writer for Labour politicians, apart from the usual lets blame the Conservatives for everything we do’, implying it was the the right’s lack of something, rather than what Labour wanted?

Neather also said “a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural” – so wasn’t the (then) UK or EU Brown then signed us up for, multicultural enough for them – again, WHAT DID THAT MEAN and if it was a covert Labour objective, why wasn’t ‘the people’ who would have to share their jobs, housing stock and services ever ASKED?

And let’s get this straight, from 2002 to 2010, when Labour opened the United Kingdom's doors to more than 500,000 legal incomers a year (whilst building over 100,000 new homes a year), are YOU seriously trying to tell me that Labour did not think they could fill our skills shortages from an open door EU immigration policy alone? That whatever ‘multicultural’ benefits there were, they would more than outweighed by the price the voters that put THEM in power, had to pay?

Labour would now like us to think that this (secret) immigration policy was just a ‘mistake’, incompetence on a grand scale, but there was no upside for their voters in a “reserve army of labour” (Marx), SO IT WAS A CONSPIRACY for Labour’s gain. And the BBC was in on the objective, but probably not the main ‘benefit’ of the conspiracy, from the very beginning.
www.theweek.co.uk/tv-radio/53951/bbc-immigration-coverage-affected-liberal-bias

“A million Commonwealth citizens living in England and Wales should be stripped of the right to vote because they could significantly influence the outcome of the next (2015) general election, according to a new report.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10268870/Million-foreign-voters-could-sway-result-of-next-general-election-warns-report.html
“Except for nationals of a handful of Commonwealth countries that grant similar rights, it should be brought to an end immediately.”

“The report said a similar proposal was made by Lord Goldsmith, the former Labour Attorney general, in a 2008 report commissioned by the then prime minister Gordon Brown, but was never acted upon.”

“MigrationWatch said its analysis of 2011 Census data showed there are 960,000 Commonwealth citizens who have the right to vote in England and Wales but do not have British citizenship.”

IsItMe

I’d firstly like to apologise for making an incorrect statement on EU citizens voting in General Elections, as that is indeed factually incorrect;

Was that deliberate, in order to misinform people or did you not understand the article that you linked to?

my GENERAL accusation against Labour from 2000 onwards however, confirmed by that Labour speech writer chap, was that a major reason for allowing near ‘open door’ immigration was to boost Labour’s vote in elections, and I still stand by that.

Andrew Neather, a speech writer, said that immigration was to "...rub the Right's nose in diversity". I don't recall him mentioning boosting Labour votes.

You said in your original posy on this "Eastern European socialists". You suggested that Labour allowed in migrants from Eastern Europe in order to vote for them. Don't change your tune now.

The reason I stand by that is I had not comprehended the INCREASE immigration by Commonwealth and ‘others’

You stand by something you said earlier because you didn't understand it?

OVER AND ABOVE EU NUMBERS

Of... Do you mean EU data or the number of migrants from the European Union?

that arguably we had a right to refuse citizenships - who mostly COULD vote in General Elections, well over the average of the 1990’s

Do you bother to read the information that you post? You don't need to grant citizenship of the United Kingdom to individuals from certain Commonwealth nations. Some Commonwealth nationals are eligible to vote in all UK elections by virtue of the fact they are Commonwealth nationals. They do not have to apply for citizenship to vote.

BME voters (who according to you are all Labour voters ) are less likely to vote than white British voters. Ipsos Mori and Electoral Commission

so I’m not quite sure what your 1948 date is all

The 1948 date is about the Representation of the People Act and it coincides with the creation of the Commonwealth

about versus Labour's increases in the 2000's, outlined within a table below.

And this would be confirmed as Mr Mandelson mentioned that ‘sent out search parties far and wide’ to fill skill shortages we couldn’t be arsed to train up an ever growing unemployment domestic population for.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324112/Lord-Mandelson-Immigrants-We-sent-search-parties-hard-Britons-work.html

So you think it's a good idea for hospital waiting lists to grow while people wait for more medical staff to be trained? An efficient labour market requires flexibility. Part of that is the ability to draft in skilled individuals to plug gaps

As for EU citizen voters influence on (Labour) Councillors, it is you “clutching at straws” in thinking that local Councillor help is NOT important at grass roots level at General Election time, whether main party Memberships are falling away sharply or not.

And yes you are correct, in 2013 the Conservatives with 8,548 counsellors was far more than Labour’s 6,837, but as Labour’s strength is more densely populated inner cities (Metropolitan and London) boroughs cover far less ground than the Conservatives across the shires of England, they are able to make more impact.

I know I'm correct. Leave the PA bullshit out.

And if memory serves, due to the boundaries and share of the vote needed, as Labour only needs 35% of the population to vote for them in order to return to power with a decent majority, such local concentrations and grass root party machinery already providing Labour with a decent lead in the polls it doesn’t really need to win, New labour’s strategy has worked well.

The Conservatives need to have a 7% lead over Labour to be confident of a Parliamentary majority. That's a downside of FPTP and nothing to do with UKIP.

And as for your gasted being all of a flabber for the mocking Brown’s disability

I wasn't flabbergasted. I was, and am disgusted by your disablist attitudes. I think it the hallmark of a total and utter cunt to mock disabled people for their disability.

for the sheer policy incompetence and the electoral deceit of leaving power without attempting to provide policies to solve the countries problems for 2010/2015 electoral gain – if he’d have come clean to the plebs just how bad a shape the country was in – he’d have been lucky not to have lost his head, then put on a spike, next to the Tower of London

If you have a problem with his policies attack them (ideally in a new thread so as not to fill this one any further with your Tory propaganda) don't take the fucking pathetic and lazy approach you have taken.

Why do you think the MP Brown hardly dare show his self acclaimed economically “prudent” face in parliament since 2010 (to earn his current MP salary), his expectations and modesty of receiving a parliamentary standing ovation, or mockery he would receive from all sides of the house AND the media

I don't know, you'd have to ask him.

You know I don’t think that there was more than 4 or 5 MPs on EITHER side of the house listening, which based on the subject, was disrespectful, but if Labour had no more MPs in attendance than the coalition. It speaks volumes on his political record whilst running domestic policies from 1997. IMO

It tells me more about how our MPs work (or not) and what their overriding concerns are rather than anything about a particular MP.

Spin….You’re a bit slow with this, I’d thought Farage had ordered his minions back from shooting themselves in the Ukip foot, until AFTER the MEP elections. Lol

Having said that you are correct, the trend in NET migration has altered sharply, as many of the buggers here like it too much and don’t move to sunnier clims, while the figures coming here from the EU has reversed the downward/flat-lining trend, funny enough mainly from the destinations they usually chose to emigrate to – all nicely pictured for you, with colours, in the link/graph below.

Clearly EU citizens have a right to come here until Ukip get out of the way, and a majority Conservative government can provide an EU in/out referendum; so I’d be more concerned if the rise was in citizens we CAN control coming here, that appeared to rise so much under Labour as they also knew tended to vote for socialist parties.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26367391

“The Office for National Statistics said the net flow - the numbers moving to the UK minus the numbers leaving it - rose from 154,000 in the previous year.”

“The increase has been driven by a big growth in the number of European Union citizens coming to Britain.”

“But No 10 said its aim had not changed”.

Asked if David Cameron stood by his pledge to reduce net migration to under 100,000 by 2015, the PM's official spokesman said: "That is absolutely the objective and we are going to very much keep working towards that.

"We are putting in place what we believe are the right measures that go towards meeting that objective."

"There was a rise in new arrivals from Poland, Spain, Italy and Portugal."