UKIP's manifesto doesn't tell me anything

What if the liberal moral high ground is so far removed from human nature that it will never work on a nationwide/worldwide scale? (hypothetical, of course)

That's certainly possible, likely even.

It takes strong, robust, formidable leaders to take liberalism or social democracy and turn it into something useful. It takes gutsy policies that may even be unpopular at first. I'm in agreement with your proposition. Given the wrong leaders or the wrong proponents, flimsy leftism is an almost useless attribute for actually applying said values to a nationwide/worldwide scale. The key ingredient is robust leadership that cares first and foremost about getting **** done and worrying about offending people second.

Sounds like Thatcher.

See my response to thesabbath. The problem, as the republicans are realising, is that the millionaire businessman whose wife's grandmother is an illegal immigrant doesn't vote for you whatever your economic policy or your defence policy or your healthcare policy. Once you move out of the mainstream you build a coalition of the "not at any price" against you.

Ultimately that is more to do with social policy than economic policy. The Republicans have made the mistake of not moving with the times socially as a result people who may have otherwise endorsed Mitt for an economic recovery won't vote for him due to the other policies. I don't think that is something the Tories suffer from, for them the problem is more that socially they are pretty central, but the right in general and EU sceptics are not happy with their fiscal policy, and as every the tradition labour vote is not going to switch sides. The trick is obviously to catch the swing voters while not alienating your traditional vote, something which admittedly is easier from the left.

Not really.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100024006/ten-myths-about-margaret-thatcher-exploded/

I think it describes the late Tommy Douglas of Canada's NDP.

"It takes gutsy policies which may be unpopular"

Yes it does.

I think you are only noting the views of people whose opinions you value. When voters say "anyone but" they are noting the views they abhore. It doesn't matter how many policies they agree with, it is the policies they dislike that closes them off.

It is only easier from the left if you are a Conservative. If you are a Socialist, it is easier from the right.

This is just copied and pasted from the first thing I noticed from 1 section:
· Spend an extra 40% on defence annually,
another 1% of GDP
· Expand the Army by 25% to 125,000 personnel and double the size of the Territorial Army
· Restore the Royal Navy to its 2001 strength
with three new aircraft carriers and nearly 70
other ships, at the same time guaranteeing the
future of the Plymouth, Portsmouth and Rosyth
bases

What don't you understand, its quite clear. This is in addition to their EU and immigration stuff, grammar schools, more prisons etc. In any case they are updating it I think since that was 2010 and the media is likely going to offer more strenuous scrutiny

They're basically just the Thatcherite wing of the 1980s Conservative Party.

They are the people who thought Thatcher was too moderate.

Not really. The activists are one issue zealots. The supporters are elderly men out of the economy and completely out of tune with the modern world. It would be interesting to get a figure on their internet use.

35% of Tories are aged over 60, 48% of UKIP supporters are. 57% of UKIP supporters are male. Given the age profile and relative male and female life expectancy, that is a much more profound figure.

Burke didn't want everyone having a say because he wanted toconfine democracy only to the most educated (e.g people like him) like JS Mill, he also believe in the trustee model of representation whereby politicians work by their own conscious as they are apparently more intelligent and informed than the feeble electorate.

I wouldn't be singing his praises too highly, I don't think you can transfer 18th century thinking to the modern day.

I certainly would, and by all means do I still endorse it today. Such thinking strikes me as extremely sensible. What is wrong with wanting the 'most educated' running the country? What is wrong in wanting politicians, who, being 'most educated', would also be 'more intelligent and informed' than the electorate, working by their 'own [conscience]'?

At the heart of his thinking was that in a representative democracy the representatives were not there to act as simple relays of public opinion, but rather could best serve the people by making their own decisions. These are people who have dedicated themselves to public service; naturally they will be more informed in their profession than the average Joe. They are also in most cases going to be highly intelligent. It makes a lot of sense that they should be making the decisions in how the country is governed.

How on earthd does it make more sense to have average Joe's, who will be less informed and less intelligent on average than our MPs, deciding how the country is governed?

I don't keep up with their membership profile, but maybe I should! Didn't Farage leave specifically because Maggie was too soft on the EU though?

According to Wikipedia it was Major's signing of the Maastricht Treaty but information on Farage prior to 2000 is very sketchy.

They want to pull out of the European Union without thinking of the consequences of this action. Their attendance in the EP (European Parliament) is shockingly bad.

Their Leader just spouts populist rhetoric all the time

Withdrawal from the EU.
Points based immigration, with only people who will be a net benefit to the country granted citizenship, with others granted work permits.
Far tougher prisons and prison sentences.