UKIP

Its a one man party with zero infrastructure...

Capable of being a thorn in the side at by-elections but thats just about it...

Political parties grow from the ground up... Not from the top down...
 
Lead by a Bloke who wouldn't resign his seat in the Euro Parliament to try to get elected to the UK Parliament....

I thought they were anti Europe.....?
But then that's all they have isn't it?
 
Xenophobic, homophobic looneys!

Is that why they are gaining votes in England and forcing the Posh Boys to introduce Xenophobic policies.
The Tories are doing anything they can to make themselves popular to the South of England heartland Daily Mail voters. For example introducing the bedroom tax which will be impossible to enforce and end up costing a fortune.
Shades of the dying days of Thatcherism.
 
I think they are our version of the Tea Party. They will always gain votes from the more disaffected people on the right of the spectrum who feel the conservatives do not go far enough, but the BNP is a step too far.

Personally I think they are little Englanders and they prey on the hyped up fears of papers like The Daily Mail. But it's a free society, and I suppose it means there is somewhere where disaffected Tories can go without dragging them too far right, or joining and therefore enhancing the credibility of the BNP.
 
I think they are our version of the Tea Party. They will always gain votes from the more disaffected people on the right of the spectrum who feel the conservatives do not go far enough, but the BNP is a step too far.

Personally I think they are little Englanders and they prey on the hyped up fears of papers like The Daily Mail. But it's a free society, and I suppose it means there is somewhere where disaffected Tories can go without dragging them too far right, or joining and therefore enhancing the credibility of the BNP.

The Tea Party is for people who are angry. They may not be sure exactly what they are angry at, or what can be done about it, but they need an outlet for it. They have a lot of rednecks and closet racists in their number, but their platform is rather superficial and does not stand up to scrutiny. They also are riven with in-fighting and personal tensions. So they resemble UKIP in a lot of ways.
 
The big problems for UKIP are 1. They are misunderstood and 2.They are mistaken for a one policy party. They are misunderstood because people think they are little Englanders who hate foreigners. This is actually untrue, but it's a point they don't argue well enough. The UKIP position is that the UK should have a trading agreement with the EU which is what we voted for (remember the EEC?). They do not believe our laws, courts and finances should be run by Europe. They believe our sovereignty and Parliament has been diluted. They are mistaken for a one policy party and I guess much of this is because Europe is such a central issue in politics. Until the other parties start introducing common sense policies ( and common sense is all that is required) then UKIP will do well. They are not a one man party. Rather Nigel Fararge has done a great job taking them where they need to go and because of that he is naturally the focus of attention. UKIP was formed by professors at the London School of Economics in the late 80's and has had a number of leaders. Most have fallen by the wayside due to infighting. UKIP should not be confused with the BNP. They are not racists, in spite of what Mr. Cameron might say.
 
The Tea Party is for people who are angry. They may not be sure exactly what they are angry at, or what can be done about it, but they need an outlet for it. They have a lot of rednecks and closet racists in their number, but their platform is rather superficial and does not stand up to scrutiny. They also are riven with in-fighting and personal tensions. So they resemble UKIP in a lot of ways.

You couldn't accuse the BNP of having closet racists as members! :D
 
Whilst I cannot see myself ever voting for UKIP I can see their appeal, particularly on Europe.

A federation of states, as desired by many Europhiles, has never been put to the popular vote; either here or elsewhere in Europe. The only vote we have ever had was in 1975 and solely referred to a common trading zone.

I fail to see what right either Strasbourg or Brussels has to determine social or foreign policies for this or any other sovereign state until the Commissioners are, themselves, subject to the ballot box.Certainly they cannot claim democratic support and due to pathetically low turnout neither can MEP's.
 
A federation of states, as desired by many Europhiles, has never been put to the popular vote; either here or elsewhere in Europe.

Actually, it (effectively) was a few years ago, with a resounding 'No' result by a couple of countries. But that was 'managed' into a 'Yes' vote or ignored and never extended to the 'important' countries, where the likely 'No' would have meant disaster for the federalists!

An example of how Democracy is 'government of the people, by some people, for those people'!
 
I fail to see what right either Strasbourg or Brussels has to determine social or foreign policies for this or any other sovereign state until the Commissioners are, themselves, subject to the ballot box.Certainly they cannot claim democratic support and due to pathetically low turnout neither can MEP's.

Is that a bit like Scotland not wanting Trident or to participate in the Afgahn or Iraq wars but Whitehall overruling them.
 
Top