|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 31, 2016 11:52:26 GMT
But Nuttall has not set his stall out, he has merely indulged in an unspecific airy generalist rhetoric of intent. this is a two horse race of left defending from the right. If there is no new distinctive policy stand to lay out through a high quality candidate, what exactly is the constructive point? UKIP is not yet a conventional political party but more a catalyst to cause things to happen. In this case where there is no prospect of victory or of a massive surge, the correct approach must be to accommodate our re-launch or to facilitate a Labour loss. The alternative would be vanity or tired mimesis of the other parties. Well, if you do that, you'll be seen as crypto-Tories, and, if so, good luck in the North. White working class North can vote for non-Labour at times. Not for Tories. You misunderstand the rationale of a large faction of those in UKIP for whom the enemy is the left/socialism/Labour quite as much as the EU and immigrants. But I acknowledge that it is not the whole of the party by any means. I write always as an individual and not from an official UKIP standpoint. Frankly I often don't know what the official UKIP standpoint is or even if they have one. I see UKIP as part of a mechanism to try to alter hearts and minds on three prime issues (Immigration Control Brexit and damage to Labour) and with Brexit in play the other two objectives become more important. This by-election does not have the potential to advance UKIP by very much in any manner, unless Nuttall has swiftly improved matters without me being aware of it. But it is an opportunity to do huge damage to the Labour Party. I am solely interested in the latter at this juncture. Looking ahead in the particular interests of UKIP as a party rather than a mechanism, we might do better in the next GE with Corbyn gone and less benefit to the Conservatives? Loss of Copeland would really damage the Corbyn insurgency and might put a bit of backbone in the centre left/right of the PLP? |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,931
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 31, 2016 12:08:38 GMT
Sorry carlton, but this hare just won't run. You may think UKIP not standing here would hurt Labour, I actually suspect it could be an enormous gift to us.
The party and its new leader would for many be a laughing stock if they sat this one out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 31, 2016 12:35:12 GMT
Well, if you do that, you'll be seen as crypto-Tories, and, if so, good luck in the North. White working class North can vote for non-Labour at times. Not for Tories. You misunderstand the rationale of a large faction of those in UKIP for whom the enemy is the left/socialism/Labour quite as much as the EU and immigrants. But I acknowledge that it is not the whole of the party by any means. I write always as an individual and not from an official UKIP standpoint. Frankly I often don't know what the official UKIP standpoint is or even if they have one. I see UKIP as part of a mechanism to try to alter hearts and minds on three prime issues (Immigration Control Brexit and damage to Labour) and with Brexit in play the other two objectives become more important. This by-election does not have the potential to advance UKIP by very much in any manner, unless Nuttall has swiftly improved matters without me being aware of it. But it is an opportunity to do huge damage to the Labour Party. I am solely interested in the latter at this juncture. Looking ahead in the particular interests of UKIP as a party rather than a mechanism, we might do better in the next GE with Corbyn gone and less benefit to the Conservatives? Loss of Copeland would really damage the Corbyn insurgency and might put a bit of backbone in the centre left/right of the PLP? I think we'll do better with Corbyn in place. I can't see any advantage in strengthening the centre-left of the Labour party (thus making that party more electable.) The focus of the new leadership of UKIP is all about targeting the 'patriotic working class' vote and that means taking votes off Labour (or at least retaining votes we took off them in 2015). This may well help the Tories to win the seat and conversely our absence would hinder that, but unless it is a candidate very much to our way of thinking ( a Phillip Davies type), I see no reason why we would want to actively assist a Tory victory. In your desire to find reasons to re-rat to the Conservatives, you must not overlook how deeply contemptible some elements of that party still are |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 31, 2016 12:35:56 GMT
Sorry carlton, but this hare just won't run. You may think UKIP not standing here would hurt Labour, I actually suspect it could be an enormous gift to us. The party and its new leader would for many be a laughing stock if they sat this one out. You need not be sorry your Grace, I speak as I feel, and do not presume to influence my party or any in this Forum. I am reasonably sure that UKIP will run but fear it will be a less than brilliant candidate and less than scintillating campaign. If this by-election becomes an out-and-out struggle between Conservative and Labour as it should, all other candidates will be squeezed as most electors opt for a favourite or to tactically block the one they do not want. If I were an elector I would vote Conservative. Against those thoughts I would not stand a candidate unless we have a really excellent raft of policies fully outlined and ready to deliver, defend and to expand upon. I am running no hares and I still think if we don't stand you are the losers! |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 31, 2016 12:40:21 GMT
You misunderstand the rationale of a large faction of those in UKIP for whom the enemy is the left/socialism/Labour quite as much as the EU and immigrants. But I acknowledge that it is not the whole of the party by any means. I write always as an individual and not from an official UKIP standpoint. Frankly I often don't know what the official UKIP standpoint is or even if they have one. I see UKIP as part of a mechanism to try to alter hearts and minds on three prime issues (Immigration Control Brexit and damage to Labour) and with Brexit in play the other two objectives become more important. This by-election does not have the potential to advance UKIP by very much in any manner, unless Nuttall has swiftly improved matters without me being aware of it. But it is an opportunity to do huge damage to the Labour Party. I am solely interested in the latter at this juncture. Looking ahead in the particular interests of UKIP as a party rather than a mechanism, we might do better in the next GE with Corbyn gone and less benefit to the Conservatives? Loss of Copeland would really damage the Corbyn insurgency and might put a bit of backbone in the centre left/right of the PLP? I think we'll do better with Corbyn in place. I can't see any advantage in strengthening the centre-left of the Labour party (thus making that party more electable.) The focus of the new leadership of UKIP is all about targeting the 'patriotic working class' vote and that means taking votes off Labour (or at least retaining votes we took off them in 2015). This may well help the Tories to win the seat and conversely our absence would hinder that, but unless it is a candidate very much to our way of thinking ( a Phillip Davies type), I see no reason why we would want to actively assist a Tory victory. In your desire to find reasons to re-rat to the Conservatives, you must not overlook how deeply contemptible some elements of that party still are Only too well aware Pete and thus still in my purple vestments! But I have been re-thinking both my own gut feelings and conventional wisdom and coming up with some contrarian results which I am running through this medium publicly as part of adopting my new position.................If I do actually adopt a new position? |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Dec 31, 2016 12:42:41 GMT
^This. UKIP have to stand, and they have to stand and fight the election regardless of what outcome their intervention might bring. Have never been keen on this 'standing down to enable another party' attitude that has seemed to gain some legitimacy or traction. UKIP are a separate party with separate policies and their own political agenda. Being seen to be propping up another political party is a really bad idea. Same of course goes for the silly 'progressive alliance' nonsense as well, which is why labour were right to stand in richmond even if there vote was small. Yes it might benefit my own party (and even then that is a dubious assertion to make) if UKIP don't stand, however I would not want to be the candidate who 'only won because UKIP didn't stand'. I think there are times when standing down is the right thing for a party to do. People join parties because their world-view (for want of a better term) chimes with their party's. It is their world-view that they want to promote and there are times when this is best done by backing another party. However I do not think this is the case for any of the parties here. If Labour selects a firmly anti-nuclear candidate (  ) perhaps the Greens would stand aside ... |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 31, 2016 12:52:16 GMT
Sorry carlton, but this hare just won't run. You may think UKIP not standing here would hurt Labour, I actually suspect it could be an enormous gift to us. The party and its new leader would for many be a laughing stock if they sat this one out. You need not be sorry your Grace, I speak as I feel, and do not presume to influence my party or any in this Forum. I am reasonably sure that UKIP will run but fear it will be a less than brilliant candidate and less than scintillating campaign. If this by-election becomes an out-and-out struggle between Conservative and Labour as it should, all other candidates will be squeezed as most electors opt for a favourite or to tactically block the one they do not want. If I were an elector I would vote Conservative. Against those thoughts I would not stand a candidate unless we have a really excellent raft of policies fully outlined and ready to deliver, defend and to expand upon. I am running no hares and I still think if we don't stand you are the losers! That is always true up to a point, but as maxque pointed out (albeit it he put it too broadly) there are elements of the white working class who may be repulsed by the Corbynite Labour party but who for cultural/ancestral reasons would never dream of voting Conservative. I suppose if UKIP were to stand aside, then this element might as likely not vote at all, but it would be better to give them an alternative they can vote for than to perhaps drift to Labour as what they may still see as the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Dec 31, 2016 12:56:21 GMT
I think there are times when standing down is the right thing for a party to do. People join parties because their world-view (for want of a better term) chimes with their party's. It is their world-view that they want to promote and there are times when this is best done by backing another party. However I do not think this is the case for any of the parties here. If Labour selects a firmly anti-nuclear candidate ( ) perhaps the Greens would stand aside ... Although the Green vote was + 2.1% at the 2015 General election and I enjoy (i hope) good relations with the green posters on this forum I'd have to say that this would be like giving away a £50 note to win 50p. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 31, 2016 13:00:19 GMT
You need not be sorry your Grace, I speak as I feel, and do not presume to influence my party or any in this Forum. I am reasonably sure that UKIP will run but fear it will be a less than brilliant candidate and less than scintillating campaign. If this by-election becomes an out-and-out struggle between Conservative and Labour as it should, all other candidates will be squeezed as most electors opt for a favourite or to tactically block the one they do not want. If I were an elector I would vote Conservative. Against those thoughts I would not stand a candidate unless we have a really excellent raft of policies fully outlined and ready to deliver, defend and to expand upon. I am running no hares and I still think if we don't stand you are the losers! That is always true up to a point, but as maxque pointed out (albeit it he put it too broadly) there are elements of the white working class who may be repulsed by the Corbynite Labour party but who for cultural/ancestral reasons would never dream of voting Conservative. I suppose if UKIP were to stand aside, then this element might as likely not vote at all, but it would be better to give them an alternative they can vote for than to perhaps drift to Labour as what they may still see as the lesser of two evils. A perfectly valid point of view Pete, and one I would have espoused until quite recently, and to which I may well revert again. But at present I would vote Conservative with or without a UKIP candidate. Perhaps a candidate and a rather lack-lustre campaign would serve both purposes? I can vote Conservative and disconsolate former Labourites can vote for us. Done! Compromise agreed. I work in Labour areas for our candidate and vote Conservative by post. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,029
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Dec 31, 2016 13:21:02 GMT
I like how middle class kippers literally talk about working class people in exactly the same tone as middle class Marxists.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 31, 2016 13:44:19 GMT
I like how middle class kippers literally talk about working class people in exactly the same tone as middle class Marxists. 1) Do you really 'like' it? 2) Is it really true? 3) Where did I refer at all to 'working class' people? 4) I mentioned disconsolate Labour voters from which you, in your head, inferred 'Ah! Working Class'. But in your head. 5) I mentioned 'working in Labour areas' from which you, in your head, 'Ah! Working Class'. But in your head. 6) I like how you always demonstrate you are a smug superior prick by your every supercilious post. Yes. I do like that. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Dec 31, 2016 13:53:19 GMT
If Labour selects a firmly anti-nuclear candidate ( ) perhaps the Greens would stand aside ... Although the Green vote was + 2.1% at the 2015 General election and I enjoy (i hope) good relations with the green posters on this forum I'd have to say that this would be like giving away a £50 note to win 50p. Er, it was a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Dec 31, 2016 14:20:42 GMT
Surely Nuttall has to stand himself, as he's from Bootle?
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Dec 31, 2016 14:51:01 GMT
Although the Green vote was + 2.1% at the 2015 General election and I enjoy (i hope) good relations with the green posters on this forum I'd have to say that this would be like giving away a £50 note to win 50p. Er, it was a joke.  |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Dec 31, 2016 15:01:48 GMT
That is a telling piece of intelligence and moves me towards seeing this as closer than 2015GE. I never thought to see the statement 'Conservatives unopposed in Bootle'! It looks as though the UKIP vote in the constituency is more inclined towards the Conservatives: adding that to the heavy leave vote in this constituency (approximately 60%) plus a decent polling lead for the Conservatives over Labour and I would say that the swing here will be from Labour to Conservative... The most recent Opinium poll effectively shows no swing across GB since May 2015 - indeed in England it suggests a swing to Labour from Tory of 0.75%. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Dec 31, 2016 15:27:13 GMT
Nuttall has set his stall out to make UKIP the primary opposition to Labour in white working class northern constituencies that voted leave. To not stand in a by election in just such a constituency would therefore be a very strange move which would suggest that UKIP is a complete irrelevance. I agree. I don't know the constituency at all, but from an outsider's perspective, UKIP not standing would be a very strange decision for a seat that seems to have exactly the profile UKIP seem to be aiming for now. Welcome to the forum and happy posting. I'm looking at your status and wondering whether to display you as a Liberal or a Liberal Democrat member. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 31, 2016 15:51:07 GMT
Surely Nuttall has to stand himself, as he's from Bootle? This is tongue-in-cheek, surely? Bootle is many miles away from Whitehaven, and somewhat different as well. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Dec 31, 2016 15:54:03 GMT
Surely Nuttall has to stand himself, as he's from Bootle? This is tongue-in-cheek, surely? Bootle is many miles away from Whitehaven, and somewhat different as well. Yes, I think Arthur's referring to Bootle ward within Copeland BC, which returned a Conservative unopposed in 2015. |
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,691 
Member is Online
|
Post by Jack on Dec 31, 2016 15:56:05 GMT
Surely Nuttall has to stand himself, as he's from Bootle? This is tongue-in-cheek, surely? Bootle is many miles away from Whitehaven, and somewhat different as well. I don't think Arthur ever takes his tongue out of his cheek.  |
|
|
|
Post by froome on Dec 31, 2016 16:05:42 GMT
This is tongue-in-cheek, surely? Bootle is many miles away from Whitehaven, and somewhat different as well. Yes, I think Arthur's referring to Bootle ward within Copeland BC, which returned a Conservative unopposed in 2015. I've often thought it would be good if places with the same name twinned with each other, with visits from organisations in each to the other. A Bootle twinning would be particularly fun to watch. |
|
) perhaps the Greens would stand aside ...
