Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    One of the major UKIP plans is reform of the way things currently work. If they can infact do that, then current services can be delivered for less, savings without cuts. Its obviously questionable how much it would cost to implement even if they would result in savings.
    There are two levels to this.

    The first is that if there really is going to be a change in the way society is organised then I am afraid the charge against UKIP that they are fascist is proved. Fascism is at its heart an economic system based on the corporate state; the smart uniforms and pogroms are means to achieve those ends, not ends in themselves.

    If that isn't what is meant then:

    The reduction of waste, bureaucracy and over-government will also yield substantial savings.
    Conservative Manifesto 1979

    Just as we owe it to the taxpayer to crack down on tax avoidance, so we must crack down on dishonesty in the benefit system. We will start with a clampdown on Housing Benefit fraud, estimated to cost £2 billion a year, and will maintain action against benefit fraud of all kinds.
    Labour Manifesto 1997

    Not only must waste be eliminated, but we must also be bold
    about finding big areas of spending that can be cut completely
    Liberal Manifesto 2010

    Frankly it is no good you saying UKIP is different from these old parties, Thatcher in 1979, Blair in 1997, Clegg in 2010 and Disraeli in 1874 all claimed they were different from what had gone before. All politicians always do.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    To an extent, but Lab-Con are so similar no serious reform is ever going to happen, you are going to need a party off the central line or an true leader to driver any kind of meaningful change.

    Obviously but is that really a problem? A government planning for the long term rather than the next election is probably what we could do with.
    I don't think UKIP are any more long term than anyone else, they are certainly more gimicy - wouldn't have seen Brown/Cameron in a crappy plane trying to win votes on election day. More seriously their enthusiasm for police commissioners has to be more about getting people into positions rather than giving a damn about whether the role is good value.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Dismantling of democracy maybe?



    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...democracy.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    as regards grammar schools, they want at least one in every single town in this country.
    A policy worth voting for if ever there was one.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    they are certainly more gimicy - wouldn't have seen Brown/Cameron in a crappy plane trying to win votes on election day.
    I think you have forgotten this

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tjf8)
    A policy worth voting for if ever there was one.
    Cost?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Cost?
    I don't know how they'd balance it out. I'm talking about the principle. If it's economically feasible then great.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I think you have forgotten this

    On election day?

    A soapbox and actually saying stuff is a bit different from being Biggles with a vote for me banner.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgsie)
    That being said but the real problem is that Nigel Farage and UKIP have not thought of the details if we did leave. It is all 'lets pull out'.

    This is the same person who does not know his facts because on QT he confused the EU with the ECHR. Not true because the ECHR is a different organisation
    You have to be in the ECHR to be in the EU, so they're quite heavily related.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Frankly it is no good you saying UKIP is different from these old parties, Thatcher in 1979, Blair in 1997, Clegg in 2010 and Disraeli in 1874 all claimed they were different from what had gone before. All politicians always do.
    You mistake my position. I don't care what they are, I care what they claim to be. UKIP are not going to get any substantial number of seat in the next election, but they may force the conservatives to change their current line to keep their voter base. That is more what I'm interested in, a stronger right opposition for the Labour majority.

    (Original post by Quady)
    I don't think UKIP are any more long term than anyone else, they are certainly more gimicy - wouldn't have seen Brown/Cameron in a crappy plane trying to win votes on election day. More seriously their enthusiasm for police commissioners has to be more about getting people into positions rather than giving a damn about whether the role is good value.
    Again, I don't care whether they are, I care that they are projecting a view of them being in favour of long term reform and anyone who wishes to steal their votes is going to have to make that part of their plans when election time comes.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    Again, I don't care whether they are, I care that they are projecting a view of them being in favour of long term reform and anyone who wishes to steal their votes is going to have to make that part of their plans when election time comes.
    What reform are they making that spans more than 5 years?

    ie energy or pension reform?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    On election day?

    A soapbox and actually saying stuff is a bit different from being Biggles with a vote for me banner.
    The soapbox was first adopted on 28th March 1992, was used again on 30th March 1992 and several times thereafter before polling day on 9th April. It won't have been used on polling day because party leaders generally go round supporting their own constituency workers on polling day.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The soapbox was first adopted on 28th March 1992, was used again on 30th March 1992 and several times thereafter before polling day on 9th April. It won't have been used on polling day because party leaders generally go round supporting their own constituency workers on polling day.
    Yes.

    Biggles didn't and so ended up going to hospital on his big day.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tjf8)
    I don't know how they'd balance it out. I'm talking about the principle. If it's economically feasible then great.
    Virtually anything is economically feasible if you make that the central plank of your policy (which Farage doesn't).
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    You mistake my position. I don't care what they are, I care what they claim to be. UKIP are not going to get any substantial number of seat in the next election, but they may force the conservatives to change their current line to keep their voter base. That is more what I'm interested in, a stronger right opposition for the Labour majority.
    I see you are an admirer of the electoral wisdom of Tony Benn.

    Labour lost in 1979 because it wasn't left wing enough.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Given that the media has been almost universally hostile to UKIP since they formed, is it any wonder that they've had to try out (sometimes misguided) stunts like the plane to try to get their message across?

    As far as the establishment parties are concerned they still prefer to pretend that UKIP don't exist. This is the typical sort of media interrogation UKIP are met with, imagine any of the current Westminster crop facing this down:



    It's only because the impacts of the EU are so widely felt now (lack of jobs, the stagnant economy, industry strangled by regulation, ruinous 'green' energy policies, the gross pressures on public services and employment figures courtesy of mass immigration) that UKIP's message (which has been consistent for the past decade) is now getting some attention. Although one has to concede that if the Lib/Lab/Con weren't so universally incompetent then UKIP and their anti-EU message would probably still be in the shadows.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)

    As far as the establishment parties are concerned they still prefer to pretend that UKIP don't exist. This is the typical sort of media interrogation UKIP are met with, imagine any of the current Westminster crop facing this down:
    It is UKIP that benefits (in non-Parliamentary elections) from being ignored.

    The wheels come off minor parties (and this used to happen to the Liberals as well) when attention is focussed on them.

    The Catholic sex abuse scandals have been a Godsend to Sinn Fein. So much of their policies on issues other than the constitutional structure of NI are out of keeping with traditional Catholic teaching that in any previous generation they would have been wiped out from the pulpit once they were in or near to government. The disillusionment with the Church has allowed Sinn Fein to get away with support for eg gay marriage.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Whatever people think about UKIP, I am an admirer of Nigel Farage. He seems a very competent political leader; second only to Alex Salmond, in fact.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    Given that the media has been almost universally hostile to UKIP since they formed, is it any wonder that they've had to try out (sometimes misguided) stunts like the plane to try to get their message across?
    I don't remember them getting much hostility at the '97 election. (I can't comment on how they were treated '93-'97, can't really remember them turning up until about 6 months before the election)

    Sending everyone a VHS of their manifesto also seems a more grown up way to win votes.

    But that was before Kilroy and Nigel...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    It is UKIP that benefits (in non-Parliamentary elections) from being ignored.
    Only if you take the position that their message doesn't pass muster.

    UKIP are talking about the issues that the other parties would prefer not to talk about (at least until UKIP becomes an electoral threat, then they leap on it in spades). How can being ignored help there?

    As their performance in the 2009 Euro Elections shows, if they're seen as viable (not a wasted vote) then UKIP do well. They've finished second in 3 of the past 4 Westminster by-elections. They're polling up to 17% nationally (twice the Lib Dems) in opinion polls.

    All this with a hostile media. If they do well in the May 2nd county council elections then all bets will be off. UKIP have broken through the apathy, people are excited to vote for them.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.