The Future of UKIP

Post Reply New Topic

"Dats racis". People who can only come up with that response are just as bad.

Farage isn't daft. UKIP are a one trick pony and now the Tories have adopted that trick anyway. Farage will now probably be a lot like Tony Blair, raking in money from public speaking for the most part. UKIP are a joke. They are a gift from the corporate media. Everyone gives them credit for 'Brexit', but it was actually when the BNP won a load of council seats in 2009 that the media had to give the public something. They had Farage on TV pretty much every single day for 5 years up to the 2015 election and he still couldn't make it as an MP.

Funny.

Marx actually said some pretty racist things. People who use that term probably don't know anything about Marx. His idea of Communism certainly wasn't what we saw from the Soviets.

Cultural Marxism aptly describes the ideas of Patricia Hill Collins who is a self professed-Marxist.

Intesectionality is a hugely flawed and simplistic cultural marxist ideology, which is to blame for the lot of the bigoted double think you get nowadays.

Movement for Black Lives own policies, and demands (please read them) are an example of Cultural Marxism. I can cite their links to Marxism.

http://action.movementforblacklives.org/

Just becuase a term is a applied from the outside doesn't make it nonsense. These ideologies have their root in Marxism, I can cite the Marxist academics behind these idea. Applying the word 'cultural' isn't really a far stretch.

I mean if they can have their "cultural appropriation" (ironically Intesectionality is all about appropriation), then calling them cultural Marxist comes with the territory.

British people much prefer Obama and the Clintons to Trump although there was some disappointment when Obama used "special relationship" to refer to France. There is widespread resentment about how close Blair and Bush were so we're nervous about being dragged into another one of your wars. We'd rather the PM and President had a relationship like Obama and Cameron, allies who get on but not co-conspirators. Trump is perceived as a hawk and a bigot, and is even less popular than Farage, so relations between our countries will almost certainly sour if he is elected.

Theresa May has previously banned Americans from entering the UK because of comments they have made. There have been widespread calls for that to apply to Trump, but he's too economically important.

On topic, UKIP need to appoint a moderate and position themselves as civic nationalists. They have tried to do it in the past but it was never more than posturing. Farage is just instinctively an authoritarian nationalist. They can't hope to outflank the Tories on the right, and they don't have enough supporters in the centre, so they need to outmanoeuvre the Tories on a couple of key issues without compromising their anti-immigration stance. Libertarian stances might help, as would populist appeals on the NHS and social care which would help them against Labour.

Precisely. This is where Woolfe steps in.
Farage is not the person to take the party forward, and I'm sure as much as he likes being on TV would rather this be the case.

Woolfe steps in... and gets punched by his own colleague.

Then uses European hospital.

Beyond parody, really.

By a guy called Mike Hookem no less. The Sun would have a field day!

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1926965/s ... ion-brawl/

That's not representative of Britain at all, only part of the population shares your perspective. As with any issue, the reality is that British opinion of Trump is widespread and nuanced.



That's a practice I'd like to see discontinued except in cases of extremism.



I'm not sure where you get the impression that Farage is an authoritarian. His campaign against the EU and the party's policies as a whole are based on the same Libertarian values that best describe Farage's own political views.

For UKIP to secure its future, it simply needs to promote those Libertarian principles and policies it already espouses, build on a foundation of successfully achieving its primary reason for existing and offer a viable alternative to the Conservative Party in place of a Labour Party intent on tearing itself to pieces. They may struggle, however, if they cannot find a figurehead to replace the undeniably effective Nigel Farage.

I don't think there's much nuance at all. Of course we don't all hold the same view, but negative opinions of him are even more widespread than in America. He has a -73 approval rating, with only 8% approving. Obama has +46%, better than any British politician, and Clinton has +4.

If you object specifically to my "hawk and bigot" characterisation, I will concede that I only have anecdotal evidence to support that. If you have a better explanation for 81% of the country disapproving of him, then I'd be interested in hearing it.


Me too. In theory it's already supposed to be used that way, but May takes a wide interpretation of what constitutes extremism.

(Personally I'd go for something like "advocating violence" rather than "extremism" - I have no problem with extremists as such. Pacifists are extremists, after all)


Opposition to freedom of movement, banning people with HIV from entering Britain, scrapping the EAW (transferring power from judges to politicians), and general "tough on crime" stances, including returning released prisoners if they failed to complete education, continuing to refuse prisoners the vote, and deporting foreign-born criminals. They also don't want to decriminalise drug use. There's more to libertarianism than bringing back smoking in clubs and racial discrimination.

UKIP under Farage have hit a ceiling and need to re-brand to get away from the toxicity he brought.

I was a lukewarm UKIP supporter until the leave vote, because their raison d'etre was leaving the EU, something I approved of. On their other policies I was mostly indifferent or disagreed (they were more or less wistful Thatcherites on everything else), so for my purposes I think UKIP and I will part ways. But the voting public may have different ideas. Labour has gone full Corbyn, for better or worse, its already mostly alienated working class base is unlikely to see a massive resurgence. At the same time the working class Labour vote also can't stand the Tories for historical reasons, no matter how much pro-worker rhetoric they now spout. UKIP might do pretty well from that, but the future is far from certain, especially with financial calamity on its way (the one that was coming to Europe Brexit or no Brexit)

Leading UKIP MEP Roger Helmer said yesterday how pleased he is that the Tories are now taking on so many UKIP positions on things but that he feels the Tories are going too far on their anti foreigner policies.

Theresa May is making sure there is no future for UKIP right there

Even if UKIP's only legacies are to have achieved its goal of Brexit and to have caused a significant paradigm shift in the two main parties, they'd be justified in considering that a resounding success.

It remains to be seen who exactly was at fault in that altercation.

There are two very different stories, but there were witnesses apparently.

Whether or not one of them is more moderate politically doesn't necessarily reflect their behaviour behind closed doors.

As I understand that the fight was instigated, in a "you and me outside" fashion and other colleagues followed them.

Agree with that. The Tories are more UKIP than UKIP these days