Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22382098

UKIP leader Nigel Farage has hailed gains in council elections across England as a "game changer".

UKIP won over 140 seats and averaged 25% of the vote in the wards where it was standing.

The most eye-catching performance was from UKIP, which is riding high in the opinion polls and fielded 1,700 candidates, three times the number that stood in 2009, when the party won just seven council seats.

The party became the official opposition in Kent, where it won 17 councillors, Lincolnshire, where it won 16 councillors and Norfolk, where it won 15 councillors.

It took seats in councils like Essex and Hampshire, where it previously had no councillors, but failed to pick up any seats in a number of councils including Hertfordshire, Warwickshire, North Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cumbria and Derbyshire.

The party, which campaigns for the UK to leave the European Union, polled 11 points higher, on average, than in wards where it stood in 2009.

So begins the rise to power of the pound-shop Nazis.

Aren't these guys not quite as jackbooted as the BNP? Or am I mistaken in that?

 azazel the cat wrote:
Aren't these guys not quite as jackbooted as the BNP? Or am I mistaken in that?

No, they are not quite as far right as the BNP. They are more like your conservative old uncle who never married and thinks the world should be some kind of idealised 1950's suberbia and if you don't like it you can GTFO.

I have to say the UKIP leader's speeches can be quite entertaining sometimes. Other than getting out of the EU I don't really support any of UKIP's other policies particularly. I also don't think that they will see this kind of level of support in the general election either, though it is possible given how much people seem to dislike the big two, and how well the Lib Dems have pissed away their chance to ever be in power again...

Well, another name I like to call them is BNP-lite. But although the BNP try to present themselves as a respectable party and fail hard, UKIP present themselves as a respectable party and are succeeding. In terms of policy, they are de-facto racist, as their latest publicity states that they want to get out of the EU so they can repel and expel immigrants.

 Sturmtruppen wrote:
Well, another name I like to call them is BNP-lite. But although the BNP try to present themselves as a respectable party and fail hard, UKIP present themselves as a respectable party and are succeeding. In terms of policy, they are de-facto racist, as their latest publicity states that they want to get out of the EU so they can repel and expel immigrants.

Well, kicking out/heavily restricting immigrants isn't racist per se, and is nothing like the BNP's seeming aim to kick out anyone who doesn't burn when they go out in the sun for more than 20 minutes...

I still wouldn't vote for any of them.

I hope that this is simply a protest vote and that the actual election result will be very different (which it probably will be). It does give an indication as to just how small minded a significant proportion of the UK public is though.

If UKIP ever come to power I will seriously consider emigrating (and I am being completely serious).

How do the Tories have twice the number of councillors than Labour yet have a smaller share of the total vote?

 Palindrome wrote:
How do the Tories have twice the number of councillors than Labour yet have a smaller share of the total vote?

Some districts are larger than others, yet have fewer councillors per person. This can skew the votes:councillors figures a bit when combined with some districts having a very heavy voting bias for one party or another, while others have a much closer vote.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Aren't these guys not quite as jackbooted as the BNP? Or am I mistaken in that?

No, they are not quite as far right as the BNP. They are more like your conservative old uncle who never married and thinks the world should be some kind of idealised 1950's suberbia and if you don't like it you can GTFO.

Sounds like U.S. Republicans! Enjoy!

 Palindrome wrote:


How do the Tories have twice the number of councillors than Labour yet have a smaller share of the total vote?

It's mostly to do with the first past the post electoral system and the fact most of the elections this year were county council elections (as opposed to unitary or metropolitan elections) which the Conservatives tend to do better in. If you consider that some council seats will need less votes to secure election (due to slightly varying sizes of the electorate within) then it becomes easier for a party to potentially win seats with less votes.

Example, in a 'safe' Conservative seat where most of the total electorate would vote Conservative, there is a greater chance that people will choose not to bother voting as they perceive other people voting will achieve the same result i.e. a returned Conservative councillor. This then scews the statistics to give the party a lower total vote share but a higher seat count. Whereas Labour supporters or protest voters are more likely to go out and vote in protest at the current government in order to remove Conservative/Liberal Councillors, which gives a much higher share of the vote even if not as many seats are won. Moreover it is possible that many people who had previously voted Conservative chose not to vote because they no longer care, but in those constituencies/wards there were not enough people willing to vote against the Conservatives to make a difference to the overall result, but instead just helped slowly nudge up the total vote for Labour without it gaining the seat itself

 Easy E wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Aren't these guys not quite as jackbooted as the BNP? Or am I mistaken in that?

No, they are not quite as far right as the BNP. They are more like your conservative old uncle who never married and thinks the world should be some kind of idealised 1950's suberbia and if you don't like it you can GTFO.

Sounds like U.S. Republicans! Enjoy!

Given what little I know about UK politics, nothing over there resembles whats over here. A European "Conservative" would be hard left over here.

Could have been worse, eh readers...?

Eeeeeep!...

Don't scare me like that.

Whose the old oompa loompa?

She's quite real.

That's Lady Dorothy Macbeth Brookes (can anyone tell me if 'Lady' is a title or a name?) who was running for the BNP (our version of the nazi party).

I wonder if her skin color adversely affected her voting turnout with the local fascists?

It seem's that UKIP have garnered a good deal of their votes from 'Oop North'.... That dosnt surprise me in the least, it's pretty grim up there and maybe the local populace are rising up against Labour and the Tories?

If so, I hope it's a protest vote and nothing more. But, it's a good job I have a house in Manila. I can scarper there with the wife once UKIP win the 2020 election!

David Cameron has changed his tune pretty quickly as well
From

Fuitcakes and loonies and closet racists

source:https://audioboo.fm/boos/1079562-david-cameron-ukip-a-bunch-of-fruitcakes-loonies-and-closet-racistsv
to

we need to show respect

source http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/03/ukip-success-cameron-show-respect

I plan to vote UKIP, actually - perhaps that makes me racist, but that's not how I see it.
Limiting immigration makes sense, as far as I'm concerned, and their other policies are equally as good as anything else that any of the other parties are lying about wanting to do.

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
I plan to vote UKIP, actually - perhaps that makes me racist, but that's not how I see it.
Limiting immigration makes sense, as far as I'm concerned, and their other policies are equally as good as anything else that any of the other parties are lying about wanting to do.

You do understand that both the US and the UK economies are built on the notion of increasing populations, that the current white populations are decreasing and that both nations actually benefit from immigrants coming to and working in the country?

I'll just say this,

If you have an idea or proposal, the fact that supposed racists are for it doesn't make it a bad idea. I don't know much about UK immigration so I can't say much about the specifics, but opposing immigration isn't a racist move. Opposing the immigration of a specific ethnicity is racist.

The UK isn't exactly full of land for immigrants to live in, so limiting immigration would make sense if you are in danger of population overflow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
I plan to vote UKIP, actually - perhaps that makes me racist, but that's not how I see it.
Limiting immigration makes sense, as far as I'm concerned, and their other policies are equally as good as anything else that any of the other parties are lying about wanting to do.

You do understand that both the US and the UK economies are built on the notion of increasing populations, that the current white populations are decreasing and that both nations actually benefit from immigrants coming to and working in the country?

In the past, definitely. Now, not so sure its true anymore.

We used to rely on immigrants for cheap unskilled labor for the vast majority of our industry. But as times have changed the labor demand now wants skilled labor, which isn't cheap. We also don't need as much labor as before either. What used to take 10 people now only takes 3. And that number is only going to get smaller.

Voting for Labour, Tories (expecially) or Lib Dems is a very very very stupid idea. They actively work against all residents of the UK barring their select favorites. People are sick of parties who care only about foreign interests or the rich.

Why not vote for something else?

You do understand that both the US and the UK economies are built on the notion of increasing populations, that the current white populations are decreasing and that both nations actually benefit from immigrants coming to and working in the country?

Theres always a cost, and in this case its simply about not trying to marginalize the natives. The US has a lot more land to build houses, but where is the UK going to home all this continual influx of immigrants?

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Why not vote for something else?

I'd vote for virtually anything if it meant that I didn't have to vote for the middle class version of the BNP.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

You do understand that both the US and the UK economies are built on the notion of increasing populations, that the current white populations are decreasing and that both nations actually benefit from immigrants coming to and working in the country?

Theres always a cost, and in this case its simply about not trying to marginalize the natives. The US has a lot more land to build houses, but where is the UK going to home all this continual influx of immigrants?

Yup, really looking forward to the tides of Romanians and Bulgarians next year... [/sarcasm]

The Polish never assimilated. We have a quite literal unspoken apartheid going on in certain areas of this country that is driving a wedge between communities. Just wait and see what happens when we get a whole new wave of immigrants that refuse to learn our language (something which should be compulsary. It is not racist to suggest that. Other countries do have that in their entry criteria) and will divide Britain even further.

But you know, the Tories will just tell them it rains a lot in Britain; that'll keep 'em out.

I'd vote for virtually anything if it meant that I didn't have to vote for the middle class version of the BNP.

You'd vote for the group who destroyed the economy single-handly? (labour), the group who hates the poor and is incredibly discriminatory towards scots? (tories) and the group which acts as the tories lapdop with no thoughts of their own? (lib dems)

 Mr Hyena wrote:

You'd vote for the group who destroyed the economy single-handly? (labour), the group who hates the poor and is incredibly discriminatory towards scots? (tories) and the group which acts as the tories lapdop with no thoughts of their own? (lib dems)

I will never vote Tory unless they shift significantly to the left. I was a Lib Dem voter but that didn't turn out very well so next time I will be voting Labour on the grounds that they are the best of a piss poor bunch. Labour didn't destroy the economy, the Tories don't hate the poor (they have far to much fondness for capitalism though) and the Scots hate them anyway. The Lib dems made a massive error in forming the ConDem coalition, which is something that they will have to live with for a very long time, and as theyare a junior partner with a party opposed to lots of their policies they have limited scope to form the party line and often have to back things that they really don't like. They are not Tory lapdogs.

I will be suprised if there is an influx of Romanians and Bulgarians, I expect that there will be a few but not many. The economic situation is completely different than it was when the Poles started to come over and, going by a couple of news reports and a radio documentary, there seems to be a lack of enthusiasm to come to this country anyway.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

You'd vote for the group who destroyed the economy single-handly? (labour), the group who hates the poor and is incredibly discriminatory towards scots? (tories) and the group which acts as the tories lapdop with no thoughts of their own? (lib dems)

I will never vote Tory unless they shift significantly to the left. I was a Lib Dem voter but that didn't turn out very well so next time I will be voting Labour on the grounds that they are the best of a piss poor bunch. Labour didn't destroy the economy, the Tories don't hate the poor (they have far to much fondness for capitalism though) and the Scots hate them anyway. The Lib dems made a massive error in forming the ConDem coalition, which is something that they will have to live with for a very long time, and as theyare a junior partner with a party opposed to lots of their policies they have limited scope to form the party line and often have to back things that they really don't like. They are not Tory lapdogs.

Then ask why we're in a triple dip recession after agonizing years with labour and the tories in power. Voting either of these three just perpetuates the problem.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Voting either of these three just perpetuates the problem.

Yet UKIP knows some secret economic panacea which somehow involves leaving the EU? Seriously?

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't know much about UK immigration so I can't say much about the specifics, but opposing immigration isn't a racist move. Opposing the immigration of a specific ethnicity is racist.

According to the last census, 12.6% of people living in England and Wales weren't born here. As for specific ethnicities, they explicitly target Bulgarians and Romanians on the basis that those are the specific people the European Union opens our borders to.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The UK isn't exactly full of land for immigrants to live in, so limiting immigration would make sense if you are in danger of population overflow.

Well except that it is, because only 2.2% of England is built on.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Voting either of these three just perpetuates the problem.

Yet UKIP knows some secret economic panacea which somehow involves leaving the EU? Seriously?

Nope. But they are new blood at least.

Well except that it is, because only 2.2% of England is built on.

And how much would it increase the cost of buying or renting a house?

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Nope. But they are new blood at least.

That has to be by far the stupidest way to decide upon a ruling government. Afterall you could empty out a prison and fill up the House of Commons with criminals, they are also 'new blood' (in most cases anyway), do you want them running the country? In fairness they probably couldn't do any worse than UKIP.