ChatterBank4 mins ago
Ukip And Katie Holmes
Should UKIP welcome Katie Holmes' overtures?
http://
Or run screaming to the hills?
Tough one...Ms Holmes is a forthright and plain-speaking public figure, but arguably divisive.
Do you think she would be of benefit to UKIP?
http://
Or run screaming to the hills?
Tough one...Ms Holmes is a forthright and plain-speaking public figure, but arguably divisive.
Do you think she would be of benefit to UKIP?
Answers
Tough one - as UKIP are highly unlikely to be a force in government any time soon if ever they might like the fact that she'd keep them in the news. Even if you hate her she's very interesting to listen to - and I don't think for a second that she actually believes everything she spouts - it's done for effect.
13:05 Sun 16th Aug 2015
Yes. They polled 3.88m votes for their one seat. The SNP polled 1.45m votes and gained 56 seats. Regular readers will know I staunchly support “First past the post”. But you cannot draw conclusions about what people want or do not want from seats gained. UKIP polled more votes than the SNP and the LibDems combined, so quite a few people must be keen on what they were offering.
NJ...I agree with your spirited defence of the "first past the post" system.
But Farage has stood for parliament at least 7 times and hasn't been successful yet. If, as many on here would maintain, UKIP makes so much sense, why is he incapable of winning a seat ? Its not as if he hasn't tried hard enough !
Could it be perhaps that UKIP has made a laughing stock of itself, with its apparent inability to choose candidates that are not from the looney or fruitcake tendency ?
It seems to me that they are just not credible, or perhaps credible enough.
But Farage has stood for parliament at least 7 times and hasn't been successful yet. If, as many on here would maintain, UKIP makes so much sense, why is he incapable of winning a seat ? Its not as if he hasn't tried hard enough !
Could it be perhaps that UKIP has made a laughing stock of itself, with its apparent inability to choose candidates that are not from the looney or fruitcake tendency ?
It seems to me that they are just not credible, or perhaps credible enough.
khandro
But didn't we vote on a change to the voting system only a few years ago, and it was soundly rejected?
If as a democratic society, we have decided that we want first past the post, and some parties don't poll enough votes to win in their chosen constituency, then for want of a better word - that's tough.
To me, the biggest problem with PR (or indeed AV) is the likelihood of endless coalitions, and the inherent backroom deals which parties will have to enter into in order to implement policy.
But didn't we vote on a change to the voting system only a few years ago, and it was soundly rejected?
If as a democratic society, we have decided that we want first past the post, and some parties don't poll enough votes to win in their chosen constituency, then for want of a better word - that's tough.
To me, the biggest problem with PR (or indeed AV) is the likelihood of endless coalitions, and the inherent backroom deals which parties will have to enter into in order to implement policy.
//To me, the biggest problem with PR (or indeed AV) is the likelihood of endless coalitions, and the inherent backroom deals which parties will have to enter into in order to implement policy.// Why do you see that as a problem? a problem for whom? So maybe politicians have to take notice of other views, stay up late and make concessions sometimes. Isn't that what democracy is really?
With such weak labour party now likely as the official opposition, the UK looks set for a government which can do as it pleases, do you think that is a better version on democracy?
With such weak labour party now likely as the official opposition, the UK looks set for a government which can do as it pleases, do you think that is a better version on democracy?
Yes chancre I do.
Coalitions can work where parties (very broadly) occupy similar ground. The SNP could form a coalition with Labour, but not the BNP (for example).
The Conservatives could form a coalition with the Unionists.
But what kind of government would we have where you had UKIP, the Tories, the Greens, the Liberals and Labour all fighting to form a coalition with one or more of the others?
There's an interesting essay piece here on the advantages and disadvantages of coalition governments:
http://
Whilst I acknowledge the positives, I still feel that the negatives outweigh.
And like I said before - we voted against a change in the voting system - I don't see another referendum on this any time soon.
Coalitions can work where parties (very broadly) occupy similar ground. The SNP could form a coalition with Labour, but not the BNP (for example).
The Conservatives could form a coalition with the Unionists.
But what kind of government would we have where you had UKIP, the Tories, the Greens, the Liberals and Labour all fighting to form a coalition with one or more of the others?
There's an interesting essay piece here on the advantages and disadvantages of coalition governments:
http://
Whilst I acknowledge the positives, I still feel that the negatives outweigh.
And like I said before - we voted against a change in the voting system - I don't see another referendum on this any time soon.
Svejk
I don't see that happening. Remember, there will be a referendum on Britain's role in Europe before the next election. Whichever way it goes, UKIP will be damaged, because in the minds of most people, UKIP are a single issue party. Yes I know that they aren't, but if you asked 100 people about their policies on education, the environment, the economy, rural affairs and energy and climate change, I doubt whether more than 5 of those people would be able to confidently answer.
The election where UKIP should have made inroads was 2015. I don't see it happening in 2020 unless something goes hideously wrong with the economy, and under the Tories that's questionable.
I don't see that happening. Remember, there will be a referendum on Britain's role in Europe before the next election. Whichever way it goes, UKIP will be damaged, because in the minds of most people, UKIP are a single issue party. Yes I know that they aren't, but if you asked 100 people about their policies on education, the environment, the economy, rural affairs and energy and climate change, I doubt whether more than 5 of those people would be able to confidently answer.
The election where UKIP should have made inroads was 2015. I don't see it happening in 2020 unless something goes hideously wrong with the economy, and under the Tories that's questionable.
Do you think the electorate is also crystal-clear on the policies of the Conservatives or Labour? are you? I'm not for one, at least here is the UKIP manifesto anyway;
http://
http://
-- answer removed --
NJ, using your figures, 1.45 million votes for the SNP from a total population of some 5 million in Scotland is a substantial proportion, whereas 3.9 million votes for UKIP from a total population of some 66 million in the UK is pathetic by comparison. (Yes, I do know that entire populations are not voters, but I can't be bothered to hunt for electorate figures.)
Strangely, but encouragingly, at the recent election, there were frequent claims by English voters that they dearly wished it were possible for them to vote for the SNP!
Strangely, but encouragingly, at the recent election, there were frequent claims by English voters that they dearly wished it were possible for them to vote for the SNP!
I think UKIP should politely decline Ms Hopkins' offer of assistance.
They have a dubious history of unhinged party members being jettisoned at regular intervals, without going looking for another one.
Ms. Hopkins is honest enough to advise that she would be 'rubbish' as a politician - at least one who wishes to be taken seriously.
Her one-trick-pony 'I can be more offensive than you on a bad day ...' persona may well work in the world of entertainment, but it would survive long in the political reality where people are expected to put forward a valid opinion, and then back it up with evidence - not just call immigrants names and sit back while people go 'Oh I say! ...'.
They have a dubious history of unhinged party members being jettisoned at regular intervals, without going looking for another one.
Ms. Hopkins is honest enough to advise that she would be 'rubbish' as a politician - at least one who wishes to be taken seriously.
Her one-trick-pony 'I can be more offensive than you on a bad day ...' persona may well work in the world of entertainment, but it would survive long in the political reality where people are expected to put forward a valid opinion, and then back it up with evidence - not just call immigrants names and sit back while people go 'Oh I say! ...'.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.