Euro elections: It looks as if we Tories may have finished third. Time for a pact with Ukip

A successful business doesn’t blame customers when they walk away. An astute entrepreneur will ask instead what caused the punter to leave, and ask what they need to change to get them back.

Those in the business of political retail ought to do likewise.

For years, we Conservatives have had the greatest share of the market in Euro elections. Until yesterday, we had won every one since 1999. Now it looks as if we may have finished third.

Attacking Ukip – and by extension those who voted for them – makes no sense. We need to see off the new competition in the political market place by responding better to the punter.

Recent attempts to smear Ukip by some of the pundits – many of whom have almost zero understanding of swing voters in marginal seats – have been crass, foolish and counterproductive

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100272610/euro-elections-it-looks-as-if-we-tories-may-have-finished-third-time-for-a-pact-with-ukip/

Wants a pact with the party their leader described as full of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists.

Lovely stuff

Irn Bru wrote:A successful business doesn’t blame customers when they walk away. An astute entrepreneur will ask instead what caused the punter to leave, and ask what they need to change to get them back.

Those in the business of political retail ought to do likewise.

For years, we Conservatives have had the greatest share of the market in Euro elections. Until yesterday, we had won every one since 1999. Now it looks as if we may have finished third.

Attacking Ukip – and by extension those who voted for them – makes no sense. We need to see off the new competition in the political market place by responding better to the punter.

Recent attempts to smear Ukip by some of the pundits – many of whom have almost zero understanding of swing voters in marginal seats – have been crass, foolish and counterproductive

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100272610/euro-elections-it-looks-as-if-we-tories-may-have-finished-third-time-for-a-pact-with-ukip/

Wants a pact with the party their leader described as full of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists.

Lovely stuff

Cameron's already made it very clear, as did the Tories even this morning, that they don't want an alliance with UKIP - let's face it, he couldn't do that and save face could he?   No - it's LABOUR who are thinking of an alliance.  They've seen their voters, ordinary not well-off working people, voting UKIP.  Listening to Ed Miliband lately, when he's been asked to join in the smear campaign against UKIP, and asked whether he thought Farage was a racist, he's backed off, and actually been polite, nay friendly even, towards Farage.  Doesn't take rocket science to see what he has in mind.

Tesstacious wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:A successful business doesn’t blame customers when they walk away. An astute entrepreneur will ask instead what caused the punter to leave, and ask what they need to change to get them back.

Those in the business of political retail ought to do likewise.

For years, we Conservatives have had the greatest share of the market in Euro elections. Until yesterday, we had won every one since 1999. Now it looks as if we may have finished third.

Attacking Ukip – and by extension those who voted for them – makes no sense. We need to see off the new competition in the political market place by responding better to the punter.

Recent attempts to smear Ukip by some of the pundits – many of whom have almost zero understanding of swing voters in marginal seats – have been crass, foolish and counterproductive

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100272610/euro-elections-it-looks-as-if-we-tories-may-have-finished-third-time-for-a-pact-with-ukip/

Wants a pact with the party their leader described as full of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists.

Lovely stuff

Cameron's already made it very clear, as did the Tories even this morning, that they don't want an alliance with UKIP - let's face it, he couldn't do that and save face could he?   No - it's LABOUR who are thinking of an alliance.  They've seen their voters, ordinary not well-off working people, voting UKIP.  Listening to Ed Miliband lately, when he's been asked to join in the smear campaign against UKIP, and asked whether he thought Farage was a racist, he's backed off, and actually been polite, nay friendly even, towards Farage.  Doesn't take rocket science to see what he has in mind.

Let me ask you Tess; do you seriously think UKIP will have more seats than Lib Dems next year? Seriously?

And given the choice which party are Labour more likely to get into bed with?

Eilzel wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
Cameron's already made it very clear, as did the Tories even this morning, that they don't want an alliance with UKIP - let's face it, he couldn't do that and save face could he?   No - it's LABOUR who are thinking of an alliance.  They've seen their voters, ordinary not well-off working people, voting UKIP.  Listening to Ed Miliband lately, when he's been asked to join in the smear campaign against UKIP, and asked whether he thought Farage was a racist, he's backed off, and actually been polite, nay friendly even, towards Farage.  Doesn't take rocket science to see what he has in mind.

Let me ask you Tess; do you seriously think UKIP will have more seats than Lib Dems next year? Seriously?

And given the choice which party are Labour more likely to get into bed with?

I seriously think the Lib Dems will lose some of their seats, and UKIP will gain some, so in the end they'll probably both end up with around the same number, which could mean a coalition of three parties. That's not unusual today in most countries.

The thing is this is all presented from the side of the Tories/Labour - nobody thinks to ask UKIP what they want (which is half the reason they dont understand the growing support for UKIP)

There seems to be the idea that if one of the traditional 3 offer a pact to UKIP then UKIP will grasp it like a dying man offered rescue and that could not be further from the truth.

sphinx wrote:The thing is this is all presented from the side of the Tories/Labour - nobody thinks to ask UKIP what they want (which is half the reason they dont understand the growing support for UKIP)

There seems to be the idea that if one of the traditional 3 offer a pact to UKIP then UKIP will grasp it like a dying man offered rescue and that could not be further from the truth.  

I hardly think if they win ten seats it is going to make any of the 3 sit up and think lets get into bed with a party that is so incompetent and plays off manipulation, why would they.

In fact I am shocked at the local elections was not big at all in gains, just shy of 90, which was a loss for Tory granted but they still won many seats, but not Labour they did well. This clearly shows to me more than anything and the people on the ground I talk to who voted UKIP they did so in protest and nothing more. Many did not know any UKIP policies and were not concerned about them either, they just wanted to make everyone sit up and listen that they can make a difference. So UKIP should enjoy the moment they will not be contenders next year, that is when it gets very serious, when policies count and not Nigel's face in the news daily

Didge, what makes you think voters for ukip don't know there manifesto? I read it and I bet thousands more have. You appear to be worried to death that ukip may have a chance in the General election.If you do not worry why keep on about it?

nicko wrote:Didge, what makes you think voters for ukip don't know there manifesto? I read it and I bet thousands more have. You appear to be worried to death that ukip may have a chance in the General election.If you do not worry why keep on about it?

Hi Nicko

As stated I speak to a few each day and it has been the constant talk for many days and I am not denying that people have not read the manifesto, which am sure you will agree with me is comical and not practical, but the point is of those I spoke to many were non-interested in the finer points of their policies, most were annoyed and taken in by claims made about the EU, some with immigration, again fed by fear claims, but many were annoyed at how the last governments had not had a grip on things, like the bankers and many other aspects, many stated to me  they voted in protest accept some of the die hards who believe 100% in UKIP.

Most voted to protest, though am sure this vie might be different over the country, this is just my perception and also knowing how poor the UKIP policies are

didge, personly I don't give a fcuk what they say, just interested why you seem to dislike the intensly. Lets take their Manifesto point by point and you point out why they are wrong and will not work.

should read THEM intensely

nicko wrote:didge,  personly I don't give a fcuk what they say, just interested why you seem to dislike the intensly.   Lets take their Manifesto point by point and you point out why they are wrong and will not work.

Nothing to do with dislike Nicko, it has everything to with understanding if a party is credible and from what I have seen they play solely off fear and manipulation of these fear playing upon genuine concerns, I find that poor really, plus the fact to me their policies economically are shockingly poor.

Tax a flat rate of 25%, which would hurt more of lower earners than it would higher, making them far better off, even the fact it would cost in estimates from experts of around 100 billion to implement.

So are you telling me that is a good policy?

 

A "three way coalition" ???

And for sure that would last for more than one or two terms..

I would challenge Tess (and any others with similar sentiments..) to name one single country that has maintained a long term and stable government with more than two parties in a coalition government ?  ::hndbg:: 

Can't see anything wrong with it,that's only one point their are many others. I think it's only the ones that effect immegrants that your really bothered about, that is what it looks like to the casual observer.

nicko wrote:Can't see anything wrong with it,that's only one point their are many others. I think it's only the ones that effect immegrants that your really bothered about, that is what it looks like to the casual observer.

WTF, no need to say anything more if you think that is okay that gives a tax cut to countless rich people, blimey and the fact it would cost billions to implement and mean massive revenue lost for the economy, with an absurd claim from UKIP this would stop tax evasion?

Sorry I thought you wanted to go through the policies and debate them, not tell me you think they are okay.

Wow

Lone Wolf wrote: 

A "three way coalition" ???

And for sure that would last for more than one or two terms..

I would challenge Tess (and any others with similar sentiments..) to name one single country that has maintained a long term and stable government with more than two parties in a coalition government ?   ::hndbg:: 

Lebanon, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Russia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Serbia,South Africa,Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Philippines . ..

Didge,do not put words in my mouth, I never said the manifesto was all ok. Iwill not be drawn into a pointless argument with you.It;s my opinion others may disagree, Wife has just brought coffee so catch you later.

nicko wrote:Didge,do not put words in my mouth, I never said the manifesto was all ok.   Iwill not be drawn into a pointless argument with you.It;s my opinion others may disagree, Wife has just brought coffee so catch you later.

I was looking for a debate on them, just being in agreement is not debating the finer points, as you could have saved me countless time by just stating which policies you agreed with, would you not agree? I wanted to go over them, hey ho no worries, so enjoy your coffee and catch you later.

Didge wrote:

nicko wrote:didge,  personly I don't give a fcuk what they say, just interested why you seem to dislike the intensly.   Lets take their Manifesto point by point and you point out why they are wrong and will not work.

Nothing to do with dislike Nicko, it has everything to with understanding if a party is credible and from what I have seen they play solely off fear and manipulation of these fear playing upon genuine concerns, I find that poor really, plus the fact to me their policies economically are shockingly poor.

Tax a flat rate of 25%, which would hurt more of lower earners than it would higher, making them far better off, even the fact it would cost in estimates from experts of around 100 billion to implement.

So are you telling me that is a good policy?

Actually if you read their whole flat tax policy you would see it does not hurt lower earners because firstly there is the raising of the threshold at which people pay tax to at least the level of minimum wage, and secondly because of doing away with NI - so instead of paying a combined rate of 31% in both tax and NI they will be paying just 25%. On a smaller part of their earnings.

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:

Nothing to do with dislike Nicko, it has everything to with understanding if a party is credible and from what I have seen they play solely off fear and manipulation of these fear playing upon genuine concerns, I find that poor really, plus the fact to me their policies economically are shockingly poor.

Tax a flat rate of 25%, which would hurt more of lower earners than it would higher, making them far better off, even the fact it would cost in estimates from experts of around 100 billion to implement.

So are you telling me that is a good policy?

Actually if you read their whole flat tax policy you would see it does not hurt lower earners because firstly there is the raising of the threshold at which people pay tax to at least the level of minimum wage, and secondly because of doing away with NI - so instead of paying a combined rate of 31% in both tax and NI they will be paying just 25%.  On a smaller part of their earnings.

Glad you mentioned NI Sphinx. Just shows how stupid some people are, and the bad press UKIP's been getting. I had a poster on GLP saying that they heard UKIP wanted to scrap the NHS.   

Well chatting to one of the Tory monitors this morning and he was saying he things the last month it has been so blatantly obvious there is a concerted campaign to discredit UKIP that it is having the opposite effect. Cant disagree with him on that one.

Tesstacious wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Let me ask you Tess; do you seriously think UKIP will have more seats than Lib Dems next year? Seriously?

And given the choice which party are Labour more likely to get into bed with?

I seriously think the Lib Dems will lose some of their seats, and UKIP will gain some, so in the end they'll probably both end up with around the same number, which could mean a coalition of three parties.  That's not unusual today in most countries.

I'll remind you of this next year- I don't doubt LibDems will lose some, from 55 to around the 20s; I expect UKIP may barely touch a handful. If UKIP and Liberals end up roughly equal next year I will change my sig to Farage is God haha

Tesstacious wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:A successful business doesn’t blame customers when they walk away. An astute entrepreneur will ask instead what caused the punter to leave, and ask what they need to change to get them back.

Those in the business of political retail ought to do likewise.

For years, we Conservatives have had the greatest share of the market in Euro elections. Until yesterday, we had won every one since 1999. Now it looks as if we may have finished third.

Attacking Ukip – and by extension those who voted for them – makes no sense. We need to see off the new competition in the political market place by responding better to the punter.

Recent attempts to smear Ukip by some of the pundits – many of whom have almost zero understanding of swing voters in marginal seats – have been crass, foolish and counterproductive


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100272610/euro-elections-it-looks-as-if-we-tories-may-have-finished-third-time-for-a-pact-with-ukip/

Wants a pact with the party their leader described as full of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists.

Lovely stuff

Cameron's already made it very clear, as did the Tories even this morning, that they don't want an alliance with UKIP - let's face it, he couldn't do that and save face could he?   No - it's LABOUR who are thinking of an alliance.  They've seen their voters, ordinary not well-off working people, voting UKIP.  Listening to Ed Miliband lately, when he's been asked to join in the smear campaign against UKIP, and asked whether he thought Farage was a racist, he's backed off, and actually been polite, nay friendly even, towards Farage.  Doesn't take rocket science to see what he has in mind.

Labour will never get into bed with UKIP,ever.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
Cameron's already made it very clear, as did the Tories even this morning, that they don't want an alliance with UKIP - let's face it, he couldn't do that and save face could he?   No - it's LABOUR who are thinking of an alliance.  They've seen their voters, ordinary not well-off working people, voting UKIP.  Listening to Ed Miliband lately, when he's been asked to join in the smear campaign against UKIP, and asked whether he thought Farage was a racist, he's backed off, and actually been polite, nay friendly even, towards Farage.  Doesn't take rocket science to see what he has in mind.

Labour will never get into bed with UKIP,ever.

You think UKIP would get into bed with Labour?

Go on Labour!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They both would- Labour would offer UKIP their referendum if UKIP would nod along Labour policy in the Commons. It would be a bitter sweet deal but since all UKIP is interested in is the EU referendum they would have no problem going to bed with Labour; and Labour, like the Tories, would do anything to be in power.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
Cameron's already made it very clear, as did the Tories even this morning, that they don't want an alliance with UKIP - let's face it, he couldn't do that and save face could he?   No - it's LABOUR who are thinking of an alliance.  They've seen their voters, ordinary not well-off working people, voting UKIP.  Listening to Ed Miliband lately, when he's been asked to join in the smear campaign against UKIP, and asked whether he thought Farage was a racist, he's backed off, and actually been polite, nay friendly even, towards Farage.  Doesn't take rocket science to see what he has in mind.

Labour will never get into bed with UKIP,ever.

Absolutely Fluffy, racist bastard party!..and despite UKIP gains, It's Labour who are out in front, UKIP are not significant enough, UKIP have made gains in many areas though.

But nowhere near enough.

Eilzel wrote:They both would- Labour would offer UKIP their referendum if UKIP would nod along Labour policy in the Commons. It would be a bitter sweet deal but since all UKIP is interested in is the EU referendum they would have no problem going to bed with Labour; and Labour, like the Tories, would do anything to be in power.

If Labour join UKIP in any capacity,that's it for me. I only vote for them because I can't abide the RW parties,they don't really represent me.

If they sell out their principles I will never vote for them again.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Eilzel wrote:They both would- Labour would offer UKIP their referendum if UKIP would nod along Labour policy in the Commons. It would be a bitter sweet deal but since all UKIP is interested in is the EU referendum they would have no problem going to bed with Labour; and Labour, like the Tories, would do anything to be in power.

If Labour join UKIP in any capacity,that's it for me. I only vote for them because I can't abide the RW parties,they don't really represent me.

If they sell out their principles I will never vote for them again.

I shouldn't worry too much, it is very unlikely even next year that UKIP will gain more than maybe 3 seats (and that is a push)- If Labour don't get a majority next year the Liberals will be the better offer, by far. I may not like the First Past the Post voting system, but at least it keeps the fringe in check   

Eilzel wrote:They both would- Labour would offer UKIP their referendum if UKIP would nod along Labour policy in the Commons. It would be a bitter sweet deal but since all UKIP is interested in is the EU referendum they would have no problem going to bed with Labour; and Labour, like the Tories, would do anything to be in power.

A party finishing in 3rd or 4th place in a general election should never be allowed to be Kingmaker ...it's wrong,,,

The two most voted parties should both and only both , re- elect , and if none still make the 326 seats, then it should just be the most votes in total who wins.

Certainly for the general elections anyway.

Eilzel wrote:They both would- Labour would offer UKIP their referendum if UKIP would nod along Labour policy in the Commons. It would be a bitter sweet deal but since all UKIP is interested in is the EU referendum they would have no problem going to bed with Labour; and Labour, like the Tories, would do anything to be in power.

Love the way those who either despise UKIP or know nothing about it or both are so sure about about what UKIP would and would not do in a given situation.

I guess its a case of judging others by your own standards.

Joy Division wrote:

Eilzel wrote:They both would- Labour would offer UKIP their referendum if UKIP would nod along Labour policy in the Commons. It would be a bitter sweet deal but since all UKIP is interested in is the EU referendum they would have no problem going to bed with Labour; and Labour, like the Tories, would do anything to be in power.

A party finishing in 3rd or 4th place in a general election should never be allowed to  be Kingmaker ...it's wrong,,,

The two most voted parties should both and only both , re- elect , and if none still make the 326 seats, then it should just be the most votes in total who wins.

Certainly for the general elections anyway.

So you are happy to have your local area represented by a Tory MP from somewhere simply because that was the party with the most votes over all?

sphinx wrote:

Eilzel wrote:They both would- Labour would offer UKIP their referendum if UKIP would nod along Labour policy in the Commons. It would be a bitter sweet deal but since all UKIP is interested in is the EU referendum they would have no problem going to bed with Labour; and Labour, like the Tories, would do anything to be in power.

Love the way those who either despise UKIP or know nothing about it or both are so sure about about what UKIP would and would not do in a given situation.

I guess its a case of judging others by your own standards.

Are you saying that in a scenario where Labour fall just short and UKIP can give the push, and Labour offered an in-out referendum inside say 4 months, that UKIP would say no?

I have watched, listened to and read words from Farage often enough to know what he is all about and he really is the only sensible voice coming from UKIP (I'm giving your lot the benefit of the doubt in ignoring the holocaust deniers, sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic head cases).

sphinx wrote:

Eilzel wrote:They both would- Labour would offer UKIP their referendum if UKIP would nod along Labour policy in the Commons. It would be a bitter sweet deal but since all UKIP is interested in is the EU referendum they would have no problem going to bed with Labour; and Labour, like the Tories, would do anything to be in power.

Love the way those who either despise UKIP or know nothing about it or both are so sure about about what UKIP would and would not do in a given situation.

I guess its a case of judging others by your own standards.

Racist scumbags...the only bed UKIP should climb in is with BNP..

Stop being so bitter and nasty Sphinx, you were ahead of yourself and though UKIP would do even better than they did.

You must remember, not every white voter is racist.

Joy Division wrote:

Eilzel wrote:They both would- Labour would offer UKIP their referendum if UKIP would nod along Labour policy in the Commons. It would be a bitter sweet deal but since all UKIP is interested in is the EU referendum they would have no problem going to bed with Labour; and Labour, like the Tories, would do anything to be in power.

A party finishing in 3rd or 4th place in a general election should never be allowed to  be Kingmaker ...it's wrong,,,

The two most voted parties should both and only both , re- elect , and if none still make the 326 seats, then it should just be the most votes in total who wins.

Certainly for the general elections anyway.

To be fair then you'd just be advocating a two party system which would alienate a massive chunk of an already disillusioned electorate. In a real fair system we'd have Proportional Representation where the two power sharers would be more equal.

In the 2010 election the Liberals scored about 1/4 of the votes to the Tories 1/3 yet their share was significantly lower due to a disproportionately low amount of seats.

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

A party finishing in 3rd or 4th place in a general election should never be allowed to  be Kingmaker ...it's wrong,,,

The two most voted parties should both and only both , re- elect , and if none still make the 326 seats, then it should just be the most votes in total who wins.

Certainly for the general elections anyway.

So you are happy to have your local area represented by a Tory MP from somewhere simply because that was the party with the most votes over all?

Don't you think it's only fair the top two parties with a much bigger amount of votes have a " play off" ?

Why should a tiny minority party be kingmaker?

Eilzel wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

A party finishing in 3rd or 4th place in a general election should never be allowed to  be Kingmaker ...it's wrong,,,

The two most voted parties should both and only both , re- elect , and if none still make the 326 seats, then it should just be the most votes in total who wins.

Certainly for the general elections anyway.

To be fair then you'd just be advocating a two party system which would alienate a massive chunk of an already disillusioned electorate. In a real fair system we'd have Proportional Representation where the two power sharers would be more equal.

In the 2010 election the Liberals scored about 1/4 of the votes to the Tories 1/3 yet their share was significantly lower due to a disproportionately low amount of seats.

Les..I see what you mean, I really do...

But two parties out in from by a huge amount should make the coalition between themselves , or vote between the two again...

It's not right that a minority party are made kingmakers!!!!!!!!!

Joy Division wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

To be fair then you'd just be advocating a two party system which would alienate a massive chunk of an already disillusioned electorate. In a real fair system we'd have Proportional Representation where the two power sharers would be more equal.

In the 2010 election the Liberals scored about 1/4 of the votes to the Tories 1/3 yet their share was significantly lower due to a disproportionately low amount of seats.

Les..I see what you mean, I really do...

But two parties out in from by a huge amount should make the coalition between themselves , or vote between the two again...

It's not right that a minority party are made kingmakers!!!!!!!!!

But those minority parties can do good JD- just imagine this government had it only been Tory!

If the public vote and don't give overall power to one party, then that means most of the public don't want that party to govern alone.

Eilzel wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
Cameron's already made it very clear, as did the Tories even this morning, that they don't want an alliance with UKIP - let's face it, he couldn't do that and save face could he?   No - it's LABOUR who are thinking of an alliance.  They've seen their voters, ordinary not well-off working people, voting UKIP.  Listening to Ed Miliband lately, when he's been asked to join in the smear campaign against UKIP, and asked whether he thought Farage was a racist, he's backed off, and actually been polite, nay friendly even, towards Farage.  Doesn't take rocket science to see what he has in mind.

Let me ask you Tess; do you seriously think UKIP will have more seats than Lib Dems next year? Seriously?

And given the choice which party are Labour more likely to get into bed with?

well consideration you are the rest of your gang were shouting how they would all be dead before teh elections, i would say your views on UKIP are based on wishful thinking

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So you are happy to have your local area represented by a Tory MP from somewhere simply because that was the party with the most votes over all?

Don't you think it's only fair the top two parties with a much bigger amount of votes have a " play off" ?

Why should a tiny minority party be kingmaker?

No I dont think it fair - you see I think the way the political system is supposed to work is I vote for someone to represent me - and if more people agree with than do not then that person becomes my voice in Westminster. I do not expect to have that voice taken away from me just because the person is either a member of a smaller party or an independent.

You talk about king maker - how about despot preventer? You are bitterly opposed to the Tories and their policies - how many of the policies you disagreed with have been prevented because of the presence of the Liberal Democrats? Would you have preferred it if the current government had been totally Tory and free to do whatever they wanted?

Also you do realize that the only way to make your 2 party shootout work is to change properly elected candidates for candidates who lost? The reason we talk about "making a government" is a party has to have enough members that if every single one of them voted the same way it would be impossible for the other parties to defeat a motion. If you have a situation where party A has more seats but not the absolute majority to make a government but they are given to make a government anyway because they had the most overall votes then they would still not be in really control even if every single one voted the same way everyone else could defeat them by voting against them.

As for proportional representation - that would simply restrict us to party government which would not be at all representative of what the voters tried to choose. Lets say in a general election in 7 different widespread constituencies you had 7 independent MPs elected by first past the post - but that PR only resulted in 5. Which 5 of those 7 do you choose because unlike the party politicians the independents all have widely differing policies there is no party line. Or what if PR results in 9 independents - which of the independents beaten in the first past the post system do you give the extra seats to? Again you have widely differing policies and no party line. I mean if PR resulted in 20 Lib Dems first past the post and 25 PR then picking the 5 extras would be relatively easy because of party lines - but you cant do that with independents.

Do you really want to do away with the possibility of independent candidates? To prevent a local person caring about local issues being prepared to take the fight to Westminster and deny the right of their local people to send them to do so?

I take it Irn Bru you think Ed Milliband is doing a great job then. Not sure his MPs think so.

Clearly UKIP has benfitted from Labour voters who feel rightly betrayed by Labour under Gordon Brown who were not given the referendum promised. Hardly a time for complacency comrade and even less rejoicing.

The Tories are plagued by the Europhiles who unfortunately have too much power Labour simply doesn't give a fu-k what the electorate think.

Eilzel wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Les..I see what you mean, I really do...

But two parties out in from by a huge amount should make the coalition between themselves , or vote between the two again...

It's not right that a minority party are made kingmakers!!!!!!!!!

But those minority parties can do good JD- just imagine this government had it only been Tory!

If the public vote and don't give overall power to one party, then that means most of the public don't want that party to govern alone.

That's true Eilzel...it would have been worse with just a Tory government..but Clegg never always stood his ground against Cameron.


But can you imagine that Tory and UKIP coalition?!!!!!       

Tory and lacytp would form a coalition if it meant keeping UKIP out, they will do anything to stay in EU.


they have sold this country out, given away our right to properly govern and control our own country and laws.

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:

Nothing to do with dislike Nicko, it has everything to with understanding if a party is credible and from what I have seen they play solely off fear and manipulation of these fear playing upon genuine concerns, I find that poor really, plus the fact to me their policies economically are shockingly poor.

Tax a flat rate of 25%, which would hurt more of lower earners than it would higher, making them far better off, even the fact it would cost in estimates from experts of around 100 billion to implement.

So are you telling me that is a good policy?

Actually if you read their whole flat tax policy you would see it does not hurt lower earners because firstly there is the raising of the threshold at which people pay tax to at least the level of minimum wage, and secondly because of doing away with NI - so instead of paying a combined rate of 31% in both tax and NI they will be paying just 25%.  On a smaller part of their earnings.

Wow, and you think that makes it a better tax system that still loses vast revenue for the economy, will cost billions in the fist place? This is not a fair tax system and as stated and most people who earn higher and going to cost the economy a loss in revenue. It will hurt lower earners dependent on who starts paying a tax rate

Wow

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Actually if you read their whole flat tax policy you would see it does not hurt lower earners because firstly there is the raising of the threshold at which people pay tax to at least the level of minimum wage, and secondly because of doing away with NI - so instead of paying a combined rate of 31% in both tax and NI they will be paying just 25%.  On a smaller part of their earnings.

Wow, and you think that makes it a better tax system that still loses vast revenue for the economy, will cost billions in the fist place? This is not a fair tax system and as stated and most people who earn higher and going to cost the economy a loss in revenue, let alone now also it seems with lower earners.

Wow

Actually if you look at the research and the places already applying it you will find it increases revenue due to Two reasons. Firstly it is massively easier to manage and regulate and so costs less to operate. Secondly it actually results in the higher paid contributing more - because it makes avoidance both unnecessary and much much harder in the first place. Right now your average millionaire may look at their tax bill and decide it is cheaper to pay a specialist accountant to find ways to legally reduce what they are paying (by for instance having themselves incorporated - tax bill down from 45% to 22% - and that is before allowances are claimed) and for some of the super rich legal avoidance can mean they are effectively paying only 10% or less - and all perfectly legal. However a flat rate automatically does away with allowances and other possible avoidance so the actually amount of money taken goes up. There is also a third reason which is rather difficult to quantify but it is to do with reward. With tax banding such as we have people earning near the top of a band may stop and think about doing something to take their earnings over the top of the band because they loose more of them to tax - what is the point in earning an extra grand a year if 45% of it disappears in tax while requiring an extra 2 hours a day away from home? With a flat tax rate this effect disappears - earn more keep more and people make more effort in wealth creation which again puts more in the coffers.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Love the way those who either despise UKIP or know nothing about it or both are so sure about about what UKIP would and would not do in a given situation.

I guess its a case of judging others by your own standards.

Racist scumbags...the only bed UKIP should climb in is with BNP..

Stop being so bitter and nasty Sphinx, you were ahead of yourself and though UKIP would do even better than they did.

You must remember, not every white voter is racist.

!!! Which comment's bitter and nasty - Sphinx's or yours?

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:

Wow, and you think that makes it a better tax system that still loses vast revenue for the economy, will cost billions in the fist place? This is not a fair tax system and as stated and most people who earn higher and going to cost the economy a loss in revenue, let alone now also it seems with lower earners.

Wow

Actually if you look at the research and the places already applying it you will find it increases revenue due to Two reasons.  Firstly  it is massively easier to manage and regulate and so costs less to operate.  Secondly it actually results in the higher paid contributing more - because it makes avoidance both unnecessary and much much harder in the first place.  Right now your average millionaire may look at their tax bill and decide it is cheaper to pay a specialist accountant to find ways to legally reduce what they are paying (by for instance having themselves incorporated - tax bill down from 45% to 22% - and that is before allowances are claimed) and for some of the super rich legal avoidance can mean they are effectively paying only 10% or less - and all perfectly legal.  However a flat rate automatically does away with allowances and other possible avoidance so the actually amount of money taken goes up.  There is also a third reason which is rather difficult to quantify but it is to do with reward.  With tax banding such as we have people earning near the top of a band may stop and think about doing something to take their earnings over the top of the band because they loose more of them to tax - what is the point in earning an extra grand a year if 45% of it disappears in tax while requiring an extra 2 hours a day away from home?  With a flat tax rate this effect disappears - earn more keep more and people make more effort in wealth creation which again puts more in the coffers.

Pure and simple gobbldygook

Currently the top 10% of all income tax payers in the UK pay about 59% of all income tax. So basically you have just cost the economy billions including the NHS. Simplification? First off a business needs complex tax systems to let it do the complex trades, also, because most of the complexity is about defining just what is taxable. So it is not difficult  multiplying by two percentage rates rather than one is which is no no problem at all. Thus you need to stop buying the bullshit that UKIP keep feeding you because I will now provide you with some sound links to show why they are flawed.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/10/25/it-is-possible-to-have-a-flat-tax-or-to-have-democracy-but-not-both/

http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/AACA_flat_tax_report_-_JUN_2006.pdf

Tommy Monk wrote:Tory and lacytp would form a coalition if it meant keeping UKIP out, they will do anything to stay in EU.


they have sold this country out, given away our right to properly govern and control our own country and laws.

Excuse my ignorance but doesn't remaining in the EU mean there is a minimum wage so people have to be paid a standard amount?

Joy Division wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

But those minority parties can do good JD- just imagine this government had it only been Tory!

If the public vote and don't give overall power to one party, then that means most of the public don't want that party to govern alone.

That's true Eilzel...it would have been worse with just a Tory government..but Clegg never always stood his ground against Cameron.


But can you imagine that Tory and UKIP coalition?!!!!!        

JD,it doesn't bear thinking about.
  

sphinx wrote:Well chatting to one of the Tory monitors this morning and he was saying he things the last month it has been so blatantly obvious there is a concerted campaign to discredit UKIP that it is having the opposite effect.  Cant disagree with him on that one.

I said all along it was going to backfire and it has.

Nems wrote:

sphinx wrote:Well chatting to one of the Tory monitors this morning and he was saying he things the last month it has been so blatantly obvious there is a concerted campaign to discredit UKIP that it is having the opposite effect.  Cant disagree with him on that one.

I said all along it was going to backfire and it has.

It was manipulation from Nigel in the first place to get as much air time as possible and it pays dividends to get yourself on TV daily as seen it was not a big success because they were already polling well for the EU elections and have won over a hundred council places which to me was poor considering all the hype. Nigel is clever in that he plays up to genuine concerns that some voters have and play on fear and is not scared of being controversial and the reason he has not lost support is because he centered on these fears, which would not damage him, but no where was he actually scrutinized over policies. In fact he was blatant he had no wish to talk about UKIP policies in the lead up to the EU elections.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/20/ukip-manifesto-europe-immigration

He is a class act manipulator, I will not take that away from him, but loved every story calling him a racist because it gave him more air time than any politician to spout more bullshit scare tactics as he did to those again already with genuine concerns. As I stated most gains in votes came from former Tory votes which again was a a protest vote/ So basically he was clever to divert any talk of his policies coming under the spotlight, yes brilliant, but that will not happen in a general election and he will not be able to do the same twice, because next time he ill have to face questions on his policies