What do you think about UKIP?

[The Archregimancy]

The bolded statement makes me want to point a couple of things out here:

1. The first country to give women the right to vote was New Zealand in 1893, the UK granted partial suffrage in 1918 and full suffrage in 1928 - we weren't even the first country in Europe to allow women to vote, this was Finland in 1906.

2. Slavery wasn't ended in the British empire until the 19th Century. The slave trade was outlawed in 1807 throughout the empire and slavery was abolished (via gradual manumission) in 1833. The united kingdoms of Denmark & Norway, however, did issue a decree in the 18th Century (1792) abolishing the slave trade, coming into full effect by 1803 and in doing so became the earliest European nation to ban the slave trade.

1. New Zealand was part of the British Empire back than so indeed the UK was tge first country who abolished.
2. Slavery was banned in the British island in the mid 18th century while the whole Empire abolished it later. When did the muslim caliphates abolished by the way?

1) New Zealand had representative self-government in 1893; women's suffrage in New Zealand had nothing to do with the United Kingdom's parliament, and was entirely the responsibility of the New Zealand Parliament. So no, the United Kingdom wasn't the first country to grant women the right to vote.

2) There's been no functioning "Muslim caliphate" since the sack of Baghdad in 1258; the Mamluks kept a shadow Abbasid Caliphate running until the 16th century - though one without any temporal authority - and the Ottomans intermittently claimed the title until the abolition of the Ottoman Empire in the 1920. But since the traditional Caliphate functionally ended in the 13th century, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by bringing up the "Muslim Caliphates" in relation to the gradual abolition of Atlantic slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries. I suspect you don't actually know what a "Caliphate" is, and are trying to make a general point about slavery continuing in some Muslim countries into the 20th century; but the latter point is wholly distinct from any hypothetical abolition of slavery by "Muslim Caliphates".

[Vyvland]

The one thing I like about UKIP is their ability to pull off Tory voters locally and thereby ensure that my seat is at least electorally competitive in coming elections, if not miraculously Lib Dem in 2015. This should hopefully help to counteract Lib Dem failure and splitters to Labour (who have previously been really unpopular round here) which could be expected from the Lib Dems' hideous wave of unpopularity.

Apart from that, UKIP are almost completely polar opposite to myself, and represent almost everything I dislike about popular attitudes in Britain today. I hope they have no influence in government on any level in the future.

[Tagmatium]

The one thing I like about UKIP is their ability to pull off Tory voters locally and thereby ensure that my seat is at least electorally competitive in coming elections, if not miraculously Lib Dem in 2015. This should hopefully help to counteract Lib Dem failure and splitters to Labour (who have previously been really unpopular round here) which could be expected from the Lib Dems' hideous wave of unpopularity.

Perhaps not fucking over their voters might have been a bit better.

[The Archregimancy]

The one thing I like about UKIP is their ability to pull off Tory voters locally and thereby ensure that my seat is at least electorally competitive in coming elections, if not miraculously Lib Dem in 2015. This should hopefully help to counteract Lib Dem failure and splitters to Labour (who have previously been really unpopular round here) which could be expected from the Lib Dems' hideous wave of unpopularity.

Perhaps not fucking over their voters might have been a bit better.

I never felt particularly "fucked over"; occasionally mildly disappointed, but not "fucked over".

As an academic working in a university at the time, I always knew that the one 2010 manifesto policy that the party later abandoned in coalition that really gets the NSG demographic worked up - the abolition of tuition fees - was untenable. Tuition fees would have been increased regardless of whether the post-2010 government had been led by Labour or the Tories.

That Nick Clegg allowed himself to so openly pledge his support to a party policy that he not only personally opposed, but which most senior party figures knew to be untenable, is the clearest available evidence that the LibDems never expected to be in a coalition government after the 2010 election. They clearly felt they could continue to oppose fees they knew were inevitable on the assumption that the chances of them winning a share of power were negligible.

That's not so much active lying as a basic failure of political strategy.

[Tagmatium]

Perhaps not fucking over their voters might have been a bit better.

I never felt particularly "fucked over"; occasionally mildly disappointed, but not "fucked over".

As an academic working in a university at the time, I always knew that the one 2010 manifesto policy that the party later abandoned in coalition that really gets the NSG demographic worked up - the abolition of tuition fees - was untenable. Tuition fees would have been increased regardless of whether the post-2010 government had been led by Labour or the Tories.

That Nick Clegg allowed himself to so openly pledge his support to a party policy that he not only personally opposed, but which most senior party figures knew to be untenable, is the clearest available evidence that the LibDems never expected to be in a coalition government after the 2010 election. They clearly felt they could continue to oppose fees they knew were inevitable on the assumption that the chances of them winning a share of power were negligible.

That's not so much active lying as a basic failure of political strategy.

Well, indeed.

It's the feeling I got from many people I knew who did did vote for the LibDems - most of them, this would have been the first time that they'd voted within a General Election. I think many were taken somewhat in by their promises, even though it was unlikely that, in the event of a coalition government, that many of the LibDem's election promises would make it to actual government policy.

Being as you're not a first-time voter who is somewhat naive as to the tactics used by political parties or the things they have to dump to try to get a workable compromise, I doubt you'd have felt the same.

[Shove Piggy Shove]

Nigel Farage has agreed to a public debate with Nick Clegg on UK membership of the EU:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26287197

No details as to the date/venue as of yet, but should be interesting.

[Forsakia]

Perhaps not fucking over their voters might have been a bit better.

I never felt particularly "fucked over"; occasionally mildly disappointed, but not "fucked over".

As an academic working in a university at the time, I always knew that the one 2010 manifesto policy that the party later abandoned in coalition that really gets the NSG demographic worked up - the abolition of tuition fees - was untenable. Tuition fees would have been increased regardless of whether the post-2010 government had been led by Labour or the Tories.

That Nick Clegg allowed himself to so openly pledge his support to a party policy that he not only personally opposed, but which most senior party figures knew to be untenable, is the clearest available evidence that the LibDems never expected to be in a coalition government after the 2010 election. They clearly felt they could continue to oppose fees they knew were inevitable on the assumption that the chances of them winning a share of power were negligible.

That's not so much active lying as a basic failure of political strategy.

Clegg quietly tried hard to get that pledge dropped before the election but couldn't manage it (power being far more de-centralised in the Lib Dems than the other parties).

[The Archregimancy]

I never felt particularly "fucked over"; occasionally mildly disappointed, but not "fucked over".

As an academic working in a university at the time, I always knew that the one 2010 manifesto policy that the party later abandoned in coalition that really gets the NSG demographic worked up - the abolition of tuition fees - was untenable. Tuition fees would have been increased regardless of whether the post-2010 government had been led by Labour or the Tories.

That Nick Clegg allowed himself to so openly pledge his support to a party policy that he not only personally opposed, but which most senior party figures knew to be untenable, is the clearest available evidence that the LibDems never expected to be in a coalition government after the 2010 election. They clearly felt they could continue to oppose fees they knew were inevitable on the assumption that the chances of them winning a share of power were negligible.

That's not so much active lying as a basic failure of political strategy.

Clegg quietly tried hard to get that pledge dropped before the election but couldn't manage it (power being far more de-centralised in the Lib Dems than the other parties).

He did indeed try to get it dropped; which is why we know he always opposed it.

But having failed to get his own party to drop the policy, his basic mistake was to make the abolition of tuition fees such a major centrepiece of the LibDem campaign - to the extent of making a very public pledge to support the policy - when he neither supported it nor believed it was practical.

By far the better approach would have been to bury it on page 15 of the manifesto, and allow a junior colleague to occasionally make supportive noises. He probably felt trapped by the extent to which seats with major student populations had become a major source of LibDem support.

But, slapping myself on the wrist for my role in the minor derail, let's try and remember that this is a UKIP thread, not a LibDem tuition fee policy thread.

[Greater-London]

I believe that's an impossible idealism to ask of democracies.
Look at America. You're given a binary choice. Two shit sandwiches.

At least here we can actually compromise on some of our political wants to see our political needs better supported.

Well that's not strictly true. You can have a government that people want easily in any democracy all you need is parties and candidates that people actually agree with instead of the lesser of two evils option. This has and does happen - you could argue the coalition is representative of what the public asked for in 2010. Its entirely possible to have popular governments and have representative parliaments.

You also don't have to look as far as America to see a binary choice we have one here too. The next government will be a Conservative or Labour government, possibly in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. You compromising your political wants won't lead to your needs being better supported you have two parties who are equally as bad as each other and either will form the next government. So you may vote Labour because they aren't Torries but thats exaclty the same as those who vote Democrat because they don't want the Republicans.

[Greater-London]

Nigel Farage has agreed to a public debate with Nick Clegg on UK membership of the EU:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26287197

No details as to the date/venue as of yet, but should be interesting.

It will be interesting. Regardless of whether you agree with him or not Nigel will wipe the floor with Nick.

[Shove Piggy Shove]

Nigel Farage has agreed to a public debate with Nick Clegg on UK membership of the EU:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26287197

No details as to the date/venue as of yet, but should be interesting.

It will be interesting. Regardless of whether you agree with him or not Nigel will wipe the floor with Nick.

I'm not so sure, Clegg did pretty well in the leadership debates before the 2010 elections.

[Napkiraly]

Nigel Farage has agreed to a public debate with Nick Clegg on UK membership of the EU:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26287197

No details as to the date/venue as of yet, but should be interesting.

This shall be interesting. Wonder if I could be able to go and see it, depending on when and where it'll be held. Personally I'll be rooting for Clegg.

[The Archregimancy]

I believe that's an impossible idealism to ask of democracies.
Look at America. You're given a binary choice. Two shit sandwiches.

At least here we can actually compromise on some of our political wants to see our political needs better supported.

Well that's not strictly true. You can have a government that people want easily in any democracy all you need is parties and candidates that people actually agree with instead of the lesser of two evils option. This has and does happen - you could argue the coalition is representative of what the public asked for in 2010. Its entirely possible to have popular governments and have representative parliaments.

You also don't have to look as far as America to see a binary choice we have one here too. The next government will be a Conservative or Labour government, possibly in coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

While it's true that the next UK government will almost certainly be led by one of two parties, the situation is not realistically comparable to the United States.

In the 2010 UK election, the two main parties only gained 65.1% of the vote - oddly enough precisely the same as the actual turnout - and that percentage has been steadily and remorselessly declining since the 96% peak those parties won in the 1951 and 1955 elections. British elections have become less binary over the last 60 years, and the largest third party in the 2010 UK election won 23% of the vote (compared to the 2.5% of the vote that party's predecessor won in 1951). Eleven parties are currently represented in Parliament (though only four of those parties were represented by English seats; two further parties only ran candidates in Scotland or Wales; five parties [including Sylvia Hermon as a 'party] only ran candidates in Northern Ireland)

Contrast this to the 2012 US Congressional election, where the two main parties won 96.4% of the vote, the largest third party won only 1.1% of the vote, and only the two main parties are represented in the House.

[The Archregimancy]

Nigel Farage has agreed to a public debate with Nick Clegg on UK membership of the EU:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26287197

No details as to the date/venue as of yet, but should be interesting.

It will be interesting. Regardless of whether you agree with him or not Nigel will wipe the floor with Nick.

In precisely the same way David and Gordon wiped the floor with Nick in 2010, no doubt.

You know, I wonder how long you're going to keep up this "I'm no fan of UKIP" charade; if you're 'not a fan', it does make me wonder what an actual open UKIP supporter would look like.

[Divair]

I support their policy over EU membership. They are the only party in the UK with elected representation (mostly MEPs) who want to end Britain's membership of the EU. I don't like the EU. I don't like the agenda of a federal Europe. I particularly dislike the fact that many of the major changes brought in by the EU are proposed by people without an electoral mandate.

The idea of a federal Europe isn't going to happen, it's mostly just talk.

Unfortunately.

[Scholencia]

UKIP may have its problems and to be honest it is not perfect but at least they are not traitors as the labour and LibDem who dedicated themselfs to the cause of Brussels and the Europroject.

Britain had a brilliant political class in the golden age of the Empire (for which I am bit nostalgic) which ended in the 1950s. UKIP at least share some stances of thoose capable statesmen.

Because UKIP likes to pretend that the Empire is still a think, and that Britain is a special enough snowflake that it can do what the fuck it wants.

There's a reason why it ended in the 1950s - reality happened, and shit had to change.

But the UK gave so much to the world, it deserves to think that it is special. Magna charta is one reason than without the islands the Nazis would win ww2 or at least the Soviet would reach Paris. Given all that a litle credit from its citizens thos cointry deserves. UKIP is aware of that and at least it wants to reach a little bit of the gold old days.

The reason why the Empire ended is because some social warriors came to power who instead of giving representation to the colonies in the West Minster parliament they did everything to drive them away from Btitain.

[Divair]

I'm surprised the positive opinion side of this poll isn't doing better. After that general election poll I did, I was expecting a rush of UKIP groupies, but that hasn't really materialised.

They're still far more popular here than they are in reality.

[Greater-London]

In precisely the same way David and Gordon wiped the floor with Nick in 2010, no doubt.

You know, I wonder how long you're going to keep up this "I'm no fan of UKIP" charade; if you're 'not a fan', it does make me wonder what an actual open UKIP supporter would look like.

Except its different - because at the time Nick was virtually unknown to the voting public. People now know who Clegg and Farage are and Farage is a better orator that Nick is.

Also the fact that you call it a charade irks me a bit. I'm not a UKIP supporter or "fan" as I put it but if you look at my posts throughout this thread all I've done is challenge people who said they were "Fascists" or UKIP are a racist party Which they aren't. Pointing out that someone isn't a Facist or a Racist doesn't really equate to praise, just makes them seem a civilized person.

I also pointed out that UKIP are put under more scrutiny than our other political parties (despite really a minor party) because they are quite a "hot topic" and it looks good in the papers.

I then just pointed out that Nigel Farage is a good public speaker, which he is. Plenty of people were good public speakers, doesn't mean that you agree with what they say. I think George Galloway is a nutter but I think he would destroy Clegg in a debate.

If you want to know what a UKIP supporter would look like you would probably see them praising UKIP policy or wanting UKIP to win political office. I have done neither, I just think its pretty weak political discourse and also the sign of someone whos not educated on the subject to say "Yeah UKIP are just BNP" or "yea UKIP they are just Facists, look at what they do its Facism". Much in the same way it annoys me when people say "Labour , yeah they just waste our money" "Ed millibands a socialist" and all that bollocks.

If its not obvious my views on UKIP are mixed. I like the way that they've engaged people in politics who were before apathetic. I like that they have brought forward the debate on Britains membership of the EU. I also think Nigel Farage is a good public speaker. I've also read their manifesto - it was tripe & some of it I thought was deeply wrong. I think they are shamefully populist.

To summarise I don't like UKIP but I think they have a place in British politics and I think people should scrutinize what UKIP do in office if they ever attain it instead of name calling. Sorry for the essay.

[Britannic Realms]

They're the best of the insane parties.

[Shove Piggy Shove]

They're the best of the insane parties.

No, that would be the Monster Raving Loony Party - at least they're open about it

[Parti Ouvrier]

Am I the only one who rebelliously and intentionally mentions 'ukip' without capitalising?

[Wolfmanne]

Ah, brilliant. NationState's Generalites, the RESPECT Party of the internet.

Let me make it clear that first of all I am an Eurorealist and an One Nation Conservative along the lines of Kenneth Clarke, plus I share the environmental views of ousted Tory MP Tim Yeo, so I don't really agree on that much with UKIP, whether it is their socially conservative or libertarian/thatcherite wing. But what people are characterising UKIP as is plain stupid. Yes, their manifesto says that they are against gay marriage. Yes, their manifesto says that they are opposed to immigration to the point that a civil servant in the Home Office would give Nigel Farage a funny look if he became Prime Minister and started going on about his shit. Yes, their environmental policy is unenvironmental. I could go on. The point is that this is their voting base and of course they will go for those with these beliefs. I personally think that some people are just slow to change and that is understandable.

Many of them are probably OAPs with flashbacks about the 'good old days', residents of the many Little Englands where the Daily Mail is the only newspaper sold at the newsagents that exist in the Midlands and South East England. And yes, there are libertarians among them who are slightly off their rocker when it comes to privatisation or just want to smoke weed and still leave the EU. But to say that they are racist and xenophobic when it is only a few Councillors coming out with these stupid ideas about gay marriage causing floods or something about foreign aid and the nonexistant 'Bongo Bongo Land'. UKIP is just a party who are against the EU and to win a few votes decide to try and gain the support of the increasingly isolated thatcherites/libertarians/traditionalists in the modernist Conservative Party, groups which just happen to be reasonably euroskeptic.

They are wrong and they are misguided, but they'll either die out eventually (mainly because their voter base will die). As a Tory, I don't agree with them and they are a dangerous splinter to the Conservative Party that could steal votes, so I don't like them on that, but what people on NationStates (and leftists in general) are characterising them as is idiotic.

Nigel Farage has agreed to a public debate with Nick Clegg on UK membership of the EU:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26287197

No details as to the date/venue as of yet, but should be interesting.

Why Clegg? Kenneth Clarke should be in the debate, seeing that he is the leader of the Eurorealistic Tories. Clarke can stand up for his views. As for Clegg, sure, he might pull off a passionate speech or two like the ones in the general election debate, but whilst I like the Liberal Democrats in the Coalition, I think the rest of Britain isn't in the mood for 'liberal, backstabbing bullshit'. Clegg vs. Farage? I'd give Farage the win on a debate.

[Frisivisia]

In precisely the same way David and Gordon wiped the floor with Nick in 2010, no doubt.

You know, I wonder how long you're going to keep up this "I'm no fan of UKIP" charade; if you're 'not a fan', it does make me wonder what an actual open UKIP supporter would look like.

Except its different - because at the time Nick was virtually unknown to the voting public. People now know who Clegg and Farage are and Farage is a better orator that Nick is.

Also the fact that you call it a charade irks me a bit. I'm not a UKIP supporter or "fan" as I put it but if you look at my posts throughout this thread all I've done is challenge people who said they were "Fascists" or UKIP are a racist party Which they aren't. Pointing out that someone isn't a Facist or a Racist doesn't really equate to praise, just makes them seem a civilized person.

I also pointed out that UKIP are put under more scrutiny than our other political parties (despite really a minor party) because they are quite a "hot topic" and it looks good in the papers.

I then just pointed out that Nigel Farage is a good public speaker, which he is. Plenty of people were good public speakers, doesn't mean that you agree with what they say. I think George Galloway is a nutter but I think he would destroy Clegg in a debate.

If you want to know what a UKIP supporter would look like you would probably see them praising UKIP policy or wanting UKIP to win political office. I have done neither, I just think its pretty weak political discourse and also the sign of someone whos not educated on the subject to say "Yeah UKIP are just BNP" or "yea UKIP they are just Facists, look at what they do its Facism". Much in the same way it annoys me when people say "Labour , yeah they just waste our money" "Ed millibands a socialist" and all that bollocks.

If its not obvious my views on UKIP are mixed. I like the way that they've engaged people in politics who were before apathetic. I like that they have brought forward the debate on Britains membership of the EU. I also think Nigel Farage is a good public speaker. I've also read their manifesto - it was tripe & some of it I thought was deeply wrong. I think they are shamefully populist.

To summarise I don't like UKIP but I think they have a place in British politics and I think people should scrutinize what UKIP do in office if they ever attain it instead of name calling. Sorry for the essay.

Bringing apathetic people into the political fold to support insane bullshit is a net harm.

[Ifreann]

As a paper its fine. Just the ernest middle class Guardian reader is a sterotype we can all enjoy.

No, it's not. It's a ridiculously smug propoganda machine for armchair revolutionaries and Champagne socialists. It's every bit as biased as the Mail, just more subtle about it and biased in the opposite direction.

And they can't spell.

[Wolfmanne]

As a paper its fine. Just the ernest middle class Guardian reader is a sterotype we can all enjoy.

No, it's not. It's a ridiculously smug propoganda machine for armchair revolutionaries and Champagne socialists. It's every bit as biased as the Mail, just more subtle about it and biased in the opposite direction.

Strangely enough the Guardian did an article on champagne socialism: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... s-hollande

The thing that annoys me is their civil libertarianism. It is just plain over the top now and along the lines of 'fuck whatever the British government does'.