tl;dr

Vote UKIP.

_________________
Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
"Emmett is able to write fairly well, he clearly isn't unintelligent overall" - Quote MALCO - Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:57 pm

Emmett Janner:

Way to go, demonstrating that you totally despise the people you are asking to vote for you. Just for information, none of those factors has ever influenced my vote - and indeed if it were the case then there would never be any change of government.

You admit you are not one of the rest and you acknowledge that majorities change. You are responsible for majorities changing. You're called a 'swing-voter'

The government won't actually change until Westminster is filled with a majority of politicians that aren't affiliated with one of the three old parties. That is a more longwinded way of saying 'it does not matter who you vote for, the government always gets in'

_________________
Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
"Emmett is able to write fairly well, he clearly isn't unintelligent overall" - Quote MALCO - Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:57 pm

Why are you trying to get elected? A hobby? Fun? Oh yes, that's right, because you want to be elected. If you're going to play semantics, at least try and make a point when you do.



Contempt for voters who don't already agree with you, coupled with arrogance about assumed victory in an entirely fictitious scenario. Nice one. Also, who the hell would vote for people based on whether they've previously done OK at job interviews? Do you think that has any bearing on what people want from an MP, or are you suggesting the important things are not what you stand for but interview skills?

I'm sure you'd love to believe voting is *all* done on automatic pilot by zombies - in fact, doing so is probably a requirement to stop you thinking you're wasting your time - but if that were the case national mood and current affairs would have no effect on outcome and there would be no such thing as floating voters. The fact that in my living memory we've had Tory landslides, Labour landslides and a hung parliament should tell you the very obvious - people can and do change their mind based on events and personalities. They haven't chosen your party, which has been around for over half that period, yet you think that's their fault. That says more about you than it does about the electorate.



That entire paragraph is paranoia. Maybe the media are against you. But you know what? Maybe they're against you because you come out with rubbish like that.



There is absolutely no reason to assume your growth will continue. Plenty of effectively single-issue parties will expand at a fair pace initially because they're so small they can't not expand, only to top out when they hit their natural limit of people who will vote for such one-issue parties. And don't pretend you're not a one-issue party simply because you have policies elsewhere. I've read some of the UKIP policy documents and they swing from carbon copies of other parties to vague and uncommitted to flat-out nonsense. UKIP's defining characteristic is it wants to pull the UK out of Europe. That is immediately going to cap how many people will ever vote for you. And given that even the most generally anti-European of the main parties is split on this issue, that means your size will be naturally limited.



Oh I don't know - maybe they just don't like embarrassing you and are doing you a favour. Such as Lord Pearson's car crash interview in the run-up to the election when he made himself appear utterly unprepared and out of touch. Or Monckton claiming to be a member of the House of Lords when he isn't, or suggesting quarantining people with AIDS in special camps is a good idea, or grossly misrepresenting the work of real scientists as evidence for his own claims. Or coverage of Farage being needlessly rude and insulting to people and indeed entire countries as a blatant publicity stunt, and his co-leadership of the EFD group and some of its more unsavoury members that's seen your own MEPs leave because they're uncomfortable with the views expressed.

Is this the "brand and image" you think will sell UKIP to the general public? Clueless old duffers, rude snobs and mad pseudoscientists?

It's not the media working against you. It's the behaviour of your own members.



Yes, because PEOPLE VOTE FOR THE PARTY WHO'S POLICIES THEY THINK WILL BE BEST FOR THE COUNTRY. You have zero MPs. Go figure.

That's priceless. So I can accuse anyone of anything and if they come back with an answer, then the fact they had an answer proves I'm right?

I bet you're an intellectual in UKIP circles too.

_________________
MY COMMENTS ARE FROM THE HORSES MOUTH AND ARE ALL FACTS

Are they ever decreasing circles? The sooner they all disappear up their own arseholes, the better.

In a desperate attempt to get back on topic, might I throw this latest offering from our 'man of the people' into the mix?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nions.html

_________________
Mailwatch. Love us or leave us.
http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/

So you accept that when you said

you were, as usual, generalising wildly in order to make the facts fit the thesis you wanted to put forward?

Not So fast sunny.

To bring about change through the ballot box.

Why not. If someone comes to me and starts spouting nonsense like "90% of our trade is with Europe and I love the EU" or some factually inaccurate crap like that then followed by misinformed loyalty or similar then why should I find their views appealing and want to agree with them. Contempt for such views is exactly what I should feel.

You answered that yourself. If you are good at working through a selection process then why shouldn't you do well? In the past I have often got the job. This is about knowing how to appeal to people.

Becoming an MP is a competition. There is only one winner and during the contest you have to mark yourself out as the candidate to vote for. With our system of party politics working the way it does it is impossible for someone from a young party to do well. What people want from an MP is the backing of a well-known political party. All criticisms about the size of our party and how well our party has done in whichever election is all the proof you need that party politics rules elections. Many people actually think they voted for David Cameron in the last election.

What are the asterix for? I don't believe all are zombies. But if you think about how many candidates stand in each seat at election time and then you see which ones get elected isn't it plainly obvious that the ones who got elected did so because they were affiliated with a well-known brand? If this wasn't the case then we would have candidates from other brands outside of the old three parties sitting in Westminster. If you don't agree then you misunderstand what is going on. If your 'opinion' is that each candidate is elected on his/her own merit and that people only vote for policies they like then isn't it a bit of a coincidence that a small minority of independent candidates and no candidates from 'other' parties got elected in 2010? (save for Caroline Lucas) - If you think elections are about something else then I have to say I completely disagree with you.

Now if you had said landslides to Raving Monster Looney party or landslides to National Front or landslides to Green or landslides to whoever else then what you're saying may carry some weight.

Labour represent the working man, this is their brand. The tories are believed by many to be a good sensible choice for stable public finances and growth with an element of 'feck the poor' about them. That appeals to some people, particularly those who aren't poor. The lib-dems are for those who can't decide between the other two. If you want to vote for a different party then you have to do a lot of reading or just take a chance, close your eyes and put an X in the box closest to where your pencil lands. I'm simplifying the message slightly. But the point is that the three old parties are all elected and they run the country by consensus. 'I agree with Nick' - etc.

Make up your mind, either it is paranoia or 'maybe' it isn't? Can you imagine how you would go about attracting the attention of the press in order to promote your political party or yourself as a candidate? Would you just phone up the editor of each paper, ask them to write about you in favourable terms and bask in the glory of a job well done upon the opening of your paper the next morning? (likewise, same comments for TV) - It is actually a lot more complicated than that. When it comes to politics it is even harder because you have to overcome the prejudice of the editorial in order to get 'anything' published.

But wouldn't you be a bit surprised if it didn't considering 'reasons' like:

a. it has in the past so there is an upward trend
b. nothing has changed which indicates it shouldn't
c. brands get more popular over time

There are probably quite a few more 'reasons' but I think I've said enough to prove you wrong.

Why should I pretend when it's true? We have a full manifesto.

Which policies do you think we copied from other parties? It is widely acknowledged within UKIP circles that the three consensus parties often steal our policies and some of them have been implemented. For example: Where do you think the tories and labour got the idea of enabling people to have a say in the governing of their own country between elections? The two parties used different rhetoric but both promised to make politicians accountable to the public and Dave is attempting to put some version of this into practice. Neither parties are known for previously allowing or promoting anything like this in the past.

http://www2.labour.org.uk/gordon-browns-speech-on-new-politics-at-centre-point

If you read his speech and take out the bits about climate change then there's no reason why it couldn't have been an inspirational speech from a UKIP position.

That's true. However, in the same way, polls like this: http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/ ... -poll.html show you how many people automatically agree with us. So yes, we are capped in that we don't support continued membership, but at the same time the majority of people agree with us on this point so that is not far off our number of potential voters. On average, the answers to those 4 questions put us on in agreement with 65% of the voters. Furthermore, people I know who started off as avid Europhiles have changed their opinion over time. One chap I knew told me 'I admit it, you were right about Europe' and explained that he had changed his mind.

If you asked me if I wanted to join the 'Common Market' and make a trade agreement with Europe so we could trade with them more easily then so long as I couldn't find any hidden agenda I would most likely agree to it. That was the question every voter over the age of 57 was asked in 1972 and a majority of them agreed to it. Had it actually been that then UKIP wouldn't even exist. As time rolls in the fact that the EU is more than a 'Common Market' is becoming more and more apparent. Which leads to the question of 'if it isn't a 'common market' then what is it?' - many people don't like the answer.

Only rebels in the three consensus parties openly agree with us. Many of the others agree further integration without any thought of ever ending it is a bad idea but so long as there does not appear to be any threat to their own financial security they feel it better not to rock the boat. The whip system ensures that members of various parties are encouraged to vote a certain way. That is the way the direction is decided and you might be surprised to hear that local councils operate to a whip system as well. This means there is very little freedom of thought going on in UK politics. Oh, and the tories aren't the most anti-european. And it is not 'anti-european' it is 'anti-EU' - you have to go back a long way and it is hard to find, but Blair was anti-EU in opposition and so was the Labour party. Federalist tories at first loved the idea of bigger and more and tighter government. Not from a Nanny-state point of view but from the point of view that big deals are what the tories are all about. Advancing the EU is a big deal every time it happens. So that's exactly the sort of thing they love.

Change a few key points and that paragraph could be about any political party. It's self terminating so I needn't bother arguing with that.

Not exactly, but if you know anything of the way the argument of cross-examination works in a court room drama then you'll get the gist of what I'm saying here. The representative from one side or the other will lead the witness into a corner by asking a series of questions where the answer is either 'yes' or 'no' Once the witness has answered the right number of questions it becomes obvious that they are fraudulent. A classic would be "Do you still beat your wife?" - you can't answer 'no' or 'yes'

So when the BBC (who that line belongs to) respond with "UKIP have no seats so we don't give them any coverage" the implication is that they don't give us any coverage. That is how we 'know' they discriminate against us. Discriminate in the sense that they have found a way to choose not to give us coverage.

_________________
Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
"Emmett is able to write fairly well, he clearly isn't unintelligent overall" - Quote MALCO - Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:57 pm

Think what you're saying here. Please.

_________________
http://redsparrows.tumblr.com

This is moving the goalposts, which is entirely typical of your discussion style. You demonstrated contempt for voters because you said "People sleepwalk their way down to the polling station and simply choose between either the party they voted for last time, the party their parents voted for or the party they think is going to win the election" - i.e that the electorate does not display independent thought.

This is simply bizarre. Getting a job and getting elected as an MP are two entirely different things. I employ people because they have demonstrated by virtue of their qualifications, application, and experience that they can do the job. I don't employ them because they appeal to me. Interview skills come into it, but they are only a part of the mix and I am much more interested in the answers the candidates give, not their personal appeal.


The Green Party demonstrate that that is not the case. There was a time when the liberals had only 6 MPs.

That is far too simplistic. People vote for all sorts of reasons, including the fact that they agree with one party's policies, disagree with the other parties' policies, want to ensure that a particular party they violently disagree with doesn't get elected, etc etc. The fact that they don't vote for minority parties tends to be because those parties have policies that the majority disagree with or find wholly unconvincing, not because they would rather vote for a brand.


You absolutely haven't, as you have totally failed to engage with the point previously made on this.

Oh well, if it's acknowledged with UKIP circles that must make it true (heavy sarcasm)


No they don't. That's a poll of 1000 people, and nowhere does it suggest that people "automatically" agree with UKIP.

One chap. Not the most convincing evidence ever, is it?


That is one of the most confused and deluded expositions of the art of cross examination that I have ever seen, and has nothing to do with the point made. On your logic, if the cross-examining prosecutor says "Where were you at the time the murder was committed?" and the witness says "On an aeroplane over the Atlantic with 50 witnesses to that fact", the prosecutor could destroy the whole case by saying "That was just a reply that you prepared in answer to the question". Of course, the reality is that the witness prepared that answer because (a) he knew it was a question that was likely to be asked and (b) it was true. Which is a much more likely explanation in relation to the broadcasting authorities.

_________________
"..The Daily Mail - not so much a newspaper as an idiot's guidebook issued in bite-size daily installments" Charlie Brooker

What you said above with regard to people putting no thought into their vote was contempt for ALL voters. Or are you now saying the majority of people aren't "sleepwalkers" who vote without thinking, which would negate some of your other arguments about why UKIP can't get a break? You can't have it both ways, so think carefully before answering.



If that were true, no independents or smaller parties would ever get elected. However, that happens. If it were true anyone could stand in a safe seat and win it. However, unpopular MPs frequently fail to win allegedly secure seats for their parties. As you point out, the Greens won a seat. The process is by no means as simple and clear-cut as you imply it is, and simply acting like someone from the Apprentice wouldn't guarantee you anything. And you also seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room - even if it *was* entirely about party politics, only a small number choose your party.

(asterisks indicate emphasis by the way)


There are 10 parties at Westminster and 3 independents. Sorry your lot aren't in there, but hey - you're No. 1 of the losers!

[/quote]Make up your mind, either it is paranoia or 'maybe' it isn't?[/quote]

It is paranoia. I was taking the piss.



Bloody hell, please tell me you're not serious. But just in case you are, let me spell it out for you: your party's "brand" has a limited appeal because not enough people agree with your core philosophy to allow constant growth. Consequently you will never grow large enough to gain any significant influence, let alone a parliamentary majority.

Or to put it another way, the "We will make everyone called Kevin a millionaire" party would enjoy truly explosive growth initially, but then it would probably tail off when the small minority of people it appeals to have all joined. Do you see?



That's policies, not issues. If someone votes for UKIP, they would have to be astoundingly stupid to not know what the party's raison d'etre is. Therefore, I doubt many people vote for you without that issue being front and centre of their minds.



I dunno - the concept of democracy?



Oh jesus, is it that bad? Casual, unpoliced online polls (especially BBC ones, which are forever being hijacked by the BNP etc) are notorious for being rigged and bombed by spam accounts. Of the 1000 people (which in itself is a pathetically small segment of the population) you don't know if there are 100 people, 10 people or 1 person with way too much time on their hands pretending to be 9, 99 or 999 other people. You also don't know what demographic of the population that proportion come from, and so on. The results are effectively meaningless. And anecdotes? Well OK, I know 10 blokes who hated the EU and now think it's the bees knees. Therefore I beat your 1 bloke 10/1 so clearly I know what the country wants better than you. Do you see the problem there?



All complete conjecture. I could say all UKIP members are just in it because they'd be better off with their flat tax proposal and the abolition of inheritance tax, and couldn't give two hoots about the man on the street because I overheard someone say it on the tube. Would you believe me?



But we're not, are we? So come on - do you think Pearson played a blinder or put his foot in it up to his knee, do you support Monckton in his pseudoscience escapades and think it was acceptable for him to fraudulently suggest he was a member of the upper house, and what's your opinion on Farage cosying up to some really quite unpleasant groups that (and I repeat) caused some of your own members to withdraw?

And if you answer nothing else with a straight answer, just do the last one. Tell us what you actually think about people in your party, and then maybe you might sound less like some sort of policy-spouting automaton.

Exactly. Excellent quote



Well said Fozzy. Confirmation bias and all that....

_________________
http://redsparrows.tumblr.com

Usually I'd say it's unfair to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man, but I have to hand it to you guys. This destruction of Emmett is precise, clinical and hilarious.

Emmett - you know the old saying, "If you don't strike oil, stop boring"?

_________________
Ten seconds... the pain begins.

Fifteen seconds... you can't breathe.

Twenty seconds... you give up and turn off the Jeremy Vine show.