Elections - Get out and keep UKIP/BNP out

[Loz]

I think that's probably right. Even if Labour and the LibDems have enough MPs to create a majority coalition, I think it is entirely possible Labour will bring in Caroline Lucas to add a bit of lefty credibility.

But, if it does happen, I think she'll resign in protest within the first year.

[????]

No way. the Green's are opposed to any cuts as a main plank of their policy - Labour will have to make them, as all but the most unrealistic lefty realises

[maxxi]

The way things stand - with the kind of extrapolations into a Gen election that tv politic shows love - the most likely coalition would be Con/UKIP - a Lib/Lab pact (remastered) wouldn't be enough.

[LadyDeliah]

I think I'd probably top myself if it was Con/UKIP.

[LadyNorwood]

If Labour get in, I'm off to pay my taxes elsewhere - in my ward the Tory councillors worked hard for the community, but since Labour have been in charge nothing has been done..... I've had a visit from Labour candidates/councillors once - in SIXTEEN years!

[Otta]

With councillors I don't think it makes a bit of difference what party they are, it just depends what sort of person they are as an individual. I wouldn't vote for Lib Dem in a GE as long as Nick Clegg is boss, but I'd vote James Barber if I was in his area, because he does a hell of a lot.

I wouldn't base my choice for the GE on what the local councillors did or didn't do.

[????]

I'm with you Otta, I'd vote for Renata locally but Ed Milliband won't be getting my vote next year.

[PokerTime]

I too agree with Otta. Party politics don't factor as much in local elections. Many people know their councillors personally. If they do a good job, they get re-elected.

Ed Miliband however, will be getting my vote, simply because I don't want to see another Conservative coalition in government. The mantra of 'we're all in it together' has proved to be complete BS. The sell off of the NHS (I think most people have issues with that) is wrong. Private interests will make a fortune from that sell off at the expense of service to us.

[malumbu]

Without starting new thread, or trawling through this one, can someone explain in simple English why the early results show that 3/10 of those who voted, voted UKIP? Ie not the maths but in simple reasons why UKIP.

They don't like Romanians. They are distancing themselves from BNP and the NF who don't like all immigrants I(not sure how many generations we are talking about here).

Britain has one of the most prosperous economies, built in part on colonisation, globalisation (ie if it is cheaper to do it over there we will) and a competitive job market/those who are prepared not to do things through the books therefore cheap labour is seen to be good. I am sure that everyone who agrees with some of the xenophobic nonsense support all of this.

Just a sentence of two, so I can get it. I don't get 'protest vote' vote for another fringe party if this is what you want to do or spoil your ballot paper.

And as for the major parties, don't change your policies because of this result. Please.

Actually Dave R seems to have said it all:

As Loz said, when UKIP voters are asked what they think is important, Europe usually comes way down the list. UKIP have put the EU forward as a proxy for all the ills of the modern world [what about all the benefits?!], and invited a protest vote, which they have duly got. I don't think all UKIP candidates or voters are racist [hmm, threatened...], but I admit to struggling with stupid. It doesn't take much critical judgment to work out that UKIP don't have any credible policies and have a pretty high nutter count amongst both candidates and supporters, so voting for them seems kind of stupid to me.

[PokerTime]

As shocking as it seems malumbu I don't think it's as worrying as the media portrays. Many of the established European member states are seeing a rise in similar type parties delivering the same simple (but totally misinforming) messages.

I too agree with Loz, and just on immigration, the net immigration figure for last year is around 200k. That's just 0.003% of the population nationally, and 0.03% of the population of London. So people who believe UKIP on the terror they say those figures bring, just aren't looking at the issue with any kind of perspective.

I think where the appeal of Farage and UKIP lies is in the idea that things should stay the same. That's why they appeal to a specific culture and demographic, and to older British people (of all ethnic groups as well). So that's where the issue immigration fits in, where Europe fits in (a lot of older people who voted for membership of a common market feel the EU is no longer just that).

I do think it will be different come the General Election, when the debate will be around home front issues. But even there UKIP could do damage. The kind of people that vote for them I think won't be interested in the counter efforts of the other party to expose flaws (especially fiscal flaws) in their manifesto (when that becomes available). I am making an assumption there, but I do think that is the problem the other major parties are going to have in winning back votes from UKIP.

[BrandNewGuy]

Euro votes for Southwark:

Labour 31,591

Green 9,710

Lib Dem 9,170

Conservative 9,152

UKIP 8,035

BNP 561

Good showing for Labour (unlike in much of the country) and the Greens, with the racist rump trounced.

[EastDulwichSE22]

Quite impressive that the Greens are doing well .

[BrandNewGuy]

I think enough voters know that in a proportional system, their Green vote will count. Plus there is already a significant Green group in the Euro Parliament, so they won't be alone.

[uncleglen]

It never ceases to amaze me that people cannot accurately predict the success of Labour in the metropolitan areas- especially as time goes on and the populations increase. The ethnic vote has now displaced the 'white working class' vote of the '50s and '60s. The extent of Labour's mismanagement of the country when Blair and Brown were PM has passed the Labour voter of today by.

I'm pleased to see the Greens improving their position- are they still campaigning to legalise cannabis?

[PokerTime]

'The ethnic vote has now displaced the 'white working class' vote of the '50s and '60s.'

What does that mean?

The last majority Labour government, just like the majority Conservative government before it, needed votes from people of all classes, and all walks of life. There's a general disillusionment with politicians at the moment, which is why we had a hung parliament, and look to be heading for another one next year.

As for mismanagement, that depends on how you look at things. Conservative governments tend to underspend (Thatcher's Government starved schools, the NHS and public services of investment), Labour governments tend to overspend (but deliver far better public services). Really we need to be somewhere in between. Both parties though are responsible for the growing gap between those at the bottom and those at the top. Both parties have stifled upward social mobility, and both parties have failed to bring about meaningful regeneration of economies outside of the South East and London.

[BrandNewGuy]

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There's a general disillusionment with

> politicians at the moment, which is why we had a

> hung parliament, and look to be heading for

> another one next year.

Well, we had hung parliament because the votes were split in such a way that no party had an overall majority. This could just as easily be the case with an engaged and positive electorate. Some would argue that the 'all or nothing' nature of majority governments under first-past-the-post has been detrimental to this country over the years and leads to millions of 'wasted' votes.

[uncleglen]

FYI Thatcher's government did not starve schools. Because of local democracy the money allocated to Southwark council for schools was not spent 'at the chalk face' it was used as a political football and spent on admin at the town hall- in the education department of course- but the schools themselves were starved by the council-that is why some of them opted to become CTCs and got money directly. I daresay the same thing was happening in other public services.

This is why politics is so dangerous- they are a bunch of self-serving do-anything-for- a -vote and there is not a shred of humanity or concern for the general public amongst the lot of them- imho.

[StraferJack]

If they are schilling for votes, who are the voters?

Blaming politicians is bogus. We vote, we decide. If you have a better system let us know what it is

[PokerTime]

I didn't come to London or Southwark until the end of Thatcher's government, but in the North of the country, schools were falling apart and lack of government investment was definitely a factor. I don;t think anyone in their right mind would disgree that there was a lack of investment in services and infrastructure during the 80s, just as no-one in their right mind would disgree that the North was decimated economically in many other respects.

The right government would be one that serves interests in a fair way to all. We don't have any party like that.

I kind of agree SJ but what I would also say is that outside of the three main parties (or should I say four now) it is extremely difficult for any alternatives to get going. Politics requires money, and lots of it, which already excludes many from it. And within the main parties there is also an element of nepotism. You see people who have never even served as councillors being fast tracked into safe seats and then government. That's why you end up with four Etonians in a cabinet for example, or why someone in their first term as an MP ends up leading a party over MPs that have been in Parliament for 20 years. There is a distinct element of jobs for the boys, where the right background, school, university sways more than raw merit. It's not perfect.

[El Pibe]

definitely aplies to politics as much as drugs!!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/mar/22/charlie-brooker-newspapers-dangerous-drug?CMP=fb_gu

[Otta]

I enjoyed that.

[El Pibe]

"In its purest form, a newspaper consists of a collection of facts which, in controlled circumstances, can actively improve knowledge.

Unfortunately, facts are expensive, so to save costs and drive up sales, unscrupulous dealers often "cut" the basic contents with cheaper material, such as wild opinion, bullshit, empty hysteria, reheated press releases, advertorial padding and photographs of Lady Gaga with her bum hanging out.

The hapless user has little or no concept of the toxicity of the end product: "

[grabot]

One of the problems with society and politics is the sheer complexity and unpredictability of it. In many siutations newspapers are left in a difficult position, they can offer a perspective and seek to engage the readership through fear or bias, but are limited beyond that. Where does it leave us? I do not know. The media looks like Ouroboros, something external, creating unease, consuming itself. Where can we go for informed opinions? The answer is probably nowhere, maybe the East Dulwich Forum :-), at least it has some plurality. Does it matter? I think that that is question for the individual, but it's good to count our blessings and avoid expressing opinions on complex and highly contingent topics at family gatherings (speaking from a recent bad experience) whereas a public internet forum is a great place for such discussions!