By: charliehunt
- 26th May 2014 at 09:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So now we know.
34% of the electorate voted and of those 30% voted UKIP. That's about 10% of the electorate. Earthquake? I don't think so. Kick in the goolies for the mainstream parties - probably yes. But with two thirds of the country not bothered enough to vote in elections for a non-democratic cabal I doubt it will matter much in a year's time. However if this was the result next May with a 65%+ turnout, then that really would be an earthquake!! But even Farage himself is talking down that prospect. "The UK Independence Party is hopeful of winning only a handful of seats in the general election next year despite its “breakthrough moment” in the European elections.". So a sense of perspective is called for.
And I speak as a deeply anti-EU federalist, aware that leaching votes to UKIP in the serious election, the one that really matters, will not help the cause.
By: Derekf
- 26th May 2014 at 09:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Perhaps when the dust settles after this "earthquake" then UKIP can be questioned about policies other then the EU or immigration. That should prove interesting. Their last manifesto looked as if it had been taken from a 12-year-old's "When I'm Prime Minister" assignment.
By: charliehunt
- 26th May 2014 at 09:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Totally agree - they are effectively a two policy protest party as will, I suspect, be evident next year.
And a minor amendment to your figure for turnout which was actually 36% not that it is a significant difference. And only just over 43% across the whole of the EU.
By: Derekf
- 26th May 2014 at 09:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At the moment the BBC is giving UKIP vote as 27.5% of a 34.19% turnout which I reckon means 9.4% of the electorate voted UKIP. The turnout is a bigger concern and how anyone can take any comfort from the fact the 2/3rds didn't even vote. Farage may think that he is reflecting what the British people think but when only a 1/3rd bother to vote then that claim sounds very hollow.
By: Derekf
- 26th May 2014 at 10:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indeed. It may be a lot less of an issue than Farage and (sorry I can't think of any other UKIP people) might think. The UK population are probably more interested in issues like unemployment, the economy, the environment, law and order, defence, etc. in which UKIP have shown an almost total disinterest.
By: trumper
- 26th May 2014 at 10:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It goes deeper than that.People have a feeling of not having a choice -all the parties are seemingly the same,non of them live/represent in the real world and politicians are seen as fiddling snout in the trough pigs.
No wonder people don't bother voting.
Listening to Cameron on the radio saying we now know what we need to do to win the lottery--well why didn't he listen in the first place :apologetic: why should we want them to win the election.They are already thinking about what they need to do to win,not what people want them to do.
By: Moggy C
- 26th May 2014 at 10:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
well why didn't he listen in the first place :apologetic:
Listen to what? The grumblings of the racists and xenophobes? Let's hope it never comes to that.
On the EU, he's committed to renegotiation and an in/out referendum. Isn't that what most of us wish for?
If UKIP split the vote next year and Milliband's crew get in, not only will we have yet another economic disaster building, but no chance of a referendum.
By: John Green
- 26th May 2014 at 11:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 44
Charlie, I won't accuse you of being a realist, I'll accuse you of being a pessimist. For UKIP this could be a beginning. These results might be the foundation to build on. On the other hand, they might not. Let us see how things develop.
Let us not be too quick to dismiss. UKIP's promise to deliver us from the strangulation of the EU makes them deserving of all right thinking people's support.
My colours are nailed firmly to their mast. If they'll have me, I will stand as a candidate next year. All my family and extended family support them financially.
By: John Green
- 26th May 2014 at 11:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 51
Why shouldn't he listen to the 'grumblings of the racists and xenophobes' ? Should their concerns be of no concern ? A goodly number of this nation are rightly concerned about uncontrolled immigration and like the 'entitled metropolitain elite' you think that they shouldn't voice their fears ?
You are too intelligent not to know that David Cameron cannot be trusted on a number of voter concerns. From grammar schools to the EU and all points between, David Cameron is not trusted by the people. That is a major problem for the Conservative Party, of whom, I have been a supporter for fifty years.
I do share your opinion of 'Milliband's crew and another economic disaster'.
Permit me to point you in the direction of some 'clear thinking'. Campaign for UKIP. Set aside your suspicions regarding the absence of detailed UKIP policies. Concentrate on what is at stake; the removal of this country from the control of the EU and the restoration of its independence and sovereignty. For this, in past centuries, my family and those of millions of others gave generously of their blood. They are betrayed by our status of serfs in the EU.
I'll write it again. If enough of us vote for UKIP they will be able to form a Government.
By: charliehunt
- 26th May 2014 at 12:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Whilst that last sentence is undeniably true it is of course also true that if enough people vote Labour we'll get a Labour government and if enough vote Tory a Tory government. The only difference being that a smallish swing to either will produce a mainstream majority but a seismic shift of millions will be needed for a UKIP government.
And I reckon I am more realist than pessimist, John.
By: Creaking Door
- 26th May 2014 at 12:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
People have a feeling of not having a choice - all the parties are seemingly the same,non of them live/represent in the real world and politicians are seen as fiddling snout in the trough pigs.
Maybe the parties are seemingly the same because the problems can only be solved in the same way?
Yes, it would be nice to believe that all we have to do is to vote in a new, different party, with new ideas and that will solve all our problems but will it? The world will still be the same place, everything will still cost the same, we'll all want the same (or better) services, we'll all have to pay the same (or higher) taxes to afford them, so...
...as I'm fond of saying.....we can't all just vote ourselves rich!
Look at the opposing ('all the same') ideologies, 'growth' versus 'austerity'; three years ago Britain and France each chose one ideology, and what has happened...
...which country is doing 'better' by most measures of prosperity or growth?
No, it is all too easy to blame some unpopular 'ogre' and think by throwing this off everything will be better. In Britain we (or some / most of us) want to throw-off the EU, fine, but how do we feel about Scotland wanting to throw-off the United Kingdom? Do we think that will solve all their problems?
Show me a country where some visionary new politician has managed this magical 'throw-off' trick.....anybody?
By: charliehunt
- 26th May 2014 at 13:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Much as I sympathise with UKIP's EU policy I cannot see how it is feasible to vote for a party which has said practically nothing of any consequence about most of the things which really matter to the electorate at general elections. A very small minority has taken the trouble to express their disatisfaction with mainstream politics but that is as far as it will go. Even if, for the sake of example, everyone who voted UKIP last week, votes again next year (highly unlikely), they will represent 12-15% of the average general election turnout. Far too few to win more than a few seats but enough to hand the election to pro-EU sympathetic parties. Thus consigning even the slimmest likelihood of a referendum and renegotiation, let alone an EU exit, to the history books for a generation or at least until the EU perishes of its own accord.
By: John Green
- 26th May 2014 at 13:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE 56
All very true. That is, unless - as is entirely possible - many, many more of the electorate, vote for the only party that has given a reliable pledge to remove this country from the EU.
By: hampden98
- 26th May 2014 at 13:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I get frustrated at people who point out that the UKIP vote isn't important because only 35% pf the electorate turned out to vote.
What's worse, voting UKIP or not voting at all?
Don't the other 65% realize that not turning up could let a radical party in. Then nobody gets to vote.
By: charliehunt
- 26th May 2014 at 13:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
John - many many more, well yes double or more. Which is where we part company, as I see absolutely no chance of it happening, nor any reason why it should, and you do. In any case Farage is committed to an in/out referendum, so if less than 50% vote yes, and based on the latest opinion polling that is highly likely, nothing will have been gained.
I see a vote for UKIP as a lose, lose vote, whichever way you look on it, however bright the gloss, and however brim to overflowing the buckets of wishful thinking might be.
By: trumper
- 26th May 2014 at 13:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
People vote because they want to make a difference ,a change.When they vote and they don't "see" a difference then they think that their vote is worthless and they then don't bother voting at all.
A party that comes in and makes a change makes people rightly or wrongly feel that they have had a say.It's all aload of baloney and smoke and mirrors ,a placebo maybe.
Posts: 2,841
By: paul178 - 25th May 2014 at 18:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are there any acorns in Westminster then or are the pigs still fed money in troughs?
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 25th May 2014 at 19:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 43
Paul
I would guess that anything remotely edible or pocketable in Westminster is very quickly 'troughed' or 'trousered' !
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 26th May 2014 at 09:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So now we know.
34% of the electorate voted and of those 30% voted UKIP. That's about 10% of the electorate. Earthquake? I don't think so. Kick in the goolies for the mainstream parties - probably yes. But with two thirds of the country not bothered enough to vote in elections for a non-democratic cabal I doubt it will matter much in a year's time. However if this was the result next May with a 65%+ turnout, then that really would be an earthquake!! But even Farage himself is talking down that prospect. "The UK Independence Party is hopeful of winning only a handful of seats in the general election next year despite its “breakthrough moment” in the European elections.". So a sense of perspective is called for.
And I speak as a deeply anti-EU federalist, aware that leaching votes to UKIP in the serious election, the one that really matters, will not help the cause.
Posts: 702
By: Derekf - 26th May 2014 at 09:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Perhaps when the dust settles after this "earthquake" then UKIP can be questioned about policies other then the EU or immigration. That should prove interesting. Their last manifesto looked as if it had been taken from a 12-year-old's "When I'm Prime Minister" assignment.
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 26th May 2014 at 09:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Totally agree - they are effectively a two policy protest party as will, I suspect, be evident next year.
And a minor amendment to your figure for turnout which was actually 36% not that it is a significant difference. And only just over 43% across the whole of the EU.
Posts: 702
By: Derekf - 26th May 2014 at 09:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At the moment the BBC is giving UKIP vote as 27.5% of a 34.19% turnout which I reckon means 9.4% of the electorate voted UKIP. The turnout is a bigger concern and how anyone can take any comfort from the fact the 2/3rds didn't even vote. Farage may think that he is reflecting what the British people think but when only a 1/3rd bother to vote then that claim sounds very hollow.
Posts: 6,043
By: bazv - 26th May 2014 at 10:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To be fair though - the low turn out merely signifies how much interest many people have in the EU !
Posts: 702
By: Derekf - 26th May 2014 at 10:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indeed. It may be a lot less of an issue than Farage and (sorry I can't think of any other UKIP people) might think. The UK population are probably more interested in issues like unemployment, the economy, the environment, law and order, defence, etc. in which UKIP have shown an almost total disinterest.
Posts: 7,025
By: trumper - 26th May 2014 at 10:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It goes deeper than that.People have a feeling of not having a choice -all the parties are seemingly the same,non of them live/represent in the real world and politicians are seen as fiddling snout in the trough pigs.
No wonder people don't bother voting.
Listening to Cameron on the radio saying we now know what we need to do to win the lottery--well why didn't he listen in the first place :apologetic: why should we want them to win the election.They are already thinking about what they need to do to win,not what people want them to do.
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 26th May 2014 at 10:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Listen to what? The grumblings of the racists and xenophobes? Let's hope it never comes to that.
On the EU, he's committed to renegotiation and an in/out referendum. Isn't that what most of us wish for?
If UKIP split the vote next year and Milliband's crew get in, not only will we have yet another economic disaster building, but no chance of a referendum.
Time for some clear thinking.
Moggy
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 26th May 2014 at 11:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 44
Charlie, I won't accuse you of being a realist, I'll accuse you of being a pessimist. For UKIP this could be a beginning. These results might be the foundation to build on. On the other hand, they might not. Let us see how things develop.
Let us not be too quick to dismiss. UKIP's promise to deliver us from the strangulation of the EU makes them deserving of all right thinking people's support.
My colours are nailed firmly to their mast. If they'll have me, I will stand as a candidate next year. All my family and extended family support them financially.
Think 'acorns'. Think Tesco: "Every little helps"
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 26th May 2014 at 11:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 51
Why shouldn't he listen to the 'grumblings of the racists and xenophobes' ? Should their concerns be of no concern ? A goodly number of this nation are rightly concerned about uncontrolled immigration and like the 'entitled metropolitain elite' you think that they shouldn't voice their fears ?
You are too intelligent not to know that David Cameron cannot be trusted on a number of voter concerns. From grammar schools to the EU and all points between, David Cameron is not trusted by the people. That is a major problem for the Conservative Party, of whom, I have been a supporter for fifty years.
I do share your opinion of 'Milliband's crew and another economic disaster'.
Permit me to point you in the direction of some 'clear thinking'. Campaign for UKIP. Set aside your suspicions regarding the absence of detailed UKIP policies. Concentrate on what is at stake; the removal of this country from the control of the EU and the restoration of its independence and sovereignty. For this, in past centuries, my family and those of millions of others gave generously of their blood. They are betrayed by our status of serfs in the EU.
I'll write it again. If enough of us vote for UKIP they will be able to form a Government.
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 26th May 2014 at 12:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Whilst that last sentence is undeniably true it is of course also true that if enough people vote Labour we'll get a Labour government and if enough vote Tory a Tory government. The only difference being that a smallish swing to either will produce a mainstream majority but a seismic shift of millions will be needed for a UKIP government.
And I reckon I am more realist than pessimist, John.
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 26th May 2014 at 12:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe the parties are seemingly the same because the problems can only be solved in the same way?
Yes, it would be nice to believe that all we have to do is to vote in a new, different party, with new ideas and that will solve all our problems but will it? The world will still be the same place, everything will still cost the same, we'll all want the same (or better) services, we'll all have to pay the same (or higher) taxes to afford them, so...
...as I'm fond of saying.....we can't all just vote ourselves rich!
Look at the opposing ('all the same') ideologies, 'growth' versus 'austerity'; three years ago Britain and France each chose one ideology, and what has happened...
...which country is doing 'better' by most measures of prosperity or growth?
No, it is all too easy to blame some unpopular 'ogre' and think by throwing this off everything will be better. In Britain we (or some / most of us) want to throw-off the EU, fine, but how do we feel about Scotland wanting to throw-off the United Kingdom? Do we think that will solve all their problems?
Show me a country where some visionary new politician has managed this magical 'throw-off' trick.....anybody?
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 26th May 2014 at 13:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Much as I sympathise with UKIP's EU policy I cannot see how it is feasible to vote for a party which has said practically nothing of any consequence about most of the things which really matter to the electorate at general elections. A very small minority has taken the trouble to express their disatisfaction with mainstream politics but that is as far as it will go. Even if, for the sake of example, everyone who voted UKIP last week, votes again next year (highly unlikely), they will represent 12-15% of the average general election turnout. Far too few to win more than a few seats but enough to hand the election to pro-EU sympathetic parties. Thus consigning even the slimmest likelihood of a referendum and renegotiation, let alone an EU exit, to the history books for a generation or at least until the EU perishes of its own accord.
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 26th May 2014 at 13:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE 56
All very true. That is, unless - as is entirely possible - many, many more of the electorate, vote for the only party that has given a reliable pledge to remove this country from the EU.
Posts: 2,536
By: hampden98 - 26th May 2014 at 13:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I get frustrated at people who point out that the UKIP vote isn't important because only 35% pf the electorate turned out to vote.
What's worse, voting UKIP or not voting at all?
Don't the other 65% realize that not turning up could let a radical party in. Then nobody gets to vote.
Posts: 11,141
By: charliehunt - 26th May 2014 at 13:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
John - many many more, well yes double or more. Which is where we part company, as I see absolutely no chance of it happening, nor any reason why it should, and you do. In any case Farage is committed to an in/out referendum, so if less than 50% vote yes, and based on the latest opinion polling that is highly likely, nothing will have been gained.
I see a vote for UKIP as a lose, lose vote, whichever way you look on it, however bright the gloss, and however brim to overflowing the buckets of wishful thinking might be.
Posts: 7,025
By: trumper - 26th May 2014 at 13:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
People vote because they want to make a difference ,a change.When they vote and they don't "see" a difference then they think that their vote is worthless and they then don't bother voting at all.
A party that comes in and makes a change makes people rightly or wrongly feel that they have had a say.It's all aload of baloney and smoke and mirrors ,a placebo maybe.
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 26th May 2014 at 13:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fantasy.
All you do is let Milliband in and wave farewell to the chance of a referendum.
MNoggy