I know who i'm going to vote for, but what about you?
all of them
But I'm not, in this instance, so I'm not going to.
So I'll probably go for my local Green candidate.
I think it's bloated and pissing money, but the freedom of movement and being part of the biggest trading block in the world is rad.
What does UKIP propose? To get rid of freedom of movement? So what are all these cunts gonna do?
I presume they're going to abolish the free market and implement a new centralised command economy.
Weird that you (and presumably many others) would jump to that conclusion.
Having control of your borders is not the same as putting up an impenetrable barricade which stops anyone from entering or leaving.
so it's a fair enough assumption if they wanna stop EU migrants "stealing our jobs" we couldn't go over to the mainland continent and "steal their jobs".
he's pretty dreamy & heroic don't you know, a great tall drink of water
I fancy Ukraine to get through to the final, they've got a pretty strong song this year and I reckon they'll get the X-factor sympathy story vote, might stick a bet on actually.
Russia to get 0 points?
Might go and spoil my ballot. Probably won't bother.
I will soon enough, but then i might not.
Can someone give me the jist (gist)?
Scotland (it's all one constituency for these) has a good chance of electing a Green Party MEP
Vote Labour L-P
Tories: stay in, but give the people a referendum on membership
Lib Dems: stay in, no referendum
UKIP: leave the EU, with or without a referendum
What exactly is the Labour voter voting for?
Is a very nice man.
I also wouldn't give the people the referendum, so the tories shant be getting my vote
Lib dems, meh
Yeah so what are labour saying to it?
although rather than saying outright that there's not going to be a referendum instead they've said it's 'unlikely'.
but then I'm sure you already know that.
According the link below:
"...the party will go into the next election promising an in/out referendum, but only if a government he [Miliband] leads wants to sanction a transfer of power to Brussels...But despite the promise, party sources do not believe that the transfer of power that would trigger the proposed in/out referendum will actually occur... Miliband says it is unlikely there will be any such proposals for a transfer of powers in the next parliament."
Yep, 'pretty clear' indeed.
referendum only if more powers to be transferred from UK to EU. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/11/ed-miliband-referendum-europe
I thought that's what Clegg said too (when debating Farage)
And I figured the Greens were straight up no referendum stay-insies.
you wonder what the threshold for 'more powers' would actually be.
I suspect they'll only draw the line when the EU tries to outlaw wiping your arse downwards.
He just reminded me to register to vote at my new place.
Really wish you could vote for candidates, not parties in the Euro Elections.
THREE FOR THE PRICE OF ONE!!!!!!!!!!!
Where has Mayoral elections?
although Watford isn't in London and isn't a borough. It's had an elected mayor for longer than most places though... the only one they've had to date used to teach at my school. No-one could tell you what subject she actually taught though.
I don't disagree with the overarching sentiment but this is too accusatory towards individual immigrants rather than the system as a whole.
Basically anyone but Admiral Ackbar and his nutjob fascist party. Or the Toffs.
Other than that I'm easy.
Neither the EU or even the word 'Europe' is mentioned even once! Actually unbelievable.
Why would you vote Labour in the elections (beyond tribalism)? Does *anyone* have any idea what they'd be voting before?! Not just on the referendum issue, but on anything?!
they'd be voting for the potential look on George Osborne's face probably.
I thought you'd already decided Labour had nothing to say to Europe; I'd have thought you'd have expected them to waffle on about something else.
they're just not saying anything!
Of course it may be politically expedient for them to side step the issue, but to (deliberately) not say even one word relevant to an election seems very strange indeed.
[a selection of properly top notch mofos] this'd ^this.
country where people are swayed by Daily Mail headlines and where there's a general atmosphere of fear and hate. I shall be voting UKIP.
vote for to keep UKIP out? I'm very ignorant with European elections. Which voting system is used?
If it is I just rank the leftie ones according to how funny their name is, then leave the others blank or write fuck off or something
If it's something else just draw a picture of Nigel Farrage and a note saying 'not him plz'
so there's not really any way to stop them getting seats apart from voting for another party.
Only for the euro elections mind.
I'd quite like a referendum on EU membership. Undecided on how I would vote in that referendum itself, but we need to get one before I concern myself with that.
Of course, UKIP can't give us a referendum - only the Tories can/will. By UKIP having a strong showing in the euro elections it'll put pressure on the Tories not to water down/rescind their commitment to a referendum in the general election next year.
I've never really been into tactical voting, but it seems to make sense to do so this time round. UKIP do make it bloody difficult though by being largely populated with dickheads.
But i'd imagine there any many other right-leaning types in a similar 'dilemma'.
the hating shit comedians thing has swayed me
don't even trust myself to make decisions that only affect my own life. think I'll hand my vote over to a committee of alright disers
Your apathy means my opinion is given more importance.
but it also means that the EU has even less legitimacy. Not that I'm a mad euro-hating UKipper, just that I'm undecided by the EU and don't like it's undemocratic nature (the irony hear is I'm not voting, I geddit).
Might still vote though. Haven't made up my mind yet but not voting is a completely valid political stance. It can be as thought through and considered as any other choice, just as it can be as blind and apathetic as ticking the box marked "Tory" or "Labour" without thinking.
Voting to mix things up > apathy to voting & apathetic voting
Which is why, whilst I would never vote for them myself, I admire how the kippers are managing to fuck up the zombie parties.
TAKE THAT UKIP
Not voting is probably the most best thing to do.
if you were voting in the same constituency. As it is, Meow's decision has little relevance on your opinion's importance.
But it's all part of the same election, so hey ho.
Anyone want to buy her vote off me?
for the Greens, to help boost the visibility of the London MEP push/Tower Hamlets mayoral race.
Going to paint a broom green and walk around Mile End shouting that I'm going to 'clean up this mess'. I think that'll definitely secure me the big victory.
Impressive Googling skills, I can't find a list of candidates anywhere!
Also got your address so won't post.
Within Europe Labour's priorities are tackling climate change and discrimination to protecting consumers and vulnerable people.
Maybe this will satisfy your curiosity, but maybe you demand more?
I am sure you'd prefer that the Labour party spend more time focused on the issue of Europe like the Tories do.
But Labour will continue to make its primary focus the cost of living crisis, the housing crisis, the care crisis and the complete lack of action on the banking system.
When the right is done masturbating over the issue of Europe the country would be well served if they turned their attention back onto addressing these real problems.
But do feel free to continue talking about Brussels if you must.
I'm kinda flappin' in the breeze as far as public broadcast of my personal info is concerned, eh?
Politics often has a knack of captivating the minds of the mentally ill.
It seems like each further seat is more difficult to get, so votes for smaller parties are more likely to make a difference?
a tacit endorsement of racism?
a perception of racism?
the link between UKIP('s policies) and racism is your perception of the situation - it is not objective, as your post implies.
So voting UKIP is a tacit endorsement of what *you* perceive to be racism. Others may not see it that way.
If it walks like a duck...
You may perceive UKIP's policies to be racist - I don't.
UKIP has racists within its ranks, but so do all political parties. This, to me, doesn't make them a racist party - nor is voting for them an endorsement of racism.
And they have a far higher proportion of members, and members who have achieved high rank in the party, who are being publicly racist.
a tacit endorsement of authoritarianism, the status quo and the Westminster bubble?
by the establishment.
It's like Tea Party Republicans in the US.
when in the UK they don't have a single MP, and want to secede from a wider centralized government that is the EU?
that, as we're repeatedly told, will only suffer from the UK seceding from the EU, and the media which constantly fails to undermine their support.
and I can't work out if it's the syntax that's made it completely incomprehensible or
make up the higher escelons of the party, and 80% of the press support them.
They are the old-boy network of the Tory party writ large.
and the Conservative cabinet, then try to make that claim again...
Anyone would think he had something to hide.
It's a party formed in the golf clubhouse and member's club.
I'd say it's a more difficult feat for Peter Nuttall, alumnus of Edge Hill, and Farage, who never went to University, to achieve than your average Eton and Oxbrige politi-bot.
I think you'll find there are a lot less career politicians in the UKIP ranks than in any of the big three parties, even if they're not ex-nurses, shopkeepers or refuse collectors. It's not ideal but it's a step in the right direction.
Before her election to the European Parliament, Honeyball's career was in the charitable and non-governmental sector. During the 1980s she ran the Council for Voluntary Service in the London Borough of Newham, before going on to work as a Senior Manager for SCOPE, the cerebral palsy charity. She was later the General Secretary of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation from 1994 to 1998, and prior to that Chief Executive of Gingerbread, the charity for single parent families. She was also a councillor in the London Borough of Barnet from 1978 to 1986. Honeyball unsuccessfully contested Norwich North for Labour in 1987.
Honeyball was Chair of the Greater London Labour Party Women's Committee during the 1980s and spent three years as Treasurer of Emily's List, an organisation that helps pro-choice Labour women campaign for seats in Parliament.
A councillor in Barnet from the age of 25. Definitely could argue she's a career politician. But you couldn't dispute she has a fantastic record from her career.
Most career politicians have similar records. Usually because they've driven people who want to contribute to society - and from a young age and not just 6 months prior to an election.
In the big parties there is genuine competition for MEP, MP, MSP, AM and Councillor positions and the caliber of candidate, as individuals, is usually quite high with candidates with strong backgrounds and records of working in their communities.
And that's a good thing. Wanting to make a difference and campaigning *FOR*something that you and other people care about isn't, in itself, a bad thing.
The average UKIP candidate hardly ever has a record in their community or in a volunteer sector - because their narrow-mined attitude is 'fuck the lot you'.
It might be a sentiment you share. And that's fine.
I'm sure that career path has made her well-versed in the art of question avoidance and doublespeak endemic to party politics, and if not then she's in a small minority as far as I can see.
Once again someone completely fails to understand the reason so many people are getting behind UKIP at the moment. It's not to say 'fuck the lot of you', it's because the message from Westminster to the white working classes in declining ex-industrial towns and cities has been exactly that - 'fuck the lot of you' - from all three major parties for as long as they can remember. And UKIP are the only party acknowledging that at the moment.
the white working classes in declining industrial towns.
The idea that they won't is all spin and deception, conducted with the help of an agreeable press.
Your predictions may well come to pass but for a great many people, it's worth a shot, because the alternative is a vote for more of the same, and when all you can see in your future is workfare (which all the main parties seem to support) and foodbanks, that's not really an option. I'm lucky, I got out, but for most of my twenties, I and many of my family and friends from one of the aforementioned declining industrial towns were staring this in the face. Still, I suppose you're going to continue to sit there and claim we're all being brainwashed by right-wing media because poor people couldn't possibly have the intelligence or agency to make their own mind up.
"Still, I suppose you're going to continue to sit there and claim we're all being brainwashed by right-wing media because poor people couldn't possibly have the intelligence or agency to make their own mind up."
Which part of the right-wing media are you referring to? From what I can see support for UKIP is as equally absent in the right-wing media as it is in the left-wing media. People's misguided faith in UKIP appears to immune to the criticism they receive in the media.
Farage is using the 'everyone is out to get us' card as a distraction. What has he ever said of any substance to explain what exactly his party have to offer?
No support for UKIP in the media, as you say
Or 80% of the press supporting them, as Marckee says?
Is withdrawal from Europe not a big enough policy to have on the table in the EU elections?
The papers push countless articles and columns that further the agenda and policies of UKIP, in part with the hope of bouncing the Tories into shuffling even further to the right, then with a month to go until an election the and the Tory party suddenly get spooked and start running stories outing candidates as loony-racists. There's never any attempt to challenge their policies, probably because increasing privatisation, restricting benefits and removing workers' rights even further than any other party, abolishing inheritance tax, abolishing National Insurance, introducing a flat-rate tax, introducing huge public spending cuts, repealing the Human Rights Act, increasing defense spending by 40% and being climate change deniers are all in the interests of the papers' multi-millionaire tax-avoiding owners and their friends among the 1%.
I thought it was well known they don't actually have any? At best you can say they're ideas some member of UKIP or other might have kicked around in the last few years.
Are you saying that they don't have any policies? In which case why would anyone vote for them? Or are you saying that people vote for them, because of their rhetoric but don't actually know what their policies are?
It's not hard to find their policies. Why would someone who is considering voting for them not know their policies, unless they were "all being brainwashed by [the] right-wing media because [they] couldn't possibly have the intelligence or agency to [find out for themselves]"?
I admit the previous manifestos contained some bizarre, reactionary stuff - not something I could personally support at the time - but they've been disowned since the party have found some legitimacy.
Here's the current European manifesto:
Here's the local manifesto:
and there's very little in there that correlates to what you're saying.
They're tailored to the European elections, so don't really mention many domestic policies, but outside of the stuff that is anti anything to do with the EU, most of the things I mention are in there, including opting out of the European Court, refusing to acknowledge climate change, privatisation, cutting public spending etc.
Oh, and that manifesto
"We're the only party being honest about immigration, jobs and housing"
You are awful.
I got distracted by something else.
I meant to say that the manifesto has some outright untruths in there, claiming that the pressures on green spaces is 'largely brought about by population pressure caused by mass immigration,' and similar ones re. public services etc.
It's a small factor when it comes to housing (compared to the failure to build over the past 30 years, buy-to-let, buy-to-leave, right-to-buy, changing family demographics, under-occupation by empty-nesters etc), and the immigrants coming to the UK are net contributors in terms of taxation revenue etc. Things like the abandonment of Building Schools For The Future, the advocacy of Free Schools, the cutting back of NHS investment and the running down of staff morale are the things putting pressure on local services.
Also, the figure they give for health tourism is an outright lie.
...rather UKIP specifically. There is no way that 80% of the press are supporting UKIP.
The problem with their desire to withdraw from Europe is the lack of any meaningful explanation as to why they believe it is the right thing to do. It is nothing but empty rhetoric.
and Farage set out his stall pretty well. You might well disagree with everything he said, but I don't think you can really say he didn't meaningfully explain why he wanted out any more than Clegg meaningfully explained why he wanted in (and it's much easier to gather stats for something that's a current reality, rather than a hypothetical situation). The public certainly didn't seem to think Clegg's arguments were infallible going by the polls.
Debates, in the view of the public, are won by who 'sounds' more convincing regardless of the validity of the arguments (the public don't know whether the stats that are thrown around are accurate). The fact that people found Farage convincing does not make him correct. It is not a case of agreeing or disagreeing with him - many of his statements were objectively either wrong or misleading. For his part, Clegg was woeful so I am loathed to call either of them the winner.
I was talking about the MEP candidates of the various parties (as were you I though) and not the voters. So say what you want about why the white working classes are voting UKIP, the leadership is not from that background and is seeking to exploit prejudice and ignorance to achieve a political agenda to the hard right of the Tories.
But while we're on the topic of failing to understand UKIP's support, it should be noted that the regions UKIP do best in are the South West and East of England. The regions with the greatest number of declining ex-industrial towns (North East and North West) were the fourth and fifth least likely regions to support UKIP behind Scotland, London and Wales.
Your assertion that the three main parties don't care about the white working class is subjective.
But so is your third sentence. It's an interesting one because it's largely a question of principle and faith rather than cold hard facts (which are always different depending on who you ask). Labour has its strongholds in the North but they're slowly being eaten away because UKIP seem like the only party directly addressing the white working class rather than talking over them, to the middle class, like they don't exist or are a problem to be dealt with. Even Labour seems quite keen on workfare and are probably more determined to flood the market with unskilled labour than the Cons.
[Labour] are slowly being eaten away because UKIP seem like the only party directly addressing the white working class
Can you provide any evidence for this?
Polling indicates Labour will increase their share of the vote in all regions.
Polling also indicates that white working class people are most likely to not vote at all in this election, but if they are voting they're most likely to vote Labour.
I don't want Labour to be complacent with working class voters that they need to connect with. But a bit of evidence that UKIP have pulled the rug up from under Labour's feet in their heartlands wouldn't go amiss.
Still, Wales (lots of Labour MPs):
Chance of a UKIP MEP in the North-East (UKIP about 4% behind Lab in polls):
The surge in support is coming from somewhere and I'm not convinced it's solely disillusioned Con/Lib voters. I know these articles don't necessarily prove the support's coming from the white working class either, but if you study the source of the polls, it shows UKIP poll consistently lower in readerships of publications more associated with the middle class (Guardian for one). Still, you can't always rely on polls; the sample size is usually pretty small and they often miss the mark - look at how well the Libs were predicted to do before the 2010 election, for example.
But no thanks for not answering my question.
the BNP always did better than average in Wales. The BNP implosion will help UKIP.
How does that work then? And if that's the case then why are people so worried about them getting any power if they'll be serving the same interests as the current government?
our generation's George Washington.
nor a particularly helpful one for anyone who wants to fight much of what UKIP stand for.
People 'finding out' UKIP, or some of UKIPs candidates, are racist probably won't stop people voting for them who would've voted for them anyway.
There needs to be a bit more focus on their policies (ie, making people pay to see their GP, more privatisation of public services) to stop people casting their vote for them.
It's for national elections but still fairly interesting.
Voter power in Hornsey & Wood Green
Though it's ranking of my current address as 0.009 is about right
i don't want to vote Tory, Lib Dem, UKIP, BNP or Labour though.
I'd go for the Harmony Party. They sound nice.
"Zero-Immigration, Anti-EU, Pro-Jobs."
Apart from a low-ranking Surrey Tory and a low-ranking LibDem based in Belgium, he's the only candidate who's not actually based in the East Midlands.
I guess that leaves the Greens for Jordan.
dunno what they've said about anything recently though
Do I have to do my own research like a chump?
It reads like it was written by a bigoted 6 year old.
the swastikas were a bit much
just saw this
I love the aspirationalism, business friendly, free-market, small state side of the Tories... and yet dislike many of their policies on security and immigration. I don't like the pandering towards UKIP. I live in a wonderful, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic city and I don't want that to change. UKIP are a bunch of charlatan fraudsters. They're a haven for the far right and if anything, the weakening and splintering within the BNP is only going to accelerate this. I used to be fairly sympathetic to UKIP, labouring under the illusion (that quite a few small state liberals had) that they could be a vehicle for a sensible form of libertarianism - that certainly hasn't happened.
Wonder what Kitchmo thinks on this one as I reckon he's fairly close to me on the political spectrum.
Any pandering to UKIP makes me feel sick. They represent everything I found faintly uncomfortable about the Conservative party.
I also think it's bad politics too.
I said before the election that my hope was a Con/Lib Dem coalition, in the hope that it would end with a pro business, small (but sensible, i.e. stepping in when genuinely needed) state which was socially liberal. It hasn't worked out the way I hoped, and the way that the Lib Dems have acted in Government has pushed me into being fully Tory.
I agree with you on UKIP too, I think a lot of people saw them as a vehicle to move the right forwards in a positive way, as when they first broke through they had a many more classical Liberal elements than now. It has gone in exactly the opposite direction, and they've become a place where the Broadmoor wing of the Tories can point to to justify electorally their worst views, and a place where racists can feel comfortable dog whistling away.
I think long term, the best thing for the country (and for people who believe broadly what we believe) would be a genuine split in UK politics. The Cameron Tories/New Labour/Orange Book Lib Dems creating a Macmillan style centre right party, the hard right of the Tories joining with UKIP to create a hard right, and the SDLP of Lib Dems/Labour Left creating a genuine left, with the Greens etc picking up the hard left. Then at least we'd have debate in this country about how we should govern the country, not the bastardised version of Blairism everyone subscribes to atm.
a fully Tory government (and a fully Tory government consisting of a Cameron cabinet) would be better for the country?
Talk about learning the wrong lessons.
I don't think a lack of maturity particularly describes the Lib Dems in government any more than Labour or the Tories.
How so? They've been naive, as czuk points out, but I think that's owing to them not realising quite how the Westminster machine works (cf. Matt D'Ancona's book on the Coalition) as opposed to anything else. And, also, why would they? They've not been in government before...
Intrigued as to how you think they've been immature. Seems to me there's been plenty of politics `played` on both sides. Especially when Cameron stitched Clegg up over the AV campaigning. Which we can all look back on and laugh now but at the time Clegg must've been fucking livid.
Cameron and Clegg still do their Sunday night phone chats though don't they? Think it's pretty remarkable that this coalition still exists in as strong a form as it does to be honest. Think if the Lib Dems had been genuinely immature it'd have fallen apart 2 years ago.
Think we're in for another 6 years of it myself :(
I did post at 8am tbf
To be honest I'm just waiting for Kitchmo's response to marckee up there regarding what he perceives the overtly negative impact of the Lib Dems in the Coalition to have been.
But the second paragraph is exactly why I voted UKIP in 2009.. and why I probably won't be this time.
There are reasons why the parties are constructed the way they are. These are to do with history, ideology, geographical strength, demographic appeal and the personalities of key people.
What even is the point of your post? You'd like UK politics to be organised completely differently to suit you? Great.
and restrictions on media ownership and press regulation.
As that's the only way you're likely to see any of that happen.
was gonna say: apart from PR often resulting in coalition governments which nobody voted for; the disproportionate power given to smaller parties with no popular mandate as 'kingmakers'; the undemocratic nature of party list systems which mean the central party has the power to determine the order and obviously is more likely to choose candidates more aligned with them (and men); the fact that many 'PR' systems aren't actually proportional and deliver governments with a majority of seats on a minority of votes (as in Scotland).
apart from the party list side of things, I don't think much of it is any worse than the current system- especially if you keep a constituency link with it.
Plenty of people here say they want the Labour party to be different and barely ever get called up on it.
for five minutes.. but then it would dawn on us Ed Miliband was really a cyborg who runs on Horlicks and maudlin acoustic folk.
Though if you take any warmongers and alleged nonces out of the equation, I can't imagine anyone in Labour being a more horrible bastard than IDS.
wtf would he talk about 'wanna leave, m8'