Not everyone wants it...

Not everyone wants it... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Yachtie -> Not everyone wants it... (5/3/2013 6:26:00 PM)
Live coverage of the results of yesterday's local elections. Ukip are jubilant after winning around 26 per cent of the vote and costing the Conservatives control of two councils. Labour have held South Shields in a by-election with 50.5pc of the vote, pushing the Lib Dems into seventh place. Seems the status quo is being given a run for it. Nigel Farage has declared Ukip is the third party "numerically". He said: "People haven't seen us as being relevant for local elections, or in some ways general elections, so for us to be scoring at least 26% of the vote where we stand is, I think, very significant indeed." When asked about whether the party had now entered a four-party race, Mr Farage replied: "Numerically we're the third [party] because the Lib Dems are trailing behind." He added: "This wave of protests certainly isn't short term, it's lasting." A Ukip spokesman predicted the party would receive more than one million votes, a higher level of support than at the last general election. The spokesman said: "Where we are standing, we are taking an average of 26.2% of the vote. and this is hysterical - A change of tack from the Tories. Earlier in the week, senior figures were dismissing the party as "clowns". But this morning, Grant Shapps, the Tory party chairman, is hugging the party once described by the PM as "fruitcakes" tight. Ukip voters, he says, are simply "impatient for change" and their demands - curbing immigration and welfare spending, restoring the economy and repatriating powers from Europe - are the same as the Tories. Way to embrace the clowns. It's so transparent. The Tories are scared. They should be.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/3/2013 6:30:16 PM)
Oh, come on. Who doesn't love a clown?

TheHeretic -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/3/2013 7:44:18 PM)
I wouldn't presume to comment on the specifics of another country's domestic and local elections. [8\|]

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/3/2013 8:06:29 PM)
thatchers come back to haunt tha british left. [8D]

TheHeretic -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/3/2013 8:43:56 PM)
I do think that proportional representation would better serve the needs of my country, than what we are getting with the present two-party system. The election result of the OP is a nice example of what can happen when another party or parties no longer meet the expectations of the represented.

DomKen -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/4/2013 3:47:39 AM)
FR This was actually a fairly disturbing election. UKIP has put up a bunch of candidates for the local councils that had ties to BNP. So just as in the US the british political libertarian movement has been infiltrated by far right authoritarians.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/4/2013 4:04:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I do think that proportional representation would better serve the needs of my country, than what we are getting with the present two-party system. The election result of the OP is a nice example of what can happen when another party or parties no longer meet the expectations of the represented. I'd like to see the Senate changed back to State-chosen representatives, and/or a law mandating one Senator from each of the two main parties. The Senate would be back to representing the States, and there would always be a 50-50 split among Democrats/Republicans. Make passage required to be 60 votes in favor and you'll require bipartisan legislation. It will certainly bog down in the near term, but it should help defuse partisan politics to some extent.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/4/2013 4:11:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I do think that proportional representation would better serve the needs of my country, than what we are getting with the present two-party system. The election result of the OP is a nice example of what can happen when another party or parties no longer meet the expectations of the represented. i dont like pr coz i reckon it gives folks more than 1 vote when their early candidate preferences that r already elected allow tha transferral of their vote to other less popular candidates. betrays tha one man one vote principle.

Phoenixpower -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/4/2013 4:19:27 AM)
Well, over here also an anti-euro party got recently established, will see how many they get to vote for them in september... Some folks don't take them seriously, but hey ho, our green party hasn't been taken seriously in the beginning either and are now a serious competition in the days of anti nuclear power mood...

Yachtie -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/4/2013 4:40:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen FR This was actually a fairly disturbing election. UKIP has put up a bunch of candidates for the local councils that had ties to BNP. So just as in the US the british political libertarian movement has been infiltrated by far right authoritarians. I'm amazed, but to an extent I heartily agree. Why fight when you can just bring them into the fold. It's the same tactic the Neo-Cons used to co-opt the Tea Party.

Politesub53 -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/4/2013 4:43:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I wouldn't presume to comment on the specifics of another country's domestic and local elections. [8\|] Quite right Rich. Local elections are normally seen as a protest vote. Mush was said about the BNP gains in local elections prior to the last General Election. I said that come election day, people would revert to the main parties. The anticipated BNP votes didnt materialise, so much so they have scored even less votes in the recent local election. Then again the BNP`s roots have always been far right, not something thats tolerated too well over here. Turn outs in these local elections are always fairly low. The Tories, and I vote for them, have a major problem. They dont listen to what the electorate is saying. No one is against immigration per se, but you cant have mass immigration while you are closing down mainstream public services. Schools hospitals, house building (already at a low) The UK isnt as fortunate as the US in having space or resources capable of accepting large numbers into the country. UKIP`s main stance was anti EU, many ordinary voters want the issue addressed. Cameron promised a referendum, he should keep his word prior to the next election, as a promise to hold it after doesnt fly. Now UKIP are starting to expand the range of topics, they could well attract ENOUGH votes at the next General Election to blunt the Tory vote and allow Labour back into the majority party. Thats the big danger for the conservatives, a challenge to the status quo.

Politesub53 -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/4/2013 4:54:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen FR This was actually a fairly disturbing election. UKIP has put up a bunch of candidates for the local councils that had ties to BNP. So just as in the US the british political libertarian movement has been infiltrated by far right authoritarians. Partially true Ken, the BNP offered much at the outset but many who voted for them switched due to being totally disillusioned with BNP politics. All that is happened is those fed up with mainstream conservatism have reverted to a less extremist party than the BNP. IE, many voted for the BNP in protest and then reverted to less extreme conservativeism due to hardline BNP policies. UKIP has actually banned BNP member from joining the party. This is quite an enlightening piece from The New Statesman http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/despite-its-clownish-candidates-ukip-should-be-taken-seriously

YN -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/4/2013 5:10:59 AM)
The English are not the only ones with significant ant-EU parties, and this was no surprise to any international observers. Brussels will deal with the "little Englanders" The EU is like the Borg in Star Trek, they will assimilate all, and the UK is just a province to them. The real revolts against the 4th Reich will be in Southern Europe.

Moonhead -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/4/2013 5:21:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen FR This was actually a fairly disturbing election. UKIP has put up a bunch of candidates for the local councils that had ties to BNP. So just as in the US the british political libertarian movement has been infiltrated by far right authoritarians. The BNP held most of the council seats they have already, though.

Politesub53 -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/4/2013 5:29:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN The English are not the only ones with significant ant-EU parties, and this was no surprise to any international observers. Brussels will deal with the "little Englanders" The EU is like the Borg in Star Trek, they will assimilate all, and the UK is just a province to them. The real revolts against the 4th Reich will be in Southern Europe. Laughable stuff...... Nuff said.

YN -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/4/2013 5:40:33 AM)
Your champion Cameron, the English aristocracy you worship as gods, and your fellow Tories are not laughing.

thezeppo -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/4/2013 6:26:40 AM)
Its interesting to see a smaller party make significant gains, particularly at the expense of the Tories for a change. While the local and by-elections are traditionally a time for protest voting and UKIP will likely not see the same support at the next general election, I think there is definitely room for a new third party in British Politics. The votes that UKIP are picking up from disaffected Tories are probably transient and will revert back to Tory when it matters, but I don't think the same can be said for disaffected Lib Dem voters. Its difficult to see anything other than a loss of electoral support for the Lib Dems at the next election, wherever it may go - personally I'm quite torn on the idea of UKIP becoming the third party. It would be interesting to see a split in the right rather than the left, and it raises the hopes of a Labour majority in my opinion. That being said, I disagree with a lot of UKIP policies and on an instinctive level I disagree with Nigel Farage's face. I can't see them being any more than a thorn in Cameron's side for a little while though, and that's good enough for me! Ultimately I think that even if UKIP do make a breakthrough to being the third party in the Commons it won't last. The left think (and argue, and flounce) too much to be united for any length of time, two progressive parties splintering the vote is the status quo. UKIP and Tories are too similar to remain split for very long. Thanks to the OP for the post, I was thinking about posting it myself. Its good that there is some audience for a more UK-centric post.

thezeppo -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/4/2013 6:43:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I do think that proportional representation would better serve the needs of my country, than what we are getting with the present two-party system. The election result of the OP is a nice example of what can happen when another party or parties no longer meet the expectations of the represented. i dont like pr coz i reckon it gives folks more than 1 vote when their early candidate preferences that r already elected allow tha transferral of their vote to other less popular candidates. betrays tha one man one vote principle. Obviously there are a load of different systems of PR, but that is a definite limitation of proportional representation electoral systems for the most part. It could be argued that the reverse is true with FPTP though. I live in a fairly safe Labour constituency and ward, it has been a little while since anyone else had any significant influence. If I voted Tory I would essentially have no vote, because my vote would be meaningless in terms of its impact on the constituency. I would have to move to a Conservative or a marginal constituency for my vote to have an impact. I think both systems have their limitations, PR arguably promotes diversity, change and activism at the cost of stability and vice-versa. It comes down to what you think is more important for a country - personally I would go with some form of PR.

YN -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/4/2013 6:52:14 AM)
True. However as an outside observer, it really does not matter who you have as governmentt, as long as the major parties in the UK are in denial about the significant social, economic and political contradictions in the UK and the kingdom's need for a broad based infrastructural and ideological change. You cannot keep a quarter of your population on "the dole" or your massive and overpaid Civil Service and governmental legions while hoping to punch it out as a world imperial power, and importing half your food, and much of the rest of your basic needs, with a declining industrial base. The City of London and it's financial criminals are living on borrowed time, and when that runs out, the UK will be in real trouble. In spite of any political rhetoric or English cultural fictions, if the UK does not start taking effective steps to rectify these and other problems, it does not matter if you are in the EU or not, or if a Tory, Lib Dem or Labourite is your PM, or which party controls the growingly ineffectual UK Parliament. But I can understand why the UK posters do not wish to discuss this publicly, it is easier for the English experts to instruct the Yankees or those in other nations on their failings and how the English professionals would quickly and easily solve them if these English lived in or controlled the United States, Costa Rica, etc.

Yachtie -> RE: Not everyone wants it... (5/4/2013 6:58:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 The Tories, and I vote for them, have a major problem. They dont listen to what the electorate is saying. No one is against immigration per se, but you cant have mass immigration while you are closing down mainstream public services. Schools hospitals, house building (already at a low) The UK isnt as fortunate as the US in having space or resources capable of accepting large numbers into the country. I find such view to be sheer folly. On the one hand, mass immigration is a driver, an increasing burden, on services which have become strained beyond sustainability. On the other hand, mass immigration has been seen as a necessity for various political reasoning. Here in the US, many think immigration is virtually a right. Eric Holder said that the other day, in so many words. The idea of "Give us your tired, your poor, your wretched masses yearning to be free" is quite noble in spirit, but is it healthy for the US, or the UK, if one considers culture and national identity; what it is about the US that can be quantified as "being free." UKIP may be anti-EU, but is it anti-mass immigration? The US may enjoy space far beyond what the UK has to offer, but US resources are not so unlimited as to be capable of sustaining services with ever increasing mass immigration. One topic I do not see any party addressing is that of Culture, and the changes one should expect with large numbers of dissimilar cultures being allowed inside the gates. It's unfortunate that an immigrant, stepping onto UK soil for the first time, doesn't suddenly start talking with a British accent and have a craving for Fish-n-Chips. This is no slight to the immigrant, but an historical fact where mass immigration has been permitted. Do immigrants embrace the culture? Here's a question - "How many generations would it take a middle-east immigrant family, if submerged in British culture without sufficient of their own kind around as to sustain the culture they bring with them, to become British and adhere to the concept of British nationalism and identity? Yes, the US has Chinatown and immigrant enclaves. That does not negate my point. It enhances it. The problems facing the UK, and the EU for that matter, are more than mere dwindling government services. Same goes for the US. As PoliteSub seems to indicate, many believe government services must be sustained as to continue the mass immigration.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.1708984