Could UKIP win the General Election ?

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Tonights latest opinion poll shows

Labour 31%
Tories 27%
UKIP 24%
LibDEms 9%

Is it possible that UKIP could end up with the largest number of seats ? Especially after todays usual spin from Osborne and the Euro rebate

I think they are going to do a lot better than some people dare to think.

How well they do I think depends on the turn out.

In 2010 65% of people voted. People are fed up with politics, and its going to take sdomething different to get them to vote. UKIP could be that somehting different.

People are going about how many Labour/Tory voters will UKIP win. I think the main worry for the establishment should be how many of the 35% who didn't vote last time come out and vote UKIP. I think that where the difference between winning and losing a lot of seats lie.

Can UKIP win it, I doubt it.

Could UKIP come third, probably, second, I would not be surprised.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Irrelevant both to me and the thread. Okay, getting back to the point. I'll try and explain this as simply as I can. UKIP are perceived as both racist ( only by left wing lovies ) and ill prepared ( yes, in some circumstances but so was Red Ed with his speech for example ). They have members who have displayed outright racism, they are very right wing ( right wing yes, not VERY right wing ), they have members with links to the BNP ( any member found out to have BNP connections is expelled, remind me how many other political parties expel extremists ? Ah, none. ) and their primary objective is focused on immigration ( no it isn't, their primary focus is leaving the EU ).
With me so far?
Good, now, given that this is the general perception of the party it makes it appears, rightly or wrongly that people who would follow such a party are likely racist and quite ill informed.

I did not state you were either of these things but that you appear to be. Your last few posts have done nothing to rid me of this pre-conception.

Well done for an arrogant, condescending post . Maybe I should post in script form given actors are a little simple ?

 

[daveinprague]

I was refering, in passing, to the fact that you are a proven liar.

Oh dear...UKIP supporters get a bit 'touchy' when you make fun of their party dont they!
Even when the 'party' makes complete dorks out of themselves publically. Cant understand why the UKIP hierachy told their activists during Reckless's campaign not to speak to the press.

 

[User removed 4]

Anyone that acts 'for a living' appears a work shy layabout and is probably gay given they're all lovies. See, we can all generalise incorrectly.

He'd give his right arm if only that were true

 

[Creaky]

Difficult to take any party seriously that has a collective noun for their members that sounds like a Monty Python insult - Ukippers -

 

[Hastings gull]

Irrelevant both to me and the thread. Okay, getting back to the point. I'll try and explain this as simply as I can. UKIP are perceived as both racist and ill prepared. They have members who have displayed outright racism, they are very right wing, they have members with links to the BNP and their primary objective is focused on immigration.
With me so far?
Good, now, given that this is the general perception of the party it makes it appears, rightly or wrongly that people who would follow such a party are likely racist and quite ill informed.

I did not state you were either of these things but that you appear to be. Your last few posts have done nothing to rid me of this pre-conception.

Thanks for explaining this as simply as you can, as the readers here can now understand, not obviously being on your higher wavelength. To an extent, I can see what you mean and there clearly is this perception, often highlighted in the press, and from anti- UKIP critics on NSC. Fair enough, that this their right. Whether there this is the general perception, is far less clear, and whether they are racist and ill-informed even more so. Furthermore, the accusation that they are very right wing might not necessarily be seen as a disadvantage; you clearly think so, others will take a different view. This is all your interpretation, and, I submit, a rather convenient one. I am sure that you are right that some do have links with the BNP etc etc, and some are "racist" (that lovely over-used word) as are voters for other parties, but by your logic in the three by-elections, the roughly 40,000 people who voted for them are therefore "likely racist and ill-informed" Somehow, I very much doubt that this is true, any more than you could say that those who didn't vote UKIP are likely to be well-informed and not racist.

 

[Nibble]

Well done for an arrogant, condescending post . Maybe I should post in script form given actors are a little simple ?

Feel free to post in whatever format you feel most comfortable with. Though if I were you I'd be tempted to stick to gibberish, it seems to be your forte.

 

[Nibble]

Thanks for explaining this as simply as you can, as the readers here can now understand, not obviously being on your higher wavelength. To an extent, I can see what you mean and there clearly is this perception, often highlighted in the press, and from anti- UKIP critics on NSC. Fair enough, that this their right. Whether there this is the general perception, is far less clear, and whether they are racist and ill-informed even more so. Furthermore, the accusation that they are very right wing might not necessarily be seen as a disadvantage; you clearly think so, others will take a different view. This is all your interpretation, and, I submit, a rather convenient one. I am sure that you are right that some do have links with the BNP etc etc, and some are "racist" (that lovely over-used word) as are voters for other parties, but by your logic in the three by-elections, the roughly 40,000 people who voted for them are therefore "likely racist and ill-informed" Somehow, I very much doubt that this is true, any more than you could say that those who didn't vote UKIP are likely to be well-informed and not racist.

I find it very plausible there could be 40,000 racist/I'll informed people voting. Very plausible indeed! However, you've missed my point.
Some on here ,as usual , knee jerk to the word racist. "I'm not racist, I'm not racist" and so on. To them I say this. Calm down, take a breath and read what I posted properly. I said UKIP voters APPEAR racist and I'll informed because of the reputation of UKIP.

 

[Hastings gull]

Feel free to post in whatever format you feel most comfortable with. Though if I were you I'd be tempted to stick to gibberish, it seems to be your forte.

The "real you" is emerging. Other opinions are not very convenient, are they? The fact is, quite plainly, that when you try to explain to us ill-informed plebs as simply as you can, it is as annoying as it is unnecessary, and makes you look rather foolish, with all respect. Other posts are as articulate as you are. I hope that you are not going to become . .fervid . .

 

[Nibble]

I'm happy to listen to opinions, if however they are drowned out by rather idiotic insults about actors etc I can't take them seriously.
I understand other people's opinions on UKIP. I don't agree with them. If you wish to get uppity about that go ahead.

 

[User removed 4]

Well done for an arrogant, condescending post . Maybe I should post in script form given actors are a little simple ?

Psssst , he's not an actor , he just likes to pretend a bit, I think he's 'resting' between parts at the moment

 

[Nibble]

Psssst , he's not an actor , he just likes to pretend a bit, I think he's 'resting' between parts at the moment

You're quite right actually. I very, very rarely act anymore. I gave it up full time over a year ago. Quite what that has to do with UKIP winning an election I don't know.

 

[Bucharest49]

kNOW they will not simple as that

 

[Hastings gull]

I find it very plausible there could be 40,000 racist/I'll informed people voting. Very plausible indeed! However, you've missed my point.
Some on here ,as usual , knee jerk to the word racist. "I'm not racist, I'm not racist" and so on. To them I say this. Calm down, take a breath and read what I posted properly. I said UKIP voters APPEAR racist and I'll informed because of the reputation of UKIP.

I assume that you have noticed the contradiction here. In the first para, you find it quite plausible that 40,000 in three constituencies are racist and ill-informed. Goodness knows how many millions are then throughout the country. Then in your final para, this is apparently not so, as they only appear to be so -you obviously needed then to lend some credence to your generalisations, and of course needed it for ammunition that we could not possibly have seen your point.
Finally, you feel that you need to send us all a message, Pope Paul style, thus reinforcing the arrogant image you have given of yourself. Your view of life is of course important to hear, as this is a form for debate, but your view is not necessarily superior simply because you express it; you do not need to explain matters simply or send other posts your message.

 

[Hastings gull]

I'm happy to listen to opinions, if however they are drowned out by rather idiotic insults about actors etc I can't take them seriously.
I understand other people's opinions on UKIP. I don't agree with them. If you wish to get uppity about that go ahead.

Unfortunately the evidence so far is that you are NOT -telling folk they talk gibberish is not a product of sensible debate. I certainly agree that insults about actors do not help, though the initial mention of this was used, quite reasonably, to show you how we can all generalise. The post, to be fair, did not say that this was true, just how easy it is to come up with sweeping statements, such as we have heard from your good self.

 

[Nibble]

I assume that you have noticed the contradiction here. In the first para, you find it quite plausible that 40,000 in three constituencies are racist and ill-informed. Goodness knows how many millions are then throughout the country. Then in your final para, this is apparently not so, as they only appear to be so -you obviously needed then to lend some credence to your generalisations, and of course needed it for ammunition that we could not possibly have seen your point.
Finally, you feel that you need to send us all a message, Pope Paul style, thus reinforcing the arrogant image you have given of yourself. Your view of life is of course important to hear, as this is a form for debate, but your view is not necessarily superior simply because you express it; you do not need to explain matters simply or send other posts your message.

You're taking yourself and this debate a little seriously.

 

[Nibble]

Unfortunately the evidence so far is that you are NOT -telling folk they talk gibberish is not a product of sensible debate. I certainly agree that insults about actors do not help, though the initial mention of this was used, quite reasonably, to show you how we can all generalise. The post, to be fair, did not say that this was true, just how easy it is to come up with sweeping statements, such as we have heard from your good self.

Ah, no, the gibberish was referring to the "acting" insults which are total gibberish and have no place in a politics debate. His opinions on UKIP I have plenty of time for as they are wholly relevant.

 

[Weatherman]

Ah, no, the gibberish was referring to the "acting" insults which are total gibberish and have no place in a politics debate. His opinions on UKIP I have plenty of time for as they are wholly relevant.

Nibble , did you ever play the part of Adolf Hitler ?. You must have been very good if you did.

It appears to me that the lefty PC lot are the real fascists.

 

[GT49er]

You're taking yourself and this debate a little seriously.

Hello Kettle - seen Pot lately?

 

[daveinprague]

What is 'lefty pc', and what makes them the 'real fascists'?