every time a non-labour politician is asked to explain why they are/aren't doing a certain thing 'it's because labour spent all the money'.I just don't recognise most of this in the media over the past few months.
every time a non-labour politician is asked to explain why they are/aren't doing a certain thing 'it's because labour spent all the money'.I just don't recognise most of this in the media over the past few months.
It's in Goodwin and Fords top ten UKIP targets in their book.
Was it not Norsemen who settled them before the Saxons?
I've not read it. I think mist of the interesting stuff has been posted by the authors on their various blogs and articles. I'm looking for a free copy on the web though.Is that book any good, do you know? Considering a read...
I've not read it. I think mist of the interesting stuff has been posted by the authors on their various blogs and articles. I'm looking for a free copy on the web though.
Of course.Let me know if you find one, could you? I'm cutting my book-buying expenditure back atm...
My mistake, I always thought that those pesky Vikings had harassed them nasty Romans. What were those Vikings doing for four hundred years?No - the first Saxon settlements were nearly four hundred years before the main Viking raids started. Of course they then complained about people invading, despoiling society, taking jobs etc etc
Okay, back to politics. I suspect there is some correlation between those areas and high unemployment. Yet that would raise the question of why it is focussed in the south and east when there is a lot of unemployment further north and west as well.
These are areas with two/three way party splits which UKIP can slip though on around 30% - areas in the north with high unemployment etc are safe labour seats. These are not just best performing UKIP areas, there is local context.Okay, back to politics. I suspect there is some correlation between those areas and high unemployment. Yet that would raise the question of why it is focussed in the south and east when there is a lot of unemployment further north and west as well.
This whole thread turned to shit ages ago. Anyone that dares criticise ukip for what they are is now to be themselves criticised. Now we have a party without policies run and fed by millionaires wanting to 'take our country back'. There is noever andy debate - for instance from whom? The EU? Who are the EU if that doesn't include us? Romanians and Bulgarians? Nasty easterners vs friendly westerners?
This whole thing makes me sick. The amount of coverage this party has received, with very little to challenge their lies about immigration (the only topic discussed), is astounding.
More contempt for the working class, Frank?
What people are (surprising as it may seem to you) aware of is that councillors have traction on local policy.
I talk about stupid people and you assume I'm talking about the working class. Sounds like the contempt is at your end tbh.
ukip as a whole will have to keep noses very clean on the financial front. Any irregularity or case of 'money just resting etc' will be siezed on as 'look, they're just as bad as the others'
Yep - Labour/Tory marginal which the big two easily forget aboutThat's the Forest of Dean on that map at the top of the bristol channel btw
Otoh, aren't a fair few of them refugees from the big two who know how the local politics game is played?You can be sure their new councillors and MEPs will have been told this. Whether they'll listen, or follow Farage's snout into the trough, is another matter. In fact IMO one thing that might well hamper the party in the coming years is that the quality of its councillors won't be all that good, and there'll be a few resignations and sackings, as well as some disillusionment when the anti-political candidate people voted for turns out to be just another self-interested politician who doesn't turn up to council meetings. Hopefully some of that will start to emerge well before the general election.
Otoh, aren't a fair few of them refugees from the big two who know how the local politics game is played?
Why did the Nazis gain support? Same thing different time.
i would be surprised if some of that hasn't emerged by the end of the monthYou can be sure their new councillors and MEPs will have been told this. Whether they'll listen, or follow Farage's snout into the trough, is another matter. In fact IMO one thing that might well hamper the party in the coming years is that the quality of its councillors won't be all that good, and there'll be a few resignations and sackings, as well as some disillusionment when the anti-political candidate people voted for turns out to be just another self-interested politician who doesn't turn up to council meetings. Hopefully some of that will start to emerge well before the general election.
i would be surprised if some of that hasn't emerged by the end of the month
Is it?Entirely different thing. The Nazis built their original organisation by appealing to the rural petit bourgeoisie, promising land reform and lebensraum, plus an end to economic uncertainty and unemployment. In many German cities, the Nazis had no traction until they were already in power, and even then cities as diverse as Cologne, Berlin and Dresden had substantial anti-Nazi dissent.
Comparing UKIP's results with how the Nazis gained support isn't just fatuous, it's historically-ignorant on a grand scale.
But it's not "voting for whoever turns up at your doorstep", it's voting for a party that's bothered to engage with you as a member of the electorate; that's bothered to listen to your concerns. Canvassing works, especially when the mainstream parties have all but withdrawn from the doorstep due to a lack of activists. Some of UKIP's ward wins are clear proof of that.
What are UKIP building their support on?
Did that really say a billion? I assumed that was an error.There was an interesting snippet someplace on here yesterday, where Maurice posted a link to Electoral Commission saying that UKIP had a political fund of around a billion in 2011 (compared to the Greens on about 700k)
That much cash pays for a lot of "engagement" ...
Did that really say a billion? I assumed that was an error.
must be an error.Did that really say a billion? I assumed that was an error.
Is it?
Were the Germans who elected him in 1933 thinking about the gas chambers?
Who knows what the future holds. What are UKIP building their support on?
What makes me sick is an obviously-intelligent person missing the point by a country fucking mile.
You've constantly tried to handbag the debate into something where the motivations for politics, and in particular for voting UKIP are reduced to "because people who vote UKIP are cunts".
The rational thing to do is exactly to analyse why people might do so, and to use that analysis to inform future tactics and politics.
But no, best to just call them names, and ignore everything else!
Is it?
Were the Germans who elected him in 1933 thinking about the gas chambers?
Who knows what the future holds. What are UKIP building their support on?