Ukip - why are they gaining support?

[Streathamite]

When is the media going to start robustly interrogating UKIP?,

by the right wing rags, never if they have their way, as UKIp is their plan C for when/if the Tories implode
(not that they'll need them, given that Labour are plan B)

 

[butchersapron]

by the right wing rags, never if they have their way, as UKIp is their plan C for when/if the Tories implode
(not that they'll need them, given that Labour are plan B)

Labour/tories are plan a - UKIP are a tool to indirectly pressure them. Part of plan a is the pretence that there is or could ever be a plan b.

 

[Streathamite]

Labour/tories are plan a - UKIP are a tool to indirectly pressure them. Part of plan a is the pretence that there is or could ever be a plan b.

hmm yes, taht may be more like it, sorta "do exactly as we say, adopt policy x,y,z OR we'll give this bloke's candidates enough favourable space to scare the shit out of your MPs, no-one will be safe?" bluff?
e2a; or do you mean gulling the electorate into thinking the system's anything other than a closed-off stitchup?

 

[butchersapron]

Total bluff. And the key is not who is elected but how the ruling class move/control the overton window.

 

[MillwallShoes]

lot of people, racist or not, list "immigration" as a concern.

major parties continue current levels of immigration and don't really talk about any easing of such levels.

UKIP talk about easing/stopping it and put it at top of agenda.

hence popularity of UKIP.

 

[Roadkill]

Maybe if the 'left' had a leader that was constantly on the TV and in the papers, appeared on Question Time 13 times and so on they'd make inroads. Visibility is important. Farage is everywhere, but policy and some of their questionable statements are never analysed anywhere prominent - those claims of 8 million Romanians 'invading' and so on. I think Labour are strategically leaving them alone as they think they'll do more damage to the tories than to them, but it might not work out that way.

I think that's probably true. A few times I've wondered why the 'body politic' doesn't roll over and squash UKIP like a sleeping sow crushing its piglets. After all, their policies are an incoherent right-wing wet dream and completely implausible on pretty much every measure (tax cuts all round whilst splurging on the armed forces, getting rid of tuition fees etc ... really?!) and on the face of it it doesn't seem to hard for the mainstream parties to shoot them out of the sky. But Labour won't because they think they'll damage the Tories more, Cameron won't because he's scared of the UKIP-sympathising right of his party, and no-one gives a fuck what the Lib Dems think. They're letting them run ... although I suspect the article butchersapron quotes is right that they'll run up against some of the same limitations as the BNP.

As for their internal constraints, I reckon if Farage had been killed in that plane crash we wouldn't be discussing this. Farage is a cunt but he's not a fool, and his maverick public persona does seem to appeal to some people.A little like Boris Johnson, maybe. In a weird way he works on things like Question time, and he seems to be quite good at keeping the frothing loons who make up a lot of UKIP sufficiently in check to protect the party's image - a bit like Griffin did for the BNP for a while, in fact. He also appears to wield huge authority within the party. Without him, I reckon they'd start fighting amongst themselves in pretty short order. In terms of finishing off UKIP, a decapitation strategy seems to have a lot going for it. I'd be prepared to bet that a few people are digging around in Farage's closet (ugh!) to see what skeletons might lurk there.

 

[Roadkill]

dp

 

[Lo Siento.]

lot of people, racist or not, list "immigration" as a concern.

major parties continue current levels of immigration and don't really talk about any easing of such levels.

UKIP talk about easing/stopping it and put it at top of agenda.

hence popularity of UKIP.

Slight correction to that, major parties bang on about reducing it all the time, but can't actually change levels of immigration because we live in a globally integrated economy. Being a maverick outsider party, UKIP don't have to deal with that reality, thus, UKIP can spout off on the subject, using the major parties and mainstream newspapers' hypocritical stance on the matter for political capital.

 

[MillwallShoes]

Slight correction to that, major parties bang on about reducing immigration all the time, but can't actually change levels of integration because we live in a globally integrated economy. Being a maverick outsider party, UKIP don't have to deal with that reality, thus, UKIP can spout off on the subject, using the major parties and mainstream newspapers' hypocritical stance on the matter for political capital.

i totally agree with you 100%.

 

[Quartz]

Another thing: Farage is a leader. He has shown himself to have the ability of leadership that Cameron and Clegg so clearly lack.

 

[Lo Siento.]

i totally agree with you 100%.

ie. Conservative manifesto

immigration today is too high and needs to be reduced. We do not need to attract people to do jobs that could be carried out by british citizens, given the right training and support. So we will take steps to take net migration back to the levels of the 1990s – tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands.

and Labour (who filed it in a section titled "Crime and Immigration" (!))

We are committed to an
immigration system that
promotes and protects British
values. People need to know
that immigration is controlled,
that the rules are firm and fair,
and that there is support for
communities in dealing with
change.

Our borders are stronger than
ever. A new Border Agency
has police-level powers and
thousands more immigration
officers, 100 per cent of visas
are now biometric, and new
electronic border controls will
be counting people in and out
by the end of the year. Asylum
claims are back down to early
1990s levels, and the cost of
asylum support to the taxpayer
has been cut by half in the last
six years. Genuine refugees will
continue to receive protection.

Our new Australian-style points-
based system is ensuring we
get the migrants our economy
needs, but no more. We will
gradually tighten the criteria
in line with the needs of the
British economy and the values
of British citizenship, and step
up our action against illegal
immigration. There will be
no unskilled migration from
outside the EU. Skilled jobs are
now advertised here first for
four weeks with more vacancies
going to local workers, and
public procurement will in
future give priority to local
people. The points-based
system will be used to control
migration with limits for high-
skilled workers and university
students. As growth returns
we want to see rising levels of
employment and wages, not
rising immigration.

 

[youngian]

This UKIP candidate in Cambridge is not likely to be gaining to much support after this Q&A on cycling-

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/elections/2013maycounty/eastchesterton

 

[Lo Siento.]

ie. Conservative manifesto
and Labour (who filed it in a section titled "Crime and Immigration" (!))

Of course, in the unlikely event of UKIP taking power, the same thing would happen - they'd discover that being part of a global economy involves a constant traffic of people and goods, that the amount of migration is largely determined by economic forces and that any effective action to curtail it would involve an inordinate amount of spending on policing and would affect so many people's bottom lines that it would be totally impractical. So immigration levels would stay the same.

 

[Roadkill]

Another thing: Farage is a leader. He has shown himself to have the ability of leadership that Cameron and Clegg so clearly lack.

There is, of course, no difference between leading a long-established national party and what is essentially a protest group...

 

[Quartz]

Ironically the latter is perhaps more difficult. But Cameron and Clegg have shown themselves unfit to manage so much as a public convenience.

 

[Balbi]

Farage has all the leadership skills he needs, seeing as how he's never, ever going to have to actually do anything which involves governing. The same way Blair can talk about it - it's the confidence and assured attitude of those with fuck all involvement.

 

[Quartz]

Farage has all the leadership skills he needs, seeing as how he's never, ever going to have to actually do anything which involves governing.

Never say never; just look at Salmond.

 

[where to]

Another thing: Farage is a leader. He has shown himself to have the ability of leadership that Cameron and Clegg so clearly lack.

When has he done that? Leadership of who?

 

[Quartz]

When has he done that? Leadership of who?

UKIP. You may recall that he stepped down as leader some years back and someone else took over but was a disaster, so he came back and look where UKIP appear to be today.

 

[Balbi]

Never say never; just look at Salmond.

Yes, well done Quartz - ignore the actual Scottish Parliament there.

Farage is the lead cat herder of a herd of drunken cats. That's not leadership.

 

[Quartz]

Yes, well done Quartz - ignore the actual Scottish Parliament there.

Ignore it? Salmond's won devolution, won the existence of the Scottish parliament, and until the death of Brian Adam the other day had a majority.

Farage is the lead cat herder of a herd of drunken cats. That's not leadership.

You dismiss Farage so lightly at your peril. I think he could be a very dangerous man.

 

[where to]

UKIP. You may recall that he stepped down as leader some years back and someone else took over but was a disaster, so he came back and look where UKIP appear to be today.

What examples of his leadership and running of the party are there to support the link you're making though?

 

[Quartz]

What examples of his leadership and running of the party are there to support the link you're making though?

See post 319.

 

[where to]

Post numbers dont come up on the device I am accessing forum from.

 

[Quartz]

Post numbers dont come up on the device I am accessing forum from.

Sorry, I meant to make it a link.

 

[Joe Reilly]

I think that's probably true. A few times I've wondered why the 'body politic' doesn't roll over and squash UKIP like a sleeping sow crushing its piglets. After all, their policies are an incoherent right-wing wet dream and completely implausible on pretty much every measure (tax cuts all round whilst splurging on the armed forces, getting rid of tuition fees etc ... really?!) and on the face of it it doesn't seem to hard for the mainstream parties to shoot them out of the sky. But Labour won't because they think they'll damage the Tories more, Cameron won't because he's scared of the UKIP-sympathising right of his party, and no-one gives a fuck what the Lib Dems think. They're letting them run ... although I suspect the article butchersapron quotes is right that they'll run up against some of the same limitations as the BNP.

UKIP might be incoherent but the reason the mainstream parties are wary of them is because they too are incoherent. Incoherent to the estent that they are representative of just over 6 out of 10 voters - collectively.

So UKIP dosen't have to compete with them for the extant vote when it can more easily mop up the disaffected. One obvious area of attraction is immigration where once UKIP flew the flag all the other parties immediately started shuffling nervously.

And while the IWCA article does predict official 'anti-fascism' will kick in as soon as UKIP register a threat to their Labour paymasters, this does not mean 'that faced with the same limitations as the BNP' it will necessarily succumb to them.

 

[Favelado]

A man who is married to my auntie is standing as a UKIP councillor and I notice that he "liked" an EDL page on Facebook. What should we do with him?

 

[where to]

The Times today say three of ukips candidates were on the old Bnp membership list from a few yrs back.

I'm not sure how their inabilty to vet candidates works with that. It would take five minutes to run a report checking these two data sets against each other.

What would happen if a ukip supporter quietly notified them of a 'problem' candidate I wonder and what would the responce reveal.

 

[J Ed]

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/...ming-gay-claims-uk-councillor-candidate270413

John Sullivan, a UK councillor candidate congratulated Russia on banning gay Pride marches and claimed regular exercise in schools can prevent homosexuality.

In a series of Facebook posts, Sullivan, who is a member of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) likened gay activists to termites and stated that feminism is evil and being gay is even worse.

Sullivan is standing for local elections on 2 May, to represent as a councillor the Forest of Dean area in Gloucestershire’s County Council, in western England, UK.

In a series of posts on the far right anti-gay Traditional Britain Group Facebook group Sullivan expressed anti-gay views, revealed Colin Cortbus, an anti-extremist campaigner and a Gay Star News reader.

In one post Sullivan said that regular physical exercise ‘prevents’ children from ‘becoming’ gay.

He recommended that ‘Victorian style’ regular physical exercise be reinstated in schools as it apparently ‘releases of tension’ which ‘prevents’ homosexuality’.

 

[Balbi]

Yes, well done Quartz - ignore the actual Scottish Parliament there.

Farage is the lead cat herder of a herd of drunken cats. That's not leadership.

Even UKIP agree with me

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/27/ukip-local-elections-emails

In one email, a senior party figure claims that leading the anti-EU party is like "herding cats". Ukip leader Nigel Farage is warned that his party is facing a decade without credible policies, as crippling internal rows rage, and it is suggested that the party should consider buying off-the-shelf strategy from right-leaning thinktanks.