The Rise and Rise of UKIP

[wee_insomniac]

How much of an impact will UKIP have at next year's general election? Will they continue to gain in popularity or will the public turn on them once they start to learn that there is no substance to them at all?

Each week they undergo more and more scrutiny, so hopefully people will see them for what they really are. Unfortunately I could see my constituency swinging over to UKIP as they are disillusioned by labour, but I would feel very uncomfortable knowing that the people around me have voted them in.

[kaosmark2]

1-4 MPs, hopefully no more than the Greens.

Their rise in popularity won't last. The BNP had a bit of a surge for a while before getting knocked back over a period after people realised what they were. UKIP aren't quite as detestable as them, but as they get more scrutiny they'll lose support.

Also, local and european elections tend to get a lot more protest votes than GEs. They won't have an impact.

[wee_insomniac]

I do think that they've got a bit more drawing power than the BNP, and from recent by elections, they are certainly getting more support than the BNP ever did.

Although the recent headline about Nigel Farage blaming immigrants for him being late for a meet and greet that others have paid for has discredited him somewhat and hopefully a few more things like that would come to light by the time the Election Day comes.

Edited December 9, 2014 by wee_insomniac

[Thearg]

Reading between the lines of their policies it looks as though they are all for a police state to me,very dangerous but as you say hopefully nothing will come of it.

[kaosmark2]

By-election results are very different when they're triggered by a defection, and they're also very different from GE results anyway. People know it's not going to affect the overall makeup of government, so are more inclined to vote for minor parties.

Edited December 9, 2014 by kaosmark2

[Spindles]

The timing of this particular rise seems to remind people of the SDP splitting the Labour vote in 1983 and I'd love to think that they will significantly impact on the Tories. The fact that they will get some seats shows that they reached a part of the electorate that the BNP never could.

What amazes me is that people haven't realised that it's all lies, essentially. What few of them ever get a public voice just make up policy on the spot, according to their own personal opinions, usually either to provoke controversy or to wriggle out of a question about racist intentions. Their actual policies are a cloudy mystery, changing as soon as they are challenged.

[kaosmark2]

The timing of this particular rise seems to remind people of the SDP splitting the Labour vote in 1983 and I'd love to think that they will significantly impact on the Tories. The fact that they will get some seats shows that they reached a part of the electorate that the BNP never could.

What amazes me is that people haven't realised that it's all lies, essentially. What few of them ever get a public voice just make up policy on the spot, according to their own personal opinions, usually either to provoke controversy or to wriggle out of a question about racist intentions. Their actual policies are a cloudy mystery, changing as soon as they are challenged.

There's the odd policy that's been made clear:

"We want to privatise the NHS"

"We want to clamp down on that naughty gay sex"

"We don't like women breastfeeding"

"Actually, we don't like women at all"

"But though we don't like women, we need to make clear we're not gay, so we're going to try and be just homophobic enough to overcompensate without becoming unelectable"

[eFestivals]

Their actual policies are a cloudy mystery, changing as soon as they are challenged.

True.

And it allows them to be (sort of) everything to everyone; hopefully, more scrutiny in the run up to the election will lose them some (tho perhaps not much) of their support.

[jump]

I know a lesbian who was gonna vote for UKIP for their immigration policy, I pointed out they were anti-gay and she quickly changed her mind.

Edited December 9, 2014 by jump

[russycarps]

I know a lesbian who was gonna for UKIP for their immigration policy, I pointed out they were anti-gay and she quickly changed her mind.

ha, the ignorance of the masses summed up in 2 lines.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

They also seem to be anti-M4.

Every home counties Tory who votes for UKIP just adds to the very slight possibility it dilutes their vote and lowers their seats. Its not about the number of MP's they get in - its about how much they split the vote. The perfect result would be they don't get any seats - but the Tories start losing marginals where their vote is taken away.

For that reason - the more they stay just on the right side of completely barking the better.

[eFestivals]

They also seem to be anti-M4.

Every home counties Tory who votes for UKIP just adds to the very slight possibility it dilutes their vote and lowers their seats. Its not about the number of MP's they get in - its about how much they split the vote. The perfect result would be they don't get any seats - but the Tories start losing marginals where their vote is taken away.

For that reason - the more they stay just on the right side of completely barking the better.

Nicely put.

Unfortunately there's a big number of LibDem seats where the tories are traditionally the party who comes 2nd, so what might happen with those is anyone's guess. It's quite possible that the tories could pick up a number of seats via those, that'll cover-off the same number of gains by Labour from the tories.

This'll be an extra-interesting election because of the new factors in the mix, but I have a lot of worries that I might not like the result.

[kaosmark2]

Nicely put.

Unfortunately there's a big number of LibDem seats where the tories are traditionally the party who comes 2nd, so what might happen with those is anyone's guess. It's quite possible that the tories could pick up a number of seats via those, that'll cover-off the same number of gains by Labour from the tories.

This'll be an extra-interesting election because of the new factors in the mix, but I have a lot of worries that I might not like the result.

New factors which include the Greens despite the media trying to hide them.

I think Libs will lose about equally to Tory and Labour, but not actually as many as seems to be predicted. I've seen predictions with them going down to as few as 10 seats! No way will they lose that badly.

[eFestivals]

anyway, the UKIP General secretary has been accused of sexually harassing a UKIP candidate.

That guy's name is Roger Bird, you couldn't make it up.

He claims they had a brief relationship, which she denies. I know love can be blind, but on the basis of their photos I'm more inclined to believe her.

And the comments under the Daily Mail article claim it must have been a set-up, as she's ex-Labour. UKIP can do no wrong even if they might have done wrong, and that's why their support has increased.

[eFestivals]

New factors which include the Greens despite the media trying to hide them.

There's little to suggest the Greens stand a chance of making a meaningful impact, tho they might get another MP or two.

But they'll be used as a contrast with the SNP, who'll get a smaller percentage vote than the Greens but will have hugely greater seats.

I think Libs will lose about equally to Tory and Labour, but not actually as many as seems to be predicted. I've seen predictions with them going down to as few as 10 seats! No way will they lose that badly.

something I read last night reckoned they'd probably hold 20 to 30 seats.

[kaosmark2]

There's little to suggest the Greens stand a chance of making a meaningful impact, tho they might get another MP or two.

But they'll be used as a contrast with the SNP, who'll get a smaller percentage vote than the Greens but will have hugely greater seats.

something I read last night reckoned they'd probably hold 20 to 30 seats.

I still think the Greens can do as much as UKIP despite the disparity in media coverage. They got a MP first, they got it without needing a defection and by-election, etc. etc.

I reckon 30-40 myself. 30-odd are incredibly long-standing strongholds and I don't think the degree of anger against Lib Dems has held quite as strongly in most of the constituencies they actually have. I think most of their loss of vote share will be in places where people threw them an optimistic vote or a protest vote.

[eFestivals]

I still think the Greens can do as much as UKIP despite the disparity in media coverage. They got a MP first, they got it without needing a defection and by-election, etc. etc.

They might do as much as UKIP, but UKIP are unlikely to do very much - even with over double the likely vote of the Greens.

FPTP makes it awfully difficult for a new or small party to break thru and take a seat. Much of the LibDem's progress over the years has been via the special events that are byelections, where an unusual result is far more likely than in a GE.

From Ashcroft's most recent polling of Thanet where Farage plans to stand, he's unlikely to get elected. Reckless will quite possibly lose his very-recently-won Rochester seat too, leaving Carswell as the most likely UKIP 'success'.

I reckon 30-40 myself. 30-odd are incredibly long-standing strongholds and I don't think the degree of anger against Lib Dems has held quite as strongly in most of the constituencies they actually have. I think most of their loss of vote share will be in places where people threw them an optimistic vote or a protest vote.

There's all sorts of weird factors at play.

For example, Clegg looks likely to win in his own seat, tho the support for voting LibDem drops if a voter is reminded that Clegg is their MP.

Quite how much reminding between now and election day is needed to unseat him is open to speculation, but that a percentage of the voting population is rather dumb certainly isn't.

Edited December 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

They might do as much as UKIP, but UKIP are unlikely to do very much - even with over double the likely vote of the Greens.

FPTP makes it awfully difficult for a new or small party to break thru and take a seat. Much of the LibDem's progress over the years has been via the special events that are byelections, where an unusual result is far more likely than in a GE.

From Ashcroft's most recent polling of Thanet where Farage plans to stand, he's unlikely to get elected. Reckless will quite possibly lose his very-recently-won Rochester seat too, leaving Carswell as the most likely UKIP 'success'.

There's all sorts of weird factors at play.

For example, Clegg looks likely to win in his own seat, tho the support for voting LibDem drops if a voter is reminded that Clegg is their MP.

Quite how much reminding between now and election day is needed to unseat him is open to speculation, but that a percentage of the voting population is rather dumb certainly isn't.

Yup. By "as well" I mean that I think each will get 1-4 seats.

I'm still really hoping Clegg loses his own seat. I also suspect that the polling in his constituency isn't as accurate as it would be elsewhere, because it's very much a "some of it is studentville, some of it is definitely not". I'm certainly hopeful that all the students there gang up to get rid of him.

[wee_insomniac]

I don't really understand all of the anti-lib dem movement. They got fewer seats in 2010 than they had in the previous election, yet their followers have turned on them because they joined the Tories in government and managed to dilute some of their more right wing policies?

It makes no sense, the lib dems were never in power, they were able to influence the Tories on some policies and yet people blame them for U-turning on their policies, even though they had very little, if any, power to enforce them...

At least the student support are unlikely to vote UKIP in protest.

Edited December 9, 2014 by wee_insomniac

[eFestivals]

I don't really understand all of the anti-lib dem movement. They got fewer seats in 2010 than they had in the previous election, yet their followers have turned on them because they joined the Tories in government and managed to dilute some of their more right wing policies?

It makes no sense, the lib dems were never in power, they were able to influence the Tories on some policies and yet people blame them for U-turning on their policies, even though they had very little, if any, power to enforce them...

At least the student support are unlikely to vote UKIP in protest.

You're definitely right, in that the LibDems moderated many of the tories more extreme policies, but there's two big issues around that.

Firstly, they made some solid promises - mainly tuition fees - that they were happy to abandon for a finger or two on power.

And secondly, there's a perception amongst some that the tories would have been able to do none of those normal tory things without the LibDems votes.

The first one stands up, the 2nd less so. Because if the tories had had to be a minority govt, they would have either called an immediately election and won or they'd have waited for the convenient moment to call a snap election and won. And so we'd have got those same tory policies, but at their most extreme.

I'm now no fan of the Libdems myself - because of their abandonment of PR, the most important thing for the future of British politics IMO, and something I had really hoped they might deliver on - but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't vote for them again (tho not as my perfect choice). Any vote that helps stop the more-extreme parties holding more power is a good thing, I'd say.

Edited December 9, 2014 by eFestivals

[viberunner]

I don't really understand all of the anti-lib dem movement. They got fewer seats in 2010 than they had in the previous election, yet their followers have turned on them because they joined the Tories in government and managed to dilute some of their more right wing policies?

The cutting tax for the richest, imposing a bedroom tax on those unable to pay or move, sanctioning those on benefits - even to the point of killing them, AND going back on tuition fees?

There was one good way to stop these right-wing policies... NOT FUCKING VOTE FOR THEM.

They sold their soul to the devil. They screamed and bleated for years how they were progressive and sensible, but in power they have been party to one of the most malicious governments since Mr Toothbrushmoustache went radge.

[kaosmark2]

I won't be voting Lib Dem until Clegg and Alexander go. I didn't like their Orange Book take on liberalism anyway, and some of the things they've done in coalition have really shat on everything they've stood for. Once they're gone though, I'll consider them a viable option again.

They definitely have tempered the worst of what the tories wanted to do, but they have still enabled a fuckton of horror.

[eFestivals]

The next UKIP scandal?

https://g1rm.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/the-strange-case-of-jasna-badzak-lee-jasper-louise-mensch-ukip-and-possible-police-corruption/

[viberunner]

Because if the tories had had to be a minority govt, they would have either called an immediately election and won or they'd have waited for the convenient moment to call a snap election and won.

That's your opinion, but not necessarily true. One of the major sways against Labour vote was Gordon "Bigot" Brown, without him at the helm it's just as possible the Labour share would increase.

[eFestivals]

There was one good way to stop these right-wing policies... NOT FUCKING VOTE FOR THEM.

That's a very simplistic view on things. If the LibDems hadn't joined the tories in govt, politics doesn't come to a stop.

The tories as the biggest party would have become the govt. In all likelihood they'd have called an immediate election, and in all likelihood they'd have won a majority; people would have voted differently 2nd time to get a 'solid' govt.

But if they'd not have called an immediate election, they'd have called one at an opportunistic time, and they'd have won.

So the choice in reality was to work with the tories and knobble their more extreme tendencies (which they've done in some policy places, tho not all), or to accept there'd be a tory majority govt in the near future where the tories would do their very worst.

So I don't blame the LibDems for entering coalition, tho I do blame them for not getting better terms to do so. They should have held out for their firm commitments and been more prepared to give up on other things; the short term would have seen some horrible toryisms implemented, but the longer term would have seen them as irrelevant with politics changed forever via PR.

Funnily enough, UKIP have claimed in the past to support PR - tho I found no mention of it on their website earlier today when i looked at their general policy statements.