Farage Over The Moon at UKIP Gains

Like yourself, a lot doesn't affect me either. In a similar kind of way I watch from the sidelines to a degree. We already have zero inheritance tax here in IOM. But UK immigration policy affects me. Hence my concern. And I wouldn't vote UKIP whilst there is a likelihood that their policy might entail refusing my wife UK citizenship.

I can also see how UKIP might appeal to folk who aren't wanting to bring their Filipina spouse, fiance or partner to the UK.

I like the front page of Private Eye....
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/current_issue.php?

I am watching UKIP. I suspect they may be a flash in the pan. If they are not, if they persist with their immigration policy and start collecting ex-Labour votes on the back of it, then Britain is not the country that I will choose to end my days in.

Are you sure that Cameron's Conservatives won't do much the same? I suspect that Cameron will direct Theresa May and other ministers at the next Cabinet meeting to examine what went wrong and how come UKIP did so well. There are two UKIP policies that will, I'm sure, have struck a chord with disaffected Tory (and Labour) voters: Europe and Immigration. There's not a cat's chance in hell that the Tories will offer much more than a vague statement alluding to a possible referendum sometime after the next election; maybe. That line has been "sold" to the electorate too many times already and no government - since Harold Wilson's - has held a referendum (and that was on the Common Market). So I doubt that even they have any faith that voters could be bribed so cheaply. UKIP's immigration policy on the other hand plays well and I think there's a very good chance that Ms May will (try to) steal their thunder by making it much, much harder for UK nationals to bring their non-EEA-born spouse/fiancees into the country - by any means which I think may well include the "EEA route".

The problem is though, that there are three full years to run before the next election - assuming Cameron sticks to his 6 year Parliament. Cutting back on non-EEA immigration is not going to solve the immigration issue on its own and if, as is projected, half-a-million or more Bulgarians and Romanians cross the Channel starting next year, the issue will be seen to have worsened, not improved.

For as long as UKIP enjoys anything like its current level of popular support, the Conservatives remain unelectable and party grandees will want to rid themselves of that problem.

Tories to publish draft referendum bill before election

"The Conservative party will publish a draft version of an EU referendum bill before the next election, the party chairman has confirmed, even though such a vote will not be held until 2017."

And / or :


"The eurosceptic wing of the party, led by David Davis, wants the prime minister to hold a referendum on repatriating powers from Brussels before 2015. Mr Davis told The Observer newspaper that having a first referendum next year would be “an absolute Ukip killer”. He said: “It would massively reinforce the prime minister’s negotiating hand and put some steel in his back.”"

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2c3e830c-b56c-11e2-850d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2SRNpU8R9

The first is a merely that there may be a referendum on Europe after the next election ... if the Tories are re-elected ... and if they can pass the necessary Bill. Blair made such promises too, remember. And broke them.

The second is most unlikely to happen. Even if Cameron agreed, he couldn't get the enabling Bill through the House as the Liberals will vote against as will Labour and the Greens. Europhiles on his own benches may abstain or vote against.

Not only that but there will be the European Parliamentary elections next May.

I suspect that the Tory "king-makers" will find a safe seat for Boris and then there'll be a leadership coup in the finest traditions of that party.

You're absolutely right, Jim, not sure where that came from .... brainfart!

As far as I know, prior to this Government, General elections were a bit of a moveable feast. I seem to recall that one of the first announcements Cameron made as Prime Minister was the date of the next General election.

If you actually analyse UKIP's policies, leaving aside immigration, some of them actually do make some good sense and are perfectly viable alternatives to those espoused by the two-and-a-half other parties. Certainly they speak to me and I suspect they will also speak to many other individuals who feel betrayed by the main parties' failure to listen. You know as well as I that no other party will ask the electorate if they wish to continue to participate in Europe -- basically the question Harold Wilson's government asked in 1975 -- because opinion polls indicate a sizeable majority would vote "no".

I agree and further to that employers should not be able to get circumvent paying their employees holiday and sick pay by placing them on temporary contracts as does the major ferry operator Stena, for example.

Whilst that's true it's also a recipe for "bland" governance since PR would consign the country into continuous coalition governments and that's not really ideal.

On the surface a good idea but just as the turn-out would increase, so would the number of spoilt ballots so we'd still likely have low actual turn-out. That could be mitigated by the use of voting machines which would force the electorate to choose one or more candidates.

No! No government could govern and pass Bills that might be contentious. It's hard enough to get the electorate to vote (sensibly) at General, European and Local elections as it is! If anything we need a non-political upper house that is constant between elected governments to act as a stabilising force. I would amend the Parliament Act whereby a government can force through legislation by restricting that ability to Bills that fulfil election pledges contained in that government's manifesto.

The problem is that if you tax the rich more, they'll simply move more of their wealth off-shore and still they benefit. The whole tax system needs rationalisation and simplification which would actually cut the cost of collecting it in the first place.

Certainly not! However I would advocate that medicinal Cannabis be available on the NHS for those suffering from terminal and painful diseases as supplement or alternative to pharmaceuticals. I would favour far stiffer punishments for users of all "recreational" drugs with first offenders being required to attend a rehabilitation centre and re-offenders being jailed. Anyone involved in the supply chain should be exiled to some remote Scottish island - a la Alcatraz - for the rest of their natural along with paedophiles and human traffickers.

I'd like to see the German model implemented in the UK. Prostitution is illegal throughout Germany with the exception of one small district in Hamburg - St. Pauli, if you're interested! There it is very closely controlled by the authorities and sex workers are required to undergo regular health screenings at their expense. It is policed by "beat" coppers and CCTV and is off-limits to anyone under 18. But where to site such a facility in the UK .... Manchester? Milton Keynes?!

I'm sure you mean "political biased"! But I agree with you regarding the likes of Murdoch who controls far too much of the nation's media.

To an extent I'd agree but not in the case of the Church of England.

Strong Coalition. Thats what is needed.

UKIPS policies are just a miss mash of randomly generated ideas:

• Defence spending would rise by 40%, with the navy getting more than 70 new ships, including three aircraft carriers.

• The number of prison places would be doubled, with £30bn committed to flood defences and an unquantified further amount going to transport investment, including high-speed rail lines, more roads and improved ports and airports.

• Almost £90bn would be committed to a mass programme of building nuclear power stations.

The spending seemingly relies upon presumed savings from leaving the EU, which – the manifesto estimates, without giving a source – could total £120bn a year. There are similarly woolly promises about economies from cutting red tape and "non-jobs". Tax plans are more predictably new right, with a proposed flat combined income tax and national insurance rate of 31% for any annual income above £11,500.

One of the party's more controversial views is its position on energy and climate change. Ukip is avowedly sceptical about human-caused climate change, claiming that "more and more scientists are challenging the conventional wisdom on global warming". Ukip's solution would be a radical rollback of renewable energy projects, such as wind farms, in favour of nuclear power and the likes of shale gas.

While much of this combines into a relatively coherent message, some policy details can look contradictory or even a bit crankish, perhaps the result of one or a few activists imposing their personal opinions on a still relatively tiny party.

Education is a case in point. While schools policy is a fairly straightforward mix of free market and nostalgia – parents would get vouchers to spend in the private or state sector, with the latter seeing the launch of new grammar schools and a focus on the three Rs – the position on universities seems a bit more anomalous. Ukip is scathing about the "nonsensical target" of having 50% of people attending university, arguing for example that nurses need vocational training rather than degrees. Yet the party also wants a return to state grants for students rather than loans. As some education websites note, how do you reduce university access while simultaneously making it a more attractive option? By a very non-free market cap on places, perhaps?

Other details look fraught with unforeseen difficulties, or somewhat niche. The foreign affairs commitment to formally back independence for Taiwan has its arguments but would risk losing the UK very significant amounts of trade from an irate China. The separate policy document on animal welfare is perhaps laudable, but the public is maybe not at the stage where it needs a long list of specific Ukip promises about breeding pedigree dogs.

Cyclists who voted Ukip in Eastleigh meanwhile, might be alarmed to learn the party believes bicycles should have tax discs, while riders should pay for parking and walk their bikes across busy roundabouts to prevent "unacceptable delays to traffic".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/01/ukip-other-policies-bike-taxes

It is clear that UKIP's programme is not something that has been costed - it is a Daily Mail readers's wish list of goodies, without the tax implications. We can rely on the Tories to rip this apart.

This turkey won't vote for Christmas, but there again, he won't have to.

That's an oxymoron! There has only ever been one coalition that came close to working and that was the Churchill-led wartime government but whilst it undoubtedly helped win the war, its domestic policies were somewhat less successful and probably accounted for the Labour landslide that followed.

The strongest governments are, without a doubt, dictatorships but I'd never advocate one for the UK.

Mark, I beg to differ - the strongest governments are those that enjoy the widest popular support. The wartime coalition enjoyed that because our parents and grandparents were fighting for the survival of their nation.

Strong in what sense?

Actually I thought that Farage's Mrs picked them out of a hat. Except the ones on Europe and Immigration of course, oh and on resurrecting smoking in public places.

Boris on multiculturalism (his great grandfather was a muslim!!)

You can visibly see the dilemmas running through his head.

[video]http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2013/05/20135112625838243.html[/video]