Was the UKIP result a protest vote blip or will it translate into MPs at the general election?

[VivaLeBeaver]

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.

'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.'

I think we have a new party on the block - the party of the strivers i.e. UKIP. There are some reports in the papers that some of the elite advisers have called them "life's losers", but if that is what they think of us, then the only losers will be them at the next election.

We now have Labour - the party of welfare; UKIP - the party of the strivers and the Tories - the party of cuts, carbon taxes, windmills, foreign aid and the chumocracy.

We have Farage holding pints, and probably soon eating pasties, and wanting an end to the nanny state and talking about allowing people to smoke in rooms in pubs instead of having to stand out in the rain. He says "we want our country back" and all the chumocracy can say is there needs to be more scrutiny of UKIP's policies.

The trouble is the more scrutiny of UKIP's policies there is, and the more pints that Farage drinks in pubs and bars across the land, the more "life's losers", i.e. those born without a silver spoon and not part of the chumocracy, will probably vote UKIP.

UKIP have called the bluff of the chumocracy, this is democracy.

An article in the Mail says that the next election will now depend on what the 25% of voters who voted UKIP do at the general election. They will determine who wins.

"Life's losers" will determine the winners.

Hear Hear Claig

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Helmer
oh, he is an ineresting man
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_Bloom
and so is he

Have any of the UKIP supporters on here read what they think of women? Disabled people?

Not to mention Homosexuals!! The problem is that there never will be a Party who caters for everyone's needs, it has never happened and it never will, and on the basis that 'importance' is subjective to each and every individual, and there are 70 ish million individuals here in the UK , so what we really need is a Saint, and we wont get one. Any Political Party will change its Manifesto, pretty much every year, and especially towards a General Election, so I guess it's a case of watch this space with UKIP.

Not to mention Homosexuals!!

Sorry, confused Emmy, what do you mean?

There is Farage, and then there is UKIP. I think Farage (barrack-room lawyer with charisma) has far more appeal than his party (odd collection of weirdos, malcontents and single-issue obsessives, in the main. In that sense, UKIP have the potential to make the otherwise unpopular established parties look pretty good, if they're not careful). Farage probably has got a chance of winning a Westminster seat, particularly somewhere like Lincolnshire where UKIP has strong grassroots support.

But but but...in a general election there would be much more media and rival scrutiny of UKIP's manifesto and candidates, so they really would have to find better people and vet them more effectively. It is possible that even gaining 2-3 MPs would give UKIP a key role if there were another coalition, but Farage does not come across as a compromise-builder and I can't see anyone wanting to be in coalition with him.

I don't think there are enough votes in socially conservative policies like scrapping mat leave, rolling back gay rights etc to get UKIP very far.

Oh sorry, yes, Farage is anti Gay Marriage !! Should have elaborated!!! Stating that they should basically be happy with the rights they already have , which is a Civil Union!!

Emmyflavs. Only 7 percent of gays want gay marriage, so its hardly an issue. UKIP have never said they want to get rid of any equal rights for gays.

The party is not full of malcontents, single issue obsessives,I've been a member for years, so I should know! I've been to plenty of conferences and meetings. UKIP despises the political elite and doesn't think (quite rightly) they represent the views of the vast majority of people.

UKIP supporters feel that all governments have changed the country and not for the better.

Nigel Farage is depicted as a 'cheeky chappie' by the press. He certainly is not. He is a very intelligent, disciplined man. One day he will be an MP.

UKIP's strategy is to change the other parties,( particularly on the EU) they know they will not form any government, (well not in the near future). They have a game plan and at present it is working.

Ironman, it is more respectful to talk about gay people rather than 'gays'. This is a rather interesting look at the statistics around the issue-where does your figure come from?

ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4984

UKIP are masterful at being creative with statistics. The leaflet I saw during the campaign misused figures relating to both EU finance and legislation to a rather amazing and misleading degree. Someone I know challenged their local candidate on them and he didn't actually understand them when asked, could not explain them, and had never even heard of the Council of Europe. Seeing random statistics being waved around by all political parties is rather tiresome, but UKIP excels.

I find it rather troubling that people can excuse bigotry in political candidates on the basis that 'no one's perfect'. I realise I speak as one of the metropolitan elite (I live in London) but I would prefer my politicians, whether left or right wing, to be intelligent people without mindless prejudice, who think equality matters. This shouldn't be too hard to achieve, surely?

If it's any consolation, Plaid Cymru, despite standing in less seats than UKIP, still have far more seats.

I don't see them being touted as the next big electoral threat.

StiffyByng

Ironman, it is more respectful to talk about gay people rather than 'gays'.

Why yes, Ironman, didn't you see the latest draft from the Minority Grievance Council? Chapter 71, Section 338, Subsection 14(j) part ii.

UKIP are masterful at being creative with statistics.

As is anyone who knows what they're doing. The real skill is in being able to sift out the lies. Such as Nick Clegg's lies that we have 3 million jobs dependent on our membership of the EU.

I find it rather troubling that people can excuse bigotry in political candidates on the basis that 'no one's perfect'. I realise I speak as one of the metropolitan elite (I live in London) but I would prefer my politicians, whether left or right wing, to be intelligent people without mindless prejudice, who think equality matters. This shouldn't be too hard to achieve, surely?

What do you mean by 'equality'? It's one of those nice words that is trotted out and is used to imply that the person is reasoned and balanced and nice but in reality is used to disguise their particular prejudices. The idea that opposition to mass immigration is racism, for example, is a popular claim by left-wing politicians (eg Gordon Brown when he met Gillian Duffy) and is mindless prejudice.

Ironman, I haven't checked the statistics and I'm sure they vary from party to party, but 7 percent is too much if you are gay couple who want to get married!!!!

Oh the arrogance of the right wing posing as moderates!!!!

Emmyflavs