It's bizarre isn't it? I believe in the theory but are those protestors really suggesting they wanted an even more right wing Conservative-UKIP coalition?
UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
It's bizarre isn't it? I believe in the theory but are those protestors really suggesting they wanted an even more right wing Conservative-UKIP coalition?
I suppose that is possible.
So, 100 MPs then? Isn't that how Nazi Germany started?
Best way to bring them down is to give them what they wish for.
Dear Nicola,
There you go love, we won't take anything out, we also won't be putting anything in either, off you go.
We will also be legislating that any current or future elected Scottish MPs wont be allowed to vote on any matter concerning England and Wales.
Have a nice day.
Love Dave.
I honestly don't worry that much about the UKIP boost from PR but the thought that 5-6 constituencies would have found themselves represented by the BNP in 2005 is one that gets me much more. I honestly think 80 MP's who have to at least try and act like they aren't racist is far less dangerous for community cohesion than 5 who are quite comfortable making overtly racist statements.
Here's a handy table, it's obviously taken from a poll though so don't take it too seriously:
Indeed. And to be fair, one of the reasons the Tories may have done so well is because in the last few years their policies have been fairly centralist... obviously helped by the Lib Dems. Labour really do have no other choice, although they are going to have some very painful decisions to make going forward (Unions related, Leadership related, left/right leaning related)
A large majority of the world's democracies have PR, focusing on the single time in very specific and unusual circumstances it lead to Nazism isn't particularly useful.
Sorry, had to laugh at this bit.
Errrr....
Yes, they were democratically elected, you are right. Under First Past the Post they would have dominated in the latter elections to an even greater extent than they did (although everything else would have been different).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_1928
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_1930
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
What was your point?
Personal insults and/or attacks will not be tolerated in here any more than any other part of the forum; keep it civil people.
@MajorTom
Like it or not, UKIP attracts the racist element. It doesn't mean all UKIP supporters are racist. It's where the old BNP supporters naturally congregate. I doubt very much that Farage is overjoyed with that, but that's the reality. It's very dangerous and the fact that 15% of the population voted for them is particularly worrying.
And before you ask, I have got a job.
Like it or not, UKIP attracts the racist element. It doesn't mean all UKIP supporters are racist. It's where the old BNP supporters naturally congregate. I doubt very much that Farage is overjoyed with that, but that's the reality. It's very dangerous and the fact that 15% of the population voted for them is particularly worrying.
And before you ask, I have got a job.
Last edited by a moderator:
Very interesting table. Do you know where it came from, was it before or after the election? It doesn't quite seem correct, although it might be. The Tories did only take in 1% more votes. But it implies that the Tories DID shed votes to UKIP and the LibDems DID shed votes to labour (more than the Tories)... I guess its just our stupid system. That 5% of votes shed to the SNP killed labour in Scotland. That 16% vote change from LibDem to Tories happened in key seatsHere's a handy table, it's obviously taken from a poll though so don't take it too seriously:
Cameron does call himself a liberal conservative, and he did bring in gay marriage, regardless of what the backbenchers wanted.
But yeah the Tories aren't that liberal.
Jesus, the gloves have come off in here since I last visited!
@Rado_N If there's a way Colin's quote could be edited, like the others, so that it doesn't contain the personal bits, I'd appreciate that. There are aspects mentioned there that I aim to only post about in the general, due to its relative privacy compared to the CE.
He talked of distancing the party from the unions too only framing it as 'we are too reliant on funding from the unions'.
Re Chukka as labour party leader: I find myself agreeing with @Jippy in that I find him to be a little too slick and I don't think that he will translate well as a personality.
Just thinking about it didn't the BNP get about 500k votes last election. I guess they all went UKIP.
Same. He always strikes me as arrogant. This is based on very little but probably about as much as the average voter would base their personal view of him on.
I think by shifting to the left Labour would be picking up Green votes, SNP votes and votes from a lot of people who see no difference between Labour and Tory and vote for the in-vogue protest party (Lib Dem in 2010, UKIP this time round). Between them those 3 groups of voters account for about 6 million people. Also a lot of working class voters who don't bother voting because none of the parties represent them might chip in.
I share some of your pessimism, but also there's not been a coherent and credible left-wing party in the country for over 2 decade and a centre-right/centrist Labour party has been dramatically voted down in the last two elections. Also if Labour go back to the right they'll lose even more grassroots support, which is largely to the left of Miliband, never mind Blue Labour and the Blairites. I'd maintain that Miliband's big problem wasn't that he was too left-wing for the electorate, but rather he was too left-wing for Murdoch and the right-wing press to put up with. Their propaganda was key to undermining Labour in this election.
I think most did. I suspect a fair few didn't vote though, as the rise of first the EDL and then Britain First has taken far right views more in a 'street defence' direction and away from that of the political process.
The way I see it, Labour got a lot of the Lib Dem vote and did get massive swings against them, but this only resulted in 12 seats. What it mainly did was rack up their vote share in safer constituencies whilst also helping the Tories win 26 seats as the previous tactical voting to keep the Tories out vanished. UKIP has again racked up the vote share in safeish Tory seats without posing them enough trouble to let Labour in whilst also damaging Labour enough in seats like Thurrock and North Warwickshire to prevent them being gains (and possibly lead to Labour voters going Tory in order to keep UKIP out). The Tory campaign consultant is the guy who did Obama's 2012 election, and he's extremely good at targeting the right messages at the exact people that need to hear them, then getting them to the polling booth. All in all a bit of a perfect storm for Labour, but their 35% strategy was extremely fragile, and so it proved.
Listening to Chuka this morning, it seems that he'll move Labour to the right once again (if he ends up as leader, of course). Looking at Labour's policies this time round, what do people think will be the major changes?
I wouldn't massively worry about it, but the people protesting presumably are anti-Tory, but are pushing for a system that would actually be worse from their point of view.
I bet if you interviewed the vast majority of them they'd be horrified at a UKIP-Tory coalition, but that'd be the reality with PR.
It's more a change of focus and perception than anything else. Ed was more interested in drawing the argument to left wing goals and ambitions (read - inequality), it sounds like they're moving back to a Blair-ite focus on middle class wealth.
On a tangible level though, do you think any of the pledges made this time round wouldn't agree with the proposed neo-new-labour direction?
Mansion tax seems the most obvious one.
I think it's more about the rhetoric though.
They pick up votes, but not seats. Or at least, enough seats. And potentially haemorrhage votes and seats to the right. You now have to consider things in terms of "what's going to give Labour a ~6% swing directly from the Tories in 2020?" because that's what they need. The UKIP support will only be won over by changing the message on immigration, not by being left wing. The SNP is a better reason for it, but as I said Labour lost 40 seats in Scotland and this is not enough to win back. As Blair said in his Observer article today, Ed did a great job at highlighting inequalities and injustice, but Labour now need to frame the solutions to those with positive plans for the future and economic credibility (as much as us as lefty voters realise that running the same deficit as Thatcher didn't cause a global recession, much of the public seem to).
He probably won't talk about breaking up banks and energy companies with such glee - as if these were major reasons to vote for him.
But the actual policy changes? Who knows
*Possibly-stoopid conspiracy theory follows*
Anyone else find it odd or suggestive that Nigel Farage - who wasn't even an MP, nor was his Party likely to gain many seats - was given such a high profile by the media long before and during the Election? Rightly or wrongly, I viewed him as a useful stalking horse for vested interests who, for reasons of business, wanted us out of the EU.
I'm far from an expert when it comes to politics, so I may be totally wrong...but the incredible press & tv platform he was granted to air his views just doesn't seem at all justified to me.
Anyone else find it odd or suggestive that Nigel Farage - who wasn't even an MP, nor was his Party likely to gain many seats - was given such a high profile by the media long before and during the Election? Rightly or wrongly, I viewed him as a useful stalking horse for vested interests who, for reasons of business, wanted us out of the EU.
I'm far from an expert when it comes to politics, so I may be totally wrong...but the incredible press & tv platform he was granted to air his views just doesn't seem at all justified to me.
Party list PR would be horrendous, but the Single Transferable Vote with 3/4/5 joined constituencies would be fine I think.
Even if a few constituencies had an elected BNP MP, the people in those constituencies would have 2/3/4 other MPs to go to.. Something they don't have at the moment (they'd would currently only be able to go to the BNP candidate for representation if one was elected.)
As for so many UKIP MPs... Who knows what UKIP will turn into. Maybe something good. It will force the other parties to work together too.
What DOTA said really. Most of the policies are gimmicks, and a lot's going to change between now and 2020. The main aim looks like it'll be to change the perception that Labour are anti-wealth, as long as they do that most of what EM wanted to achieve could probably still get done (Mansion Tax potentially aside).
That 16% were mainly orange book liberals (aka soft Tories) who got the hard Tories about another 40 seats.
OFCOM gave UKIP major party status so they had to be treated as such
That in itself seems suspect to me.
I think, before any kind of policy shift, Labour need a strong and direct leader who can communicate properly with the electorate and appear to be in firm control.
That's the biggest start to an electable Labour again imo.
That's the biggest start to an electable Labour again imo.
What will happen to UKIP after the EU ref, if we assume it's voted down?
The SNP have continued to be successful but they have a successful record in government to fall back on, I don't see how the 'UKIP wave' can possibly continue beyond 2017.
The SNP have continued to be successful but they have a successful record in government to fall back on, I don't see how the 'UKIP wave' can possibly continue beyond 2017.
They did win the EU elections. Perhaps the Greens and the SNP and Plaid Cymru will be eternally greatful they did as in turn it seems to have given them a bigger say in these elections
Ah, that's fair enough then.
I assume it will go down. But as you say, from the SNPs history it might go up.
We don't know what we will be voting for yet though. What will Cameron achieve in negotiating with the EU?
Labour will need to remember how to write a proper manifesto. For example, you shouldn't spell out tax rises (no matter how popular or necessary you think they will be) in the run up to an election. Labour didn't need to be associated with something like the Mansion Tax, which many people in the south of England see as unfair, while campaigning.
The Tories didn't say they were going to raise VAT before the 2010 election. You have to be selective in your policy announcements to get elected.
The Tories didn't say they were going to raise VAT before the 2010 election. You have to be selective in your policy announcements to get elected.
So there you are, protesting about the effects of austerity and the rise of food banks, what do you do?
That's right, throw biscuits at police.
We is before you get to the vandalism of the Women's War Memorial.
The origins of UKIP and he basis upon which its longest serving supporters have stood by the party has is not one of race, if anything you might describe them as the political wing of the Taxpayers' Alliance. From what i read of their manifesto Farage had the means to take a less provocative approach in campaigning, his decision to to do so may well have contributed to his personal failure in Thanet (yet there was success on a broader scale).
In a recent survey 12% of Labour voters admitted to being openly racist, and a nearly comparable proportion of Lib Dems were unashamedly anti-Semitic; the LBC's Iain Dale alluded the differing manner in which the media represents the mainstream and minor parties. It is notable that one of the SNP's few defeats was in Ediburgh South, where the candidate (supported by Sturgeon) had compared unionists to Nazi collaborators.