The Rise and Rise of UKIP

[Spindles]

I think you can also thank the SDP for costing Labour the 1983 election (something I hope UKIP help to repeat in reverse next May).

[t8yman]

Love this

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-12-22-student-made-ukip-parody-game-upsets-nigel-farage

[eFestivals]

Nigel's Dad: a National Front candidate

Nigel's agent: a National Front candidate

National Front: NF

Nigel Farage: NF

Someone should be told.

Like UKIP themselves, who claim to have banned ex-NF, ex-BNP, and ex-EDL members from their party, and yet UKIP councillor Martyn Heale from Kent has spoken of his regret at having been a member of the far right National Front in the 1970s.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/26/ukip-councillor-immigration-overload-made-uk-racist

He's got no regret about having been a tory activist for 20 years tho. At least Farage regrets being a tory - or at least, being a failed tory.

Like Carswell, Reckless, and Hamilton - also failed tories. The tories were too sensible for them to succeed.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Farage is named Briton of the Year by The Times.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-named-briton-of-the-year-by-the-times-9946110.html

Good grief :-(

[grumpyhack]

Farage is named Briton of the Year by The Times.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-named-briton-of-the-year-by-the-times-9946110.html

Good grief :-(

Horrendous though I think the man and his policies are, I probably have to agree. Fair play, the Times wasn't saying he was the greatest Briton of the year, just the one who's had most impact. The paper also acknowledged that his party was the 'most disliked' in the UK.

But even here he's prompted 12 pages of discussion. He's had an impact on the direction and the agenda of Labour, Tory and Lib Dem policies. I can't think of many other people who single-handedly have had that degree of impact.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Horrendous though I think the man and his policies are, I probably have to agree. Fair play, the Times wasn't saying he was the greatest Briton of the year, just the one who's had most impact. The paper also acknowledged that his party was the 'most disliked' in the UK.

But even here he's prompted 12 pages of discussion. He's had an impact on the direction and the agenda of Labour, Tory and Lib Dem policies. I can't think of many other people who single-handedly have had that degree of impact.

His impact is only due to the press coverage rather than his personal impact.

[grumpyhack]

Part of his personal impact has been to achieve that press coverage.

[eFestivals]

Part of his personal impact has been to achieve that press coverage.

and yet that press coverage has been driven by the press and not anything Farage has been doing.

The tory press have created their own monster. They've used Farage as a way to put pressure on Cameron, and its back-fired - because from their raving right hell-holes they've failed to realise just how much the tories are now hated, which has caused affections to transfer to Farage.

Just as in Scotland, politics in England is now driven to an extent by what people hate rather than what an alternative offers; the alternative doesn't have to stack up to anything of meaningful substance, it merely has to be not the hated.

[LJS]

and yet that press coverage has been driven by the press and not anything Farage has been doing.

The tory press have created their own monster. They've used Farage as a way to put pressure on Cameron, and its back-fired - because from their raving right hell-holes they've failed to realise just how much the tories are now hated, which has caused affections to transfer to Farage.

Just as in Scotland, politics in England is now driven to an extent by what people hate rather than what an alternative offers; the alternative doesn't have to stack up to anything of meaningful substance, it merely has to be not the hated.

I'll ignore your habitual misunderstanding/misrepresentation of Scottish politics as that discussion is for another thread.

Some encouraging news about the views of first time voters...

Young voters shun Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg in general election poll

Opinium/Observer poll finds 17- to 22-year-olds oppose the anti-EU policies of Ukip while Lib Dems trail the Greens

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/27/young-voters-shun-ukip-farage-clegg-lib-dems-general-election

Edited December 28, 2014 by LJS

[grumpyhack]

and yet that press coverage has been driven by the press and not anything Farage has been doing

I'm sure we've had this discussion before on what drives the agenda of the press but never mind....

The agenda of the press is driven by one thing only these days ...... money.

If you serve up what your readers are interested in you'll sell papers. If you serve up what they are not interested in people will stop buying the paper, you'll lose money and the paper will die.

So newspapers have to get close to what their readers are interested in. And the yardstick for that is "What people talk about in the pub, club - or now twittersphere."

Newspapers reflect the interests and agendas of their readers. Very rarely do they set agendas. In the old days of press barons like Beaverbrook and Rothermere, those rich men used the media to push their personal views. But that hasn't been the case for many years. Now they reflect their readers. So, right wing papers attempt to respond to the right wing interests of their readers. Liberal (with a small L) papers try to do the same.

[grumpyhack]

Sorry Barry, I have to disagree. It wasn't a prize for the most worthy person of the year but the person who prompted most discussion/controversy. Worthy though the other three were, and I'm sure we can add lots of other worthies from 2014, Nigel Fuckip prompted more discussion, shifted the political agenda, and even 12 pages of posts on here. I haven't seen that many pages on here devoted to ebola or cancer.

[philipsteak]

Sorry Barry, I have to disagree. It wasn't a prize for the most worthy person of the year but the person who prompted most discussion/controversy. Worthy though the other three were, and I'm sure we can add lots of other worthies from 2014, Nigel Fuckip prompted more discussion, shifted the political agenda, and even 12 pages of posts on here. I haven't seen that many pages on here devoted to ebola or cancer.

It wasn't really a prize for anything, it was a way to get people commenting on it. And let's face it, if it had been anyone worthy we all would have gone "well that's nice" and then moved on

[eFestivals]

I'm sure we've had this discussion before on what drives the agenda of the press but never mind....

The agenda of the press is driven by one thing only these days ...... money.

If you serve up what your readers are interested in you'll sell papers. If you serve up what they are not interested in people will stop buying the paper, you'll lose money and the paper will die.

So newspapers have to get close to what their readers are interested in. And the yardstick for that is "What people talk about in the pub, club - or now twittersphere."

Newspapers reflect the interests and agendas of their readers. Very rarely do they set agendas. In the old days of press barons like Beaverbrook and Rothermere, those rich men used the media to push their personal views. But that hasn't been the case for many years. Now they reflect their readers. So, right wing papers attempt to respond to the right wing interests of their readers. Liberal (with a small L) papers try to do the same.

But even the Guardian is doing the same as the Mail and the Telegraph - because the money to newspapers doesn't come from UKIP getting power, it comes from the public laughing at UKIP (or defending them).

The Mail and Telegraph bigged up UKIP to try and influence tory policies, but instead have created their own monster that is destroying the tories. They've realised their mistake, but too late.

In this case the press have definitely created the agenda, because it's all happened during a time of disillusionment with the main parties. The 'supporting' public's agenda isn't really in support of UKIP, it's against the other parties - as gets proven with a quick look over the northern border where all the same thing is happening but around another party - and where policy comparisons isn't something the "anti-politics" types will ever indulge in.

The support comes from the hatred of the 'traditional' parties and not because of a belief in the policies of the party getting the support - cos if it was about policies, they'd be prepared to discuss policies on an even-handed and rational basis.

[eFestivals]

I'll ignore your habitual misunderstanding/misrepresentation of Scottish politics as that discussion is for another thread.

I keep trying to talk policies there, and your refusal to do so proves what I said in this thread.

Do keep up with your own actions, eh?

[kaosmark2]

The Mail and Telegraph bigged up UKIP to try and influence tory policies, but instead have created their own monster that is destroying the tories. They've realised their mistake, but too late.

I tend to read the telegraph fairly often, as for all the horrendous opinions in there and clear bias, it's actually well-written. I don't remember them ever bigging UKIP up as more than a 4th party, certainly not as much as the BBC have.

[eFestivals]

UKIP are todays new fancy protest party.

Correct.

It's not about support of UKIP's (or the SNP's) policies, it's about a hatred of the other parties.

If it was about support of policies, they'd be prepared to hold rational conversations about the policies.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

Correct.

It's not about support of UKIP's (or the SNP's) policies, it's about a hatred of the other parties.

If it was about support of policies, they'd be prepared to hold rational conversations about the policies.

They have policies?

[kaosmark2]

They have policies?

"We don't like immigrants, tourists, students, women, gays or the NHS".

[Spindles]

"We don't like immigrants, tourists, students, women, gays or the NHS".

You forgot the poor, disabled and vulnerable.

[kaosmark2]

You forgot the poor, disabled and vulnerable.

That's because they're meant to be forgotten.

[LJS]

I keep trying to talk policies there, and your refusal to do so proves what I said in this thread.

Do keep up with your own actions, eh?

I posted a long post about policies last night (correcting your many errors), to which you have posted a predictably simplistic reply. So perhaps it's you who needs to keep up.

You are pretty much the only person who keeps dragging the SNP into this chat about UKIP.

Neil, we geddit...you don't like the SNP & you think they're a bit like UKIP.

[eFestivals]

Neil, we geddit...you don't like the SNP & you think they're a bit like UKIP.

Nope, I don't like political stupidity, no matter which party it's about.

If people want to vote UKIP, I'm happy for them to display their bigotry via their vote. I won't deny even the bigots their vote, and neither will I pretend the bigots don't exist.

But what I don't like is those who'll vote for them who believe them to be something that they're not.

There's plenty of morons who think UKIP are a left wing party. They're wrong, just as those who vote SNP thinking them left wing are wrong.

Left wing parties are not for tax cuts for the rich with no benefit for the poor. They're not even parties who give middle class privileges at the expense of the poor, which i know will surprise many in Scotland.

If Scotland ever wishes to vote left wing I'll be cheering them on. But Scotland doesn't vote left-wing as elections in Scotland prove time after time after time.

[A Guy Called Matt]

Reasons to vote UKIP.

http://reasonstovoteukip.com/

Edited January 6, 2015 by mattyc1965

[Ted Dansons Wig]

Farage blaming the atrocities in France on a muslim "fifth column" based in Paris and London.

The little shit continues to beggar belief

[eFestivals]

There's no bandwagon he won't jump on, why are you surprised?