UKIP have an MP

Axe_meister

From a democracy point of view, yes they have a right to be in parliament, I do not dispute that. I'm just very disappointed that in this day and age people vote for such a party. Do me they are the Daily Mail of political parties.

But I'm also disappointed in our current parties. As somebody who used to be very left of centre (Parents were communists in the 70s), but through experience of working both for the public sector and the private sector, none of the mainstream parties have struck the right balance.

I had high hopes for "New Labour", but they took their eye off the ball, tried to do too much with too much money rather than balancing the books.

The Tories just don't seem to find any kind of balance, whilst I can appreciate the idea of letting the economy do it's job, they pander far too much to big business, but also fail in getting the message across to the people, that a growing economy is good for people.

The lib dems are just wishy washy.

We almost need a party that is neither left nor right nor centre centric. A party that truly manages the economy, without getting sidelined by a rating battle.

A different kind of government where all parties work together and collaborate rather than compromise.

 

Jalapeno

Drew_fx said:

So... I don't think Farrage is a bad guy. He's just a businessman who lacks polish and social niceties. I don't think there is anything racist about him to be honest.

He's a very charismatic chap, and quite astute. But as I said ^^^^ a populist pure and simple.  He is very effectively tapping into the majority's dissatisfaction with mainstream politics - and picking on immigration and eurosceptic fears, which aren't exclusive Tory issues funnily, just that they can't stop schism-ing  about them.

anecdote - popped into M25 services for a coffee recently and Farage was there - he was being mobbed by people for Selfies and shaking his hand - I think he's more popular than the political mainstream realise.

p90fool

Phil_aka_Pip said:

p90fool said:

mike_l said:

Why is UKIP having an MP bad?

Surely it should make the other parties address the issues as to why UKIP got an MP, not skirt around them.

It's bad because they'll address the issues not by educating the white working class, but by pandering to them.

Isn't that "democracy"? Otherwise you are asserting there is some absolute truth which the white working class do not subscribe to and need to be "educated" into. 

Damn right! Lol.

No civilised society dares have true democracy, it's just mob rule. All democratic nations have this juggling act.

Lynching paedo suspects before trial, burning down mosques, confiscating the assets of billionaires and closing the borders would all happen in a true democracy, and would all lead to social and financial disaster.

Are you seriously saying that people DON'T need educating? We have a major party now promising us a referendum on whether or not we stay in the EU, which means that thick, fat useless wanker you work with, that taxi driver you nearly didn't pay for being a racist cunt last night, that dippy fucking hairdresser next-door-but-one who dribbles on herself ALL get a say in how the financial institutions in the City are going to interact on the world markets.

Democracy, er.. schdemocracy, you couldn't make it up, we're going to hell in a handcart etc etc..

Phil_aka_Pip

Fretwired said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

p90fool said:

mike_l said:

Why is UKIP having an MP bad?

Surely it should make the other parties address the issues as to why UKIP got an MP, not skirt around them.

It's bad because they'll address the issues not by educating the white working class, but by pandering to them.

Isn't that "democracy"? Otherwise you are asserting there is some absolute truth which the white working class do not subscribe to and need to be "educated" into. 

We only have a democracy in name. Look at the result of the Heywood and Middleton by-election:

Labour 11,633
Ukip 11,016
Tories 3,496
Lib Dems 1,457

Turnout: 36 per cent.

More people [15,969] voted against the Labour candidate than for him and approximately 49,070 people didn't bother voting.

Meaning that 49070 people didn't care much either way? If so, that's still democracy.

Fretwired

Drew_fx said:

Fretwired said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

p90fool said:

mike_l said:

Why is UKIP having an MP bad?

Surely it should make the other parties address the issues as to why UKIP got an MP, not skirt around them.

It's bad because they'll address the issues not by educating the white working class, but by pandering to them.

Isn't that "democracy"? Otherwise you are asserting there is some absolute truth which the white working class do not subscribe to and need to be "educated" into. 

We only have a democracy in name. Look at the result of the Heywood and Middleton by-election:

Labour 11,633
Ukip 11,016
Tories 3,496
Lib Dems 1,457

Turnout: 36 per cent.

More people [15,969] voted against the Labour candidate than for him and approximately 49,070 people didn't bother voting.

Democracy does not gaurantee an equality of outcome.

I agree. But there are other systems we could look at. Compulsory voting to increase the turnout. Vote redistribution so you vote for two or more candidates and your votes are weighted for your choice of candidate or a straight PR system.

Or just have a presidential style election. The Tories will fight the next election on that basis as a straight choice between Cameron and Miliband.

The current system doesn't work and disenfranchises millions.

jellyroll

Presidential style election to increase voter turnout? Look here and compare UK turnout to US turnout........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout

mike_l

p90fool said:

mike_l said:

Why is UKIP having an MP bad?

Surely it should make the other parties address the issues as to why UKIP got an MP, not skirt around them.

It's bad because they'll address the issues not by educating the white working class, but by pandering to them.

As opposed to other parties pandering to the others? BTW I'm fairly well educated already and don't need a politician trying to "educate" me.

(Yes I'm being arguementative)

guitarfishbay

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Fretwired said:

We only have a democracy in name. Look at the result of the Heywood and Middleton by-election:

Labour 11,633
Ukip 11,016
Tories 3,496
Lib Dems 1,457

Turnout: 36 per cent.

More people [15,969] voted against the Labour candidate than for him and approximately 49,070 people didn't bother voting.

Meaning that 49070 people didn't care much either way? If so, that's still democracy.

It was interesting - I don't watch the news a lot but from what I did watch I didn't see the Middleton-Heywood election getting as much attention as the Clacton by-election where Douglas Carswell defected from the Tories to UKIP.

Jim Dobbin died, and he'd won convincingly since 97.  Even though in 2010 his majority reduced, it was still around 6,000.  I really didn't know much about Liz McInnes who is the current MP after winning the seat narrowly.

In the 2010 election the turnout was 46,125, the turnout yesterday according to the above figures was 27,602.  That is a huge difference.  I wonder how much of this was down to the (lack of?) press coverage for the area.  

2010 results were:

 

Labour Co-op - 18,499

Conservative - 12,528

Lib Dem - 10,474

BNP - 3,239

UKIP - 1,215

Independent - 170

Turnout 46,125 57.5% , so it dropped over 20% yesterday

 

For comparison the turnout in Clacton was 43,123 (64.2%) in 2010 and 35,338 (51% according to the BBC figures), which is a far smaller drop in turnout vs Middleton-Heywood.  Interestingly Carswell had a roughly 12k majority in both elections.  

Jalapeno

p90fool said:

mike_l said:

Why is UKIP having an MP bad?

Surely it should make the other parties address the issues as to why UKIP got an MP, not skirt around them.

It's bad because they'll address the issues not by educating the white working class, but by pandering to them.

I have been struck by the number of non-white faces at Farage's press-conferences ... I think he's trying to broaden appeal (not sure his army of retired Colonels are as enlightened).  Personally I don't buy his schtick, but have to admire the chitzpa he's putting into it.

VimFuego

Fretwired said:

  . But there are other systems we could look at. Compulsory voting to increase the turnout. Vote redistribution so you vote for two or more candidates and your votes are weighted for your choice of candidate or a straight PR system.

Or just have a presidential style election. The Tories will fight the next election on that basis as a straight choice between Cameron and Miliband.

The current system doesn't work and disenfranchises millions.

I was impressed with the number of people who voted in the great british bakeoff, so perhaps the political system could ask the producers for some tips in how to enhance "viewer" participation.

guitarfishbay

VimFuego said:

Fretwired said:

  . But there are other systems we could look at. Compulsory voting to increase the turnout. Vote redistribution so you vote for two or more candidates and your votes are weighted for your choice of candidate or a straight PR system.

Or just have a presidential style election. The Tories will fight the next election on that basis as a straight choice between Cameron and Miliband.

The current system doesn't work and disenfranchises millions.

I was impressed with the number of people who voted in the great british bakeoff, so perhaps the political system could ask the producers for some tips in how to enhance "viewer" participation.

I know this is partly a joke... but it isn't insane.

We can only vote in person, by proxy, or by post, when it comes to general elections.

We don't currently have online voting, or text voting.  Now both have security concerns, but if we're going to allow proxy and postal voting is that concern valid when we already allow other potentially 'exploitable' systems?

Fretwired

VimFuego said:

Fretwired said:

  . But there are other systems we could look at. Compulsory voting to increase the turnout. Vote redistribution so you vote for two or more candidates and your votes are weighted for your choice of candidate or a straight PR system.

Or just have a presidential style election. The Tories will fight the next election on that basis as a straight choice between Cameron and Miliband.

The current system doesn't work and disenfranchises millions.

I was impressed with the number of people who voted in the great british bakeoff, so perhaps the political system could ask the producers for some tips in how to enhance "viewer" participation.

You can vote from the comfort of your own home.

Although we could have the great British political bake off. Farage would no doubt get his wife to bake for him ..

VimFuego

Fretwired said:

VimFuego said:

Fretwired said:

  . But there are other systems we could look at. Compulsory voting to increase the turnout. Vote redistribution so you vote for two or more candidates and your votes are weighted for your choice of candidate or a straight PR system.

Or just have a presidential style election. The Tories will fight the next election on that basis as a straight choice between Cameron and Miliband.

The current system doesn't work and disenfranchises millions.

I was impressed with the number of people who voted in the great british bakeoff, so perhaps the political system could ask the producers for some tips in how to enhance "viewer" participation.

You can vote from the comfort of your own home.

Although we could have the great British political bake off. Farage would no doubt get his wife to bake for him ..

problem to me is this, in these reality shows the producers basically chose who they want to win then edit the footage to favour their candidate. Can you imagine a political system where a group of Oz like figures operate in the background manipulating the public into thinking we have free choice when we go out and choose their favoured candidate? Doesn't bear thinking about...

Axe_meister

VimFuego said:

Fretwired said:

VimFuego said:

Fretwired said:

  . But there are other systems we could look at. Compulsory voting to increase the turnout. Vote redistribution so you vote for two or more candidates and your votes are weighted for your choice of candidate or a straight PR system.

Or just have a presidential style election. The Tories will fight the next election on that basis as a straight choice between Cameron and Miliband.

The current system doesn't work and disenfranchises millions.

I was impressed with the number of people who voted in the great british bakeoff, so perhaps the political system could ask the producers for some tips in how to enhance "viewer" participation.

You can vote from the comfort of your own home.

Although we could have the great British political bake off. Farage would no doubt get his wife to bake for him ..

problem to me is this, in these reality shows the producers basically chose who they want to win then edit the footage to favour their candidate. Can you imagine a political system where a group of Oz like figures operate in the background manipulating the public into thinking we have free choice when we go out and choose their favoured candidate? Doesn't bear thinking about...

Sounds like you are talking about the Press .....

IanSavage

Axe_meister said:

Sounds like you are talking about the Press .....

UnclePsychosis

Imagine what kind of giant bellend you have to be if the Conservative party aren't right wing mental enough for you.

Christ, the Tories invented the racist van. Imagine that mob not being anti-immigration enough for you.

scrumhalf

Don't chuck the racist epithet at the Tories.

Labour have been bad enough in their time, or was it another Labour party who supported the "colour bar" in the 50s?

Fretwired

UnclePsychosis said:

Imagine what kind of giant bellend you have to be if the Conservative party aren't right wing mental enough for you.

Christ, the Tories invented the racist van. Imagine that mob not being anti-immigration enough for you.

So how would you define Gordon Brown's poisonous slogan of “British jobs for British workers”.

An interesting article ...

http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/38154/Labours+surrender+to+racism

UnclePsychosis

Labour aren't much better, but in Clacton it was supposedly UKIP vs Tories. 

Anyway, I think my point still stands. If the Tories aren't right wing mental enough for you then you're probably a giant bellend. 

Axe_meister

So if UKIP hold the balance of power at the next General Election, will either of the major parties go into coalition with them or will be end up with a LIBCON coalition.