There are a remarkable number of badly spelled posts which remind me of the Tea Party. They support the UKIP and call any one who doesn't go along the 'sheeple.' A retort to a poster about values, but I'm not sure if he's for or against the UKIP:
cecile 1 days ago
I'll tell you who's got different values - UKIP! All those poor turkeys voting for a future with scant worker protection, no minimum wage, few human rights and our economy wide open to exploitation worldwide.
Another by the same poster on low-turn out... which typically supports right wing nuts as we saw in 2010, replying to a query about the voter turnout:
cecile 1 days ago
Pretty low. In our ward it was 38%.
UKIP sounds like our own astroturf Tea Party. That comparison maybe made clearer in these retorts to UKIP supporters:
Ron Roberts 2 days ago
"Telling it like it is"? So you are in favour of privatising the NHS, taxing poor people the same as the rich and blaming people from Eastern Europe for the consequences of the banking collapse. Germany was a democracy before the National Socialists got in. Think about it...as you don't seem to be doing much thinking at all.
marsinah tidak mati 2 days ago
Ukip IS establishment. Farage went to a private school, was a City trader, Ukip was founded by a multi-millionnaire, and still is
Tubes 2 days ago
What a lovely country it'll be then. Workhouses, no NHS and run by an elite from public school. I hope the rioters come to your house first.
Some different takes:
Thinkandthought 2 days ago
Labour is defiantly the winner and UKIP is a protest vote. Farage 'change the face of politics will not happen' as they are running no councils to show they can manage anything. We had this in the 80s with the SDP same sayings never happened. When an election come people go for the safe ground.
As for the EU the UKIP MEPs need to go and vote if they want to change things and we all know that is not going to happen. They are a bit like benefit fraudsters, claiming money on a lie.
Labour win however is not as great as it should be and this says Ed Miliband should be replaced with someone who appeals to the average voter such as Tom Watson.
Best discussion here:
Squidapedoyt 2 days ago
UKIP are a very necessary part of the political scene. Their emergence was long overdue. Here’s why…
Taking the slightly longer-term view; political “settlements” tend to last 30-35 years. From 1945-1979, the dominant ethos was a social democratic/pluralist consensus. Policies emerged from a process of bargaining between governments, finance, industry, unions, local government, which in those days had real areas of independence, and various other groups. The advantage was that anyone could get their voice heard, because government did listen. The disadvantage was that compromises were often hard to reach and sometimes important decisions could not be reached at all. From 1970 onwards, there was quite a lot of loose talk about the country “becoming ungovernable”.
The current “settlement” under which we live began with Thatcher. She declared that “the job of government is not to listen but to govern”, stopped listening to everyone (including the Confederation of British Industry, by the way, they were quite cross about it, because they had always regarded a Tory government as their best friends), defeated the Unions in a series of epic battles, abolished Local Authorities which had the “wrong” ideas, in spite of the fact that millions had voted for them and polls showed their approval ratings were very high, and justified the whole thing on a “who runs the country?” platform. Her answer was “An elected Parliament and NOBODY else”.
The advantage was that quick and firm decisions could be taken where necessary. The disadvantage was that without the system of checks and balances that exist in a pluralist system, where many groups are involved, it became possible for the political elite to pull up the drawbridge, and become a self-serving, self-perpetuating group devoting their time to feathering their nests and doing sweetheart deals with their rich chums. This is the era when two important things happened. Government stopped listening to the people, and sleaze began.
Millions of people voted for Blair because they hoped he would reverse the changes Thatcher had made. Instead, he took them even further. Government became even more deaf, control-freakish and authoritarian, also even more corrupt and sleazy. Blair’s New Labour was one of the greatest and foulest betrayal of people’s hopes we have ever seen.
So now,. like the Social Democratic/Pluralist settlement, which lasted about 35 years, Thatcher’s authoritarian “the job of government is not to listen” settlement is also 35 years old. Bits are beginning to drop off it. People are obviously getting very sick of it. It is time for a new settlement.
I hold no brief for UKIP. I don’t like their leader or their politics. But if they manage to convince the mainstream parties that to go on ignoring people is simply not safe, they will have done a very good job indeed. Democracy in action. Shame it takes so long is all. 35 years is a long time.
As for exactly what form the new settlement will take, that is anybody’s guess. UKIP will obviously be an important part of it. But I doubt if they will be a dominant part. For one thing, their supporters, while vocal, are too few, and too many of them are too old, harking back to some mythical golden age. For another politics is hard work, and Farage’s record as an MEP shows he is simply too lazy. But if they manage to wake the political system up, (maybe even convince the mainstream parties it is time to begin listening again? Even involving us in decisions, perhaps, as once-upon-a-time they did?) UKIP will have done a good job, and for that I am very grateful to them.
jamesdar 2 days ago
Great post, really thoughtful. Thank you. Personally, I would like to see the emergence of a leftish party (the Labour party has long since ceased to be such) committed to what the EU calls "subsidiarity" (the idea that decisions should be taken at the lowest level possible) and personal (as opposed to corporate) liberty. Unfortunately, I see little prospect of this receiving much traction in the current mass media (unlike Farage).
Squidapedoyt 2 days ago
One problem is that in Britain we have a pretty authoritarian political tradition. This shows in quite small details, like we are subjects and not citizens.
For instance, an important but fairly little-known fact is that many EU regulations are "gold-plated" by the control-freaks in our Civil Service, i.e. interpreted in a far more restrictive and controlling style than is the case in other EU nations, often far more restrictively than the people who drafted them intended. Then our mandarins turn round, weep crocodile tears, and say "ah, but we have no choice, it is an EU regulation". It is worth reflecting on a) whose fault is it and b) who gets the blame?
Our masters love to control us and they are pretty good at it. You're quite right, "subsidiarity" would never be allowed to gain much traction.
Often find these English commentary boards to be better reading. There was also a comment regarding the faith of some of the UKIP supporters in their party, calling the existing structure corrupted by power. Which is almost always the case without checks and balances, most often with those who are appointed for life, another aspect mentioned in the comments.
The retort was logical and cutting. It said that when the UKIP got in, they too would be corrupted by power. And IF the claims made that they are a front for things such as the Teas and Libertarians push here for the Koch brothers, the results will be the same, even though the UKIP people on the thread used the 'freedom' and 'liberty' buzzwords freely.
= new reply since forum marked as read
