I’ve always enjoyed Nigel Farrage on Question Time and some of his speeches at the EU have been brilliant. Not so sure about the rest of the party or it’s manifesto though. Have not read it so can’t really make aninformed judgement. It is though becoming an incredible force for change in British politics. Following the Eastleigh By-election where UKIP came 2[SUP]nd[/SUP], the Tories and now Labour, are talking about taking immigration seriously. This is pretty amazing from Labour, having left the door open for 13 years. I believe they have also influenced the Tory position on EU membership. I would add that I think a culturally diverse country is, and has been, a good thing for Britain but not when it’s been so uncontrolled. Clearly something needs to change so that we are not the easy option for Asylum seekers, EU, or illegal immigrants, looking to merely improve their life, not through hard work but by taking advantage of our housing and benefits, healthcare and education facilities. While we still need to be able to accept real and deserving asylum seekers and immigrants that add and contribute to our society. What do you think?
We need to take a much stronger stance on illegal immigration, that's about the only thing I agree with, and as far as I can see that is their one and only policy. Still, beats the greens into a cocked hat...
Why do you think the established parties and the likes of the BBC have been rubbishing them for so long ? Pete will be along soon to call them 'swivel eyed' :wink:
Let's face it, a vote for UKIP is not a vote for UKIP, it's a vote of no confidence in the established trio.
None of the main parties can afford to lose votes to UKIP at a time when support for the main parties is haemorrhaging.
Exactly! It's the best way to lobby the immovable policies of the Westminster elite who know much better than Joe Public what's best for us. At last a way to influence them and watch them squirm. In this hi-tech age, instead of voting with an x on a piece of paper. Why not electronically vote and cast our views on 10 key policies with the outcome having to be taken on-board by the party forming government?
We need some sort of change, for sure. But is it wise to leave the decision making to the great unwashed..?
Yes it is. That is the system in force in Switzerland for decades. Which country do you think is better run? How it works is simple. Usually the "great unwashed" can't be arsed to read up on the thing we are meant to be voting for or get out to vote. So I suspect that more informed and intelligent voters over-index. I don't have any proof of that whatsoever. Pure conjecture. In this age of the internet, it surely would be entirely possible to have on-line referenda. Jesus. Look what Facebook has managed to do. How hard can it be? But naturally those in power would be loathe to have to actually explain things to the electorate or argue a case. In Switzerland the government (Federal Council) is meant to do all the hard and dirty work on drafting legislation, and then we the people say if we like it or not. That's how it should be. Government barely has any power at all.
When things are bad with the economy society will vote for the most unlikely of people. Look at historical evidence and what transpired.
The swiss have had ther issues too, so lets not pretemd its all rosy. Isnt one of the reasons for the recent referendum the big scale bsuiness failures, swissair and the bank that needed a bail out, which ignited the publics' feelings towards big business paying large salaries for failure?
To damn right. Of course it's not a wonderland and people are fed up with the schemers behind Swissair and UBS. God knows how many savings went down the pan while the fat cats awarded themselves bonuses.
Interesting that ts one small business guy who has been creditied with generating enough lobbying power to create the changes from the vote, albeit actually very little change. I do wonder tho if his business was a roaring success, and the owner he made a few million quid (as some owner drivers do particularly when a bigger business buys them) whether he'd be just as willing to cap his own reward from the sale...
It's not much to do with that. Swissair was a well-run airline. They invested all the profits in a load of other crap airlines, such as Sabena (Such A Bad Experience Never Again), failed to manage any of them. Then they all went to the wall, and Swissair went with them. The company was the pride of Switzerland. It was a huge scandal because a lot of pensioners lost their savings in the firm. But then the shite management just awarded themselves massive golden parachutes, and although they were criminally charged for all sorts of things, none of them did time or had to hand the money back. UBS famously fucked up requiring them to be bailed out by the Swiss taxpayer (sounds vaguely familiar). 20 of the top management were so pleased with their performance that they then allocated themselves some 250 million Swiss francs in bonuses (call it USD if you find it easier to imagine - pretty much the same). Minder just got fed up with it and started a crusade which caught public feeling. It's nothing to do with a hatred of people making money. It is everything to do with people who build little or nothing being paid squillions for average performance or presiding over disaster. The new laws won't stop AGMs awarding top executives whatever they think they are worth. There is no salary cap. But the little cabal of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" will be a thing of the past.
In my lifetime I can recall parties such as the British Union of Fascists, the Communist Party of GB, the National Front, the Social Democrat Party, the Greens, the British National Party, the Referendum Party, the Respect Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Monster Raving Loonies, and the UK Indepence Party which have all attracted much comment . At various times they have campaigned, got media coverage, gathered surprising numbers of protest votes in by-elections, and a few of them have won one or two seats. Perhaps I'm getting old, but I have seen too many flavours of swivel-eyed* nutters come along, have their moment in the spotlight, and fade away again. The same half-baked notions get recycled every decade. It's all part of the rich tapestry of democratic politics. Or to put it another way, froth. * for johnv's special benefit
Well part of the problem is the first past the post voting system. Doesn't matter how popular you are, if you're not first in any given constituency. Then when you're in government, you gerrymander the constituency boundaries to make sure (or as sure as you can) that you stay in power. You will notice how the media before any election harp on about how it's going to require a massive swing to change a result anywhere, as if the election were already decided. They could be saying, everyone is at the startline and anyone could be elected and actually talk up the real choice that people have. Instead, people fail to vote feeling that there is nothing they can do. It's ridiculous. If the disaffected actually went to vote for something different, they are so numerous that the something different would be elected.
