I sometimes sit and wonder, what do people want from politicians?
Ultimately they don't "run the country" as they would have us believe, they make suggestions (or decisions if elected) around specific parts of an overall policy and if your the PM then you take the rap for it all as, in theory, you were the one who put people in charge of each area.
Given this, I wonder how any sane person can look at the likes of the UKIP party and see a collection of people suitable for the above position? They are anarchists in the truest sense of the 1970s punk version of the word! They fight against the status quo and I think this is why people like them, people feel like things aren't right with moderate politicians in charge, they don't know why exactly or how to fix it, so they vote for the most opposite version of what they currently see in the hope it will make a difference.
The problem is of course that UKIP was and still appears to be a one trick pony. Their entire set of arguments is based around leaving the EU and why the concept of the EU is bad for the UK but what they have never shown is any real gumption or insight as to how they will better run the UK (other than it not being part of the EU which is a separate issue in many many ways).
I'm not a fan of the conservatives and I certainly think our current unelected 1980's Thatcher throwbacks need to allow the public to vote for them properly... but there is a reason the basic party ethos of Labour and the Conservatives has lead to the majority of the governments formed in modern history, it's because, although never perfect, they work in reality. Parties like UKIP don't have this and so I really struggle to comprehend why anyone could vote for them in national elections to allow for the possibility they might form a government!
For the sake of fairness, I should say I think the same about the likes of the Greens etc. All parties have a few basic principles that can ring true with anyone, but there needs to be at least a modicum of potential for good general decision making...
To be frank.. what is so wrong with "boring" when it comes to a government? Boring tends to bring stability, it's the reason we can (just about) afford to keep our lives ticking over financially, the reason we don't end up in completely ridiculous conflicts (thanks for ruining this argument somewhat Blair) and the reason we can do things in our lives like worry where credit for our next car is going to come from rather than where the next meal is going to come from.
Of course not everybody benefits from boring but the majority do, I shudder to think what would happen if the likes of UKIP or the Greens had actual power...
Ultimately they don't "run the country" as they would have us believe, they make suggestions (or decisions if elected) around specific parts of an overall policy and if your the PM then you take the rap for it all as, in theory, you were the one who put people in charge of each area.
Given this, I wonder how any sane person can look at the likes of the UKIP party and see a collection of people suitable for the above position? They are anarchists in the truest sense of the 1970s punk version of the word! They fight against the status quo and I think this is why people like them, people feel like things aren't right with moderate politicians in charge, they don't know why exactly or how to fix it, so they vote for the most opposite version of what they currently see in the hope it will make a difference.
The problem is of course that UKIP was and still appears to be a one trick pony. Their entire set of arguments is based around leaving the EU and why the concept of the EU is bad for the UK but what they have never shown is any real gumption or insight as to how they will better run the UK (other than it not being part of the EU which is a separate issue in many many ways).
I'm not a fan of the conservatives and I certainly think our current unelected 1980's Thatcher throwbacks need to allow the public to vote for them properly... but there is a reason the basic party ethos of Labour and the Conservatives has lead to the majority of the governments formed in modern history, it's because, although never perfect, they work in reality. Parties like UKIP don't have this and so I really struggle to comprehend why anyone could vote for them in national elections to allow for the possibility they might form a government!
For the sake of fairness, I should say I think the same about the likes of the Greens etc. All parties have a few basic principles that can ring true with anyone, but there needs to be at least a modicum of potential for good general decision making...
To be frank.. what is so wrong with "boring" when it comes to a government? Boring tends to bring stability, it's the reason we can (just about) afford to keep our lives ticking over financially, the reason we don't end up in completely ridiculous conflicts (thanks for ruining this argument somewhat Blair) and the reason we can do things in our lives like worry where credit for our next car is going to come from rather than where the next meal is going to come from.
Of course not everybody benefits from boring but the majority do, I shudder to think what would happen if the likes of UKIP or the Greens had actual power...
