farrage said he wanted to do a coalition with the tories.
probably lost half his supporters right there lol.......
poor regular people hate the tories and it's those who are voting ukip
Chances of UKIP winning General Election?
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
farrage said he wanted to do a coalition with the tories.
probably lost half his supporters right there lol.......
poor regular people hate the tories and it's those who are voting ukip
Pretty much this to be honest. Either a UKIP/Tory or UKIP/Labour coalition. There is no chance Lib Dems will make a strong enough recovery in time for the General Election, and there is also no chance of a Con/Lab coalition.
Having said that, I'd have thought any coalition set-up with UKIP would place them firmly at the bottom as the Lib Dems have experienced, possibly eroding any potential political power they may have held. It's unlikely the Conservatives will even consider any of the more right winged political ideas of UKIP, they're simply too mainstream.
Last edited:
I agree for the most. Career politicians are now the norm, unfortunately. Long term yes, we need radical change, but it does need to come from a main party, letting someone like UKIP/ Lib Dem/ BNP etc take the reins would be a disaster.
Thinking extremlely short term i.e next General Election, I feel anything apart from an outright conservative win will be dangerous.
Almost better the devil you know.
P.s Ed Miliband? Pahahahaha.
Think you will be surprised. From my very limited sample, (me and about 7 of my friends) we all voted UKIP/Conv for the EU election. But come the General Election everyone is going blue.
I wouldn't turn my nose up at a UKIP/Con coalition. Think DC needs a lot of convincing though...
A very skewed version of PR apparently. The Lib dems got 2-3x the votes of the SNP yet half the seats and only just got pipped by the greens (percentage wise) who got three seats...
It's like the general electionss where I always wonder just how labour don't win every election with the skew they have towards them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
The seats are allocated regionally, not nationally.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,719
- Location
- La France
I doubt it as a good number of UKIP voters are (like myself) disaffected Conservative voters.
We already have a grip, the debt having increased under their rule is nothing to bat an eyelid at because it's national debt not deficit, that's coming down and is now at it's lowest level since the start of the financial crisis.
I don't even understand why UKIP are a 'thing'. They're a one-issue party with no seats in the UK parliament. There's a high chance they will finish the 2015 election with a significant percentage of the votes, but (again) 0 seats. If they do pick some up, they are still likely to be well behind the 'doomed' Liberal Democrats, and with less seats than the SNP, Sinn Fein and the Social Democrats (who?) scored in 2010. Despite this, they get masses of media coverage.
There won't be a UKIP/Anything coalition. They won't have enough seats to be worth bothering with. The compromises involved in coalition government are only worth it if it delivers a comfortable majority. If you've got less than 10 seats you aren't going to be delivering a comfortable majority to either of the main parties, no matter how close they are to winning the election. UKIP are significant only because they have the potential to erode the Tory vote enough to deliver a Labour majority. Outside of that, the only likely results are a Tory/Labour Majority, a Tory/Labour minority government or a Tory/Labour coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
There won't be a UKIP/Anything coalition. They won't have enough seats to be worth bothering with. The compromises involved in coalition government are only worth it if it delivers a comfortable majority. If you've got less than 10 seats you aren't going to be delivering a comfortable majority to either of the main parties, no matter how close they are to winning the election. UKIP are significant only because they have the potential to erode the Tory vote enough to deliver a Labour majority. Outside of that, the only likely results are a Tory/Labour Majority, a Tory/Labour minority government or a Tory/Labour coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
Last edited:
That's what I'd guess.
Which I find highly ironic as the rise of UKIP may result in a Labour victory - the key party with the best chance of getting in power who have not expressed any desire for a referendum to leave the EU.
I understand how it works...
just pointing out that it's not true PR unfortunately.
Nil, they probably won't even get an mp due to fptp, check out the size of various majorities and the number of times particular seats have changed since the war to get an idea of the likelihood of ukip getting seats in a GE, it would take a massive swing and huge concentrations of ukip supporters in the big conurbations.
But if I accept your argument for a second that the pretty dramatic turnaround in the economy isn't fast enough.. what would you have UKIP do?
If we pulled out of europe immediately, if such a thing were immediately possible without any further damage to the economy we'd presumably save the €13bn we pay in every year.
Around 10% of the deficit if my sums are correct, but then we also get a rebate so that would be gone so more like maybe 6-7% of the deficit.
And it would cause economic carnage in actual fact, you only need to read a little about protectionism to see that it not only risks the economy it also starts wars, something Europe has been pretty good at over the years.
Interesting read... http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-alan-sked-party-become-frankensteins-monster
Anyone can spout crowd pleasing nonsense and shout about "the people" when all they have to do is go pose in front of some cameras every now and then.
Put some of the UKIP people in actual power and I'm sure they'd crumble.
And if you need any proof at all that they're just as bad as everyone else, understand UKIP set out to take no money from Europe, not send MEPs etc etc.
And now Farage is snout deep in the expenses there, presumably (and potentially even believably) with a view that he can change it from within which is entirely possible but then how does that make them any different?
They're slowly starting to mimic what they protest.
4 legs good, 2 legs better?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
This^
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
I understand how it works...
Well it's true PR, at a regional rather than national level.
I also think its worth pointing out this anti immigration thing in my opinion is a red herring.
I don't think the residents of benefits street are likely to jump into action just because there's less Eastern Europeans very professionally completing all the jobs they're too stupid, lazy and entitled to do.
Blocking people from entry won't stop this, forcing employers to pay everyone minimum wage might as it would remove the economic advantage people who are prepared to live 10 to a house, work on next to nothing and ignore the working time directive possess.
In my experience they're not "coming over here stealing our jobs"...
More like "coming over here, with your work ethic, completing our menial jobs faster, cheaper and more thoroughly with a smile on your face allowing me to keep my job as a marketing assistant/PA/account manager/fluffer rather than having to toil in a physical role"
Yes poor you.
I don't think the residents of benefits street are likely to jump into action just because there's less Eastern Europeans very professionally completing all the jobs they're too stupid, lazy and entitled to do.
Blocking people from entry won't stop this, forcing employers to pay everyone minimum wage might as it would remove the economic advantage people who are prepared to live 10 to a house, work on next to nothing and ignore the working time directive possess.
In my experience they're not "coming over here stealing our jobs"...
More like "coming over here, with your work ethic, completing our menial jobs faster, cheaper and more thoroughly with a smile on your face allowing me to keep my job as a marketing assistant/PA/account manager/fluffer rather than having to toil in a physical role"
Yes poor you.
Does this include the farming subsidies we pay for the EU's agriculture policy? You know, the 'great' idea the EU has to promise farmers/ producers a fixed price? If not then it's billions more.
That's just one reason we should come out of the EU.
Slightly off tangent for this topic but people should definately read this article. Hits the nail on the head.
Immigrant groups in Britain are generally better motivated than indigenous people, who often just can’t keep up
When I started secondary school in the mid-Sixties, by the measures then used, unemployment was effectively zero and had been since the end of the war. The older brothers of most of the boys around me at Holloway County were rolling out of class at 15 or 16, often with few or no qualifications and into a job of some kind. Despite sometimes heroic efforts on the part of the teachers, the prevailing attitudes of the pupils towards being educated remained indifference, good-natured bemusement or sometimes straightforward hostility. They really didn’t need no education.
Spool on a few years and I was in Rotherhithe, a mostly working-class area still. It was Tony Blair’s first term and his education secretary, David Blunkett, had brought in a new act establishing city academies, which, you may recall, were to be different from “bog standard comprehensives”. A friend, a local school governor, was telling me that there had been a rush of inquiries from parents about the academy that was to be set up locally. But most of these parents were black Africans, first generation immigrants, looking to secure a better education for their kids. The white working-class parents, she said, were conspicuous by their absence.
By then, unemployment, though far lower than in the trough of the mid-Eighties, was three times higher than it had been when I tripped through the gates of Holloway. Low-skill jobs were disappearing. There was a much greater need to leave school with some qualifications.
That same year girls outperformed boys in getting As at A level for the first time. And David Blunkett worried about a “laddish anti-learning culture” that was leading to chronic underachievement.
Gradually, over time, the worry has morphed from being about boys to being about poor white boys. Whites (not just poor ones and not just boys) are less likely to go into higher education than any of the ethnic minorities, and far less likely than some of them.
It is too early to know what the outcome will be for the largely white immigrants from the EU, but the evidence seems to suggest that their children perform well at school. Indeed, a recent paper by the Economic and Social Research Council, which started off looking at possible problems in educating Polish and other children, ended up worrying that these pupils were not being sufficiently challenged academically.
It is unsurprising, then, that the terms of the popular debate about immigrants has altered fundamentally since I was young. The model of migrant miscreance is now not the smelly, ****less, uneducated, crime-prone chancer but the hard-working, job and school-place snatching overachiever. The problem with migrants is not their inability, but their ability relative to some of the indigenous population.
There are exceptions, of course, but I would put it to readers that a rational people would now turn this national discussion on its head. Such a people would recognise that we don’t have an immigrant problem. The immigrants are mostly doing everything we could want them to, in schools, colleges, workplaces and businesses.
Their success is fuelling a backlash. In their excellent book Revolt on the Right, the academics Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin analyse support for Ukip. They demonstrate that it is “anchored in a clear social base: older, blue-collar voters, citizens with few qualifications, whites and men”. These are people, they write, “with obsolete skills and few formal qualifications (who) have struggled in a post-industrial economy”.
Now look at the county of Lincolnshire. Last May Ukip became the opposition on the county council, winning 16 seats. The 2011 census confirmed that Lincolnshire has a significantly higher proportion than the national average of residents with no or low qualifications. The county is older and more unhealthy than the nation as a whole.
Last May Ukip won five out of seven seats in the Lincolnshire town of Boston, polling between 35 and 45 per cent of the vote. Boston has the lowest level of educational attainment in Lincolnshire, already an underperforming county.
A statistical analysis of children on free school meals, based on 2009 figures, showed that those in Lincolnshire had almost the worst life chances in the country, while those from Newham, in London — the most ethnically diverse borough in the country — had the best chance.
Why? Part of the explanation is obvious. Immigrants tend to be more motivated than most people, have often already overcome major barriers to get here, are younger and so on. But why do poorer indigenous people often seem so unmotivated?
The answer is not, by the way, the loss of grammar schools. Though Ukip is strongly in favour of a return to the 11-plus system, claiming that it aids social mobility, the educational situation in Lincolnshire should give them pause. There, a selective system means that 25 per cent of the children do indeed attend grammar schools (and therefore 75 per cent don’t). The results for those who do are good and for those who don’t, as we have seen, are pretty poor. It is an irony that the educationally deprived of Lincolnshire should vote for a party that would continue their deprivation. But then, such ironies are legion in 2014.
To reiterate, we don’t have an immigration problem. We have instead a problem with and for those fellow citizens who can’t keep up and that is where we ought to concentrate our attention. If we were to set up the equalities and human rights commission anew, this would be the first task it should be given. Don’t worry about the Bangladeshis, we’d say, they’re OK. So are the Indians. And the Africans. Even the girls.
But how do we prepare the least educated and the harder to reach for the world as it is? All our sensible politicians know this is the real question. Iain Duncan Smith knows it, Yvette Cooper knows it, David Laws knows it. They may yodel the anti-migration message, but their minds aren’t in it, let alone their hearts.
Somehow we have to bust through the lack-of-aspiration barrier, break-up the anti-education ethos, help instil in indigenous Brits what immigrants already seem to possess. The desire to go forward. The need to progress
When I started secondary school in the mid-Sixties, by the measures then used, unemployment was effectively zero and had been since the end of the war. The older brothers of most of the boys around me at Holloway County were rolling out of class at 15 or 16, often with few or no qualifications and into a job of some kind. Despite sometimes heroic efforts on the part of the teachers, the prevailing attitudes of the pupils towards being educated remained indifference, good-natured bemusement or sometimes straightforward hostility. They really didn’t need no education.
Spool on a few years and I was in Rotherhithe, a mostly working-class area still. It was Tony Blair’s first term and his education secretary, David Blunkett, had brought in a new act establishing city academies, which, you may recall, were to be different from “bog standard comprehensives”. A friend, a local school governor, was telling me that there had been a rush of inquiries from parents about the academy that was to be set up locally. But most of these parents were black Africans, first generation immigrants, looking to secure a better education for their kids. The white working-class parents, she said, were conspicuous by their absence.
By then, unemployment, though far lower than in the trough of the mid-Eighties, was three times higher than it had been when I tripped through the gates of Holloway. Low-skill jobs were disappearing. There was a much greater need to leave school with some qualifications.
That same year girls outperformed boys in getting As at A level for the first time. And David Blunkett worried about a “laddish anti-learning culture” that was leading to chronic underachievement.
Gradually, over time, the worry has morphed from being about boys to being about poor white boys. Whites (not just poor ones and not just boys) are less likely to go into higher education than any of the ethnic minorities, and far less likely than some of them.
It is too early to know what the outcome will be for the largely white immigrants from the EU, but the evidence seems to suggest that their children perform well at school. Indeed, a recent paper by the Economic and Social Research Council, which started off looking at possible problems in educating Polish and other children, ended up worrying that these pupils were not being sufficiently challenged academically.
It is unsurprising, then, that the terms of the popular debate about immigrants has altered fundamentally since I was young. The model of migrant miscreance is now not the smelly, ****less, uneducated, crime-prone chancer but the hard-working, job and school-place snatching overachiever. The problem with migrants is not their inability, but their ability relative to some of the indigenous population.
There are exceptions, of course, but I would put it to readers that a rational people would now turn this national discussion on its head. Such a people would recognise that we don’t have an immigrant problem. The immigrants are mostly doing everything we could want them to, in schools, colleges, workplaces and businesses.
Their success is fuelling a backlash. In their excellent book Revolt on the Right, the academics Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin analyse support for Ukip. They demonstrate that it is “anchored in a clear social base: older, blue-collar voters, citizens with few qualifications, whites and men”. These are people, they write, “with obsolete skills and few formal qualifications (who) have struggled in a post-industrial economy”.
Now look at the county of Lincolnshire. Last May Ukip became the opposition on the county council, winning 16 seats. The 2011 census confirmed that Lincolnshire has a significantly higher proportion than the national average of residents with no or low qualifications. The county is older and more unhealthy than the nation as a whole.
Last May Ukip won five out of seven seats in the Lincolnshire town of Boston, polling between 35 and 45 per cent of the vote. Boston has the lowest level of educational attainment in Lincolnshire, already an underperforming county.
A statistical analysis of children on free school meals, based on 2009 figures, showed that those in Lincolnshire had almost the worst life chances in the country, while those from Newham, in London — the most ethnically diverse borough in the country — had the best chance.
Why? Part of the explanation is obvious. Immigrants tend to be more motivated than most people, have often already overcome major barriers to get here, are younger and so on. But why do poorer indigenous people often seem so unmotivated?
The answer is not, by the way, the loss of grammar schools. Though Ukip is strongly in favour of a return to the 11-plus system, claiming that it aids social mobility, the educational situation in Lincolnshire should give them pause. There, a selective system means that 25 per cent of the children do indeed attend grammar schools (and therefore 75 per cent don’t). The results for those who do are good and for those who don’t, as we have seen, are pretty poor. It is an irony that the educationally deprived of Lincolnshire should vote for a party that would continue their deprivation. But then, such ironies are legion in 2014.
To reiterate, we don’t have an immigration problem. We have instead a problem with and for those fellow citizens who can’t keep up and that is where we ought to concentrate our attention. If we were to set up the equalities and human rights commission anew, this would be the first task it should be given. Don’t worry about the Bangladeshis, we’d say, they’re OK. So are the Indians. And the Africans. Even the girls.
But how do we prepare the least educated and the harder to reach for the world as it is? All our sensible politicians know this is the real question. Iain Duncan Smith knows it, Yvette Cooper knows it, David Laws knows it. They may yodel the anti-migration message, but their minds aren’t in it, let alone their hearts.
Somehow we have to bust through the lack-of-aspiration barrier, break-up the anti-education ethos, help instil in indigenous Brits what immigrants already seem to possess. The desire to go forward. The need to progress
- Status