Does voting say you condone everything that party does?

Do we really consider what our vote is saying about us and how we really think, when we put our cross next to a given party and that party wishes to allow abortion at a younger age, are we saying we agree?
obviously other things apply, what do you think?

To an extent, yes. It depends on your priorities I think. I wouldn't vote for the Tories because they are in favour of hunting with dogs, even though I might agree with some of their other ideas.

The invasion of Iraq happened under the Labour Government, and Labour were were voted in again afterwards. Does that mean that the people who voted for them approved of the Iraq invasion, or did they think it was not relevant?

Raggamuffin wrote:To an extent, yes. It depends on your priorities I think. I wouldn't vote for the Tories because they are in favour of hunting with dogs, even though I might agree with some of their other ideas.

The invasion of Iraq happened under the Labour Government, and Labour were were voted in again afterwards. Does that mean that the people who voted for them approved of the Iraq invasion, or did they think it was not relevant?

It is a tricky problem really and as parties fight for the voters it seems the lines blur more and more, I agree most people vote on what they consider the most important to them but it does show if you do not check closely you could be voting for a party that are making huge decision that you would never agree with.

heavenly father wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:To an extent, yes. It depends on your priorities I think. I wouldn't vote for the Tories because they are in favour of hunting with dogs, even though I might agree with some of their other ideas.

The invasion of Iraq happened under the Labour Government, and Labour were were voted in again afterwards. Does that mean that the people who voted for them approved of the Iraq invasion, or did they think it was not relevant?

It is a tricky problem really and as parties fight for the voters it seems the lines blur more and more, I agree most people vote on what they consider the most important to them but it does show if you do not check closely you could be voting for a party that are making huge decision that you  would never agree with.

Yes. Someone might like a mixture of ideas and policies, but they don't all come from one party, so they have to prioritise. Then there's the benefit of hindsight. How many people would have voted Labour if they had known that Iraq would happen? Of course, the same thing might have happened if the Tories had been in power instead. We'll never know that.

This is why UKIP is dedicated to a much much higher use of referendums and public consultation.

They understand that a person may agree with party stance on one thing but not another and wish to adapt government to this. Starting off with instructions to candidates that if elected their job is to do what the people who elected them want through to having local referendums on things like road building and national referendums on things like the smoking ban.

sphinx wrote:This is why UKIP is dedicated to a much much higher use of referendums and public consultation.

They understand that a person may agree with party stance on one thing but not another and wish to adapt government to this.  Starting off with instructions to candidates that if elected their job is to do what the people who elected them want through to having local referendums on things like road building and national referendums on things like the smoking ban.  

UKIP have a big problem with their reputation and their image. I like Nigel Farage and there is some common sense going on there, but they are seen as a racist party, and he needs to work very hard to dispel that, otherwise people simply won't vote for them because they don't want to be seen as racist themselves.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:This is why UKIP is dedicated to a much much higher use of referendums and public consultation.

They understand that a person may agree with party stance on one thing but not another and wish to adapt government to this.  Starting off with instructions to candidates that if elected their job is to do what the people who elected them want through to having local referendums on things like road building and national referendums on things like the smoking ban.  

UKIP have a big problem with their reputation and their image. I like Nigel Farage and there is some common sense going on there, but they are seen as a racist party, and he needs to work very hard to dispel that, otherwise people simply won't vote for them because they don't want to be seen as racist themselves.

The perception that they are a racist party is one driven by other parties - we have a fairly simple way of combating it. We tell people to go along to their local UKIP branch and see for themselves.

As for the rest of it we just keep repeating the same messages. In 20 years UKIP has gone from a brand new party to the third party in British Politics. Each year, each month, each week more people are deciding to go along and see for themselves - and they are liking what they see. The last 2 years have seen the party increase massively as we slowly reach each critical point in numbers.

We cannot force anyone to listen to us or vote for us - but more and more people are choosing to do so - and the more people choose to do so the more hollow the accusations of other parties become.

I do think a great deal of UKIP's image problem is created by opposing parties on purpose, as people become more ad more disillusioned with the eu, the vote out cry will get louder and louder, the main three do not want us out so the need to discredit any group who wold vote us out has grown.

I'm sure that the main parties are partly responsible for the image of UKIP as a racist party. They're almost the new BNP - which we don't hear about very much these days. It's just that with their stance on immigration, they have to be extra careful to give out the right message, and they need to make sure they do not attract the wrong kind of people to the party.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm sure that the main parties are partly responsible for the image of UKIP as a racist party. They're almost the new BNP - which we don't hear about very much these days. It's just that with their stance on immigration, they have to be extra careful to give out the right message, and they need to make sure they do not attract the wrong kind of people to the party.

let's face it people are people and whoever joins could b an ex axe murderer, peado, what ever and the press will blow it all out of proportion to play the UKIP credibility down..the fact those people exist in all parties seems to pass unnoticed.

heavenly father wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm sure that the main parties are partly responsible for the image of UKIP as a racist party. They're almost the new BNP - which we don't hear about very much these days. It's just that with their stance on immigration, they have to be extra careful to give out the right message, and they need to make sure they do not attract the wrong kind of people to the party.

let's face it people are people and whoever joins could b an ex axe murderer, peado, what ever and the press will blow it all out of proportion to play the UKIP credibility down..the fact those people exist in all parties seems to pass unnoticed.

Yes, of course, but their opponents will say - see what happens when you have a party like that? I think that many people are still wary of voting for UKIP, and they need to really be careful about their members. They're not established like the other parties and they don't have the same clout.

Raggamuffin wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

let's face it people are people and whoever joins could b an ex axe murderer, peado, what ever and the press will blow it all out of proportion to play the UKIP credibility down..the fact those people exist in all parties seems to pass unnoticed.

Yes, of course, but their opponents will say - see what happens when you have a party like that? I think that many people are still wary of voting for UKIP, and they need to really be careful about their members. They're not established like the other parties and they don't have the same clout.

thy are most definitely up against it as the whole establishment in my opinion is corrupt and though the colours may change, i'm not convinced anything else does, if anyone else gets in to power the level of corruption would become very apparent.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:This is why UKIP is dedicated to a much much higher use of referendums and public consultation.

They understand that a person may agree with party stance on one thing but not another and wish to adapt government to this.  Starting off with instructions to candidates that if elected their job is to do what the people who elected them want through to having local referendums on things like road building and national referendums on things like the smoking ban.  

UKIP have a big problem with their reputation and their image. I like Nigel Farage and there is some common sense going on there, but they are seen as a racist party, and he needs to work very hard to dispel that, otherwise people simply won't vote for them because they don't want to be seen as racist themselves.

Good afternoon Raggamuffin.

UKIP are only seen as a racist party by people who choose to see them in that way.

I don't see them as racist nor do I think they have a bad image or are a bunch of nutjobs.The facts are that UKIP are taking voters from all of the 3 main parties to such as extent that none of the main 3 parties will win the GE on their own merits.

Labour will only win if Tory voters vote for UKIP,which is hardly a ringing endorsement of their policies.

The best the Tories will do is form another coalition with the LibDems....Cameron will be given the boot & there will be another GE.

Or maybe,just maybe the Tories will join a coalition with UKIP & Cameron will still get the boot.

Actually if UKIP get a single seat in Westminster (which they will do) the game as we know it will be over in a very short time. When just about every debate held in parliament is marked by someone standing up and pointing out why that debate cannot change anything because it has already been decided in Brussels the system will collapse.

sphinx wrote:Actually if UKIP get a single seat in Westminster (which they will do) the game as we know it will be over in a very short time.  When just about every debate held in parliament is marked by someone standing up and pointing out why that debate cannot change anything because it has already been decided in Brussels the system will collapse.

If UKIP gradually begin to gain seats in Westminster, then that would be a turning point in the independence vote in Scotland, mores the pity Scottish independence vote is before the next GE.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:Actually if UKIP get a single seat in Westminster (which they will do) the game as we know it will be over in a very short time.  When just about every debate held in parliament is marked by someone standing up and pointing out why that debate cannot change anything because it has already been decided in Brussels the system will collapse.

If UKIP gradually begin to gain seats in Westminster, then that would be a turning point in the independence vote in Scotland, mores the pity Scottish independence vote is before the next GE.

I think they will be lucky to get one seat at the next GE, they will never be a big force in British politics and never be in a position of any kind of power imo.

Catman wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


If UKIP gradually begin to gain seats in Westminster, then that would be a turning point in the independence vote in Scotland, mores the pity Scottish independence vote is before the next GE.

I think they will be lucky to get one seat at the next GE, they will never be a big force in British politics and never be in a position of any kind of power imo.

They already are a big force in British politics - they have gone from new party to 3rd in 20 years, and without them immigration would not be talked about fullstop and there would be no offers of referendum on the EU. The fact that both the Tories and Labour are creating policy with awareness of UKIP tells us that they think UKIP are a force to be reckoned with.

Like I said it is only going to take one seat and the system as we know it is finished - I dont know what will replace it but the terrain of politics will be forever changed.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

I think they will be lucky to get one seat at the next GE, they will never be a big force in British politics and never be in a position of any kind of power imo.

They already are a big force in British politics - they have gone from new party to 3rd in 20 years, and without them immigration would not be talked about fullstop and there would be no offers of referendum on the EU.  The fact that both the Tories and Labour are creating policy with awareness of UKIP tells us that they think UKIP are a force to be reckoned with.

Like I said it is only going to take one seat and the system as we know it is finished - I


dont know what will replace it but the terrain of politics will be forever changed.

Immigration wouldn't be talked about?, no referendum on EU?

How do you know that Sphinx?, Cameron has sat up recently and paid more attention to immigration ...more than befriend anyway.

Shady wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

UKIP have a big problem with their reputation and their image. I like Nigel Farage and there is some common sense going on there, but they are seen as a racist party, and he needs to work very hard to dispel that, otherwise people simply won't vote for them because they don't want to be seen as racist themselves.

Good afternoon Raggamuffin.

UKIP are only seen as a racist party by people who choose to see them in that way.

I don't see them as racist nor do I think they have a bad image or are a bunch of nutjobs.The facts are that UKIP are taking voters from all of the 3 main parties to such as extent that none of the main 3 parties will win the GE on their own merits.

Labour will only win if Tory voters vote for UKIP,which is hardly a ringing endorsement of their policies.

The best the Tories will do is form another coalition with the LibDems....Cameron will be given the boot & there will be another GE.

Or maybe,just maybe the Tories will join a coalition with UKIP & Cameron will still get the boot.

Hello Shady.

I don't say that UKIP are racist, but there's always that doubt don't you think? Voting for them would mean changing voting habits for many people, and perhaps they're not quite ready to trust UKIP.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

They already are a big force in British politics - they have gone from new party to 3rd in 20 years, and without them immigration would not be talked about fullstop and there would be no offers of referendum on the EU.  The fact that both the Tories and Labour are creating policy with awareness of UKIP tells us that they think UKIP are a force to be reckoned with.

Like I said it is only going to take one seat and the system as we know it is finished - I


dont know what will replace it but the terrain of politics will be forever changed.

Immigration wouldn't be talked about?, no referendum on EU?

How do you know that Sphinx?, Cameron has sat up recently and paid more attention to immigration ...more than befriend anyway.

Exactly JD
Why do you think he has sat up and is paying attention to it?

2 years ago David Cameron was saying an in - out referendum was not in the countries best interests - by the middle of last year he was promising one if re-elected. That was the knowledge that even more members were leaving his party and backing UKIP - without UKIP it would not have happened. Of course the unfortunate result for Cameron is the people who had left did not return when he changed his tune because they had discovered there were lots of other things UKIP were doing that they liked.

Without UKIP showing how important these subjects are to people the liblabcon would ignore them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good afternoon Raggamuffin.

UKIP are only seen as a racist party by people who choose to see them in that way.

I don't see them as racist nor do I think they have a bad image or are a bunch of nutjobs.The facts are that UKIP are taking voters from all of the 3 main parties to such as extent that none of the main 3 parties will win the GE on their own merits.

Labour will only win if Tory voters vote for UKIP,which is hardly a ringing endorsement of their policies.

The best the Tories will do is form another coalition with the LibDems....Cameron will be given the boot & there will be another GE.

Or maybe,just maybe the Tories will join a coalition with UKIP & Cameron will still get the boot.

Hello Shady.

I don't say that UKIP are racist, but there's always that doubt don't you think? Voting for them would mean changing voting habits for many people, and perhaps they're not quite ready to trust UKIP.

Oh UKIP is changing habits all right - because the majority of its support comes from people who have not voted or have given up voting because they didnt see anything they wanted.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Hello Shady.

I don't say that UKIP are racist, but there's always that doubt don't you think? Voting for them would mean changing voting habits for many people, and perhaps they're not quite ready to trust UKIP.

Oh UKIP is changing habits all right - because the majority of its support comes from people who have not voted or have given up voting because they didnt see anything they wanted.

They've done pretty well in some local elections, but will that success be echoed in a general election?

UKIP does seem to have a bevy of problems. You can't say they don't and just make stuff like this go away:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/ukip-party-bigots-lets-look-evidence

I think it's important for any political movement that doesn't want to be associated with intolerance to denounce intolerance, but if you don't do it on a case-by-case basis and instead just say "we're a non-racist party" or "we don't allow BNP members" you just seem defensive.

On the broader question HF was asking, I think you do have to look farther into situations than "I vote Democrat/Republian/Tory/Labour/etc. because I agree with everything in the party platform." I certainly don't agree with everything my party, the Democrats, has done and make no bones about it. If people want to know what I don't like about Obama, they only have to ask.

I made my party choice on the basis of which party I found myself in the most agreement with -- that I also felt had a chance of keeping the party I disagree with the most out of power. Sadly that's a choice you have to make in a country where only two parties have a chance at winning any big election ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:UKIP does seem to have a bevy of problems. You can't say they don't and just make stuff like this go away:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/ukip-party-bigots-lets-look-evidence

I think it's important for any political movement that doesn't want to be associated with intolerance to denounce intolerance, but if you don't do it on a case-by-case basis and instead just say "we're a non-racist party" or "we don't allow BNP members" you just seem defensive.

On the broader question HF was asking, I think you do have to look farther into situations than "I vote Democrat/Republian/Tory/Labour/etc. because I agree with everything in the party platform." I certainly don't agree with everything my party, the Democrats, has done and make no bones about it. If people want to know what I don't like about Obama, they only have to ask.

I made my party choice on the basis of which party I found myself in the most agreement with -- that I also felt had a chance of keeping the party I disagree with the most out of power. Sadly that's a choice you have to make in a country where only two parties have a chance at winning any big election ...

And the point I am trying to make is UKIP wants to change the "party I am most in agreement with and instead work towards the "what do you want this party to do".

I have to agree I think UKIP have a good chance of putting the country back on track, much more so than the ones who have allowed us to get in to this mess..

If nothing else UKIP provides a general alternative of reducing government size and interference and does propose doing things differently.

sphinx wrote:If nothing else UKIP provides a general alternative of reducing government size and interference and does propose doing things differently.

Do you agree with Libertarianism?

The UKIP spokesman on QT tonight, says that she agrees with it!

You would be fucked Sphinx!