MEP Elections

[HalloweenJack]

I do chuckle with all the `Nazi party` comments regarding UKIP - honestly , those saying that haven't got a clue at all about real oppression. look at some US states for far far worse

[scaryjim]

... Say, Blair's '97 "landslide". He got, what, roughly 40% ... of those voting. Which was 55-60% ish of the electorate. So 60% of those that voted voted for someone else, and 40-45% didn't vote at all. I haven't done the calculation for a whike, but I seem to remember Blair getting that "mandate", for example to agree to Lisbon, on about 22% of the electorate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm strongly anti-FPTP - although your memory of 1997 is slightly cloudy (43.2% share of 71.2% turnout, ~ 31% of available votes ). Not that that changes your point, and it's one I'd agree with - our electoral system is horribly skewed and not at all representative.

Either way, this election should sent a very clear message. UKIP, firmly anti-EU, doing unprecedentedly well. LibDems, unashamedly and loudly pro-EU .... roundly clobbered, and very nearly eliminated entirely, at EU level. And given the near neck and neck between Labour and Tory, you can add a considerable degree of Tory Euroscepticism, at least to the extent and nature of the EU, to UKIP's wanting out.

Well, I'd give you that if it wasn't also the case that Con share in the EU election was down (3.8%), BNP share fell massively (> 5%), and Labour share was up (9.6%) almost as much as UKIP's - i.e. what's actually happened is that all the eurosceptic vote has moved to UKIP, and the majority of the pro-EU vote has moved to Labour - who are still pro-EU, although admittedly less fervently than LD. As I said previously, I also suspect a lot of Lib Dem supporters simply didn't vote - for instance, if you were strongly pro EU where would your vote have gone this year? There simply wasn't an alternative. So you're probably looking at a reasonble number of pro-EU voters who were totally disenfranchised by LD's actions in parliament.

So I don't think this is "a very clear message". It's evidence of a cooling of public attitude to the EU. It's something that the mainstream parties should absolutely take note of. But I don't think there's a clear message there - beyond "we're not happy", and frankly that's the clear message of pretty much every local and EU election in this country, which almost invariably show tanking support for the party (or parties) in government. Those messages very rarely translate into immediate General Election upsets.

And none of that changes my view that as an elected politician you should still turn up to committees that you're meant to be a part of

[Smudger]

Interesting article about the founder of UKIP:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...steins-monster

He makes some good points about their MEPs getting rich off the gravy train they say they're trying to stop...

And I know, it's the Guardian so some of you will dismiss it out of hand...

[scaryjim]

Good read that

I have to say I might have some time for Sked, despite his ardent euro-skepticism. I've long been a proponent of renationalisation, for one thing.

[HalloweenJack]

Good read that

I have to say I might have some time for Sked, despite his ardent euro-skepticism. I've long been a proponent of renationalisation, for one thing.

whereas the tories like to sell things off....

[peterb]

Good read that

I have to say I might have some time for Sked, despite his ardent euro-skepticism. I've long been a proponent of renationalisation, for one thing.

You don't remember BT when it was 'managed' by the government under the GPO - or any other government managed assets that suffered from chronic under-investment.

[scaryjim]

You don't remember BT when it was 'managed' by the government under the GPO - or any other government managed assets that suffered from chronic under-investment.

Actually I do, I just don't think privatisation has actually helped that much. We're still suffering chronic under-investment, the government is still subsidising a lot of those industries (transport in particular), and for the service provisions where you want national coverage, there's no good reason nationalisation can't work. Sure, the government can mis-manage resources, but so can private companies. Ever seen an openreach van on your street and sworn because you know your phone line's about to die? Privatisation at its best...

[peterb]

Ever seen an openreach van on your street and sworn because you know your phone line's about to die? Privatisation at its best...

No, only ever seen one and thought, "thats a repair they are doing, or upgrading FTC again"

The GPO infrastructure was dire, privatised BT poured billions into it to drag it screaming from the 1960's to the 1990's. System X and Y were groundbreaking, but were underfunded so never really reached full potential. It was more a case of a telephone service in spite of the Government, not because of. BT as a public company has returned far more to investors than it ever did as a nationalised company.

however, this is taking the subject away from EP elections!

[Saracen]

Don't get me wrong, I'm strongly anti-FPTP - although your memory of 1997 is slightly cloudy (43.2% share of 71.2% turnout, ~ 31% of available votes ). Not that that changes your point, and it's one I'd agree with - our electoral system is horribly skewed and not at all representative.

You're (of course) right about that 22%. Well, sort of. It was the 2005 GE that gave 22% (of the electorate) to Labour. I was right, however, abiut it beingcthe "mandate" on which Labour signed the Lisbon treaty .... evrn if Dear Old Brownie offended just about every other EU leader by failing to attend the ceremony, presumably he had "more important" business (maybe a haircut, or an impirtant epusode of Eastenders) than a hugely important international treaty signing, and instead, skulked in in the middle of the night to do it (or somesuch).

Anyway, back on point, the "mandate" for Lisbon, if you like, was 22%, or rather, 21.6%.

The intervening election, 2001, by the way, was some 24.5% of the electorate.

As for "skewed" results, oh hell, yes. That's why the Tories wanted boundary changes. They need to get some 6-7% more of the vote to get a majority than Labour do. If you compare percentages, the percentage that gave Labour a workable overall majority put the Tories in coalition with LibDems.

.....

Well, I'd give you that if it wasn't also the case that Con share in the EU election was down (3.8%), BNP share fell massively (> 5%), and Labour share was up (9.6%) almost as much as UKIP's - i.e. what's actually happened is that all the eurosceptic vote has moved to UKIP, and the majority of the pro-EU vote has moved to Labour - who are still pro-EU, although admittedly less fervently than LD. As I said previously, I also suspect a lot of Lib Dem supporters simply didn't vote - for instance, if you were strongly pro EU where would your vote have gone this year? There simply wasn't an alternative. So you're probably looking at a reasonble number of pro-EU voters who were totally disenfranchised by LD's actions in parliament.

So I don't think this is "a very clear message". It's evidence of a cooling of public attitude to the EU. It's something that the mainstream parties should absolutely take note of. But I don't think there's a clear message there - beyond "we're not happy", and frankly that's the clear message of pretty much every local and EU election in this country, which almost invariably show tanking support for the party (or parties) in government. Those messages very rarely translate into immediate General Election upsets.

And none of that changes my view that as an elected politician you should still turn up to committees that you're meant to be a part of

I think we don't know exactly what got UKIP their majority. The vote did, clearly, come from different places. Some Tory, Some Labour, some even LibDem and some that haven't voted recently, if ever.

It's also definitely the case that a vote for party X by voter Y doesn't necessily imply Y endorses everything X stands for. Other than in a single-issue vote, I.e. a referendum, every voter is presented wuth a blend of specific policies and, unless you start your own party, are unlikely to find any party that is a perfect policy match. I've certainly never found a perfect match.

So my vote has always been determined by, first, is there a party I absolutely rule out. I suspect most, if not all, people do this. For instance, personally, no way am I voting communist, and I'll go jump in a deep lake chained to a heavy lump of iron before I'd vote BNP. as I probably would if they won. I sure don't have any desire to live in a country run by them. Maybe emigrating would be a bit less extreme.

So, personally, I'm somewhere in-between.

Next, is there any single policy, or small group of policies that says to me, yup, that's my critical issue(s), and I'll vote that party, come what may on anything else.

Finally, if I still haven't reached a result and decided, who comes closest to my blend of most high priority issues?

And, I suppose bkended into that is a mix of personalities. For me, I just can't see Ed Miliband as PM. I don't think I could vote for that. I am NOT, however, under any circumstances, voting for any party that would put Ed Balls running the finances, because as far as I'm concerned, the bloke is a pretentious, pompous economically illerate RichardCranium (as someone on here recently put it) and I wouldn't, personally, want a part in electing him chief pooper-scooper, never mind Chancellor. Though, thinking about it, that might be apt, since he talks so much .... oh, better not say that on here.

I'm pretty confident there will be large numbers of people that would rule out voting Tory because of feeling much the same about Cameron or Osborne. And, for that matter, loads who feel that way about Farage and Cleggover.

Then, there's tactical voting. I have, for instance, sometimes voted not to try yo get someone in, but to keep someone out. Last time, for instance, I voted Tory, not as a pro-Cameron vote but as an anti-Brown vote. It worked here, too.

So, UKIPs vote? Partly protest, anti-establishment. Partly pro-Euro withdrawal. Partly anti-uncontrolled immigration. Partly, I suspect, because Farage (and several other UKIP spokespeople) don't vome across as slick, lying politicians. Time and again, I've seen leading figures from ALLL the main parties respond to a genuine, reasonable question by avoiding it, dodging it, changing the subject, twisting and turning, quoting random stats on side issues, and generally be evasive as hell. Farage, however, tends to answer pretty much directly, even when it's 'touchy' subjects like employing his wife. We may or may not like the answer, or agree with him, but at least he tends to "talk human".

My wife will tell you how many times, when watching the News, Newsnight, Daily Politics, Marr, whatever, the weasel-worded deceitful evasive little bleeps from the other parties have had me shouting "just answer the bleeping question, for bleeps sake, you stupid bleep".

Frankly, this time, I'd be tempted to vote UKIP just for the chance to watch the smug, self-satisfied smirk on leading members of all main parties fade to a sickly grin. I am, in short, sick of the sight of the whole bunch of lying bleeps.

So .... if I voted UKIP, it could be because I'm euro-sceptic, or concerned about uncontrolled immigration, or that I want a referendum and am seeking to hold Cameron's feet to the fire over it. Or even that he has the singular and sufficient advantage of not being one of the other lot.

However, while people vote for many reasons, perhaps with the single except of tactical (like my anti-Brown, anti-Balls stance), most people vote for a party with whom they sympathise with the broad ethos, if not every policy.

I think the vote for such an outsider, coming FIRST, does actually send a pretty clear message. It's not like Labour pipped Tories, or vice versa. It's a rank outsider thumping ALL the other parties. It's not just UKIP doing well, or gaining ground. It's winning, and on an election the theme of which is, specifically, the EU.

For me, the message is for the leaders of each of the main parties, and is clear. Wise up, shape up, and stop dilly-dallying about and avoiding controversial topics because you're worried about being politically correct. There are some major issues about which a LOT of the publuc are concerned. Start addressing them directly, or at the least, you risk our wrath at the next election.

Let me explain "wrath".

Typically, even if I've voted tactically at some elections, at GEs I've reverted to core principles and ignored parties with no GE credibility. Next time, however, I'm planning on ignoring traditional electoral credibility and just voting for who I most agree with, never mind what their chances appear to be. Unless one of the major parties starts talking to us properly, I will ignore them. There's been mych speculation over whether the UKIP vote will stick, of if people will "revert" because it's a GE. I won't revert this time, even it it means voting for a no-hoper. I've stopped listening to distortions, evasions and tripe from snake-oil salesmen, and whether my vote for someone else counts or not, the party I usually vote for WON'T be fetting it this time next year, unless they buck their ideas up, big-time. I might not help vote somebody in that I want, but I'm no longer going to help vote someone in I've lost all faith in.

I don't know what I will vote, but I do know the reason I make my choice will be different. And if large numbers of people are angry enough with the Westminster elite, and for any number of reasons, including expenses, failure to grasp Leveson, and so on, they just might be, then we MIGHT just end up with LDs collapsing, people refusing to back the elites, UKIP holding up out of anger if nothing else, and Farage holding the balance of power, where LDs currently do.

What is certain is that if UKIPs 28% holds up in a GE, or anywhere near, then depending on exactly where that is, even under FPTP, clusters of UKIP strength MIGHT result in a number of Westminster seats, and it MIGHT be enough to form a coalition.

Can parties, and party leaders, afford to ignore UKIP entirely, and risk that? I doubt it.

[Saracen]

Interesting article about the founder of UKIP:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...steins-monster

He makes some good points about their MEPs getting rich off the gravy train they say they're trying to stop...

And I know, it's the Guardian so some of you will dismiss it out of hand...

Not out of hand, but when it's a left-leaning paper interviewing a left-leaning and very bitter-sounding academic, whose main compliant seems to be that Farage stole his ball and went home with it, I'm also not going to give it too much credibility.

As for the stuff about MEPs expenses, mostly it's allowances not expenses. Second, Farage was ma, ing exactly the point that it's a gravy train. Yet funny about how when a left-leaning paper moans about it, it's always right leaning parties, especially UKIP they bitch about, ignoring the fact thatcall MEPs are "getting rich" on it. Oh, and what fid Farage say he uses the allowances for? Promoting the Eurosceptic cause, and the party. And what does UKIP stand for? Euroscepticism. Why do people vote UKIP? At least at that time, it was support gor Euroscepticism.

So ... Farage uses allowances he receives as an elected representative to fund the cause the people that elected him elected him for. And that's somehow wrong?

Where is the evidence, among all these loaded accusations, that he's used it gor personal entichment?

And if the Guardian was, for a change, going to present a balanced view, why aren't they accusing Labour snd LibDems of exactly the same thing? Why only UKIP?

And, after all, what's UKIPs objective? Either dissolve the EU (not going to happen), or withdrawing the UK from it. If we withdraw from it, we won't be sending MEPs, will we? So, Farage is enriching himself by actively being a turkey that's voting for Christmas? On the one hand, he's a scheming Machiavelli grabbing at the pot of gold, and on the other, he's stupid clod trying to kill the goose that's laying his golden egg?

Oh, please.

[Saracen]

Actually I do, I just don't think privatisation has actually helped that much. We're still suffering chronic under-investment, the government is still subsidising a lot of those industries (transport in particular), and for the service provisions where you want national coverage, there's no good reason nationalisation can't work. Sure, the government can mis-manage resources, but so can private companies. Ever seen an openreach van on your street and sworn because you know your phone line's about to die? Privatisation at its best...

Or applied for a GPO phone line, only to be told .... "certainly, sir. Should only be three or four months until we can install it".

Or got on an old British Rail boneshaker from Edinburgh to London, that ran 2.5 hours late, only to be told "sorry, no refreshment car tonight" and then to sit shivering for hours because the heating had packed up.

And yup, both are personal experience, and both under nationalised services which, frankly, were pretty poor.

[The Hand]

Well, I can't vote for MiliBacon.. sorry Miliband after THIS.

Some humourous variations HERE lol.

[Andy3536]

Well, I can't vote for MiliBacon.. sorry Miliband after THIS.

Some humourous variations HERE lol.

Looks even more like Wallace :-)

I really don't understand the Milliband/Clegg position on Europe.
They seem to feel a pro Euro policy = no referendom. And it's going to cost them votes come the general elections. A referendom isn't and forgone conclusion being a no.
Given how close Labour and the Conservatives were with the Euro vote, Labour could run it close if they were to offer leeway on the EU come the general election. If they get in, campain for a yes.
Milliband doesn't seem to offer anything you can vote for at the moment.

[cptwhite_uk]

To be honest I think that's what the PR gurus want him to do. Don't say anything that's too controversial that could damage opinion polls and ride into office on a wave of mediocrity under the banner of "might as well give him a chance, can't be worse than the last lot"

[Saracen]

To be honest I think that's what the PR gurus want him to do. Don't say anything that's too controversial that could damage opinion polls and ride into office on a wave of mediocrity under the banner of "might as well give him a chance, can't be worse than the last lot"

I think Andy3536 might well be right, though. Assuming that them believing pro-EU = we can't be trusted with the choice is part of the problem - it LOOKS, and frankly is, undemocratic.

After all, the Scots can be trusted to decide to stay in or leave the UK, but the citizens of the nations of the UK can't be trusted to decide to stay in or leave the EU? WTF?

There are, by the way, quite a few Labour and LibDem politicians that are firmly pro-EU and pro-referendum. Just not, it seems, party leaders.

Personally, especially now, I struggle to see how agreeing, finally, to a constructive debate, and then a referendum on in or not, now or in Cameron's 2017 isn't a vote winner for all. The trouble is, if it appears that they're dragged to it, kicking and screaming every step, they'll get no electoral benefit at all.

I actually wonder if either Miliband or Clegg could 'stick one' on the other, figuratively speaking, by agreeing to a referendum. If either gives in and goes for it, it's enough to ensure it happens, and it wrong-foots whichever of them held out.

[HalloweenJack]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27592487


he has a point tbh