Could UKIP win the General Election ?

[Pretty pink fairy]

They could win a fair few seats. They have successfully hoodwinked a lot of people into thinking they are an alternative and that somehow voting for ex Tories, bank rolled by ex-Tory donors will somehow "shake things up a bit".

Hoodwinked , what a din
regards
DR

 

[Higham Seagull Army]

Tories lurch to the right, should appease enough floating UKIP/Tory voters , Labour is in self destruct mode with a Ed Milliband shaped elephant in the room , Lib Dems are toast .

 

[5mins-from-amex]

There are countless, just refer to any political theorist. Personally I am an advocate of "direct democracy" coupled with elements of "social anarchism" - but I support anything that will lead to a fairer and more prosperous world, with equal rights and free speech.

It's important to consider that UKIP do not represent a fairer or more prosperous world, nor free speech or equal rights - these are things that all of us support, which is exactly why we would never tolerate far-right politics in this country.

What do you plan on doing? burning your bra? sit down protest? or as you keep banging on about would you start a revolution

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Because of its importance? We're talking about running a country here, not choosing what to cook for dinner. And I'm not suggesting you need a Phd to vote, more just the simple ability to understand very simple concepts and the ability for simple reasoning.

I'd be happy to become an unpaid instructor at the Voting School and provide my usual unbiased political instruction.

Slippery slope Herr T, slippery slope. So the next government then suggests you can't vote if you don't hold 5 GCSE's and then the next if you don't have blond hair. No, democracy should be available to everyone regardless of race, colour, religion, sexuality or intelligence.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Slippery slope Herr T, slippery slope. So the next government then suggests you can't vote if you don't hold 5 GCSE's and then the next if you don't have blond hair. No, democracy should be available to everyone regardless of race, colour, religion, sexuality or intelligence.

Wouldn't happen in ... oh.

 

[The Spanish]

J

Because of its importance? We're talking about running a country here, not choosing what to cook for dinner. And I'm not suggesting you need a Phd to vote, more just the simple ability to understand very simple concepts and the ability for simple reasoning.

I'd be happy to become an unpaid instructor at the Voting School and provide my usual unbiased political instruction.

Plenty of the electorate meet your implied education criteria but still are unworldly or idealistic to the point that in my view THEY should be disenfranchised, if anyone.

You either have universal suffrage or you don't. To espouse selective suffrage is at best a wind up, at worst, very sinister. There are no qualifications in common sense available through the education systems in the uk, currently.

You only have to look at the loons Brighton has voted in in recent years for proof, and a more vainglorious self regarding yet supposedly well educated electorate you couldn't hope to meet.

Even at the highest tier and with all our educational resources we struggle to supply decent management of a very complex society and a trillion dollar economy.

In the recent ethno nationalist attempt to cede from the uk, one of the key factors was moving the voting age down to include the naive and easily manipulated. If you want a restriction on the franchise, then I suggest raising the voting age up, conversely.

Our society has no respect for age or experience, and is the worse for it.

 

[GreersElbow]

The people are sick to death of Labour and Tories, the lies, the bullshit. Many want THIS country to be protected and fought for, you know, our people. Wake up England.

Protected? By UKIP. You're having a laugh.....

More frequent and potent protesting is an inevitability, one that we can observe right now all around the world. Protests themselves do little other than raise awareness - but it is the increasing awareness coupled with diminishing living conditions that will be the source of radical change.

What do I plan on doing? Go to work, live my life, join the debate and react accordingly once the time comes to protest or revolt.

Absolutely horrific that, I dread the day that our standards are the same as Myanmar, Sierra Leone or Haiti. Despite having the highest living standards ever, what the **** has capitalism ever done for us? The USSR was the envy of the world.

 

[fataddick]

Not sure if this has been posted, but the most reliable online calculator says that a general election result based on the percentages in the OP would give UKIP a grand total of THREE seats (Abderdeenshire West, Camborne/Redruth in Cornwall, and Gordon - wherever the hell that is). 24% spread out fairly evenly across the country - as UKIP's would be - equals the sum total of close to bugger all in terms of MPs elected.

FWIW Lab would have an overall majority of 40 with a total of 345 seats (+87 including Kemptown, Hove & Hastings)

Tories would have 240 seats (-75), Lib Dems 33 (-24) with the nationalist, minor and NI parties unchanged (Greens holding Pavilion) apart from the local NHS-linked party retaking Wyre Forest from the Tories.

So, in answer to the question in the thread title... NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. Plaid Cymru would have as many seats as UKIP.

 

[GreersElbow]

I don't believe you are actually this obtuse, but you could be.

There are countless alternative political and economic systems that have been devised by minds far greater than yours or mine - and contrary to your bizarre assumption that they will all result in Britain becoming a third world country over night, it is believed that some of them could even end world poverty, climate change and war.

This is brilliant.

World poverty, poverty is relative. Poverty to us would be luxury for the African child struggling to find something to eat. You also think Africa could be saved by giving them loads by the developed world, that ignores geography. There is a lot of land in Africa that cannot be used for growing crops, this is of course, not a particular economic system's fault but how it is. Socialism cannot guarantee it will end poverty in these lands, neither can capitalism. So what would alleviate and end all poverty as we know it? It is well known that foreign aid goes straight to cronies in government and never makes it to the communities its well intended to go to. So what system will prevent corruption at the state level and end poverty at the individual level?

Climate change, it's well known a lot of what's going on is irreversible. You can only limit how much we're doing now, but socialism doesn't mean that'll prevent it from happening. Socialism or alternative systems will still require production that will mean pollution. You will still need to have some level of coal and nuclear consumption in the periods you're transitioning from finite to renewable resources. That still will not guarantee the changes in the climate.

War, this is the one I'm most interested in; being a student of International Relations, to assume that capitalism is the cause of war ignores the rationality of state actors. Economic systems don't necessarily prevent or cause war. China and the USSR both communist in name, fought each other at one point and had strained relations. Latin America has never really been that united. Causes of war are dependent on numerous factors, economics isn't the primary one. Given if economics were, then no war would happen due to the cost of war. Even the most conservative and pro-capitalist international relation theorists, oppose war for this reason.

War happened before capitalism, war happened before feudalism, war is an extension of politics and alas, will always be an aspect of humanity; it's how things have always been. Tribes fought one another over land, tribes fought over lots of things including simple rivalry, that's little to do with capitalism. Alternative systems are archaic, especially egalitarian systems, given that's at the roots of human interaction and economy.

No system can guarantee anything because of the amount of variables in play, globalism doesn't allow for countries to just change their economic systems. And if you're calling for revolution, you best be damned sure of what the answer is, because you'd only set humanity one step back.

Now for your fallacious, strawman assumption that I meant Britain would change over night, unless you can specify exactly where I said that'll happen over night, please do. Otherwise it is your bizarre assumption, that's acutely fallacious. An example of an alternative system not working is Venezuela, didn't happen over night but over time and look at it now.

 

[Westdene Wonder]

No UKIP will not win the election but neither will Labour or Tories without them, If you do not want Labours paymasters to run the country then your course of action is straightforward

 

[Camicus]

No UKIP will not win the election but neither will Labour or Tories without them, If you do not want Labours paymasters to run the country then your course of action is straightforward

Unlike the tory paymasters or indeed U****s

 

[looney]

And the SDP were winning by-elections with the sort of swings that UKIP can only dream about. Not only that; the SDP were a credible party, with a rational set of policies and a formidable leadership, including four ex-cabinet ministers. If the SDP couldn't achieve any sort of breakthrough with their pedigree, how are the rag-bag bunch in UKIP going to do so with their back-of-fag-packet policies?

I find people who say this overlook the obvious. Labour now are arguably to the right of where the SDP was in the days of Militant and Micheal foot, so how far to the right will a future Conservative Government end up? Maybe you should take your comparison to its conclusion?

 

[Machiavelli]

Slippery slope Herr T, slippery slope. So the next government then suggests you can't vote if you don't hold 5 GCSE's and then the next if you don't have blond hair. No, democracy should be available to everyone regardless of race, colour, religion, sexuality or intelligence.

Without wanting to go too far into pomposity, look at Plato's critique of democracy. It's all you need to know about how democracy can go wrong -- one example: Germany in the early 1930s. What we all need to take into account is that democracy needs to be allied with intelligence (and that isn't coming from UKIP), in order for democracy to work. Farage couldn't give a toss about democracy. His silly 'let's claim all our problems lay at the foot of the EU' is merely a smokescreen so that we can't focus on the big issue that confronts us: neoliberalism.

 

[Soulman]

Makes me laugh when Germany 1930's always comes into play.....bring on The Crusaders and Mad Edward's Army.......let's delve into history and shoe horn it into present day.....that should scare those with an opposing view.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is brilliant.

World poverty, poverty is relative. Poverty to us would be luxury for the African child struggling to find something to eat. You also think Africa could be saved by giving them loads by the developed world, that ignores geography. There is a lot of land in Africa that cannot be used for growing crops, this is of course, not a particular economic system's fault but how it is. Socialism cannot guarantee it will end poverty in these lands, neither can capitalism. So what would alleviate and end all poverty as we know it? It is well known that foreign aid goes straight to cronies in government and never makes it to the communities its well intended to go to. So what system will prevent corruption at the state level and end poverty at the individual level?

Climate change, it's well known a lot of what's going on is irreversible. You can only limit how much we're doing now, but socialism doesn't mean that'll prevent it from happening. Socialism or alternative systems will still require production that will mean pollution. You will still need to have some level of coal and nuclear consumption in the periods you're transitioning from finite to renewable resources. That still will not guarantee the changes in the climate.

War, this is the one I'm most interested in; being a student of International Relations, to assume that capitalism is the cause of war ignores the rationality of state actors. Economic systems don't necessarily prevent or cause war. China and the USSR both communist in name, fought each other at one point and had strained relations. Latin America has never really been that united. Causes of war are dependent on numerous factors, economics isn't the primary one. Given if economics were, then no war would happen due to the cost of war. Even the most conservative and pro-capitalist international relation theorists, oppose war for this reason.

War happened before capitalism, war happened before feudalism, war is an extension of politics and alas, will always be an aspect of humanity; it's how things have always been. Tribes fought one another over land, tribes fought over lots of things including simple rivalry, that's little to do with capitalism. Alternative systems are archaic, especially egalitarian systems, given that's at the roots of human interaction and economy.

No system can guarantee anything because of the amount of variables in play, globalism doesn't allow for countries to just change their economic systems. And if you're calling for revolution, you best be damned sure of what the answer is, because you'd only set humanity one step back.

Now for your fallacious, strawman assumption that I meant Britain would change over night, unless you can specify exactly where I said that'll happen over night, please do. Otherwise it is your bizarre assumption, that's acutely fallacious. An example of an alternative system not working is Venezuela, didn't happen over night but over time and look at it now.

This is just nonsense. And complacent nonsense at that. You sit there from your comfort, making such claims. I'll only take note of such claims, when you've demonstrated that you know what life is like on the poverty-line, whether that would be in sub-Saharan Africa, or in the plethora of food banks that are proliferating in this county, as a result of the policies pursued by the party that you keep on defending on this platform.

 

[Eeyore]

Not sure if this has been posted, but the most reliable online calculator says that a general election result based on the percentages in the OP would give UKIP a grand total of THREE seats (Abderdeenshire West, Camborne/Redruth in Cornwall, and Gordon - wherever the hell that is). 24% spread out fairly evenly across the country - as UKIP's would be - equals the sum total of close to bugger all in terms of MPs elected.

FWIW Lab would have an overall majority of 40 with a total of 345 seats (+87 including Kemptown, Hove & Hastings)

Tories would have 240 seats (-75), Lib Dems 33 (-24) with the nationalist, minor and NI parties unchanged (Greens holding Pavilion) apart from the local NHS-linked party retaking Wyre Forest from the Tories.

So, in answer to the question in the thread title... NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. Plaid Cymru would have as many seats as UKIP.

The UKIP vote is more concentrated than that. They are nailed on for one of the Lincolnshire seats (Late 40s % in the Ashcroft poll). As the calculators are set to base their results from the 2010 election the main parties indicators may be accurate- the UKIP projections will not.

UKIP are probably heading towards 5-10 seats. If a Labour MP defects then the cat really is among the pigeons as the public perception of them being on the right wing will change. At the moment it's looking too close to the date for that to happen.

But they keep proving political obsessives like me wrong.

 

[glasfryn]

let them get a few dozen seats, stir it up a bit make an absolute balls of everything ..........then it might bring the mains parties to their senses and start listening to the voting public rather than studying there own backsides and bank balances

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Nightmare scenario if UKIP have any part in the Government. I'd have to emigrate to Valhalla.

 

[Hastings gull]

Without wanting to go too far into pomposity, look at Plato's critique of democracy. It's all you need to know about how democracy can go wrong -- one example: Germany in the early 1930s. What we all need to take into account is that democracy needs to be allied with intelligence (and that isn't coming from UKIP), in order for democracy to work. Farage couldn't give a toss about democracy. His silly 'let's claim all our problems lay at the foot of the EU' is merely a smokescreen so that we can't focus on the big issue that confronts us: neoliberalism.

With respect, this is yet another of those sweeping and simplistic statements, and in this case also rather meaningless. What does it mean, other than it isn't coming from UKIP? Presumably you are referring to voters, and of course the "intelligent" ones are those who share your vision? What evidence have you got to back up your assertion that Farage is so disparaging about democracy? UKIP do undoubtedly focus on the EU and immigration, and of course this is also what their critics focus on, but that is a long way from your other assertion.

 

[daveinprague]

Can UKIP do what??
haha

Having seen a twitter exchange between the BBC (Daily politics show), and South Thanet UKIP, in which the UKIP rep noticed the usual BBC bias holding a vote in front of a Mosque...The 'Mosque' being Westminster Cathedral....guess we will have to wait and see haha