In a desperate attempt to get back on topic
Not So fast sunny.
Why are you trying to get elected?
To bring about change through the ballot box.
Contempt for voters who don't already agree with you
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.
who the hell would vote for people based on whether they've previously done OK at job interviews?
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.
Do you think that has any bearing on what people want from an MP
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.
Emmett Jenner wrote:
Now, the issue of the media and establishment being against us. This is real. There are rumours that the BNP is actually an establishment party.
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.
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.
There is absolutely no reason to assume your growth will continue.
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.
And don't pretend you're not a one-issue party simply because you have policies elsewhere.
Why should I pretend when it's true? We have a full manifesto.
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.
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.
Gordon Brown campaigning during 2010 wrote:
we need to ensure that MPs are permanently accountable to the people. That’s why I want the people to have the right in future to recall MPs where they are guilty of gross financial misconduct and Parliament does not act.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Emmett Jenner wrote:
The media know they ignore us as they have an answer prepared for any questions on the subject. The answer is as follows: "Since UKIP have no seats they aren't entitled to any media coverage." That is the excuse. The fact that there is one proves that they know they are ignoring us. So we do not just feel that they are working against us, we know they are.
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?
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.