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

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    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.
    As we're now sticking with FPtP they are stuffed int he next general election. My money will be on them not winning a single seat.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    As we're now sticking with FPtP they are stuffed int he next general election. My money will be on them not winning a single seat.
    Hypothetically, UKIP overtake the Tories in the opinion polls at some stage between now and 2015. What happens then?

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    Hypothetically, UKIP overtake the Tories in the opinion polls at some stage between now and 2015. What happens then?

    Labour win a massive majority?

    If UKIP pick up another 10% and the tories lose another 10% then my money will probably be against the BNP like last time, but as you say, hypothetical extrapolation.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I see you are an admirer of the electoral wisdom of Tony Benn.

    Labour lost in 1979 because it wasn't left wing enough.
    Not quite in the same way as present, however I feel the conservative party aren't really far enough to the right. A true right wing voter is not going to be satisfied with the direction of the party and they certainly aren't going to be convincing anyone on the left. It looks like Labour are probably going to take the next election, partly due to being the only party that has a solid voter base. I don't think the Conservatives are going to win but I think having a strong opposition will be important.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    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.
    It isn't really a hostile media though, is it? It isn't yet intense enough for that. As soon as actual attention is applied to the policies, it's game over.

    When people finally realise that a flat tax is unaffordable and would disproportionately benefit the rich, they will start to think a bit more about the whole position.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Conservative party membership under Cameron has nearly halved, with 130k members now (2012)
    Labour have about 194k (2012), although when Blair was in power this was around 400k.
    Lib Dems are sitting at 42,501 (Jan 2013), compared with 100k under Charles Kennedy's leadership (2005)

    UKIP now have 25,000 members, up 5,000 since the start of the year, and are the only party whose membership is growing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ukip-treasurer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    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?
    The key to electoral success is about not alienating too many "maybes". If, for example, UKIP was going to abolish all subsidies for opera, they would not get the votes of a stagehand at Covent Garden whatever that stagehand thought about Europe.

    Parties lose when too many people think "i am not voting for them" because of X. So long as fringe parties get coverage on their core issue only, they don't lose maybes, because all their maybes, by definition support them on their core issues.

    What happens when fringe parties get near to or embrace power, is that they start being judged on their peripheral policies and it is those policies that alienate voters.

    Two key problems for UKIP are primary economic policy which doesn't add up in that Farage has a lot of spending commitments without any visible means of funding and devil in the detail of EU withdrawal.

    The latter rests on the assumption that an organisation that has just beggered Cyprus will allow us to have all of the advantages of EU membership without paying for it and without taking the bad bits. His position relies almost entirely on the assumption that EU exports to the UK are elastic whilst their imports from the UK are inelastic in circumstances where virtually every commentator considers the reverse to be true.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    Not quite in the same way as present, however I feel the conservative party aren't really far enough to the right. A true right wing voter is not going to be satisfied with the direction of the party and they certainly aren't going to be convincing anyone on the left. It looks like Labour are probably going to take the next election, partly due to being the only party that has a solid voter base. I don't think the Conservatives are going to win but I think having a strong opposition will be important.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Most manifestos don't tell you very much about how the party would behave it were in office.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    Conservative party membership under Cameron has nearly halved, with 130k members now (2012)
    Labour have about 194k (2012), although when Blair was in power this was around 400k.
    Lib Dems are sitting at 42,501 (Jan 2013), compared with 100k under Charles Kennedy's leadership (2005)

    UKIP now have 25,000 members, up 5,000 since the start of the year, and are the only party whose membership is growing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ukip-treasurer
    Doesn't mean their policies are sorted though does it?

    Unlike Welfare or Education, they have published their tax one within the last month. I still don't know if it'd make me better off or not now or if my earnings grew. There is no actual content in that policy document.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    It isn't really a hostile media though, is it? It isn't yet intense enough for that. As soon as actual attention is applied to the policies, it's game over.

    When people finally realise that a flat tax is unaffordable and would disproportionately benefit the rich, they will start to think a bit more about the whole position.
    The spiteful position that "the rich are disproportionately benefited" from a flat tax is the sort of negative thinking that makes the left so unpopular. The politics of envy. Stop spending other peoples' money.

    UKIP want to take minimum wage earners out of the income tax system altogether by raising the threshold to £13,000.
    Above that, all pay at the same rate, they're proposing 25%. No one is losing out here but that somehow isn't fair? Why should "the rich" be paying proportionally more of their income?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    The spiteful position that "the rich are disproportionately benefited" from a flat tax is the sort of negative thinking that makes the left so unpopular. The politics of envy. Stop spending other peoples' money.

    UKIP want to take minimum wage earners out of the income tax system altogether by raising the threshold to £13,000.
    Above that, all pay at the same rate, they're proposing 25%. No one is losing out here but that somehow isn't fair? Why should "the rich" be paying proportionally more?
    Where the feck is this proposal?
    Also do they mention anything on NI?

    ----
    Edit - I'd pay £600/year more income tax under that proposal so i would be losing out.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    The spiteful position that "the rich are disproportionately benefited" from a flat tax is the sort of negative thinking that makes the left so unpopular. The politics of envy. Stop spending other peoples' money.

    UKIP want to take minimum wage earners out of the income tax system altogether by raising the threshold to £13,000.
    Above that, all pay at the same rate, they're proposing 25%. No one is losing out here but that somehow isn't fair? Why should "the rich" be paying proportionally more of their income?
    I'm not saying they should or they shouldn't. Again, as earlier on another thread, you have misinterpreted my meaning and shoved your politics down my throat..

    Whether or not it's a worthy position is irrelevant- the effect of it is the same.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Where the feck is this proposal?
    Also do they mention anything on NI?
    At the last GE in 2010 they elected to roll income tax and NI together to create a 31% flat tax, with the threshold set then at £11.5k.

    I don't think they have set anything in stone yet this time around but you can assume from last time that they're keen to eliminate NI (and in particular NI for employers).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    At the last GE in 2010 they elected to roll income tax and NI together to create a 31% flat tax, with the threshold set then at £11.5k.

    I don't think they have set anything in stone yet this time around but you can assume from last time that they're keen to eliminate NI (and in particular NI for employers).
    Would NI qualifying years still exist to calculate state pension?

    Did you pluck the 13k and 25% out of the air then :P
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's here if you read carefully http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-pol...sed-tax-policy

    Of course it is just a proposal at present, so you may have to wait for the final details.
    Offline

    12
    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
    Yes but seeing as the EU has signed up to the ECHR your can see what he meant. If you are in the EU you are automatically in the ECHR so complaining about the ECHR is like complaining about the EU as the EU is a signatory.

    http://hub.coe.int/what-we-do/human-...the-convention
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    It's here if you read carefully http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-pol...sed-tax-policy

    Of course it is just a proposal at present, so you may have to wait for the final details.
    What is their estimate of the tax receipts from this policy? Will it raise, more, less or the same revenue?

    We are increasing the basic rate by 5% and increasing the personal allowance by £3560.

    The increase in the personal allowance will reduce the tax take by 20% x 3560= £720 (it will be greater than this because transferability between spouses [what about transferability between civil partners and unmarried couples living together?] means that fewer people will fail to use their allowances).

    To "earn" back £720 at 5% you need to have people earn £14,400 over £13,000. So anyone earning less than £27,400 is better off.

    Anyone earning £27,400 to £32,110 will be worse off by up to £235 (32,110-27,400*5%)

    From there on taxpayers will be better off by 15% (up to 150,000 and 25% thereafter). So the next breakeven point is £33732. After that taxpayers are quids in.

    Shall I ring the woman who runs the IMF now?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alex-Torres)
    Surely, in a democracy, populist rhetoric is good as it represents the people. If he talks about leaving the EU and the public like it, then so be it - that's democracy.
    This is how racism/homophobia/sexism/anti-secularism/Islamophobia hangs around. Through rhetoric.

    EDIT: I'll elaborate.

    "Representing the people" doesn't filter out anything. It simply takes whatever gut reaction or feeling can be evoked out of a situation. It makes little to no room for intelligent analysis and that's why "representing the people" through rhetoric is about. It's about avoiding the part where you have to convince people that a given strategy works and appeals to a characteristic that is elemental to their humanity i.e. an emotional response.

    Here's an example. Bill is a pro-gun populist. Tom is a university professor who's compiled a report on the negative effect of guns in schools. Bill tells you that not having guns in schools is doing a favour to criminals who want to harm your sons and daughters. Tom offers results on a study which found more guns resulted in more deaths regardless of whose hands they were in.

    Arguing that "Bill representing the people" is good because "that's democracy" ignores the fact that his platform relies wholesale on his ability to appeal to mothers and fathers human instincts. It requires neither thought nor analysis and ignores the objective study. Populism isn't always bad, that's for sure but it certainly isn't always good either.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    This is how racism/homophobia/secism/anti-secularism/Islamophobia hangs around. Through rhetoric.
    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)
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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

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