Chances of UKIP winning General Election?

[413x]

depends how much of a middle ground the conservatives manage to between where they are now and ukip
if they can eat into some of their policies they can take a large chunk of thier support

to me UKIP votes are made up of extreme racists all the way to people disillusioned with the other parties..those who want to vote conservative but dont because they arent seen as doing enough

i fall in the conservative vote but do agree with some of UKIP
im on that side of the conservative vote

i dont think UKIP have much going for them if conservatives can take that share

i dont think they will get in in any case
if the tory party did 'vanish' and the other parties kept their current policies..that is a different matter and i would probably vote UKIP if im honest

 

[helpimcrap]

I think it's great UKIP have made the other parties sit up and take notice of what the public really want.

Don't think they will win the general election as the others are sly enough to take note of the good things and apply them to their own policies...

It was pointed out by my Grandpa he irony of UKIP winning the European Election considering they want out of Europe... lol

I won't vote for the main parties because they are complacent, rubbish and seem to give the wrong impression of what is seen as good in my eyes (the amount of trouble with respect!) in my eyes however reliable they may be but I can't bring myself to vote UKIP because I feel some of the stuff they do gives it a slightly racist undertone (which is only backed up by the types of narrow-minded people the news interviews).

So that leaves me with no one to vote for.... ho hum.

 

[The Running Man]

That slide might have a meaning to someone in China, USA, Russia. Given the seriously low uk emissions that we currently put out there, committing financial hari kari while making no change to the climate is the last thing the uk should be doing.

 

[McPhee]

was pointed out by my Grandpa he irony of UKIP winning the European Election considering they want out of Europe... lol

I'd say it's a joke on the British public more than it is an irony. We complain that Europe takes us for a ride, that we don't benefit socially or economically from being in the EU. We complain that they ignore us and don't listen to the British view. Then we elect MEPs that hold an anti-Europe stance 'because we want out' and pay them €97k/year to not turn up to the European parliament (if they do turn up, they earn an extra €304 for each day they are present). Then, because Brussels still isn't listening, we blame our national government and elect more of those lazy, overpaid Eurosceptic MEPs to show the national government just how annoyed at them we are.

Thank god the average voter isn't this gullible. Oh, wait...

 

[scorza]

That slide might have a meaning to someone in China, USA, Russia. Given the seriously low uk emissions that we currently put out there, committing financial hari kari while making no change to the climate is the last thing the uk should be doing.

And yet of all countries we're estimated to be the 9th biggest polluter of CO2 in the world: Source

 

[balky12]

I don't know when climate change deniers started picking up on this argument but it shows the kind of scientific ignorance that puts them on par with creationists.

Yes, ice floats on water and doesn't increase the level of the water as it melts. However, a large proportion of the polar ice is currently residing on land. Antarctica is a whole continent. This land-based ice will melt into the seas and oceans, thus increasing the sea level significantly.

Anyone who denies anthropogenic climate change based on the current evidence is clearly burying their head in the sand.

No idea if you are aiming this at me. Far from a creationist, and I did say floating ice. Also the arctic is increasing, it's swings and roundabouts. I don't think we have to worry about continents being engulfed by water anytime soon. Now coastal erosion, that's a worry.

 

[balky12]

Except for the 10 millionth time many green energies are far cheaper than nuclear. And we already have adopted nuclear!

In the long run are they really that much cheaper? Definitely not as efficient, not yet anyways!

And i mean adopt nuclear on a graaaaaand scale.

 

[RedvGreen]

No idea if you are aiming this at me. Far from a creationist, and I did say floating ice. Also the arctic is increasing, it's swings and roundabouts. I don't think we have to worry about continents being engulfed by water anytime soon. Now coastal erosion, that's a worry.

You're also forgetting that the icecaps contain all sorts of other elements and chemicals such as carbon dioxide

 

[matt100]

Here are UKIP`s thoughts on AGW I was wondering what part of it you dispute?

None of it really, I'd be nervous about the fact they come at it from a view that it doesn't exist because I'm fairly sure there's good solid proof that there's a risk.

Either way the cartoon outlines the point pretty well, I don't see the risk in moving aggressively towards a carbon neutral economy.

To get back on track though, the document is irrelevant because UKIP can't and won't win the GE and moreover things like a climate change policy are window dressing to detract from the fact they're very definitely a party chock full of racist nimbys with a reductive and closed minded view of the world who don't deserve the significant benefits that immigration has brought to this country.

I bet some of their best friends are black.

 

[balky12]

You're also forgetting that the icecaps contain all sorts of other elements and chemicals such as carbon dioxide

Which may or may not have been man made? And would go into the air, not increasing water levels.

 

[The Running Man]

And yet of all countries we're estimated to be the 9th biggest polluter of CO2 in the world: Source

With an absolute number of mega tonnes that is 1/20 of chinas output. If we reduced our emissions by 10% it would save what 45 mega tonnes. if China were to do that it would basically save more than us and 2 maybe 3 other countries entire emissions output. .

 

[RedvGreen]

And yet of all countries we're estimated to be the 9th biggest polluter of CO2 in the world: Source

Very surprised at Japan on that list - I always thought they were the figurehead for technological innovation and change.

 

[The Running Man]

What we needis wholesale farming reforms

The report states that the livestock sector is one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock's_Long_Shadow

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

In the long run are they really that much cheaper? Definitely not as efficient, not yet anyways!

And i mean adopt nuclear on a graaaaaand scale.

You do realize you're just replacing one finite resource with another
And then what about what the heck we are going to do with all the depleted uranium

Nuclear fission is not the future, once Uranium runs out we are back at square one with a load of seriously dangerous waste on our hands!!!

With an absolute number of mega tonnes that is 1/20 of chinas output. If we reduced our emissions by 10% it would save what 45 mega tonnes. if China were to do that it would basically save more than us and 2 maybe 3 other countries entire emissions output. .

Well actually if you are going to be fair about it we are WORSE polluters than china per capita so perhaps we should sort that out before we start demonizing places like China

 

[Tom_ed1987]

I'm not going to waste my time with this childish conspiracy garbage.
Go learn some facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

And for balance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

RE UKIP - they will get a couple of seats in the GE, nothing more.

 

[The Running Man]

You do realize you're just replacing one finite resource with another
And then what about what the heck we are going to do with all the depleted uranium

Nuclear fission is not the future, once Uranium runs out we are back at square one with a load of seriously dangerous waste on our hands!!!




Well actually if you are going to be fair about it we are WORSE polluters than china per capita so perhaps we should sort that out before we start demonizing places like China

So what use would increasing our population be? Sure we could bring down our per capita emissions but that bares little relation to the problem. The thing you should be looking at is chinas emissions and their export market. Low cost due to lack of emissions constraints means China can sell items cheaper abroad which is why they have had such a trade surplus.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Yes, ice floats on water and doesn't increase the level of the water as it melts.

WRONG!
You do realize that when icebergs melt it does actually increase sea-levels
This is basic science btw, I'll give you a clue; Fresh Water!!!

 

[D.P.]

In the long run are they really that much cheaper? Definitely not as efficient, not yet anyways!

And i mean adopt nuclear on a graaaaaand scale.

yes, in the long run things like wind power are much cheaper than nuclear energy. Wind turbines are much simpler and cheaper to build than a nuclear reactor, and since you build hundreds and thousands them it gets even cheaper due to duplication and bulk supplying. They are cheaper to maintain, cheaper tp cleanup, don't leave expensive toxic waste, don't require expensive mining and processing of radio active materials form across the other wide of the world, require far less staff, less engineers, no transportation of resources, little in the ay of safety systems, no backup generators, much less protection against earthquakes/tsunamis/hurricanes/terrorists, and at the end of their life they are cheap and easy to clean up.

 

[ubersonic]

I'm not going to waste my time with this childish conspiracy garbage.
Go learn some facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph

Learn some yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick

To save you some time ill give you the best bit, it was proven in 2003 that not only did Mann realise the hockey stick was wrong himself, he realised if BEFORE publishing it! Read only access to his data server was given to some scientists trying to validate his work, however they came to different conclusions after noticing inaccuracy's/errors in Mann's work, and not only that but they uncovered a folder buried deep on his server called "Censored" in which he had documented the exact same results!!

He knew it was wrong but he published it anyway knowing it would be lapped up and he would get his recognition despite dooming an entire generation to bogus green taxes

 

[D.P.]

And for balance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

RE UKIP - they will get a couple of seats in the GE, nothing more.

Thanks fir agreeing with me:

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions.

As I have said, the results of the hockey stick graph have been replicated and proven numerous times and all support the initial claims. All attempts to discredit the seminal paper by Mann et al have failed because the underlying science and the underlying empirical evidence presented is correct.