Ukip

[Rodney Mills]

I subscribe to the British weekly magazine, "The Economist". In the October 4th, 18th, and 25th issue there have been articles about both Mr. Farage, and about the growth and the limited platform, or lack of a platform of UKIP.

Now please, before you jump all over me,I have no axe to grind, I'm simple interested in politics, and would like to know more about UKIP.

I judge the quality of this magazine by "The Economist"'s section on the U.S.. In general I find them knowledgeable, balanced in their opinions, and even handed in likes or dislikes of politicians, political parties, and the United States.

I follow with interest comments by "Friends" membership, and on "Ships N." in regards to UKIP. However, both sites seem to me to be diametrically opposed regarding this subject. So that's why I'm asking about UKIP.

In the Oct. 18, 2014 issue, "The Economist" reproduced the results of a British poll as of Oct. 8, 2014 source: YouGov. [The number followed by the % sign corresponds to the percentage of the responders].


UKIP is more trustworthy than main parties

Agree 12.5%
disagree 62%

UKIP is full of oddballs and extremists

Agree 51%
disagree 14%

UKIP is a protest party with no realistic polices

Agree 58%
disagree 9.5%


Oct. 4, 2014

"For years UKIP,s calls for lower immigration, less regulation and withdrawal from the meddlesome European Union have challenged the governing Conservatives. The party [UKIP] gained 3% of votes in the 2010 general election, but the latest YouGov poll puts it at 15% (with the support of one in five former Conservative voters)...How is a defiantly Thatcherite party (whose quotable leader, Nigel Farage, is a pinstriped former commodities trader) now threatening Labour...The first is that the party has become moribund in many of its working-class strongholds ...Robert Ford and Mathew Goodwin, academics who have studied UKIP's rise, argue that it thrives among blue collars, grey hair and white skin; that is in, ageing working-class backwaters like Heywood and Middleton where folks feel alienated from the liberal values of the big city...UKIP, by contrast, its charismatic rejection of the po-faced establishment, embodied by its boozy faced, cheerful leader, is built on emotion, not policy. That gives it flexibility: it can make a small-state, libertarian pitch to tory voters and wealthy donors while lambasting private sector involvement in the NHS in Labour areas like Heywood...As a result, both main parties find it hard to win back their defectors.

"...Michael Dugher, Labour's vice chair, points left wing types to UKIP's past support of Thatcher's flat tax....Tories warn wavering supporters that a vote for UKIP could let labour in. Polls suggest most UKIP supporters do not really care; they see the main parties as an amorphous blob anyway.

"But it's [UKIP] contortions will become more painful. It's policies will come under new scrutiny, the sheen of insurgency will wear off and it will be held to higher standards of consistency. Already there are signs its libertarian wing (dominated by its youth, its donors and Mr Farage) is peeling away from its conservative one (most of its supporters). At its buzzing conference in Doncaster on Sept. 26th a spokesman announced the party would increase taxes on luxuary shoes and handbags and cars. Two days later another declared the policy "dead". Such strains are signs of things to come as success causes even more problems."

Oct. 25th.

"According to ipso MORI ["a U.K. survey company] the average voter thinks foreign-born immigrants constitute 31% of the population, well over twice the correct proportions ("13% actual numbers")."

Nov. 8th, 2014

Profs. Dustmann of Univ. Cllge. London, and Tommaso Frattini Of the Univ. of Milan issued a study calculating European immigrants share of the cost of government spending between 1995 and 2001 and found "the immigrants had made a positive contribution of 4 billion pounds compared to a negative contribution of five hundred and ninety-one billion pounds for native Britons. Between 2001 and 2011, the net fiscal contributions of recent arrivals from eastern European countries that have joined the EU since 2004 has amounted to almost five billion pounds. Migrants from other European countries chipped in eight point six billion pounds. [For a positive contribution of 13 billion pounds].

"Immigrants overall positive contributions is explained in part by the fact that they are less likely than natives [Britons] to claim benefits or to live in social housing. Between 1998-2011 as many as 37% of natives [Britons] were receiving some kind of state benefits or tax credits.

"Dustmann and Frattini acknowledge that the benefits [to Britain] of immigration may be related to the fact that migrants tend to be young (costing less in health care) and may return to their native country to enjoy their less productive years--when they may cost the state more in terms of health care for instance."

One other edition [My wife donated it to a doctors office, so no dates] stated that the Gov. poll of Oct.(?) poll numbers for l the U.K. withdrawing from the EU were 32% for withdrawing and with 60% remaining as part of the EU. (Balance undecided or no opinion.)

Now I have only read that these two subjects, immigration and leaving the EU, are the platform for UKIP. Lets assume that public opinion continues to increase--as it has been doing-- and UKIP wins an absolute majority to govern. Would they be capable or able to really govern? "They couldn't be any worse than the shower we've got" is not the answer I'm looking for. I mean govern and set policy for defense, education, health and welfare, transport, budgets, etc. etc..

Now if UKIP is only a two plank platform catering to the anger of voters they become a spoiler in a general election.

We have had that twice in recent history in the United States, the first in 1996 Ross Perot, and Ralph Nadar in 2008 both had simplistic platforms, with Perot geared to right wing voters, and the left wing with Nadar; both where accused of being spoilers in those election.

So, is UKIP able to govern, or are they just spoilers?

And what other things do the stand for other than immigration and withdrawing from the EU.

Would Farage be an effective Prime Minister...why or why not?

No arrows or brickbats my way please. I don't have an opinion one way or the other, I'm just interested that's all.



Cheers, Rodney

[j.sabourn]

Rodney to me politics is a risky thing all round in one way or another. However to me you don't have to be an Einstein to be a politician in fact some of the most dim witted baskets going are in that position. You have a policy and that is what the electorate vote on. The country is not run by politicians in a western democracy but by the civil servants and various government departments which oversee the policys and laws made by the government in power at that time. To say that the UKIP would not have the experience to run a government or any such like phrase is to me just hogwash. They would perform as well as any, it is the policys that they get in for, I was under the impression that the present bunch in there now was going to have a referendum on the EU, which they never have, which if it is the case they have already put themselves out of the running for forming the next government. JS

[gray_marian]

#1&2, Rodney & John, David Cameron has had to retreat somewhat on his immigration views going by his speech* earlier today. [see below] Thinking now it might be too little too late for him! However I do think Nigel Farage has rocked the boat which is no bad thing, as to his leadership qualities I would not be tempted to vote for him...... just yet, not sure he has the longevity or ability. The most damage I believe is to Ed Miliband who to my mind appears to be floundering along with Nick Clegg, they "couldnae run a menage"* if their life depended on it. I think David Cameron was wrong not to allow the vote that he promised......... that possibly, may be his downfall and rightly so in my opinion...... Mr Farage may yet suprise us all.....

*A menage is a scheme in Scotland whereby everyone pays in an amount every week or month and takes turns at getting the whole amount -

*The Telegraph - Telegraph online, Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph - Telegraph › News › UK News › Immigration
13 hours ago -

[j.sabourn]

You are not of course comparing it to the poll tax marian. Another not so polite way of describing some of them would be they wouldn't know how to pay their way in a brothel. The actual words slightly varied to avoid causing embarrassment JS

[happy daze john in oz]

As mentioned we have a state erection here today in Victoria. On one side the gov who have under some very difficult circumstances done a good job with a majority of only one.
On the other side the man who would be premier who tells the public, "I will not break any promise I make and this is all baout the people"
Well not to break a promise would make him the first politician since creation to do so. As for the bit about the people, insert Union mates, trough, snout in, wishfull thinking and oh look there goes another one flying past.
To give you some idea of which lunatic will be running the asylum if this guy gets in. The current gov have signed up for a project over 5 years aty a cost of 8 billion to improve much needed traffic flow. The consortioum are mainly from overseas and are major global companies.
If this guy gets in he will rip up the contract and pass legislation in the paliament to stop the compensation payment for not going ahead with the project, cost to us about 1.5 billion.If this occurs no overseasa company, or local for thta matter will ever want to invest in the state again.
He is relying on Green preferences to gain office, another group with some of the most outrageous idesa conciveable.
There are also about 10 other minor parties in the mix.

[j.sabourn]

As regards Unions, what does one consider OPEC. They decide the price of fuel for just about every country in the world. They must be the most powerful union in the world. Also they are mostly Middle Eastern origin. What does one consider the NE shipowners Association of years gone by, if this wasn't a union for self protection I don't know what is. Anywhere in the world of commerce and high finance you will find alliances for their own protection. As soon as the average person does the same he becomes a member of a Trade Union and which those who also practice the same try and blackball. The only thing the average person has as protection is such, however it is frowned upon by those who do not want to see Joe Bloggs have any say in his own or families future. This is dished out to the public in such a way as to try and prove Democracy works. It certainly does for some. JS

[Ivan Cloherty]

Rodney on general policies I doubt very much whether it makes any difference which party is in power, it is only when they get into power that they discover that the country is nominally run by the top civil servants known as 'the Mandarins' it is only when they get into power they are aware of the correct fiscal situation and realise that the promises they made are not feasible or possible, thus it has ever been and thus it will probably remain and they have to be guided by the advice of the Mandarins, however they have the power to over rule/ignore the advice/suggestions of these long term advisors which of course they do in most instances because they have the power to do so, and we all know that nothing makes a man more corrupt and blind than power to over rule.

[John Pruden]

if we went back to the days when the king/queen ruled the monarch would not be tapping a sword on greedy bastards in power they would be swinging the sword in the neck area? we need a shake up in this country every body knows that from every voter no matter what party they vote for. we vote for one or another we may as well vote raving looney that's what they turn into? working people are swimming against the tide in this land? jp