What would be the point in voting for UKIP in the general election?

Watch
Thomas2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
The Sunday Times is predicting a narrow overall majority for Labour. Why would anyone seriously consider voting UKIP when all that would accomplish would be to let in Labour who are not offering their coveted in/out referendum?

Anyone who seriously wants a referendum should be voting Tory.

I do not desperately want a referendum, just don't understand why people would vote UKIP.
0
reply
Simes
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
So you want people to not vote for who they want to vote for?
0
reply
Thomas2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by Simes)
So you want people to not vote for who they want to vote for?
I don't want people to do anything per se. I just think it would be crazy to vote for UKIP and let in Milliband, thus achieving the opposite outcome of what UKIP voters want. Unless of course they are Labour defectors...

I could understand a UKIP, Tory vote under STV voting systems...
0
reply
Kocytean
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by Thomas2)
The Sunday Times is predicting a narrow overall majority for Labour. Why would anyone seriously consider voting UKIP when all that would accomplish would be to let in Labour who are not offering their coveted in/out referendum?

Anyone who seriously wants a referendum should be voting Tory.

I do not desperately want a referendum, just don't understand why people would vote UKIP.
What makes you think the tories would give us a referendum if they get in? They promised that before. Anyway, UKIP would be doing other things the tories won't. For example, one of their aims is to bring back the border checks, so we know for sure if someone is in the UK or not.

Now I'm a little confused on the next bit, but as I understand, UKIP cannot actually take parliament because they do not have enough seats in Westminster, but they would still be allowed to form a coalition. So voting UKIP means we could end up with a UKIP-Conservative government, which would be the best possible outcome in my opinion. I know Cameron says he won't do it, but he would be an idiot if he didn't and let Labour get in. If Cameron refused a coalition with UKIP and Labour got in, Cameron would no longer be leader of Conservatives, and UKIP would get even more votes in four years time.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by dragonzrmetal)
What makes you think the tories would give us a referendum if they get in? They promised that before. Anyway, UKIP would be doing other things the tories won't. For example, one of their aims is to bring back the border checks, so we know for sure if someone is in the UK or not.

Now I'm a little confused on the next bit, but as I understand, UKIP cannot actually take parliament because they do not have enough seats in Westminster, but they would still be allowed to form a coalition. So voting UKIP means we could end up with a UKIP-Conservative government, which would be the best possible outcome in my opinion. I know Cameron says he won't do it, but he would be an idiot if he didn't and let Labour get in. If Cameron refused a coalition with UKIP and Labour got in, Cameron would no longer be leader of Conservatives, and UKIP would get even more votes in four years time.
Cameron wouldn't be able to lead a UKIP/Tory coalition, not least because he has had so much flack from within his party about the existing coalition, the last thing he would want would be to be hobbled again by another one. I think he would stand down as leader if that was the only option, but more likely I think he would go forwards in an informal arrangement with UKIP rather than a formal coalition.

However, I think it's actually very unlikely that UKIP will have enough seats to be in that position. We have to be realistic about their prospects. They so far have two Tory defector seats, both of which will plausibly return to the Tories at the General Election. I personally doubt that UKIP will enter the 2015 parliament with more than 5 seats and possibly only one or two. That's a long way from being the whip holder in a minority government.

The way things are looking right now, it is the SNP who will be in the thick of coalition negotiations in May.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
The way things are looking right now, it is the SNP who will be in the thick of coalition negotiations in May.
:party: :party2:
1
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by Thomas2)
I don't want people to do anything per se. I just think it would be crazy to vote for UKIP and let in Milliband, thus achieving the opposite outcome of what UKIP voters want. Unless of course they are Labour defectors...

I could understand a UKIP, Tory vote under STV voting systems...
Funny that. I keep getting told to not vote Green on the grounds of letting Cameron in.

Don't worry, Green is canabalising Labour votes. It's a wonder why the right wing press don't want Green on TV for this reason
0
reply
Airmed
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
If say the Tories got a narrow majority in May, they will probably go into an informal agreement with the DUP and then maybe UKIP.
Besides, even if I could,I would never vote for UKIP.
0
reply
Thomas2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Funny that. I keep getting told to not vote Green on the grounds of letting Cameron in.

Don't worry, Green is canabalising Labour votes. It's a wonder why the right wing press don't want Green on TV for this reason
If we had STV or PR it would solve the whole tactical voting dilemma...

Can one not be conservative (small c) and green?
0
reply
Thomas2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)

The way things are looking right now, it is the SNP who will be in the thick of coalition negotiations in May.
At least we English could then ***** about an SNP government we hadn't elected...
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by Thomas2)
If we had STV or PR it would solve the whole tactical voting dilemma...

Can one not be conservative (small c) and green?
It would be a bit difficult. You would have to priorities your concern for global warming etc above the fact Green are thoroughly left and progressive in every other respect. Although having said that 52% of conservative voters want renationalisation of certain industries. oplus on the vote for polices website most people come out with Green. People vote all over the place.

Lot of left wingers vote UKIP so why not
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by Thomas2)
If we had STV or PR it would solve the whole tactical voting dilemma...

Can one not be conservative (small c) and green?
One can certainly be an environmental conservative but the Green Party is socialist. I myself don't mind investment in renewable 's, I just don't believe that the consumer should be taxed to death to pay for it. There are also plenty who want to protect the greenbelt albeit these tend to be NIMBY's.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by Thomas2)
At least we English could then ***** about an SNP government we hadn't elected...
People living in English constituencies you mean?
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Thomas2)
At least we English could then ***** about an SNP government we hadn't elected...
Bloody foreigners. Coming here and stealing our parliament. Oh wait. Hang on a sec.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by Thomas2)
At least we English could then ***** about an SNP government we hadn't elected...
England and Scotland are part of the same State system thing.

We = England + Scotland. So we would have elected them. Plus if I could vote for SNP I would be very much inclined to. Thanks Scotland :yy:
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by Rakas21)
One can certainly be an environmental conservative but the Green Party is socialist. I myself don't mind investment in renewable 's, I just don't believe that the consumer should be taxed to death to pay for it. There are also plenty who want to protect the greenbelt albeit these tend to be NIMBY's.
Actually the split between 'rightish' Greens and 'leftish' Greens is an ongoing saga within the environmental movement, for example, is not the state the right instrument to use to enact legislated environmental protection and is it not therefore better to have Big States and global state institutions like the EU or a world government? (Personally I think the latter is now long overdue.) A contrary 'rightish' trend in greenery is to reject the state as part of the logic of military-industrialist-capitalism and therefore to want to push everything local and into some sort of mythic 'country-fairyland' state of pre-industrial Tolkienesque Shire living. :teehee:

What you see of public Green Party policy is what comes out of the wrangling between those two camps. For example, the Greens support nationalist movements in Scotland, Wales and Cornwall, because of the Localism tendency. Personally I find this silly. The nationalist movements may temporarily pose as left wing, but underneath that, their ideology must be profoundly rightist, as they attribute all problems and solutions to the national dimension. Anyone for green fascism?

It's clear that only intergovernmental or supragovernmental solutions can now fix most of the challenges the planet faces, but these are also often opposed by Greens. This is the least credible and creditable aspect of the Green Party movements.

On the plus side, they are also the only political movement that has correctly identified the problem and isn't afraid to call it for what it is - capitalism and its iniquities.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Actually the split between 'rightish' Greens and 'leftish' Greens is an ongoing saga within the environmental movement, for example, is not the state the right instrument to use to enact legislated environmental protection and is it not therefore better to have Big States and global state institutions like the EU or a world government? (Personally I think the latter is now long overdue.) A contrary 'rightish' trend in greenery is to reject the state as part of the logic of military-industrialist-capitalism and therefore to want to push everything local and into some sort of mythic 'country-fairyland' state of pre-industrial Tolkienesque Shire living. :teehee:

What you see of public Green Party policy is what comes out of the wrangling between those two camps. For example, the Greens support nationalist movements in Scotland, Wales and Cornwall, because of the Localism tendency. Personally I find this silly. The nationalist movements may temporarily pose as left wing, but underneath that, their ideology must be profoundly rightist, as they attribute all problems and solutions to the national dimension. Anyone for green fascism?

It's clear that only intergovernmental or supragovernmental solutions can now fix most of the challenges the planet faces, but these are also often opposed by Greens. This is the least credible and creditable aspect of the Green Party movements.

On the plus side, they are also the only political movement that has correctly identified the problem and isn't afraid to call it for what it is - capitalism and its iniquities.
Being localist or against controlling governments doesn't make you right wing by itself. Was Tonny Benn a rightist when he argued against further EU integration?
1
reply
Thomas2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
England and Scotland are part of the same State system thing.

We = England + Scotland. So we would have elected them. Plus if I could vote for SNP I would be very much inclined to. Thanks Scotland :yy:
I was alluding to the SNP's rhetoric about Scotland being subject to Tory governments it hadn't elected...
If the SNP were to end up in a Westminster coalition government, the people of England would, by their logic, have an SNP government they hadn't elected.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by Thomas2)
I was alluding to the SNP's rhetoric about Scotland being subject to Tory governments it hadn't elected...
Fair enough I guess.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by Thomas2)
I was alluding to the SNP's rhetoric about Scotland being subject to Tory governments it hadn't elected...
If the SNP were to end up in a Westminster coalition government, the people of England would, by their logic, have an SNP government they hadn't elected.
Would you see that as a bad thing?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (119)
4.87%
Uncertainty around my education (364)
14.89%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (267)
10.92%
Lack of purpose or motivation (344)
14.07%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (112)
4.58%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (147)
6.01%
Loneliness (210)
8.59%
Financial worries (91)
3.72%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (104)
4.25%
Exposure to negative news/social media (117)
4.79%
Lack of real life entertainment (128)
5.24%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (213)
8.71%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (229)
9.37%

Watched Threads

View All