Any UKIP supporters on here? What exactly are you voting for?

[chicaguapa]

I confess I don't know what the UKIP policies are, but wondered if the people voting for them could explain to me what they are please. Thanks.

'Lazyjaney Sat 04-May-13 09:24:41

If you endorse any of the main parties you are supporting career politicians whose only belief is personal expediency.'

There is that aswell. I wont say it was ever thus, but the whole point of a politician is to serve their country.

There should be no such thing as a 'career politician' but we now are 'represented' by people who have started as an intern in an MPs office NOT on the shopfloor of a company manufacturing goods, or promoting Britian.

The CS are in place to provide continuity (ie form and process, or etiquete at international events).

After that it all down to the personality of the person involved in teh discussion. Some of our MPs have the personality of slime that oozes under the door.

Perhaps we should have a term limit on those who would serve?

And I'd go through expenses like a case of ebola too. Two houses? Er, no. If you don't live in your constituency, should you represent it? When in London we'll sort out a travel lodge type abode, maybe a few families houses could be temp borrowed.

Excluding the PM and those in cabinet who may spend a lot longer in London.

Using modern tech such as VTCs MPs could do the HoC thing from anywhere in the country, coming together for importatn stufff.

And it is far more than just 25% who are cheesed off with the mainstream parties. There were millions who couldn't even be bothered to vote, so disillusioned have they become. And very many of those would probably also have voted UKIP if they had made the effort to turn out.

We need Farage on the leadership TV debate

No we don't, UKIP don't have a single MP and are unlikely to secure one any time soon, let alone forming a government.

'If I had voted to protest I would have voted for the greens, but never a right-wing party.'

That is the beauty of democracy. You vote for whom you want, and others vote for whom they prefer.

Lazarus

"Very few citizens of this sceptered Isle are not allowed the vote.

Maybe they are under 18... unless they are incapable of voting or a criminal."

Are you aware that there weren't elections everywhere?

'UKIP don't have a single MP'

That is because of our electoral system. UKIP got a higher proportion of the vote than the LibDems, and yet Clegg is on the leadership debate telling us how he believes in "fairness".

It is not "fair" to prevent Farage making a case for his policies and trouncing some of the progressives who preach "fairness".

'claig Sat 04-May-13 09:33:32

If you add the votes of Tories and UKIP together, you get approx 48%, while Labour and the LibDems together made up about 43%.'

Which is why the system is unfair...

Two parties (Tories and Wigs) one gets 51% the other 49%, then the majority have their way...

Three parties (Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem) and 34% buys 1 party a win, but 66% of people (the majority) didn't want that party.

It carries on in that vein.

That's why I couldn't understand why the AV system was seen as so bad.

The lowest voted for party, was struck off, and their voters reappraised in to the remaining parties.

Until a true majority decision was made.

It would have made things very interesting for the politicos though. Fancy actually having to give a f**k about what their constituents actually wanted.

WW,

Yes. Oddly enough I was.

Yes it is an unfair system that suits the main two parties and hinders the LibDems, the Greens, UKIP and other small parties.

Protest votes like we have witnessed show the system up for what it is - "unfair".

The elites and the chumocracy hope that everything will be forgotten by the time of the election and that it will be business as usual between the major two parties as the voters are corralled back into the pen like sheep and vote for Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

The American Republican party has had decades of successfully pitching themselves as the "Washington outsiders", untainted good guys. Then they get in power and spend wildly in their chosen interests (defence, tax cuts, boondoggles), leaving no money for government to actually achieve anything in terms of social care, health or education when the Democrats get in power.

Thomas Frank has written about this at length.

I am very wary of anyone who sells themselves as the "Uncorrupted outsider" who is supposed to create a government for the people. Its a huge con where I'm from.

UKIP don't have a single MP'

That is because of our electoral system. UKIP got a higher proportion of the vote than the LibDems, and yet Clegg is on the leadership debate telling us how he believes in "fairness"

You could argue that any number of minor parties would have MPs under PR and UKIP's showing in the last general election wasn't spectacular.

As you are a big advocate of democracy, you'll remember that the public roundly rejected PR when it was offered to them in a referendum.

To be honest UKIP don't seem to be seen as 'uncorrupted'.

Everytime they say or do anything they are accused of being racist and thick.

Or BNP lite.

Which smacks of desperation from the other parties, IMHO.

*I thought your council doesn't collect nor share data about the provenance of its tennants, so how do you know?

As it is, the idea of migrants being handed the keys to a council house as soon as they arrive are a myth.*

Because they are living next door to me. In a council house.

Or perhaps you think I am making it up?

You are the reason UKIP are doing well. All concerns dismissed, any experience pooh pooed.

'ComposHat Sat 04-May-13 10:10:07

As you are a big advocate of democracy, you'll remember that the public roundly rejected PR when it was offered to them in a referendum.'

I always found that strange. Wasn't there a lot of smearing? I remember one person claiming PR/AV was unfair, as it should be 'one man one vote'...

They couldn't address the debate that a man with out a vote due to voting for a minority party was just as unfair, and in clear breach of 'One man, one vote'.

In the end they desperately clung to 'it's their descion to vote for a nop hope party'...

Do you know for sure the house is owned by the council? For example, I live in a former council house, in the middle of plenty of other council houses, and pay rent to a private landlord who bought it.

And as for me being the reason the UKIP are doing well - I'm an immigrant. I'm not in a council house, but I had two children and an appendectomy on the NHS, and steal British jobs. So of course, I'm the reason why UKIP doing well, I'm one of those people they want to see gone. I'm just not sure whether they would want to see my children gone, too. At least they've got some Englishness from their father's side.

I do find this There's nothing wrong, there's nothing wrong, there's nothing wrong burying the head in the sand attitude to people's concerns worrying.

IMO the lack of the mainstream parties ability to address these concerns and deal with them basically means one thing. Labour are going to get in at the next election and start their mass immigration and 'inclusivity' policies (which often felt like favouring immigrants over people who were already here). And then people are going to get really pissed off.

And then we're going to end up with a UKIP government of extremists, freaks and nutters. And god knows what kind of awfulness that will lead to.

I am concerned about these issues but I want the mainstream parties to deal with them in a measured fashion. They show no inclination to do so and I suspect this is going to lead to a whole lot of trouble.

gabsid

Do you live in a "white rural" area?

'George83 Sat 04-May-13 10:44:48

Well we're never going to have a UKIP government so I don't think you need to worry about that.'

Google '1930's Germany'. The National Socialist Party were seen as a joke at one time too.

'WidowWadman Sat 04-May-13 10:28:17

And as for me being the reason the UKIP are doing well - I'm an immigrant. I'm not in a council house, but I had two children and an appendectomy on the NHS, and steal British jobs. So of course, I'm the reason why UKIP doing well, I'm one of those people they want to see gone. I'm just not sure whether they would want to see my children gone, too. At least they've got some Englishness from their father's side.'

I think you are too harsh on yourself.

Immigration isn't a bad thing, nor is it to be feared.

That said, an open doors policy and allowing non-integration is foolish.

There is no requirement for forms (for various government functions) to written in half a dozen languages either.

I was going to post that too LazarussLozenge. One of the things that struck me about this election was how the voting patterns were mirroring exactly those of the Nazi's in the run up to them being elected.

In 1928 they were a marginal party polling 2.6%. By 1933 they were in power.

The 25% of the total vote that they got in these recent elections reminded me of the 1930 elections after the financial crisis in which the Nazi's polled 18%. Does that situation remind you of anything?

In theory first past the post should protect us from this but if the economy gets worse, or if Labour go back to an open door policy. Yes, I do think it's possible they could build on that 25% of the vote if things get worse.

I think from UKIPs point of view Labour getting back in is the best thing that could happen for them as it will give people more frustrations which they will use UKIP as an outlet for.

I really think unless concerns on these issues are addressed in a measured, balanced way by the main parties we could well end up with them being dealt with by extremists and extreme measures.

I expect the Lib Dems won't be quite so keen on proportional representation now.